Political ramblings

Integrity of our Business Community

2010-05-16T10:40:00.000-07:00

We have a serious problem with integrity of American business and industry and it seems to be growing almost exponentially. This is a tough issue to discuss publicly, because any criticism is easily construed by those in the business world as using “too broad a brush” of criticism; and, in large measure they are probably right. I would like to think that most businesses and industries operating in this country are honest, honorable, and have the best interest of their customers at heart. But, there is a growing body of examples where this is not the case. And, some of these examples of failures like our financial industry (Wall Street), energy industry (including off shore drilling), military/industrial complex, auto manufacturers, food processors, etc., are huge and the lack of integrity has had serious negative ramifications on our country’s economy, ecology, reputation, and safety.

This is important because it strikes at the heart of our preferred economic system – the free-market/capitalistic system. Most people understand the underlying driving motive in this system – the need to make a profit. The system works best if it is unencumbered by government limitations and regulation. The ideal situation is where competition amongst those in a business serves as a self-regulating process resulting in good products, good service, growth for those doing it best, and good paying jobs for their workers. And yes, for those who are willing to work hard, have the courage to take the risk, have the ability to properly manage their business, have the intelligence and skills to innovate, the end result is accumulation of wealth. This is how it is supposed to work and we hear a constant litany from supporters of this system championing this theory.

The problem is that there is more and more evidence that the system too often works correctly only in these supporter’s imagination. It sounds so good; claims are made that it is what made this country great, and in their view any criticism of the system is un-American. Too often, any attempt to reign in the capitalistic system to make it safer, more honest, and just is branded as socialistic, communistic, fascist, or whatever terminology that has a strong negative connotation.

But, it seems we wake up everyday with another crisis resulting from abuse of the free-market/capitalistic system. And, when we delve into the reason for these crises, we find that they are the result of greed, illegal activities, unethical practices, shoddy management, abuse of financial and political clout, lack of competition, desire to maintain a small group’s status quo, etc.

We’ve faced very similar crises historically and we’ve worked our way through them. The early industrial revolution in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was one period when abuses were legendary. Situations where “Robber Barons” controlled whole industries vertically – steel, railroads, and oil are examples. It was rife with abuses like child labor, unsafe working conditions, de-facto slavery of workers, vulgar accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, control over the political processes (whole state legislatures and many U.S. Congressmen were “bought”), poor and unsafe products, and lack of competition. Two factors saved us. One was that the industrial revolution was in its infancy so that innovation overcame the status quo so quickly that we constantly stayed ahead of the game. The second factor was that the national government courageously stepped in and at least tempered the abuses.

We had a second period, the Great Depression of the 1930’s, where the capitalistic system failed us again. But once again, circumstances shined on us. We had government leaders with the courage to correct abuses, we had enough people with soundly based integrity and can do attitudes, innovation once again played a big role, and a tragic but justifiable war effort (WW II) gave us a unified sense of purpose to pull us together.

I don’t have the final answer of what it will take today to save some of the major tenets of a free-market/capitalistic system. One thing for certain is that it will require government involvement. This, regardless of what some claim to the contrary, is a must. The national government is the only one with the political and economic clout to take on the abuses that are inherit in the capitalistic system. In today’s society, government is not capitalism’s enemy, it is capitalism’s savior from itself. The government is after all our collective selves. The tricky thing is that it will be a narrow line to walk to use the government’s power to save the free-market/capitalistic system. Government can get too expensive and too powerful and stifle the free-market system – we need to guard against this. But, if government is too small, too weak, ineffective, or preempted by big business and industry, it can become a tool of the privileged promoting their interests at the expense of the people, resulting in a plutocracy – government by the wealthy.

History has proven that a democratic/republican system of government and a long term healthy economy can only survive if there is a strong middle class economically. Statistics clearly indicate that we are sliding away from this and part of the reason for this is that an inadequately controlled free-market/capitalistic system combined with a weak or special interest controlled national government are not serving our interests very well. They have the resources to sell their story and the American people had best be prepared to protect their own interests by insisting on a just and balanced system. And, who we vote into office will in large measure determine the result.

The Issue of Constitutionality

2010-05-16T10:35:00.000-07:00

An issue that has recently been rolling off people’s tongues in connection with a whole host of government initiatives is the question of constitutionality. Some actions are clearly unconstitutional and are enacted because of ignorance or “in your face” attitudes. Other actions are too close to call and will eventually be decided by our court system. Whereas, others are clearly constitutional; but, in order to gain partisan talking points and/or to fan the flames of criticism, constitutionality is questioned. In my opinion, these claims often stem from lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.

Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.

In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.

The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.

Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.

When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.

Response to the Positive Power of saying "No"

2010-02-28T20:00:00.000-08:00

I enjoy reading, “Just One Guy’s Opinion” column if for no other reason than it stirs my blood. Now and then though, a comment is required. In the column, “The Positive Power of saying ‘No’,” there are some assumptions I disagree with.

First, the claim that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in Congress is just not accurate. Why are we constantly counting to 60 votes? It is because, in what is supposed to be a democracy where majority rules (51 votes in U.S. Senate), Senate Rules have come to require 60 votes these days. Republican’s have used a Cloture Rule to block some 70% of all legislation proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress when it was intended and in the past used only sparingly for only a few major issues. Democrats do not have a 60% majority – there are 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, and a new Republican Senator from Mass. who interestingly enough has now been branded a “RINO” because he had the audacity to vote for a modest unemployment bill offered by the Democrats. If the Democrat Party had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, health care reform, with a public option, would be done. It may still happen if the Democrats choose to use another Senate rule – Reconciliation.

Add to the above the “solid Republican” vote of “no” where they all vote like “puppets on a string” as they are instructed to by Republican leadership. The Democrat Party is made up of a wide variety of people some of whom are liberal, some moderate, and the conservative group referred to as the “Blue Dogs.” They have a habit of thinking for themselves and their constituents, and this is a good thing. Congressmen should be voting for first what is good for the whole country and secondly what is good for their immediate constituents. The idea behind a republican form of government is that we select outstanding individuals to go to Washington DC to use their own intellect, knowledge, and experience to make these determinations of what is best. Such an attitude should result in bipartisanship. We don’t have that, and we should be sending those unwilling to do so “packing.”

Then there is the claim that the majority of the people are opposed to the universal health care reform. I think a fairer statement is that they are opposed to the present health reform bills. While many, including myself, are not thrilled by the present bills, I think it is accurate to suggest that a majority of the people are supportive of a universal health care system that offers reasonable costs, good coverage, etc. to correct our present failed system.

Then, Mr. Mason’s assertion that we can compare saying “no” to prevent one from stepping in front of a bus, or a women saying “no” to unwanted sexual advances, or saying “no” to drugs, as being equivalent to saying “no” to programs like health care reform is ludicrous. Let’s get real! The government is involved in almost everything in this country, it is not our enemy! Our great country would not be the envy of the world today without government involvement.

That’s not to say the government is always right. Even the original U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers crafted wasn’t perfect. It approved slavery, did not include a Bill of Rights, didn’t clearly state the need for due process of law to protect the people from being deprived of life, liberty, and property, didn’t provide for an income tax, didn’t allow women the right to vote, allowed for a poll tax, designed an incomplete process to elect a President and VP, and didn’t provide for succession of a President who is incapacitated or dies in office. These things were all corrected by amendments; plus, much more was changed, deleted, and added to through legislation, court decisions, and executive action down through our history and that is exactly what our liberal Founding Fathers intended. Each generation was expected to modify our government to meet the special needs of their times. It is interesting to note, the biggest argument against ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that it expanded the power of the national government way beyond our first constitution – The Articles of Confederation.

This argument about the role of government has gone on for a long time. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is clear:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.”
We need to do just as it says. I suggest that providing universal health care in our generation constitutes establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and promoting the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

We don’t need to start over with health care legislation. In my view, we need to clean up the present bill(s) in Congress by taking out the superfluous, “deal making” for votes provisions, insert at least a public option, and put it up for a vote – let the chips fall where they may. Despite criticism to the contrary, universal health care reform can be structured to be a “pay as we go” system with no deficit spending or increase to the national debt, just a fair system at reduced cost that gives excellent health care coverage.

Who Can Provide us with Greater National Security

2010-02-28T19:54:00.000-08:00

Before we get too far into this year’s election rhetoric and people begin taking positions on where they stand on candidates and issues, I would like to address an issue of primary importance. The Republican Party appears poised to push the theme that they are the party that can provide the American people with the best national security. For the life of me, I can’t understand why they think the American electorate will buy into this.

Recently, the GOP leaders and pundits have had a lot to say about a variety of issues and events that are questionable:
1. They have accused President Obama of not using the words, “War on Terror.” Recorded sound bite after sound bite has our President making it clear that we are at war with terrorists. Short of tattooing something on his forehead, he can’t make it much clearer. He understands fully that our enemies follow the “law of the jungle,” rather than the “rule of law.” For example, he has been aggressive and successful in using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen to kill al Qaida leaders and operatives. He is in the process of conducting a “surge” in Afghanistan. He has made arrangements with Pakistan and Yemen where we are working with them in attacking al Qaida without invading their countries.
2. Claiming that closing Gitmo will put us at greater risk is bogus. The existence of Gitmo with its alleged torture tactics and other practices contrary to international law have made it a “tough sell” to our allies that we follow the “rule of law;” plus, it is a rallying point for our extremist enemies all over the world.
3. The trying of terrorists, in U.S. civilian courts, that committed crimes against us in this nation is necessary – just read the VI Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not trying terrorists for crimes in this country would be a failure to follow our Constitutional “rule of law” and would be a self-inflicted wound on our principles. Recently created military tribunals may be a suitable solution for combatants we capture in theaters of war; but even then, we need to follow international law in their treatment.

Over the last 20 years we’ve had three significant wars – all under Republican Administrations. The first one, the Gulf War, was fully justified because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait; although, we failed to finish the job. Regime change in Iraq should have occurred then and there. Imagine the different scenario if we had done so.

The second war, in Afghanistan, if it had been handled properly, should have been an “in and out” punishment and destruction of al Qaida in retaliation for “9-11”. If we had accomplished this goal we would be much safer from terrorist’s attacks in this country today. But because of poor management, it has become a full scale invasion and occupation with an ill advised attempt at “nation building.” Our fight was not with the Taliban and the Afghan people; but, unfortunately, it is now.

The third war, in Iraq, should not have happened at all and it too became an invasion and occupation with another ill advised attempt at “nation building.” We are trying to wind this one down, but we still have about as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan and the future of our involvement could very well be long term. I certainly hope not.

Under GOP leadership, we’ve ended up loosing 4000+ service men and women, have thousands of injured veterans, and a debt load we really can’t afford. We’ve destroyed two nations, killed 10’s of thousands of innocent civilians, and made what will be long- standing enemies of a fanatical element of the fastest growing religion and culture in the world. Our policies are viewed by the radical fundamental Islamic element as a crusade perpetuated by an egotistical, decadent Western Judaic/Christian religion and culture. They are convinced that their God, which should be our same God, will lead them to victory if they mount a jihad – a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Because of this, regardless of who is President or who controls Congress, Homeland Security is going to be challenged to protect us in the years to come.

Although not a direct national security issue, the Great Recession coming as a result of GOP deregulation of our financial system, unwise tax breaks for the wealthy, deficit spending, policy of corporate welfare, etc. may end up being a bigger national security issue than the wars and terrorist activities. It has necessitated a rush of even greater deficit spending by Democrats to prevent a depression with efforts to stabilize our financial system, save a few large corporations, attempt to stimulate our economy, continued efforts to deal with large scale unemployment, etc. Our economy may be at risk for years to come and our middle class may be at risk to even survive.

Now, you tell me, is the present GOP “party of no” who we want to turn this country’s national security over to? They suffered a major defeat in the last election and rightly so. To put them back in the driver’s seat seems akin to doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Where do we go from here with Health Care Reform?

2010-01-28T06:50:00.000-08:00

I will have to admit that as certain as I think we need universal health care reform, it doesn’t look likely it will get done this time. The election of Republican U.S. Senator Brown from Massachusetts, who is opposed to universal health care reform, may be the “nail in the coffin.” This will make it even more difficult to overcome the cloture rule in the U.S. Senate which requires 60 votes rather than the simple majority which is what the U.S. Constitution intended for passage of bills.

The people I feel empathy for are those left uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, lose or change jobs, are dropped by their insurance companies, and/or denied medical procedures that their insurance company unilaterally decides to refuse. For those who are one serious illness away from being “buried” in medical bills they may never recover from financially and may even force them into medical-related bankruptcy. For small businesses and the self-employed who, having no bargaining power enjoyed by large government entities and large companies, cannot afford medical insurance costs with decent coverage. And for seniors, who might see life long savings and investments disappear in an attempt to pay medical bills. All of the above are likely to be forced to go without or run the risk of too limited coverage. Many will simply choose to forgo medical treatment well beyond the time when it is wise to seek it rather than go through the demeaning process of public assistance.

I would prefer to see the Democrats (since the Republicans have opted out of process) work their way through a compromise between the House and Senate bills doing away with all the “deal making” provisions that were offered as compromises to get the vote of a few Republicans and/or hesitant Democrats to get the bill passed. The Democrat leadership managed this bill poorly and this administration got caught up in the process resulting in bad bills. They need to take the good provisions of the bill (about 80 to90% of what’s there), and write a “clean and clear” one. It should contain at least a public option, universal coverage, and be deficit neutral or better. Then, take it to both the House and the Senate for a vote. If Republican and Independent Senators want to filibuster, call their bluff. Let them take responsibility for their actions with the American people. If in the end the bill fails, that’s fine.

Although risky, I don’t think doing this would be devastating to the Democratic Party. The American public knows why we need this legislation. If the bill fails, we should carefully track the medical costs, coverage, along with profits of insurance companies and others in the medical field who have spent millions to defeat this bill. If they continue to be unreasonable in their costs and coverage or get worse, make it clear to the American people that an honest effort to provide good, universal coverage at reasonable costs has been offered to correct this situation. Then, remind the electorate that if they will send to Washington both Democratic and Republican Congressmen who favor meaningful health care reform, the Administration and Congress will make another run at it.

I know that unemployment, stimulus bills, national security, the wars, financial regulation, rebuilding of infrastructure, restructuring of education, etc., are out there and need to be addressed. And, in dealing with these, we should adopt the attitude that the “big boys” have gotten their “gift horse”, and they can expect no more. In fact, they should pay back their loans and we should stop the prevalent practice of corporate welfare. Instead, the emphasis now should be dealing with the myriad of problems in a fiscally conservative fashion recognizing that it will still be expensive and will require increased tax revenues. But, we should never lose sight of the importance of medical care which represents 1/6th of our GNP. This is not a small issue we can ignore and it is one that potentially affects almost everyone. If the insurance companies and others in the medical field can’t get their house in order to give universal coverage at reasonable costs, it won’t take many election cycles before universal health care reform will be mandated. Maybe this time, we will be ready to insist on a true universal health care system somewhat similar to what every other advanced nation in the world provides their people.

It will take some political courage to approach it this way; but, in my opinion, the time has come for the electorate to step up to meet the challenge by holding their Congressmen’s “feet to the fire.” We can’t afford to continue business as usual allowing us to drift into a declining second class nation where we don’t even have the decency to provide our own people with adequate medical care when it could be structured to be a deficit neutral program or better.

Closed door proceedings in Congress

2010-01-26T07:46:00.000-08:00

There is a big falderal over the closed door sessions to work out a compromise over the health care reform bill. Republicans and other pundits, including U.S. Representative Jerry Moran, are all over this with criticism of the process. Unfortunately, with some of deal-making done in drafting of the U.S. Senate version of the health reform bill, Democrats have given opponents ample reason for criticism. The Democratic Leadership has handled this legislation poorly. They have gotten too wrapped up in trying to write legislation that will satisfy everyone and get votes instead of just writing a good piece of needed legislation.

But, under normal circumstances, closed door sessions to work out the details in the legislative process is steeped in tradition and long standing rules. The Constitutional Convention which drafted the U.S. Constitution was conducted behind closed doors. Most if not all caucuses of both parties are conducted behind closed doors. Most committee meetings are behind closed doors. Plus, like everywhere else in life, a lot of decisions are made over a cup of coffee, a few drinks, or a meal someplace in private. Almost all strategy discussions in the executive branch are behind closed doors. Although most court proceedings are open to the public, detailed discussion of cases goes on behind closed doors and seldom is the electronic media allowed into the court room.

Yes we have televised legislative committee hearings and even televised coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives (since 1979) and U.S. Senate (since 1986). And this media coverage may very well have been a mistake that now no one has the courage to retract. The reason for closed door proceedings should be obvious. Put yourself in a Congressman’s position. Cameras and audio recordings change the dynamics of the process and usually not for the good. Suddenly, almost everyone begins posturing for the media – they are elected officials after all. With cameras rolling, little serious give and take discussion goes on. Anyone who has watched C-span coverage should know this.

In these media circus environments, Congressmen are not going to say what’s on their mind and certainly not “off the cuff.” They are not going to offer opinions and then change their minds or adjust their positions based on better arguments presented by others. They are not going to appear uninformed by asking questions for clarification and understanding. The truth of the matter is that in many cases they are uninformed and rely heavily on their staffs for position papers. If they are going into a public hearing or making a speech on the House or Senate floor, their comments and questions are carefully scripted with “talking points” that are consistent with their ideology and party positions. It isn’t that they are lazy, it’s just that there is too much information for them to be an expert on every detail of what is often complicated legislation. They simply can’t read, listen to, and/or comprehend all that comes across their desks. And, they know that if they make a misstatement of any kind or say something that can be perceived as stupid, inaccurate, or inconsistent with previous statements, it will be put in a media archive someplace to be brought out by their political enemies to hammer them in the news media and certainly at the next election.

I would suggest that that is the very reason that watching hours and hours of C-span coverage is a waste of time unless, you are well paid to do it, politics is an avocation, or you don’t have a life. This is what the media, as the “fourth branch of the government,” should be doing and then reporting in a fair, unbiased way. Whether they do this well is a matter that needs further discussion.

We have a republican system of government. We elect people to go to Washington to represent us to the best of their ability. We do encourage people to contact their elected leaders and freely express their opinion. Elections and offering our views is the democratic part of the process; but, the actual legislation process is done by Congressmen. If they do it poorly, we need to replace them – Democrats and/or Republicans – in the next election. The sad fact is, that we too often don’t and no amount of open door, C-span coverage is going to correct this.

Yes, much of what a Congressman, President, or Court Justice does should be behind closed doors. Human nature and our political process dictates this. This is how compromise, which is the heart of our governmental process, occurs. Criticism about closed doors to craft legislation only gains traction when the American electorate fails to understand how their own government works and public officials and pundits take advantage of this ignorance.

Responding to Terrorism

2009-12-31T20:26:00.000-08:00

The most recent attempt by a terrorist to blow up a plane on its approach to Detroit airport is a good example of how our previous administration did its job in carrying out the law of the land. And, this is an area they claim great expertise in.

“9-11” caught us by surprise approximately 8 years ago, plus we had the failed “shoe bomb” attempt. As a result of these events and threats from our enemies, our Department of Homeland Security was created. It has spent billions of dollars ostensibly to protect us from such efforts. They claim some successes; but, one of the main points of emphasis coming from “9-11” was the lack of communication among agencies protecting our security. A process was supposedly put in place to insure this communication of data and to insure proper profiling of those boarding planes on international and domestic flights.

I would think it is fair to assume that the new administration coming to Washington less than a year ago would operate under the assurance that this process was in place. Well, we found out that it isn’t and we dodged a major catastrophe only because of the failure of the terrorist to activate the bomb correctly along with the courageous, quick action by private citizens and crew on the airline stopping it.

President Obama has admirably been honest about the government’s failure to prevent this and is ordering a review of the process to get it right. So, suddenly we have yet another major issue laid on this President’s plate where he has to correct and/or reconfigure a process that should have been developed and in place over the last several years. Too much of his “full plate” is correcting “screw-ups” from the previous administration.

Apparently, when Republicans say that government is ineffective and unmanageable, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy when it comes to their ability to administer the law. On the other hand, this Democratic Administration has come to work with a positive, “Yes we can,” attitude of how government can work within our culture on behalf of the people and have a positive impact on improving this great nation. Hopefully, people will be reasonably patient, although not always in full agreement, with encouraging this administration to accomplish its growing “to do list.”

Terrorist acts against the U.S. are going to be a fact of life for many years to come. Actually, I’m surprised that our enemies have been so focused on the airline industry. I would think that they would have broadened their horizons by this time and I fully expect them to in the future. Our failed “cowboy/tough guy” foreign policy has encouraged and actually fostered a growing, more mobile, and dedicated jihad force in the world which from their point of view has a lot of “pay back” to heap on us.

In the short run, we will have to be creative, dedicated, wary, and yes militarily decisive, in a limited way I hope, to protect ourselves here and abroad. But, in the long run, we need a gradual change in our policies where we will be perceived as strong in a defensive way unless we are threatened or attacked; respectful of other nations sovereignty letting they and their people work through their own problems; and strive to set an example to the rest of the world of how a great democratic/republican nation can put their own house in order as well as provide limited assistance where needed in the world. Leading by example is always preferable to “do as I say, not as I do.”

I hope that this present failed attack will not result in an over reaction leading to unreasonable, outlandishly expensive, and/or restrictive practices in our airport security process. We already have to take our shoes off, I hope we don’t have to take off our underwear and/or be subjected to indecorous full body screens every time we get on an airplane.

Congressional Mess with Health Care Bills

2009-12-26T09:52:00.000-08:00

To begin with, I clearly want to state that I fall into that category of feeling we need a universal health care program. Our present system is too expensive, inadequate, and unjust for an ever increasing number of people. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment suppliers, and large corporate hospital organizations are taking unfair advantage of their favorable positions at the expense of the American people. The self-regulating, free market system, so revered in this country, is a failure in health care. The only entity with enough power to make it equitable in coverage and cost is the federal government.

The two bills – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate – are so different in content that I find it almost unimaginable that they can be successfully blended into one in a conference committee. But, we are about to see it happen and the result should be fascinating. But, whether the bill gets enacted into law is certainly not a foregone conclusion.

Polls clearly indicate that the majority of the people have moved from overwhelmingly supporting a universal health care program a few months ago to opposing these bills. This is a real conundrum for me. I suspect there are a variety of reasons:
1. Some have succumbed to the litany of false claims and fear mongering that opponents have exposed them to – like death panels, issue of public support of abortion, claims of exorbitant costs, suggestions that there will be reduction in benefits for Medicare, etc. All it takes for some is hitting one “hot button” they feel strongly about, whether it is accurate or not, and they make a 180 degree turn.
2. Some have bought into the idea that these changes need to be made in a “slow, deliberate, careful” manner, one at a time. In the meantime, what happens with the 40+ million people with no coverage, the “cherry picking” coverage practiced by the insurance companies, and the exorbitant increases in cost of medical care? It appears that some people haven’t thought through how all these things are related to one another and that the one problem at a time approach makes no sense at all.
3. Some in our society have the attitude that if they have adequate coverage for themselves today, they don’t need to concern themselves with those that don’t – pretty self-serving and shortsighted in my opinion.
4. Some are opposed because this national system would result in federal government involvement and/or fairly high level of government control. These are the ones who don’t think the government can do anything right and the free market, private ownership, capitalistic system can do everything better even though history has clearly demonstrated that this naïve theory is out-dated and inaccurate and will eventually lead us into a plutocracy.
5. On the other hand, I assume that some people are upset that the bills fall short of a true “single payer” universal health care system and may end up not even including a public option feature where competition would keep costs more equitable. I share in this remorse; but, I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
6. Some have chosen to ignore that the present bills have many provisions that would solve many of our health care problems:
(1) Will cover 30 million people now without insurance plus those with
inadequate coverage.
(2) Will curtail practice of denial of health care coverage because of pre-existing
condition.
(3) Will make health care more portable from job-to-job and/or state-to-state.
(4) Will provide small businesses, families, and individuals the chance to buy
health care at reasonable costs.
(5) If the money crunchers are right, it will be deficit neutral over the next 10 yrs.
Plus, many other provisions that will improve health care coverage.
7. Some have bought into the claim by the opposition party that they have been left out of the system (not true) and that they have a much better plan to solve these problems. The truth of the matter is that their plan is a figment of their imagination. They don’t have one that anyone has seen or read, they just keep making the claim.
8. The most recent criticism results from the realization on the part of the American public of just how messy this legislative process is. It’s like many are aware of this for the first time and are outraged. It has been this way for years under both Democratic and Republican Congresses – it’s not new. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are simply operating within the system that exists, not one they created and yes, it is a “deal making,” complicated, “stupid rule” dominated system. Votes are bought and sold, special interest and lobbyist activities have disproportionate influence, and partisan politics reign. The mentality is, let’s do all we can to make the other side fail and look bad so we can win the next election and gain power.

It is a shame and it is our collective fault – we keep electing them. Whether we get some kind of universal health care program or not out of this mess, I would like to see the 2010 election be one of the most important in history. I’d like to see the American electorate vote out of office almost every U.S. Representative with 3 terms or more in office (6 years) and almost every U.S. Senator with 2 terms or more in office (12 years). Instead of concentrating on unseating the relatively new Congressmen, we need to eliminate the ones who have created/or perpetuated the present process that make legislation so ugly. And, make it a clear mandate that they are to go to Washington to make significant changes in the legislative process. If we do this over the next 3 election cycles, we have a chance of seeing the legislative branch of government establish its rightful place as an honored institution representative of the people.

A War Tax

2009-12-08T08:18:00.000-08:00

I’ve always believed that to determine what our politicians think is truly important is to look at what they appropriate money for. But, after observing our political process over many years and watching our national debt grow and grow, I’ve narrowed this even more. To determine what our politicians think is overwhelmingly important is what they are willing to increase taxes to pay for. With the debt load we’ve acquired over the last 9 years, this question has now become paramount in any discussion of public policy. There are undoubtedly government programs that can be and should be cut and/or eliminated, but I don’t think there are enough to cover the increasing debt load. We are going to have to increase taxes for many years to begin paying down this debt.

One place it seems obvious to me is in paying for the wars and/or troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan by imposing a war tax. After all, isn't national security the number one role of government? Those who support our continued and expanded war effort should be willing, without hesitation, and with enthusiasm to step up by insisting that we impose a tax surcharge to pay for the wars. Not just for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but for the whole war effort. It should be used to pay for the day-to-day operation, for veterans benefits, and if and when these wars and deployments end, it should continue to be paid until we have rebuilt our military to “appropriate” levels.

That this suggestion being made by a few Congressmen should be so easily dismissed as unrealistic is both a disappointment and a puzzle to me. I know that there are some Congressmen who’ve based their “successful” careers on reducing and/or advocating no new taxes. This is no longer germane. I think a war tax should be viewed as “put your money where your mouth is” situation.

It should be an easy tax to impose. It would require that each of us figure our taxes each year and then add onto this tax bill a progressive surcharge for the war efforts. And, it should be combined with the elimination of the tax brakes unwisely enacted by the Bush Administration in 2001 which is coming up for review soon. One simple wrinkle I would add is that any person or any family with a spouse serving in the U.S. military in a combat zone be exempt from the surcharge.

Would it hurt financially? Yes it would! Would it be devastating to our economy? I don’t think so! But, I would hazard a guess that our involvement in these wars would suddenly be viewed differently than they are now, both by our elected public officials and the general public.

If you want to find out what people really think about these wars, make them a “pay-as-we-go” process. We’ve conducted these wars in an attitude of limited personal impact except for those people who have family members actually serving in the armed forces. With some wars in the past there has been a “war effort” with high progressive tax rates, victory gardens, war bond sales, rationing of certain consumer goods, etc. With our present wars, there has just been debt piled on debt while most of us have gone about our lives without much personal impact.

If the “war on terror” is a reality which can bring this country down, the least we can do is get serious about making it a true “war effort” where we are all expected to sacrifice, at least financially, to bring it to a successful conclusion. Plus, if this were to become a standard policy in any potential war effort, I think some tough questions would be raised regarding whether it is a wise move like: what is the justification for the war; what vital interests are at stake; what is the extent of our troop involvement; what casualties can we expect; how much fire power will be brought to bear; what is the military strategy; what is our enemy’s resolve in fighting this war and will it warp into an insurgency; how much destruction including collateral civilian casualties will be visited on our enemies; how much real support can we expect from our allies; what effect will it have on the world’s view of our action; will it destabilize a region or the world; what support will our enemies get from other nations and what is the nature of that support; how much will it cost; how long is it expected to last; is nation building a part of the conflict; what is the end strategy going to be; are there popular, just, and respected leaders we can turn the country over to when we leave; along with other pertinent questions we still haven’t answered with these present conflicts 9 years later. If we would ask and could answer these questions, maybe we would learn to quit going to war “by the seat of our pants.”

Universal Health Care

2009-11-15T11:08:00.000-08:00

In regard to health care, I feel that we need to create a universal health care system run by the Federal Government along the lines of Social Security (SS) and Medicare. I see few if any advantages to something else. Especially, not an impossibly convoluted bill being considered presently in Congress. We can do it now, which is highly unlikely, or we can do it later when we come to realize what a mess we’ve made of what could be a relatively simple system.

A very basic universal health care program would offer coverage to everyone and be paid into by everyone. The insurance pool and premium base would be the whole nation which allows for true shared risk and reasonable cost. To keep costs down further, a basic system could be created with something like a $500 deductible per person per year and co-payment for insured of 20% up to a maximum of $5000 out of pocket and then full catastrophic coverage beyond that. Those over 65, on disability, or with a chronic disease could be eligible for a tax credit on their co-pay. I would imagine that the poor would need to be given tax credit or assistance to pay premiums they could not afford. Everyone wanting additional coverage could go out on the open market and buy it and/or employers could offer it as a fringe benefit. The basic plan would:
1. eliminate denying coverage for pre-existing condition
2. automatically provide portability
3. involve government negotiating for “fair” pharmaceutical costs
4. identify a fair price for medical procedures
5. not allow dropping of coverage and allow no upper limit on coverage.

The private sector has had well over ¾ of a century to develop a plan to give people in our country a fair and equitable system. But, the system is giving progressively worse coverage at unreasonable increases in cost – we pay more than any other developed nation in the world with health care results that are pretty paltry compared to our relative wealth. I think we should begrudgingly admit there are some things that the private sector just cannot do as well as the government and health care may be one of these. We need a system that allows for basic universal coverage and protects us from economic destitution resulting from poor health.

Would the system be socialistic in nature? Yes it would, just as many other government programs are, like SS, Medicare, universal public education, fees (taxes) on fuel to build roads, farm program with its subsidies, Medicaid and other welfare systems, corporate welfare programs, national park system, etc. At some point we are going to have to get away from the idea that government can’t do anything right and/or that the private sector can do everything better. Both are historically failed notions.

This anti-government ideology is promoted by wealthy conservatives who are comfortable with their privileged position in society and their desire to maintain the status quo; and better yet, add to their advantages. It is seldom mentioned, but they are often recipients of significant special assistance from the government. They have learned that time and money carefully spent catering to public officials pays substantial dividends. Plus, we have learned the hard way that the controls of competition, costs of labor, and supply and demand that are supposed to naturally manage the free-market system to keep things fair and equitable can be too easily circumvented. We are not a nation of small farmers, tradesmen, artisans, and small manufacturers which is what the capitalistic, free-market system was designed for by the founder Adam Smith when he wrote the book the Wealth of Nations.

I prefer that the capitalistic, free-market system be left in place as much as possible to do its magic in allowing everyone to pursue their own productive interests. Some choose to take risk to satisfy their entrepreneurial itch. When they succeed, certainly not a guarantee, they deserve the “fruits of their labor.” Others choose a safer course of selling their gifts of labor to the highest bidder. And, competitive supply and demand should dictate the price of products and services. The capitalistic, free-market system is a thing of beauty when it works this way. But, when it is manipulated in a multitude of clever ways that result in abuse, rewards greed, ignores dishonesty, allows unfair profit taking, and encourages inappropriate risk taking with other people’s money, the government is the only vehicle we have that is powerful enough to insure that the playing field is kept just and fair. In a few selected cases, I think government involvement is the only way we can maintain a vibrant classless society assuring everyone the free choice to take their own “run” at being a productive part of our economy. Health care costs and coverage should not be a barrier to this goal.

Highway 61, McPherson to Hutchinson

2009-11-15T11:04:00.000-08:00

Have you driven to Hutchinson lately and watched progress on the new highway being built? Is it just me, or do others agree that this project is “ridiculous over-kill?” I was caught by surprise and more than a little upset by what’s being done.

When the need was expressed that the present 2 lane Hwy 61 was in need of improvement, my thought was, yes it does. There is need for 4 lanes to handle the traffic load safely. I had envisioned another two lanes laid in close proximity to the present 2 lane road with appropriate turning lanes at busy intersections – this is not the case.

We are getting a lot more than that; we are getting a whole new road in most places that has to be a really expensive proposition. In fact, I would guess it is costing more to go around Medora than it would cost to buy out the whole town – sorry residents of Medora. We didn’t have to do that. The road is going around Inman, why? The present road doesn’t go through the main street where traffic would be slowed down to 25 mph or past a school zone with a 20 mph limitation. We have to slow down to all of 55 mph. There would have been some property displaced in both Medora and Inman to accommodate the additional two lanes; but, if fair compensation had been negotiated to displace a few homes and businesses I’m certain the cost of the road would be multiples less than what the taxpayer is now spending. Then, you add to the above the new interchange that is being built to access the new road just south of McPherson. I’m thinking this is all too expensive!

Who makes these final decisions? I intend to find out because I don’t want to be what I consider victimized again with what I feel is unnecessary spending. I’m not suggesting that I could have stopped it, but I would sure have expressed my opinion in regard to it if given the chance. I’m sure there was a public hearing somewhere at sometime that I missed – my mistake. Did our local news media make it clear to the public what was proposed for this road project? If it did, I missed it, which again is my fault. If they didn’t, I for one would appreciate it they would do so in the future.

Obviously, nothing can be done now and maybe the majority of you out there agree with what’s being built.

But, I do think that if government spending is an issue of concern to taxpayers, this might serve as an example of where a much less expensive solution could have accomplished our needs. We can blame this on the government as another example of what is in my mind reckless spending. Or, we can accept collective responsibility for allowing this to happen without at least letting one’s views be known. These are the kinds of things we citizens should be involved in which might save us from some inappropriate spending.

When they cut the ribbon for the new highway’s grand opening, I guarantee you that I will make note of those elected officials who will be smiling at the camera and it won’t be to thank them.

Let's Question the Quality of our Congressmen

2009-11-08T17:33:00.000-08:00

Here are some important questions to ask the next time you get involved in a reasonably, rational, pragmatic discussion on the quality of the elected public officials that serve us in legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress. Maybe there are some good reasons why Congress suffers from consistently low ratings with the American people.

First question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to get successfully elected to Congress? I’ll bet you can quickly come up with a rather long list.

Second question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to be an excellent lawmaker in Congress? Hear a pin drop? I’ll bet it is tough to come up with more than a few and the first one is often – “Well, you have to get elected first!” Bingo! We may have identified a major problem with how Congress does its job. We are looking first and foremost for successful candidates that win elections and we seldom get beyond that.

Third question: Which of the above two is the more important if we are going to have well-crafted legislation from our Congress? After some careful soul searching, I think most would agree, the best answer would be we need people who just might become skillful lawmakers. This is especially true now. We are in one of those periods of history like beginning of 20th century, WW I, great depression, WW II, the 1960’s where legislation crafted in the next few years will be critical for our future. Things are going to change and how they change will in large measure be a result of what our lawmakers accomplish or fail to accomplish in Congress. Presidential leadership of whatever stripe can only take us so far; Congress makes the laws.

Fourth question: How much time does a U.S. Congressman really spend on lawmaking rather than getting re-elected? With a two year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, if they are honest about it, many will tell you almost none. They are running for re-election the day after they are elected. U.S. Senators, with 6 year terms, have a bit of a grace period, but they will tell you that that is changing in many races and like the President’s four year term, re-election is closer to a full time job.

Now, there are some, that for one reason or another, are so secure in their state or district that they hardly have to campaign. Hopefully, it is because they are such good lawmakers that their electorate feels honored to send such an outstanding person to Congress. There have been some of these in history in this category, they have had books written about them, and their names are often associated with the significant legislation of their time. Thank God if you have one of these from your state or district; they are truly to be treasured. Kansas has had a few, but none presently.

I really doubt that such a high honor can be ascribed to most of the incumbents that are being re-elected year after year. It is more often that they are such natural campaigners that their electors feel towards them something akin to a really comfortable pair of shoes – they just fit real well. Their offices are staffed with people who look after their constituent’s personal interests. If you go to Washington D.C. and stop by their office, they fawn all over you, probably assigning a staffer to give you a tour of the Capital. They know where to get money to replenish their campaign war chests, probably by using phone numbers speed dialed into their phones. They are undoubtedly on a first name basis with the lobbyists representing certain selected groups from their state and district where the age old practice of “you pat my back and I’ll pat yours” goes on year after year. They are readily available as speakers for certain groups where they can be counted on to entertain the troops while maligning the opposition as inept bunglers leading this country down the road to rack and ruin. They make sure they use their increasing seniority to insure that their states and districts get earmarks needed to make certain groups thankful for how “ole Joe” looks after us folks back home. The cycle goes on and on and these people have to get totally corrupt, immoral, down right crazy or senile before they lose their seat. But, unfortunately, most of these are less than stellar law makers.

Let’s circle back to the first two questions. We’ve answered the first. Wouldn’t we be better served if we could readily answer the second? Maybe the electorate should spend some quality time discussing these issues to make sure we don’t just continue to re-elect that old comfortable pair of shoes instead of sending people who have the qualities to become great lawmakers. People can make that distinction, but it takes some time and effort to discern the difference.

Getting Out of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

2009-10-16T14:56:00.000-07:00

As debate and discussion goes on in the Obama Administration and in the U.S. Congress as to what our continued role in Iraq and Afghanistan should be, I pray that a way be sought to extradite us from there ASAP. The underlying reasons for involvement in both conflicts was flawed with the exception of destroying al-Qaida and their ability to attack us. Our conduct of these wars was simply bad judgment compounded by more bad judgment. It has proven to be and continues to be too costly in lives lost and injuries sustained by both our soldiers and the citizens of these nations. It was and continues to be too costly a use of our limited resources. In my view, we cannot afford to continue with these policies. It is terribly destructive for both us and these nations and is destabilizing for this region and the rest of the world.

When one invades another nation, essentially destroys it with superior raw military firepower, kills and injures thousands , and then attempts to impose our cultural, economic, and political systems upon them, justifying it as “nation building” in our image, you accomplish nothing but ill will. Their hatred of us resulting from our actions will continue on for generations to come. Why wouldn’t they. Just put yourself in their shoes. What would be the attitude of most in this country if we were to be militarily invaded, our country destroyed, where almost everyone in the country had friends and relatives killed or injured, and our cultural, economic, and political systems were forcibly altered. How many generations would it take to forget this. Afghan’s history is one of almost constant war against invading armies or amongst themselves. Because of their strategic location as a buffer between several powerful civilizations, they have been invaded by about every notable army beginning with Alexander the Great. All of them found Afghanistan to be inhospitable. In modern times, both the British and the Russians took their turn at occupying them only to leave several years later thinking the effort too costly and of little value. Afghanistan takes great pride in thwarting these efforts whatever the cost and we should have factored that into our plans.

One of the biggest barriers to getting out of these conflicts is our unwillingness to “lose face.” I submit that this is a terrible indictment of our collective ego. We are so afraid that it will be perceived as weakness on our part that we are willing to seriously consider expanding our military involvement with its continued injury and loss of life to our soldiers, the continued squandering of our limited resources, and the further solidifying of their hatred towards us. Our military capability to kill and destroy has been well documented here, but short of genocide, you don’t win insurgency type wars with military “shock and awe.” You might win conventional wars with this type of military action, but not wars of this nature, but we don’t seem to “get it.”

Another major concern is whether getting out ASAP will put as at a greater risk from extremist, militant, Islamic groups. Yes it might. They are out there, they want revenge, they want to “bring us down,” and they are dedicated to jihad. We’ve spent 8 years in the region and we still haven’t destroyed al-Qaida and now it is wider spread and very mobile. We’ve made it more of a monster than it already was and put ourselves at greater risk than before. We will have to remain vigilant at home and abroad. We will have to be ready to move quickly and be devastating in our military attacks on their training centers, work to disrupt their lines of communication, and most importantly, move to cut off their supply of money needed to support themselves. It will require that we develop and institute the tools to do the above and probably more.

Our Presidents, our National Security Council, our Congress, and our Department of Defense have let us down over the last 35 years. We should have been prepared for this kind of struggle with lessons learned in Vietnam and been prepared to modify it to other geographic regions and cultural and political situations. Instead, despite warnings from President Eisenhower back in 1961, we have spent billions of dollars in supporting a conventional “military industrial complex” that we now know was out dated. It has been our “Maginot Line,” and it has cost us dearly. And, if and when we move beyond this, we need to heed Collin Powell’s warning to avoid a terrorist military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, there is and will continue to be too much money to be made in the war business.

Another, and in my mind the saddest problem with getting out ASAP is, how do you say sorry to individuals and families of our soldiers who went off to war under the belief that they were doing their patriotic duty to make America safe and to preserve our great nation. They put themselves at great risk, they suffered life time injuries, and were killed doing what they were told was right. And then, for us to say, “We screwed up,” is a “bitter pill.” It will take incredibly courageous political leadership to make this admission because of the firestorm of criticism from the hawkish, hard line, conservative right. But, we dealt with it before with our disengagement from Vietnam and our wise acceptance of limited objectives in Korea and the Gulf War. No matter what is said or how it is couched, it won’t correct the mistakes. Those who served need to be honored for their sacrifice and we can only hope that in turn they will magnanimously agree that continuing to put others in harms way does not make good sense.

Walking/Jogging/Biking Corridors Column 1

2009-10-08T16:35:00.000-07:00

This will be the first of several columns that I am offering regarding the proposed walking/jogging/biking corridors (WJBC) that a substantial number of people in town feel should be constructed.

A year ago, the McPherson Planning Commission initiated a look at such a program. Our first effort was to meet with the elementary schools (public and parochial) and middle school site councils. They showed enthusiastic support for the idea. Then, a study committee of some 27 people, representing a broad cross section of McPherson, was formed and met over several months preparing a plan which was approved by the Planning Commission. The plan was presented to the City Commission at a study session and at the City Commission meeting Tues., 10-6-09. It was well attended by local citizens, many of who were there to offer support for the plan.
We have a mission statement which reads: “The WJBC Study Committee recommends the following comprehensive plan for an interconnected network of corridors which includes sidewalks adjacent to selected streets/avenues/roads, bicycling lanes, paths, and trails to be used by pedestrians, joggers, tricyclists, bicyclists, those pushing strollers, wheel chair users, skaters, skate boarders, and scooters in and around the City of McPherson. The primary purpose is to encourage people of all ages to use non-motorized alternatives of transportation (with exception of motorized wheel chairs) on safe and convenient corridors that are clearly built and designated for these activities. These uses are intended to be both functional (to get from point A to B in town) and recreational (for exercise, relaxation, and family/socializing activities) which promotes healthy lifestyles.”

Also, we prepared a list of priorities that grew from one to six as time went on with our committee meetings. They are as follows:
1. Establishment of corridors for students (especially young ones in the 5 to 14 age group) to go safely to and from schools, parks, and recreational areas.
2. Provide corridors for adults as well as students to safely travel to public points in town like the Post Office, library, YMCA, Community Building, Court House, Municipal Building, colleges, churches, theatre, Opera House, parks, and recreation areas.
3. Establish corridors so that employees at our local businesses and industries can elect to commute safely to and from work by walking and biking.
4. Provide safe corridors for citizens of all ages to reach shopping areas down town and on the outskirts of town.
5. Provide safe and attractive corridors that would appeal to and be used by visitors to our city as well as those considering relocating to McPherson.
6. Further develop recreational paths and trails which would be removed from normal vehicle traffic providing a more relaxed walk and/or ride through a more natural setting.

On the surface this project does not appear to be a complicated one. However, when one gets into the workings of what is required to accomplish this corridor plan, it gets involved. There is need to justify the program by making it clear what benefits such a program would bring to the community; there is a monumental amount of engineering to be done by the public works department to determine how to do it and the cost; it could require a re-write of our city ordinances and policies regarding sidewalks; and of course the 800 lb. guerilla of how it is to be financed sets out there.

I intend to address most of these things over the next several weeks and would welcome community input. If you choose, you can contact me directly at 241-0606 or e-mail me at jeboyer1@cox.net. Those in support of this plan think that “it is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it!”

(A feature I will be putting in the column is the “walk or bike ride of the week.” Imagine you are doing this in all kinds of weather. You can draw your own conclusions if you give them a try) Walk or ride of the week: From Foxfire or Deerfield neighborhoods, go west on Ave. A to the Middle School or Washington Elementary School at same time kids are going to school and/or east when they are coming home from school.

Jim Boyer

PS. I want to commend our local school district for their organized, pro-active observance of National Walk to School Day conducted Wed. 10-7-09. The number of participants was good to see. These are the kinds of activities that are needed to encourage healthy life-styles. We just need to build infrastructure to support these programs.

We need universal health care

2009-09-15T20:24:00.000-07:00

To better understand this “debate” over a universal health care plan let’s look at why the government has gotten involved in our lives with various new programs in the past.

You can go clear back to the founding of the U.S. Constitution and the issue of slavery. This great document, the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which by the way came after ratification through amendments) among other things, guarantees us our freedoms. But, great as it is, it originally sanctified slavery. It was 70+ years later before slavery was ended. Then, we had a period of almost 100 years before minorities actually got civil rights because of Democratic Conservative opposition like “Jim Crow” laws, unequal employment opportunities, unequal educational opportunities, and segregation of all kinds. Status quo defenders don’t give up easily. Things have gotten better as witnessed by a biracial President, but even today, when one views issues like education and job opportunities, things are still not equal. There is a clear propensity for conservatives in all stages of our history to do all in their power to resist change even when it is just and clearly appropriate for our times.

You can study the history of American labor where abuse, including long hours, poor pay, no fringe benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc., were the norm in many jobs. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that the government stepped in with the right to collective bargaining of labor unions. Finally, the fate of American labor improved as we emerged from WW II which led in part to the 1950’s which was one of the classic periods of relative prosperity embodied by a solid middle class. This battle isn’t over and may need to be addressed again as one sees the American labor union’s position weakening with a simultaneous flattening and decreasing of wages and buying power. What has saved many American working families in the last 60+ years is two family incomes resulting in a significant impact on our culture.

Social Security came about because of the change in our society where the extended family, private, and “faith based” charities were overwhelmed in the Great Depression resulting in the disgraceful status of our elderly. Even though Social Security is well established, this battle is not over. The last Republican Administration took a run at it’s elimination by recommending privatization which, in view of what’s happened economically, should serve as an example of what a disaster that would be. Social Security will need to be re-worked with our aging population and younger people better stay involved because there are many conservatives who would love to see it eliminated.

In the middle of the last century, it became obvious that the elderly’s ability to provide enough savings for retirement failed to insure enough money for reasonable and adequate medical care in their old age. One serious illness with rising medical costs wiped them out. This led to a huge battle over what eventually became Medicare. To their credit, there were Moderate Republicans who worked with Democrats to craft a working Medicare Law. But, like Social Security, it needs re-working and the young in our society better stay involved or we are likely to see Medicare “put-to-rest” as a failed liberal experiment.

We could go on and on with historical examples where it was essential for the government to involve themselves in correcting unfair and unjust practices. Some of these would be anti-trust legislation, elimination of child labor, graduated income tax, women’s right to vote, regulation of financial and investment markets, farm programs, Medicaid, environmental programs, OSHA, etc. Rest assured that every one of these new government involvements was fought “tooth-and-nail” against by conservatives of their era and took years to be established as law.

Now along comes the “debate” over universal health care. Hopefully, you watched or read the President’s speech on this issue. One of the more interesting sections occurred early on where he clearly listed the undisputed facts of why our present system is at the “breaking point.” I have not heard these facts disputed in all the criticism I’ve heard of the President’s speech. They include refusal by insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, non-portability, excessive cost, etc. I won’t repeat them all, but by my count there were eight, clear, serious, glaring, problems that could potentially affect us all at some point in our lifetime. They have been around for 60+ years and are getting rapidly worse and more devastating for a growing part of our population. Something needs to be done and the President offered some solutions plus assured us that they can be deficit neutral. And, to his credit, even in the face of all the nasty criticism, he continues to hold out the olive branch of bipartisanship and an “open door policy” of a willingness to listen to alternative suggestions.

The discouraging thing is that at this point-in-time, the Conservative Republicans in Congress and the Right Wing media have nothing to offer except the policy of “NO” to everything. Not only no, but they have chosen to use the tactics of fear, demagoguery, name calling, out right lies, and personal attacks on the President’s character and motives.

As discussed earlier, down through history, anytime someone has suggested a change with more government involvement we know that the conservative element in our society will oppose it regardless of its need. This is O.K. if it is done responsibly. It serves a role of “devils advocacy” and insures us that negative ramifications of any new legislation are considered. Historically, Republicans have been good at this and Democrats not so good. If the Democrats had been better at it we wouldn’t have had tax cuts in 2001; we wouldn’t be involved in a war in Iraq and would have limited our involvement in Afghanistan to justifiable punishment and destruction of al Queda; we wouldn’t have had devastating deregulation of financial markets in the early 2000’s; or unfunded prescription drug program and no child left behind programs.

Personally, I think we need a universal health care program. I’d like to see some responsible Republican input; but, since there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming, I’m rapidly getting to the point where I’d accept a Democratic power play to force it through Congress. I find it hard to believe that the Republican opposition is so unanimous. It reminds me of a quote from the longest serving Speaker of the House, the late Sam Rayburn, when he said, “when two people agree about everything, only one of ‘ems thinking.” I wonder which Republican is doing all the thinking. While we are quoting Sam Rayburn, I think another of his comments is appropriate, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Where are the Sam Rayburn’s when you need them?

Planning for the City of McPhrson - Demographic Considerations

2009-09-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

It is critical that McPherson encourage growth, which typically involves a growing population with additional business and industry offering good paying jobs, affordable housing, appropriate medical facilities and services, excellent schools, broad based retail trade options, cultural offerings, and superior recreational opportunities.

The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.

Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.

One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.

There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.

Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.

2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.

3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.

3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.

4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.

5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.

Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”

I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.

Is our present administration going too fast and taking on too much?

2009-08-23T10:40:00.000-07:00

I’ll make a clear statement here: “I’m really tired of hearing the naysayers complaining about President Obama going too fast and ‘biting off more than he can chew’.” In my opinion that is rubbish.

First, I think most of the complaints are from conservative Republican naysayers who want to maintain the status quo of what they created over 12 years prior to 2006 and were able to continue on to 2008 with President Bush’s vetoes. They spent money “hands over fist” on projects and programs that padded their supporter’s pockets with all sorts of lucrative subsidies, favorable contracts, and topped it off with tax breaks for the wealthy. They got to live a conservative Republican’s dream of deregulating about everything they could deregulate which led to all kinds of financial and governmental failure. They got to be “tough guys” with countries elsewhere in the world that didn’t kowtow to their view, even to the point of unilaterally starting an unnecessary war which distracted from a fully justifiable, clear cut military retaliation that itself has now warped into a war with both of them lasting longer than either of the World Wars of the 20th century. And, they would still be following these failed policies if the economy hadn’t done a “humpty-dumpty” off the wall and they couldn’t put him back together again.

Secondly, I think some are opposed to Obama’s drive to fix things, which requires changing things, because they just don’t like to work that hard. Too many are “too old” and “too slow” and they were coasting in their comfort zone. They are elected from “safe” districts and states; they’ve gotten their “pork barrel” bills through Congress to show people back home how much they “love” them; their campaign “war chests” are full or can be easily refilled with a few phone calls because their supporters both owe them and own them; they’ve got their staffs doing all their grunt work; and they are out doing what they do best – getting re-elected over and over. (In all fairness, there are some Democratic Congressmen that are in the same position which is our collective fault.)

Then, along comes this young President who actually wants to take a shot at doing what he said he was going to do in his campaign. This is almost unheard of in their political world. He has turned them upside down and made them very uncomfortable. When they say he is trying to do too much, it really means he is forcing them to have to hustle just to keep up. When you hear Congressmen publicly complaining about how many pages are in a bill, like Universal Health Care, and that they are struggling to get it read that’s a “smoke screen.” Important bills are almost always that long and most Congressmen haven’t been reading them for years. The best hope is that their staffs have been and give them a one or two page summary with a few talking points to use out on the stump. Suddenly they want time to read these bills? They are just “grasping at straws” and stalling.

Thirdly, when you hear them say they want to slow down and consider all the ramifications of a proposal like Universal Health Care, they are stalling again. Where was the slow down and consideration of ramifications for our unilateral rush to war, our deregulation of the financial world in the early 2000’s, or the creation and inadequate funding of prescription drug program? Drafters of legislation do their best to factor in consequences when they write legislation, but no one can second guess the ramifications of some changes until you get into them. You win some and you lose some and conservative Republican’s lost the last election because the ramifications of their policies resulted in failure.

Every change is a bit of a gamble and ramifications can’t always be forecast accurately. But, if you have problems like a failed economy, failed health care system, failed energy policy, failed educational system, collapsing infrastructure, and failed foreign policy, it behooves you to try to fix them.

But, instead of facing these problems head on and cooperatively working together to find solutions, the conservative Republicans have decided the easiest thing to do is to “stop the train” or at least slow it down with constant negative innuendo, a policy of no to everything, conjuring up a wagon load of fears, and repeating outrageous lies over and over again. There are legitimate concerns and need for serious bi-partisan discussion to deal with these problems – for example how should we pay for these solutions. President Obama has been admirably patient in trying to do this – more than I would be.

If you have a company with bad or out-dated product, poor customer service, sinking sales, "tired" inefficient manufacturing facilities, poorly trained and performing workers, status quo loving “fat cat” managers, etc. you better not approach these problems with let’s go slow and take one thing at a time. You do that, and you are out of business. You had better bring in some new high energy management people with creative minds and innovative ideas. You better do some serious R & D. You’d better invest in up-to-date infrastructure, train and motivate your workers, and hustle to retain existing customers and get new ones. And guess what, you are going to have to borrow money big time to get it done! Try as you may, you aren’t going to foresee all the ramifications of your changes in advance. You are going to have to dump some things, cutting your losses when mistakes are made. You will need to tweak, adapt, build and expand on those things that do work. But, you’d better not rely on “smooth talking”, “glad handing”, “do nothing”, “too old”, “too slow”, “fat cat”, “status quo loving conservatives” to get things up and running. There is a great book written by Jennings and Haughton for the business world in 2000 that I’d recommend, it’s not the Big that eat the Small……it’s the Fast that eat the Slow. We’d better be ready or the Big ole USA is going to be eaten by the rest of the world that is getting faster and faster and smarter and smarter.

Another opinion on Town Hall Meeting in Lindsborg

2009-08-15T11:55:00.000-07:00

It was interesting in a kind of disconnected way. You had U.S. Representative Jerry Moran with sweat dripping off his face and soaking his shirt being pleasant, obviously intelligent, showing a good sense of humor, and being very articulate. He was clearly well prepared and spent less than 30 minutes telling his audience his views on the big issues of the day. He was obviously “preaching to the choir,” getting all kinds of smiles, applause and moral support for his rendition of Republican Party ideology. He was “home” and you could tell it bolstered his spirits and he rose to the occasion.

However, one could feel a current underlying his opening statements where people in the audience were only somewhat patiently waiting for him to finish so that they could have “their day in court.” This is where the disconnect began.

He announced at the end of his opening comments that he didn’t put much stock in polls, not mentioning the fact that they are usually conducted these days following very scientific processes, but instead he put more stock in “pressing the flesh” and talking directly to the people. I thought “bologna,” but since he is a politician I let it pass until the very end of the town hall meeting when he asked for a show of hands on several topics including how many supported the universal health care plan, the public option in the plan, etc. With a crowd of obviously strong Republican supporters, he got the response he came for, seemingly ignoring the fact that this is about as unscientific a measure as one could imagine. I wondered if he went away from there truly convinced that the overwhelming number of people in Lindsborg really agreed with him.

Then, the people began to speak. Some were well prepared and had good quality questions, comments, and life experiences to share which made it a good learning experience. But, there were some that were to say the least, “off the wall.” People who liked to hear themselves talk and had been saving up for years for their chance to tell their life story to a U.S. Representative and an audience of some 200 people many of which had already made up their mind. It made me happy that we have a small “r” republican form of government, not a pure democracy.

There were quite a few partisan anti-government questions like, “When are you going to shut down this liberal government in Washington that is taking away our freedoms and leading the country to “rack and ruin.” I wondered if this guy wasn’t aware that we recently had a national election where the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency because the majority of the people in the country believed that the Republican President and Congress (of which Moran was a part) had led us down the “tubes” for years.

One commenter said he had read 45 pages of the 1000+ page plan which Rep.Moran’s staffer had set on the podium as a visual aid. I guess they did so to show that the bill is long and involved. Are we to assume that an issue like this can be reduced to a one or two page list of bullet points? It was interesting that no one, including Rep. Moran, pointed out that this bill was just one of several bills circulating in Washington and that the one he showed from the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is not the important one. The one still being hammered out in the Finance Committee by Senator Baucus, of Montana, with the White House’s help, is what most experts are waiting for. This commenter then stated that “the plan on the table,” contained provisions where a committee with a chairman appointed by the President would take up to 18 months to work out the details ‘scares the devil out of him.” I stood there wondering if this guy doesn’t understand that this is the constitutional process in our government – legislative branch (Congress) passes a bill (makes a law) and the executive branch (President) administers the law with Cabinet and/or other agency appointments and that it takes a while to put a process like this in place.

There was a young couple who very emotionally talked about how they opposed the health care bill because it would result in euthanasia of their special needs child. I lost a lot of respect for Rep. Moran when he lacked the courage to come out and say “there are no “death panels” called for in this bill or any other bill and that rumor is out-of-line and totally unfounded. Neither Democrats or Republicans would support such a thing.” He dodged around it and kind of left the audience with the feeling that there might be something to it. Shame on him! Some of the other rumors that are equally out of line were mentioned and he chose not to accurately squelch those either.

In answering a series of questions and comments about how our present system needs changing, Rep. Moran went through a rather long laundry list of how our present system is “broke.” His conclusion was, let’s take this piece-meal and eventually get it fixed. I stood there wondering why. All of the things he mentioned, that have been around for 50+ years and are getting worse, are addressed in these bills being written and discussed. Why wouldn’t you want to fix them ASAP?

Also, he “pulled on the heart strings” of the audience by claiming universal health care would destroy an already marginal/on-the-edge medical service industry in rural America – a lot of applause. It sounded interesting to me as to why. But, he gave no explanation and I left still wondering whether this was just anti-universal health care hype or something to really be concerned about.

The “socialism” word was thrown around a lot in questions and comments – we don’t want socialism! I don’t want socialism either, but what about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Farm Program, universal education and several other programs that we have that few in the audience would seriously consider eliminating? The U.S. Constitution was written in the 1780’s for a time and period that no longer exists and that one of our country’s strengths is that we have adapted our government to meet the needs of each generation. As conditions change, role of government must carefully change with them and our mixed economy and political structure is a testament to that.

As I said at the outset, there were a lot of disconnects in the experience, but I did think it was good to see this many people out expressing their views. I would like to have seen it run along the lines of the old TV Gong Show. It would have saved a lot of time and allowed more questions and comments. And, it would have been even better if one had the feeling that someone was really listening and really cared rather than just solidifying votes for opinions already held. However, in my mind, one redeeming fact is that up to this point Rep. Jerry Moran is sooo much better than Todd Tiehart.

The World's Gun Culture

2009-03-01T20:40:00.000-08:00

We have a gun culture in this country and evidently so do many other countries in the world. There are conflicts raging all around the globe where groups are fighting one another using automatic weapons, grenade launchers, hand held rocket launchers, mortars, etc. And, the incoming fire from these weapons is too often directed at our soldiers. My questions are, why are these weapons so prevalent and where do these groups get what seems like an inexhaustible supply of ammunition to keep these weapons firing? These are simple weapons by military standards, but they certainly are not something so crude that one can build them in one’s basement. Plus, road bombs, car bombs, and suicide bombers require access to plastic explosives and often sophisticated triggering systems. This equipment has to be made in a factory somewhere, warehoused somewhere, shipped by someone, cached somewhere, and then distributed to the end user. These weapons and ammunition are bulky, heavy, and not easily transported in massive amounts.

Our diplomatic core spends significant amount of time “gnashing their teeth” over nuclear weapons and delivery systems that if used would be disastrous. But, in the meantime our soldiers and innocent civilians are being killed daily with these much simpler weapons.

It seems so logical that nations ought to address this massive arms trade. Governments all over the world could insist that production of these weapons and ammunition be carefully controlled. Obviously, their own military and law enforcement need them. Beyond that, controls should exist on selling of surplus weapons or even obsolete weapons. Stock-piling and shipping could be severely curtailed using technology that now exists. Clandestine arms dealers should be put out of business. I understand that some of these weapons are well built and have excellent longevity, but they are simply a hunk of metal without ammunition and spare parts.

We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they are still shooting at us every day. In fact, TV footage often shows them indiscriminately firing guns up in the air to celebrate and/or protest this or that – often us. It’s crazy watching it on TV and it has to be dangerous and scary for our military in these areas. One has to wonder how long these two wars would have gone on without these weapons and ammunition.

I have not seen nor heard of any concerted efforts by our government and other “peace loving” nations actually discussing ways this could be shut down. In fact, the weapons industry is one of the best kept secrets and our news media is strangely silent on any reporting on this huge industry. Existence of inexhaustible supplies of weapons and ammunition is not a shrug one’s shoulders inevitability – it could be gradually reduced and eventually stopped. But, part of the problem is that we are as guilty as other nations in the world in trafficking in weapons systems. After all, there is a lot of money involved in this business plus all the behind the scenes maneuvering to supply some group in our good graces in order to off-set this other group not in our favor. We have been an enabler in many of these conflicts.

The drug war along our border with Mexico is a good example of where our gun culture has come back to haunt us. News reports suggest that many of the weapons used in this war are coming from the U.S. Then, we have a criminal element in our own country who are often better equipped with automatic weaponry than our own law enforcement people.

I view our fascination with guns that have no use except to kill others as some kind of insane perversion. And, I’m not anti-gun. I own and have shot guns of various types all my life in a sporting atmosphere. But, some group’s insistence that guns of all types and configurations be readily available is crazy. This availability and lack of control lends itself to abuse. The military should have them, law enforcement should have them, and maybe a few responsible gun owners who view collection and firing of these weapons as a hobby are fine – they are for the most part very responsible. But, with these exceptions, availability of these weapons should be strictly limited, regulated, and licensed. However, the best place to stop this insanity is not with the end user, but with a concerted effort by government to control manufacturing, distribution, and supply. The world would be a much safer place if insurgents, intolerant tribal fanatics, terrorists, and criminals were limited to throwing rocks. The only people who win in this gun culture are businesses and governments trafficking in this activity.

Socialism, Capitalism, and a Plutocracy

2009-02-19T14:38:00.000-08:00

What is socialism? This is an important question since it is a buzz word used by some critics of the new administration. By definition, socialism is an economic/political theory advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. In its extreme, it includes a system of society or groups living in which there is no private property.

Karl Marx viewed socialism as a transitional system which would occur as the world moved from capitalism to communism. We all should be confident that Karl Marx and communism have been clearly discredited as a viable economic/political system.

On the other hand, capitalism is an economic system characterized by private and corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Every adult in this country should have read or take the time to read the Scottish scholar Adam Smith’s book, The Wealth of Nations, written in 1776. It is credited with being the founding work of modern economics and describes the capitalistic system. But most importantly, it is the system that comes closest to describing our present, much revered economic system. One thing that is clear is that it is well written and has much to say that is applicable to our economic system today. But, it is also clear that what we have today is much different than what Smith intended, which is not surprising since it was written 233 years ago in a much different economic climate. It shares the same position as the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution in this regard.

The fact of the matter is that none of these systems are working the way their founders envisioned them to. All advanced countries in the world use a mixture of capitalism and socialism with a few having remnants of communism. The most accurate description of what exists out there is a “mixed economy”. What that mix is, varies with each country and is in a constant state of flux. Capitalism, being so strongly ingrained in our minds and culture, will undoubtedly maintain a favored position in our mix despite the rhetoric to the contrary. We will resist, sometimes to our detriment but often to our credit, attempts to abandon it.

We began moving away from “pure capitalism” in the late 1900’s as we moved from an agrarian/small business economy to an industrial one. The 20th century saw even further movement towards a “mixed economic system.” And, it happened because we had wise Republican and Democrats in Washington who recognized that our biggest risk is that we were on a tract to a plutocracy – government by the wealthy and/or a controlling class of the wealthy. Republican Theodore Roosevelt, the “Great Trust Buster”, was one of the first to step up to begin limiting the huge corporate conglomerates that were abusive and unfair in dealings with their customers, workers, and society in general by vertically consolidating their power which eliminated competition. Then, throughout the 20th century we gradually and reluctantly added other protections from the potentially abusive capitalistic system. A progressive income tax was established, labor unions were recognized and legalized, regulations from SEC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Department were instituted, environmental regulations came on board, the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare were put in place, etc.

Rest assured that all of these government programs became law only after years and years of strife and struggle. They came about only when it became overwhelmingly obvious that a totally “free market system” failed to provide and in fact denied a fair and equitable system for the majority of the people.

That we have been able to somewhat forestall the drift to a plutocracy is amazing to me. In fact, these regulatory actions, laws, rules limiting the consolidation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands has preserved capitalism. If we are going to remain a free people, if we are going to have a healthy middle class, if we are going to have a “level playing field” for entrepreneurs to pursue their dream of starting up a small business and working to make it grow, if we are going to have a society where people through hard work can earn a decent living to provide for their families, then we are going to have to insist that the government become involved in helping to create that environment. A totally “free market economy”, despite what many people of wealth and advantage would like us to believe, will not do it. The last eight years of greed and unchecked self interest should have taught us that.

Our imperfect government has worked quite well in the past. It has saved us from excesses of capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, and a plutocracy while we became the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world. Our government is a republic, and against all odds, still listens to the wishes of the people eventually. It has provided an economic and political environment where the people still have the rights and freedoms to do their own thing within reason. We are at risk again with this huge economic crisis and the other laundry list of problems. I liked President Obama’s line in his sober, let’s get to work inaugural address when he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ….” That our imperfect government has constantly adjusted to deal differently with each new generation’s problems is one of the reasons we have been so resilient and it is challenged to do it all over again. As a people, we need to be patient, alert, knowledgeable, involved, and insist that our elected representatives do their job courageously and wisely. Since we are breaking new ground, both of us need to be persistent while being flexible enough to pursue a multitude of changing solutions without abandoning our roots. It should be a great debate hopefully devoid as much as possible from partisanship and demagoguery.

Tax Cuts as a Way of Stimulating the Economy

2009-02-11T06:10:00.001-08:00

In the 1960’s, if tax cuts to businesses, cuts on capital gains taxes, cuts on higher income tax rates, and credits to provide incentives to businesses had been offered as a solution to correct a recession, I would have been open to it. And, if it could be offered now, strictly for small business, I would support it as part of a stimulus package. But, the last 40 years of watching how big business operates has soured me on that approach for them.

We have a big bank crisis that in large measure came about because of sub-prime lending practices in the real estate sector. This foolish, ill advised practice developed partly because of over-zealous self-interest and the willingness to take risk to satisfy greed. Both political parties should share in the blame; but, it became a serious crisis over the last 8 years when deregulation was encouraged, regulators were unwilling to enforce the rules that remained, and government failed to keep up with new ways invented by hedge fund managers and big banks to make huge profits by taking unacceptable risks with other peoples money.

In response to the banking crisis, a bail-out was devised to get money moving again - some $350B worth. What did the big banks do with this money? Most sat on it, gave bonuses with it, bought other banks with it, had extravagant conferences and still refused to get money moving once again. In addition, they have been using a foreign visa loophole to bring foreign employees in, while laying off their American employees. So much for the good will and willingness of the big banks to do their part in correcting the crisis.

American manufacturing sector didn’t do us any favors either. For years there has been a major exodus of manufacturing to foreign countries which has resulted in turning the Upper Midwest into a “Rust Belt”. This has resulted in a loss of American jobs, a declining real income level for American workers added to a serious negative trade balance. But, it was a win-win program for these corporations because they were exempt from paying taxes on the profits they gained from these ventures.

Then, we have the example of the big three auto manufacturers. They took a seemingly entrenched competitive advantage of only a few years ago and squandered it with poor management while blaming it on their workers who had no choice but to build what they were told to build even if it didn’t sell. Then, they came flying into Washington in their private jets to ask for bail-out money.

We’ve had years and years of farm programs that provide subsidies of all shapes and types to ostensibly save the family farm and improve production in agriculture. The result is that big farmers (many of which aren’t even farmers) get huge checks from the government while true family farmers struggle to stay viable by supplementing their income with jobs in town.

We’ve had producers and distributors selling knowingly sub-standard and unsafe products like the recent peanut butter crisis, tainted beef that Far Eastern countries like Japan refused to buy, toys with lead paint, and even substandard military hardware for our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few.

We have oil companies making record profits – Exon Mobile made $45B in one year – under conditions that appear to be manipulative rather than supply and demand. Then, when the move is underfoot to seek alternative sources of energy they turn their lobbyists loose to follow a multi-faceted PR campaign of obstruction on one hand and on the other hand a plea to the government for subsidies and tax breaks for research and capital expenditures to build these alternative sources.

When money dried up and demand for products went “South”, what is the first thing these “benevolent” corporate leaders do – they lay off workers by the millions. Are these corporate leaders sharing in the pain? I don’t think so! We could still support a long running TV program on the “rich and famous” using these corporate leaders as the basis. The title might have to be “Former head" of Lehman Brothers, General Motors, etc.

When the government steps in to relieve the pain with a stimulus package to help get the economy going again, what is Republican Party's and big business response? They object to it by complaining that it is only a spending program. Well, no duh! That’s what a stimulus package is – spending money to try and pump up the economy. If we follow their alternative plan of giving tax breaks to the wealthy, cut business taxes, cut capital gains taxes, and provide tax credits to business the end result will be the same as a stimulus package – large deficits and increased national debt. It is simply a different pocket for money to go into. They’ve even suggested temporarily suspending the payroll tax. Do they really think that people saddled with massive consumer debt are going to go out and spend, spend? People are going to treat it just like they did the rebate a while back – they are going to save it for a “rainy day” if they can and more likely pay down debt, which will help them personally along with those that hold that debt, but it won’t stimulate the economy. If they do spend some of it, it will probably be spent on manufactured goods from foreign countries like China. Who else manufactures consumer products anymore?

At some point these wealthy “fat cats” and their elected representatives will have to realize that they suffer from a credibility gap. They don’t pass the “giggle test” when they say, "trust us, we will use these tax cuts to invest in our businesses which will “trickle down” to job creation." I realize that the above diatribe paints American business with too broad a brush. There are many responsible large corporations who do it right and have the best interest of their customers, their employees, and the country as a whole in mind. But, for many of the public, it is hard “seeing the fire through the smoke.” There is a general lack of confidence in the business community. The last election proves that. Much of the American public does not deal with and may not understand high finance and government economic policy – they are too busy working and raising their families. But, they aren’t stupid, and you can only “kick them in the teeth” so many times and they are going to say enough is enough. We might be there.

What a Difference a Week Makes

2009-02-05T20:49:00.000-08:00

Last week I was pretty discouraged with the way things were proceeding in Washington. This week things are much more encouraging. I’m beginning to suspect that we might often be riding a roller coaster with this administration and this Congress when one considers the mountain of issues they have to deal with.

With Congress we went from passing the stimulus bill in the House with a proud 100% opposition from the Republicans – not good. This week, the Senate has taken it up and it appears, at least initially, they are going to handle it the way it should be handled. Although, there is still way too much partisan posturing out there and the wheels might yet fall off with things going from posturing to partisan bickering and dead-lock. For instance, we are still hearing the “Reagan Myth”, that tax cuts and less government spending is what we need – a proven failure over the last 25 years. Won’t this ever go away?

Historically, it has often been said that the Senate is a more deliberative body than the House and hopefully they will once again live up to that reputation. There actually seems to be some meaningful dialogue on the stimulus package and alternative options are being presented in some cases in a bipartisan way, as with moderate Senators Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska and Susan Collins (R) of Maine suggesting cuts to package of around $50 B.

The bill as presented may be too much of a pent-up Democratic wish list. Some of the items many be too far reaching and not fine tuned for a stimulus package. There needs to be some criteria to meet such as: actually creating/saving jobs; encouraging corporations to step up by investing and even taking some risk to actually continue to make product in America; making sure that some help is offered for people whose lives have been devastated with unemployment through no fault of their own; re-training programs to help people whose jobs may never come back; re-building of infrastructure that has been neglected for years; greening of America with programs to build and refurbish structures to make them more energy efficient; making schools better so our work force can compete technologically; developing alternative energy sources; etc.- mostly long term improvements.

I’ve been encouraged by a few Republicans, our Kansas Senators being noticeably silent, who admit that some sort of stimulus package is needed. I find it refreshing that Senators from both sides of the aisle are admitting that they don’t know for absolute, “drop dead” certain that this particular bill will bring us immediately out of a Recession; but, something needs to be done to relieve some of the pain. Hopefully, Republicans won’t be so calloused that they will vote no and sit back, hoping the plan fails, to gain a political advantage in 2010. Both sides begrudgingly agree with the idea that legislation passed after only two or three weeks into an administration may not be perfect and there are parts of bill that may have to be modified or even dropped if it fails to accomplish what they hope.

The administration has taken some tough hits this week. I hate it that Daschle has withdrawn, because I thought he was uniquely qualified to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. But, Obama has lived up to his word on insisting on higher standards than we’ve had in the past, even if it costs him some needed expertise. I didn’t think I would ever live long enough to hear a sitting President come out and say, “I screwed up,” especially when he didn’t. It was Daschle’s fault and those who vetted him. But, Obama stepped up to make it clear that “The Buck Stops Here.”

Also, it’s encouraging to see our new President talking with both parties and being willing to listen. They may only agree to disagree; but, he is open to and invites reasonable criticism and alternative plans which does represent a change.

I like it that he takes a strong stand on the majority of the bill. He has let it be known that there are certain areas he will not compromise on – why should he, he won. He will not allow the bill to be gutted; but, he will compromise on some significant issues. This is especially interesting in view of the fact that he probably has the votes if they force him to “play the party card.” Also, he took a lot of criticism on earmarks in his campaign. But, he is the only President I can remember who has had the courage to say that he wants an earmark free bill. Hopefully, the Democratic leadership will deliver on that.

How long has it been since we’ve had a President look the watching public in the eye and talk about his legacy before the fact? Everyone knows Presidents are concerned about that, but few have had the courage to come out and say that he expects his presidency will be judged in large part by whether he can help get this economy going. He is setting a dangerous and maybe even unattainable standard. But, I for one went away with the feeling that this guy is serious, he’s tough, and he’s not going to make excuses. There doesn’t appear to be any quit in him. Maybe that’s what voters saw in him and I hope they are rewarded.

Where is Bipartisanship and the Need to Move Forward Together?

2009-01-30T08:28:00.000-08:00

I am truly disappointed with the Republican minority in Congress regarding the stimulus package being proposed by the Obama Administration. 100% opposition in the House and being proud of it is not a good sign of things to come.

With Republican Party leadership not yet clearly established (Bush is gone and McCain doesn’t seem able to assume that role), we have a fractured Republican Party whose only agreement is to disagree with everything being offered by the new administration - so much for bipartisanship. With the news media’s attempt to present both sides to the stimulus story, it has given media savvy Conservative Republicans their opportunity to individually step out and offer their own version of criticism of the proposal so that they can “beat their chest” with their “base” back home. One has to remember that Republicans in recent years have shown that they have a natural ability for the role of the “loyal opposition.” Their problem comes to the forefront when they win elections and must move from criticizing to governing. They are once again back in their comfort zone – offering constant criticism with no alternative solutions to solve problems.

Part of the problem is their archaic, over-simplified, and naive view of our economic system. It is like they read Ayn Rand’s great novels – Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, etc.- back in 50’s and 60’s and forgot they were fiction. It helps them that their sound bites always include fears of higher taxes, more government spending, and government involvement somehow limiting individual initiative. These are always popular themes with some people and if they can figure out how to incorporate the big, bad bug-a-boo of “socialism” in their few seconds of fame on TV, they have a sure-fire way to raise big dollars for their next election.

Many of them do have a problem, they voted for the previous administration’s bail-out program which gave billions of dollars to big banks, powerful real estate corporations, insurance companies, and auto industry. Hopefully, these congressmen got thank you notes from these people for the undeserved bonuses they received last year. But, when the present administration starts talking about creating jobs, money for schools, money to support state service programs, investment in alternative energy programs, providing funds to move towards some sort of universal health care, re-building infrastructure, etc., they are opposed. Government money distributed to the people is unpalatable, whereas money to “well-healed” corporate America is OK!

I would love to see the Republicans put together a leadership team that would be willing to work in a bipartisan fashion where possible; and, if they disagree, provide well thought-out, reasonable, constructive criticism. This team should be prepared to offer alternative recommendations of how we can deal with massive unemployment, 2 wars, global economic crisis, collapsing infrastructure, declining middle class, deteriorating schools, inequality in medical care, reduction in dependence on foreign energy, etc.

I am fully aware that what Obama is doing holds a great risk. It will need to be modified and adjusted as we move forward. I am convinced that the only suggestion I’ve heard from Republican’s, significant reduction in taxes for businesses and the wealthy, is not a viable alternative – even though it has voter appeal. Most economists reject it as a bad idea, just as it was in 2001. Tax reduction and smaller government is not a cure-all for what ails us.

I have my own concerns with the stimulus package. For example, I’m not thrilled with the idea that the federal government might increase control over education through funding of “no-child-left-behind.” Although Obama has asked for an “earmark free” stimulus package, I don’t want to see special interest groups and a few powerful Congressmen/women getting questionable projects for their districts and states by “back dooring” the legislative process. I’m less than thrilled with massive amounts of money being spent on new roads (rebuilding of existing deteriorating ones excepted), when it is becoming clear that the time has come for a new generation of light rail and railroads to move people and goods.

I want the stimulus package to be just that – a short term boost to the economy not a permanent establishment of broadened government bureaucracy with an exception or two. Obama has promised that. In fact, he has promised a “house cleaning” of unneeded, over funded, ineffective programs. Unfortunately, it is Congress that controls the purse strings and I have been less than thrilled with the Congressional Democratic leadership up to this point. Hopefully, they will rise to the occasion.

As a private citizen, I really have little clout, just a small voice amongst many others. That is why I would like to see the development of a responsible opposition party that will work together in a bipartisan fashion where possible and offer well thought-out, reasonable alternatives when they disagree. If the Republican Party can’t accomplish that, they do not deserve much respect or support and certainly not the opportunity to govern in the future. If all they can accomplish is negative demagoguery, they are no better than their loud, obnoxious talk radio star – Rush Limbaugh.

Less Frequent Posting in the Future

2009-01-10T21:07:00.000-08:00

Not that it represents any significant loss to the world of political, economic, or educational writing, but I will be posting to this blog less frequently in the future. I have truly enjoyed it; but, I had hoped to stimulate more discussion on these issues than what has resulted. Thanks to those who have taken the time to read them and thanks to those who have commented orally that they have enjoyed reading them. I’m amazed that there haven’t been any who have taken issue with some of what was said. There undoubtedly are and maybe they are just being kind.

I’ve decided to take on another hopefully meaningful, creative, and certainly time consuming job of helping to home school our granddaughter. That is the advantage of retirement – doing what one wants to within reason. I taught school and coached at the secondary level for about 15 years some 30 years ago so I should have known what I was getting myself into – plus she is only a 2nd grader for crying out loud! However, it has been an eye opening experience already. Teaching is a tough job requiring all kinds of prep work, background educational reading, and serious thought. I have been truly amazed at the volume of information out there for education of young people. There are K-12 computer programs, supplemental computer programs, many studies on educational practices I’ve not been exposed to over the last 30 years, plus a wealth of curriculum information, exercises, games, etc. to peruse and/or include in one’s instruction.

You take a bright young girl and add in “a little” ADHD and you have a challenging experience that offers an interesting mix of joyful exhilaration in one lesson with a humbling one of failure in the next lesson. It is a roller coaster ride of emotion for both of us. I love it, so I intend to spend a disproportionate amount of time working one-on-one with this little girl I love so much and do my best to remain sane.

I’ve made it very clear to her that I will do my best to help her do well in math and, more importantly, she will learn to enjoy the problem solving challenges of the subject. And, I will do my best to study history with her so that she gains an appreciation and knowledge for a subject she already enjoys. I’ve signed on for as long as her parents want to pursue this educational option and want my involvement. Please wish both of us luck.

What's up with Our Country's Financial Leaders?

2009-01-04T20:25:00.000-08:00

Something that has always bothered me about the investment world is that it is run by a group of well-educated, intelligent people who seem too often to make terrible investment decisions. As I understand it, a good share of the “market” is controlled by a fairly small group usually identified as institutional money managers, mutual fund managers, investment brokers, corporate leaders, insurance company money managers, big bankers, etc. These are people who handle huge sums of money day-in-and-day-out and seemingly not too well sometimes – as in 2008. In addition to the above, we have well-educated, intelligent government financial people at Treasury Dep’t and Federal Reserve who have been seemingly caught by surprise and who appear to be stumbling around trying to belatedly correct the most recent recession by throwing money to some big banks, insurance companies, and corporations.

It is more than a little scary for lay people, having only a rudimentary understanding of “markets”, to see their life savings (like 401K’s) depreciate 20 to 40% in a few months, see family and friends suddenly unemployed (at 6.7% maybe heading to 10%), see property values decreasing rapidly (resulting in record mortgage defaults and up-side-down mortgage positions), reduction in government services (that many in our society rely on), etc.

Then we get the explanation for the recession. They tell us it started with sub-prime mortgages and the bundling of this paper to be sold around the world. Why would well-educated, smart people trade in these things when it is so obvious that it is a “house of cards” ready to fall apart? Also, we learn that huge, historical icons of American Corporations, like “Big Three Auto Companies”, are poorly managed, surviving on “smoke and mirrors” and are only a few weeks from being broke. We see large, highly respected investment houses like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers go under. We see big banks that have existed for generations going broke, being sold at auction, or being bailed out with infusion of massive amounts of government money.

Then, you add to this the rather cavalier attitude that many financial people have regarding these market swings. It is like, “Sure we are going to have these from time to time, it will correct itself, and we’ll be up and running in no time. Just hang on, don’t panic and cash in, maybe carefully move some money around to reposition yourself; but mostly, just relax.” I’m sitting here thinking, why is this normal, why is it so readily acceptable, and why does it happen at all with well-educated, intelligent people managing these financial affairs and these corporations?

Then the real kicker is that if one questions the functionality of our “free-market/capitalistic” system it is like you are committing blasphemy! Suggestions of regulations for the financial/corporate world is a really big, “NO-NO”. These people who have been responsible in large measure for this mess have never seen a regulation they like; and given the choice, they will applaud most deregulation. They insist that regulations will stifle the “free-market/capitalistic” system and its wonderfully self-regulating ability to create wealth for us all. The amazing thing is that they can say this with a straight face while “bellying up to the bar” with their open palm extended for government bail-outs. Then when it is suggested that they be held accountable for it, they are aghast, “What do you mean we have to tell you how we spend the money, how unreasonable. We know how to run our businesses and the worst thing that can be done is to get the government involved. And, by the way, if this isn’t enough money, we’ll be back to you when we need more.” Why do they hold to the archaic view of preserving a “pure capitalistic/free-market” economy? We haven’t had this system, other than in name, for about a century. We have a “mixed economy” with heavy government involvement that experience has shown us is needed to prevent illegal, unethical, ill-conceived, and abusive practices. Unfortunately, we evidently don’t have it quite right yet.

I’m sorry that I have no definitive answers to the questions I’ve asked throughout this column. I think they are worth some contemplation. But, in the mean time, our best choice might be to rely on carefully crafted government regulations that establish a delicate balance between freedom and controls that don’t unreasonably hinder the market system. That is the challenge moving forward with our “mixed economy”. We will have to constantly adjust the ‘rules-of-the-game”. Our aim should not be to eliminate risk, without risk you stifle innovation, creativity, and growth. But, maybe we can curtail the “lemminglike psychology” that overwhelms the entire market too frequently.

What History Teaches Us

2009-01-04T19:08:00.000-08:00

History has always fascinated me. I think a deep understanding of history is a pre-requisite for success in many areas including business, local/state/national government, and foreign affairs, just to mention a few. I think what history does, is to teach us what mistakes not to repeat in making current and future decisions. However, it should not dictate what course of action to take with these decisions.

The War in Afghanistan might be a good example. We had good reason to militarily go after al-Qaeda – 9-11. But, history from the time of Alexander the Great, through British occupation, and the most recent Russian debacle in Afghanistan should have taught us not to make the mistake of moving into this country with what they would perceive as an occupying force. History clearly shows that they have the willingness to fight, even against what most would think are insurmountable odds, to resist that perception. They won’t accept defeat – they will choose death; they won’t welcome “nation building” – they will hold to their tribal system; they will not accept “puppet” governments set up by an occupier – they will bide their time and eradicate them as soon as possible; they will stay faithful to their religion and culture – in fact, the more pressure exerted to alter it will simply radicalize it even more. We should have known these things from history.

Understanding these things could have kept us from making the mistakes we made and are still making. A “surge” of more troops will result in having more control of Afghanistan. If you put more “feet on the ground” and more sophisticated military muscle in the country, you will kill more people and destroy more infrastructure; and for the time being, curtail insurgency and opposition because you will simply over-power them. We did it in Iraq. But, will it accomplish any long term goals like: establish a democracy, a peaceful and settled nation, promote human rights (for example, equality of women), create an appreciative ally for us in the region, etc.? I don’t think so!

That doesn’t mean we back away from confrontation with enemies dedicated in destroying us. My choice would have been to punish al-Qaeda with quick, overwhelming, devastating destruction and then get out – no occupation, no nation building, and no rebuilding. True “shock and awe” with no apologies; but, a promise that we will be back if need be. But, the time has passed for this. The Taliban has experienced a resurgence, al-Qaeda is linked closer than ever to them, and the conflict has broadened beyond the tribal areas in Pakistan to possible instability in all of Pakistan which is much more dangerous and complicated. I have confidence that the new administration has the necessary knowledge of history to avoid past mistakes; but, the solution is not to be found in history. It will take an innovative approach which may in the short run cost us more in lives lost and expenditure of money not readily available. In the end, our ego-defense may have to “take a hit” as it did in Korean War, Vietnam War, failed Iran Crisis Rescue Mission Attempt, and Mogadishu (of the tragic Black Hawk Down incident). The only consolation is that history has shown us that backing away from an ill-conceived and conducted military action doesn’t permanently damage our nation, just our ego. It does teach us that we do have limitations.

Another example is our recent economic crisis. Why are we caught by surprise and appalled by the newest “boom and bust?” They aren’t new, history has documented quite well one after another going back to our country’s beginning. We’ve had land speculation busts several times; technological inspired booms and busts like railroads, oil, and the 2001 “.com” one; numerous bank panics; investment speculation bubbles bursting like in 1929 and again in 2008, etc. How much evidence do we have to compile that a “free market” system, left to run amuck on its own, will create yet another “correction”, “down cycle”, recession”, and maybe a “depression”?

We should have learned enough from history to maturely accept the need for our government to balance responsible regulation with economic freedom to make our markets work. We certainly should have learned from history that we can’t expect anything but dire consequences if we retract regulations that were intended to protect us from obviously careless and/or unethical practices. Regulation needs to be carefully crafted and constantly adjusted to meet our needs, but seldom should we even consider deregulation. In addition to the above needed balance, there needs to be the acceptance of the necessity of maintaining a strong middle class which is required for prosperity and successful democracy.

However, history can’t teach us how to handle the most recent crisis. That has to be day-and-age specific problem solving. Hopefully, it will come as a result of much well thought-out public debate on a reasonably level playing field. This is where a democracy becomes so important - where large numbers of a wide variety of citizens take it upon themselves to offer their views. This is why it is so important that our government is not controlled by a few powerful special interest groups.

So, let’s learn and use our history to avoid mistakes of the past; but, let’s use our knowledge, intuition, and creativity to deal with current and future issues.

Merit Pay at the Secondary Level

2008-12-27T08:45:00.000-08:00

Assessment based teaching/learning, which would be needed if we were to adopt merit pay for teachers, requires a different approach in the 9-12 vs. the K-8 curriculum. Secondary curriculum in most schools is a combination of required courses plus elective courses which allows some latitude for students to choose their own course of study. The most common tract in McPherson High School is a college prep program. If students are going to be equipped for college, this program should prepare them for assessment tests (required by “No-Child-Left-Behind”) and other standardized or college preparedness tests. Other students may choose other tracts, often along vocational lines, which may or may not cover the full range of skills, knowledge, and concepts required in assessment testing.

To accomplish this, some courses would need to be required to insure proficiency in assessment testing. Curriculum decisions would need to be made as to what these proficiencies are, what course work would be required to cover these, and how many course hours will be allotted to accomplish this. There should not be so many courses that student’s choices would be lessoned significantly. In all courses whose primary function is to prepare students for assessment proficiency, a pre-test may be needed at beginning of year followed by a post-test at the end of the year that can be used to determine student progress individually and collectively along with measuring teacher effectiveness – to determine merit pay.

One could use math as an example of this process. Determination would need to be made of what required courses would be needed to cover math proficiencies. Those in college prep program could elect to skip these courses if they followed continuum of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. A similar process could be set up for science, reading, writing, and social studies.

In the elective courses, not designed specifically to teach assessment proficiency, teachers need to know what the proficiency requirements are. Then, teachers of these courses should attempt to include, where appropriate, those skills, knowledge, and concepts for assessment testing so that student’s proficiency would be re-enforced and enhanced. Beyond that, teachers will teach what has been established as the curriculum for this course of study. To establish a basis for merit pay, tests need to be developed or purchased from some reputable source where student proficiency and teacher effectiveness can be measured for that course.

If this sounds like all course work will be focused on “teaching to a test”, that is exactly what it is. If a school district accepts this philosophy of assessment based teaching/learning in order to fairly administer merit pay, one may have to face some possible negatives.

One of these is that student “learning” will be determined by the test used to measure what a student needs to know. Some would argue that present assessment tests given to students fail to measure that. For one thing, there is an emphasis in these tests on knowledge of random and isolated facts rather than problem solving skills that are a better measure of student’s preparedness to enter the real world. Plus, there is some criticism of the way these tests are structured and written.

Secondly, teaching students and students learning is not an exact science – there is not one way to do it. Teachers are not programmed robots and students are not sponges. Learning varies from student to student, class to class, and year to year. The best teachers recognize this, use creative approaches, encourage relevant problem solving approaches, take the time to re-group and approach learning in other ways if material is not learned, etc. Not encouraging and not allowing professional teachers to use their skills and experience curtails academic freedom and can discourage good teacher retention.

But, on the other hand, without agreed upon student proficiencies, one runs the risk of continuation of some ineffective teaching and students leaving school poorly educated.

I would suggest that the best way to approach this dilemma is to set up the curriculum process, administer the tests, and use the results to measure student proficiency, effectiveness of teachers and curriculum. Do all this without implementing merit pay. Adjustments could then be made in teaching strategies, in testing programs, and curriculum offerings without threat to teachers. Over time, if a general consensus is reached that our district has an excellent process in place, then institute merit pay. I contend that the most important element in quality education is good teaching and any process established should support, encourage, and reward their work.

Making Education Relevant

2008-12-20T20:24:00.000-08:00

One of my strongly held educational philosophies is that all instruction should be relevant to students, especially at the secondary level. Before someone gets defensive, I’m not suggesting that it isn’t, I’m simply urging that with all curriculum planning we should be asking the question. “Why should students be required to learn this? We used to get away with answers like, because it is “knowledge for knowledge’s sake” or “learning this expands one’s mind” – no more. Quite frankly, there is so much information out there today that we have to be selective in what is taught. First and foremost, our educational system should be instilling in students the insatiable desire to see learning as a continuous life time experience. Secondly, our educational system should be teaching students the core knowledge and problem solving skills they will need to do the above. I think the best way accomplish these goals is to make sure what we teach is seen as relevant to students.

In some courses it is easy: for example civics, especially during an election year like we’ve just gone through, or economics when we are facing a financial crisis as we are today. Some courses are career oriented, like carpentry or agriculture, and relevance to that career is the focus. But, other courses, most in fact, are not so easy, and it takes some serious thought, creativity, and effort to make it relevant. Schools can be somewhat isolated from the working world and some courses of study can fall into the trap of being too sterile and artificial. I think it is important that all students should be involved in often held discussions where it is made clear to them what they are expected to learn and how this knowledge relates to their lives now and in the not so distant future. With this understanding, it should help students to develop an interest or it at least makes learning the skill or knowledge tolerant since they can see what they are expected to learn and how it will impact them. If this can’t be done, maybe we shouldn’t be teaching it!

Beyond discussing relevance with students, I think an excellent way to accomplish this is to expand the school environment, making it a community environment. There should be a revolving door of community people going into the school to speak with students about how things are done in the working world. And, where appropriate, students going out in the community to see, hear, and get a feel of how things are done in the working world.

The focus should not be career selection, although students might make judgments along those lines. The focus should be on relevance to their education. One can pick any course of study to illustrate this. Using chemistry as an example, speakers could be brought in from Hospira, NCRA, McPherson Hospital, Certainteed, Chemstar, just to name a few companies that have chemists on staff that can explain to students how chemistry is an integral part of their business. Plus, other companies like water treatment, sewage treatment, oil field workers, feed companies, etc. who make extensive use of chemistry, even though they don’t have chemists on staff, could explain how knowledge of chemistry affects their business. These people could bring some real world examples and every day problems where knowledge of chemistry is necessary. We just mentioned 9 different potential speakers without even working at it. I think we could do the same with other courses of study resulting in many speakers and a lot of real world relevance.

The nice thing is that it wouldn’t cost schools much to do it. It would take a couple of full time facilitators to take requests from teachers for programs, to go out and arrange for these speakers, video tape these classroom sessions, and compile a data base of DVD’s that could be used in the future. The subject matter could be as simple and/or as advanced as needed for the education level of the course. I’m confident that business owners, managers, and employees would look foreword to working with students and teachers a few hours each school year. I stumbled across this process in the last few years of my teaching career when I started teaching economics with no curriculum and no text book. I asked a wide variety of people from the community to come in and it worked out amazingly well. They were more than willing to come and students learned more than I could have taught them about the real world of business, labor, banking, agriculture, insurance, government finance, manufacturing, sales, management, etc. Remember, these speakers are almost always passionate about their work and very knowledgeable.

It would not be an easy process to set-up. It would take some serious organizational skills. Parameters would need to be developed for guest speakers, for teachers, and for students – they need to be simple. Initially you will have some sorting to do regarding the quality of experiences. But, just imagine the extent of the data base that could eventually be created where real world relevance would be the underlying goal.

Plus, the school district would get a bonus – large numbers of local people coming into the school and working with students and teachers which might very well give them some ownership in the school experience besides paying taxes.

Extra Curricular Activities in Our Schools

2008-12-13T10:45:00.000-08:00

Let me be up front and clear about my attitude toward these sometimes expensive extra curricular activities in our schools – I am supportive of them within reason. To me they represent some of the best educational experiences that students are exposed to in their school years.

I am well aware that there are some in every community who do not look kindly on these programs. In times of budget cuts, which we are likely to face in tough economic times, some will want these activities cut back providing money for only the core subjects of “reading, writing, and arithmetic.” I don’t support this view. I think there are multiple reasons these activities are important in the school experience.

To begin with, most extra curricular activities stand the very severe test of public scrutiny. If the band is out marching in a parade or putting on a concert, a significant portion of the community sees and hears them and will evaluate their performances. Whether athletic teams win or lose is a matter of very public discussion. When a theatre performance is put on, it is out there for the community to critique. This is true of most extra curricular activities. Students and teachers, being well aware of this public scrutiny, strive to do their very best. It would be real interesting if the standard classroom functioned in a similar environment. I’ve never figured out how this could be done; but, if it were, I would suspect that the teaching that goes on there would be significantly impacted. The atmosphere would be different. The need to motivate, encourage, to include all students in the process, and the strategies employed to get students to learn the skills and concepts being taught might very well be “ramped up.”

Secondly, extra curricular activities provide students with the opportunity to pursue special interests that the school doesn’t offer in the normal classroom setting. Students often will spend hours beyond school time honing their skills and knowledge with these activities. If students are involved in debate they will spend hours preparing their arguments; if contest time is approaching, music students will spend hours practicing and rehearsing; if school newspaper or the Annual due date is approaching, hours will be spent to get it “just right”; when students from technical programs such as carpentry, FFA, and automotive go out and compete in state and national contests they are putting in significant prep time, etc. In preparing themselves for these activities, they are, without even thinking about it, putting to use core skills and knowledge they have learned in the classroom. If we could find ways to get all students to fully understand how the core skills impact their present interests as well as their future endeavors in life, I think their education would be more effective. How many of us have lamented our failure to learn skills and knowledge when we were in school? Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there by our educators – that all instruction should be prefaced with the question, “Why are we learning this?”

Thirdly, these extra curricular activities often give students the first opportunity to work collectively in a group organization. They may have to assume responsibility or maybe take some leadership role where they learn to work with others in accomplishing tasks. They may be forced to learn how to effectively conduct meetings, organize limited time and resources, delegate tasks, etc. All of these skills might very well be put to use as they get out in the working world.

In addition, these extra curricular activities can and often do create a social comradery that psychologists tell us is so important to our mental health. It can create relationships that continue on for years beyond their school experience. Ten, twenty, thirty years later it is often these activities that alumni spend their time reminiscing about. But more importantly, it teaches students the importance and joy that relationships provide; and, it often manifests itself in participation in churches, business organizations, clubs, and other social groups (formal and informal) that become a part of their lives.

Extra curricular activities are important to our school experience and should be encouraged and supported by our community as long as they have good leadership so that they are a positive learning experience.

Merit Pay at the Elementary Level

2008-12-10T19:59:00.000-08:00

Having taught school for 15 years before I went into the business world for the next 30 years, I’ve watched with great interest the debates over the best ways to improve the education of young people.

One suggestion that has been around for years that is again being discussed is the “carrot” of better pay for teachers with the “stick” of accountability – merit pay. Why would many if not most teachers oppose this? Well, the bad teachers will because their careers might be shortened. Good teachers often oppose it as well – why? Quite frankly, they don’t feel comfortable with administrators making these evaluations. Teachers feel they would be too subjective – by definition lacking in reality and substance.

When I taught I was fortunate to do so under some good administrators. They had well-organized schools, well-disciplined schools, wherever possible they stood behind their teachers, they waded through the mountains of paper work which is the fate of administrators, they often attempted to motivate their teachers to focus on doing their very best for students each day, provided at least one good thoughtful seminar a year, etc. They were paid 2 to 3 times what their teachers were paid and many became administrators because they felt suited to that role and/or were attracted to the money, and we teachers thought more power to them. All of them had been teachers before, but several I knew were not particularly outstanding teachers, which was OK because many outstanding teachers would make poor administrators. That was my experience and is the experience of many teachers.

To have these administrators making judgments on my teaching effectiveness would have made me uncomfortable – especially if it impacted my pay check. Administrators clearly can and should make judgments on whether a teacher loves kids and deals with them fairly, can control the classroom, are prepared day-to-day, teach “students” not “material”, inspire and expect excellent work, are knowledgeable and avid learners themselves, and like their job. These should be part of an evaluation; but, as important as these things are, they don’t necessarily lead to students making acceptable progress in learning the core skills. There is a way to measure this. It requires a very involved testing and curriculum process that many schools do not have in place.

Students should be tested on core skills and knowledge at the beginning of and the end of each year up through the 8th grade. Beyond the 8th grade, because of variety of educational tracts students take, it would require another evaluation process that I would like to address at a different time. The data from these beginning of the school year tests should show competency level collectively for all students and individually for each student. This allows teachers to know which students will need remedial work to hopefully “catch up” and there needs to be curriculum available to help accomplish this. Then, the teacher needs to know what skills and concepts students should achieve during the year to stay on track for their grade level. A curriculum guide and/or course of study needs to be available that will accomplish this. If a district has good teachers, this guide should be loosely constructed so that teachers have some latitude to use their own creativity to accomplish these standards.

At the end of the year, a post test will be given to students with competency measured collectively and for each individual student. Those that score at appropriate level advance to next grade. Those who do not, must attend summer school or repeat the grade level. Each of these underperforming students should be evaluated to determine if they have learning disabilities, bad home environment, emotional/psychological issues, etc., that need to be addressed.

If the above process is not in place, teachers shouldn’t and can’t be held accountable. But more importantly, if they are in place, tests become meaningful for each student and trigger proactive responses from the educational system on behalf of each student.

The above process focuses on students achieving measurable, “minimum” standards, which is essential. But, there are excellent students and/or students with exceptionally deep seated interests that the standard curriculum does not address. These students should be identified. It then becomes a challenge of a teacher’s creativity, with the help of programs such as student learning centers, to arouse and encourage these students to achieve well beyond the minimum standards and to pursue their special interests.

In the final analysis, I think most school boards, administrators, and teachers choose not to run the risk of implementing merit pay because of the “fire-storm” it is likely to cause within a school district. If a school district like McPherson, can perform well (towards the top in the state and nation) in standardized assessment testing, ITBS, and ACT, which they do, why create an environment that could be so contentious that it could have a negative impact on education of our young people? However, if a process like the above does provide a clearer picture of teachers effectiveness and students progress, maybe it should be implemented without “muddying the waters” with merit pay in order to improve instruction of our young people.

Theory of Business Success and Failure

2008-11-30T20:13:00.000-08:00

I have this theory of business success and failure based on empirical evidence. It is that many/most of our great companies have achieved success because of leadership of the founder and early owner/manager. When this “titan of the company” passes away, retires, or moves on, this business often begins a downward slide.

This slide is often in slow motion because the company has momentum that carries it for a while; because of market share; because of sheer size; because of wealth; because of adherence to business model set up by the “titan”; and because of the culture he/she created.

There are exceptions to this theory where a family member(s) keeps it growing or a hand picked exceptional manager(s) take control. Occasionally, you even have a great corporation use its strong position to go beyond what was initially envisioned. But, this is rare.

The more typical examples are the ones who disappear or remain as a mere shadow of their former selves. Some examples are steel industry/ Carnegie Steel; office machines and early computers/ IBM; department stores/ Macy’s, Hudson, Marshall Fields; meat packing companies/ Swift, Armour; airlines/ TWA; airplanes/ Lear; cameras/Poloroid; investment companies/ Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers; etc. We have some in transition now and it will be interesting to watch them: auto companies/ Big 3; computers/ Microsoft; retail/ Wal Mart; fast foods/ McDonald’s; airplanes/ Boeing; etc.

Some of the reasons for initial success of these “titans” are:
* They have a vision for the company that goes way beyond most people’s vision and a passion to pursue it.
* They love a challenge, sheer joy and satisfaction of creating something, often out of nothing.
* The interest of the customer is paramount in their scheme whether it be a product or service they are selling.
* When they are at the top of their game they have the ability to change to meet changing markets.
* They have the willingness to rise to meet competitive challenges and will get pretty aggressive about it.
* They have the courage to take calculated risks and be resilient when those around them get “cold feet.”
* They will encourage acceptance of technological change in their product or service and in the operation of their business – they usually want to be first with these things they feel make sense, not just because they are clever.
* They know that failure of many of their decisions is a given, but they cut their losses quickly, take responsibility for them, and move on with the next plan.
*They usually put a premium on training to improve their employee's skills and knowledge. They want their people to have a "leg up" on their competitors in order to provide better quality and service for their customers.
* They create an environment where their employees know they are appreciated and play a key roll in the success of the company. And, they often rely on a few dedicated, smart, key managers and a cadre of involved, loyal employees.
* They are usually tough task masters who will “get their hands dirty,” work hard, and expect others to do likewise.
* Some of these “titans” were scoundrels, but most possessed great integrity and a compelling interest in the well being of mankind, their country, and their local community. In fact, they often use their wealth to support philanthropic endeavors.

What changes when they step away and their companies get in trouble and/or slide away? Too often, managers take over who do not possess many of the traits cited above. They are often “bean counters” who are mainly concerned with the short term bottom line, personal power and prestige, and personal financial wealth. It is interesting that the “titans” had the wealth, power, and prestige not because that was their goal, but more often almost incidentally as a reward for a job well done.

How do we facilitate this transition of leadership so that many of our successful companies remain viable? The problem with many companies is that shareholders and boards of directors who have the ultimate responsibility in choosing new leadership are primarily interested in their dividend check and maintaining a conservative holding pattern so they choose “bean counters.” Instead, they need to select people with some of the character traits mentioned above along with their degrees and pedigrees. In fact, they need to find leaders who are going to take them for a “ride;” where, if necessary, their company will re-invent itself to meet the challenges of the future. Their buying customer will come first and their employees will come second. The end result of this ride will result in shareholders reaping long term benefits from their investment. Maybe if we had leaders like these and/or find leaders like this we wouldn’t be going through this economic melt down.

Income Taxes, Government Spending, and National Debt

2008-11-30T17:47:00.000-08:00

Let’s take a quick look at history of the U.S. Government tax and spending policies, since the relationship of one to the other determines our national debt – the less you tax and the more you spend the higher the national debt.

Since the income tax beginnings in 1913, we’ve had a progressive income tax – the more you make the higher the tax rate – based on the idea that those who make more money are better able to pay and are recipients of more government services. Since coming into existence, the rates have been all over the place down through history. It depends on who was in power and what was going on in our history. From 1913 to 1979 the bottom rate average was about 10% on taxable income up to about $4000. Other than the first 2 years, the top rates averaged about 70% with all kinds of variances in taxable income – over $100,000 to over $5,000,000. From 1940 to 1963 the rates were in the 80% to 90% range for taxable income over $400,000. In the war years of 1944 to 1945 the rate was 94% for taxable income over $200,000. From 1964 to 1980, the rate was in the 70% for taxable income over $200,000. Far cry from today! And this was the period where we had great economic growth in the U.S. It must not have deterred many wealthy from forging ahead.

Let’s concentrate on the last 30 years starting with the last two years of the Carter Administration (1979-80): bottom rate was 14% for taxable income up to $2100 and top rate was 70% for taxable income over $210,000. During his term our national debt went down – 0.4%.

We heard a lot about the Reagan years in the last election and one would think they were a shining example of responsible money management. Taxes did go down. In 1981, bottom bracket went to 11% of taxable income up to around $2200. Top bracket went to 50% with taxable income over about $190,000. His last 3 years bottom rate went up to 15% for taxable income up to about $31,000. Top bracket rate went down to 28% for income over about $31,000. Close to a “flat tax”. But spending was out of hand with record deficits resulting in record increases in national debt – 49% increase his first term and 40.2% increase his second term. A long way from responsible money management.

Then we have George H. Bush’s famous campaign promise, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” When it became obvious that deficit spending was getting out of hand he increased taxes: bottom rate of 15% on taxable income up to about $34,000 and top rate of 31% on taxable income over about $84,000. But, our national debt still increased by 32.7%.

We follow this with 8 years under Clinton – a Democrat billed as a tax-and-spend liberal – where we had smaller deficits and our national debt increased only 13% in his first term and in his second term decreased – 0.2%. This was with a bottom rate of 15% on income up to about $40,500 and a top tax rate of 39.6% for taxable income over about $268.000. Clinton showed, for the first time since Democratic Jimmy Carter, that we could live within our means, ending his second administration with a balanced budget and a surplus.

But, along comes George W. Bush and he did the popular thing with his supporters, not a wise thing, and gave the wealthy a tax break: bottom rate of 15% on a rising taxable income and a top rate of 35% for taxable income over about $330,000. He did this even though the economy was “going south” and we were involved in two mismanaged wars. Our national debt went out of sight – from $5,674T to $10,025T. That is a 77% increase over his 8 years and this figure does not include the recent bail-outs which would push the increase to 100% or doubling of our national debt.

All this leads us to some conclusions:
1. As uncomfortable as taxes are to all of us – they do cut into our income – we can’t keep spending money we don’t take in. At some point we are going to have to “bite the bullet” and pay higher taxes. Our other choice is to ignore it and pass it on to our kids and grandkids. What kind of a legacy is that?
2. In times of war we better be raising taxes.
3. Republican Conservatives, whose mantra is “reduce government spending and lower taxes”, have done us a disservice by following only ½ of their advice.
4. The claim that high taxes destroys incentive for business to invest, grow, and increase employment doesn’t hold water. Look back at the top rates for most of our income tax history and explain to me how we grew to the wealthiest most powerful country in the world with these high top rates.
5. Let's question everyone in our society who lump "small businesses" with the wealthy. It does come down to how you define a "small business." But, I can guarantee you that the vast majority of "small businesses" do not fall in the $250,000 + tax rates on net/taxable income.
6. Raising the taxes of the wealthy to 39.6% when Bush’s 2001 reduction to 35% expires soon shouldn’t be a tough decision. Especially if one adds in the growing lack of sympathy for the way some of our largest corporations have conducted themselves with taxpayer’s bail-out money.
7. There are times to deficit spend and grow our national debt. Unfortunately, now is one of those times. We need to get the economy rolling. Hopefully, it will be short term and the bail-outs are structured so that tax payers have a good chance of getting their money back.
8. Tax and spend policies are some of the toughest jobs of administrations and Congress. It can get real complicated. But, we citizens had better get involved in sorting through the rhetoric to get to the truth. These policies undoubtedly impact us more than anything the government does.

Likely Consequences of a big "D" Depression

2008-11-24T13:12:00.000-08:00

I’ve heard some fiery declarations from people opposing bail-outs of banks, insurance companies, real estate companies and their borrowers, and certainly the auto companies – “Let them fail;” “Let the shake-up come;” and the most interesting, “What this country needs is a good depression to get it straightened out!”

Most of these people have never been through a big “D” Depression. I’m 66 years old and I haven’t. But, I heard about it constantly from my parents and their contemporaries, and I’ve read about it – it wasn’t a pleasant catharsis! It was ugly for the vast majority of people. One needs to be careful what one wishes for!

As bad as the 1930’s Depression was, I think one today could be even worse. Let’s look at some likely consequences internally and externally and then decide whether it’s better to at least attempt to avoid it or to passively let it happen.

Likely internal consequences:
1. Loss of millions of jobs with the resulting difficulties economically, socially, and psychologically. Great Depression of 30's was 25% unemployment and many who remained employed did so with jobs that provided little more than subsistance living.
2. Young families eagerly wanting to get started in life might have limited opportunities in a depression. They may be forced to grab what they can and hold on where they can.
3. We have a growing number of people – the “Baby Boomers” – retiring. They are intending to live on pensions, 401K’s, IRA’s, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, equity from their homes, etc. A depression will deplete these savings significantly and this age group doesn’t have the luxury of waiting out a long term recovery.
4. The sale of bonds is the typical way for the government to borrow money. A depression will probably call for an even larger national debt because the usual way to respond is for the government to “prime the pump” – spend money. Who will buy these bonds and what will the interest rate be? Our debt has doubled over the last 8 years and at some point people will begin to question the “good faith and credit of the U.S.”
5. Another response from the government in desperate times is to print more money. The progression is likely to be deflation as we spiral down; and then, if and when we start the presses printing new money, high inflation will follow and our money will be worth less and less in buying power.
6. Personal consumer debt is already too high. Who will be left holding the bag for credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, furniture, appliances, etc. when this debt goes unpaid?
7. There are likely to be serious cut-backs in some government programs that many people rely on – education, health care, corporate welfare, farm programs, social welfare, research and development, management of parks and public lands, etc.
8. Many state and local governments could go broke because of reduced tax revenues, and default on bonds they have sold. They will certainly cut services.
9. Retail stores, restaurants, car dealerships, service companies, etc. – “all up and down Main Street” will be hurting if not going under.
10. Our construction industry might be hard hit because capital expenditures at the local, state and national level will be backing off. Unless they are government funded, alternative energy projects might not go forward and infrastructure like roads, bridges, electric grid, ports, dams, airports, railroads/mass transit, etc. might be put on hold.
11. We are pretty stable politically, but radical solutions like socialism might gain credibility because of class warfare and loss of faith in capitalistic system.
12. Private philanthropic assistance programs and faith based relief programs are already pushed to the limit and might not be able to respond adequately as they couldn’t during the Great Depression of the 30’s.

Likely external consequences:
1. To cut costs we may be forced to exit the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan before it is wise to do so. The result could be serious instability in the Middle East with other wars, civil unrest, and disruption of flow of oil. Israeli security would be a major concern.
2. Radical Muslims will take credit for our troubles and taunt us with, “I told you so.” It could enhance recruitment of radicals throughout the growing Muslim world.
3. Chance of an attack on the U.S. and our allies from terrorists could increase because less money might be allocated to security efforts.
4. May have to limit and/or go slow on the rebuilding of the military which will put us in a weakened position to defend our interests in the world.
5. Lack of confidence in the U.S. economy could make us even more vulnerable to disastrous economic instability if creditor nations like China (our biggest lender) cash in their U.S. bonds and/or refuse to lend us more money.
6. Free trade could very well be curtailed with other countries putting restrictions or tariffs on our goods being sold there to protect their own industries. Then, we might reciprocate and a vicious cycle will begin.
7. Because of desperate economic situations in countries throughout the world, some countries could very well turn to dictatorial, fascist, or even communist forms of government. We saw this with Russia, Germany, and Italy in the early 20th century.
8. American private enterprise has spent billions of dollars on capital expenditures in some less than stable countries as we outsourced manufacturing. Some of these countries could very well step in and restrict or nationalize (take over) these facilities to enhance their income. Where would we get our manufactured goods?
9. Ecologically sound practices, which have struggled in good times, may be put way down the list of priorities which would compound destruction of the world environment.
10. Many countries will play the blame game pointing to our failures and excesses as the epicenter of world economic instability. Efforts to improve our relationship with the world to create a functioning global economy might be hindered.

It is a sobering list and it is undoubtedly incomplete. Not all of these problems may develop, but conventional wisdom suggests otherwise. If we can develop processes/programs that could avoid it, it would be in our best interest to do so. Economic strength is paramount to our security.

Bail-out Issue

2008-11-20T06:01:00.000-08:00

When it comes to bail-outs, I think one standard the public should agree on is that tax money should not be wasted by “giving” money to banks, insurance companies, the auto industry or whoever lines up with their hand out. Management and share holders of these corporations have done little to convince the public of their ability to run these corporations. I think bail-outs should involve loans and/or ownership stakes where the government has input in decision making, even to the point of restructuring. And, to protect the tax payer, the government should have the first right to recover money if these companies go into receivership. There should be binding agreements established prior to money given where incremental goals and time limits are clearly stated. If the bail-outs work, loans will be paid back with interest and/or stock sold on the market place at market price. We do not want these to become long term relationships.

Management and stockholders of these private enterprises have “screwed up”, pure and simple! We should be encouraging and maybe even requiring selective leadership changes with no “golden parachutes” or “bonuses” paid to those ousted. Why should we give billions to management groups and stockholders who have already demonstrated they have been ineffective leaders while skimming millions off the top for personal gain.

The auto industry, made up of the “Big Three,” is the example for this week. They have squandered the favored position they once held on sales of vehicles, they haven’t adjusted to changes in the market place to keep their companies at the leading edge, and in fact, they haven’t even kept up. This slide has been going on for 35+ years. There have been some favorable strides made recently, but I think it is too little and too late. One has to wonder how far along they really are when they are wanting to use bail-out money for capital expenditures like re-tooling for more efficient engines. They should have made those investments when they were flush. I have to believe there are people in this industry who know the business, have vision, and can do better – a serious talent search needs to be conducted with the risk that some wrong choices will be made before success is achieved. How many generals did we go through before we found David Petraeus in the Iraqi War?

Unfortunately, the blame game includes the American public because of our buying habits. There is need for full sized PU’s and vans for work vehicles and always will be. But, we’ve had a hard time weaning ourselves from large, gas guzzling vehicles for general transportation which sends mixed signals to manufacturers.

In addition, part of the problem is the high cost of labor and fringe benefits, including generous pension plans, unions have negotiated over the years in the auto industry. Personally, I hold management, not labor, responsible for this problem. Management and share holders signed these contracts because they were making good money during some of these years and they could pass the costs on to the consumer. The cumulative affect of these contracts adds up and they should have seen that they were not sustainable over the long run. How many employees have you met who think they are “overpaid and under worked?” Unions are always going to seek higher wages, more fringe benefits, and better retirement programs – it’s what they do. Many employees live “pay check to pay check” and, when they see huge profits, unfathomable salaries, and life styles of these “rich” managers and shareholders rubbed in their noses, they are going to want a bigger piece of the pie – their attitude is “Who really builds these cars anyway?”

New contracts will have to be negotiated with labor for lower wages, fringe benefits, and pension programs. Expanded unemployment benefits, retraining programs, and relocation costs should be part of the bail-out program because thousands of skilled employees will probably lose their jobs permanently with the restructuring. Those left working should be paid lower, but “decent wages.” A really tough issue will be pension payments for those already retired. I have confidence that union leadership is pragmatic enough to know that these negotiations are coming. They may talk tough at the outset, but changes are going to have to come if the auto industry is to be revitalized.

Our other choice might be to let this “house of cards” fall around our ears. I’m afraid that might lead to a Deep Depression (big D’s). With resources, skills, potential wealth, can do entrepreneurial spirit, and work ethic we would come out of this eventually. But, I’m concerned that with this approach, the rich, having deep resources, will survive and very likely prosper; the poor will grow immeasurably; and the middle-class might be flat out destroyed. This would make us vulnerable in a multitude of ways internally and externally. I don’t think a truly free-market, democratic society can survive long without a strong middle class made up of small business owners and employees with good paying jobs. A substantial number of these should be in domestic manufacturing.

Therefore, I think the best choice is a carefully crafted bail-out with adequate oversight and a limited time frame. I hope that future generations of business leaders will dedicate themselves to never allowing this onus to fall on them again.

Lower Speed Limits

2008-11-15T08:39:00.000-08:00

I recently (11-13-08) read an article in the Wichita Eagle entitled, “Idea to lower speed limits runs out of gas”, by David Klepper.

I was disappointed in the decision and the way the decision was apparently made. The Kansas Energy Council dropped proposed recommendations for lowering speed limits and proposed recommendations to increase speed limit enforcement and raise fines for speeding.

The article indicated that the Council received comments from 138 people and 103 opposed the move. And our local State Senator, Jay Emler, R. Lindsborg, as member of the Council said, “The constituents I’ve talked to are just adamantly opposed.” Whoa here, an important decision affecting the whole State was decided by 103 negative comments and some constituents members talked to – that is a little scary.

Senator Emler is also credited with suggesting that the proposal needed to pass the Legislature, where it likely would have been a nonstarter.

I’d like to know who these 103 powerful people were and who Senator Emler talked to – hopefully it wasn’t just members of trucker lobby?

The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph – each 5 mph over 60 is like adding an extra 30 cents to the cost of every gallon of gas. That is a pretty substantial savings for all of us. And, maybe more importantly, a significant savings on use of fossil fuels which we all should be willing to consider.

“Speed kills” – enough said.

Wear and tear on vehicles and roads was not discussed, but I would guess that along with weight and weather, speed makes a difference.

I think it is interesting to figure the time difference at different speeds. In a 30 mile interstate trip going 60 mph vs. 70 mph, the time difference is about 4 1/4 minutes. With a 60 mile trip the time difference is about 8 1/2 minutes. With a 300 mile trip the difference is about 42 minutes. I don’t consider these differences significant vs.what one gains. I understand that it would be an issue for over the road truckers. But, actually, these time differences probably wouldn’t be as stated above in that it is nearly impossible to average 70 mph on most trips.

Personally, I’d be willing to accept the following, not because I like it, but because it seems to me a pretty painless way for each of us to sacrifice to reduce dependence on foreign oil:
60 mph on interstates – with 10% grace.
55 mph on 2 lane hard surface roads – with 10% grace.
50 mph on gravel roads.
Leaving each town, city, and county to set lower ones in their jurisdiction.

If the State Legislature decides that these reductions don’t make sense and/or the majority of the driving public in Kansas don’t want these reductions that is fine with me. I can keep up with most or choose to do my part in saving money and resources on my own.

However, our form of government is a republic. We elect legislators to go to Topeka and decide the best course for our State – to lead. Sometimes they might have to step up and do what’s best even if it is not popular, especially if it saves lives, money, and resources. But, to hide behind “the old saw”, “the people have spoken,” let it be more than 103 negative comments and the word of a few constituents. If they want to avoid “tough calls” maybe we should use scientific polls or have special elections (we are getting close to being able to doing this quickly and easily with computer age) to make legislative decisions. I hope we never do that, but if electability is the key factor in decision making, maybe we should.

Liberals vs. Conservatives

2008-11-12T11:55:00.000-08:00

This dichotomy between liberals and conservatives has always been interesting to me. Especially since the designation “liberal” has become in some peoples mind repugnant.

How did that happen when one looks at the history of our country?

Our Founding Fathers, so revered by today’s conservatives, were anything but conservative! They were liberals, who evolved into radicals, and eventually became revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary document pure and simple. The conservatives in the late 18th century were Tories, supporters of England, who thought it reckless, foolish, and criminal to advocate breaking away from England. Their philosophy was to maintain the status quo and follow the “law-of-the-land.”

The U.S. Constitution was a liberal and even a radical document. We had a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which established the original states as the base of power. Our present constitution changed that, giving extraordinary power to the national government at the expense of the states. The battle for ratification of this new constitution was a bitter, hard fought battle with conservatives opposing it. It barely passed.

There was a propensity for our country’s liberal thinking, early leaders to loosely interpret the U.S. Constitution. Establishment of the National Bank and other Hamiltonian actions solidified the financial structure of the new nation. The conservatives eventually won out and the bank was dropped 40 years later, but it had done its job. Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory had no basis in the Constitution and was opposed by conservatives. John Adam’s last minute appointment of liberal thinking Chief Justice John Marshall, resulted in broadened powers of the federal judiciary. Marshall’s court set precedent for the courts to “weigh in” on any case they choose where the interpretation of the constitution is an issue.

We could provide many other examples of our liberal thinking Founding Fathers “bending” the U.S. Constitution to serve the needs of a growing and changing nation. In fact, Thomas Jefferson advocated this need for change when he wrote, “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right.” (He considered 19 yrs. a generation.)

If one moves ahead through the 19th and 20th centuries we have a rather long list of government actions that came about because of liberal thinking including:
*Social Security
*Medicare
*Anti-trust legislation
*Legal recognition of labor unions along with things like 8 hr. working day, safe working conditions, minimum wage, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, etc.
*Environmental protection laws
*Establishment of National Parks, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management, to oversee our public lands.
*Welfare system including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch, rent subsidies, etc.
*Farm Bills alleged to support the family farm and improve productivity of agriculture including subsidies, crop insurance, price supports, production controls, disaster relief, soil conservation, county extension service, etc.
*Funds with accompanying rules and regulations for building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure.
*Student loans, loan guarantees, and grants for post high school education.
*Peace Corps
*FEMA to provide disaster relief
*Rules and regulations to prevent abuse from financial institutions – not too successful lately because of de-regulation.

This list can go on and on. These liberal programs and laws are not in the U.S. Constitution, do expand the role of the national government, and do cost tax dollars. For the most part, they were strongly opposed by conservatives.

It is unfair to suggest that conservatives are wrong in all cases – they weren’t and aren’t. They need to raise questions; serve as “devils advocates;” suggest changes to existing programs that have merit but are not accomplishing their intended goal; and work to eliminate programs and laws that have proven to be failures. We should not assume that conservatives are only obstructionists in efforts to move the country forward. They have played and need to continue to play an important role in seeking to solve problems, which often means change.

Nor should we assume that all liberals are big spenders, pushing constantly for higher taxes and bigger government – this is just campaign rhetoric. It might be better to characterize liberals as seeking appropriate spending, a “fair” tax structure, and carefully crafted government to protect, enhance, and grow our country – change that works.

Neither we nor the media should get in the habit of maligning, belittling, or diminishing liberals or conservatives. These competing philosophies should constantly be debating the best course for our nation, but in a respectful, constructive, and yes, even courteous manner.

Where we go from here - from to 2008 to 2016!

2008-11-05T07:05:00.000-08:00

We will have a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Congress initially during this period. The U.S. electorate has spoken! We all need to bring a positive attitude to the challenge. Change is coming – President elect Obama has promised it. Each of us owes it to ourselves to write out our own laundry list, post it somewhere obvious, and then hold the newly elected officials accountable. I’m taking my list down and having it laminated; and often, over the years, I am going to judge this new Administration and Congress against it. Here is my list:
1. Fix the economy including:
a. Banks functioning again and properly regulated to prevent future
abuses. Infusion of capital to get them going but done in such a way
that tax dollars have the chance to be recovered and/or make a gain.
b. Some intelligent, “tough love” solution to the real estate crisis
where the government doesn’t end up holding the bag. There are
people who will have to “take the hit” for their unethical lending
practices and their undisciplined borrowing practices.
c. Under no circumstances should CEO’s and share holders of the
above failed financial institutions walk away from this mess with
money in their pockets.
d. Encourage the market system to get up and running with a
renewed entrepreneurial spirit heading toward full production
while keeping corporate welfare minimal.
e. Strive for full employment with decent paying jobs which will
result in revitalization of the middle class. Use incentives from the
government to maintain and add to domestic manufacturing jobs.
2. Begin working toward energy independence. If existing energy companies would choose to be part of this transition, it could be a shining example of how a partnership between innovative, entrepreneurial private enterprise and govenment involvement can accomplish security for this country and set an example for the world.
3. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly and ASAP. But, never forget to provide needed assistance to our veterans for the service they have given to our country.
4. Rebuild and reconfigure our military to be leaner, stronger, quicker, and more deadly.
5. Provide for national security domestically and abroad in a sensible fashion – I’m tired of taking my shoes off at the airport. Support our police and enforcement capabilities.
6. Begin rebuilding our transportation infrastructure using mass transportation wherever it makes sense.
7. Revitalize our public school system to bring our students to top rankings in the world.
8. Restore confidence in our nation internationally with a clear policy of where and how we will act and react in the world.
9. Provide health care for all citizens and eligible legal immigrants in this country.
10. Use a scalpel to cut unnecessary government programs and spending. This will be a huge undertaking because bureaucrats are all convinced that their program is essential. It will cause many changes in the look of our government and much “gnashing of teeth.” Included in this is elimination of earmarks. All legislation needs to be introduced by sponsor(s) as separate bills, and votes, “yea and nay,” recorded – no “pork” tag on’s.
11. Restore financial viability of our entitlement programs for at least 20 to 30 years down the road - should be redone by each generation.
12. Constantly rework our social welfare system to make sure that we don’t create a welfare class moving from one generation to another, insist that they work and/or educate themselves out of poverty, and encourage them with hope of a better life for themselves and their children if they will do their fair share. Even then, recognize that there are some in our society who are so handicapped, ill, and incapable of helping themselves that we will need to provide the basic necessities of life. This last issue is a natural fit for faith based assistance.
13. Protect our environment by constantly thinking “green” and acting “green”. Encourage and provide incentives for conservation (like high mileage vehicles and energy efficient construction); wise use of our limited natural resources; plus, protection and careful multi-use of our public lands.
14. Appoint highly qualified moderate judges as openings occur.
15. Adequately fund necessary and common sense regulation, inspection, and oversight agencies including the likes of food inspection, FDA, OSHA, FAA, Environmental Protection, etc., etc.
16. Work towards eliminating illegal immigration.

I want each of these things addressed, some started, and a few accomplished and I will be looking to see that it is done in a fiscally responsible manner. Because we are in a serious financial crisis and involved in two wars we are going to have some short term deficit spending because we need to “prime the pump” of the economy and pay for the wars and rebuilding of a ravaged military. I don’t expect to see a balance budget for up to 8 years and some of these things will only be a work in progress in 8 years. But, I want to see incremental progress and most of these things can be relatively easily measured.

Once things “start rolling” (when that is will be hotly debated), increases in taxes will be required to maintain the momentum. We cannot keep running up debt and who better to begin bringing it down than the generation that created it?

My list might be different from yours and we should and/or Congress and the Administration should discuss it. But, I think most would agree when they look at this list, or one of their own, that the government is the only entity that can do these things. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think an unfettered, unregulated private enterprise system can do this, or that States can do these things. How many crashes and crises do we have to experience before we admit that the government must be involved? Now, what is the extent and nature of that involvement? That is what the public debate should be all about over the next 8 years or more – probably forever. We can never build utopia, only work towards it; need for change is constant, and it is foolish and wasteful for us to pine for days gone by; we just need to get busy and “build a better mouse trap.”

As For Acorn

2008-10-28T09:28:00.000-07:00

I hesitate to even write about Acorn’s voter registration efforts as late as it is in the election season. But, when I flip to Fox News they are often hammering on it and even accusing Barack Obama as being a part of it. We’ll soon find out whether there is any credibility to their accusations in states like Ohio and Indiana. And, we need to be attuned to accusations of voter fraud by Republican Officials like in Colorado. These accusations from both sides occur in almost every strongly contested election year.

Acorn is a non-profit community action group that is targeting registration of young, minority, poor and other previously disenfranchised voters. It is well documented historically that these voters have had all kinds of legally questionable, unethical, and plain fraudulent practices used against them to deny them the right to vote. Acorn is intending to prevent this using a low budget, one-on-one, personal approach – this is a good thing.

In States like Ohio and Indiana, Acorn must follow some rules that some times aren’t mentioned. For example, Acorn temps (low paid temporary workers) have to take down the information people give them without judgment. These States don’t want these Acorn temps to exercise the power to decide who can and can’t vote. They are required to simply fill out the paper work and submit it. There is no question that some of these Acorn temps have been unethical. Some have filled out anything, even inventing names, asking people to register more than once, or use bogus names like Mickey Mouse. These Acorn temps are paid on a piece-meal basis and they are after their 18+ names to get their few bucks.

Acorn’s response to criticism is that they make an effort to train their people on legal eligibility and encourage them to be accurate and ethical in their work. Many of them are and there have been thousands of new people registered. But, there have been some questionable results. In an attempt to off-set some of the problems, Acorn management does some sorting – flagging those that are obviously bogus, and even flagging those that are questionable before they submit them to state election officials. They feel this represents a reasonable effort on their behalf to correct problems.

In the end, it is the state and local election officials that have the responsibility of making the final decisions and each state has its own unique rules. As good, honest, ethical, and responsible as most of these election officials are, there is some real risks here. We have had some disenfranchisement by these officials historically with poll taxes, literacy requirements, no work release time, unreasonable residency requirements, denial of registrations because people can’t be reached to confirm information, hanging chads, pre-mature closing and shifting of polling places, etc. The Democratic Party’s election officials in Chicago were famous for abuse back in the elder Mayor Daley’s day. We’ve had disenfranchisement by the Republican Party as well. Usually, they are a little more subtle about it. They have even used the courts to get their way as they did with the Supreme Court back in 2000 Presidential Election which insured the election of George Bush.

Then, on election day, the real proof of fraud comes into play and election officials are in charge. If they have done their work correctly, most bogus electors will be eliminated, if they even show up, which is unlikely. What credible election official will allow a dead person or Mickey Mouse to vote? But, the other side of the coin is their responsibility to make sure that legitimate electors are given the right to vote. Photo ID’s, where required, along with a proper paper trail should result in qualified electors getting a hassle-free chance to vote and a fair election.

Fraudulent voting practices is a terrible sacrilege in a democracy and should be punished severely regardless of who practices it. But, criticism of good intentioned, low budget, imperfect attempts to encourage eligible electors to vote is not voter fraud, it is mostly fear mongering.

Hopefully, this election will be over Nov. 4th or by early AM Nov. 5th so that we don’t have a continuation of the polarizing nastiness of this election. That may be too much to hope for!

Question: Why is John McCain so insistent on continuing Bush’s war in Iraq?

2008-10-23T11:11:00.000-07:00

Is it to maintain political and military stability in the Middle East? This would be a justifiable goal.

Is it to protect our continued availability to oil until we can cease being reliant on that energy source? This is self-serving, but certainly in our vital interests.

Is it “nation building? I hope not. This is an ill-conceived policy that flies in the face of history and reality. They don’t want to be occupied just as we wouldn’t want to be occupied. They don’t want their families killed and injured and their infrastructure (homes, businesses, water, food supply, sewer, electricity, etc.) destroyed. They don’t want to be dictated to regarding their political, economic, and cultural policies. This should not be our goal. They should work this out themselves.

Is it to conduct the war on terror? I certainly hope we are not that naïve. Our war in Iraq has served only to increase the extremists like al-Qaida and the jihad factions not only in Iraq but elsewhere in the world within the rapidly growing Muslim religion.

Is it that people like President Bush supported by John McCain simply refuse to accept the possibility that they “screwed up” in unilaterally initiating and managing the war in Iraq and that to admit those mistakes will result in a negative historical legacy? I’m afraid this is too large a part of our policy there.

Do we need to continue our presence in Iraq? Yes we do! But, we need to do so for the “right” reasons – to protect our vital interests and the vital interests of our allies as well as the well-being of civilization. Our goals and resulting policies need to be re-defined. And, after extended intelligent dialog, I think our presence in Iraq could be significantly reduced and clearly stated. We need stability in the Middle East and we need continued access to oil. We need someone as President with fresh, new ideas; someone with the ability to rise above simplistic “cowboy” diplomacy and actually negotiate from a position of strength; someone who has no personal stake in promoting their person legacy on the backs of brave, over-extended American soldiers; someone who understands that the United States has limited financial resources that are being squandered in this war instead of being used to build the future of this country. This does not mean we throw in the towel in the “War on Terror”. Our military should be reconfigured to be leaner, stronger, quicker, and harder hitting to respond to threats and/or actions taken by terrorist groups against us or our allies.

The 2008 Presidential Election gives us the window of opportunity to get this started in the right direction.

Obama and Wright controversy

2008-10-23T11:07:00.000-07:00

In my estimation, it is truly unfortunate that this situation has developed between Senator Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I had expected racial prejudice to be a monster issue in the presidential campaign because much prejudice still exists in this country. Since it is no longer “politically or socially correct” to be openly prejudice, I had expected to see subtle criticisms and sly innuendos reminding people that Senator Obama is at least ½ black with a Muslim name to boot. We have seen this and will continue to do so. Oh, there are still many in our society that are so prejudice that they will outwardly and loudly criticize and denounce his candidacy when they are with a like-minded group of racists or in a group where those who know it is wrong lack the courage to speak their mind.

But, when the race issue is brought front and center by a black, highly educated, much respected, very successful minister of God, it is really sad. It brings fuel to a fire that Senator Obama has tried to rise above and beyond in his candidacy. He has worked hard and said most of the right things to put the race issue behind us where it needs to be. His focus has been on issues, change in direction that this country desperately needs, and issues of character and leadership.

Then, on the scene steps a pastor of a primarily Black Christian Church who is of an earlier generation that is still fighting the battle against prejudice as it was done 40+ years ago. He is angry, and rightly so, that minorities have been characterized as deficient rather than only different. In many cases, injustice exists in our society for Blacks, Hispanics, etc. He knows it, Senator Obama knows it, and all of us know it if we read the statistics on unemployment, poor educational opportunity, % of those incarcerated, discrepancies in income levels, etc.

In direct contrast, Senator Obama sees the solution to these problems as something that can be changed positively over time without focusing on all the old wrongs. He himself has demonstrated how a bright, well educated, ambitious black man can rise above all the prejudice that exists. There are many other examples of bright minority leaders; and, if we and the media give them the chance, they will step up to help lead this country. We can only hope that they will not be hindered by obsessing over past wrongs and will be allowed to help create a better future for us all.

Racism in our electorate today?

2008-10-23T11:04:00.000-07:00

How much racism exists in our electorate today? I have a sense that there is a lot. It is not politically or socially correct to be racist and most people keep their feelings under wraps unless they are with a group of like-minded racists. But, historically, blue collar, white America has been a bastion of racism. I think that situation still exists. In fact, I think Hillary Clinton’s success with this group is in some measure their prejudice rather than her populist appeal.

There are unknowns with Barack Obama. He is young, he is inexperienced, his skill as an orator sometimes allows him a free pass on substance, he has a liberal voting record which bothers some conservative leaning voters, etc. But, I think the thing that bothers many blue collar, whites and rural whites is that he is black (actually ½ black). This is uncharted territory, a black man making a serious run for the Presidency, just as it was for John F. Kennedy our first Catholic President in 1960. Then Senator Kennedy had a difficult time holding the Protestant, blue collar, white base because of fear of having a Catholic President. I can remember my own father, a craft union man, offering a strong, widely held opinion that if John F. Kennedy were elected President the Pope would be “calling the shots.” That sounds pretty silly today.

We have passed the Catholic hurdle and hopefully we can pass the race one as well. We need to judge Barack Obama on a whole host of standards, but race is not one of them. I think Obama’s speech on race and his denunciation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should suffice. Wright’s damaging rhetoric on racism, although somewhat accurate, is reverse racism characterized by bitterness and obsession with the wrongs of the past. It’s the “poor us” syndrome that is all too true and unfortunately prevalent amongst some blacks. Obama wants to go beyond this. He wants to look to the future. And, given the chance, he might very well do much towards eventually putting racism behind us. We’ve accomplished this with religious differences and ethnic differences – the Irish for example – and we can do it with race.

Does government work?

2008-10-23T10:59:00.000-07:00

Does Government Work?

Let’s discuss this question. The first conclusion one can come to is obvious – under a Republican President for 8 years and a Republican Congress for most of this time it doesn’t work. Why should anyone be surprised by that conclusion? The answer is simple: Republicans have shown they know how to win elections, they just don’t know how to govern.

What do you expect when you get a governing party whose stated principle coming from their hero Ronald Reagan is, “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem?” They have lived up to their principle – government is the problem if led by Republicans!

They have doubled the national debt.

They’ve gotten into two wars, one of which has merit. And, these wars have been so poorly managed that we are still there fighting after 5 years. The infrastructure of these countries is destroyed (I’m talking water, sewer, electricity, roads, schools, medical care, etc.); we’ve killed thousands of civilians; we are spending $10B a month; they don’t want us there; and we take videos of vegetable markets surrounded by bombed out neighborhoods and pass it off as progress. We should be using video contrasting before the war to now to understand why they don’t like us.

They’ve deregulated everything they can to let the “market system” loose to do its thing. The problem is that “its thing” is greed, corruption, and poor judgment when there are no controls. It has led us to unprecedented economic collapse and a massive government bail-out.

They’ve promoted their “trickle-down” economic theory and created an environment where wealth has been concentrated in the hands of the privileged few leaving the rest of U.S. to fewer, lower paying jobs. It is an environment that if we aren’t careful could lead to class warfare.

They pushed an education program of “no-child-left-behind”, didn’t fund it, and then complain that more money doesn’t give us good education. It sure doesn’t under their leadership. Our student population is falling behind the rest of the world with terrible future consequences.

They have stood behind the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical industry creating a situation where 45M people have no health insurance and are at the mercy of someone’s good will for treatment. We have higher infant mortality rates, lower longevity rates, and poorer general medical treatment than most of the advanced countries of the world. It is interesting that most of them have universal health care and their citizens are not using up all their life savings to treat serious illness.

We’ve had two catastrophic natural disasters; and, other than efforts by non-profit groups like Habitat for Humanity and money from Hollywood stars, too little has been done to provide re-building of these areas. And, contrary to some people’s opinion, these two groups are not private enterprise. The private enterprise efforts have come about through poorly managed bureaucracy resulting in “no-bid” contracts and corruption with little accomplished.

Jobs are disappearing with our present economic crisis. But, even before this, they were being eliminated through out-sourcing abroad and workers being forced to accept jobs that don’t pay enough to provide a decent middle-class living: jobs that pay so poorly that the only ones who will take them are illegal immigrants. These immigrants are hard working people who will work for less because it is better than their own countries can offer and they hope that they can work themselves up to something better.

I could go on and on as many of you can. But, it is pretty obvious, the Republicans attitude that government doesn’t work is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The good news is that it can work if you have the right people running it. Oh, it won’t be easy and probably won’t be accomplished quickly. Mistakes will be made and will need to be corrected. It would be nice to move to something similar to what we experienced in the 1990’s where we had unprecedented prosperity, close to full employment, and a balanced budget with a surplus. Let’s give the Democrats a chance. The Republicans have told us that government won’t work and they’ve lived up to their word.

Testing a new President

2008-10-23T10:51:00.000-07:00

Testing of a new President.

Joe Bidden recently warned a listening crowd that Barack Obama, a brilliant 47 year old new President, will be tested early in his Presidency by some sort of international incident.

This is a typical Joe Bidden gaff. However, judging from what has happened with previous new Presidents, it could very well be true. The refreshing thing about Joe Bidden is that he is not scripted and he will tell it the way he sees it even if someone could argue that it wasn’t a wise issue to bring up in the campaign. The Republicans have jumped all over it which is to be expected.

McCain's response was interesting. He claimed that he had already been tested back in the early 1960's during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He explained that he had set in a cockpit of a fighter jet on a carrier off the coast of Cuba with a target in his lap. I fail to see this as a test. He was waiting for orders from someone up the chain of command who was being tested – President John Kennedy.

He didn’t mention it, but serving time in a North Vietnamese prison camp is a personal test and he passed that test – he survived which is admirable. But, many people have faced personal tests, including Joe Bidden.

Personal tests are not equivalent to the kinds of tests a President might see early in their administration. Quite honestly, enemies of the U.S. could care less that John McCain set in an airplane with a target back in the early 1960’s or in a POW camp in Vietnam back in 1970’s. The notion that he is immune from a test from our enemies is in my estimation bogus, wishful thinking.

What is disconcerting is John McCain’s response. His gut reaction is to think about shooting someone. Luckily, John Kennedy, a war hero in his own right, did not subscribe to this kind of thinking. What a Presidential test requires is a carefully thought out, crafted, and executed plan from our country based on a multitude of choices at their disposal. John Kennedy did that! He used brinkmanship diplomacy to resolve this test with no shots fired, no WW III, and the Soviet Union backing down.

I think we could have avoided the war in Iraq if President Bush had thought through his options on how to deal with Saddam Hussein rather than a “Cowboy” gut reaction. We may have even quickly destroyed al Qaida in Afghanistan and been out of both of these conflicts long ago had our leadership been thoughtful.

Maybe we should think about John McCain’s comments and his “maverick” solutions to crises. By contrast, judging from Barack Obama’s method of decision making, we can take some small measure of comfort that he would think it through. I think that is pretty close to what Colin Powell suggested when he endorsed Obama.