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.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Making Education Relevant
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.
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.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Extra Curricular Activities in Our Schools
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Merit Pay at the Elementary Level
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.
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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Theory of Business Success and Failure
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Likely Consequences of a big "D" Depression
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.
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.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Bail-out Issue
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.
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.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Lower Speed Limits
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Liberals vs. Conservatives
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Where we go from here - from to 2008 to 2016!
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.”
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.”
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
As For Acorn
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!
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!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Question: Why is John McCain so insistent on continuing Bush’s war in Iraq?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
