Charge It

Much hand-wringing is going on lately over the way credit card companies are currently abusing their clients with increased rates and service charges. I find this interesting, if not amusing, and offer the following thoughts on the subject:

The contract signed between the card issuer and the card holder is just that: a contract. And all contracts include various numbers, limitations, and fine print. That’s all well and good until we get to the “rates and fees are subject to change at any time” phrase which pretty much screws the card holder with no downside for the issuer. Tell me something: would you buy anything from anybody at any time that included this phrase? I sincerely doubt it. Buy a car on time (like most of us do) and then get a letter from the dealer saying their bottom line is suffering so your outstanding balance will be increased? Not on your life, but we’ve done that with the credit card companies and that has led us to our present predicament.

But the card issuers are swimming in red ink as more and more of their customers default on charges that can no longer be paid as jobs are lost and homes are foreclosed upon. So what can they do? They can call in their marker from the applications everyone signed and raise their rates and fees unilaterally. Maybe if they had been a little more conscientious in doling out their cards, they wouldn’t be in this mess, but with that caveat of unrestricted increases, where’s the risk?

The existing contract we all sign is crap, has been crap, and will continue to be crap until the above-mentioned phraseology is eliminated. The new, improved application would simply state the rate for purchases and a list of associated fees. And should the issuers want to change those rates, they can do so, but the new rate does not apply to old charges. Additionally, minimum payments and late fees remain unchanged because the charges were incurred under those understandings. This is called a Grandfather clause, of sorts, and has become all too rare in the marketplace.

When I became an officer in the Air Force, I was told that I had a substantial sum of money available to me through the GI Bill. I could use it for flight training, among other things, and there was no time limit for me to take advantage of this program. The GI Bill was a recruitment tool at the very least and provided a means to a furthering of education for members of the armed forces. At some point further down the road (circa early 1980’s), the rules were changed and now we had to use up our allotted funds before a certain point in time. Everybody fell under this new mandate: old farts to young pups barely out of boot camp. And it wasn’t right or fair. Absent a Grandfather clause, I lost a good bit of what was earlier promised to me.

So now the government is expecting credit card companies to act in a manner the government has been unwilling to adopt. Nothing new in the “do as I say, not as I do” expectation, but it still strikes me as the quintessential irony. While I applaud the long overdue recognition of a wildly unbalanced contractual item, I wonder if there is something you and I can do on our own to stymie those that offer plastic as a panacea.

How about tearing up your credit card? No, not a cold-turkey kind of thing, but a “taking-your-business elsewhere” statement that deprives a bad business partner of your future business. This is called supply and demand and, should our demand for a fairer agreement (that includes a Grandfather clause) become loud enough, one can bet that there will be a credit card company offering such a vehicle. In the meantime, keep in mind that we all signed this deal and should expect to abide by it. Let’s just vow to avoid making the same mistake in the future, OK?

Read All About It...or not

Breaking with institutions of the past is not an easy task, but I’ve recently bid a semi-farewell to a veritable icon in my life: my daily newspaper. A semi-farewell because I couldn’t go cold turkey and am still receiving my Friday through Sunday papers. More on that later...

For the past nine years, the Sacramento Bee has provided my daily dose of current events as it represented the nearest major community. The Bee has been in print since 1857 and is the flagship paper of the McClatchey Company. Several years ago McClatchey bought Knight-Ridder which was the second largest chain of newspaper companies. In the ensuing three years, or so, McClatchey has divested more than a few of the Knight-Ridder publications while seeing it’s stock price plummet. The economy has gone south, too, resulting in lower advertising revenues for the Bee and they have reacted by slashing staff and the size of their product. It goes without saying that their subscription rates have remained constant.

I don’t mean to pick on the Bee; many papers around the country are experiencing similar obstacles and dealing with them in similar fashion. I’m reminded of the Air Force Officers’ Club quandary of the 80’s: It seemed the O clubs were, by and large, losing money to off-base competitors. Their solution to this problem revolved around the reduction of services combined with an increase in menu prices and dues. You needn’t have an MBA to figure out this plan only accelerated the exodus of once-loyal patrons. Today, most Air Force bases have all-ranks clubs in lieu of the past NCO and Officer club mainstays.

I fear the newspaper industry is responding to their financial crisis in the same way which will, accordingly, only serve to accelerate the move to other, more timely, sources of information. Are there other choices to escape this dilemma? I’d think so, but they’re not so quick and easy as firings and smaller editions. National news could well be covered by centralized news bureaus and papers could cover local news utilizing a smaller staff concerned with this smaller scope of coverage. Yesterday’s stock prices could disappear altogether since more up-to-date data is available for investors. And the obituaries need to pass on along with those within that section. I find it hard to believe that anyone hears of a recent passing from the obit pages, what with speedier forms of communication commonplace.

It is vitally important to keep the local newspaper available and pertinent. But to simply remove content will not win the day. Bold, outside-the-box thinking will be needed to ensure a vigilant eye is kept on those that would otherwise be inclined to abuse their power. Local reporting has historically kept the proverbial finger on the pulse of goings-on that escape the radar of national news organizations and it is ever so important to maintain that level of attention. So why did I cancel my paper?

Well, it occurred to me that the time required to digest the morning paper was less than the time required to eat my breakfast. Many of the articles were re-hashes of stories I had already learned of through other avenues. And local, Sacramento stories had minimal impact on me due to my remote location. The bang for my buck was noticeably smaller and I got to the point where the minuses outnumbered the plusses. Additionally, I only enjoy about three comic strips anymore and I can find them online. But the New York Times Crosswords of Friday - Sunday are my favorites and I’m not ready to abandon them. Hence, my decision to keep the weekend paper in my regimen. Time will tell as to which direction I’ll go from here: either a return to the daily paper or a complete cancellation. I wish to remain a connected, informed, thinking citizen and should the paper’s absence cause me to feel ostrich-like, I’ll re-up in a heartbeat.

I can tell you one thing, though: the lack of the morning paper has changed the morning routine. My wife and I have historically shared a silent nosh while reviewing the daily stories. Now we take our food of choice outside to our deck, enjoy a chat, and admire Mother Nature. Time better spent? Perhaps so. I’ll let you know when I know.

Violent Times

The occurrence of multiple homicides at the hand of a lone gunman seem to be getting more and more frequent. ABC news, in Friday’s World News telecast, stated that 53 mass shootings had occurred within the past month. Something’s amiss, folks, and it’s high time to get our arms around it.

The authorities would have us believe that each and every shooter is a whack job that has gone off the deep end. I think we can all agree that the deep end has, in fact, been left behind, but I have a problem with the whackiness factor. Those that would have us believe that everything is normal, except for our gunman du jour, are serving nothing more than their own best interests. To declare a deeper, more troubling message implying that there are societal forces at work might lead the general population to question the status quo and we simply cannot afford to risk that, can we? (“We” being those same powers-that-be that have risen to their positions of authority through that same status quo.)

Look back over the last few days, or weeks, and think of how many meaningful conversations you’ve had with anyone at all. By “meaningful”, I mean something other than, “How ya doin?” and by “conversation”, I mean exactly that: verbal communication (preferably in person, but I’ll accept a phone call). Not many, I’d say, because we simply do not take the time required for such activity or turn away from the chance based on fears of reprisal. Many of us work in cubicles while others telecommute. Others drive to work alone and get home at an hour that prevents them from jawing with the neighbor over the back fence. But still, there are opportunities, aren’t there? The company lunch room, public transit, waiting for the light to change at the street corner. Not much talking going on there anymore, is there? No, because we’ve all become afraid of the very same whack job that went to work last week and shot up the office. Throw in the potential for political incorrectness and you’ve got the perfect recipe for silence. It’s safer you know. That way no one gets pissed off. So we’re now left alone with our thoughts and have little chance of validating our hopes and fears by comparing notes with our neighbors, be they co-workers, the guy next door, or another passenger on the bus. And without that validation, we lose the strength of our convictions.

Historically, the “system” has saved us from desperation. The ability to address inequities in the workplace, legal recourse, and social programs have prevented many from proceeding to that point of no return where suicide is one’s last and seemingly best option. But the system is broken. Corporate immorality removes the hope of timely resolution among employees. The courts are backlogged to the point where potential success is outweighed by the time and money required to achieve it. And other forms of social safety nets are badly frayed in terms of budgets and manpower.

So we end up with someone who has lost conviction and self assurance through isolation and a system that fails to address valid concerns. The perfect storm of desperation. No faith, no hope, and no chance of justice. Ludicrous becomes logic; sanity seems silly. And this level of desperation has often led to suicide. That’s nothing new, but now the name of the game is to take someone with you on your way out. What’s up with that?

Take one person who has lost all faith in the system, themselves, and any people once-dear to the heart. There is no reason to try any longer because the only outcome will be failure, so let’s just end it all. Add to that the 21st century motto of “it must be someone else’s fault” and, bingo, you’ve got a recipe for mass murder. “My life sucks. My boss just fired me. My wife just left me. It ain’t my fault so it must be their fault and if I’m going down, they’re going down, too.” Not a pretty picture, is it? Well, I didn’t try to paint one, either.

So how do we climb out of this box? Well, for one thing, we make the attempt to enter into meaningful dialogue with any one at any time. We worry less about offending and care more about sharing thoughts and ideas. And we get involved in keeping an eye on whatever powers-that-be suit our fancy (god knows there’re enough to go around). We regain that conviction that kept one sane foot on the floor in trying times and hold other feet to the fire for failing to maintain the various and sundry support systems we all need at some point in our lives.

And, if we can do that to some degree, we might just lose that sense of isolation, take on a bit of accountability, and turn the corner towards a more involved and self-assured society. Will there still be public massacres? Probably, but I’d say the inclination to resort to such extreme measures would diminish as higher levels of faith, hope, and confidence were attained.

This Little Piggy...

As I write this, the Congress is putting the final touches on President Obama’s budget proposal. It is, for the time being anyway, the Mother of all budgets in the size of its request adding up to $3,500,000,000,000 (three and a half trillion dollars), more or less. But the greatest angst seems to be over the earmarks inevitably attached. “Earmarks” and “pork” have become the rallying cry for those interested in overhauling our budgetary process and that puzzles me on several fronts. (Believe it or not, I actually did some research on this and suggest you look at www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/Earmarks_16.pdf to fill in any blanks.)

First of all, “pork” is nothing new to politics in this country. Long before Senator William Proxmire, (D, Wisconsin) started handing out his Golden Fleece awards it was common practice for representatives to “bring home the bacon” for their constituents to enjoy and hence forth result in re-election. Perhaps that is where the word “pork” originated. I don’t know for sure (and don’t really care).

Earmarks can be considered advanced pork procurement in that they can be added to the budget anonymously and absent any debate. And they can be directed to a specific use, too, and avoid competitive bidding. Perhaps this is where the taxpayer ire springs from, but, once again, the practice is nothing more than a perfection of the pork policies of the past.

OK, so here we are, madder than hell and not willing to take it anymore. Except, of course, for the projects headed to our own backyards. Those projects are needed. Those projects are beneficial, unlike projects in other areas that are boondoggles. Yeah, right. There is no reason why someone in Maine should give one hoot about how someone in Oregon spends their money (and vice versa). A vision of a gored ox springs to mind, for some reason.

Face it, folks: pork, earmarks, and the like are an inherent part of our political process and the wail for their removal serves no useful purpose. That doesn’t mean, though, that the process cannot be refined so as to prevent the “picking fly poop out of pepper” exercise in which we are currently immersed.

The earmarks in the current proposed budget account for about 2% of the total request. Historically, this is about the average included in each budget. So how about this: we take the annual budget, absent any earmarks or pork of any kind, and add 2% to the bottom line for just those areas of expenditure. Now we take that 2% and divvy it up equally between each Congressional representative. After all, the House is made up of members according to population so this method would seem to satisfy each citizen equally.

Now it’s left up to the representative to dole out the funds accordingly. Neighboring districts could pool funds for the purposes of roads and other infrastructure projects that would extend beyond specific legislative boundaries. There are those in the House that abhor the idea of earmarks (or so they claim) and, for those, an option to pass should be included with such funds going either to their state’s general fund or back to federal coffers. The fact that a given district has funds available for local use should not preclude applicable bidding processes from taking place. If nothing else, this provides some transparency to the affair and motivates our politicos from doling out the dough in a less-than-legitimate manner. “Senators?”, you ask. Since senators serve in a less-than-local capacity, I see no reason why they would need earmarks or pork of any kind. They’ve taken advantage of them in the past, but just think how happy John McCain would be if the temptation was removed altogether.

We are now left with a process that removes anonymous finagling and creates a degree of accountability in the distribution of these funds. Will they be spent wisely and for the benefit of the majority? That decision will be left up to the voters when they decide whether to send their representatives back to D.C. or not. And best of all, we can now turn our attention to the other 98% of the budget: where it should have been from the get go.