Where's Bill?

No, not Bill Gates or Bill Clinton or anyone else named Bill, for that matter. The “Bills” fall into two categories: legislative and financial.

Obama is preparing a big speech that will address the economic and unemployment dilemmas facing many of us. I can only surmise that his approach will focus on the introduction of legislation (bills) to promote a healthier outlook. His problem lies within those in Congress who abhor the least scintilla of “big government” and will quash such attempts under the guise of “government can’t create jobs”.

While I generally agree that the private sector is more adept at powering the economy, it remains clear that they are reluctant to do so. That leaves only the government to try and incentivize business into hiring and expanding. But the government’s hands have been tied by the austerity measures contained in the debt ceiling agreement. Take your pick: federal, state, or local. Each is affected as the cash flow is stemmed. One look no further than the European Union to get a glimpse of the ramifications of cost-cutting without increased revenue.

So, without legislative bills to spur the economy, we are left with less bills (the good kind) in our pockets and more (the bad kind) in our mailbox, aren’t we? Businesses say they won’t hire because no one is buying and no one is buying because no jobs are available. A chicken and egg problem, to be sure. Of course, we don’t make much of anything anymore, so I’m hard pressed to see where these jobs would be created in the first place.

Either way, we’re stuck with a polarized government and recalcitrant corporate America. Someone recently suggested that the business world has decided to hold America hostage in the hopes of bringing a pro-business administration (Republican) back into the White House. This strikes me as the ultimate in conspiratorial supposition, but there’s not much I’d put past any boardroom today. After all, most companies are sitting on huge amounts of uninvested capital while claiming that uncertainty is to blame for their hesitancy. Funny, but most in the upper echelons of business got there by making bold decisions in uncertain times.

If you’re scanning down this treatise looking for the ray of sunshine, I’m sorry to disappoint. I see us stuck in a squirrel cage that goes round and round, getting nowhere fast no matter how hard we sprint. My only hope is that a new, unknown event will force the powers-that-be to re-think their position and break out of the mental box they’ve built for themselves.

Perhaps such an event lies in the effort behind Americans Elect (Americanselect.org). It’s not a ray of sunshine quite yet, but maybe a thinning of the overcast. This group is attempting to redefine the Presidential election landscape by introducing a viable third candidate into the mix. It’s an on-line process with the goal of including a ticket on the ballot of every state. And the ticket must not contain two names from the same political affiliation.

I’ve long maintained that the two party system has no interest in having a third voice to upset the sweet deal currently enjoyed. This might well be that external event that propels us into a new and productive direction. You need to drop by their website and take a look, though. Waiting for “Bill” to materialize and somehow save us without our involvement is nothing but pie in the sky. And who can afford that kind of dessert these days?

Advanced Scatology

Have you ever held a diamond in your hand? If so, you’re familiar with turning it ever-so-slowly to view how the slightest change in angle offers a whole new view of what it has to offer. Each facet is unique and provides its own character to the overall effect of the stone.

OK, let’s take that analogy and alter it just a bit. In mentally reviewing the events of the past several weeks, I find myself holding something else in my hand: horse manure. You know, a meadow muffin. A pasture puck. Or, if you prefer, equine excrement. It, too, has many facets and, to be fully explored, one must turn it slowly in the hand.

Here you’ll find the Washington government facet where the right is witless and the left is gutless. Throw in a president who seeks compromise over any kind of confrontation and we’re reduced to an over-indulgent parent and a spoiled child that threatens tantrums until it gets what it wants.

And here’s the global economy facet. You’ll see how interrelated every country is to every other one and how one’s economic headache is shared by all. Our stock market swoon is partly due to the spasms in Europe. Of course, the debt-limit debacle didn’t help, but you’d have to go back to the Washington government facet to fully appreciate the irony.

The jobs facet is something to behold. The private sector has no need for worker bees and now the public sector has no money for projects, programs, or wages. You needn’t be an economist to see where the unemployment rate is headed.

Look! Here’s the “I’ve got mine” facet and what a sight to behold. Those that have, want to keep it and to hell with those that don’t. Yes, there will always be those that take undue advantage of any program, but the very fabric of our society depends upon the premise that we help those in need. Otherwise, we devolve into a series of tribes scrambling to protect our possessions with nary a thought to the bigger picture.

There is a large facet for which I have no simple name. It is the one that illuminates how folks vote against there own best interests. The Republican party has marketed itself to be the sole source of family values and all that is good and right for America when, in fact, it is more aligned with corporate interests of no regulation and limitless wealth. These goals run opposite to the interests of the typical middle American yet the bulk of Republican voters occupy that economic strata. As a friend of mine says: “You’re not a Republican unless your Gulfstream has winglets.” (A Gulfstream is a high-end corporate jet and one with winglets is a high-end Gulfstream.) Last week’s hogtying of the FAA centered on Republican positions of reducing air service to small communities and making it harder for airline employees to organize. Do they sound like positions to protect the little folks?

And, should you be looking for the vision facet: forget about it. There is, however, a myopic section that has eschewed “long range planning” for quarterly reports and the next election cycle. Yet another disappointing perspective. 

By now you’ve realized that your examining a piece of crap and, unlike the diamond, it leaves both a strong scent and brown stain, neither of which are considered highly desirable. But most of the players in today’s economic and political theater have some muck on them. From the Commander-in-Chief down to the lonely voter in the polling booth: we can each claim a role in our current state of affairs.

It’s going to take much more head-work than hand-wringing to extricate ourselves from this funk. Let’s hope that our elected representatives are up to such a task and, if not, it falls to us, the voters, to ensure a better mix of legislators in the future. 

Shortcuts

Humans are lazy, in case you haven’t noticed. We will line up to buy the latest labor-saving device despite knowing nothing about what it does or if we need it. If it’s easier or quicker, we’re interested. These doodads all fall under the heading of “shortcut” and we love shortcuts. More than likely, they started out as a geographic means to simply shorten the distance from A to B. I’m only guessing because I wasn’t around when they became popular, but I can’t help but think that someone was looking for a way to shave a few minutes off of the trek from the hunting ground to the tepee.

Like most everything else, the shortcut has taken on an existence of its own, much to the detriment of society. The lottery? A shortcut to riches. The microwave? A shortcut to dinner. The Tivo or DVR? Shortcuts to our favorite programs absent those pesky commercials. Even computers have shortcuts to save the user a nano-second or two in opening a program. Our patience has been overwhelmed by searching for that elusive shortcut needed at a particular moment for a particular purpose. Ironically, when we find our shortcut, we immediately look to find a shortcut to the shortcut!

This never-ending quest has found itself into the political arena, too. As election day approaches, some candidates are painting their campaigns as a way to end our current economic malaise and immediately turn a corner to prosperity. A shortcut, in other words. I hate to break it to you, but no matter who wins what race, our near-term future is bound to be full of stagnation or, at best, a snail’s pace of progress. Why?

Have you ever eaten too much of a given food and then suffered the effects? You know: bloating, burping, hurling, etc. Eventually the “runs” (or “trots” if you prefer) show up to complete the entire miserable experience. No step can be omitted: it is a process that must run its course before we feel any better and there is no way to speed up the recovery. Well, think of our economy having over-indulged on housing. We are maybe half-way through that entire miserable experience and no shortcut exists that will save us from what is yet to come.

You may think I am asking you to vote in a certain manner that might suggest “staying the course”. Not true. I am saying, though, that there is no magic bullet, no shortcut that will allow us to escape the future pangs as our economy recovers. Less stimulus...more stimulus...lower taxes...higher taxes? Beats me as to what formula may at least minimize the discomfort. Regardless, we’re in this to the end and the end is still a ways off.

I’m no more thrilled by this as you. But it is what it is. Who knows: maybe our thirst for shortcuts will be slaked for a time. Probably not, though. After all, we’re a lazy species.

Take Your Pick

Let’s try something different this week: rather than dwell on one subject, how about touching on a few salient topics from the headlines? In perusing today’s (October 3) Sacramento Bee, several things caught my eye:

Chicago loses Olympic bid: I’m surprised that Chicagoans weren’t the ones celebrating in the streets while those “lucky” Brazilians were wishing they were more careful in their wishes. Now, I’m a sports fan, but when I hear the Olympics is coming to town, I make plans to be somewhere else. Just like most everyone else. Promises of profit and opportunity abound and, depending on how you define “profit” and “opportunity”, the promises may be valid to varying degrees. Google “(un)profitable olympic games”. The top of the list will take you to an article from tourism review.com and I think you’ll be interested in the findings. (I’d link it for you, but it opens as a downloaded PDF. Sorry.) One would think that Chicago could put the same money to work in different ways to revitalize the economic maelstrom that now racks its citizens.

And Obama is getting heat from the conservative media types for going to Denmark when there are so many more important things to decide and discuss. (Of course, the conservative media would rather talk and discuss Obama’s trip to Denmark.) Who knows: maybe it was all show and, in the cloak room, he begged the IOC to give the games to those lucky bastards down south! I guess we’ll never know...

David Letterman: OK, here’s a guy who works with women and, over time, has found himself in a personal liaison with some. Who hasn’t? Hell, we’re all working about fifteen hours a day: if you can’t get lucky at work, you’re in deep trouble. True, Dave was in a long-term relationship with his future wife, but that’s between the two of them. The harassment angle is overplayed because no one has cried “Foul” and if someone comes forward now it is only because visions of fame and wealth are dancing in her head. We’ve all shared private time with co-workers (some above us on the career ladder and some below) with little or no fallout. Let’s move on and leave Dave alone.

Roman Polanski: Jesus, is this still going on? Let’s see, he rapes a 13 year old girl, leaves the country, promises to pay her a large sum in a civil suit (which he apparently never does), and now gets arrested to face the original charges. (Am I close?) Well, hell yes, he’s guilty. And of more than one thing and he should face the music regardless of elapsed time or his wonderful career as a film-maker. This has to do with taking advantage of a teenager and refusing to be held accountable. Enough said...

Paul Krugman: Paul writes for the New York Times and the Bee carries his column a couple of days a week. He won a Nobel Prize for economics last year and I find his point of view interesting, if not intriguing. His piece today is titled, “As difficult as it is to sell, spending is what U.S. must do” and it delves into how the government is doing too little to get the economy turned around. Yes, too little. Damn the deficit, full spending ahead! And you know what? I believe him. Picture a normal day in your nice, lovely home when, all of a sudden, a ray of sunshine (or drop of rain) intrudes from a space where intrusion is normally not allowed. That’s right, buddy: time for a new roof. But how can you afford it in these tough economic times? A blue tarp is cheaper and almost as good, isn’t it? Well, we all know the blue tarp ploy will only delay the inevitable and, in the meantime, more and more of your home is subjected to nature’s forces. At the end of the day, you’ve saved nothing and, more than likely, will end up spending much more than you would have in the first place.

Why would our national house be any different? Our financial roof is a mess and we’re trying to jury-rig a solution that will only come back to bite us on our collective backside. We do it all the time with our possessions when money is tight and what happens? We’re generally the worse off for it somewhere down the road. So I’m with Paul on this one. There’s no difference between your roof and our economy: they are both worthy of investment for long term security.

Not bad for one day’s news, huh? Maybe there’s still hope for the newspaper industry, after all.

Polarization

Some might think that I’m referring to the opposite of global warming. Sorry to disappoint, but I’m thinking of something far more lethal and much quicker: the disappearance of the middle i.e. movement towards either pole. The two types of polarization I’d like to dwell on today are economic and political.

Most of us, in describing ourselves, like to say we’re “middle class”, middle of the road”, “average”, or some such term that implies a position far from either extreme. However, should you take a look at the distribution of financial wealth, you’d be hard pressed to lay any claim to the middle of anything economical. Professor G. William Domhoff, a Sociologist at UC Santa Cruz, published an article in September 205 and updated it in May of this year (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html). In the article, he compares financial wealth with net worth. The differences are subtle and complicated for a simpleton like me, but the bottom line is that financial wealth measures the control of income producing assets (stocks, bonds, business equity, etc.) and, as such, the “ownership” of America. And guess what? You ain’t in the middle, my friend: 42% of the financial wealth is controlled by the top 1% of households. And the next 27% of the financial wealth is controlled by the next 4% of households. So, 67% of this country’s financial wealth is controlled by the top 5% of households.

The middle class is melting away at an almost indiscernible rate, just like the ice caps and with equally serious side-effects. Those of us that still believe we’re in the middle of the financial world have used various forms of credit to maintain that façade and that has led to the economic malaise where we now find ourselves. How could this have happened and what can we do about it?

History shows us that the middle class originally thrived under the stewardship of labor unions. Until that time, the dependence on the generosity of management pretty much dictated the quality of life and the quantity of pay. And we all know that the generosity in question was in short supply as sweat shops and the like were the norm. The organization of labor, however, created a strong voice and coerced the industrial magnates into recognizing and rewarding the contributions of the worker bees.

Once this middle class was well established, the need for a union became lost on the younger, newer workers and, in the last several decades, union membership has dramatically declined. Once again, career rewards are predicated upon the generosity of higher-ups and, once again, labor has been left out when it comes to collecting those rewards.

There is no reason to believe that this state of affairs will turn around until the same effort is expended to create new labor organizations and reinforce existing ones. Only then, can we hope for a thriving middle class that fuels the consumerism that has historically provided the power of our economy. While that may take some degree of civil disobedience, it remains to be seen whether the workforce-at-large is up to the challenge.

The political middle is disappearing, too. Ideologues on the right are steadfastly against anything promoted by the present administration and the left, always seeking compromise and bipartisanship, is stalled with in-fighting and everlasting debate. (They say that Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line and such a sentiment is readily seen today.) Politicians seem to be more interested in personal agendas than what is good for America and, while this may be nothing new, it has reached previously unknown heights. Add to this mix a public that is more interested in sound bites and scandal and a news media more interested in ratings and it is not hard to see how we got to this point.

Last week, a new standard was set as the President was heckled in his address to a joint session of Congress. And as I write this, thousands are marching in Washington D.C. in opposition to the administration as much, if not more, as the current health care proposals. No middle ground, no serious debate, no progress.

It’s time that the Democrats take a page from the Republican play book and fall in line. The party made sweeping gains in the fall elections of 2008 and needs to start swaggering a bit. Hell, even our last president knew how to play that game with his “you’re either with us or against us” mantra. Bipartisanship? Nice theory, but it doesn’t seem to be working. I’d bet that the right would be more inclined to come along if they were faced with the prospect of being left behind. That possibility is remote, though, so long as the left continues its effort to woo, coddle, and cajole. Isn’t it time for a poke in the ribs or a kick in the ass?

And what about the silent, thinking types that haven’t taken to the streets? What with last fall’s network in support of candidate Obama, couldn’t we find some uninsured souls within staunch Republican districts to make their feelings known? They’re out there. You just don’t see ‘em on the “news” because they’re just not flashy enough, if they’re there at all.

The political solution to a vanishing middle may well be pure partisanship, should the votes make it possible. The threat of being left out of the game is a sure fire motivational tool guaranteed to bring about a more flexible point of view from would-be obstructionists.

The pendulums will always swing from one side to the other and, with time, it is thought that the extremes will lessen as everything shifts more to the middle. Well, I don’t think we can rely on that formula today and the irony lies in the fact that, as the middle slowly fades away, those still stuck “in the middle” suffer the most. In our own way, we must each try to slow down the momentum that is taking us away from that “happy medium”. Our economic and political well being demand it.