Come one, Come all!

What with the recent change of administrations in Washington, there seems to be a renewed call for some sort of “national service”. Nothing new to us old-timers: we knew it as the Draft. While the two ideas share some similarities, they seem to be more different than alike (at least to me). But opponents of national service will continue to equate the two terms because of the visceral reaction to the word “Draft”. 

So let’s rename the Draft and combine it with any other form of national service. How about “Recess”? Who doesn’t like recess? And that’s what it would be: a break, but instead of coming between morning and afternoon classes, it would come between the end of formal education and the beginning of the rest of our lives. And it could stand for “Required Extra-Curricular Effort for the Sake of Society”. (Everybody loves acronyms.) And it would include everyone, not just the military minded.

OK, so now we’ve established Recess as the new game in town. What are the rules? Well, how about a two-year time frame? That gives everyone a chance to come on in, settle into a given position, and actually learn some discipline along with other, more specific skills that may well come in handy farther down life’s highway. Any area that is funded, at least partially, by federal tax dollars and serves to promote the quality of our society is fair game: the Park Service, transportation projects, energy producing facilities, you name it. God knows we could all use some new blood and the ideas it brings in just about every facet of the infrastructure we all use. Granted, the military will still be available for those wanting to pursue that avenue, but many more opportunities must be made available for the many more participants.

We’ve all got something that turns our motors on and Recess would allow the opportunity to explore the possibilities without the worry of “wasting two years of our life”. Hell, since everyone’s in the same boat there’s nothing to lose and everything to gain. Our college types get a pass until they graduate or five years, whichever comes first. Save the advanced degrees for later. And no exceptions or deferments for you Dick Cheney’s out there. 

Perhaps the best part is that it could be instituted almost immediately. The opportunities and job vacancies are there. All we need to establish is the database and create the application. I’d say the Selective Service System would be happy to share its records, wouldn’t you? That covers all the young men. The young women can enroll in a similar fashion and Bingo! We’re up and running. No more worrying over finding a job for the non-college bound so unemployment figures go down, too. Of course, pay and benefits would vary by chosen positions, but entry-level wages could be similar to those we now offer to new military inductees. And yes, the wages would come out of our taxes, but what better investment than our society and future generations with a renewed sense of service, responsibility, and accountability. Aptitude tests? Couldn’t hurt, but remember that we let the participants figure out where they want to go and should they be unsuited for Plan A, Plan B may be a little less discretionary. 

We now have a program that expects each young citizen to step up and put some effort into making this country a little better place to be. In return, our young citizens learn some responsibility and perhaps gain a better understanding into what is to be done with the future. And it’s called Recess (a good thing). As for the Draft: let’s send it to the round file where all anachronisms and their baggage go to die.

Hey, Buddy: Got a Minute?

My earlier columns have been finalized on the week-end and focus on noteworthy events of the previous week. I am writing this piece, however, on Monday morning. Not because the subject is mundane. Conversely, because it is timeless and I won’t need to wait another few days before deciding to write on the value of two things: free time and friendship.

Each of us has available time in which to do as we “please”. Granted some of that free time is spent accomplishing household tasks and such, and much too often those tasks expand to fill up the entire allotment of time available for more trivial pursuits. I currently live on 40 acres comprised of pasture and trees. The terrain is rolling and, in a few areas, closer to steep. Trust me when I tell you that I have no need for a gym membership. My ranch provides ample opportunity for exercise.

There is always something to cut, something to spray, something to burn, or something to repair on my ranch and there is no doubt that I will pass from this life without completing the work that awaits me. While this may sound depressing, it is, in fact, liberating. You see, if the chance comes along to do something a little more entertaining, I take it. There is no “done” that I am striving toward so another day, more or less, carries no negative consequence. Regardless of the size of the tract around your home, the desire to finish a particular project sometimes overrides all other considerations. And this urge to finish robs us of time better spent.

Recreation is a good thing. I think the word began as “re-creation”: the time needed to recharge, rebuild our strengths, and recover from the slings and arrows of the world. The hyphen was eventually removed and the long “e” morphed into a short one and, voila, recreation: fun stuff. (There is also, unfortunately, “wreckreation”: that’s when free time is fucked up by spending it with folks, or things, that offer no enjoyment whatsoever!)

Face it: your projects will never be completed. And even if a task can finally be considered complete, another chore rears its ugly head. That is a big part of the human condition and should be taken in stride. Well, if the list of to-do’s is endless, then let’s consider putting something off for the sake of our own mental stability. Lie on the grass and look at the sky. Scratch the dog. Hug your spouse. Something that means a hell of a lot more than many other issues that seem, incorrectly, more pressing.

Friends play a big part in the enjoyment of one’s free time. And time with friends sometimes entails tasks that may not be, in and of themselves, considered fun. But the rendering of assistance to someone who is similarly there-for-you is rewarding.

I have a good friend, Parry, who is moving into his new part-time residence on a nearby parcel. He and his wife were planning on doing this move by themselves and there were heavy pieces of furniture involved. Parry called and asked me if I knew someone he could hire to help him out. I told him that I was available, but he refused my offer on the grounds of not wanting to interrupt my day. “Wait a minute,” I told him. “Wouldn’t you help me move if I asked for your help?” “Of course I would,” he replied. Friendship is a two way street. It is important to be there for your friends, but give them the opportunity to be there for you, too. And yes, I arrived to help Parry and yes, he had already completed the move! (My revenge is the inclusion of his name in this column.) We’ve had our chat and I remain hopeful that he will allow me more chances in the future to be as good a friend to him as he is to me.

So do this for me: put your to-do list off to one side and spend the time with friends, family, or other diversions that truly lift your spirits. Whether that interval lasts a moment or the entire day, you’ll find every other demand on your time a little more bearable. And don’t believe for one minute that you’re a procrastinator. Some things are meant to be put off for a day, or two. Dying, for instance

The Status Quo

The dictionary defines “status quo” as the existing state of affairs. Few would argue that our “existing state of affairs” is far from desirable and many cry for reform in many areas. Health care and taxation currently head up that list, but despite these cries in the past, little has really changed. Why could that be if so many of us want major league changes in these areas? Good question.

If you look at our history, you can see other examples of a changing landscape in many facets of our society: transportation, communication, and the like. So why did the stage coach and telegraph go by the wayside without much resistance, but similarly archaic principles in our tax code and health care system continue to survive? One good reason, I’d say, is that our stagecoach drivers and telegraph operators did not employ lobbyists to represent their personal interests in the halls of power. Without such representation, these folks were destined to find new careers in completely new arenas. “Well good,” you say. “That’s progress and change is good!” Unless, of course, you’re the unfortunate soul faced with finding that theoretical new career.

Our current tax system relies on hordes of accountants, advisors, attorneys and such dedicated to the proposition that we, the taxpayers, are in dire need of their services to avoid paying one extra cent of tax. They take money from us and pass that money on to their creditors and family to maintain a particular life style. Just like each of us does in our chosen field of endeavor. Well, now that cash flow is threatened if a major change in our tax laws should become reality.

Let’s say, for instance, that we abolish the federal income tax altogether and replace it with a national sales tax. Personally, I like this idea: it’s simple, straightforward, and taxes each of us equally (percentage-wise) on the things we buy. It does not penalize saving nor the associated interest and dividends and, best of all, leaves no taxpayer’s stone unturned. Drug dealers, hookers, mobsters, and other ne’er-do-wells like to spend their ill gotten gains just like us law abiding consumers. But now they’re paying their taxes just like the rest of us rather than avoiding that possibility. And the plumber you pay under the table, in cash, to get a better deal? Sorry, that’ll go away, too, because the plumber’s got to ante up when he buys his latest toy.  A “pay as you spend” tax code that guarantees full participation and a given percentage of our nation’s buying power. Wow, what a concept, right?

Except for the fact a large segment of our wage earners are now left looking for a new career field. And these folks have lobbyists, unlike their ancestors, and will fight, hammer-and-tong, against any such sweeping proposal. And to make matters worse, many in this field are attorneys and attorneys make up the majority of Congress, so is it any wonder that there is major resistance to a change of this magnitude?

Health care is not much different. Legions exist within HMO’s and insurance companies and they all share one attribute: earning a paycheck. If we end up with some sort of universal care, where do these folks get their next dollar? Rather than spend energy on finding alternatives, it seems as though they’re more willing to spend money on lobbyists and their ilk to sabotage any significant changes.

And just about every other industry has their army of supporters ready and willing to resist any change that might upset the status quo. Energy independence? Prison reform? Mileage standards? Financial ethics? You name it: any noticeable change in the way business is conducted begins at the bottom of the food chain (you and me), not at the top.

We are currently embroiled in an economic downturn of epic proportion and there seems to be no better time to challenge the status quo and slowly turn our economic juggernaut in a whole new direction. This will require differing levels of discomfort within segments of our society and there will be collateral damage as job descriptions disappear, but society, as a whole, will be better served by this change, I’d say. We’ve railed for years, if not decades, for a better approach to many of our nation’s thornier problems. C’mon, folks, isn’t it time to put our money where our mouth has been? 

Bypass Procedures

Bypass procedures, anatomically speaking, are undertaken to provide a clearer path for blood flow by introducing a new route through which the blood may pass without obstruction. There are no side-effects (that I know of) and the patient is much better off after this procedure.

There is a similar “procedure” used infra-structurally and it refers to the construction of a new piece of highway by-passing a town in the name of more expedient travel from point A to point C by avoiding point B. This procedure does have side-effects and, despite those, may become much more common as Federal money begins to flow through the infrastructure pipeline.

I live between two areas involved with this bypass procedure. One, Sutter Creek/Amador City, had their bypass completed two years ago and the other, Angels Camp, is in the final construction phases of the road that will take folks around the inner, older center of town. Let’s take a look at Sutter Creek, explore the pros and cons, and try to predict the challenges awaiting Angels Camp and any other burg in America contemplating a similar procedure.

Sutter Creek has one main street, Highway 49, and this roadway was used to travel between Jackson (or points south) and Plymouth (or points north). Traffic included everything from mini-Coopers to log trucks and contributed mightily to a rather slow drive through the middle of town. Not coincidentally, the center of town is where various and sundry businesses chose to locate. Everything from food to antiques is available in this five block stretch, or so, and many a driver chose to stop and take a look at what treasures might exist. The bypass, while lowering the drive time between other communities to the north and south, also took the accidental tourist out of the retail mix for the businesses that had come to rely on that revenue source.

No one can argue that Sutter Creek is now a quieter, more user-friendly town. Crossing the main drag is easier than ever before and the community has regained a sense of self. These are good things, to be sure, but the commercial impact is not as clear cut. I spoke with several merchants in Sutter Creek while working on this column and the opinions were interesting and varied. Some said business was up while others contradicted that position. Some thought the bypass was a good thing, overall, while others continue to oppose the project. All agreed, however, that the new roadway was truly a double-edged sword and, while providing some boon, also carried with it a bane.

It became necessary to market the town and create a destination from what was a waypoint. This is not impossible, but it is costly. And it leads to new development in the form of resorts and the like. The thought that Sutter Creek would revert to an unchangeable small town was unrealistic and now new challenges present themselves to the townsfolk. The main challenge is that, while locals like their small town feel, they usually fail to consider patronizing their small town merchants in favor of big box stores lying closer to the bigger cities. So now the business owner has lost the accidental customer and still lacks business from neighbors. This is not a formula for success and sometimes leads to the “dying out” of a town. (Amador City was similarly challenged, but to a lesser degree due to its much smaller scale and associated number of merchants.)

The residents of Angels Camp are soon to experience the same dichotomy that Sutter Creek-ites went through. A quieter main street and less traffic, but also fewer customers, and less money. And, perhaps, fewer viable businesses. Like their neighbors to the north, a concerted effort must be made to reclassify the town as a destination unto itself. It is not an easy task nor is it cheap with a guarantee of success. But it is a very real side effect when traffic arteries are re-routed around commercial centers. And the same considerations apply where such bypasses are contemplated.

So do we say that the infrastructural bypass should be outlawed? That is best left up to those affected by the project. But being forewarned of the unintended consequences is, assuredly, to be forearmed. And should you have the opportunity to drop by Sutter Creek or Angels Camp, please do so. Both are steeped in history, architecture, and commercial enterprises offering unique buying opportunities. A bit more out of the way, but in this fast-paced, instant gratification oriented society, the “road less traveled” may provide the perfect respite.

Incentive Pay

There is a chapter in my book titled “Incentive Pay”. I wrote it back in 2005, or so. Incentive pay made no sense to me then and makes no more sense to me now. In the intervening years, though, the public outcry against these vehicles of fortune has grown steadily louder. Why? Well, let’s take a look at that, but allow me a short look back at words previously penned.

Most of us have a job of some sort that pays us for our labor. The pay keeps us toiling away in our chosen field. So our pay is the incentive to our continued effort. Hence, incentive pay! Each of us, theoretically, does our best to bring fame and fortune to our employers. That effort results in our continued employment, theoretically, and a slice of that fortune. Your doctor receives nothing extra for a successful operation nor does your airline pilot receive additional compensation for an uneventful flight. Likewise, an attorney receives a given fee for services rendered, regardless of the legal outcome. To provide extra money for a job well done is ludicrous. “An individual should simply be paid what they’re paid,” I wrote. “At the end of the year, or season, a look back at the successes may warrant a bonus. So be it, but if we’re going to take a “look back”, we’re obligated to take note of failures, too. And failure should result in a reduction of that wage just as success raised it. Now there’s incentive!”

It seems that, as of late, hefty sums have been granted to executives who have performed less than admirably in steering their companies through troubled waters. Rewarding failure, in other words. The underlying mentality of this type of behavior is intriguing as well as disgusting. I submit an unholy alliance exists between upper management and their respective Board of Directors. This is cozy relationship couched around the “I’ll wash your back if you’ll wash mine” mantra. The Board continues to receive perks and payment from a management team that continues to receive incentive bonuses and golden parachutes from the Board. Pretty neat, huh?

Add to this mix the fact that corporate loyalty is no longer practiced, and we end up with a strong company slowly drained of its life-blood by a group uninterested in any long term viability. Take the money and run to the next outfit hungry for your corporate acumen. I’m reminded of old vampire movies.

While the providing of incentive pay is nothing new, why, then, has society become only recently agitated? Well, in better times it seemed that all boats were rising. Corporate bonuses of ever increasing amounts were accepted because, after all, everyone was doing better. Weren’t they? Hell. no, they weren’t. The middle class was enveloped in a fac̢ade of home equity loans and ever increasing debt loads to maintain their lifestyle. Buy now...pay later...sell the house...make a shitload of money...don’t worry...be happy.

Today, as the sham of affluence is rapidly being pulled away from many households, the aforementioned middle class is realizing that the fortunes of CEO’s and their ilk were gained at the expense of the worker bees who, in reality, were not in a boat that was rising at all. Falling home values, job insecurity, and large credit balances have combined to create a financial miasma for many who just recently thought they were doing OK.

So now it’s not OK for the corporate nabobs to continue reaping huge rewards. It was probably never OK, but society’s resistance has finally spilled into the streets and executives are being held to the same standard as everyone else. This is a good thing, but long overdue. Countless folks, families, and companies will fall by the wayside as a testament against the “greed is good” tenet of Gordon Gecko. One caveat: do not unilaterally hold higher salaries against those that earn them. Rather, make sure those higher returns reflect honest gains in profitability instead of smoke-and-mirror machinations that eventually collapse upon the backs of the true producers.

If we hold any interest in any company, whether through active sweat equity or investment, we are obligated to hold the respective Board of Directors and management teams to high standards and renewed scrutiny. They will resist, to be sure. Shareholder proposals seeking greater control are routinely introduced and routinely defeated. But the margin of defeat is narrowing and the time is at hand where future proposals may well emerge victorious from annual shareholder meetings. A brave new world? Perhaps. But a better balanced one, without a doubt.

Eight Isn't Enough?

In their roles as harried parents, Dick Van Patten and Betty Buckley illustrated the point that eight is, indeed, enough! But in a “life imitating art” irony, Nadya Suleman, the mother of new octuplets is trying to prove that fourteen is just fine. And a fire storm of controversy has resulted with closer looks at the mother, Dr. Michael Kamrava (her fertility doctor), and the perception of an unalienable right to bear children. Wow! My plate is full on this one, but here goes...

First of all,the doctor: While Dr. Kamrava may have exceeded guidelines, there is no law broken on his part. The fertility doctor and the patient basically come to an agreement on how to proceed and that, basically, is that. Insurance companies have no say because such procedures are not covered.

The mother: Nadya already has six children. Three of them receive disability payments. The family qualifies and receives food stamps. Additionally, she has amassed $50,000 of student loans and hospital bills from the birth and care of her octuplets are running into six-figure amounts.

The ethics: There appears to be little debate over the fact that Ms Suleman has a warped and exaggerated view of motherhood. Her passion has crossed the line into the state of zealotry. Now, if she were zealous over stamp collecting and amassed an unbelievably large collection of same, no one would notice because stamps require little attention and are self-sufficient in that they simply lay upon a page. But kids are something else altogether. They require care, feeding, attention and the associated financial wherewithal. Children should not be amassed to satisfy the needs of the parent. Rather they should be considered an adjunct to the human condition and brought into this world only when and if the means are present to properly support them. In light of her current financial challenges, it is doubtful that Nadya will be able to support her family without additional and continued assistance from social programs.

Dr. Kamrava is under scrutiny for unethical behavior. Tell me what “ethical” would be in this case? Six embryos? Four? Two? One could make the argument that, in light of the six young’uns already in the family, “none” might be the best response.

And that brings us to the “right” bear children. Granted, this right exists much like the right to buy a dog, a cat, a horse, or any other living thing. But with that right comes the responsibility to provide proper care and funding. Animals that are not treated properly become wards of the local SPCA. Children are unique, though, and rightfully so. Our society claims nothing supersedes the mother and child connection. Hence, numerous social programs exist to ensure moms and kidlets stay together.

There are too many unfortunate parents who fall on unforeseen hard times and need society’s help to continue caring for children born during better times. Aid to Dependent Children, food stamps, and such are designed to provide this support. But when a child is introduced to the world in a family already disadvantaged, should similar programs reach out and offer assistance? Doesn’t parental responsibility begin at conception? If I’m unemployed and have no visible means of support, why the hell am I compounding my problems with a newborn? Conversely, if I’ve the means and desire to have an exceedingly large family, more power to me. It is none of society’s business because I’m not asking society to help me raise my brood. And herein lies the rub with Ms Suleman.

I risk public hanging in making the proposal of asking would-be parents to explore their abilities to raise a child before exercising their right to bear that child. Otherwise, should public funding be required, the public should have the ability to raise the baby through adoption, foster homes,or the like. There should be a limited time frame in which the parents are given an opportunity to get back on their feet, but if they are unable (or unwilling) to do so, their children are made available to those more prepared for the rigors of parenthood. And forget about fertility treatments for those receiving benefits of any kind...especially benefits for existing children.

Stimulation...Simplified

The debate continues to rage over the need for an economic stimulus program and, if needed, how big it should be and, most importantly, will it work. The consensus, for the time being anyway, confirms the need, but the size and chances of success both depend on who is asked. Lest there be any doubt: I am not an economist and that may be a good thing because it’s hard as hell for me to follow any train of thought in which an economist is the engineer. I’m a pretty good observer, though, and have a way with analogies, so let me try one on you for size.

Let’s think of our economic conundrum as a water pump. No, not a newfangled, electric wizard; rather, the old-fashioned kind with a handle and a spigot. Below the pump lies an aquifer full of water and along side of the pump sits a jar of water with which to prime it. And today’s goal is to get some water flowing out of that pump. With me so far? Good...

OK, the aquifer represents the potential of our economy, but it must flow through the pump to be realized and greater flow equals a more robust economy. The jar with priming fluid represents the stimulus package Uncle Sam is currently considering. And the amount of water in the jar represents the size of the stimulus package. And we all know that if there isn’t enough water in the jar our attempts to prime the pump will fail and we’ll be forced to go in search of yet another jar of water before we can think about getting some meaningful flow. Conversely, if there’s too much water in the jar, it doesn’t really matter because once we’ve got water coming out of the pump we can fill up the jar again. So I’d say we’re safer with a bigger stimulus amount than a smaller one. And finally, we come to the invaluable handle for, without it, we have no means to pump the pump! The role of “economic handle” is played by the lenders, borrowers, consumers, and such that provide our economic muscle. And here, folks, is where the greatest unknown lies.

If we take our jar of water and prime the pump without anyone working the handle we’ve just poured a jarful of water down the proverbial hole in the ground and have nary a thing to show for it. The original TARP funds prove my point: they were distributed to banks who chose to use them to shore up their internal financial problems. Lending wasn’t any easier because money wasn’t any more available. No borrowing, no buying, no hiring. Down the drain, in other words. Now we need another jar of water. And even if the funds are made available we need an optimistic consumer with secure employment to venture back into the marketplace.

The key in getting our water (or economic) pump gushing H2O (or dollars) lies in the pump handle and the Federal government (or state or local) has no real control over those supposed to work that handle. Once the money is thrown into the private sector, it’s up to the private sector to do its part. Timing is just as important: you don’t pour the water into the pump and then take a break. No, you’d better, by god, be pumping the moment you pour or, once again, your effort is for naught. Similarly, the banks had better be ready to lend to folks ready to borrow.

I almost forgot...we need one more thing: patience. If you’ve ever worked a dry water pump you know what I’m talking about. That water doesn’t start spewing after a couple of pumps. Chances are good that your arms are going to get tired and you’re going to start cursing under your breath before you hear the long-awaited gurgling and splashing. Our economic pump is no different. Good times will not return overnight and, what with our 15 minute attention span, we need to extend our focus a little farther down the time line. Think positive and pump like hell, folks.

The bottom line in both enterprises is that we’ve no guarantee in slaking our thirst or reinvigorating our economy. We pour, pump, and (hopefully) at the end of the day we’re better off than the beginning. Both enterprises offer alternatives, too. We can choose to sit by the pump and hope that a passer-by offers us some water and we can, likewise, choose to let the financial system continue its downward spiral and hope that something productive rises out of the ashes. I’m for pumping rather than hoping, but can offer no concrete evidence that it is the better alternative. It seems to feel better doing something about something, though, doesn’t it?