What Are You?

It seems that most of us prefer short descriptives in categorizing our position on current events and the challenges they provide. You know: left, right, moderate. Or, if you prefer, Republican, Democrat, Independent. (Yes, I know I omitted the Tea Party. It is simply a faction of the Republican Party and can be found way over there on the right of the rest of the right.) Even “for” or “against” can be heard when offering a broad brush opinion. They all have one trait in common: they’re simple, short, and clear cut. The problem is that many of the issues before us today are anything but simple or short or clear.

So let’s take a short quiz to truly ascertain our priorities and political allegiances. Let’s start with the right to life: are you opposed to abortion rights and believe life is sacred? If so, how do you feel about capital punishment? How about gun control? Are you a member of the NRA and believe that guns don’t kill people, but only people kill people? If so, are you repulsed that a maniac can obtain a weapon capable of firing a large number of uninterrupted rounds and use it in a school?

If you support a free market system, I guess the latest spike in gas prices is causing you no angst nor financial pressure. We can all trust corporate America to provide safe and healthy products, can’t we? Who needs regulators and inspectors?  After all, they only stand in the way of a truly open market-based economy.

Do you want a smaller, less intrusive government and a balanced budget with no deficit? Are you ready to “adjust” your Medicare and Social Security privileges to achieve that goal? How about unemployment benefits or aid to dependent children? 

And what about all those bureaucracies, be they public or private? Surely we can pare them down a bit. But wait a minute...don’t most of us fill some sort of square within a corporate flow-chart? We’re necessary, though, aren’t we? They need our contribution, don’t they?

All of a sudden, that plain and simple description of our values gets a bit muddy, doesn’t it? As well it should. You see, many, if not most, of us move about the spectrum as the conversation changes. And sometimes we move even within a given topic. That’s because any issue at hand is much like a diamond. Or a lump of coal. Either has multiple facets and each can be flawless or seriously flawed. It all depends upon our perspective at that particular moment. To think that the world is simple is overly simplistic.

I’d say that our positions can be boiled down to two: the theoretical and the realistic. If we are not drawing unemployment benefits it is easy to say that those programs are needless. Once we lose our job, though, that theory gives way to the reality of our situation.

I suggest we use a more relaxed definition when attempting to pigeon-hole our position or anyone else’s. Me? I claim to be a social progressive and a fiscal conservative. And I know that my positions could well change depending on the realities I’m currently facing in my life. Now, some might call that schizophrenic. I prefer “complicated” and see it as more befitting in a world where nothing is as simple as we’d like.

Commercially Incorrect

We all know, to varying degrees, that some words and/or actions do not sit well in social situations. The “F” word, for example. Such language or behavior is referred to as politically incorrect. I would submit that recent events in the public arena have rendered some words as “commercially incorrect”. Specifically, the “U” word: union.

The Governor and a majority of state legislators in Wisconsin seem hell bent on crippling the unions representing public employees in the state. We’re not talking about mere concessions to mitigate a budget deficit. We’re talking about a unilateral dismantling of the right to engage in collective bargaining. Similar administrations in Africa and the Middle East are currently under fire for similar heavy handed activities. 

Those of you familiar with my opinions know that I’ve never understood why a labor union is characterized as the anti-Christ. Unions were formed to withstand imposed work rules, pay, and benefits on a group of workers with no say in their future. Never has a union been formed and then given rise to a company. Labor has always been reactive and always will.

The collective bargaining process so opposed in Wisconsin created contracts that both signatories knew were unsustainable. And both knew that they would both be sitting on a beach somewhere when the whole house of cards came crashing down. We’re all too familiar with similar dealings between labor and management within General Motors and this scenario is no different.

Are there successful companies with no unionized workforce? Of course. Just as there are successful companies with highly unionized employee groups. The credit goes to the corporate boardroom and the executives that accepted the facts as they are, not as they had hoped them to be. Are unions immune from graft and corruption at the upper levels? Of course not; no more so than corporate executives exposed to the same temptations. But at least the greed and corruption are more evenly distributed among all participants if a union is on the property. Ugly, I know, but we need to accept the nature of all beasts.

Many holding the reins of power lament that dealing with a union is laborious (no pun intended) and time consuming. Such  is the case when both sides of a debate are accorded an opinion. I imagine agricultural in the South was much easier when slaves provided the labor. Sad to say, but many of our corporate and political leaders lack that quality of “leadership” and simply want to travel the road of "my way or the highway" (pun intended) because it’s easier.  

Being a union member is not akin to receiving the keys to the kingdom. Most of my years as an airline pilot have been spent within the confines of a concessionary contract. To think that union membership is not fraught with reality checks and ensuing concessions is simply untrue. But to rob a group of employees, be they private or public, of their rights to bargain in good faith is the height of despotism and cannot be tolerated any more at home than abroad.

Some say that public employees should not have the right to strike. Federal employees are forbidden to withhold their services. The air traffic controllers found that out in the late 1980’s when they were fired for doing so by then-president Reagan. Ronnie was given all sorts of credit for busting the union, but all he did was enforce existing law. I cannot say that such a law covering a state’s employees is in order, but I do believe that such changes must occur, once again, through the avenues of bargaining.

And one more thing: where were the citizens of Wisconsin when such unsustainable contracts were being written? Watching TV? Listening to their favorite tunes? This detached kind of democratic government which does nothing until one’s personal ox is gored runs counter to what democracy really requires. We must remain engaged in the processes that ultimately affect us all. To single out a specific career field (teachers) and demonize their right to collectively bargain will surely come back to haunt us all. Many other states are watching so as to accurately gauge the level of resistance. In other words, your ox may well be next.

Oh, should Wisconsin really want to look into suspicious monopolies, perhaps they should take a closer look at the Fitzgerald combine: Scott leads the state Senate. His brother, Jeff, is Speaker of the state House. And their father, Stephen, was recently named the new chief of the State Troopers at the age of 68. Talk about a machine! It kinda makes a simple labor union look like small potatoes, doesn’t it?

Ball of Confusion

My head is spinning as events unfold around the globe at breakneck speed. The demonstrations against authoritarian governments in the Middle East and Africa continue to grow and seem ready to spread to China. Other countries untouched by such activity are nervous while wondering if they might be next. And here in the good old US of A the governor of Wisconsin seeks to stifle the bargaining rights of public employee unions under the guise of "reigning in costs". So, while we have folks in other countries revolting against years of tyranny, some in this country are fighting efforts to unilaterally rob them of their rights to negotiate pay and benefits.

There have been weeks when I've been hard pressed to find a suitable topic for this space. All of a sudden, I'm overwhelmed with competing themes as noteworthy stories flood the airwaves and front pages. What is to be made of this extraordinary confluence?

Perhaps it is nothing more than timing. After all, many have suffered under harsh regimes for decades. Now, though, the opportunity to communicate in cyberspace has stirred the embers of resistance into a new-found demand for change. No country seems to be immune as long-silent majorities find their voice and seek a fairer shake from their governments.

The idea that budgetary battles in Wisconsin could logically lead to stripping unions of their power has led to an unprecedented public backlash. True, contracts can always be renegotiated, but to suggest that teachers unions and other organizations representing public employees simply lose their rights to bargain invites such demonstrations. And rightfully so.

No entity is immune from public outcry in today's world of Twitter and Facebook and all their associated social sites. Coordination is as close as a text and such camaraderie creates a fervor not recently seen nor easily quashed. Whether we're talking of a foreign dictator or an elected representative within our borders, heavy handed behavior is no longer silently tolerated.

No one can predict what our world will look like in the next year nor who will be ruling countries currently in turmoil. It doesn't matter, though, because the bigger picture illustrates that all peoples, regardless of status or station, can exert a powerful force simply by speaking up. It also shows that those who have held a tight grip on power are generally reluctant to release it without a fight. Good lessons, to be sure, and ones which should not go unnoticed by those in this country attempting to wrest power from political foes by disguising their agendas as financial restraint.

Pick Your Poison

Last week a research study was released suggesting that diet soda contributes to heart disease. Yet the latest example of undesirable side effects. Red wine? Good for your heart, but your liver doesn't care for alcohol, does it? The Japanese diet apparently leads to low cholesterol, but many subscribers suffer from hypertension.

No, there's little, if any, out there in our dietetic cornucopia that has no deleterious effect. And if you think that's bad, let's leave the kitchen and wander into our bathroom's medicine cabinet. Here we find limitless examples of potions that, while treating one ailment, often create others.

If you take a statin drug for cholesterol you must also submit to periodic liver tests. That's because statins can raise hell with it. I took a statin for ten years at half dosage to combat what my doctor felt was high cholesterol. I thought the muscle pain I began to experience in my legs when climbing hills was simply old age creeping in, but then recognized it as a possible side effect of the drug. I stopped taking it for a week and, when the leg pain disappeared, the drug disappeared from my shelf. My cholesterol? 223, which is not too bad for a man of my age and a number that I'm willing to accept given the alternative.

I'm one of the lucky ones as I have, so far, escaped the need for other prescription drugs. Many are less fortunate and every drug out there has a side effect which, at the very least, provides the chance for yet another need for another drug. Allergies? Your prescription may cause swelling of the throat and difficulty in breathing. The ones that amaze me the most are those that fall under the "Erectile Dysfunction" category. They may cause nausea and headache. I don't know about you, but when I'm nauseous or a jackhammer is doing a number on my brain, the last thing on my mind is romance!

I'm not here to lecture on the dangers of drugs, but rather to illustrate how we must each become our own best advocate when choosing a given regimen suggested by our doctor (or dietician). Granted, some afflictions are so severe that any risk is acceptable. Others, though, are taken to mitigate minor irritations without so much as a consideration of the possible downside. Take a pill...be happy. Have a diet soda...lose weight.

Whether it be drugs or dining, everything that we ingest has an effect that we'd just as soon do without in addition to the desired benefit that we seek. It's a balancing act, to be sure, but one that demands a greater awareness and participation. Perhaps it can be best summed up by this advice given to me long ago: Moderation in everything (including moderation).

Dominoes

The events of the past few weeks are unprecedented in their scope or succession as country after country in the Middle East has ousted long-time rulers. Tunisia, Yemen, and now Egypt see unparalleled uprisings from their citizens who have decided anything is better than the status quo. This domino effect, if you will, must have some sort of common root that has finally tapped into long held resentment. What could it possibly be?

I submit that our seemingly innocuous social networks of Facebook and Twitter are primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Any repressive regime seeks to control the opportunity for its citizenry to communicate in unfettered ways. The fear of reprisals creates an atmosphere where most keep their hopes and aspirations (and frustrations) to themselves. It’s hard to limit such communication in cyberspace and I believe tweets and texts have created the catalyst which has led to almost overnight change within the halls of Mid-East power.

Other countries, in an apparent attempt to avoid similar social unrest, have taken steps to alter their structures. Jordan has fired their cabinet. Pakistan has down-sized theirs and now Iraq’s prime minister al-Maliki has stated that he will not seek re-election. I cannot believe that there is one nation in the region that is not busy trying to be more proactive.

This kind of change is messy, though, and no particular outcome is a certainty. First comes the demonstrations from those that have nothing. These demonstrations are nothing new and historically repressed. Once they begin to catch hold, though, those that have prospered under the current state of affairs take to the streets in support of its continued operation. Clashes ensue and the prospect of a civil war looms. We are seeing that in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities as the struggle continues.

Should despots be thrown from office, the vacuum that follows sometimes presents an environment worse than the previous one. Regardless, once that final straw has been laid upon the camel’s back, nothing else matters save the ousting of the individual seen as responsible for a country’s woes.

To make matters worse, other countries that have turned a blind eye to the dismal state of their allies' domestic affairs must now decide which devil to support: the one known (present) or unknown (future). Mubarak has been considered an ally of America in spite of the harsh tactics doled out to Egyptians. The US must now tread carefully while maintaining the foreign policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Or maybe not...

Maybe it is time to shun this practice of embracing such regimes in the name of some greater good. History shows that we usually suffer from such alliances. How about looking a bit farther down the road and recognizing foreign governments for what they are rather than what we want them to be. Providing foreign aid to a country that is essentially a dictatorship is nothing more than a shakedown in which US dollars are provided in return for a promise of political change at some future date. I think we can say that such extortion, while possibly providing a short-term profit, leads to long-term loss for stability and progress.

In the meantime, I find hope in that such seemingly mindless pursuits involving a "social network" have merit and meaning in a world sorely in need of public involvement.

Taming the Beast

The latest session of Congress is getting into full swing and much is being said of wrestling the deficit into a more manageable figure. I don't know about you, but I just can't get my head around trillions of dollars. So let's get this down to a level more easily understood: the household budget. After all, each of us is a mini-government and the way we handle our financial challenges should be similar to Uncle Sam's.

A household budget enjoys the freedom of flexibility in that it is not necessarily formalized in writing. I don't itemize my monthly expenditures, but readily recognize whether I have available funds for a specific purchase. Regardless, month in and month out, we manage our cash flow. We do not run a balanced budget as most of us have a mortgage or other obligation that is paid down over time. We do not enjoy a huge cache of reserve funds to cover unexpected expenses, such as a new roof, but have avenues of credit that we would draw upon in the event they were needed. And, most importantly, we realize that this debt must be addressed in a timely manner. We limit our discretionary outlays until such time as that new roof, or whatever, is paid for.

In Washington and our state capitals, it seems that such hard choices are passed on to future administrations. This dearth of leadership has brought us to our current monetary shortfall. How else can one explain the fact that Social Security has gone largely unmodified over the decades? We live longer and rely on fewer to fund the system for an ever growing number of recipients. This is (and has been) unsustainable yet no political will has surfaced to alter the program. A combination of increases in retirement age and decreases in benefits seems unavoidable, but any representative contemplating re-election is loathe to support such a solution. The same mentality extends to other programs that are considered "third rails" and does nothing but deepen our financial hole. In the family, there is no fear of making the hard choice simply because there is no election. The bread-winners make priorities and act accordingly. If only politics was that simple.

We will hear much about a balanced budget amendment. Don't buy into that, either, as it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. New York City and other communities throughout the country have blown through their snow removal budget for the year. A balanced budget amendment would dictate that no more snow removal would occur as the funds were no  longer available. See what I mean? The problem lies not in over-spending to cover unplanned events, but in the resistance to making up the shortfall within the next budget.

Some areas of a budget exceed their allotted amount while others have a surplus at the end of the fiscal cycle. Theoretically, of course, because every agency seeks to spend their funds for fear that, if they don't, they'll get less next year. Yet another example of how the system encourages continued expansion and abuse.

We read about state budgets in similar stress (only four states have no deficit for 2010). Many governors talk about returning power to counties and other, smaller districts. This is yet another way of passing the buck because the state won't be footing the bill any longer. And the county has no money, either. Not much of a deficit reduction plan, is it?

Cities, states, and the federal government get their money from tax revenues that come primarily from sales and real estate assessments. We all know that the housing market has lost much of it's value and, what with the ensuing recession, folks aren't spending as much. It should come as no surprise that every public sector is scrambling for money while trying to maintain an expected level of service.

We can also expect to hear the continued rhetoric of spending less. Last week's State of the Union address spoke of "investing" in our future. Opponents of such largess equated the term with "spending". If you spend $10 for two cups of coffee, you've spent $10. But if you take that same $10 and buy a computer program that helps your kids learn, you've made an investment in their future. Not all spending is bad and, much like our leaky roof, we must continue to invest if we are to hold out any hope for a better tomorrow.

It's time to tighten our proverbial belts a notch or two and suck it up for a period of time until our financial ships are returned to calmer waters. Yes, our ox will get gored, along with everyone else's. And we need leaders rather than politicians. Folks that will ignore politics for the good of the country. I'd say that offers us a better outcome than the partisan-politics-oriented picking fly poop out of pepper, wouldn't you?

Sociopathic Capitalism

Those of you familiar with my musings know that I include the lack of corporate morality as a root cause for many of today’s ills. Today, I’d like to zero in on a more specific area, albeit related: capitalism without conscience.

Capitalism makes our economic engine churn. Historically, entities interested in making money found it extremely advantageous to make something that others would want to purchase. Nothing harmful, mind you, because any success would be short-lived once customers started falling by the wayside. Also, to be considered a good neighbor, there would be no disposing of toxins, etc. in an unsafe manner. In other words: conscience strode hand-in-hand with profitability and long-term viability. And this was a good thing.

Over time, however, “long-term” was redefined as this fiscal year or perhaps even a quarter as executive compensation escalated and golden parachutes became the exit of preference from any boardroom. All of a sudden, making money now took precedence over making money the right way. Manufacturing was sent off-shore because, after all, making something here required commitment and a large, expensive labor force.

Small, family businesses were not immune as they were beset by children loathe to follow in their ancestral endeavors. With no one to carry on the legacy, many enterprises were shuttered or sold to conglomerates who had long ago forsaken any whit of conscience. And the wheel continued to turn.

We now find ourselves in a world where, while we continue to extol the virtues of capitalism, we find much of our “capital” going to (or coming from) foreign nations. We no longer make many things of substance, our unionized workforce is below 12%, the middle class is shrinking, and anyone with something to sell finds that few on the home-front have available cash. Why? It might be because the financial sector has recently grown at an alarming rate as an economic substitute for manufacturing. Banks became too big to fail and enjoyed the luxury of a government bailout as they teetered on the ledge of insolvency. Now they can get almost interest-free money from the Federal Reserve and then immediately put it back into the government through the purchase of bonds. It’s a no-lose investment with guaranteed return. Why loan the same money to some business that may default?

American companies are behaving no better: they are currently sitting on roughly $2 trillion in cash. Why not invest this money into manufacturing, etc? Well, investment is occurring, but not within our borders. It’s just too expensive, you see, and what with the expectations of the shareholders, it makes more sense to build abroad.

The arguments above make perfect financial sense, but leave out the conscience that is most important if capitalism is to flourish once again. In the meantime, the middle class continues to whither from a lack of skilled positions available and the gap between haves and have-nots continues to widen. No longer are managers interested in long-term success for their company or their employees or their community. They are concerned with a bottom line that provides them with the opportunity of early retirement.

Some might argue that capitalism never had a conscience and never will (or should). And they might be spot-on. Maybe globalization has led us to our current malaise. As world economies settle to the lowest common denominator, it stands to reason that ours would suffer the most. If so, is there any reason to expect a return to our golden days?  

Our elected leaders continue to ramble on about job creation, but I’m hard pressed to see how any legislative effort can coerce the commercial world into doing something that seems to reduce their financial gain. Until they realize that there is more at stake than money, this sociopathic model of capitalism will continue to exist. Much to the detriment of those seeking what was once known as the American dream.