Which Way To Turn?

Irene is a wonderful name,

But damage is her newly found fame.

And now that she’s past

A common question is asked:

With whom do I file my claim?

What a week for those poor souls on the East Coast. Hurricane Irene surely did a number on property and infrastructure alike. And, as I post this, some have are still feeling the effects of her passage. Nevertheless, I’m curious as to how the aftermath will play out.

One would think that, what with the desire for a balanced budget amendment and smaller government, most would roll up their sleeves and get to the business of fixing their own damage as they dip into their own savings to pay for the repairs of things broken and replacement of things lost. After all, they’re independent, strong-willed, God-fearing folks that think Uncle Sam should get the hell out of their affairs.

And, should one think along those lines, one would more than likely be greatly mistaken. No, I’m putting my chips in with those lining up to fill out claim forms provided by FEMA and other publicly funded relief organizations. And anything that the Red Cross (or any other privately funded charity) has to offer, they’ll take that, too. Who could foresee such an event? And who can expect me, an average American citizen with no savings and no insurance, to pick up the tab for a natural disaster?

And there, in a nutshell, you have a perfect example of the dysfunction running through the core of our society and political process. “I don’t wanna cop until I need a cop,” if you will. “And I don’t wanna pay for the cop until I need him.” Of course. No investment into a system that provides the things we will all need at some time or another. No rainy day fund (sorry, Irene), no fall back position, no Plan B.

The romance of an individual against the forces of nature may play well on the silver screen, but flops on Main Street despite the calls for “less spending” and “smaller government”. The theory of such a system flies high, but rolls into a graveyard spiral in the face of a reality that demands expenditure and man-power for the sake of the citizenry.

We are a confused populace, my friends, and we need to figure out just what kind of a world we want to live in: a dog-eat-dog or a one-hand-washes-the-other. Before you decide, though, remember that old country song where no truer words ever were twanged: Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug.

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?

The American Dream with a Twist

No, I'm not suggesting a new cocktail. Rather, a 21st century slant on a recurring fantasy: hitting the lottery...striking oil. In other words, realizing the American dream. Come on, admit it. You've thought about it just like the rest of us.

As one moves up the economic ladder there is a general interest in sharing the wealth with other, less fortunate souls. Most of us achieve our goals (and the just rewards) through further education, training, and determination. So this interest in sharing comes slowly over time. No one wants to give their hard-earned dollars away, but a portion to worthy causes seems to be a way of paying it forward, if you will, to those that are still striving toward a richer tomorrow.

Few of us are afforded a lifestyle in which money plays no role in our decisions. Why is it, then. that there is such a resistance to restoring tax rates to those earning more than $250,000 a year. It seems that most would be unaffected by this roll-back of tax cuts, but still the hue and cry against such revenue enhancement can be heard from every rung on the ladder. And the cries become louder at the lower reaches instead of the other way around. This makes no sense without the twist that I've referred to in the title.

We've established that most still believe in the American dream and in achieving fortune (and fame, perhaps). The training and striving, though, have been replaced by a more contemporary version where the riches flow immediately from some sort of instant windfall. These dreamers, if you will, have dwelled at the bottom of the money tree and have come to see themselves as quasi-victims of those farther up.

"Some day", they muse, "when my boat comes in, it'll be my turn to stick it to someone else." No sense of obligation to the programs and opportunities that created the environment for financial success. Just a greed-based desire to keep it all. Now, it makes more sense that higher taxes for the "rich" are so opposed when you factor in the ever-present dream of attaining the same level of wealth.

It also paints a sad portrait of the modern American dream. No longer are we willing to recognize that which made us what we are. No longer do we want to re-invest. No, we want to become "the Man" and stick it those that we used to be. While one person refusing to spread the wealth may not pose a problem for our society, a mentality shared by many does.

It means that the "me" generation has finally come home to roost. Society takes a back seat to the individual to the detriment of various publicly and privately funded organizations that seek to create opportunities leading to more dollars in one's pocket. The irony lies in the fact that fewer folks will now be able to realize that dream. True, lottery winners and the like may still be seen on the front page, but, by and large, the American dream slips further away for more deserving souls.

Reinvestment, be it on a personal or community level, is essential in maintaining any real hope of climbing to a higher rung on that money ladder. You may have heard about a tide raising all boats. If so, you know where I'm headed. And if not, you're probably dreaming of how you will spend all of your money. That's sad, but it seems to be the new reality. How else can one explain opposing higher taxes on an income level that few of us will ever attain? Doubly sad is the fact that politicos supporting such tax cuts know full well that those they claim to represent will be harmed the most by such policies.

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. 

Red, White, or Blue?

As the debt ceiling crisis continues on towards the eleventh hour (and then some), I’m struck by the parallel between members of Congress and our national colors of red, white, and blue. I know, I’m struck alot, it seems, and rarely in normal ways.

Red: Many in Congress are red-faced as they see their colleagues giving away much of the store. “Store” being defined purely upon which side of the aisle one sits. Republicans see giving in way too much on spending cuts while Democrats cannot believe that reducing entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security is a possibility while ignoring the need for raising taxes. Both are enraged.

Blue: Others are holding their breath until they turn the aforementioned color unless they get their way. We know them as members of the Tea Party. No new taxes, a balanced budget amendment, and deep cost cutting. That’s it: simple and nonnegotiable. Would Democrats do the same thing when social programs are threatened. I’d say so, but it hasn’t gotten to that point (yet).

White: While Washington dithers about seeking to make political hay over what should be a routine no-brainer, the rest of us are ashen-faced as we see our already shaky economy threatened to further shrivel by the prospect of a national default.

Who would’ve thought that the good old red, white, and blue would come to this. Not one of us lives under a balanced budget if any kind of outstanding balance is carried on any instrument, be it a credit card or mortgage or equity line of credit or other loan of some sort. To expect the country to do so is foolhardy and short-sighted. Unless, of course, you won’t be seeking federal assistance for the next natural disaster that rolls through your neighborhood. Any unforeseen event would lack funding under a balanced budget. You don’t live that way nor do I. Demanding the government to abide under such limitations is naive. Ironically, some of the more inflexible House members have outstanding personal credit balances that would make most of us recoil in terror.

And one more thing: the “American people” did not have a say in who comprises the Congress other than their own district. So, when national polls show that a majority of the “American people” favor a balanced approach to handling our debt (tax increases and lower spending), no House member (that means you, Boehner,) can lay claim to doing what the “American people sent us here to do” by proposing a singular solution of budget cuts.

How about a little less red or blue in the face of our politicos and a little more middle ground? That could well return a bit of color to our cheeks, too. Campaigning is far different (and easier) than governing, to be sure. The time for governance is long past due.

Frivolity

Frivolous, as defined by Webster, describes a silly or whimsical activity. The term can be applied by others witnessing a behavior or individuals describing the motivations for their specific actions. Today, we talk only of the former, so how can anyone use this word in conjunction with "lawsuit". Suing someone is anything but fun and I find it hard to believe that anyone would frivolously leap into the legal pool. We have been duped, you and I both, and allow me a few minutes of your time to explain.

I have long thought that a big piece of needed reform within our legal system is the seemingly astronomical awards given to foolish people suffering from poor judgment. The lady and the hot McDonalds coffee is the poster child for such reform. Truth be told, this attempt at tort reform can be traced back to corporate board rooms and that, my friends, is generally not in our best interests.

Should you get the chance to view HBO's "Hot Coffee", don't pass it up. This documentary chronicles the slow, yet steady, strategy employed to limit our access to courtrooms or justified damage awards. Some states have imposed penalty caps on awards while corporations prefer arbitration clauses in contracts with their customers, all in the name of tort reform. The former makes legal action financially unfeasible while the latter bars us from the courtroom altogether.

OK, it should come as no surprise to learn of corporate America's desire to keep you and me from seeking redress for their shenanigans, but why is the campaign so successful? I'd say good marketing aimed at fair-minded folks. And aren't we all fair- minded? Well, I'm fair-minded, anyway, but I'm not so sure about you.

And just like that, we've all been hornswoggled into this high pitched, hot tempered, tort reform fever as we fall prey to the misconception that frivolous lawsuits will be our undoing. Get rid of them, we're told, and all costs go down: medical, insurance, merchandise, and the like. After all, the prices are high to cover the costs of such frivolity. (In states that have instituted reform by limiting awards, no evidence of lower premiums, etc. has been found.)

In so doing, though, we bypass an integral part of our judicial system: the jury. Left to their deliberation, they are in the best position to separate the frivolous from the serious and render appropriate verdicts. Otherwise, we've allowed politicians and CEO's to define the term and one needs little time to decide who's best interests would be served. (Hint: it's not us!)

It's not my place to rule on the merits of your complaint unless, of course, I'm a member of the jury hearing your case. Nor is it your place to rule on mine. I think we can also agree that any foray into the legal arena is something far from frivolous. That being said, let's temper our rush to tort reform by remembering the two important letters in frivolous: u and i.

Hope vs Pessimism

I recently promised to delve into the seeming dichotomy of hopeful pessimism and there’s no better time, I’d say, what with events swirling about at a hectic pace and threatening to overtake us. I wish I could say that this idea sprung from my own musings, but the credit goes to Dr. Cornel West. Dr. West is a regular guest on HBO’s "Real Time with Bill Maher" and, on a recent show, he described himself as a pessimist with hope. This stuck with me because the two, while rarely sharing the same sentence, are far from mutually exclusive.

It is difficult indeed to feel optimistic when looking at current events. Political, corporate, financial, environmental, you-name-it: the obstacles are overwhelming in trying to get our arms, let alone heads, around issues that collide and confuse. No, optimism isn’t number 1 on today’s hit parade and for good reason. But our absence of rose-colored glasses does not necessarily mean we’re ready to throw in the towel. That's where hope comes into play and I’d venture to say that it coexists in each of us regardless of whether we’re optimists, pessimists, or pragmatists. How can that be?

Could it be that they occupy different venues within our psyche? Pessimism, et al, represents a state of mind that shapes our view of the world and short term outlooks. And we can be all at the same time as we contemplate the different challenges and potential solutions. Hope, on the other hand, can be found only in our heart. It is more of an emotion than mental process and, as such, ignores facts and the reality of our daily life. As such, it allows us to look past the warts and envision a world of possibilities.

There are hopeless creatures out there, to be sure, and you can bet they’re pessimists of the first order. No surprise, though, because without hope there can be nothing to temper the doom and gloom in our thoughts. Hope, however, can thrive in spite of the mind’s eye and finds cohabitation with pessimism more than doable.

I can’t say for certain that one can train the heart to be hopeful. I do know that, in spite of my daily dose of wonder at the dismal state of the human condition, I remain hopeful that mankind can somehow wiggle its way out of the various messes it currently finds itself enmeshed. We’ve always seemed to do it before and, while the pessimist in me thinks we may be coming to the end of our streak, my hope keeps me searching for that elusive rainbow. I also accept the fact that having hope is harder work than adhering to a pessimistic viewpoint.

Feel free to bemoan the state of affairs, but leave room at the end of your diatribe for a small serving of hope. After all, without it we’re not left with much, are we? And thank you, Dr. West, for drawing the important distinction between the two.