12/21/2005

The Holiday Greetings Battle

It’s the holiday season. Time for traditions of tacky decorations, crowded stores and arguing over the proper way to greet each other during this time of goodwill. We are told we must be sensitive to others who may not share our customs or culture, and so, should rely upon generic terms like “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greeting.”

But now it’s going a step further. The chorus is growing louder, as evidenced by an editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer, that we end the holiday greetings war by taking the time to inquire about the cultural preferences of those to whom we plan to offer seasonal wishes. Impracticality aside - do we really want every convenience store clerk, postal worker and passerby to ask about our cultural background before offering a greeting? - don’t such suggestions made in the name of tolerance actually pander to perhaps the most harmful form of verbal intolerance?

For isn’t it intolerant to refuse the good wishes of others simply because they weren’t worded precisely the way we would have preferred? And doesn’t that lead us all down a path where we parse our words so carefully for fear of offending that we no longer say what we really mean? And once our words no longer match our thoughts, how can there be any trust?

This issue goes far beyond how we greet each other between Thanksgiving and December 25th. We need candor and honesty if we hope to address the real and perceived issues that exist among the different segments of our society. If we enter that dialogue with our tongues tied, we’ll succeed in nothing but sweeping those differences under the rug, where they’ll remain to bite us another day.

The old adage about sticks and stones was predicated upon the belief that words meant to harm could really do no damage. Today, even words meant with the best of intentions are seen as offensive and harmful. It’s time that we return to that childhood lesson and realize that words can only hurt us if we let them.

So let us simply accept a "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" as the kind blessing of another, whether we celebrate that holiday or not. And perhaps, if we can stop taking offense when someone harmlessly says the wrong thing, we can start to discuss the real issues that separate us. In the end, that seems to be the real path to tolerance, and ultimately, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

12/11/2005

Tookie Wilson Should Live

Tookie Wilson should live. Not because he’s a “good person.” Not because he's written children's books. Not because he might be innocent (there's no evidence to support that claim, whatsoever). And certainly not because Snoop Dog or Ed Asner say he should.

In fact, all the effort to make him seem like a good person, or somehow more deserving of commutation than other death row inmates, is counterproductive as far as I'm concerned because it detracts from the real reason he and all his death row comrades should be allowed to live. Namely, that the death penalty confers far too much power to the state. Once that power is conferred, then the justification is simply a matter of degree (one prosecutor tried to get the death penalty for a DUI conviction a few years ago).

As a limited-government advocate, I do not believe anyone, especially an entity as unaccountable as the "state", should have the power to determine who lives and who dies. That decision should be God’s and God’s alone.

12/06/2005

Homeowner Associations Make for Bad Neighbors


Whoever said it was a free country?

A multi-cultural nativity scene is under attack in one Novi, Michigan subdivision, but the owner said she isn't removing the display from her front yard. The nativity sits among other statuettes like Minnie Mouse and Santa Claus, but the fuss is over the nativity scene and one family's personal tradition is turning into a public debate. Nativity Scene Causes Stir In Novi Neighborhood

At first glance this appears to be just another example of what's quickly becoming a holiday tradition - the fight to keep church and state separate by prohibiting religious holiday displays. But it's not.

That's because this isn't about a public display, but a private one. And because it's not the city or county enforcing the rule. Instead this order came from the local homeowners association.

This is just one more example of homeowners associations (HOA) gone bad. These quasi-governmental groups are becoming the neo-fascists of suburbia. And it's gone way beyond telling us the colors we can paint our house. For example:

- An Ocala, Florida HOA warned residents that taking in families displaced by hurricanes would violate association rules.

- A Congers, NY condo association is fighting to restrict a blind woman and her seeing eye dog to her apartment and a single parking space (apparently the right to a doggie-do free complex supercedes the right of a disabled person to move about freely).

- A Naples, FL condo association fought to preserve rules that limited grandchildren visits.

These are the work of control freaks. Which should come as no surprise - homeowner associations are magnets for nitpickers, busybodies and do-gooders. Those of us with real things to do have neither the time nor inclination to get involved in telling our neighbors how to live. So HOA's too often end up dominated by people whose mission in life appears to be trying to get others to live as they see fit.

These boards are worse than local government because they are largely unbound by minor inconveniences such as our constitutionally guaranteed rights. We agree to their rules when we buy our homes, so if they want to limit free speech or religious expression, they are largely free to do so.

Then why are they so popular? Well, we believe they are protectors of our personal sensibilities and, by proxy, our property values. They give us a way of complaining about our neighbor without having to complain to our neighbor. They create a buffer between ourselves and the targets of our pet peeves. It's an extension of our contentious and litigious society that seeks formal validation and enforcement of our every whim.

It wasn't always like this. There was a time when disputes were worked out one-to-one. And if you didn't like what your neighbor was doing, a few well-placed trees and shrubs could provide all the buffer necessary. But not anymore. In fact, you probably can't plant those trees without prior HOA approval.

We've come a long way since Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. Today it's give me liberty unless it hurts my property value. It seems we may have come a bit too far.

12/05/2005

Gender Inequities in Education

For thirty-three years - since the adoption of Title IX - we have tried to eliminate alleged gender inequities in education. By now it should be apparent that we've not just closed the gap, but reversed it. The Washington Post just ran a report on the disappearance of men from college campuses. No, it's not about some gender-reverse Ted Bundy-type serial abductor, but the worrisome decline in male college enrollment compared to women, with men making up only 43% of the student population on U.S. college campuses. That continues a trend that began in the late 70's when women first passed men in college enrollment. Washington Post story

First, let's clarify that though the writer implies that fewer men are now attending college, that’s not the case. In reality, the number of men attending college has increased since 1990, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of high school graduates. A 2003 study by Andrew Summ, Neeta Fogg, et al. shows that the percentage of male high school graduates going on to college rose by two percentage points from 1990 to 2001. (Study link)

Still, a woman is far more likely to go on to college than is a man. Not only that, she's also more likely to finish high school since males are more likely to drop out before graduating. (Chart) So, why in this era when knowledge is king, are there such gender discrepancies in both college enrollments and high school dropout rates? I believe there are three basic explanations.

The first is differing perspectives of career prospects among men and women. While more women have come to see a college education as their best hope for a good job, many men still cling to the notion that they'll be able to get high-paying, low-skill jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere.

A second, more insidious reason, is the changing educational approach in our primary and secondary schools arising from attempts to satisfy the requirements of Title IX. When first enacted, women were more likely than men to drop out of high school and less likely to attend college. Four years later, men were dropping out of school at higher rates than women. Just two years after that, men became the minority on college campuses. Despite this reality, nearly all the focus on gender inequities in education remained skewed toward alleged hardships faced by girls. Complaints that our schools favored boys with regard to teacher attention, science, math and computer instruction, athletics and more still drove much of the debate in academic circles.

Yet it was the boys who were dropping out and not going on to college. Gender activists claiming to seek gender equity, instead enforced a new gender inequity. We ignored our struggling boys, while continuing reforms that favored girls. Verbal skills were emphasized, while instruction in areas where boys performed well like math and science, was made more girl friendly. Couple this with misguided attempts to improve students' so-called self-esteem, and it's no wonder our boys feel lost. Boys tend to feel good about themselves through restless, competitive, hands-on achievement. But in our efforts to make sure little Johnny's (or Janey's) feelings weren't hurt, we removed opportunities for competitive comparisons. Schools have eliminated everything from letter grades to dodgeball. Lo and behold, we find that boys don't feel at home in school.

This demographic shift in higher education is a harbinger of bad tidings. Lesser education means lesser career prospects. Mismatched academic achievement means mismatched relationships. Underemployed at work and overmatched at home, too many men risk becoming marginalized members of society. The self-esteem we've worked so hard to instill in girls has been at the expense of the self-esteem of our boys - boys who tend more toward crime, violence, substance abuse and unemployment than do women. Directionless men seeking purpose too easily and too often find it in less than ideal groups, as can be seen from the gangs in our inner cities to the terrorist groups of the Middle East. The risk will only worsen as fewer boys grow up with worthy role models.

And therein lies the third reason for college enrollment gender inequities: we’re now into the second and third generation of poorly educated men. While previous generations may have grown up in homes headed by fathers without degrees or diplomas, it was not because the father failed to value education. Today, it is – if there is a father at all.

Yes, gender inequities remain. But now it's our boys’ turn to suffer. If we do not address the issue quickly and effectively, they won’t suffer alone.

[Footnotes: The NY Times ran this David Brooks column in 2022 that amplifies the issues in this piece. 

The intro to Ezra Klein's March 10, 2023 podcast began with a line quite similar to the opener of this 2005 piece: "In 1972, when Congress passed Title IX to tackle gender equity in education, men were 13 percentage points more likely to hold bachelor’s degrees than women; today women are 15 points more likely to do so than men."

12/03/2005

Congress Butting In Where it Doesn't Belong

Glad to see Congress sticking to the things that matter:

Lawmaker Calls Hearing on 'Flawed' BCS

By JIM VERTUNO
AP Sports Writer

HOUSTON (AP) -- Calling the Bowl Championship Series "deeply flawed," the chairman of a congressional committee has called a hearing on the controversial system used to determine college football's national champion.

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, charged with regulating America's sports industry, announced Friday it will conduct a hearing on the BCS next week, after this season's bowl matchups are determined.


Read entire story here

According to committee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, "Too often college football ends in sniping and controversy, rather than winners and losers. The current system of determining who's No. 1 appears deeply flawed."

So what. That's the NCAA's problem, not yours.

And then there's this:

Senator Suggests Hearing on Terrell Owens Matter

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Sen. Arlen Specter accused the National Football League and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly and said he might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.

Specter said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the all-pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.


Read entire story here

There are 280 million people in the United States. I'm guessing that at least one or two have been the victims of "vindictive and inapproriate" treatment from an employer. Are you going to call hearings on their cases, Senator?

Come on guys, this is not your business. Stay out of it.

12/02/2005

Quick Thoughts: Supreme Court

Does the U.S. Supreme Court have any role other than to consider Roe v. Wade? It would appear not, given the scrutiny that is given to each court nominee's views on that particular issue. I just wonder how much we shortchange ourselves by maintaining such a narrow focus. Wouldn' it be interesting if we found that Roe v. Wade turned out to be the Trojan Horse that was used to slide nominees who have different, but no less troubling, agendas onto the court?

12/01/2005

Quick Thoughts: Immigration Policy

It seems to me that our immigration policy has it completely backwards: We're incapable of preventing the flow of cheap, unskilled laborers willing to take jobs Americans don't want, but quite effective at keeping out educated immigrants who can fill jobs for which too many Americans are unqualified.

This is a result of crackdowns in the wake of 9/11 designed to keep suspected terrorists out of the country. Yet a terrorist could enter the country just as easily as a Mexican migrant worker, while an Asian engineer or Indian computer programmer faces a bureaucratic maze when trying to enter the country.

Part of our historical competitive advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world has been our ability to attract the earth's best and brightest. I'm afraid our loss will be our competitors' gain.

8/04/2005

Seek and Ye Shall Find

Soon after I began writing my newspaper column it seemed that I saw potential topics everywhere I looked. Whether it was my young son asking about the war, a neighbor becoming a U.S. citizen or watching students choke up with tears while trying to save a favorite teacher's job at a school board meeting, I found myself surrounded by subjects I could write about.

When I owned my dry cleaning business I saw dry cleaners everywhere. When I sold the business and became interested in real estate, I started to see “For Sale” signs everywhere. It’s not like they suddenly popped up, I just hadn’t noticed them before. But once I started looking, I couldn’t miss them - much like you never notice the car ads in the paper until you are in the market for a new car.

My guess is this happens to everyone. The old Seinfeld show was heralded for being about nothing. But that wasn’t true. It was about everything and anything, whether waiting forever for a table at a restaurant or losing a reservation for a rental car. But, whereas most of us seethe at such inconveniences, Jerry Seinfeld and his creative crew saw them as potential comedic dynamite. They didn’t dream up these ideas, they lived them – and saw the humor because that was what they were looking for.

There's a valuable lesson in that – you will find what you are looking for. Seek and ye shall find.

If you look for opportunities, they will come your way. If you are forever on the lookout for obstacles, they too, will surely come your way. You can look for humor and laugh or for heartache and cry. Seek kindness and you’ll be rewarded with it. Seek irritants and you will be forever irritated.

I have often read of injustices, “both real and imagined.” An imagined injustice is just that – imagined. It exists only because we were expecting it. If you really think about it, it is impossible to be blindsided by an imagined injustice. “Boy, I didn’t see that one coming.” Yes you did, otherwise you wouldn’t have even noticed.

This is not to say that life is just a bed of roses. There is real sadness, real heartache, real injustice. In fact, there is more than enough to go around, so why go out looking for more? And if in the process of ignoring imagined slights we just so happen to miss a real one, are we any worse off? It’s kind of like the “if a tree falls in the forest” conundrum. If someone hurts you and you don’t notice, were you really hurt?

This extends to people as well. Look for the best in them and you’ll find it. Look for the worst, and you won’t be disappointed. I learned the former from my brother-in-law when he lived with us back in 1993-94. He saw only the good side of people, never saying anything bad about anyone. I’m sure it’s no coincidence that he is one of most well-adjusted people I know. Contrast that with those who seem to revel not only in finding fault with others, but in their own misery as well.

Michigan’s state motto is “If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.” We might be wise to steal a bit from that thought – whatever it might be that we want from life, all we have to do is look. It’s all around us.

7/29/2005

Pointing Fingers in the Rich/Poor Debate

How many times have you heard some adult say they had no idea they were poor when they were young? They knew the poor existed, but that term described someone else. It’s only in adulthood that they can see that the poor they heard so much about included them.

Well, I have a feeling that today’s children are more likely to claim they had no idea they were rich when they were young. They’ll grow up, get a degree, take an entry level job and move into an apartment. Then for the first time, they’ll be living on a salary that barely covers the rent and car payment, let alone all the luxuries they enjoyed while living with mom and dad. Suddenly, they’ll realize that when they heard all this talk about the wealthy in the U.S., they were hearing about their own parents.

So is it any wonder that there are such misperceptions about the wealthy, when even those who are counted among their ranks don’t realize it?

But misperceptions, there are.

Ask my friends on the left about the wealthy, and you’ll hear that they are robber barons who maintain their wealth only by keeping the poor down. Their world view is that of a zero-sum game where one only wins if another loses.

But it is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is created, not stolen. Henry Ford was an average man who changed the world with the mass-produced automobile. Not only did he create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, he opened the world to the masses in a way that only the automobile could. And he became wealthy as a result.

That is how one becomes wealthy – by providing something of value to others. It is not done by stealing. Nor is it attained by keeping others down. Just look at household computer usage. The poor are the least likely to have a computer in the home because they are least able to afford one. So wouldn’t Bill Gates be even wealthier if everyone could afford a computer? Of course he would. Thus, he has no interest in keeping anyone poor – he wants everyone to be able to buy a computer.

If that’s the case, why do some insist that wealth is attained only through nefarious means? Because it is the necessary counter-balance to the view that the poor are the victims of an oppressive system. If there are to be oppressed, then there must be oppressors. The wealthy serve to fill that role.

But if the wealthy are not the ones keeping the poor down, then what is the cause of poverty? Some of my conservative friends will argue it’s the poor’s own fault – a failure to be disciplined in going to school, getting up for work and doing the best job possible.

Yet just as some liberals have a misguided view of the wealthy, this portrait of the poor is too simplistic. Yes, each person has the power within themselves to become the best that they can be. But too few believe that to be the case and even fewer know how to put that power to use. We can say it’s their fault for not doing what they need to do, but is it their fault that they don’t know how?

If there is an oppressive system to be blamed, it is a system where our blame is misplaced. Instead of blaming the wealthy, we should learn from them. Instead of blaming the poor, we should teach them. Blaming the wealthy only serves to give others an excuse for their circumstances, while blaming the poor does nothing to improve their lot. And if all the energy spent pointing fingers were instead focused on showing the less fortunate the way, we might actually make some headway in the fight on poverty.

And everyone would be all the richer for it.

6/23/2005

Goodbye

Well, folks, the time has come for me to say goodbye.  I’ve enjoyed sharing my opinions with you for the past two years, but I’ve decided there are lots of things I want to do which are going to keep me from devoting the time I need to make sure what I write is worth reading.  Not that all of you thought it was worth reading before.

While it’s been fun, there certainly have been some ups-and-downs.  The feedback’s been great, whether you agreed with me or not.  By far, my favorites have been from people who said they didn’t necessarily agree with me, but that a column or idea made them think.  That’s all I could ever ask.

But it has not been without its downside.  I know I’ve ruffled some feathers, taking positions that were extremely unpopular with some people.  That’s been very difficult at times, especially when I knew taking a different stance would probably be in my own best interest.  If nothing else, I would hope those who disagreed would at least appreciate that I never let my own interests compromise my principles.

I would also hope that after two years that some of those principles would have become clear.  Principles like taking personal responsibility for our own lives and situations.  Not looking to government to fulfill all our wants and desires.  Respecting education as the single most important investment we can make in ourselves and our children.  And last but not least, remembering that life is what we make it.  Appreciate the good things that happen and let the bad things go.  It makes life so much easier.

So with that, I’ll leave you with a few thoughts on what I’d like to see in the months and years ahead.

I’d like to see us teach our children that success isn’t measured by the size of one’s house, but by the size of one’s heart.  Find passions in life and pursue them with gusto, otherwise all the money in the world won’t make you happy.  Follow your heart and you’ll find success.

I’d also like to teach them that life isn’t always fair.  Don’t dwell on slights and setbacks.  That’s the road to bitterness.  Instead, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on.  It’s like a flat tire – you can curse the nail and kick the car, but that gets you nowhere.  Fix it and be on your way.

Let’s seek out opinions contrary to our own.  If you’re conservative, read the New York Times and listen to NPR.  If you’re liberal, listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News.  Like a weightlifter, if your views never face resistance they’ll become weak and flabby.  Exercising our minds is as important as exercising our bodies.

Treat each other with respect.  We can disagree, but we don’t have to be nasty.  Which brings me to my one regret regarding this column.  Last December I wrote a very sarcastic column that unfairly ridiculed some of our elected leaders, most notably the West Chester Township trustees.  It was uncalled for.  Whatever differences of opinion we might have, George Lang, Catherine Stoker and Jose Alvarez are all good people who sincerely care about their community.  I have personally apologized to George, and I’d like to publicly apologize to Catherine and Jose.  I hope they’ll accept it.


With that, I’m off.  But I won’t be gone.  Thanks for reading.

6/09/2005

Mortgaging Our Future

Remember the economy just before the stock market bubble burst? Jobs were so plentiful that fast food joints were offering signing bonuses and one tech interviewee actually invoiced a prospective employer for the time he spent interviewing with them. With skyrocketing stock prices, we were feeling flush and believed we could do anything.

Well, would you believe that the economy has grown faster in the past two years than it did in the two years leading up to the stock market peak in March of 2000? Yep, adjusted for inflation, gross domestic product has surged 8.9 percent in the past two years versus 8.5 percent in the two years ending in March of 2000. So why do things feel so unsettled today compared to five years ago?

For one, we’re coming off the sluggishness early in the decade. We’re at war, for another. But I think the real reason is far more fundamental – and here is where I put my economist’s hat on.

Not to generalize too much, but there are generally two schools of thought on government deficit spending. To fight off recession, you can increase spending to generate demand or cut taxes to spur private spending and investment.

We’ve used a combination of these two policies – increased government spending AND reduced taxes. In the process, we ran up record government deficits, excluding Social Security surpluses, of almost $600 billion in 2004. Meanwhile, our trade deficit – the difference in how much we import versus how much we export – was a little over $600 billion last year.

So what we have is a government that provides us with $600 billion in government programs and services for which we’re not paying (at least not yet). Then we go and spend that $600 billion on stuff overseas. Essentially, we are financing a huge foreign shopping spree, with the feds as the credit card company. Granted, it’s far more complex than that, but bottom line, the amount we borrow to fund the government is about equal to our excess overseas purchases.

The end result is that the deficit spending that economists say should boost our economy is doing as much, if not more, to create jobs in China, Korea and India as it is to create jobs at home. We don’t feel it materially because our lifestyle is being maintained by this government-funded foreign splurge. But we feel it psychologically, as evidenced by consistently low consumer confidence surveys. Perhaps deep down we realize we’re spending our future rather than investing in it.

The real danger is that our foreign trading partners are the ones funding our federal deficits. They use the cash they get from us to buy U.S. government securities. They essentially sell us stuff, then loan the money back to us to buy more. What happens if they decide they have better things to do with their money?

I have no problem borrowing to finance a house, business or asset that will provide a future return on investment. But I believe it’s unwise to finance a lifestyle. Yet that seems to be what we are doing as a society. It’s a message no politician will ever give, but at some point we are going to have to sacrifice the boat, big-screen TV or some government services and start paying as we go. Otherwise we could find ourselves sacrificing something much more precious – our future.

5/20/2005

Republicans Would Be Foolish To Weaken the Filibuster

Some people have questioned this, but I really am a conservative – in the classic small government sense. So much so that my son is named Jefferson in honor of Thomas Jefferson, who George Will once described as the patron saint of limited government.

Which is why I have serious reservations about Republican threats to amend Senate rules regarding filibusters in order to approve a few judicial nominees. One of the first lines of defense against an activist – and hence suffocating – government is to make it difficult to act (it’s no coincidence that “act” is the root word of “activist”).

The filibuster does just that. It prevents the most extreme ideas of the majority from being carried out. And I am sorry, but there are some extreme ideas on both sides of the political aisle. There are Democrats who want an activist government that legislates equality of income and outcomes. The name for that is socialism. No thanks.

On the Republican side, there are those who want an activist government that has greater say in how we live our lives morally and has less respect for our privacy. There are a few words I can think of to describe that form of government, and I say no thanks to that as well.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I know very little about the backgrounds of the judicial nominees who are being blocked by Democratic threats of a Senate filibuster. But I do know that the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if the tables were turned and the Democrats were threatening to eliminate the filibuster as a tactical maneuver.

That, more than anything, is what I would keep in mind if I were a Senate Republican – the day will come when they are once again in the minority. It may seem hard to fathom, but the pendulum swings both ways, particularly after it has swung too far in one direction. Ironically, the filibuster helps keep that pendulum from the most extreme swings, so keeping it may actually help preserve the Republicans’ majority.

But if it doesn’t, I want the Republicans to have the filibuster option. Back when Bill Clinton was first elected, Senator Bob Dole said the president was going to have a chaperone. The filibuster made that possible.

The Republicans argue that as the majority party, they are simply carrying out the will of the people. But I would remind them, as I would the Democrats if they were in power, that they represent everyone, not just those who voted for them. Elections may be winner-take-all, but governing is not.

Therefore, Republicans would be wise to remember that while their victory was broad, it was not especially deep. President Bush received less than 51 percent of the vote. Republican House candidates garnered barely 50.1 percent of all votes nationwide and over the last three elections, covering all Senate seats, Republicans actually received over two million fewer votes than Democratic candidates.

Bottom line, when used judiciously (no pun intended), the filibuster serves the wishes of those 49 plus percent of Americans whose interests are not represented by the majority. It is one of the beauties of our American system of government – majority rule with minority rights. Our system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that no one person, party or agenda can gain too much power at the expense of others. And if that means government can’t do everything it wants, that’s just fine with me.

4/29/2005

It's the Little Things

A while back, my wife turned left onto a busy street, then signalled that she needed to move right across two lanes of traffic so she could pull into the grocery store. But as she put on her signal, a driver in the right lane sped up to block her move, then proceeded to inform her of his opinion using a very specific finger.

Now, it’s not like she cut him off. She was just signaling her need to get into the next lane. But the other driver’s reaction left her with gritted teeth and boiling blood. And it’s fairly easy to imagine the mood of the other driver. I doubt his gesture was his way of telling her that he thought she was number one.

So here we have an everyday, completely normal circumstance that ends up leaving two people irritated and seething. But what if it had been handled differently? What if instead of blocking her path, the guy had slowed down to let her in? My wife waves to say thanks, and the other driver gets the momentary warm fuzzy feeling that comes with the simplest act of kindness.

The difference such acts can make was brought home by an email I received the other day. Like everyone else, I get emails forwarded with every manner of joke, prayer, advice and admonition. Some are cute, some troublesome and some just not worth the time to read (though, of course, not anything that’s been sent to me by anyone reading this). But every so often there is a little gem that pops out and makes me take notice.

I got one of those the other day. It simply said, “If you want to cheer yourself up, do something to cheer up someone else.”

So simple and so true. And cheering up someone else doesn’t require silly jokes and funny faces. Tiny acts of kindness – letting the other driver have the open parking space, letting the person who’s holding up the checkout lane know that it’s okay, giving back the incorrect change that the cashier gave you – make others feel better about the world around them. In the process, we feel better about ourselves.

For years I’ve carried a small clipping that quotes Harry Gray, former CEO of United Technologies, speaking on putting aside our focus on life’s grand awards in order to enjoy the little things – a glorious sunset, a kiss behind the ear, a four pound bass, hot soup, cold beer.

I often pull that out when I find myself fretting about things beyond my control. For all my want of a house on the lake, a better car, a bigger boat, the most enjoyable and rewarding moments are those I spend on my deck smelling the flowers while watching my kids play. Those moments bring more contentment – a much underrated emotion – than all my successes.

We can help others enjoy those moments. For proof I offer this little anecdote. I was in college when I received a call from a stranger, informing me they had found something I might want. She arrived at my door with a wallet that I had lost. In it was my cash, my driver’s license and that clipping reminding me to appreciate the little things in life. A simple act of kindness that cheers me to this day.

4/28/2005

Opportunities Abound Beyond Rec Center

[Second in a series about a proposed community center in West Chester, OH]

When someone suggested that last week’s column questioning the wisdom of building the West Chester Community Center in the face of some daunting economic challenges was too pessimistic, I was reminded of a story about the dot-com boom-and-bust. A CEO said it was like driving a Ferrari 120 mph, certain that the next gas station was just around the corner. Had they known it would be hundreds of miles, they’d have chosen to drive Toyotas at the speed limit. In other words, they would have chosen prudence over wild optimism.

I believe prudence is wise, especially after reviewing the township’s feasibility study that projects family membership fees somewhere between $640 and $1,165 a year. To a lot of families, that’s a big chunk of cash that many can’t afford.

But prudence need not mean stagnation. As Bob Marley once sang, when one door is closed, many more are opened. While I don’t subscribe to the view that this is a question of schools versus pools, I do believe it is a question of how we choose to allocate community resources. And choosing wisely could open a lot of doors, some simple and some breathtaking.

For example, what if we scaled back the plans so they’re closer to the modest concept many of us on the original 2012 Vision Committee envisioned? We could incorporate a much needed new library with some of the amenities offered by the Community Center such as a senior center, meeting rooms, an auditorium or facilities for the arts.

What if all the energy that’s been spent trying to make the community center a reality were instead directed toward changing state law so that the township could indeed spend TIF money on schools, thereby maintaining educational excellence while reducing demands on the taxpayer?

What if we installed the sidewalks so many long for, creating a walkable community that is safer for our children, healthier for all of us and more interconnected than it will ever be given our current dependence on the automobile?

And finally, what about West Chester’s hidden gem? When the community center was first proposed, Voice of America was still a web of radio antennas and wires. Today, it’s parkland nearly half the size of New York’s Central Park. Imagine not only ball fields, ponds and forested bike paths, but also pools and every other amenity we envision for the Community Center – and more – all in a much grander campus-like park setting.

It won’t happen overnight. But like a garden, VOA is a canvas that we can work on for decades without jeopardizing our immediate financial future. Best of all, VOA’s historical significance and name recognition could help us leverage corporate sponsorships and government grants that might make anything from a history museum to children’s science center possible. And a century from now, instead of a 100 year-old rec center in an aging commercial district, our descendants will marvel at our vision in creating a pastoral jewel in the midst of what by then is sure to be a congested urban metropolis.

I know a lot of people have poured their hearts and souls into the Community Center. Some have dug deep into their pockets to see it become reality. We are blessed to have such dedicated citizens among us. But there are so many other doors we could open. Let’s not lock them all in one felled swoop.

4/21/2005

Too Many Uncertainties Surround Community Center

[First in a series about a proposed community center in West Chester, OH]

I really, really want to throw my support behind the West Chester Community Center. With a daughter who lives to swim, a son who’ll play any sport and a pair of creaky knees that have forced me to find a form of exercise other than running, we could be the poster family for the center. Furthermore, I was on the original 2012 Vision Committee that first recommended the idea. And to top it off, some of the center’s most ardent supporters are friends whose opinions I trust and respect.

Still, I just cannot bring myself to say we should build it. Perhaps if West Chester existed in a vacuum, immune to all the influences, challenges and demands of the outside world, my opinion would be different. But it doesn’t. And those challenges give me pause. Here’s why.

Putting aside the TIF funding that will be used to build the project, let’s consider the operating costs. Projections show that the center will be self-sustaining through membership and user fees. Even if that turns out to be true – and we all know that even the best-intentioned government projections have been known to be wrong – it will mean that we’ll need nearly $3 million from local businesses and citizens to breakeven each year. If we don’t hit that $3 million breakeven number, then we’ll either need to hit up the taxpayer to make up the difference or cut into other township services. Neither is a pleasant prospect.

Now, we can argue that West Chester has the demographics to crack that $3 million nut. But are we sure? Consider that we’ve defeated four straight levy requests – three for the schools and one for parks – in the past eighteen months. Perhaps we’re not quite as flush with cash as we like to think.

And that’s without all the pressures we’re going to feel as taxpayers in the coming years. We’ve got education that needs to be funded, an out-of-whack state budget that is going to hit schools, local governments and taxpayers in the pocketbook, and an out-of-control federal deficit.

Our friends in Washington currently spend almost $2,000 per U.S. resident more than they collect in taxes each year – all before the baby boomers start collecting Social Security, using Medicare and taking advantage of the new prescription drug benefit. At some point we’ll need to stop borrowing and start paying.

Add to that our exploding healthcare costs, reduced employer contributions to insurance, precarious energy supplies and skyrocketing fuel prices and it gets a little scary. I can’t say that all these costs will make the community center unsustainable. But no one – and I mean no one – can say they won’t. And if it isn’t self-supporting, that will become one more drain on the taxpayer’s wallet.

With all the uncertainties we face, that is not a risk we should take on. We can close our eyes and plunge ahead. But first we should ask one simple question: Is the Community Center a necessity? If the answer is no, then we should take a pass.

For all the talk of sustainable communities and the need to keep up with our rec center-building neighbors, I believe the thriving communities of the future will be those that keep overhead low while focusing on core necessities like police, fire and education. Let’s be one of those communities.

Next week: What ifs and alternatives

3/23/2005

Drunk Driving's Hard Lesson

I once took one of those personality tests with a section where I had to choose which of two words best describe me. One choice was between “judge” and “peacemaker.” Easy. Judges weigh the facts and decide. Peacemakers see both sides to every story, try to bring people together, look for the common ground. I’d much rather be the judge.

Yeah, right. Who am I trying to kid? I don’t know that I could take the cold, hard stance required to sit in true judgment of another. Especially when I can so clearly understand the circumstances of the accused. That was made all too clear when I read of the sentence given to Jennifer Weir in a drunk-driving accident. It’s one of those heart-wrenching stories that make you wonder if justice was done. In fact, you wonder if justice could be done.

Jennifer Weir is the mother of a four year-old daughter. Last August she foolishly had a few beers, then strapped her daughter into the backseat of the car and drove home. At least that was her plan. But at some point along the way her car moved across the center line. We don’t know if it was only for a second or two. We don’t know if it happened just that once. But we do know that precisely at that moment, James and Virginia Boyd were travelling in the opposite direction on a motorcycle.

Jennifer Weir’s SUV struck the motorcycle and killed the Boyds.

At her sentencing, the judge choked back tears as he sent Jennifer away for ten years. Ten years, despite the fact that the victims’ family pleaded for mercy. Ten years, despite a four year-old daughter who might be fourteen before she gets to spend another evening at home with her mom.

The victims’ family members don’t see what good can come from locking up someone they see as a good person in a bad situation. I’m not so sure. I can see both sides. I look at my two children and think it could have been them that were in the path of Jennifer Weir’s SUV. On the other hand, I can’t imagine them losing a parent for ten years because of a moment of stupidity.

I’m sure I’m not alone. Almost certainly, someone is reading this story and thinking, “Wow, that could be me going to jail.” I’ll bet more than one or two of us got behind the wheel last week or last month when we were just as intoxicated as Jennifer Weir. It’s one of those “There but for the grace of God” moments that make it all so haunting.

Which is why I feel the sentence does serve a purpose. If the message can be taken to heart that drunk-driving accidents aren’t things that happen to someone else, that you are a menace if you drink and drive, that just because you’re a good person who’s never been in trouble doesn’t mean you can’t face hard time, then this sentence will achieve its intended purpose.

But I’m not sure I could be the one to hand down the judgment. What I can do, however, is look at my precious, innocent children and do whatever I can to see they never suffer the pain that arises from drinking and driving. The judge did his part. Perhaps it will help us do ours.

3/17/2005

Don't Say We Weren't Warned About Government Spending

I hesitate to quote a French scholar, given the low regard we seem to have these days for all things French, but I found his cautionary tale offered as a warning for America, to be quite enlightening. Our friend writes of ancient democracies that failed when government treasuries were exhausted in efforts to “relieve indigent citizens or to supply games and theatrical amusements for the populace,” then goes on to explain how it could happen here in the U.S.

Yes, I know it doesn’t take a lot of explaining. Believing government cash to be free money, we demand that our elected leaders satisfy our every wish. Politicians eager to win our votes are only too willing to oblige. So we get welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, prescription drug coverage, parks, parades, stadiums, arenas, community centers and heaven knows what else, all courtesy of our benevolent public officials. Then, as the government helps the indigent and entertains the rest of us, expenditures grow and grow until they outstrip our willingness – or ability – to pay. Poof. Exhausted treasuries.

Now, in days of old, those ancient democracies would go out and loot a foreign land to replenish their treasuries. But in today’s world of sophisticated finance, there is no need to loot our neighbors. We simply sell them some bonds, load up on debt and loot our children and grandchildren instead. It’s so much cleaner.

This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Our founding fathers thought they had provided a measure of protection against such pandering when they decided upon a representative form of government. Fearing a general vote of the citizens on every spending decision would lead to both chaos and mob rule, they decided to vest those decisions in an elected few. Surely, or so our forefathers thought, those worthy of election to public office would value wisdom over whim, prudence over popularity, restraint over reelection.

But such restraint requires leadership, and leadership in this day and age too often consists of sticking a finger in the air to see which way the winds are blowing. Our esteemed officials then conclude that they are leaders because they respond to those winds of desire. That’s akin to believing that a sailboat leads the wind. They can’t see that leadership lies not in riding the wave of public opinion, but in being the ship that creates the wave.

Which is why we end up with a government that spends more than it takes in. According to our French scholar, we shouldn’t be surprised, for “wherever the poor direct public affairs…it appears certain that, as they profit by the expenditure of the state, they will often augment that expenditure.” In other words, we benefit from government spending, so we’ll elect politicians who promise us more of the same.

Therein lies the answer to a spendthrift government – us. It is often said that we get the government that we deserve. If so, we’ll continue to see overspending until we get beyond our entitlement mentality. But that is easier said than done, for we’ve never been a people inclined to undergo “privation or any inconvenience.”

At least that’s the observation of our French scholar – Alexis de Tocqueville, whose writings I cite are from his 1831 masterpiece, Democracy In America. One-hundred seventy-four years later, his takes are dead on. Perhaps someday, we’ll prove him wrong. We haven’t yet.

3/10/2005

Social Security: Begin With the End In Mind

It is time for President Bush to step back from his current proposal to shift revenues from the Social Security Trust Fund into private investment accounts and consider the goals he hopes to accomplish. The first, even before ensuring the future viability of Social Security, must be to do no harm to the long-term fiscal health of the government or the economy. Then comes ensuring the basic safety net that Social Security now promises. Finally, we should work toward the ownership society that the president envisions.

The reason it is important that we focus first on the fiscal health of the government and the economy is that if those fail, everything else becomes moot. If the economy founders, we won’t be able to fund Social Security, nor would ownership in such an economy do anyone much good.

That’s why I believe the president’s plan needs work. Under his proposal, we would redirect a portion of our current FICA taxes away from the Social Security Trust Fund and into our own private accounts. Now, many believe this will be good for the stock market and the economy as investments grow, but that view neglects the flip side of the equation.

That flip side is what the government will need to borrow to make up for the lost revenue that now flows into the Trust Fund. Since the government now borrows Trust Fund surpluses to fund its everyday expenses, it will have to borrow that lost revenue elsewhere. In fact, estimates are that the shortfall could be as high as $2 trillion. Two trillion is a big number, and there aren’t many investors with that kind of cash lying around.

In fact, take out the Trust Fund and the largest investors in U.S. Treasury securities are foreign countries, with Japan and China ranked one and two. Foreigners already finance nearly half our government’s debt (43.9 percent, to be exact), and those numbers are rising monthly. Borrowing an additional $2 trillion will require even more foreign investment, putting our economy dangerously at the mercy of foreigners who are beyond our control.

We got a hint of this danger last month, when the stock market had a brief panic at South Korea’s mere mention of possibly divesting part of its investment in U.S. federal debt – and they represent less than four percent of total foreign-held debt. If China or Japan ever get similar thoughts, we could see the equivalent of a run on the bank, where investors flee U.S. Treasury securities. The only thing that might stop such a run would be for the U.S. government to pay far higher interest rates on our debt.

What we’ve essentially done under such a scenario, is cede control of our long-term interest rates – and by proxy, our economy – to foreigners. That is not in our best interest. Nor would it be good for those private investment accounts.

That’s why I continue to endorse private accounts as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, our current Social Security system. Yes, it would require politically unpopular sacrifice on the part of American workers, but I’m afraid we’re due for a little sacrifice. In the process, we’d protect our economy, reduce our dependence on Social Security as our investments grow and build the ownership society the president envisions, thus meeting all our objectives. How about it, Mr. President?

2/18/2005

Media Bias Strikes Again

Sometimes you can see bias coming a mile away. The circumstances are so clear and the party so bigoted that you know what’s going to happen long before it does. At least that’s the case when it comes to Hollywood. Funny how the clearest examples of prejudice seem to come from our open-minded friends on the left coast.

The most recent example comes courtesy of ER. Now I have to admit that this show often does an excellent job of making viewers consider difficult medical ethics issues. But that didn’t stop them from propagating one of Hollywood’s favorite stereotypes.

For those who don’t watch the show, there is a doctor named Kerry Weaver who happens to be gay. So far, the story line regarding her personal life has involved the death of her life partner, and the custody battle – a losing one – over their adopted child.

Dr. Weaver’s story took a turn, however, when she met her own birth mother who had given her up for adoption shortly after birth. There were the expected uncomfortable moments between a mother who had given up her baby and an adult child unsure how she was supposed to feel about her new-found mom. Nothing out of the ordinary.

But then Dr. Weaver went to watch her mom in rehearsal – for the church choir. Uh, oh. You could see it coming. Sure enough, her mom went into a dissertation on how Jesus had changed her life. And you just knew how this was going to turn out. Mom was going to be horrified that her daughter was gay. That it was a sin against God and humanity. You could have turned the TV off right then and written the rest of the script yourself.

What’s ironic about this whole thing is that just four days earlier I had been involved in a discussion about homosexuality with a few people from my church. It was an informal discussion in an informal setting. And it lasted about two minutes, with the basic consensus that it’s no big deal. Then it was back to talking football.

But that’s not Hollywood’s take. Unless it’s Touched By An Angel or some other show targeted at a spiritual demographic – even Hollywood will put it’s bias aside if there’s a dollar to be made – you can bet that anyone who holds God in high regard is going to be depicted as (choose all that apply) intolerant / unstable / pedophilic / homophobic / homicidal / suicidal / weird.

Which is why I think our cultural elite haven’t figured out how to connect with the “values” crowd. They just don’t understand them. And anything they don’t understand must be intolerant, ignorant, unstable – well, you get the idea.

The fact is that most of the church-going people I know are like everyone else. Because they are everyone else. They get up and go to work. Their kids play soccer and baseball. They eat at McDonalds, Olive Garden and TGI Friday’s. Some drink beer, some drink wine. Like every other human that has walked this earth, they’re not without sin. And for the most part, they are too concerned with their own lives to take the time to sit in judgment of others.

Of course, Hollywood sees it differently. But then, you always see things differently when your eyes and mind are closed.

2/11/2005

Money Won't Solve Every Problem

I was once approached by a panhandler while walking along Court Street in downtown Cincinnati. I was feeling generous that day, so I gave the guy a twenty. He was appropriately grateful, and I continued on my way, smugly content with my good deed.

But as I walked on, I started to think. What impact was that twenty going to have on that guy’s life? What would he do with it? Could twenty dollars possibly be enough to make a difference?

Maybe I should have given him fifty dollars. Or perhaps a hundred. Wouldn’t that buy him a few more days of food or a place to sleep? Couldn’t he use it to clean up and find a job? Or would he just waste it on drugs or booze? In any case, a hundred bucks probably wasn’t going to change much of anything.

So what if I had given him a thousand or ten thousand or fifty thousand? Would that make a difference? For a while, absolutely. But we hear stories all the time of people who win millions in the lottery, then wind up broke a short time later because they lack both the discipline and training to use the money wisely. Would this guy have been any different? I have no idea.

The reason there is no way of knowing is because money is a tool, not an answer. How that tool is used depends upon how prepared the person is to handle it. Give a hammer to a skilled tradesman and he can build a home. Give it to an untrained child and he can destroy one. The same is true of money. Give it to one who knows how to use it and they’ll build a future. Give it to one who doesn’t and too often they’ll dig a hole.

But we so want to believe that money is the answer that we continue to hand it out, whether as cash to a person on the street or as a check from the U.S. government. We use it as a way to keep score on our compassion. No doubt it is a measure of our generosity. In that regard, we are a compassionate people. But is money the best tool at our disposal, or simply the most convenient to dispense? Isn’t there something even more precious that we could offer?

I’m talking about time. What if instead of twenty dollars, I had given the panhandler twenty minutes of my time, just to learn about his circumstances, to see how I might help? Maybe it would have been fruitless, but what if I gave him twenty minutes every week? Simply acting as a mentor, guidance counselor or friend. I have little doubt that it would have been far more effective than my throwaway twenty.

Twenty minutes a week works out to 17 hours a year. If just one in five adult Americans made that commitment, it would be the equivalent of putting 275,000 people to work full-time with the sole purpose of giving people the tools they need to move forward in life. Imagine the difference we could make.

It’s so simple. But not as simple as handing a guy a twenty. Which is why we so often find ourselves throwing money at problems that don’t go away. But if more of us threw ourselves into solving them, perhaps they would. All it takes is time.

2/04/2005

Iraqis On A Familiar Path to Democracy

When Washington made his legendary Christmas night crossing of the Delaware, his troops were ill-prepared for combat and uncertain regarding the future of their cause. They were fighting a war that would require assistance from France, one of the world’s great powers. They were fighting for a nation which had been denied representative government and had only recently shed the rule of an unbalanced tyrant. Moreover, it was less a nation than a confederation of separate states often split by social, geographical and religious differences – free and slave, north and south, Anglicans, Quakers, Deist and more.

The Delaware crossing took place nearly six months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and a full year before the miserable winter at Valley Forge. In fact, it would be nearly five more years before England would surrender and the independence of the former colonies would be guaranteed.

Imagine the pundits of the day had there been a full-blown 24-hour news cycle that reported on every challenge and setback. They would have argued over the justification for the war – was it to end taxation without representation, a fight for independence from England or to establish democracy? Or were those simply smokescreens to cover up a more sinister cause – to protect the moneyed interests who wanted England out of their hair for financial reasons?

They would have claimed that trying to defeat England was futile. That there was no end in sight, and that the war would only serve to split the colonies into fragmented, warring factions which would bring nothing but conflict and bloodshed between them for years to come.

And they would have argued that this concept called democracy was unworkable in a land where few were educated, many couldn’t read and where tyranny had ruled.

It would have sounded a lot like what’s been said about Iraq for the past two years.

Granted, there are differences. Among them that we, rather than the Iraqi’s, started the fight and the enemy is a nameless band of insurgents rather than a sovereign state. But if there was a take-home lesson from last week’s vote, it was that the Iraqi people are hungry for democracy. So much so that 8 million were willing to risk life and limb in order to exercise their right to vote.

There have been naysayers from the start, arguing that democracy is incompatible with the culture of the Middle East. But events in the past six months should put that notion to rest. We’ve had meaningful elections among Afghanis, Palestinians and Iraqis. Iran will elect a new president in a few months, and though conservative mullahs hope to suppress the reformist movement that began with the 2000 elections, an undercurrent of pro-Western sentiment continues to grow among the Iranian people.

I’m not sure why some are so ready to dismiss the universal appeal of democracy. Yes, it faces challenges in the Middle East, not the least of which is that there are enemies who are deathly afraid of its establishment in the region. But the mere depth of their fear is a testament to democracy’s power and appeal.

Each person that votes is one more devotee to the elegant concept of self-governance. Last week, 8 million more joined the list of converts. More of that and democracy will become the rule rather than the exception in a place where it was once thought impossible.

2/02/2005

Here's Hoping Court Gets It Right on Eminent Domain

Owning one’s own home is at the heart of the American dream – and has been since the framers of the Constitution wrote protections against government seizure of private property for public use into the Fifth Amendment. But rampant abuse of eminent domain, made possible by a liberal interpretation of the public use standard has put that dream at risk. Now the Supreme Court is considering a Connecticut case that may put the power back in the hands of the people.

Let us hope they do.

Eminent domain has long been a tool of government in taking private property, but at some point the standard of public "use" became one of public "good". That is a critical distinction, and hopefully one that the Court sees fit to reverse.

Public use conjures images of highways, dams, airports and other public facilities owned, operated or managed by a government entity. Public good is a much broader definition, opening the door to the use of eminent domain to grab property for such nebulous purposes as spurring economic growth, or worse, expanding the tax base.

Such a basis for eminent domain puts virtually any property not maximizing its tax revenue potential at risk of government seizure. All it takes is someone who can promise a higher tax revenue stream from the property. Suddenly, owners of homes, farms, forests and fields are little more than caretakers waiting for someone with a better (meaning higher tax generating) plan to come along.

And provisions limiting seizure to blighted areas provide little protection. In California, for example, undeveloped desert land was designated "urbanized and blighted" so it could be seized for a Hyundai test track. It’s hard to see how God could be accused of blighting the wilderness, but since the track promised millions in tax dollars, who are we to argue?

Public good is far too broad a test for violating a principle as sacred as property rights.

We can hope that the Supreme Court will shift the balance of power back in our direction. But if they fail, a simple Constitutional amendment could do the trick: Government shall not seize private property for the purpose of giving, leasing or selling it wholly or in part to another private citizen or entity. Twenty-five words that would stop the land grab by government for the benefit of those who care not about the public good, but of personal profit.

1/26/2005

Social Security Sleight of Hand

It’s been said that there are two sides to every story. Nowhere is that more true than when trying to determine the future of Social Security. One side says Social Security is in pretty solid shape. And they’re right. The other side says Social Security is in tremendous peril. And they, too, are right.

Is it any wonder we can’t agree on what to do about it?

Understanding Social Security itself is pretty straightforward. Today’s workers pay for today’s benefits. What’s left over – and today there’s lots left over - goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, which is like a savings account that can be drawn upon when the day comes that there aren’t enough workers to pay for that day’s benefits. Simple enough.

What happens with that trust fund is where the problems arise. That’s because the trust fund isn’t put into a bank. Instead, it’s loaned to the federal government, which uses it to pay the current bills. In other words, we are spending tomorrow’s Social Security benefits to fund today’s military, highways, welfare and such.

Now, those who say Social Security is on solid ground point out that the trust fund is invested in U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, among the most secure investments around. True enough. And as long as the government makes good on it’s debts, which it always has, Social Security can probably survive another seventy-five years with just some minor tinkering. But that’s a mighty big if.

That’s because come 2018 – a mere thirteen years from now – we’ll need to start drawing from that trust fund to pay social security benefits. At that point, the federal government won’t have the trust fund to borrow from anymore. Instead, they’ll have to start paying it back. And with our government currently spending fifty percent more than it takes in, that’s like expecting a drunken sailor to pay back the twenty bucks you lent him just before shore leave.

Which begs the question – is it Social Security that needs fixing, or the federal government? Seems pretty obvious that it’s not Social Security that’s acting like the drunken sailor. So why are we focusing on it as the culprit, feeling an immediate need to partially privatize it?

For one, it’s the old sleight-of-hand trick, where the magician diverts attention elsewhere so no one notices what’s going on under the audience’s nose. In this case, they want us looking at Social Security so we don’t focus on the fiscal irresponsibility going on today.

For another, it’s like the family that keeps borrowing from their 401k to fund today’s expenses. Instead of fixing today’s budget that makes such borrowing necessary, they seek higher returns on what remains in the 401k to make up the difference. But as any investment professional will tell you, higher returns always come with higher risk.

None of this means that there isn’t a place for private investment as a component of the Social Security program. Yet as I’ve argued before, it should be as a supplement to, not a replacement for, today’s program. Such an approach will create the ownership society that the president envisions, while reducing our reliance upon Social Security.

But for now, we must be ready to bite the bullet in order to get our fiscal house in order. After all, it’s government of the people, by the people, and therefore, it’s time that we the people take responsibility for the mess we’ve allowed on our watch.

1/20/2005

Kelly's Choice

Kelly O. must make a decision every morning about how to get to school. As a student within Lakota’s new “no bus zone,” she can opt for the longer mile-plus walk along busy side streets, dodging the early-morning commuters preoccupied with radios, cell phones, coffee and makeup. Or she can take the shorter, quieter route past the home of a registered sex offender.

Kelly is six.

A first-grader with big blue eyes, Kelly doesn’t understand why the bus doesn’t take her to school anymore. She doesn’t know why the grown-ups around her believe they have better things to spend their money on. I wish I could explain what is so important that we make her walk that road.

Kelly is an innocent victim of an electorate understandably tired of higher taxes, but one that is lashing out at the wrong target. Unfortunately, she and all the district’s other children get caught in the crosshairs as voters take aim at schools they see as wasteful.

It’s too bad, because Lakota has been extremely responsible with their finances (and anyone who reads this column knows I’d be the first to holler if I thought otherwise). But don’t take my word for it, consider the facts.

For one, Lakota’s cost per student is well below the state average. For all the talk of overpaid administrators, Lakota not only has fewer administrators per student, but pays them less on average than comparably-sized districts. The same holds true for teachers. Yet it consistently receives an “Excellent” rating from the state for it’s educational performance. That’s not wasteful, that’s called getting your money’s worth.

Regarding schools that have been called too extravagant, the newest ones – VanGorden Elementary and Lakota Plains Junior – were built for twenty-five and thirty-five percent less per student respectively than the state average. The cost per square foot – which is the best way to gauge wasteful spending – was a combined twenty-two percent below average. That’s performance to be applauded, not derided.

And for those who think the district should downsize just as a business would, they already have. Long before the first levy failure, they approved more than $3 million in cuts when they froze hiring and administrative pay, reduced overtime and outsourced services. Then came the levy defeats and another $4 million in cuts. Cuts that go to the heart of our school system – reduced bus service, fewer advanced placement courses, increased class sizes, reductions in textbook purchases.

But there is a limit to how much the schools can follow a business restructuring model since schools struggle due to growing enrollment rather than a declining customer base. Whereas struggling businesses can close unneeded plants and cut excess capacity, struggling schools must instead add capacity.

This is not a game of chicken, where we wait for one side to blink. The need is real. Each month, nearly two classrooms worth of students are added to our already overcrowded schools. We cannot wait for a state that is $4 billion in the red to come to our rescue. Instead, we must take responsibility ourselves.

I hate taxes. But this levy will cost me about a dollar a day. If that’s what I have to sacrifice to put Kelly and her classmates back on the bus, I can find the money. For we’ll not only put them back on the bus, but on the road to a brighter future.