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.
3/23/2005
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)