Consider The Social Security Opportunity

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan started a firestorm last week when he warned that we face financial and economic calamity lest we cut future benefits for Social Security and Medicare. Immediately, politicians – especially from the left – began referring to the suggestion as outrageous, or worse.

Therein lies the reason that anyone under the age of forty-five who expects to see any type of Social Security payment is nuts. For there are three things certain regarding Social Security – we need to take drastic action to save it, we need to start taking that action now, and the politicians in charge will do neither.

But before we crucify Greenspan and anyone else who seems remotely intrigued by his suggestion, let’s look at the situation for the challenge and opportunity it is.

First, we know that the baby boomers – the oldest of whom are nearing sixty – will soon become a huge liability on the Social Security books. We also know that there are countless deficit demagogues who decry the fact that we are financing our lifestyle today by mortgaging our children’s future.

But that is precisely how Social Security was designed. It’s a pay-as-you go system that promises that if we pay for today’s retirees, then our children will pay for us when our time comes. The only problem is that the boomers will be passing through the system like a rodent passes through a snake – one big mass, with little following behind.

In other words, there will be more people collecting and fewer people paying. So the only solutions are to cut benefits, raise taxes or both. Those on the receiving end don’t want benefits cut because they feel entitled to them since they paid into the system their entire lives. But taxing the next generation isn’t fair either. It’s not their fault that their grandparents chose to have lots of kids, and their parents chose not to.

But this is where the opportunity comes in. With a little leadership, sacrifice and compromise we might not only save Social Security, but positively transform our society for generations to come.

Suppose we apply the concept of privatized Social Security accounts as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, our current system. Maintain current benefits and taxes, but require every worker to put a fixed amount, say three percent of their pay, into an untouchable personal retirement account.

Then when the person begins receiving Social Security, their SS benefit is reduced by an amount determined by the annual return on their personal investment account, say by fifty cents for every dollar the private account earns in a given year. Since the size and earnings of these accounts would be larger the longer people are paying into them, the amount of savings to the system will grow the further into the program we get.

Think of all the benefits – we start to pay for our own retirement now rather than leaving it up to our children, we reduce the burden on the system as we retire, we maintain a basic floor of benefits at the current level and we create an entire society that has an ownership stake in our nation’s economy.

Yes, we’ll have more taken out of our paychecks, but it will remain our money. And if we leave less of a burden for our children, won’t that be the best benefit of all?

Defense of Marriage Act Does No Such Thing

[Note: A 2021 op-ed piece looks back at the country's attitude towards gay marriage at the time this was written.]

Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.

Now we are likely to see it in action again as we rush to protect the institution of marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act. This law, which provides no incentive to get or stay married, is somehow supposed to strengthen marriage. Ironically, it is likely to have the opposite effect as corporations work around the ban on same-sex marriages by offering domestic partner benefits, which have become quite common as companies work to recruit and retain homosexual employees. Under such programs, the live-in partner receives the same health insurance, pension and other benefits traditionally offered only to spouses. Many of Ohio’s largest employers already have such programs in place.

However, in an effort to avoid discrimination, many of these programs include both homosexual and heterosexual couples since employers do not want to be in the business of asking about sexual orientation. Thus, a man and a woman no longer need to commit to marriage in order to receive the benefits previously available only to legally-recognized spouses.

Suddenly, shacking up brings all the benefits of marriage without its legal pitfalls. Couples can live together, sleep together and share in the company retirement plan without worrying about divorce, alimony or the spouse’s credit card debts. Under such no-lose circumstances, why not simply live together for benefit purposes, even if you’re not sure you really want to commit for a lifetime. If it falls apart in a year or two, no harm done.

That is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, marriage risks becoming a quaint custom like formal business attire – sure it looks good, but a little too restricting. And just like our wardrobes, our relationships become a casual matter of convenience.

None of this would be an issue if homosexuals were allowed to formalize their relationships with the same legal commitments as heterosexuals. We would reduce both gay and straight partnerships of convenience, which is certainly in society’s long-term interest. But in our headlong rush to sweep homosexuality under the rug, we are willing to undermine the very thing we seek to protect.

Of course, permitting same-sex marriages will not strengthen our current institution of marriage. But outlawing it risks weakening it. As much as some may decry it, we live in changing times. Homosexuality is becoming much more ingrained in our culture. We can choose to invite gays to share in the customs and institutions that have served our society well for hundreds of years. Or we can shut them out and allow an alternate culture to develop where commitment is but a fleeting concept. That is a culture war we should avoid at all cost.

Do We Have the Right to Take a Life?

Well, Lewis Williams is dead. He was executed recently for the 1983 murder of an elderly Cleveland woman. I guess I should feel better now. But for some reason, I don’t. Instead I feel sorrow.

It’s not because he didn’t deserve to be punished for his crime. It’s not because it took more than twenty years for the sentence to be carried out. And it’s not because he went into the death chamber kicking and screaming.

In fact, my sorrow isn’t for Lewis Williams. It is for us as a society. It concerns me that we not only feel the need to knowingly and deliberately take the life of another human being, but that we also feel we have the right to do so.

Now don’t get me wrong. These are not the thoughts of some sentimental bleeding-heart who is blind to the evil inherent in some people. I have watched trials of child killers and various other heinous criminals and found myself quietly hoping they receive the death penalty. That raw emotional desire for vengeance is a part of human nature.

But that and all the other valid arguments in support of capital punishment – deterrence, punishment, economics, closure – don’t make it right. And here’s why.

We must view human life as sacred, not because religion tells us to, but because a civilized society demands it. I do not believe that anyone has the right to determine – certainly not in a premeditated way – that another human being deserves to die. Capital punishment does precisely that.

We need not respect the individual, but we must respect the life of the individual. To do otherwise lessens the value that society places on all human life. That we would spare someone, no matter how vile they may be, is the greatest testament to the value we place on life.

I have heard the argument that we are better than “them” (the criminals), but capital punishment is not what makes us better. If anything, it lowers us a little closer to the criminal’s level. It makes a judgment that certain lives are less precious than others. As hard as it may be for us to accept, I do not believe that is our judgment to make. That decision should be left to God, and God alone.

It is based upon this belief that the argument for capital punishment on economic grounds - the “why should we pay to keep them alive” argument - is so troubling. It is precisely because we value life and are willing to bear that cost that makes us “better”. If we begin with the assumption that respect for life is paramount, then all the other arguments regarding punishment and deterrence become moot. But that is a big if. We may talk the talk, but it is another thing entirely to walk the walk.

I’m not sure I could do it. If anything were to happen to someone dear to me, I’d probably be leading the charge for vengeance. But I would hope that society would be there to restrain, rather than inflame, the animal instinct.

In the end, it is not cost, nor vengeance, nor deterrence that should guide us on this. It is respect for human life and the understanding that when it comes to ending it, we, as imperfect human beings, are not the ones to make that judgment.

Campaign Finance Reform and Free Speech

Originally appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer, December, 2003

If they ever exhume the body of Thomas Jefferson and find him laying face down, there is a good chance that he assumed that posture on December 10, 2003. That is the date that the U.S. Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the First Amendment by upholding a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that bans special interest groups from running issue ads just before an election. Old Mr. Jefferson surely rolled over in his grave.

In one fell swoop, the court sharply curtailed the meaning of free speech, as well as the right to peaceably assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances. For what is a special interest group if not an assembly of citizens with a common cause, brought together to petition our leaders. These are basic rights that are central to a free society.

Some may argue that the attack ads that have become so commonplace are not what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights, but in today’s electronic age, TV and radio have replaced the town square as the primary meeting place where ideas and issues are discussed. The Court’s ruling that the Constitution does not guarantee us a place in this marketplace of opinion marks a dark day for liberty.

In a society as large and dispersed as ours, the individual voice is lost among the barrage of messages coming from all directions. But just as a chant at a crowded sporting event gives a unified voice to the masses, so does a special interest group give a voice to us as individuals. Whatever our pet cause, be it pro-life, pro-choice, the environment or social security, we multiply our impact when we come together as one. That is just as the founding fathers intended when they granted us the right to peaceably assemble and voice our opinions freely.

We have no one to blame but ourselves as we watch our liberty stripped away from us. Those that are rejoicing that special interests have had their comeuppance need to realize that the political parties and the politicians themselves still have access to vast sums of cash that they can use to fill the airwaves. That they can speak, but we are forbidden to do so, smacks of an almost Orwellian system. We risk becoming a society with a ruling class free to say whatever they want the people to hear, while we the people are excluded from the debate.

What can be done? Well, in the good old days, like-minded freedom-loving people could have united to air ads that point out the politicians who are working to dismantle our freedoms. But today, we will just have to hope our leaders have our best interests at heart. I wouldn’t count on it.

But Ain't That America

I always get a kick out of watching the opening ceremonies at the Olympics. Without knowing which nation you are watching, you can almost always guess what part of the globe they are from by their athletes' similarities in appearance. Not the United States. We are recognizable not by our similarities, but by our diversity. That subtle reminder of the success of our nation's founding creed that all men are created equal never fails to bring a lump in the throat and tears to the eyes.

Well that feeling pales in comparison to the emotions I felt when I had the privilege of attending my neighbor’s American citizenship swearing-in ceremony. If you ever need a booster-shot of national pride, I strongly suggest you attend one of these ceremonies. It is a microcosm of all that is right with America.

There were sixty-seven people, from thirty-four nations, speaking in unison as they swore allegiance to the United States. While each spoke with their own native accent, together they blended into one voice that was uniquely American. It was a voice made up of people from Canada and Mexico, China and the Ukraine, New Zealand and Cameroon. That is the true voice – and the clarion call – that is America.

For centuries, wave upon wave of immigrants have come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Each new group, be they the Catholics of Ireland, the Jews of Eastern Europe or the Chinese of Asia have faced resistance and resentment. Yet each has forged ahead to build not only a better life, but a better America.

While some may decry the fact that today’s immigrants are not as European or as Christian as those in days gone by, they are just as American as their predecessors. Their energy, traditions and experiences only add spice to the American stew. And unlike those of us who are American by birth, these people are American by choice. There is a lot to be said for that.

Watch an old World War II movie sometime. Invariably, each outfit seemed to have an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a Pole. This was a pretty accurate reflection of our fighting forces at the time. Then consider that each of these kids was probably the son of someone not born in America. Those immigrants came here looking for a better life, then were willing to sacrifice their most precious gifts – their children – in defense of their adopted home. What more could we ask of our newest citizens?

That tradition continues. Among the new citizens at the ceremony that day were two people in uniform for the U.S. military. Here were two people already prepared to defend the liberty they had yet to fully experience.

And that brings us to the final reason people long to come to the United States. We take our freedom for granted, but for many immigrants it is a foreign concept in the truest sense. As the presiding judge pointed out, while some may have been forcibly precluded from participating in the public discourse in their former lands, here they are not only permitted, but expected to take an active role in shaping their government. I bet they will.

The ceremony closed with the judge leading everyone in the singing of God Bless America. It was only fitting. After all, this most American of songs was written by a Jewish Russian immigrant. Only in America.

It's Not Always What We Think It Is

During a discussion on heredity in the eighth grade, a teacher commented that one might have a large nose if their father had one, too. A classmate turned and looked at me. Why are you looking at me, I thought. Do I have a big nose? It was a life-changing moment for a thirteen year-old kid.

Overnight, I saw myself differently, and was convinced everyone else did as well. Especially when it came to girls. I blamed every rejection, every hint of indifference on my nose. Surely, I’d be the most popular guy in school, if only I had a properly sized snout. It never crossed my mind that perhaps it was my personality or my ratty flannel shirts or a hundred other imperfections that might have made me less than the ideal catch. No, it had to be my nose.

I was reminded of this personal obsession when I read about the flap regarding the dance team at a local West Chester school. It seems that a girl was not chosen for the team, despite being considered an excellent dancer by those who know her. So the search for an explanation of this rejection began. It didn’t go on for long, because the girl in question just happens to be African-American. Naturally, the reason had to be racism.

Now don’t get me wrong. Racism most certainly exists today. I am constantly shocked by the generalizations and stereotyping that I hear from supposedly educated people. It turns my stomach and lowers my level of respect for people when I hear such talk. So I don’t deny that it exists. We are fooling ourselves if we try to state otherwise.

Still, that does not mean that every snub is due to racism. There are countless factors that go into any decision-making process, from athletics to employment. It is always very subjective. A dropped pass during tryouts, arriving two minutes late to an interview, messy hair – all can be just enough to cause someone to miss the cut.

Jumping to conclusions does no one any good. The first thing to do when life seems unfair is to look inside one’s self. Was there something I could have done differently? Did I make a mistake? If we never examine ourselves critically, we miss the opportunity to improve. Automatically placing the blame elsewhere makes us victims, rather than controllers of our own destiny.

But sometimes, life is just unfair. People make bad decisions that seem to make no sense. Heck, Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. All he did was go out and prove his coach to be one of the biggest fools of all time. That can be the sweetest revenge.

My kids will never know the pain of racism, but they will face injustices just the same. Rather than teach them to look for someone to blame, rather than look for someone to sue, I want to teach them to pick themselves up and move on.

I have no idea if racism played any part in the decision to cut this girl from the dance team. There is no doubt that we must fight racism wherever we find it. But that does not mean that we will find it everyplace we look. And the fact that it does not exist everywhere is a very good thing.

Hey Kobe, No Means No

I just got back from a long drive up to northern Michigan, which gave me the opportunity to listen to a lot of talk radio, where the subject of the day was the Kobe Bryant rape case. What struck me was the dichotomy between the views of male and female callers. Women, by and large, are ready to lock him up and throw away the key, while the men seem willing to give Kobe a pass because the victim should not have put herself in such a position by going to his room after giving him a tour of the hotel.

Let me say this as clearly as possible. If what has been reported is true, the women are right and the men are wrong. Certainly, Kobe Bryant is entitled to a fair trial before we convict him of anything. But in no way does a woman’s flirtatious actions open the door for any man to impose himself upon her against her will. I don’t care if the woman was doing naked handstands on the bed, if she said no to sexual intercourse, then Bryant was obligated to accept that, plain and simple.

As long as the advance is unwanted, the actions of the victim should have no bearing on the criminality of the act. It is no different than leaving your house unlocked while you are away. Perhaps it’s not something you should do, but if someone walks in and steals your TV, they are no less guilty of a crime than if they had sawed through barred windows to gain entry.

With the focus on date rape in recent years, an argument has been made that sometimes "no" means "maybe". Untrue. No means no, and men – no matter how tempted, intoxicated or enticed – need to understand and live by that. And anyone who argues otherwise is little more than an accessory after the fact, helping a criminal to escape prosecution. Not only that, but they are opening the door for future acts of violence against women by offering the potential rapist a justification for the act, when in fact, he should know beforehand that it is wrong and criminal.

To those who argue that men are somehow hormonally impaired when it comes to controlling their desires under such circumstances, I say baloney. "Not tonight, honey, I have a headache" didn’t become a running gag by accident. There are plenty of men who get into bed with their wives hoping for a little intimacy, only to be left wanting. They and the vast majority of men are more than able to control their libidos. It’s not always easy, but they respect their partners wishes.

Therein lies the crux of the matter – respect. Not only for women, but for ourselves. By respecting our ability to control our own actions, we can avoid circumstances such as in the Bryant case.

Women should not have to fear for their safety whenever they are friendly or flirtatious, nor should criminal behavior be shrugged off with a cavalier "what do you expect, boys will be boys" excuse.

I believe the men I heard calling in are in a very small minority, but they are the ones making all the noise. We need those who think otherwise to speak up and let it be known that such attitudes and behavior are unacceptable and intolerable.

Save a Flag, Burn the Bill of Rights

Here’s a chicken and egg type question. Does teasing cause kids to run home and get mom to fight their battles for them, or does running home to get mom cause them to get teased? It’s a dynamic I imagine we are all familiar with. We all probably ran home at one time or another, but for most of us, our moms or dads simply told us that if we ignored the abuse it would stop. Be strong, be resilient, and no one will mess with you. And they were right.

I thought of that as I looked upon all the American flags flying during the Fourth of July holiday. Strong and resilient. Able to withstand the slings and arrows some might throw its way. A symbol of a country that knows it’s not perfect, but tries its best everyday. And that flag flies proudly everywhere you look. We don’t need to be prodded or encouraged to fly it—we do so because we love and respect the flag and all it represents.

Yet, once again, we are running home to get mom to fight our battles. A proposed constitutional amendment banning flag desecration has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and will soon go before the Senate. It is a misguided notion that will neither protect the flag, nor make our nation any stronger. All it will do is raise the stakes for those who would burn the flag, making it a more enticing target. And in the process, we will desecrate the single most important thing that the flag represents—our Bill of Rights.

For all its beauty and glory, it is not the flag, but the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to our Constitution for which millions have fought and thousands have died. In the two hundred-sixteen years since they were adopted, we have never tinkered with those amendments. They are as close to sacred as any secular document can be. They are worth fighting and dying for. Yet we are ready to chip away at those very freedoms in order to give ourselves a false sense of security.

There are those who argue that burning the flag is not speech. In a strict sense, they are correct. But why would anyone deliberately desecrate the flag except to express displeasure with the United States. When it comes to discerning what is or isn’t speech, especially when it involves dissent, we should always choose to err on the side of liberty.

We need to keep in mind that dissent was precisely the type of speech our founding fathers sought to protect when they wrote our constitution. As distasteful and moronic as burning a flag might be, it is certainly an act more worthy of protection under the free speech clause than pornography or offensive art-- both of which have found refuge there.

And what will we gain from a ban on desecration? Unlike other crimes, from speeding to murder, where fear of getting caught acts as a deterrent, flag-burners want to get caught. Notoriety is what they seek. If we turn our heads and ignore them, the act serves no purpose and therefore loses all allure for those who might consider it. But make it a crime and suddenly they can attract attention. Is it that far-fetched to envision some group organizing a mass flag-burning, leading to mass arrests? It is a publicity seeker’s dream-come-true.

There was a time when the Cadillac emblem represented the very best of American ingenuity. But when they put the crest on a revamped Chevy Cavalier, the emblem lost its luster. It wasn’t the emblem, but what stood behind it that gave it weight. The same is true of our flag. We love it because it represents what makes our country great. Yet if we decide that we are too weak to accept criticism, too insecure to ignore the actions of a few ignoramuses, it too, will become an empty symbol—one which will not be worthy of the love we now give it.

It is not the insult, but one’s response to it that is the true measure of one’s character. The most respected individuals are those who can shrug off the words and actions of others whose opinions are meaningless. That they do nothing is a sign of strength, not weakness. Let us all demonstrate our nation’s strength by letting our flag fly high in all its unprotected glory.

What We'll Do For a Green Lawn

While we sit and sympathize with the residents of Lexington Manor, who have seen their neighborhood turned into an EPA Superfund site due to lead and arsenic contamination from a former firing range, we may be unwittingly creating the same mess in our own backyards.

Last week, in a fit of landscape envy, I decided something needed to be done to get my lawn to look as deep green as those of my neighbors. People in the know suggested an iron supplement would do the trick, so I went to my local garden center and bought a product called Ironite. According to the label it is a natural source of iron, zinc, calcium and other micronutrients. Perfect. Too bad the label didn’t list everything that was inside the bag.

A Google search on the product turned up reports that Ironite is also a natural source of arsenic, lead, cadmium and a host of other hazardous heavy metals. And not just trace amounts. Minnesota Department of Agriculture tests showed arsenic levels of 3,000 to 6,000 parts per million, or about 1,000 times higher than those found in other lawn care products. Lead levels were about 3,400 parts per million. Now I am no scientist, but by my rough calculations I figure that my four bags of Ironite contain about a half pound of arsenic and almost as much lead. So how did all this stuff get in there?

It turns out that the ‘natural’ source for Ironite is derived from the tailings of a former silver mine in Arizona. Under any other circumstance the source for Ironite would be considered a hazardous waste, but a loophole in the federal law not only exempts mining wastes, but makes it difficult for states to regulate the sale of products made from them. Ironically, it is recommended that any unused Ironite should be handled as a hazardous waste when disposing.

To be fair, the manufacturer of the product claims that the hazardous components in Ironite are trapped in minerals that make them safe for general lawn care. So safe in fact, that their web site compares the product label to one on a box of breakfast cereal. I am not sure which breakfast cereal that could be, but in my mind I have a picture of the Incredible Hulk downing a nice bowl of heavy metals.

Perhaps the product is safe, but it seems disingenuous to claim it is natural and compare it to cereal. At the very least, the label should carry a complete list of the compounds found in the product. That way the consumer could make an educated decision whether or not to use it. But that may be exactly what the manufacturer fears most.

What really scares me, though, is that despite what I have learned about Ironite, I still tried to rationalize using it on my lawn because of my deep-seated desire for green grass. If I am willing to rationalize away the risks in pursuit of green grass, is it that far-fetched to imagine the manufacturer rationalizing away the risks in pursuit of another type of green.

Commissioner Mike Kilburn Got His, Now Stay Out.

Warren County Commisioner Mike Kilburn's proposal to charge impact fees up to $10,000 for new homes and apartments represents selfishness of the utmost degree.  He wants to penalize others who seek nothing more than what he and his forebearers sought when they chose to live outside the city.  It is today's equivalent of building a walled city to keep the undesirables out.

It is a fact that our population continues to grow across the country.  Unless we wish to stack people up in ever denser urban areas, new development is inevitable.  Some see new development as unwanted and an invasion of their own personal domain, but none of us has any more right to affordable open spaces than anyone else.  

Impact fees may help protect individual communities from unwanted growth, but at the cost of limiting housing opportunities for all but the wealthiest families.  The result will be a community even more divided along financial lines - and that cannot be good for any of us.  It is time to break with the "I've got mine, to hell with you" attitude and realize that we are all in this together.  It is that realization that makes for a true community.