I’ve been surprisingly ambivalent about the upcoming presidential election. It’s been hard to get excited about either candidate, but the third and final debate really highlighted the stark differences between George Bush and John Kerry.
What follows are nothing more than a few basic questions I have regarding the major issues as I see them and how each candidate approaches them. How others answer the questions will depend on how they view the issues.
First off, let’s get Iraq out of the way. We can argue whether we should be there or not. But the fact is, we’re there and we had better win or we’ll be in a world of hurt.
So who has the better plan? Both say they’ll stay the course. John Kerry says he’ll bring more nations on board. The question is, can he? France, Germany and Russia are adamant about staying out, as is Canada. Japan hasn’t had a military adventure since WWII. That pretty much eliminates the major western powers.
Like it or not, it looks like we’ll have to win this on our own. That means sticking it out when things get tough. One candidate believes in what we’re doing, one doesn’t. Who do I believe is most likely to see it through? Advantage Bush.
Regarding the budget deficit, neither candidate is talking about the impact their proposals will have on it. But the nonpartisan Concord Coalition is. This budget watchdog group has found that both will widen the deficit by about $1.3 trillion over the next ten years.
The difference lies in how they arrive at those numbers. Nearly all of President Bush’s deficit is due to tax cuts already enacted. A mere $82 billion arises from new spending. On the other hand, more than sixty percent, around $771 billion, of Senator Kerry’s deficit is due to increased government spending. That means a government that is 33% bigger than it is today. Or closer to home, one that will cost the average family of four about an extra $10,000 to support.
So basically it comes down to whether I prefer smaller or larger government. If there is going to be a deficit, would I prefer it’s because the government is taking less in taxes or because it is spending more on programs? Advantage Bush.
On the economy, GDP is up 4.8 percent in the last year. Unemployment is down, inflation is tame despite rising oil prices, while investment in technology and capital goods, imports and exports are all showing double digit gains.
George Bush inherited an economy that looked eerily similar to the one Herbert Hoover inherited in 1929 – an overheated economy that doubled in the prior decade and an irrational stock market that had quadrupled during that time. But whereas Hoover’s response to a crashing stock market and slowing economy threw us into the Great Depression, with 25 percent unemployment, under Bush we experienced the mildest recession on record (some economists even question whether we’ve had a recession).
What did Hoover do differently that led to the Great Depression? Unlike Bush, who cut taxes, Hoover raised taxes to offset declining government revenues and maintain surpluses, while enacting protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. What has John Kerry proposed? Higher taxes to offset declining government revenues and protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. They say those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Fortunately, the man currently in the White House learned from history. Apparently his opponent hasn’t. Advantage Bush.
On healthcare, both candidates admit that costs are soaring. Neither importing drugs from Canada nor limiting lawsuits address the fundamental problem, namely that we are getting older and refuse to accept anything less than Cadillac care. John Kerry’s approach includes a number of new spending initiatives to cover more people. George Bush wants to involve the patient in purchasing decisions through health savings accounts in the hope that increased awareness of the true cost will force prices down. Furthermore, he wants to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to form groups so they can enjoy the risk-sharing that large corporations do.
Bottom line is that we already spend forty-two percent more per person on healthcare than any other nation. Spending even more is not the answer. If anything, it merely adds fuel to the fire since the simple law of supply and demand states that as more dollars are made available, prices goes up.
Therefore, the question becomes what is the better course of action – spending more or lowering costs? No doubt, it’s lowering costs. Whose policies are more likely to achieve that end? Advantage Bush.
On social security, Kerry has suggested a wait-and-see approach, while the president prefers acting now by giving workers control over a portion of their contributions. Here, it’s a matter of whether I trust government or myself with my future and whether I think we can afford to wait. With the first of the baby-boomers turning sixty next year, waiting is not an option. Advantage Bush.
On education, Kerry says we’re not spending enough, Bush says we’re not expecting enough. So, do I believe higher spending or higher expectations will get more immediate results? I’ve seen time and again the power of expectations. People consistently rise to meet them. Advantage Bush.
In the end, the differences are pretty clear. In Iraq, it’s a question of who’s most likely to see it through. At home, it’s a choice between big or small government, more spending or lower taxes. John Kerry has made some very tantalizing promises. It’s easy to look at them on the surface and say, boy that sure sounds good. But as with everything, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. It’s like the difference between parents and grandparents – grandparents promise you what you want, parents give you what you need.
So which is more important – being promised what we want, or getting what we need? Advantage Bush.
10/24/2004
10/22/2004
An Endorsement For Low Voter Turnout
Thanksgiving Day, 1980. The Chicago Bears are marching down the field late in the fourth quarter against my hometown Detroit Lions. Our defense is helpless to stop them. Suddenly, my Aunt Sue – my grandmother’s sister – yells out “Why don’t they put in Billy Sims!?!”
Well, Aunt Sue, Billy Sims is a running back. He doesn’t play defense.
Clearly, no one would ever want my Aunt Sue calling plays for the Lions – or any team for that matter. But just twenty-three days earlier she cast her vote in that year’s presidential election. Unfortunately, her knowledge of the issues was comparable to what she knew about football. But whereas her involvement in choosing plays from the sideline would be seen as a disaster, somehow her vote is seen as a triumph of democracy.
I don’t get that. It’s never bothered me that nearly fifty percent of our eligible voters neglect to turn up at the polls. They just might vote for Billy Sims.
Don’t get me wrong, every adult citizen of the United States should be entitled and encouraged to participate in our democratic process. I’m quite sure I’ll choke up standing in line to vote next Tuesday. There is something special about a presidential election, as our diverse electorate – young and old, black and white, rich and poor, professional and working class – go about the business of choosing who will hold the most powerful position on this planet.
It is the elegant irony of democracy. You and I – everyday people in everyday lives, so often made to feel so powerless – hold the reins to the presidency in our hands. Yet, part of the elegance lies in the fact that while one may vote, one doesn’t have to. That fact serves democracy well, for it weeds out those who either do not understand or do not care enough to cast an informed vote.
An uninformed or ill-informed vote serves no one. At best, it’s based upon sound bite advertising. At worst, it’s a game of eenie-meenie-miney-moe. I’m sorry, but I want a little more thought behind the selection of the leader of the free world.
In an election as close as this year’s promises to be, however, it will likely be those “close-your-eyes-and-punch-a-chad” votes that will make the difference. Should that make us feel better about democracy? Probably not. In fact, it’s probably going to land us back in court again this year.
Parenthetically, that leads to my one prediction for the upcoming election – thanks to the almost inevitable litigation we can expect, come the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd we will not know who the next president will be. But I digress.
There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote. Some don’t believe their vote will make a difference. If the last election did not dispel that notion, nothing will. They should vote. Some find it hard for various reasons – illness, mobility, transportation, etc. – to get to the polls. We rightfully make it easier for them to vote. But some just don’t care. Let them stay home.
I’ve often joked that it’s no problem that fifty percent of the population stays home on election day because half the population are clueless. We just have to hope the right half stays home. Ok, so it’s not the world’s greatest joke, but then again, fifty percent turnout isn’t the world’s greatest problem.
[Footnote: We did not know who had won the presidency when we woke up on November 3, 2004. It took a while for Ohio to sort out its own mess.]
Well, Aunt Sue, Billy Sims is a running back. He doesn’t play defense.
Clearly, no one would ever want my Aunt Sue calling plays for the Lions – or any team for that matter. But just twenty-three days earlier she cast her vote in that year’s presidential election. Unfortunately, her knowledge of the issues was comparable to what she knew about football. But whereas her involvement in choosing plays from the sideline would be seen as a disaster, somehow her vote is seen as a triumph of democracy.
I don’t get that. It’s never bothered me that nearly fifty percent of our eligible voters neglect to turn up at the polls. They just might vote for Billy Sims.
Don’t get me wrong, every adult citizen of the United States should be entitled and encouraged to participate in our democratic process. I’m quite sure I’ll choke up standing in line to vote next Tuesday. There is something special about a presidential election, as our diverse electorate – young and old, black and white, rich and poor, professional and working class – go about the business of choosing who will hold the most powerful position on this planet.
It is the elegant irony of democracy. You and I – everyday people in everyday lives, so often made to feel so powerless – hold the reins to the presidency in our hands. Yet, part of the elegance lies in the fact that while one may vote, one doesn’t have to. That fact serves democracy well, for it weeds out those who either do not understand or do not care enough to cast an informed vote.
An uninformed or ill-informed vote serves no one. At best, it’s based upon sound bite advertising. At worst, it’s a game of eenie-meenie-miney-moe. I’m sorry, but I want a little more thought behind the selection of the leader of the free world.
In an election as close as this year’s promises to be, however, it will likely be those “close-your-eyes-and-punch-a-chad” votes that will make the difference. Should that make us feel better about democracy? Probably not. In fact, it’s probably going to land us back in court again this year.
Parenthetically, that leads to my one prediction for the upcoming election – thanks to the almost inevitable litigation we can expect, come the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd we will not know who the next president will be. But I digress.
There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote. Some don’t believe their vote will make a difference. If the last election did not dispel that notion, nothing will. They should vote. Some find it hard for various reasons – illness, mobility, transportation, etc. – to get to the polls. We rightfully make it easier for them to vote. But some just don’t care. Let them stay home.
I’ve often joked that it’s no problem that fifty percent of the population stays home on election day because half the population are clueless. We just have to hope the right half stays home. Ok, so it’s not the world’s greatest joke, but then again, fifty percent turnout isn’t the world’s greatest problem.
[Footnote: We did not know who had won the presidency when we woke up on November 3, 2004. It took a while for Ohio to sort out its own mess.]
10/08/2004
There Ain't Gonna Be No Draft
Is there a draft in here? One would think so with all the rumor and speculation flying around talk radio and the internet that the federal government is ready to begin a military draft shortly after the election.
The rumors are based upon several developments – two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, reports that the Selective Service System is advertising for people to serve on local draft boards, the president’s $26 million budget request for the SSS and the belief that our military is stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Take heart, people. A military draft taking place anytime soon is about as likely as Michael Moore voting for George Bush.
First, nothing would hamstring our military options in the war on terror – or any necessary military action – more than a universal draft. There is a huge psychological difference between sending professional, volunteer soldiers into combat and sending the nineteen year-old kid next door against his wishes. Public pressure to avoid any and all conflict would rise exponentially if we started drafting our sons and daughters.
That alone makes a draft untenable. If the president and the Pentagon think public support for our engagement in the Middle East is shaky now, a draft would send it into the dumper. Public fear and outrage would accompany any military move. And our leaders and our enemies both know that. We’d be doing ourselves no favor in limiting our options that way.
As for the bills in Congress, the Senate and House versions were introduced by Ernest Hollings and Charles Rangel, respectively. Both are Democrats. How convenient that they are now cited as evidence that the president is secretly planning to start the draft immediately after the election. It’s a political ploy so blatant that it’s almost laughable. Tellingly, Rangel voted against his own bill when the House killed it last week in a 402—2 vote.
Regarding the call for draft board volunteers, the boards were set up during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, with terms of twenty years. Those positions began to go vacant as the terms expired and the Selective Service System has been working to fill them ever since.
Finally, while it’s true that President Bush asked for $26 million for the Selective Service in 2005, it is the same amount he asked for in 2003 and 2004. In fact, it represents the entire budget for the Selective Service. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget is projecting a three-percent cut in staffing for the SSS next year. That would hardly indicate a draft is imminent.
Bottom line, it’s election time. Operatives on both sides will gladly disseminate what could charitably called misinformation to obscure reality and sway public opinion. The best defense against such tactics is to become as well informed as possible. But in a world where large numbers of voters get their political news from Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live, that may be asking a bit much.
On the bright side, the same forces that make spreading such rumors so inviting are the same ones that make them ever becoming reality so unlikely. Opponents of the war know a draft would be highly unpopular. But then, so do the people in charge. To start a draft would be political suicide. Therein, at least, democracy still works. A draft ain’t gonna happen.
The rumors are based upon several developments – two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, reports that the Selective Service System is advertising for people to serve on local draft boards, the president’s $26 million budget request for the SSS and the belief that our military is stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Take heart, people. A military draft taking place anytime soon is about as likely as Michael Moore voting for George Bush.
First, nothing would hamstring our military options in the war on terror – or any necessary military action – more than a universal draft. There is a huge psychological difference between sending professional, volunteer soldiers into combat and sending the nineteen year-old kid next door against his wishes. Public pressure to avoid any and all conflict would rise exponentially if we started drafting our sons and daughters.
That alone makes a draft untenable. If the president and the Pentagon think public support for our engagement in the Middle East is shaky now, a draft would send it into the dumper. Public fear and outrage would accompany any military move. And our leaders and our enemies both know that. We’d be doing ourselves no favor in limiting our options that way.
As for the bills in Congress, the Senate and House versions were introduced by Ernest Hollings and Charles Rangel, respectively. Both are Democrats. How convenient that they are now cited as evidence that the president is secretly planning to start the draft immediately after the election. It’s a political ploy so blatant that it’s almost laughable. Tellingly, Rangel voted against his own bill when the House killed it last week in a 402—2 vote.
Regarding the call for draft board volunteers, the boards were set up during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, with terms of twenty years. Those positions began to go vacant as the terms expired and the Selective Service System has been working to fill them ever since.
Finally, while it’s true that President Bush asked for $26 million for the Selective Service in 2005, it is the same amount he asked for in 2003 and 2004. In fact, it represents the entire budget for the Selective Service. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget is projecting a three-percent cut in staffing for the SSS next year. That would hardly indicate a draft is imminent.
Bottom line, it’s election time. Operatives on both sides will gladly disseminate what could charitably called misinformation to obscure reality and sway public opinion. The best defense against such tactics is to become as well informed as possible. But in a world where large numbers of voters get their political news from Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live, that may be asking a bit much.
On the bright side, the same forces that make spreading such rumors so inviting are the same ones that make them ever becoming reality so unlikely. Opponents of the war know a draft would be highly unpopular. But then, so do the people in charge. To start a draft would be political suicide. Therein, at least, democracy still works. A draft ain’t gonna happen.
10/01/2004
Sink or swim, It's Your Choice
This is the tale of two young women and personal responsibility. Both came to work for me not long out of high school. Both had diplomas from the same school, both were single, childless and white. I make that point only to demonstrate that their circumstances at that moment in time were about as identical as could be.
One sorted clothes, the other scrubbed shirt collars. Neither job took much skill, and their pay of six dollars an hour reflected that. Both did their jobs well and both were pleasant enough. It would be tempting to say they were in the same boat, but in reality they were on different tracks that would take them in completely opposite directions.
One – the collar scrubber – decided early on not to have kids until she was ready, if ever. She set goals for her career, her finances and her life. And she wrote them down. One – to skydive by the age of twenty-five – resulted in the dumbest incentive plan ever devised. But that’s a story for another time.
When she sought more of a challenge, I readily offered to make her my bookkeeper – despite the fact that she didn’t know a debit from a credit or a computer mouse from Mickey Mouse. She had desire and attitude, which is really all one ever needs to succeed.
And succeed she did. Her pay more than tripled in eight years. Not only did she learn computing and accounting, she went on to get her associates degree, focusing on business, finance and computers. She maxed out her Roth IRA contributions from the start. When we offered a retirement plan, she maxed her contributions there, too. Having started saving at age twenty, she was on track to have over $3 million by the age of sixty-five.
Last December she told me this would be her last year because she planned to start her own business (another goal she had set). Though ready to leave in July, she committed to stay through the year because she had promised to do so. There is only one word to describe such a person – winner.
Contrast that with the other woman. When offered more responsibility, she declined. She went on to have a baby, father unknown. Two years later, she was pregnant again, still no husband. Though we were offering health insurance by then, she never signed up because the twelve dollar-a-week contribution was too expensive for her.
She quit before the baby came so that Medicaid would pay for her delivery. I’ve neither seen nor heard from her in five years, but word is that she now has at least three kids. Though she wasn’t on our payroll, I suspect that we’ve all helped to pay her bills through our taxes.
There are those who would look at the struggling mother and argue that we need to show compassion. We need to provide food, shelter and healthcare to one who is so down on their luck. And in a vacuum, it would be tough to disagree. But one has to wonder at what point our benevolence might become counter-productive, thereby enabling such self-destructive choices.
Bob Seger once sang that "life is like a big river – sink or swim depends on you." So true. Where some see victims and survivors, others see winners and losers. More often than not, it’s a result of personal choices. It’s a lesson I plan to teach my kids. And this tale of two women is certain to be part of the curriculum.
=============
Note: This piece generated a lot of feedback, both pro and con. I addressed the negative response in the piece that can be read here.
One sorted clothes, the other scrubbed shirt collars. Neither job took much skill, and their pay of six dollars an hour reflected that. Both did their jobs well and both were pleasant enough. It would be tempting to say they were in the same boat, but in reality they were on different tracks that would take them in completely opposite directions.
One – the collar scrubber – decided early on not to have kids until she was ready, if ever. She set goals for her career, her finances and her life. And she wrote them down. One – to skydive by the age of twenty-five – resulted in the dumbest incentive plan ever devised. But that’s a story for another time.
When she sought more of a challenge, I readily offered to make her my bookkeeper – despite the fact that she didn’t know a debit from a credit or a computer mouse from Mickey Mouse. She had desire and attitude, which is really all one ever needs to succeed.
And succeed she did. Her pay more than tripled in eight years. Not only did she learn computing and accounting, she went on to get her associates degree, focusing on business, finance and computers. She maxed out her Roth IRA contributions from the start. When we offered a retirement plan, she maxed her contributions there, too. Having started saving at age twenty, she was on track to have over $3 million by the age of sixty-five.
Last December she told me this would be her last year because she planned to start her own business (another goal she had set). Though ready to leave in July, she committed to stay through the year because she had promised to do so. There is only one word to describe such a person – winner.
Contrast that with the other woman. When offered more responsibility, she declined. She went on to have a baby, father unknown. Two years later, she was pregnant again, still no husband. Though we were offering health insurance by then, she never signed up because the twelve dollar-a-week contribution was too expensive for her.
She quit before the baby came so that Medicaid would pay for her delivery. I’ve neither seen nor heard from her in five years, but word is that she now has at least three kids. Though she wasn’t on our payroll, I suspect that we’ve all helped to pay her bills through our taxes.
There are those who would look at the struggling mother and argue that we need to show compassion. We need to provide food, shelter and healthcare to one who is so down on their luck. And in a vacuum, it would be tough to disagree. But one has to wonder at what point our benevolence might become counter-productive, thereby enabling such self-destructive choices.
Bob Seger once sang that "life is like a big river – sink or swim depends on you." So true. Where some see victims and survivors, others see winners and losers. More often than not, it’s a result of personal choices. It’s a lesson I plan to teach my kids. And this tale of two women is certain to be part of the curriculum.
=============
Note: This piece generated a lot of feedback, both pro and con. I addressed the negative response in the piece that can be read here.
9/10/2004
Who Cares Where Bush & Kerry Were During the War
Is there anyone else out there who thinks all this yammering about our presidential candidates’ whereabouts during the Vietnam War is rather pointless? We’ve got people arguing over whether John Kerry was in Vietnam or Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, while others are asking where George W. Bush was, period.
I find it particularly humorous because the same arguments were made during the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and W’s father. Clinton was defending his deferments and contacts with military officers in an attempt to avoid going to war, while George Sr. was fighting accusations that his WWII service might not have been as heroic as it was made out to be.
The lesson we should have learned in ’92 is that how one did or did not serve when they were eighteen or twenty years old is not going to make much difference in the way people see them as candidates.
Oh, sure, lots of people will beg to differ. Unfortunately, they are largely the people who already have their minds made up about the two. The same people who were defending Bill Clinton’s deferments are the ones asking where George W. was during Vietnam, while those who saw the senior Bush as a hero are painting John Kerry as a traitor.
In other words, how one views their service depends upon how one views their candidacy. How one views their candidacy does not depend upon how one views their service.
Personally, I don’t know where John Kerry was or what the circumstances were regarding the war wounds that he suffered while he was in Vietnam. But I do know that he was there. For that, I salute him. Anyone who serves during a time of war has earned my undying respect.
On the other hand, that doesn’t automatically qualify him to become Commander-In-Chief. Heck, I've got a cousin who served in Vietnam. He’s a great guy, a hard-working family man with a Purple Heart to show for his time in country. I’ll drink a beer with him anytime, but he is better suited for pursuits that do not require leading the free world.
As for W, well, I’d drink a beer with him, too – if he were still drinking. He was no Vietnam hero, but serving in the National Guard does not make him a coward or a slacker. And it certainly doesn’t disqualify him to be president.
The fact is that Vietnam – and the entire decade of the sixties – was a trying and traumatic time for the U.S. The rules were such that a great many people never had to serve, and those who did had to under the most difficult of circumstances. It is folly to try and judge a person today based upon their actions back then.
There are far more pressing issues facing us today than what took place nearly forty years ago. Rather than look back, we’d be better served by looking forward. What to do about Iraq, the economy, the deficit, the looming retirement of the baby boom generation and exploding healthcare costs are the things we should be discussing. But they are being drowned out by a tit-for-tat exchange that ultimately will have little bearing on how either of these men will lead this country.
Progress is all about where we’re going, not where we’ve been. But rather than peer ahead, we’ve chosen to fix our gaze squarely on the rearview mirror
I find it particularly humorous because the same arguments were made during the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and W’s father. Clinton was defending his deferments and contacts with military officers in an attempt to avoid going to war, while George Sr. was fighting accusations that his WWII service might not have been as heroic as it was made out to be.
The lesson we should have learned in ’92 is that how one did or did not serve when they were eighteen or twenty years old is not going to make much difference in the way people see them as candidates.
Oh, sure, lots of people will beg to differ. Unfortunately, they are largely the people who already have their minds made up about the two. The same people who were defending Bill Clinton’s deferments are the ones asking where George W. was during Vietnam, while those who saw the senior Bush as a hero are painting John Kerry as a traitor.
In other words, how one views their service depends upon how one views their candidacy. How one views their candidacy does not depend upon how one views their service.
Personally, I don’t know where John Kerry was or what the circumstances were regarding the war wounds that he suffered while he was in Vietnam. But I do know that he was there. For that, I salute him. Anyone who serves during a time of war has earned my undying respect.
On the other hand, that doesn’t automatically qualify him to become Commander-In-Chief. Heck, I've got a cousin who served in Vietnam. He’s a great guy, a hard-working family man with a Purple Heart to show for his time in country. I’ll drink a beer with him anytime, but he is better suited for pursuits that do not require leading the free world.
As for W, well, I’d drink a beer with him, too – if he were still drinking. He was no Vietnam hero, but serving in the National Guard does not make him a coward or a slacker. And it certainly doesn’t disqualify him to be president.
The fact is that Vietnam – and the entire decade of the sixties – was a trying and traumatic time for the U.S. The rules were such that a great many people never had to serve, and those who did had to under the most difficult of circumstances. It is folly to try and judge a person today based upon their actions back then.
There are far more pressing issues facing us today than what took place nearly forty years ago. Rather than look back, we’d be better served by looking forward. What to do about Iraq, the economy, the deficit, the looming retirement of the baby boom generation and exploding healthcare costs are the things we should be discussing. But they are being drowned out by a tit-for-tat exchange that ultimately will have little bearing on how either of these men will lead this country.
Progress is all about where we’re going, not where we’ve been. But rather than peer ahead, we’ve chosen to fix our gaze squarely on the rearview mirror
9/09/2004
Red Car Syndrome
All lies and jest. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. – Paul Simon, The Boxer
While discussing the merits of a military draft, I once got into a heated discussion with a friend’s wife, who argued that women should never be subject to the draft because women don’t start wars, men do. I asked her about Margaret Thatcher, who sent the British navy to fight the Falkland’s war. Nope, men in Argentina started it. How about Golda Meir, who started the Six Day War in 1973, despite pleadings from Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon to refrain from doing so. Nope. It had to be Arab men’s fault.
Her inability to even consider evidence contrary to her opinion was a classic case of what I call Red Car Syndrome. That’s where you form an opinion, then selectively choose to consider only the evidence that proves your point. In the case of Red Car Syndrome, it’s the belief that red cars always exceed the speed limit.
Once you’ve made that assumption, then every time you watch a red car speed past, you say to yourself, “See, red cars always go fast.” The problem is that you ignore all the red cars that obey the speed limit, as well as all the brown, green and black cars that don’t.
In other words, your opinion is based not upon evidence, but upon what you want to believe. It’s the adult equivalent of covering our ears and shouting, “I can’t hear you!”
There are a few more common terms that define this behavior – tunnel vision, closed-mindedness, stereotyping. The definitive term is prejudice.
For that is what prejudice is – prejudging something or someone on preconceived notions or opinions. Our minds are made up based upon what we’ve observed in the past, upon what we’ve been told, or worst of all, what we want to believe. The problem is that it keeps us from getting to the truth. And the truth is what really matters. But we’re so preoccupied with convincing others that our opinion is right that we never take the time to make sure that it is.
9/03/2004
Two Americas? Whose Fault is That?
If the Kerry/Edwards ticket thinks it sees two Americas, they should take a look at my house. I’m sure they’d see two families – the Haves and the Have-nots. Two little people who have no money to buy anything, and two adults who – at least in our kids’ eyes – have all the money in the world.
But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.
I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.
As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.
I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.
The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.
That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.
That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.
Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.
Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.
Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.
My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.
The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.
But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.
I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.
As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.
I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.
The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.
That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.
That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.
Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.
Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.
Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.
My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.
The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.
9/01/2004
Prediction for 2008
Right after the Republicans took over congress in 1994, when Bill Clinton was at the depths of despair regarding his popularity, I predicted to a friend that he would win re-election in ’96. I based it solely on the roster of potential Republican candidates, not believing that any of them would be able to beat the master politician.
Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.
But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.
If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.
That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.
Here’s my reasoning.
First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.
But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.
Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.
So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.
Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.
But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.
If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.
That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.
Here’s my reasoning.
First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.
But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.
Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.
So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.
8/27/2004
Treating Oil Like a 19th Century Buffalo Herd
Are we acting like the old buffalo hunters in the late nineteenth century? I once heard it said that as the bison disappeared, hunters had three options – they could find better ways to hunt the remaining buffalo, they could find ways to nurture the herd back to health, or they could find things to hunt besides buffalo. What they could not do, but sadly chose to, was sit in saloons drinking while waiting for the herds to return.
Now it looks as though we are following the hunters’ path with regard to oil reserves. It’s as though we figure we can continue to party on in our Suburbans, Expeditions and Hummers while we wait for oil supplies to build back up and prices to come back down.
It could be a long wait.
That’s because our current oil prices are not so much a result of supply problems as they are of demand. We like to think that the war in Iraq has disrupted oil production, leading to higher prices, but that’s not the case. The real culprit lies in exploding demand in developing nations, particularly China. Save for a collapse of the Chinese economy, that dynamic is only going to get worse.
So what are our options? Let’s consider the buffalo hunters.
We can look for new sources of petroleum. That seems to be the primary answer sought by the Bush administration. While they have made some cursory comments regarding alternative solutions such as hydrogen-based fuel cells, their foremost strategy is to drill more wells.
That is a short-term solution at best. The fact is that petroleum is a finite resource. What we have is what we get. It took millions of years for plants and dinosaurs to decay and become liquid oil. In little more than a century, we’ve gone a long way toward depleting that supply. It may last a few more decades or a century at best, but then what? The time to act is before it’s gone.
That leads to solution number two. We can nurture the resource. That means conservation. Despite arguments that this is no more than a touchy-feely solution with little real value, it must be our first step. Conservation buys us time. Were it not for improvements in energy efficiency over the past thirty years, we’d currently be consuming as much as forty percent more oil than we are today.
I find it strange that we have stricter controls on how much water we can flush down a toilet than on how much gas our cars can burn. That must change – water simply goes back into the environment. Oil disappears forever.
The real answer, however, lies in solution number three – finding alternative energy sources. There is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Of the options, hydrogen fuel cell technology is among the most intriguing. But we must consider all our energy options, including wind, water, solar, geothermal, and yes, nuclear.
The handwriting is on the wall. Or should I say it is on the pylon sign in front of the filling station. Those prices are rising because we are squeezing a precious, limited resource. They are not a sign of impending disaster, but of the need for aggressive out-of-the-box thinking. The time to act is now, lest we finish off the last of our oil like the delusional buffalo hunter down to his last drop of whiskey.
Now it looks as though we are following the hunters’ path with regard to oil reserves. It’s as though we figure we can continue to party on in our Suburbans, Expeditions and Hummers while we wait for oil supplies to build back up and prices to come back down.
It could be a long wait.
That’s because our current oil prices are not so much a result of supply problems as they are of demand. We like to think that the war in Iraq has disrupted oil production, leading to higher prices, but that’s not the case. The real culprit lies in exploding demand in developing nations, particularly China. Save for a collapse of the Chinese economy, that dynamic is only going to get worse.
So what are our options? Let’s consider the buffalo hunters.
We can look for new sources of petroleum. That seems to be the primary answer sought by the Bush administration. While they have made some cursory comments regarding alternative solutions such as hydrogen-based fuel cells, their foremost strategy is to drill more wells.
That is a short-term solution at best. The fact is that petroleum is a finite resource. What we have is what we get. It took millions of years for plants and dinosaurs to decay and become liquid oil. In little more than a century, we’ve gone a long way toward depleting that supply. It may last a few more decades or a century at best, but then what? The time to act is before it’s gone.
That leads to solution number two. We can nurture the resource. That means conservation. Despite arguments that this is no more than a touchy-feely solution with little real value, it must be our first step. Conservation buys us time. Were it not for improvements in energy efficiency over the past thirty years, we’d currently be consuming as much as forty percent more oil than we are today.
I find it strange that we have stricter controls on how much water we can flush down a toilet than on how much gas our cars can burn. That must change – water simply goes back into the environment. Oil disappears forever.
The real answer, however, lies in solution number three – finding alternative energy sources. There is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Of the options, hydrogen fuel cell technology is among the most intriguing. But we must consider all our energy options, including wind, water, solar, geothermal, and yes, nuclear.
The handwriting is on the wall. Or should I say it is on the pylon sign in front of the filling station. Those prices are rising because we are squeezing a precious, limited resource. They are not a sign of impending disaster, but of the need for aggressive out-of-the-box thinking. The time to act is now, lest we finish off the last of our oil like the delusional buffalo hunter down to his last drop of whiskey.
8/20/2004
Let Kids Be Kids
Growing up, there were these three solitary trees that loomed far in the distance from my house. They always seemed to be calling us – come climb our branches, sit in our shade, jump in our leaves. I can remember as a kid asking for permission to go down to the Three Trees (yes, the name was capitalized, since in my mind it was a proper noun just as much as Cincinnati or Omaha).
So, with mom’s blessing – and perhaps a sack lunch – we’d hike off across the fields that led from our house to a day of adventure.
I was reminded of those trees by two recent conversations. One was with my neighbor, who was reminiscing about the days spent fishing at local ponds when he was a kid. Like us, he and his friends would disappear for a day of seclusion, where fun was limited only by the imagination – and where there wasn’t a parent or adult in sight.
The other was with a mom worried about what our kids would do during the summer in the event we do not build a local $34 million community center.
Wow, has life really changed that much? Is the world that much smaller, that there are no adventures for kids to find on their own? Or has it become so dangerous that the only places we feel they can be safe are within our view or the confines of a controlled structure or activity?
I worry about today’s kids, whose lives seem to be planned out days, months and years in advance. I recently read of a ten year-old who played more than 100 baseball games last year. No big deal, we played that many and more every summer when I was growing up.
The difference is that we played four or five a side – sometimes even one-on-one – with no umpires, no uniforms and with scrap plywood for bases. This kid travels hundreds of miles with select teams, in the hope that someday he might get a shot at the major leagues. But is he having fun?
Because that is what childhood should be about. Fun, adventure, learning. With no coaches or umpires we had to pick teams (tossed bats and "bottle caps"), make up ground rules (a ball under the bushes is a double) and argue over hits, runs and outs. Along the way we not only learned baseball, but also leadership, compromise and conflict resolution. And we had a blast doing it.
Today, kids’ schedules are so packed with soccer practice, piano lessons and dance recitals that I fear they are missing out on developing some of those intangible skills that are just as important, if not more so, than the nuts-and-bolt talents their structured pursuits require.
I’ve always chuckled when I read how poorly U.S. students stack up academically with those from other nations. If we lag so far behind, why is it that we seem to run everything? From mass-produced automobiles to fast food, from music to the internet, we have led the way in just about every industrial, technical and cultural innovation.
I would argue that it’s because we have always valued creativity over conformity. Yet in a world where twelve year-olds now carry Day-Timers and Palm Pilots, I fear that they are going straight from cradle to cubicle.
I think we’d all be better off if they spent a little more time down at the Three Trees.
So, with mom’s blessing – and perhaps a sack lunch – we’d hike off across the fields that led from our house to a day of adventure.
I was reminded of those trees by two recent conversations. One was with my neighbor, who was reminiscing about the days spent fishing at local ponds when he was a kid. Like us, he and his friends would disappear for a day of seclusion, where fun was limited only by the imagination – and where there wasn’t a parent or adult in sight.
The other was with a mom worried about what our kids would do during the summer in the event we do not build a local $34 million community center.
Wow, has life really changed that much? Is the world that much smaller, that there are no adventures for kids to find on their own? Or has it become so dangerous that the only places we feel they can be safe are within our view or the confines of a controlled structure or activity?
I worry about today’s kids, whose lives seem to be planned out days, months and years in advance. I recently read of a ten year-old who played more than 100 baseball games last year. No big deal, we played that many and more every summer when I was growing up.
The difference is that we played four or five a side – sometimes even one-on-one – with no umpires, no uniforms and with scrap plywood for bases. This kid travels hundreds of miles with select teams, in the hope that someday he might get a shot at the major leagues. But is he having fun?
Because that is what childhood should be about. Fun, adventure, learning. With no coaches or umpires we had to pick teams (tossed bats and "bottle caps"), make up ground rules (a ball under the bushes is a double) and argue over hits, runs and outs. Along the way we not only learned baseball, but also leadership, compromise and conflict resolution. And we had a blast doing it.
Today, kids’ schedules are so packed with soccer practice, piano lessons and dance recitals that I fear they are missing out on developing some of those intangible skills that are just as important, if not more so, than the nuts-and-bolt talents their structured pursuits require.
I’ve always chuckled when I read how poorly U.S. students stack up academically with those from other nations. If we lag so far behind, why is it that we seem to run everything? From mass-produced automobiles to fast food, from music to the internet, we have led the way in just about every industrial, technical and cultural innovation.
I would argue that it’s because we have always valued creativity over conformity. Yet in a world where twelve year-olds now carry Day-Timers and Palm Pilots, I fear that they are going straight from cradle to cubicle.
I think we’d all be better off if they spent a little more time down at the Three Trees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)