A while back, my wife turned left onto a busy street, then signalled that she needed to move right across two lanes of traffic so she could pull into the grocery store. But as she put on her signal, a driver in the right lane sped up to block her move, then proceeded to inform her of his opinion using a very specific finger.
Now, it’s not like she cut him off. She was just signaling her need to get into the next lane. But the other driver’s reaction left her with gritted teeth and boiling blood. And it’s fairly easy to imagine the mood of the other driver. I doubt his gesture was his way of telling her that he thought she was number one.
So here we have an everyday, completely normal circumstance that ends up leaving two people irritated and seething. But what if it had been handled differently? What if instead of blocking her path, the guy had slowed down to let her in? My wife waves to say thanks, and the other driver gets the momentary warm fuzzy feeling that comes with the simplest act of kindness.
The difference such acts can make was brought home by an email I received the other day. Like everyone else, I get emails forwarded with every manner of joke, prayer, advice and admonition. Some are cute, some troublesome and some just not worth the time to read (though, of course, not anything that’s been sent to me by anyone reading this). But every so often there is a little gem that pops out and makes me take notice.
I got one of those the other day. It simply said, “If you want to cheer yourself up, do something to cheer up someone else.”
So simple and so true. And cheering up someone else doesn’t require silly jokes and funny faces. Tiny acts of kindness – letting the other driver have the open parking space, letting the person who’s holding up the checkout lane know that it’s okay, giving back the incorrect change that the cashier gave you – make others feel better about the world around them. In the process, we feel better about ourselves.
For years I’ve carried a small clipping that quotes Harry Gray, former CEO of United Technologies, speaking on putting aside our focus on life’s grand awards in order to enjoy the little things – a glorious sunset, a kiss behind the ear, a four pound bass, hot soup, cold beer.
I often pull that out when I find myself fretting about things beyond my control. For all my want of a house on the lake, a better car, a bigger boat, the most enjoyable and rewarding moments are those I spend on my deck smelling the flowers while watching my kids play. Those moments bring more contentment – a much underrated emotion – than all my successes.
We can help others enjoy those moments. For proof I offer this little anecdote. I was in college when I received a call from a stranger, informing me they had found something I might want. She arrived at my door with a wallet that I had lost. In it was my cash, my driver’s license and that clipping reminding me to appreciate the little things in life. A simple act of kindness that cheers me to this day.
4/29/2005
4/28/2005
Opportunities Abound Beyond Rec Center
[Second in a series about a proposed community center in West Chester, OH]
When someone suggested that last week’s column questioning the wisdom of building the West Chester Community Center in the face of some daunting economic challenges was too pessimistic, I was reminded of a story about the dot-com boom-and-bust. A CEO said it was like driving a Ferrari 120 mph, certain that the next gas station was just around the corner. Had they known it would be hundreds of miles, they’d have chosen to drive Toyotas at the speed limit. In other words, they would have chosen prudence over wild optimism.
I believe prudence is wise, especially after reviewing the township’s feasibility study that projects family membership fees somewhere between $640 and $1,165 a year. To a lot of families, that’s a big chunk of cash that many can’t afford.
But prudence need not mean stagnation. As Bob Marley once sang, when one door is closed, many more are opened. While I don’t subscribe to the view that this is a question of schools versus pools, I do believe it is a question of how we choose to allocate community resources. And choosing wisely could open a lot of doors, some simple and some breathtaking.
For example, what if we scaled back the plans so they’re closer to the modest concept many of us on the original 2012 Vision Committee envisioned? We could incorporate a much needed new library with some of the amenities offered by the Community Center such as a senior center, meeting rooms, an auditorium or facilities for the arts.
What if all the energy that’s been spent trying to make the community center a reality were instead directed toward changing state law so that the township could indeed spend TIF money on schools, thereby maintaining educational excellence while reducing demands on the taxpayer?
What if we installed the sidewalks so many long for, creating a walkable community that is safer for our children, healthier for all of us and more interconnected than it will ever be given our current dependence on the automobile?
And finally, what about West Chester’s hidden gem? When the community center was first proposed, Voice of America was still a web of radio antennas and wires. Today, it’s parkland nearly half the size of New York’s Central Park. Imagine not only ball fields, ponds and forested bike paths, but also pools and every other amenity we envision for the Community Center – and more – all in a much grander campus-like park setting.
It won’t happen overnight. But like a garden, VOA is a canvas that we can work on for decades without jeopardizing our immediate financial future. Best of all, VOA’s historical significance and name recognition could help us leverage corporate sponsorships and government grants that might make anything from a history museum to children’s science center possible. And a century from now, instead of a 100 year-old rec center in an aging commercial district, our descendants will marvel at our vision in creating a pastoral jewel in the midst of what by then is sure to be a congested urban metropolis.
I know a lot of people have poured their hearts and souls into the Community Center. Some have dug deep into their pockets to see it become reality. We are blessed to have such dedicated citizens among us. But there are so many other doors we could open. Let’s not lock them all in one felled swoop.
When someone suggested that last week’s column questioning the wisdom of building the West Chester Community Center in the face of some daunting economic challenges was too pessimistic, I was reminded of a story about the dot-com boom-and-bust. A CEO said it was like driving a Ferrari 120 mph, certain that the next gas station was just around the corner. Had they known it would be hundreds of miles, they’d have chosen to drive Toyotas at the speed limit. In other words, they would have chosen prudence over wild optimism.
I believe prudence is wise, especially after reviewing the township’s feasibility study that projects family membership fees somewhere between $640 and $1,165 a year. To a lot of families, that’s a big chunk of cash that many can’t afford.
But prudence need not mean stagnation. As Bob Marley once sang, when one door is closed, many more are opened. While I don’t subscribe to the view that this is a question of schools versus pools, I do believe it is a question of how we choose to allocate community resources. And choosing wisely could open a lot of doors, some simple and some breathtaking.
For example, what if we scaled back the plans so they’re closer to the modest concept many of us on the original 2012 Vision Committee envisioned? We could incorporate a much needed new library with some of the amenities offered by the Community Center such as a senior center, meeting rooms, an auditorium or facilities for the arts.
What if all the energy that’s been spent trying to make the community center a reality were instead directed toward changing state law so that the township could indeed spend TIF money on schools, thereby maintaining educational excellence while reducing demands on the taxpayer?
What if we installed the sidewalks so many long for, creating a walkable community that is safer for our children, healthier for all of us and more interconnected than it will ever be given our current dependence on the automobile?
And finally, what about West Chester’s hidden gem? When the community center was first proposed, Voice of America was still a web of radio antennas and wires. Today, it’s parkland nearly half the size of New York’s Central Park. Imagine not only ball fields, ponds and forested bike paths, but also pools and every other amenity we envision for the Community Center – and more – all in a much grander campus-like park setting.
It won’t happen overnight. But like a garden, VOA is a canvas that we can work on for decades without jeopardizing our immediate financial future. Best of all, VOA’s historical significance and name recognition could help us leverage corporate sponsorships and government grants that might make anything from a history museum to children’s science center possible. And a century from now, instead of a 100 year-old rec center in an aging commercial district, our descendants will marvel at our vision in creating a pastoral jewel in the midst of what by then is sure to be a congested urban metropolis.
I know a lot of people have poured their hearts and souls into the Community Center. Some have dug deep into their pockets to see it become reality. We are blessed to have such dedicated citizens among us. But there are so many other doors we could open. Let’s not lock them all in one felled swoop.
4/21/2005
Too Many Uncertainties Surround Community Center
[First in a series about a proposed community center in West Chester, OH]
I really, really want to throw my support behind the West Chester Community Center. With a daughter who lives to swim, a son who’ll play any sport and a pair of creaky knees that have forced me to find a form of exercise other than running, we could be the poster family for the center. Furthermore, I was on the original 2012 Vision Committee that first recommended the idea. And to top it off, some of the center’s most ardent supporters are friends whose opinions I trust and respect.
Still, I just cannot bring myself to say we should build it. Perhaps if West Chester existed in a vacuum, immune to all the influences, challenges and demands of the outside world, my opinion would be different. But it doesn’t. And those challenges give me pause. Here’s why.
Putting aside the TIF funding that will be used to build the project, let’s consider the operating costs. Projections show that the center will be self-sustaining through membership and user fees. Even if that turns out to be true – and we all know that even the best-intentioned government projections have been known to be wrong – it will mean that we’ll need nearly $3 million from local businesses and citizens to breakeven each year. If we don’t hit that $3 million breakeven number, then we’ll either need to hit up the taxpayer to make up the difference or cut into other township services. Neither is a pleasant prospect.
Now, we can argue that West Chester has the demographics to crack that $3 million nut. But are we sure? Consider that we’ve defeated four straight levy requests – three for the schools and one for parks – in the past eighteen months. Perhaps we’re not quite as flush with cash as we like to think.
And that’s without all the pressures we’re going to feel as taxpayers in the coming years. We’ve got education that needs to be funded, an out-of-whack state budget that is going to hit schools, local governments and taxpayers in the pocketbook, and an out-of-control federal deficit.
Our friends in Washington currently spend almost $2,000 per U.S. resident more than they collect in taxes each year – all before the baby boomers start collecting Social Security, using Medicare and taking advantage of the new prescription drug benefit. At some point we’ll need to stop borrowing and start paying.
Add to that our exploding healthcare costs, reduced employer contributions to insurance, precarious energy supplies and skyrocketing fuel prices and it gets a little scary. I can’t say that all these costs will make the community center unsustainable. But no one – and I mean no one – can say they won’t. And if it isn’t self-supporting, that will become one more drain on the taxpayer’s wallet.
With all the uncertainties we face, that is not a risk we should take on. We can close our eyes and plunge ahead. But first we should ask one simple question: Is the Community Center a necessity? If the answer is no, then we should take a pass.
For all the talk of sustainable communities and the need to keep up with our rec center-building neighbors, I believe the thriving communities of the future will be those that keep overhead low while focusing on core necessities like police, fire and education. Let’s be one of those communities.
Next week: What ifs and alternatives
I really, really want to throw my support behind the West Chester Community Center. With a daughter who lives to swim, a son who’ll play any sport and a pair of creaky knees that have forced me to find a form of exercise other than running, we could be the poster family for the center. Furthermore, I was on the original 2012 Vision Committee that first recommended the idea. And to top it off, some of the center’s most ardent supporters are friends whose opinions I trust and respect.
Still, I just cannot bring myself to say we should build it. Perhaps if West Chester existed in a vacuum, immune to all the influences, challenges and demands of the outside world, my opinion would be different. But it doesn’t. And those challenges give me pause. Here’s why.
Putting aside the TIF funding that will be used to build the project, let’s consider the operating costs. Projections show that the center will be self-sustaining through membership and user fees. Even if that turns out to be true – and we all know that even the best-intentioned government projections have been known to be wrong – it will mean that we’ll need nearly $3 million from local businesses and citizens to breakeven each year. If we don’t hit that $3 million breakeven number, then we’ll either need to hit up the taxpayer to make up the difference or cut into other township services. Neither is a pleasant prospect.
Now, we can argue that West Chester has the demographics to crack that $3 million nut. But are we sure? Consider that we’ve defeated four straight levy requests – three for the schools and one for parks – in the past eighteen months. Perhaps we’re not quite as flush with cash as we like to think.
And that’s without all the pressures we’re going to feel as taxpayers in the coming years. We’ve got education that needs to be funded, an out-of-whack state budget that is going to hit schools, local governments and taxpayers in the pocketbook, and an out-of-control federal deficit.
Our friends in Washington currently spend almost $2,000 per U.S. resident more than they collect in taxes each year – all before the baby boomers start collecting Social Security, using Medicare and taking advantage of the new prescription drug benefit. At some point we’ll need to stop borrowing and start paying.
Add to that our exploding healthcare costs, reduced employer contributions to insurance, precarious energy supplies and skyrocketing fuel prices and it gets a little scary. I can’t say that all these costs will make the community center unsustainable. But no one – and I mean no one – can say they won’t. And if it isn’t self-supporting, that will become one more drain on the taxpayer’s wallet.
With all the uncertainties we face, that is not a risk we should take on. We can close our eyes and plunge ahead. But first we should ask one simple question: Is the Community Center a necessity? If the answer is no, then we should take a pass.
For all the talk of sustainable communities and the need to keep up with our rec center-building neighbors, I believe the thriving communities of the future will be those that keep overhead low while focusing on core necessities like police, fire and education. Let’s be one of those communities.
Next week: What ifs and alternatives
3/23/2005
Drunk Driving's Hard Lesson
I once took one of those personality tests with a section where I had to choose which of two words best describe me. One choice was between “judge” and “peacemaker.” Easy. Judges weigh the facts and decide. Peacemakers see both sides to every story, try to bring people together, look for the common ground. I’d much rather be the judge.
Yeah, right. Who am I trying to kid? I don’t know that I could take the cold, hard stance required to sit in true judgment of another. Especially when I can so clearly understand the circumstances of the accused. That was made all too clear when I read of the sentence given to Jennifer Weir in a drunk-driving accident. It’s one of those heart-wrenching stories that make you wonder if justice was done. In fact, you wonder if justice could be done.
Jennifer Weir is the mother of a four year-old daughter. Last August she foolishly had a few beers, then strapped her daughter into the backseat of the car and drove home. At least that was her plan. But at some point along the way her car moved across the center line. We don’t know if it was only for a second or two. We don’t know if it happened just that once. But we do know that precisely at that moment, James and Virginia Boyd were travelling in the opposite direction on a motorcycle.
Jennifer Weir’s SUV struck the motorcycle and killed the Boyds.
At her sentencing, the judge choked back tears as he sent Jennifer away for ten years. Ten years, despite the fact that the victims’ family pleaded for mercy. Ten years, despite a four year-old daughter who might be fourteen before she gets to spend another evening at home with her mom.
The victims’ family members don’t see what good can come from locking up someone they see as a good person in a bad situation. I’m not so sure. I can see both sides. I look at my two children and think it could have been them that were in the path of Jennifer Weir’s SUV. On the other hand, I can’t imagine them losing a parent for ten years because of a moment of stupidity.
I’m sure I’m not alone. Almost certainly, someone is reading this story and thinking, “Wow, that could be me going to jail.” I’ll bet more than one or two of us got behind the wheel last week or last month when we were just as intoxicated as Jennifer Weir. It’s one of those “There but for the grace of God” moments that make it all so haunting.
Which is why I feel the sentence does serve a purpose. If the message can be taken to heart that drunk-driving accidents aren’t things that happen to someone else, that you are a menace if you drink and drive, that just because you’re a good person who’s never been in trouble doesn’t mean you can’t face hard time, then this sentence will achieve its intended purpose.
But I’m not sure I could be the one to hand down the judgment. What I can do, however, is look at my precious, innocent children and do whatever I can to see they never suffer the pain that arises from drinking and driving. The judge did his part. Perhaps it will help us do ours.
Yeah, right. Who am I trying to kid? I don’t know that I could take the cold, hard stance required to sit in true judgment of another. Especially when I can so clearly understand the circumstances of the accused. That was made all too clear when I read of the sentence given to Jennifer Weir in a drunk-driving accident. It’s one of those heart-wrenching stories that make you wonder if justice was done. In fact, you wonder if justice could be done.
Jennifer Weir is the mother of a four year-old daughter. Last August she foolishly had a few beers, then strapped her daughter into the backseat of the car and drove home. At least that was her plan. But at some point along the way her car moved across the center line. We don’t know if it was only for a second or two. We don’t know if it happened just that once. But we do know that precisely at that moment, James and Virginia Boyd were travelling in the opposite direction on a motorcycle.
Jennifer Weir’s SUV struck the motorcycle and killed the Boyds.
At her sentencing, the judge choked back tears as he sent Jennifer away for ten years. Ten years, despite the fact that the victims’ family pleaded for mercy. Ten years, despite a four year-old daughter who might be fourteen before she gets to spend another evening at home with her mom.
The victims’ family members don’t see what good can come from locking up someone they see as a good person in a bad situation. I’m not so sure. I can see both sides. I look at my two children and think it could have been them that were in the path of Jennifer Weir’s SUV. On the other hand, I can’t imagine them losing a parent for ten years because of a moment of stupidity.
I’m sure I’m not alone. Almost certainly, someone is reading this story and thinking, “Wow, that could be me going to jail.” I’ll bet more than one or two of us got behind the wheel last week or last month when we were just as intoxicated as Jennifer Weir. It’s one of those “There but for the grace of God” moments that make it all so haunting.
Which is why I feel the sentence does serve a purpose. If the message can be taken to heart that drunk-driving accidents aren’t things that happen to someone else, that you are a menace if you drink and drive, that just because you’re a good person who’s never been in trouble doesn’t mean you can’t face hard time, then this sentence will achieve its intended purpose.
But I’m not sure I could be the one to hand down the judgment. What I can do, however, is look at my precious, innocent children and do whatever I can to see they never suffer the pain that arises from drinking and driving. The judge did his part. Perhaps it will help us do ours.
3/17/2005
Don't Say We Weren't Warned About Government Spending
I hesitate to quote a French scholar, given the low regard we seem to have these days for all things French, but I found his cautionary tale offered as a warning for America, to be quite enlightening. Our friend writes of ancient democracies that failed when government treasuries were exhausted in efforts to “relieve indigent citizens or to supply games and theatrical amusements for the populace,” then goes on to explain how it could happen here in the U.S.
Yes, I know it doesn’t take a lot of explaining. Believing government cash to be free money, we demand that our elected leaders satisfy our every wish. Politicians eager to win our votes are only too willing to oblige. So we get welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, prescription drug coverage, parks, parades, stadiums, arenas, community centers and heaven knows what else, all courtesy of our benevolent public officials. Then, as the government helps the indigent and entertains the rest of us, expenditures grow and grow until they outstrip our willingness – or ability – to pay. Poof. Exhausted treasuries.
Now, in days of old, those ancient democracies would go out and loot a foreign land to replenish their treasuries. But in today’s world of sophisticated finance, there is no need to loot our neighbors. We simply sell them some bonds, load up on debt and loot our children and grandchildren instead. It’s so much cleaner.
This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Our founding fathers thought they had provided a measure of protection against such pandering when they decided upon a representative form of government. Fearing a general vote of the citizens on every spending decision would lead to both chaos and mob rule, they decided to vest those decisions in an elected few. Surely, or so our forefathers thought, those worthy of election to public office would value wisdom over whim, prudence over popularity, restraint over reelection.
But such restraint requires leadership, and leadership in this day and age too often consists of sticking a finger in the air to see which way the winds are blowing. Our esteemed officials then conclude that they are leaders because they respond to those winds of desire. That’s akin to believing that a sailboat leads the wind. They can’t see that leadership lies not in riding the wave of public opinion, but in being the ship that creates the wave.
Which is why we end up with a government that spends more than it takes in. According to our French scholar, we shouldn’t be surprised, for “wherever the poor direct public affairs…it appears certain that, as they profit by the expenditure of the state, they will often augment that expenditure.” In other words, we benefit from government spending, so we’ll elect politicians who promise us more of the same.
Therein lies the answer to a spendthrift government – us. It is often said that we get the government that we deserve. If so, we’ll continue to see overspending until we get beyond our entitlement mentality. But that is easier said than done, for we’ve never been a people inclined to undergo “privation or any inconvenience.”
At least that’s the observation of our French scholar – Alexis de Tocqueville, whose writings I cite are from his 1831 masterpiece, Democracy In America. One-hundred seventy-four years later, his takes are dead on. Perhaps someday, we’ll prove him wrong. We haven’t yet.
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?
2/18/2005
Media Bias Strikes Again
Sometimes you can see bias coming a mile away. The circumstances are so clear and the party so bigoted that you know what’s going to happen long before it does. At least that’s the case when it comes to Hollywood. Funny how the clearest examples of prejudice seem to come from our open-minded friends on the left coast.
The most recent example comes courtesy of ER. Now I have to admit that this show often does an excellent job of making viewers consider difficult medical ethics issues. But that didn’t stop them from propagating one of Hollywood’s favorite stereotypes.
For those who don’t watch the show, there is a doctor named Kerry Weaver who happens to be gay. So far, the story line regarding her personal life has involved the death of her life partner, and the custody battle – a losing one – over their adopted child.
Dr. Weaver’s story took a turn, however, when she met her own birth mother who had given her up for adoption shortly after birth. There were the expected uncomfortable moments between a mother who had given up her baby and an adult child unsure how she was supposed to feel about her new-found mom. Nothing out of the ordinary.
But then Dr. Weaver went to watch her mom in rehearsal – for the church choir. Uh, oh. You could see it coming. Sure enough, her mom went into a dissertation on how Jesus had changed her life. And you just knew how this was going to turn out. Mom was going to be horrified that her daughter was gay. That it was a sin against God and humanity. You could have turned the TV off right then and written the rest of the script yourself.
What’s ironic about this whole thing is that just four days earlier I had been involved in a discussion about homosexuality with a few people from my church. It was an informal discussion in an informal setting. And it lasted about two minutes, with the basic consensus that it’s no big deal. Then it was back to talking football.
But that’s not Hollywood’s take. Unless it’s Touched By An Angel or some other show targeted at a spiritual demographic – even Hollywood will put it’s bias aside if there’s a dollar to be made – you can bet that anyone who holds God in high regard is going to be depicted as (choose all that apply) intolerant / unstable / pedophilic / homophobic / homicidal / suicidal / weird.
Which is why I think our cultural elite haven’t figured out how to connect with the “values” crowd. They just don’t understand them. And anything they don’t understand must be intolerant, ignorant, unstable – well, you get the idea.
The fact is that most of the church-going people I know are like everyone else. Because they are everyone else. They get up and go to work. Their kids play soccer and baseball. They eat at McDonalds, Olive Garden and TGI Friday’s. Some drink beer, some drink wine. Like every other human that has walked this earth, they’re not without sin. And for the most part, they are too concerned with their own lives to take the time to sit in judgment of others.
Of course, Hollywood sees it differently. But then, you always see things differently when your eyes and mind are closed.
The most recent example comes courtesy of ER. Now I have to admit that this show often does an excellent job of making viewers consider difficult medical ethics issues. But that didn’t stop them from propagating one of Hollywood’s favorite stereotypes.
For those who don’t watch the show, there is a doctor named Kerry Weaver who happens to be gay. So far, the story line regarding her personal life has involved the death of her life partner, and the custody battle – a losing one – over their adopted child.
Dr. Weaver’s story took a turn, however, when she met her own birth mother who had given her up for adoption shortly after birth. There were the expected uncomfortable moments between a mother who had given up her baby and an adult child unsure how she was supposed to feel about her new-found mom. Nothing out of the ordinary.
But then Dr. Weaver went to watch her mom in rehearsal – for the church choir. Uh, oh. You could see it coming. Sure enough, her mom went into a dissertation on how Jesus had changed her life. And you just knew how this was going to turn out. Mom was going to be horrified that her daughter was gay. That it was a sin against God and humanity. You could have turned the TV off right then and written the rest of the script yourself.
What’s ironic about this whole thing is that just four days earlier I had been involved in a discussion about homosexuality with a few people from my church. It was an informal discussion in an informal setting. And it lasted about two minutes, with the basic consensus that it’s no big deal. Then it was back to talking football.
But that’s not Hollywood’s take. Unless it’s Touched By An Angel or some other show targeted at a spiritual demographic – even Hollywood will put it’s bias aside if there’s a dollar to be made – you can bet that anyone who holds God in high regard is going to be depicted as (choose all that apply) intolerant / unstable / pedophilic / homophobic / homicidal / suicidal / weird.
Which is why I think our cultural elite haven’t figured out how to connect with the “values” crowd. They just don’t understand them. And anything they don’t understand must be intolerant, ignorant, unstable – well, you get the idea.
The fact is that most of the church-going people I know are like everyone else. Because they are everyone else. They get up and go to work. Their kids play soccer and baseball. They eat at McDonalds, Olive Garden and TGI Friday’s. Some drink beer, some drink wine. Like every other human that has walked this earth, they’re not without sin. And for the most part, they are too concerned with their own lives to take the time to sit in judgment of others.
Of course, Hollywood sees it differently. But then, you always see things differently when your eyes and mind are closed.
2/11/2005
Money Won't Solve Every Problem
I was once approached by a panhandler while walking along Court Street in downtown Cincinnati. I was feeling generous that day, so I gave the guy a twenty. He was appropriately grateful, and I continued on my way, smugly content with my good deed.
But as I walked on, I started to think. What impact was that twenty going to have on that guy’s life? What would he do with it? Could twenty dollars possibly be enough to make a difference?
Maybe I should have given him fifty dollars. Or perhaps a hundred. Wouldn’t that buy him a few more days of food or a place to sleep? Couldn’t he use it to clean up and find a job? Or would he just waste it on drugs or booze? In any case, a hundred bucks probably wasn’t going to change much of anything.
So what if I had given him a thousand or ten thousand or fifty thousand? Would that make a difference? For a while, absolutely. But we hear stories all the time of people who win millions in the lottery, then wind up broke a short time later because they lack both the discipline and training to use the money wisely. Would this guy have been any different? I have no idea.
The reason there is no way of knowing is because money is a tool, not an answer. How that tool is used depends upon how prepared the person is to handle it. Give a hammer to a skilled tradesman and he can build a home. Give it to an untrained child and he can destroy one. The same is true of money. Give it to one who knows how to use it and they’ll build a future. Give it to one who doesn’t and too often they’ll dig a hole.
But we so want to believe that money is the answer that we continue to hand it out, whether as cash to a person on the street or as a check from the U.S. government. We use it as a way to keep score on our compassion. No doubt it is a measure of our generosity. In that regard, we are a compassionate people. But is money the best tool at our disposal, or simply the most convenient to dispense? Isn’t there something even more precious that we could offer?
I’m talking about time. What if instead of twenty dollars, I had given the panhandler twenty minutes of my time, just to learn about his circumstances, to see how I might help? Maybe it would have been fruitless, but what if I gave him twenty minutes every week? Simply acting as a mentor, guidance counselor or friend. I have little doubt that it would have been far more effective than my throwaway twenty.
Twenty minutes a week works out to 17 hours a year. If just one in five adult Americans made that commitment, it would be the equivalent of putting 275,000 people to work full-time with the sole purpose of giving people the tools they need to move forward in life. Imagine the difference we could make.
It’s so simple. But not as simple as handing a guy a twenty. Which is why we so often find ourselves throwing money at problems that don’t go away. But if more of us threw ourselves into solving them, perhaps they would. All it takes is time.
But as I walked on, I started to think. What impact was that twenty going to have on that guy’s life? What would he do with it? Could twenty dollars possibly be enough to make a difference?
Maybe I should have given him fifty dollars. Or perhaps a hundred. Wouldn’t that buy him a few more days of food or a place to sleep? Couldn’t he use it to clean up and find a job? Or would he just waste it on drugs or booze? In any case, a hundred bucks probably wasn’t going to change much of anything.
So what if I had given him a thousand or ten thousand or fifty thousand? Would that make a difference? For a while, absolutely. But we hear stories all the time of people who win millions in the lottery, then wind up broke a short time later because they lack both the discipline and training to use the money wisely. Would this guy have been any different? I have no idea.
The reason there is no way of knowing is because money is a tool, not an answer. How that tool is used depends upon how prepared the person is to handle it. Give a hammer to a skilled tradesman and he can build a home. Give it to an untrained child and he can destroy one. The same is true of money. Give it to one who knows how to use it and they’ll build a future. Give it to one who doesn’t and too often they’ll dig a hole.
But we so want to believe that money is the answer that we continue to hand it out, whether as cash to a person on the street or as a check from the U.S. government. We use it as a way to keep score on our compassion. No doubt it is a measure of our generosity. In that regard, we are a compassionate people. But is money the best tool at our disposal, or simply the most convenient to dispense? Isn’t there something even more precious that we could offer?
I’m talking about time. What if instead of twenty dollars, I had given the panhandler twenty minutes of my time, just to learn about his circumstances, to see how I might help? Maybe it would have been fruitless, but what if I gave him twenty minutes every week? Simply acting as a mentor, guidance counselor or friend. I have little doubt that it would have been far more effective than my throwaway twenty.
Twenty minutes a week works out to 17 hours a year. If just one in five adult Americans made that commitment, it would be the equivalent of putting 275,000 people to work full-time with the sole purpose of giving people the tools they need to move forward in life. Imagine the difference we could make.
It’s so simple. But not as simple as handing a guy a twenty. Which is why we so often find ourselves throwing money at problems that don’t go away. But if more of us threw ourselves into solving them, perhaps they would. All it takes is time.
2/04/2005
Iraqis On A Familiar Path to Democracy
When Washington made his legendary Christmas night crossing of the Delaware, his troops were ill-prepared for combat and uncertain regarding the future of their cause. They were fighting a war that would require assistance from France, one of the world’s great powers. They were fighting for a nation which had been denied representative government and had only recently shed the rule of an unbalanced tyrant. Moreover, it was less a nation than a confederation of separate states often split by social, geographical and religious differences – free and slave, north and south, Anglicans, Quakers, Deist and more.
The Delaware crossing took place nearly six months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and a full year before the miserable winter at Valley Forge. In fact, it would be nearly five more years before England would surrender and the independence of the former colonies would be guaranteed.
Imagine the pundits of the day had there been a full-blown 24-hour news cycle that reported on every challenge and setback. They would have argued over the justification for the war – was it to end taxation without representation, a fight for independence from England or to establish democracy? Or were those simply smokescreens to cover up a more sinister cause – to protect the moneyed interests who wanted England out of their hair for financial reasons?
They would have claimed that trying to defeat England was futile. That there was no end in sight, and that the war would only serve to split the colonies into fragmented, warring factions which would bring nothing but conflict and bloodshed between them for years to come.
And they would have argued that this concept called democracy was unworkable in a land where few were educated, many couldn’t read and where tyranny had ruled.
It would have sounded a lot like what’s been said about Iraq for the past two years.
Granted, there are differences. Among them that we, rather than the Iraqi’s, started the fight and the enemy is a nameless band of insurgents rather than a sovereign state. But if there was a take-home lesson from last week’s vote, it was that the Iraqi people are hungry for democracy. So much so that 8 million were willing to risk life and limb in order to exercise their right to vote.
There have been naysayers from the start, arguing that democracy is incompatible with the culture of the Middle East. But events in the past six months should put that notion to rest. We’ve had meaningful elections among Afghanis, Palestinians and Iraqis. Iran will elect a new president in a few months, and though conservative mullahs hope to suppress the reformist movement that began with the 2000 elections, an undercurrent of pro-Western sentiment continues to grow among the Iranian people.
I’m not sure why some are so ready to dismiss the universal appeal of democracy. Yes, it faces challenges in the Middle East, not the least of which is that there are enemies who are deathly afraid of its establishment in the region. But the mere depth of their fear is a testament to democracy’s power and appeal.
Each person that votes is one more devotee to the elegant concept of self-governance. Last week, 8 million more joined the list of converts. More of that and democracy will become the rule rather than the exception in a place where it was once thought impossible.
The Delaware crossing took place nearly six months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and a full year before the miserable winter at Valley Forge. In fact, it would be nearly five more years before England would surrender and the independence of the former colonies would be guaranteed.
Imagine the pundits of the day had there been a full-blown 24-hour news cycle that reported on every challenge and setback. They would have argued over the justification for the war – was it to end taxation without representation, a fight for independence from England or to establish democracy? Or were those simply smokescreens to cover up a more sinister cause – to protect the moneyed interests who wanted England out of their hair for financial reasons?
They would have claimed that trying to defeat England was futile. That there was no end in sight, and that the war would only serve to split the colonies into fragmented, warring factions which would bring nothing but conflict and bloodshed between them for years to come.
And they would have argued that this concept called democracy was unworkable in a land where few were educated, many couldn’t read and where tyranny had ruled.
It would have sounded a lot like what’s been said about Iraq for the past two years.
Granted, there are differences. Among them that we, rather than the Iraqi’s, started the fight and the enemy is a nameless band of insurgents rather than a sovereign state. But if there was a take-home lesson from last week’s vote, it was that the Iraqi people are hungry for democracy. So much so that 8 million were willing to risk life and limb in order to exercise their right to vote.
There have been naysayers from the start, arguing that democracy is incompatible with the culture of the Middle East. But events in the past six months should put that notion to rest. We’ve had meaningful elections among Afghanis, Palestinians and Iraqis. Iran will elect a new president in a few months, and though conservative mullahs hope to suppress the reformist movement that began with the 2000 elections, an undercurrent of pro-Western sentiment continues to grow among the Iranian people.
I’m not sure why some are so ready to dismiss the universal appeal of democracy. Yes, it faces challenges in the Middle East, not the least of which is that there are enemies who are deathly afraid of its establishment in the region. But the mere depth of their fear is a testament to democracy’s power and appeal.
Each person that votes is one more devotee to the elegant concept of self-governance. Last week, 8 million more joined the list of converts. More of that and democracy will become the rule rather than the exception in a place where it was once thought impossible.
2/02/2005
Here's Hoping Court Gets It Right on Eminent Domain
Owning one’s own home is at the heart of the American dream – and has been since the framers of the Constitution wrote protections against government seizure of private property for public use into the Fifth Amendment. But rampant abuse of eminent domain, made possible by a liberal interpretation of the public use standard has put that dream at risk. Now the Supreme Court is considering a Connecticut case that may put the power back in the hands of the people.
Let us hope they do.
Eminent domain has long been a tool of government in taking private property, but at some point the standard of public "use" became one of public "good". That is a critical distinction, and hopefully one that the Court sees fit to reverse.
Public use conjures images of highways, dams, airports and other public facilities owned, operated or managed by a government entity. Public good is a much broader definition, opening the door to the use of eminent domain to grab property for such nebulous purposes as spurring economic growth, or worse, expanding the tax base.
Such a basis for eminent domain puts virtually any property not maximizing its tax revenue potential at risk of government seizure. All it takes is someone who can promise a higher tax revenue stream from the property. Suddenly, owners of homes, farms, forests and fields are little more than caretakers waiting for someone with a better (meaning higher tax generating) plan to come along.
And provisions limiting seizure to blighted areas provide little protection. In California, for example, undeveloped desert land was designated "urbanized and blighted" so it could be seized for a Hyundai test track. It’s hard to see how God could be accused of blighting the wilderness, but since the track promised millions in tax dollars, who are we to argue?
Public good is far too broad a test for violating a principle as sacred as property rights.
We can hope that the Supreme Court will shift the balance of power back in our direction. But if they fail, a simple Constitutional amendment could do the trick: Government shall not seize private property for the purpose of giving, leasing or selling it wholly or in part to another private citizen or entity. Twenty-five words that would stop the land grab by government for the benefit of those who care not about the public good, but of personal profit.
Let us hope they do.
Eminent domain has long been a tool of government in taking private property, but at some point the standard of public "use" became one of public "good". That is a critical distinction, and hopefully one that the Court sees fit to reverse.
Public use conjures images of highways, dams, airports and other public facilities owned, operated or managed by a government entity. Public good is a much broader definition, opening the door to the use of eminent domain to grab property for such nebulous purposes as spurring economic growth, or worse, expanding the tax base.
Such a basis for eminent domain puts virtually any property not maximizing its tax revenue potential at risk of government seizure. All it takes is someone who can promise a higher tax revenue stream from the property. Suddenly, owners of homes, farms, forests and fields are little more than caretakers waiting for someone with a better (meaning higher tax generating) plan to come along.
And provisions limiting seizure to blighted areas provide little protection. In California, for example, undeveloped desert land was designated "urbanized and blighted" so it could be seized for a Hyundai test track. It’s hard to see how God could be accused of blighting the wilderness, but since the track promised millions in tax dollars, who are we to argue?
Public good is far too broad a test for violating a principle as sacred as property rights.
We can hope that the Supreme Court will shift the balance of power back in our direction. But if they fail, a simple Constitutional amendment could do the trick: Government shall not seize private property for the purpose of giving, leasing or selling it wholly or in part to another private citizen or entity. Twenty-five words that would stop the land grab by government for the benefit of those who care not about the public good, but of personal profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)