I use MSN.com as my internet home page and I’ve noticed that they seem to have quite a fixation on GERD. It seems that just about every other day, they have some link to a story about GERD – you can fight GERD, pregnancy and GERD, how to sleep with GERD.
What the heck is GERD? And why would I want to fight it and sleep with it? Is this some kind of new-age approach to marital problems?
Well, I finally clicked on one of those links and found that GERD stands for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. I think it used to be called heartburn. Apparently, it must be the primary health threat facing America, given MSN’s urgency in helping us in our war on this old ailment with the new name.
But then I noticed that every one of the articles on GERD was framed in a pretty, light purple color. A purple that is identical to the color of the little purple pill called Nexium, a product of the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It turns out that they are the primary, if not only, sponsor of the pages with these articles on GERD. And what, pray tell, is Nexium prescribed for? Can you spell G-E-R-D?
Now I remember the days when you spelled relief R-O-L-A-I-D-S. But in today’s world, why spend a buck on a pack of Rolaids, when you can spend $120 for a vial of Nexium?
The answer is both simple and complex. Simple, because we want more effective treatments for that which ails us. Complex, because the healthcare industry is all-too-eager to squeeze more and more dollars out of our pockets.
It’s common in every industry – from McDonald’s asking if we want to super-size our order, to the car dealer suggesting that we test drive the car with leather seats. But the healthcare industry is taking it to new and dangerous heights, and if we’re not careful, we’ll end up bankrupting ourselves and our economy.
It’s a new variation on Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the threat of the military-industrial complex. But instead of playing on our fears of death at the hands of the Soviets to create a military behemoth, we have the medical-industrial complex playing on our fear of death and disease in order to satisfy shareholders’ demands for greater profits.
Certainly, the profit motive has served us well in bringing new medical breakthroughs to the market. Without it, we’d have no MRI’s, no anti-AIDS treatments, no new cancer breakthroughs. But where does it stop?
There is a frightening synergy to MSN’s mix of news and commerce. Microsoft posts headlines about GERD as news items, then links them to pages paid for by Nexium. Those who suffer then seek (or is it demand) a Nexium prescription from their doctor.
I won't argue that publicly traded companies don't have a responsibility to increase shareholder value, but at some point, shareholder gains must be balanced with the public’s resources. We risk reaching a day when our economy is so centered around health care that it starves resources for other endeavors - and due to its immensity, believed too important to the economy and too influential to be reined in.
For example, Pfizer had U.S. sales of about $26 billion last year. To achieve a sales increase of ten percent this year, they would need to sell nearly ten dollars of additional product to every man, woman and child in the U.S. That’s just one company – and we have to wonder if hitting their target will be in our best interest or just theirs.
There was a time when we would treat gangrene with a shot of whiskey and a hacksaw. Today, it’s with antibiotic IV drips and microsurgery. Thank heaven for that, but if we’re not careful, we may find that whiskey is our only refuge from the financial pain.
6/25/2004
Opposite Approaches to Crime and Violence
Paul’s note: The subject is a local Cincinnati issue, but with global implications.
Ten years ago I had an opportunity to expand my business when a competitor went up for sale on Second Street in Hamilton, Ohio. It was a perfect match, but the deal fell apart when I asked the owner his hours of operation. He told me they stayed open until 7:30 p.m. during the summer, but closed at 5:30 during the winter. His explanation was that it wasn’t safe to leave after dark.
Now I’m in business to earn a living and provide for my family. Money is nice, but it’s not so important that I’m willing to risk my safety for it. So I passed on the opportunity. Less than a year later the business I was looking at shut down, taking all the jobs they offered with it.
There is a lesson there for anyone who wants to provide jobs for troubled urban areas. Provide a safe environment and the jobs will come.
It’s always been a chicken-and-egg debate. One side argues that crime flourishes because there are no jobs, while the other says that jobs are scarce because crime scares them away.
Well, it appears that two Cincinnati politicians want to find out which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Alicia Reece, the young vice mayor, coordinated a "Day Of Peace" this past Father’s Day. Ministers and community leaders spoke of the need for individuals to each do their part to put an end to the violence that has swept the city. Business owners, including Ms. Reece’s father, preached a message of hope by speaking to city youth about the power to become successful entrepreneurs and the opportunities available to anyone.
Normally I am not a big fan of symbolic rallies, but in this case the message being sent is precisely what Cincinnati’s young people need to hear – namely, that the answer to violence lies within themselves. If we can transform the attitude from one where guns mean power to one where education and responsibility mean power, we’ll see crime drop and jobs flow back into the city.
But while this was going on, State Representative Tyrone Yates was warning the Ohio legislature that unless the state provided $4 million for a summer jobs program, we could expect violence and bloodshed in the streets of Cincinnati. Now, he wasn't calling for violence, but he sends the message that if the state doesn't pony up, we shouldn't be surprised when the street erupts. Sadly, his warning could lead to precisely the type of violence that sends businesses and jobs packing. He's not marshalling the forces, but there are certainly those who will take it as a license to disrupt. And if the street does erupt, the groundwork has been laid to blame the disturbance not on the perpetrators, but on society.
It is ironic that while Alicia Reece’s effort was aimed at curbing violence, its end result will be more jobs and opportunities. Meanwhile, Tyrone Yates effort to create jobs is likely to have the opposite effect as violence is excused and jobs become more scarce.
Worse, Tyrone Yates perpetuates the myth that things can’t get better unless someone else does something about it. Alicia Reece is saying that the answer is lying there right inside each of us. One says we can’t do it ourselves, the other says yes we can. I’ll take can over can’t any day.
Ten years ago I had an opportunity to expand my business when a competitor went up for sale on Second Street in Hamilton, Ohio. It was a perfect match, but the deal fell apart when I asked the owner his hours of operation. He told me they stayed open until 7:30 p.m. during the summer, but closed at 5:30 during the winter. His explanation was that it wasn’t safe to leave after dark.
Now I’m in business to earn a living and provide for my family. Money is nice, but it’s not so important that I’m willing to risk my safety for it. So I passed on the opportunity. Less than a year later the business I was looking at shut down, taking all the jobs they offered with it.
There is a lesson there for anyone who wants to provide jobs for troubled urban areas. Provide a safe environment and the jobs will come.
It’s always been a chicken-and-egg debate. One side argues that crime flourishes because there are no jobs, while the other says that jobs are scarce because crime scares them away.
Well, it appears that two Cincinnati politicians want to find out which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Alicia Reece, the young vice mayor, coordinated a "Day Of Peace" this past Father’s Day. Ministers and community leaders spoke of the need for individuals to each do their part to put an end to the violence that has swept the city. Business owners, including Ms. Reece’s father, preached a message of hope by speaking to city youth about the power to become successful entrepreneurs and the opportunities available to anyone.
Normally I am not a big fan of symbolic rallies, but in this case the message being sent is precisely what Cincinnati’s young people need to hear – namely, that the answer to violence lies within themselves. If we can transform the attitude from one where guns mean power to one where education and responsibility mean power, we’ll see crime drop and jobs flow back into the city.
But while this was going on, State Representative Tyrone Yates was warning the Ohio legislature that unless the state provided $4 million for a summer jobs program, we could expect violence and bloodshed in the streets of Cincinnati. Now, he wasn't calling for violence, but he sends the message that if the state doesn't pony up, we shouldn't be surprised when the street erupts. Sadly, his warning could lead to precisely the type of violence that sends businesses and jobs packing. He's not marshalling the forces, but there are certainly those who will take it as a license to disrupt. And if the street does erupt, the groundwork has been laid to blame the disturbance not on the perpetrators, but on society.
It is ironic that while Alicia Reece’s effort was aimed at curbing violence, its end result will be more jobs and opportunities. Meanwhile, Tyrone Yates effort to create jobs is likely to have the opposite effect as violence is excused and jobs become more scarce.
Worse, Tyrone Yates perpetuates the myth that things can’t get better unless someone else does something about it. Alicia Reece is saying that the answer is lying there right inside each of us. One says we can’t do it ourselves, the other says yes we can. I’ll take can over can’t any day.
6/11/2004
Ronald Reagan's Greatest Legacy
Ronald Reagan’s passing made me think of two girls that I dated during Reagan’s second term in office. Both had lost their fathers when they were twelve years old. Both had graduated from state universities – one from Ohio State, the other from Penn State. Both had taken good jobs with Fortune 500 firms upon graduating.
One adored Ronald Reagan, the other loathed him.
For you see, both women had their college education paid in part by the survivor benefits due them from Social Security. Both had seen that benefit reduced under Reagan as part of an effort to preserve Social Security. Yet, while one was grateful to graduate from college, the other was bitter that she didn’t get everything she felt she was entitled to. I’ll let you guess which one despised Reagan.
Yet their reaction to the man and his policies highlight what Reagan meant when he said that he wanted to appeal to our best hopes. Though they both faced hardships – and reacted differently to the benefit cuts – they both earned their degrees. And while it might not have been as easy without the aid, they – and the nation – are better off for having had to rely upon their own grit and determination.
That encapsulates Reagan’s greatest gift to America. More important than his tax cuts, more important than his sunny optimism, was the fact that he got us up off our collective duffs.
For more than a generation, beginning with the end of WWII, everything had gone America’s way. As the only economy to come out of the war unscathed, we built everything. But then came the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Suddenly, we were buying small Japanese cars – and finding they were pretty darn good.
We were no longer the only game in town. But we Americans were not ready to give up the good life. Like a spoiled trust-fund baby, we expected the perks and benefits to keep on coming. Automatic cost-of-living allowances, restrictive union workplace rules and ever-expanding government assistance all served to blind us to the harsh new economic reality.
But when economic reality hit on top of the humiliations of Vietnam, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis, a woe-is-me attitude settled in.
Enter Ronald Reagan. He refused to let us give in to the malaise that Jimmy Carter spoke of with such resignation. Like John Belushi’s character in the movie Animal House, who convinced his fraternity brothers that the day of their expulsion could become the best of their lives, Reagan convinced us when we were down that America’s best days still lay ahead. In the process, he knocked complacency on its ear.
He sent notice to the unions that it was no longer business-as-usual when he fired the striking air traffic controllers. He began trimming social benefits. Where some saw a safety net, he saw a blanket that was suffocating the American spirit.
Some feared we wouldn’t survive his policies. But rather than wither and die, we instead responded like a once overprotected child who thrives when finally removed from the withering care of mother, father and Big Brother.
Ronald Reagan had faith in the American people. He had faith that when left to our own devices, we would flourish like never before. And like my old girlfriends, we rose to his challenge and proved that faith well-founded.
One adored Ronald Reagan, the other loathed him.
For you see, both women had their college education paid in part by the survivor benefits due them from Social Security. Both had seen that benefit reduced under Reagan as part of an effort to preserve Social Security. Yet, while one was grateful to graduate from college, the other was bitter that she didn’t get everything she felt she was entitled to. I’ll let you guess which one despised Reagan.
Yet their reaction to the man and his policies highlight what Reagan meant when he said that he wanted to appeal to our best hopes. Though they both faced hardships – and reacted differently to the benefit cuts – they both earned their degrees. And while it might not have been as easy without the aid, they – and the nation – are better off for having had to rely upon their own grit and determination.
That encapsulates Reagan’s greatest gift to America. More important than his tax cuts, more important than his sunny optimism, was the fact that he got us up off our collective duffs.
For more than a generation, beginning with the end of WWII, everything had gone America’s way. As the only economy to come out of the war unscathed, we built everything. But then came the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Suddenly, we were buying small Japanese cars – and finding they were pretty darn good.
We were no longer the only game in town. But we Americans were not ready to give up the good life. Like a spoiled trust-fund baby, we expected the perks and benefits to keep on coming. Automatic cost-of-living allowances, restrictive union workplace rules and ever-expanding government assistance all served to blind us to the harsh new economic reality.
But when economic reality hit on top of the humiliations of Vietnam, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis, a woe-is-me attitude settled in.
Enter Ronald Reagan. He refused to let us give in to the malaise that Jimmy Carter spoke of with such resignation. Like John Belushi’s character in the movie Animal House, who convinced his fraternity brothers that the day of their expulsion could become the best of their lives, Reagan convinced us when we were down that America’s best days still lay ahead. In the process, he knocked complacency on its ear.
He sent notice to the unions that it was no longer business-as-usual when he fired the striking air traffic controllers. He began trimming social benefits. Where some saw a safety net, he saw a blanket that was suffocating the American spirit.
Some feared we wouldn’t survive his policies. But rather than wither and die, we instead responded like a once overprotected child who thrives when finally removed from the withering care of mother, father and Big Brother.
Ronald Reagan had faith in the American people. He had faith that when left to our own devices, we would flourish like never before. And like my old girlfriends, we rose to his challenge and proved that faith well-founded.
6/04/2004
Bill Cosby's Message of Empowerment
I am guessing that most everyone is familiar with the serenity prayer - grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Bill Cosby seemed to be invoking that prayer at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In his remarks, he criticized the poor English used by so many in the black community and refused to view African-American criminals as victims.
Referring to incarcerated black males, he stated, "These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"
While many conservatives jumped on these remarks as a finger-pointing "I told you so" opportunity to say that racism is not the problem, others saw them as an unnecessarily negative attack on the black community. Such responses miss the deeper context of his comments.
Rather than being a negative slam, his remarks were all about empowerment. The power to make personal choices that can have a marked impact on one’s own life. One can choose to make good decisions and one can choose to make bad decisions. While he focused on the negative choices that he feels are made too frequently, the underlying truth is that there is a choice.
So often, self-destructive behavior is the result of hopelessness. One gets laid off and has trouble finding a job. Frustration sets in and is taken out on those around us. Families break up, relationships are lost. Sorrows are drowned in alcohol and drugs. Self worth plummets. A vicious cycle sets in where our negative outlook only serves to reinforce and justify our self-destructive behavior.
It can happen to anyone, be they black, white, green or blue. Add the deleterious effects of racism, and that hopelessness can become overwhelming.
But there is hope. Sure, life is hard and often unfair. And while we may not have control over the external events in our lives, we have complete control in how we react to them. We can choose to get up in the morning. We can choose to believe in ourselves, no matter what anyone else says. We can choose to do the right thing. External factors can encourage us to do the wrong thing, but they cannot force us to do so. We as individuals have complete power over our conduct.
Making the right choices gives us the peace of mind that comes from knowing that no matter what life has thrown our way, we have made the most of our opportunities. To paraphrase, we have been granted the wisdom to accept the things we cannot change, the power to change those we can and the serenity that comes from knowing the difference.
That is what I get from Bill Cosby’s remarks. Make the right choices, do what you can do as an individual to better yourself and disregard those things that are beyond your control. Do not accept obstacles as excuses to fail but as challenges to rise above. Therein lies the wisdom.
Bill Cosby seemed to be invoking that prayer at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In his remarks, he criticized the poor English used by so many in the black community and refused to view African-American criminals as victims.
Referring to incarcerated black males, he stated, "These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"
While many conservatives jumped on these remarks as a finger-pointing "I told you so" opportunity to say that racism is not the problem, others saw them as an unnecessarily negative attack on the black community. Such responses miss the deeper context of his comments.
Rather than being a negative slam, his remarks were all about empowerment. The power to make personal choices that can have a marked impact on one’s own life. One can choose to make good decisions and one can choose to make bad decisions. While he focused on the negative choices that he feels are made too frequently, the underlying truth is that there is a choice.
So often, self-destructive behavior is the result of hopelessness. One gets laid off and has trouble finding a job. Frustration sets in and is taken out on those around us. Families break up, relationships are lost. Sorrows are drowned in alcohol and drugs. Self worth plummets. A vicious cycle sets in where our negative outlook only serves to reinforce and justify our self-destructive behavior.
It can happen to anyone, be they black, white, green or blue. Add the deleterious effects of racism, and that hopelessness can become overwhelming.
But there is hope. Sure, life is hard and often unfair. And while we may not have control over the external events in our lives, we have complete control in how we react to them. We can choose to get up in the morning. We can choose to believe in ourselves, no matter what anyone else says. We can choose to do the right thing. External factors can encourage us to do the wrong thing, but they cannot force us to do so. We as individuals have complete power over our conduct.
Making the right choices gives us the peace of mind that comes from knowing that no matter what life has thrown our way, we have made the most of our opportunities. To paraphrase, we have been granted the wisdom to accept the things we cannot change, the power to change those we can and the serenity that comes from knowing the difference.
That is what I get from Bill Cosby’s remarks. Make the right choices, do what you can do as an individual to better yourself and disregard those things that are beyond your control. Do not accept obstacles as excuses to fail but as challenges to rise above. Therein lies the wisdom.
5/20/2004
What If Our Team Lost the War, Dad
The question came from my five year-old son sitting in the backseat of the car.
"Dad, what would happen if our team lost at war?"
After I did my double-take – our team, what, lost, war, uh, well, hmmm – I realized it was not a question I had really thought about.
Now, I understand that he was probably looking for some reassurance that we would be okay. That life would continue to be filled with school, baseball, fishing, bike-riding and all the other things that constitute life to a five year-old kid. But, darn if it wasn’t a good question. What would happen if we lost the war? And for that matter, what would happen if we won?
I first tried to tell him we don’t have to worry about losing because we have the best army.
"But dad, sometimes the best baseball team loses."
You’re not going to make this easy on me, are you son.
So I gave him the simple answer. "Well, if we win, the country we are fighting will be run by people who like us. And if we lose, it will be run by people who don’t."
But it’s not that simple, because defining victory isn’t that simple. We’ll have won when Iraq becomes a free and open democracy. When a thriving economy provides jobs for today and hope for the future. When investment in educational opportunities enlightens the citizenry and brings their society into the twenty-first century.
We’ll have won when people in neighboring countries witness the transformation in Iraq and demand reform in their own nations, leading to peaceful overthrow of tyrannical regimes and the establishment of democracy throughout the region. We’ll have won when a voice at the ballot box eliminates the need to make oneself heard through suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.
That’s when we will have won.
Anything short of that will be defeat. After all, this is a war on terror. If we do not eliminate tyranny, hatred and despair throughout the entire region, then the Middle East will remain a festering pool of warring factions, religious zealots and desperate fanatics bent on gaining the upper-hand at home and causing pain and destruction abroad.
So it begs the question, if those are our goals, if that is what constitutes victory, are we going about it the right way? Is victory even possible? There are no easy answers. In fact, there only seem to be more questions.
Have we simply taken the lid off centuries of hatred between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq? Will that hatred manifest itself as a bloody civil war? What if anarchy in Iraq spills over to its neighbors and we see turmoil topple autocratic, but relatively stable regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and elsewhere? What if radical Islamic fundamentalists bent on destroying western society gain control of the bulk of the region’s oil fields?
If any or all of those things happen, are we prepared to stick it out in the Middle East? Are we willing to put even more American lives at risk? Is putting more lives at risk the answer? How many lives?
So many questions, no easy answers. But they are questions we need to ask and answer. Otherwise, we’ll learn the answer to my son’s question. What if our team loses? It’s not one I wish to learn.
"Dad, what would happen if our team lost at war?"
After I did my double-take – our team, what, lost, war, uh, well, hmmm – I realized it was not a question I had really thought about.
Now, I understand that he was probably looking for some reassurance that we would be okay. That life would continue to be filled with school, baseball, fishing, bike-riding and all the other things that constitute life to a five year-old kid. But, darn if it wasn’t a good question. What would happen if we lost the war? And for that matter, what would happen if we won?
I first tried to tell him we don’t have to worry about losing because we have the best army.
"But dad, sometimes the best baseball team loses."
You’re not going to make this easy on me, are you son.
So I gave him the simple answer. "Well, if we win, the country we are fighting will be run by people who like us. And if we lose, it will be run by people who don’t."
But it’s not that simple, because defining victory isn’t that simple. We’ll have won when Iraq becomes a free and open democracy. When a thriving economy provides jobs for today and hope for the future. When investment in educational opportunities enlightens the citizenry and brings their society into the twenty-first century.
We’ll have won when people in neighboring countries witness the transformation in Iraq and demand reform in their own nations, leading to peaceful overthrow of tyrannical regimes and the establishment of democracy throughout the region. We’ll have won when a voice at the ballot box eliminates the need to make oneself heard through suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.
That’s when we will have won.
Anything short of that will be defeat. After all, this is a war on terror. If we do not eliminate tyranny, hatred and despair throughout the entire region, then the Middle East will remain a festering pool of warring factions, religious zealots and desperate fanatics bent on gaining the upper-hand at home and causing pain and destruction abroad.
So it begs the question, if those are our goals, if that is what constitutes victory, are we going about it the right way? Is victory even possible? There are no easy answers. In fact, there only seem to be more questions.
Have we simply taken the lid off centuries of hatred between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq? Will that hatred manifest itself as a bloody civil war? What if anarchy in Iraq spills over to its neighbors and we see turmoil topple autocratic, but relatively stable regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and elsewhere? What if radical Islamic fundamentalists bent on destroying western society gain control of the bulk of the region’s oil fields?
If any or all of those things happen, are we prepared to stick it out in the Middle East? Are we willing to put even more American lives at risk? Is putting more lives at risk the answer? How many lives?
So many questions, no easy answers. But they are questions we need to ask and answer. Otherwise, we’ll learn the answer to my son’s question. What if our team loses? It’s not one I wish to learn.
4/07/2004
Don't Fall For Sound Bite Economics
My grandmother once told me the reason she was a Democrat was because FDR ended the Great Depression. I pointed out that it wasn’t FDR, but World War II that brought an end to the Great Depression. Since we had Adolph Hitler to thank for that, by her reasoning she should have become a Nazi. She laughed and said, "Oh, you sound just like your daddy."
Such exchanges between grandmother and grandson might be rare, but unfortunately, strongly held positions based upon such faulty assumptions are not. Too often, people latch onto an idea and hold it as gospel without even allowing for the possibility that the entire premise for their argument might be wrong.
Take the recent uproar over the job market. If you were to believe the news or the political ads, you would assume that our manufacturing sector is in the toilet, all the jobs are being shipped to China and as a result the economy is worse off than it ever was under Bill Clinton.
Well, guess what. You would be wrong, wrong and wrong.
Here are the facts. According to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis, the U.S. output of real goods as a percent of GDP is higher today than in any decade since the 1930’s. As for jobs being shipped to China, would you believe that China has fewer manufacturing jobs today than it did just a few years ago? That’s according to BusinessWeek Magazine. And here’s the real kicker – the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average unemployment rate during George Bush’s first three years in office was lower than it was during the same period under Bill Clinton (5.5% versus 6.0%).
So why all this talk about job losses? Well, part of the reason is a change in the way jobs are classified. In the past most companies handled all aspects of their business, from accounting to janitorial services. Regardless of the job description, if the company was a manufacturer, all its’ jobs were considered manufacturing jobs.
Today, many companies contract out tasks like payroll, accounting, programming and maintenance. Those employees now work for service providers and are classified as such. The jobs haven’t disappeared, they’ve just been reclassified.
Another reason for concern comes from dramatic improvements in productivity. In the short term, this causes dislocations among workers, but it eventually leads to an improved standard of living for everyone. If you don’t believe that, look back to Henry Ford’s revolutionary five dollar day. It almost single-handedly created the American middle class. But it came two years after Ford had devised the moving assembly line, which reduced the number of workers needed to assemble a car by eighty-six percent. The five dollar day would have been impossible without that improvement in productivity.
But the biggest reason that we believe the job market is in the tank comes from partisan politicians who hope that if they repeat a claim often enough, it will become ingrained as truth among voters. The danger in creating phony problems is that it opens the door to phony prescriptions that have nothing to do with solving the problem, but everything to do with fulfilling personal political agendas.
We can accept what others want us to believe, or we can choose to learn the facts for ourselves. Democracy demands that we do the latter.
Such exchanges between grandmother and grandson might be rare, but unfortunately, strongly held positions based upon such faulty assumptions are not. Too often, people latch onto an idea and hold it as gospel without even allowing for the possibility that the entire premise for their argument might be wrong.
Take the recent uproar over the job market. If you were to believe the news or the political ads, you would assume that our manufacturing sector is in the toilet, all the jobs are being shipped to China and as a result the economy is worse off than it ever was under Bill Clinton.
Well, guess what. You would be wrong, wrong and wrong.
Here are the facts. According to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis, the U.S. output of real goods as a percent of GDP is higher today than in any decade since the 1930’s. As for jobs being shipped to China, would you believe that China has fewer manufacturing jobs today than it did just a few years ago? That’s according to BusinessWeek Magazine. And here’s the real kicker – the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average unemployment rate during George Bush’s first three years in office was lower than it was during the same period under Bill Clinton (5.5% versus 6.0%).
So why all this talk about job losses? Well, part of the reason is a change in the way jobs are classified. In the past most companies handled all aspects of their business, from accounting to janitorial services. Regardless of the job description, if the company was a manufacturer, all its’ jobs were considered manufacturing jobs.
Today, many companies contract out tasks like payroll, accounting, programming and maintenance. Those employees now work for service providers and are classified as such. The jobs haven’t disappeared, they’ve just been reclassified.
Another reason for concern comes from dramatic improvements in productivity. In the short term, this causes dislocations among workers, but it eventually leads to an improved standard of living for everyone. If you don’t believe that, look back to Henry Ford’s revolutionary five dollar day. It almost single-handedly created the American middle class. But it came two years after Ford had devised the moving assembly line, which reduced the number of workers needed to assemble a car by eighty-six percent. The five dollar day would have been impossible without that improvement in productivity.
But the biggest reason that we believe the job market is in the tank comes from partisan politicians who hope that if they repeat a claim often enough, it will become ingrained as truth among voters. The danger in creating phony problems is that it opens the door to phony prescriptions that have nothing to do with solving the problem, but everything to do with fulfilling personal political agendas.
We can accept what others want us to believe, or we can choose to learn the facts for ourselves. Democracy demands that we do the latter.
3/26/2004
You Can't See Bias Through Biased Eyes
I once watched an episode of ER where a small child had been shot while playing with his mother’s gun. At the end of the episode, the child’s mother tells the doctor that she doesn’t know how to thank him for saving her son. He replies, "Get rid of the gun."
My thoughts exactly. An obvious bit of commonsense for anyone with young children. But the next day, a talk radio caller complained about the anti-gun message being pushed on ER the night before. And it suddenly hit me as to why some people see media bias so clearly where others see none.
One person’s truth is another person’s slant. To someone like me, who has no agenda whatsoever where guns are concerned, the doctor’s prescription was as innocuous as suggesting a couple of aspirin. But to someone who holds their second amendment rights dear, the advice was another example of media bias against guns.
I saw another example recently on Fox’s The O.C.. Set in California’s ritzy, Republican enclave of Orange County, everyone is rich, conniving and self-absorbed. Except for the Cohen’s, who are rich, thoughtful and benevolent. And the show’s writers have seen to it that we know that they are Democrats.
Now to those on the left, that may not appear to be bias. They have one common stereotype of the wealthy – that unless they are liberal, they must have made their fortune by lying, cheating and stealing at the expense of the little guy. To them, portraying the wealthy that way isn’t bias, it’s reality. Unfortunately, those images have been reinforced so endlessly in the movies and on TV, that they have become the conventional wisdom among much of the general public.
That is a shame, because in my experience I have yet to meet a wealthy scoundrel. Almost without exception, every successful person I know has gotten there through honest, hard work – with equal emphasis on honest and hard. Nothing more and nothing less. But you’d never know it from the movies.
Still, bias isn’t always the result of the writer or producer’s unknowing world view. Oftentimes, especially in the news media, the reasons are a bit more calculated.
TV news is especially suspect. While they claim impartiality, like everyone else they live and die with ratings. Therefore, anytime they can tell a story from an underdog’s point of view, they will.
Take the reporting on the silicone breast implant issue a few years ago. No major study was able to definitively link implants to any of the diseases women were suffering. And the media knew it.
Yet, rather than reporting the facts as they were, they chose to play up the suffering women, who were a far more compelling story. They would have them tell their tearful stories, interspersed with shots of the huge corporate complex and middle-aged executives denying responsibility. An incredibly damaging juxtaposition. No matter that Dow Corning was unjustifiably forced into bankruptcy, costing people jobs and investors billions. The women made for good TV.
So when someone says there is no bias in the media, they are wrong. It exists in both news and entertainment. If we can’t see it, it’s because we are viewing it from our own biased perspective. Just as you can’t see the color red through rose-colored glasses, you can’t see bias through biased eyes.
My thoughts exactly. An obvious bit of commonsense for anyone with young children. But the next day, a talk radio caller complained about the anti-gun message being pushed on ER the night before. And it suddenly hit me as to why some people see media bias so clearly where others see none.
One person’s truth is another person’s slant. To someone like me, who has no agenda whatsoever where guns are concerned, the doctor’s prescription was as innocuous as suggesting a couple of aspirin. But to someone who holds their second amendment rights dear, the advice was another example of media bias against guns.
I saw another example recently on Fox’s The O.C.. Set in California’s ritzy, Republican enclave of Orange County, everyone is rich, conniving and self-absorbed. Except for the Cohen’s, who are rich, thoughtful and benevolent. And the show’s writers have seen to it that we know that they are Democrats.
Now to those on the left, that may not appear to be bias. They have one common stereotype of the wealthy – that unless they are liberal, they must have made their fortune by lying, cheating and stealing at the expense of the little guy. To them, portraying the wealthy that way isn’t bias, it’s reality. Unfortunately, those images have been reinforced so endlessly in the movies and on TV, that they have become the conventional wisdom among much of the general public.
That is a shame, because in my experience I have yet to meet a wealthy scoundrel. Almost without exception, every successful person I know has gotten there through honest, hard work – with equal emphasis on honest and hard. Nothing more and nothing less. But you’d never know it from the movies.
Still, bias isn’t always the result of the writer or producer’s unknowing world view. Oftentimes, especially in the news media, the reasons are a bit more calculated.
TV news is especially suspect. While they claim impartiality, like everyone else they live and die with ratings. Therefore, anytime they can tell a story from an underdog’s point of view, they will.
Take the reporting on the silicone breast implant issue a few years ago. No major study was able to definitively link implants to any of the diseases women were suffering. And the media knew it.
Yet, rather than reporting the facts as they were, they chose to play up the suffering women, who were a far more compelling story. They would have them tell their tearful stories, interspersed with shots of the huge corporate complex and middle-aged executives denying responsibility. An incredibly damaging juxtaposition. No matter that Dow Corning was unjustifiably forced into bankruptcy, costing people jobs and investors billions. The women made for good TV.
So when someone says there is no bias in the media, they are wrong. It exists in both news and entertainment. If we can’t see it, it’s because we are viewing it from our own biased perspective. Just as you can’t see the color red through rose-colored glasses, you can’t see bias through biased eyes.
3/12/2004
What's a Billion Dollars to You?
What’s a billion dollars? Well, for most of us it’s a whole bunch of money. For others, like congressmen and senators, it’s a scrap that they treat like the loose change rattling around in my sofa. They talk about a billion for this program, ten billion for that, as if they are doling out quarters to the kids for the gumball machine.
Well, here’s another way to think of a billion dollars – it’s the equivalent of about $3.50 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Or fourteen dollars for a family of four (you can do the math – a billion divided by 280 million people). All of a sudden, a billion here, ten billion there means $14 here, $140 there for good old mom and dad. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money. Our money.
So that means that the typical family of four will pay $5,586 this year to support our military. The House version of the proposed highway spending bill will cost about $875 annually. And we’ll pay $805 for the U.S. Department of Education.
Now that last one’s a real kicker when put into perspective. With a combined population of 78,000, West Chester and Liberty townships will send about $16 million to Washington to fund the Department of Education, but will only get back a little more than $1 million for Lakota Schools. We could have foregone the entire levy mess had we simply kept that money at home. But heaven forbid anyone suggest cutting out the Department of Education.
But if you really want a shock, look at healthcare. This year we’ll spend almost $1.7 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – as a nation on everything from aspirin to Zoloft. That works out to a little more than $6,000 per person each year. And you wonder why health insurance costs are going up?
We’ve got a drug for everything. High cholesterol? There’s Lipitor. Heartburn? How about some Nexium? Heck, we’ll spend nearly a billion and a half dollars, or about five dollars per person, just on Viagra this year. Combined, these three drugs will cost the average American about forty dollars, or $160 per family, this year alone. And not one of them existed ten years ago.
Now I can already hear some of you saying, "But I don’t take Viagra." It doesn’t matter. We all pay one way or another through higher insurance premiums.
And the same holds true for government expenditures. We may like to think that corporations and the wealthy pay a heftier portion of taxes than we do, but trust me, we all pay. When corporate taxes or gasoline taxes or user fees go up, those costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices, lower wages or lost jobs.
When the wealthy get taxed we lose out on their investment in the economy, which leaves us all poorer, despite what some would have us believe.
So what can we do? Well, healthcare deserves more space than I can give it here. But when it comes to government spending we must educate ourselves about how our money is being used and how much it costs us personally. And then never let Washington forget that it is our money they are spending, a billion dollars at a time.
Well, here’s another way to think of a billion dollars – it’s the equivalent of about $3.50 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Or fourteen dollars for a family of four (you can do the math – a billion divided by 280 million people). All of a sudden, a billion here, ten billion there means $14 here, $140 there for good old mom and dad. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money. Our money.
So that means that the typical family of four will pay $5,586 this year to support our military. The House version of the proposed highway spending bill will cost about $875 annually. And we’ll pay $805 for the U.S. Department of Education.
Now that last one’s a real kicker when put into perspective. With a combined population of 78,000, West Chester and Liberty townships will send about $16 million to Washington to fund the Department of Education, but will only get back a little more than $1 million for Lakota Schools. We could have foregone the entire levy mess had we simply kept that money at home. But heaven forbid anyone suggest cutting out the Department of Education.
But if you really want a shock, look at healthcare. This year we’ll spend almost $1.7 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – as a nation on everything from aspirin to Zoloft. That works out to a little more than $6,000 per person each year. And you wonder why health insurance costs are going up?
We’ve got a drug for everything. High cholesterol? There’s Lipitor. Heartburn? How about some Nexium? Heck, we’ll spend nearly a billion and a half dollars, or about five dollars per person, just on Viagra this year. Combined, these three drugs will cost the average American about forty dollars, or $160 per family, this year alone. And not one of them existed ten years ago.
Now I can already hear some of you saying, "But I don’t take Viagra." It doesn’t matter. We all pay one way or another through higher insurance premiums.
And the same holds true for government expenditures. We may like to think that corporations and the wealthy pay a heftier portion of taxes than we do, but trust me, we all pay. When corporate taxes or gasoline taxes or user fees go up, those costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices, lower wages or lost jobs.
When the wealthy get taxed we lose out on their investment in the economy, which leaves us all poorer, despite what some would have us believe.
So what can we do? Well, healthcare deserves more space than I can give it here. But when it comes to government spending we must educate ourselves about how our money is being used and how much it costs us personally. And then never let Washington forget that it is our money they are spending, a billion dollars at a time.
3/01/2004
Consider The Social Security Opportunity
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan started a firestorm last week when he warned that we face financial and economic calamity lest we cut future benefits for Social Security and Medicare. Immediately, politicians – especially from the left – began referring to the suggestion as outrageous, or worse.
Therein lies the reason that anyone under the age of forty-five who expects to see any type of Social Security payment is nuts. For there are three things certain regarding Social Security – we need to take drastic action to save it, we need to start taking that action now, and the politicians in charge will do neither.
But before we crucify Greenspan and anyone else who seems remotely intrigued by his suggestion, let’s look at the situation for the challenge and opportunity it is.
First, we know that the baby boomers – the oldest of whom are nearing sixty – will soon become a huge liability on the Social Security books. We also know that there are countless deficit demagogues who decry the fact that we are financing our lifestyle today by mortgaging our children’s future.
But that is precisely how Social Security was designed. It’s a pay-as-you go system that promises that if we pay for today’s retirees, then our children will pay for us when our time comes. The only problem is that the boomers will be passing through the system like a rodent passes through a snake – one big mass, with little following behind.
In other words, there will be more people collecting and fewer people paying. So the only solutions are to cut benefits, raise taxes or both. Those on the receiving end don’t want benefits cut because they feel entitled to them since they paid into the system their entire lives. But taxing the next generation isn’t fair either. It’s not their fault that their grandparents chose to have lots of kids, and their parents chose not to.
But this is where the opportunity comes in. With a little leadership, sacrifice and compromise we might not only save Social Security, but positively transform our society for generations to come.
Suppose we apply the concept of privatized Social Security accounts as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, our current system. Maintain current benefits and taxes, but require every worker to put a fixed amount, say three percent of their pay, into an untouchable personal retirement account.
Then when the person begins receiving Social Security, their SS benefit is reduced by an amount determined by the annual return on their personal investment account, say by fifty cents for every dollar the private account earns in a given year. Since the size and earnings of these accounts would be larger the longer people are paying into them, the amount of savings to the system will grow the further into the program we get.
Think of all the benefits – we start to pay for our own retirement now rather than leaving it up to our children, we reduce the burden on the system as we retire, we maintain a basic floor of benefits at the current level and we create an entire society that has an ownership stake in our nation’s economy.
Yes, we’ll have more taken out of our paychecks, but it will remain our money. And if we leave less of a burden for our children, won’t that be the best benefit of all?
Therein lies the reason that anyone under the age of forty-five who expects to see any type of Social Security payment is nuts. For there are three things certain regarding Social Security – we need to take drastic action to save it, we need to start taking that action now, and the politicians in charge will do neither.
But before we crucify Greenspan and anyone else who seems remotely intrigued by his suggestion, let’s look at the situation for the challenge and opportunity it is.
First, we know that the baby boomers – the oldest of whom are nearing sixty – will soon become a huge liability on the Social Security books. We also know that there are countless deficit demagogues who decry the fact that we are financing our lifestyle today by mortgaging our children’s future.
But that is precisely how Social Security was designed. It’s a pay-as-you go system that promises that if we pay for today’s retirees, then our children will pay for us when our time comes. The only problem is that the boomers will be passing through the system like a rodent passes through a snake – one big mass, with little following behind.
In other words, there will be more people collecting and fewer people paying. So the only solutions are to cut benefits, raise taxes or both. Those on the receiving end don’t want benefits cut because they feel entitled to them since they paid into the system their entire lives. But taxing the next generation isn’t fair either. It’s not their fault that their grandparents chose to have lots of kids, and their parents chose not to.
But this is where the opportunity comes in. With a little leadership, sacrifice and compromise we might not only save Social Security, but positively transform our society for generations to come.
Suppose we apply the concept of privatized Social Security accounts as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, our current system. Maintain current benefits and taxes, but require every worker to put a fixed amount, say three percent of their pay, into an untouchable personal retirement account.
Then when the person begins receiving Social Security, their SS benefit is reduced by an amount determined by the annual return on their personal investment account, say by fifty cents for every dollar the private account earns in a given year. Since the size and earnings of these accounts would be larger the longer people are paying into them, the amount of savings to the system will grow the further into the program we get.
Think of all the benefits – we start to pay for our own retirement now rather than leaving it up to our children, we reduce the burden on the system as we retire, we maintain a basic floor of benefits at the current level and we create an entire society that has an ownership stake in our nation’s economy.
Yes, we’ll have more taken out of our paychecks, but it will remain our money. And if we leave less of a burden for our children, won’t that be the best benefit of all?
2/06/2004
Defense of Marriage Act Does No Such Thing
[Note: A 2021 op-ed piece looks back at the country's attitude towards gay marriage at the time this was written.]
Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.
Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.
Now we are likely to see it in action again as we rush to protect the institution of marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act. This law, which provides no incentive to get or stay married, is somehow supposed to strengthen marriage. Ironically, it is likely to have the opposite effect as corporations work around the ban on same-sex marriages by offering domestic partner benefits, which have become quite common as companies work to recruit and retain homosexual employees. Under such programs, the live-in partner receives the same health insurance, pension and other benefits traditionally offered only to spouses. Many of Ohio’s largest employers already have such programs in place.
However, in an effort to avoid discrimination, many of these programs include both homosexual and heterosexual couples since employers do not want to be in the business of asking about sexual orientation. Thus, a man and a woman no longer need to commit to marriage in order to receive the benefits previously available only to legally-recognized spouses.
Suddenly, shacking up brings all the benefits of marriage without its legal pitfalls. Couples can live together, sleep together and share in the company retirement plan without worrying about divorce, alimony or the spouse’s credit card debts. Under such no-lose circumstances, why not simply live together for benefit purposes, even if you’re not sure you really want to commit for a lifetime. If it falls apart in a year or two, no harm done.
That is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, marriage risks becoming a quaint custom like formal business attire – sure it looks good, but a little too restricting. And just like our wardrobes, our relationships become a casual matter of convenience.
None of this would be an issue if homosexuals were allowed to formalize their relationships with the same legal commitments as heterosexuals. We would reduce both gay and straight partnerships of convenience, which is certainly in society’s long-term interest. But in our headlong rush to sweep homosexuality under the rug, we are willing to undermine the very thing we seek to protect.
Of course, permitting same-sex marriages will not strengthen our current institution of marriage. But outlawing it risks weakening it. As much as some may decry it, we live in changing times. Homosexuality is becoming much more ingrained in our culture. We can choose to invite gays to share in the customs and institutions that have served our society well for hundreds of years. Or we can shut them out and allow an alternate culture to develop where commitment is but a fleeting concept. That is a culture war we should avoid at all cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)