EJ, Ronnie and Me

 This postcard was sent to me following the 1984 presidential election by a very good friend with political views that were the polar opposite of mine at the time. I appreciated it more for his take on me than on the president. Though we argued fiercely at times, I think he could see I was able to see both sides, even when we disagreed. I've always taken pride in that - and worked hard at it because it's rarely easy to read, watch or listen to the other side's argument, let alone consider it with even a hint of objectivity. But try we must.

Seek and Ye Shall Find

Soon after I began writing my newspaper column it seemed that I saw potential topics everywhere I looked. Whether it was my young son asking about the war, a neighbor becoming a U.S. citizen or watching students choke up with tears while trying to save a favorite teacher's job at a school board meeting, I found myself surrounded by subjects I could write about.

When I owned my dry cleaning business I saw dry cleaners everywhere. When I sold the business and became interested in real estate, I started to see “For Sale” signs everywhere. It’s not like they suddenly popped up, I just hadn’t noticed them before. But once I started looking, I couldn’t miss them - much like you never notice the car ads in the paper until you are in the market for a new car.

My guess is this happens to everyone. The old Seinfeld show was heralded for being about nothing. But that wasn’t true. It was about everything and anything, whether waiting forever for a table at a restaurant or losing a reservation for a rental car. But, whereas most of us seethe at such inconveniences, Jerry Seinfeld and his creative crew saw them as potential comedic dynamite. They didn’t dream up these ideas, they lived them – and saw the humor because that was what they were looking for.

There's a valuable lesson in that – you will find what you are looking for. Seek and ye shall find.

If you look for opportunities, they will come your way. If you are forever on the lookout for obstacles, they too, will surely come your way. You can look for humor and laugh or for heartache and cry. Seek kindness and you’ll be rewarded with it. Seek irritants and you will be forever irritated.

I have often read of injustices, “both real and imagined.” An imagined injustice is just that – imagined. It exists only because we were expecting it. If you really think about it, it is impossible to be blindsided by an imagined injustice. “Boy, I didn’t see that one coming.” Yes you did, otherwise you wouldn’t have even noticed.

This is not to say that life is just a bed of roses. There is real sadness, real heartache, real injustice. In fact, there is more than enough to go around, so why go out looking for more? And if in the process of ignoring imagined slights we just so happen to miss a real one, are we any worse off? It’s kind of like the “if a tree falls in the forest” conundrum. If someone sets out to hurt you and you don’t notice, were you really hurt?

This extends to people as well. Look for the best in them and you’ll find it. Look for the worst, and you won’t be disappointed. I learned the former from my brother-in-law when he lived with us back in 1993-94. He saw only the good side of people, never saying anything bad about anyone. I’m sure it’s no coincidence that he is one of most well-adjusted people I know. Contrast that with those who seem to revel not only in finding fault with others, but in their own misery as well.

Michigan’s state motto is “If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.” We might be wise to steal a bit from that thought – whatever it might be that we want from life, all we have to do is look. It’s all around us.

Pointing Fingers in the Rich/Poor Debate

How many times have you heard some adult say they had no idea they were poor when they were young? They knew the poor existed, but that term described someone else. It’s only in adulthood that they can see that the poor they heard so much about included them.

Well, I have a feeling that today’s children are more likely to claim they had no idea they were rich when they were young. They’ll grow up, get a degree, take an entry level job and move into an apartment. Then for the first time, they’ll be living on a salary that barely covers the rent and car payment, let alone all the luxuries they enjoyed while living with mom and dad. Suddenly, they’ll realize that when they heard all this talk about the wealthy in the U.S., they were hearing about their own parents.

So is it any wonder that there are such misperceptions about the wealthy, when even those who are counted among their ranks don’t realize it?

But misperceptions, there are.

Ask my friends on the left about the wealthy, and you’ll hear that they are robber barons who maintain their wealth only by keeping the poor down. Their world view is that of a zero-sum game where one only wins if another loses.

But it is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is created, not stolen. Henry Ford was an average man who changed the world with the mass-produced automobile. Not only did he create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, he opened the world to the masses in a way that only the automobile could. And he became wealthy as a result.

That is how one becomes wealthy – by providing something of value to others. It is not done by stealing. Nor is it attained by keeping others down. Just look at household computer usage. The poor are the least likely to have a computer in the home because they are least able to afford one. So wouldn’t Bill Gates be even wealthier if everyone could afford a computer? Of course he would. Thus, he has no interest in keeping anyone poor – he wants everyone to be able to buy a computer.

If that’s the case, why do some insist that wealth is attained only through nefarious means? Because it is the necessary counter-balance to the view that the poor are the victims of an oppressive system. If there are to be oppressed, then there must be oppressors. The wealthy serve to fill that role.

But if the wealthy are not the ones keeping the poor down, then what is the cause of poverty? Some of my conservative friends will argue it’s the poor’s own fault – a failure to be disciplined in going to school, getting up for work and doing the best job possible.

Yet just as some liberals have a misguided view of the wealthy, this portrait of the poor is too simplistic. Yes, each person has the power within themselves to become the best that they can be. But too few believe that to be the case and even fewer know how to put that power to use. We can say it’s their fault for not doing what they need to do, but is it their fault that they don’t know how?

If there is an oppressive system to be blamed, it is a system where our blame is misplaced. Instead of blaming the wealthy, we should learn from them. Instead of blaming the poor, we should teach them. Blaming the wealthy only serves to give others an excuse for their circumstances, while blaming the poor does nothing to improve their lot. And if all the energy spent pointing fingers were instead focused on showing the less fortunate the way, we might actually make some headway in the fight on poverty.

And everyone would be all the richer for it.

Goodbye

Well, folks, the time has come for me to say goodbye. I’ve enjoyed sharing my opinions with you for the past two years, but I’ve decided there are lots of things I want to do which are going to keep me from devoting the time I need to make sure what I write is worth reading. Not that all of you thought it was worth reading before.

While it’s been fun, there certainly have been some ups-and-downs. The feedback’s been great, whether you agreed with me or not. By far, my favorites have been from people who said they didn’t necessarily agree with me, but that a column or idea made them think. That’s all I could ever ask.

But it has not been without its downside. I know I’ve ruffled some feathers, taking positions that were extremely unpopular with some people. That’s been very difficult at times, especially when I knew taking a different stance would probably be in my own best interest. If nothing else, I would hope those who disagreed would at least appreciate that I never let my own interests compromise my principles.

I would also hope that after two years that some of those principles would have become clear.  Principles like taking personal responsibility for our own lives and situations. Not looking to government to fulfill all our wants and desires.  Respecting education as the single most important investment we can make in ourselves and our children. And last but not least, remembering that life is what we make it. Appreciate the good things that happen and let the bad things go. It makes life so much easier.

So with that, I’ll leave you with a few thoughts on what I’d like to see in the months and years ahead.

I’d like to see us teach our children that success isn’t measured by the size of one’s house, but by the size of one’s heart. Find passions in life and pursue them with gusto, otherwise all the money in the world won’t make you happy. Follow your heart and you’ll find success.

I’d also like to teach them that life isn’t always fair. Don’t dwell on slights and setbacks. That’s the road to bitterness.  Instead, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on. It’s like a flat tire – you can curse the nail and kick the car, but that gets you nowhere. Fix it and be on your way.

Let’s seek out opinions contrary to our own. If you’re conservative, read the New York Times and listen to NPR. If you’re liberal, listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News. Like a weightlifter, if your views never face resistance they’ll become weak and flabby. Exercising our minds is as important as exercising our bodies.

Treat each other with respect. We can disagree, but we don’t have to be nasty. Which brings me to my one regret regarding this column. Last December I wrote a very sarcastic column that unfairly ridiculed some of our elected leaders, most notably the West Chester Township trustees. It was uncalled for.  Whatever differences of opinion we might have, George Lang, Catherine Stoker and Jose Alvarez are all good people who sincerely care about their community. I have personally apologized to George, and I’d like to publicly apologize to Catherine and Jose. I hope they’ll accept it.

With that, I’m off. But I won’t be gone. Thanks for reading.

Mortgaging Our Future

Remember the economy just before the stock market bubble burst? Jobs were so plentiful that fast food joints were offering signing bonuses and one tech interviewee actually invoiced a prospective employer for the time he spent interviewing with them. With skyrocketing stock prices, we were feeling flush and believed we could do anything.

Well, would you believe that the economy has grown faster in the past two years than it did in the two years leading up to the stock market peak in March of 2000? Yep, adjusted for inflation, gross domestic product has surged 8.9 percent in the past two years versus 8.5 percent in the two years ending in March of 2000. So why do things feel so unsettled today compared to five years ago?

For one, we’re coming off the sluggishness early in the decade. We’re at war, for another. But I think the real reason is far more fundamental – and here is where I put my economist’s hat on.

Not to generalize too much, but there are generally two schools of thought on government deficit spending. To fight off recession, you can increase spending to generate demand or cut taxes to spur private spending and investment.

We’ve used a combination of these two policies – increased government spending AND reduced taxes. In the process, we ran up record government deficits, excluding Social Security surpluses, of almost $600 billion in 2004. Meanwhile, our trade deficit – the difference in how much we import versus how much we export – was a little over $600 billion last year.

So what we have is a government that provides us with $600 billion in government programs and services for which we’re not paying (at least not yet). Then we go and spend that $600 billion on stuff overseas. Essentially, we are financing a huge foreign shopping spree, with the feds as the credit card company. Granted, it’s far more complex than that, but bottom line, the amount we borrow to fund the government is about equal to our excess overseas purchases.

The end result is that the deficit spending that economists say should boost our economy is doing as much, if not more, to create jobs in China, Korea and India as it is to create jobs at home. We don’t feel it materially because our lifestyle is being maintained by this government-funded foreign splurge. But we feel it psychologically, as evidenced by consistently low consumer confidence surveys. Perhaps deep down we realize we’re spending our future rather than investing in it.

The real danger is that our foreign trading partners are the ones funding our federal deficits. They use the cash they get from us to buy U.S. government securities. They essentially sell us stuff, then loan the money back to us to buy more. What happens if they decide they have better things to do with their money?

I have no problem borrowing to finance a house, business or asset that will provide a future return on investment. But I believe it’s unwise to finance a lifestyle. Yet that seems to be what we are doing as a society. It’s a message no politician will ever give, but at some point we are going to have to sacrifice the boat, big-screen TV or some government services and start paying as we go. Otherwise we could find ourselves sacrificing something much more precious – our future.

Republicans Would Be Foolish To Weaken the Filibuster

Some people have questioned this, but I really am a conservative – in the classic small government sense. So much so that my son is named Jefferson in honor of Thomas Jefferson, who George Will once described as the patron saint of limited government.

Which is why I have serious reservations about Republican threats to amend Senate rules regarding filibusters in order to approve a few judicial nominees. One of the first lines of defense against an activist – and hence suffocating – government is to make it difficult to act (it’s no coincidence that “act” is the root word of “activist”).

The filibuster does just that. It prevents the most extreme ideas of the majority from being carried out. And I am sorry, but there are some extreme ideas on both sides of the political aisle. There are Democrats who want an activist government that legislates equality of income and outcomes. The name for that is socialism. No thanks.

On the Republican side, there are those who want an activist government that has greater say in how we live our lives morally and has less respect for our privacy. There are a few words I can think of to describe that form of government, and I say no thanks to that as well.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I know very little about the backgrounds of the judicial nominees who are being blocked by Democratic threats of a Senate filibuster. But I do know that the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if the tables were turned and the Democrats were threatening to eliminate the filibuster as a tactical maneuver.

That, more than anything, is what I would keep in mind if I were a Senate Republican – the day will come when they are once again in the minority. It may seem hard to fathom, but the pendulum swings both ways, particularly after it has swung too far in one direction. Ironically, the filibuster helps keep that pendulum from the most extreme swings, so keeping it may actually help preserve the Republicans’ majority.

But if it doesn’t, I want the Republicans to have the filibuster option. Back when Bill Clinton was first elected, Senator Bob Dole said the president was going to have a chaperone. The filibuster made that possible.

The Republicans argue that as the majority party, they are simply carrying out the will of the people. But I would remind them, as I would the Democrats if they were in power, that they represent everyone, not just those who voted for them. Elections may be winner-take-all, but governing is not.

Therefore, Republicans would be wise to remember that while their victory was broad, it was not especially deep. President Bush received less than 51 percent of the vote. Republican House candidates garnered barely 50.1 percent of all votes nationwide and over the last three elections, covering all Senate seats, Republicans actually received over two million fewer votes than Democratic candidates.

Bottom line, when used judiciously (no pun intended), the filibuster serves the wishes of those 49 plus percent of Americans whose interests are not represented by the majority. It is one of the beauties of our American system of government – majority rule with minority rights. Our system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that no one person, party or agenda can gain too much power at the expense of others. And if that means government can’t do everything it wants, that’s just fine with me.

It's the Little Things

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.

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.

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

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.