Some of you may have received, as I recently did, a chain e-mail letter addressing the need for reform of Congress. I have not passed it on, as requested, for it is ripe with bad ideas. Suffer me to comment on it point by point.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
I don’t agree with Congressional term limits. True, there are several living fossils that I would love to see retired (as well as some obnoxious new-bies) but it is up to their constituents to do the retiring, not you or me. Term limits impose arbitrary constraints and also imply that a representative or senator is expected to serve x years. There is no reason why their constituents should not retain them so long as they are contributing and effective; no reason not to turn them out immediately if not.
2. No Tenure / No Pension: A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
This is harsh. People of talent in industry get some sort of retirement program. If we want good people in government, and most of them are bright, well intentioned, and could be working elsewhere, we ought to provide them a competitive income and a retirement program of some sort.
Currently, Senators and representatives earn $174,000/yr. The Speaker gets an additional $49,000; majority and minority leaders, an added $19,000. Not lavish by industrial and, certainly not, by financial standards. I was earning more than that 20 years ago, and I am not as capable as many of our representatives and senators.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
There is a lot of false mythology out there about retirement benefits and Social Security. For example, I believed, before researching this, that a Representative would receive a life pension of 100% of salary if only having served one two-year term. Wholly false, it turns out; an urban myth.
Since 1985, all members of congress regardless of when elected participate in Social Security, just as do all wage and salaried Americans. In addition, they have a contributory retirement system as do all Federal workers. Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to qualify for any pension. The amount of a Member's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Well, of course, not all Americans purchase their own retirement plan. The ignorant assumptions underlying this statement defy response. Congress members can participate in IRA’s just as can you and I, if they choose.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
The 27th amendment of the Constitution mandates that Congressional pay raises go into effect after the end of their term. I understand the angst about self-rewarded pay raises, but dislike arbitrary ceilings or automatic raises.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Good notion. But which one is that exactly? No question, there should be equity on this hot topic, and members of Congress should be in the same boat as most of us.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
What is this? Last I knew, the law applies to all. I don’t know from what laws they are exempt. This idea is driven either by an assumption or by some exemption of which I am unaware. Reader: educate me in comments below, please.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11: The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
This “Reform Act” is an near-hysterical pitch based upon faulty premises. It ignores the complexity and challenge of legislating for 320 millions rather than the 4 million of 1790, for 50 states rather than the then 14, for an area that spans six time zones rather than the one that then extended only to the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. And the demands become more complex and confusing each year as the rest of the world’s 6 billions press upon us. Does not “go back to work” imply a deep disdain for what we ask them to deal with?
This “Reform Act” proposal focuses on the Members rather than on the system in which we have entrapped them. It is the system that needs to be reformed so that they can do "the work of the people” (an obnoxious phrase, coined by Clinton or “W” I think; it grates on me as arrogant and self-righteous.) But we do need reforms so that they can focus; have time to think, read and reflect; and work on national needs and concerns. The tar-babies that we and they can’t let go of: campaign costs and two-year terms.
Money: we must reform, constitutionally, the reliance on private and donated funds for waging a campaign. Santa Clara County v. The Santa Fe Railroad Company (1886) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), together have given corporations the rights of individuals to free speech and made money the equivalent of speech. This has turned congress into a sandbox in which corporations and associations can play to their hearts content. They ”play” through paid lobbyists and by writing checks. Members of Congress, especially representatives, have to dance to the tune of big money every day of their short terms if they are to be re-elected, which they want to be in order to achieve whatever drove them into public service in the first place.
Terms: not limits, but revision. The founders’ congressional terms were four months the first year and three months the second. Even as late as 1933, Roosevelt’s famous “first hundred days” were the product of a Congress that was in session for only 100 days. In these complex times, we need to give representatives at least three years, if not four, in which to learn their jobs and make a mark. Perhaps we should consider raising the President’s term to five years, if it takes more than one session of the House to get his or her ideas enacted.
The reforms we need should be aimed at facilitating good governance, not at punishing able people who (God knows why) are attracted to working in Congress to improve our society through law. Studies of representatives and senators show they are bright and well intentioned. Sure, they have huge egos (535 high school class presidents all talking in one building – OMG!) but nobody seeks that role for a mere $174,000 and all the grief and abuse they and their families can stomach. They really believe they can serve the country and its public.
Our challenge is to get the best out of them; this proposed “Reform Act” is not the way.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Madison was right
While I await a letter from President Obama, he delivers Libya. I am appalled.
When I wrote President Ford (berating him for his pardon of Nixon – which in retrospect I think was prudent,) I received a direct and relevant response in less than two weeks. When I wrote President Reagan, after my trip to Nicaragua, I received a formatted, non-responsive acknowledgment in less than three weeks. I have yet to receive any White House response to this:
The Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
Dear Mr. President:
I have been with you for three years and still am though my enthusiasm waxes and wanes as you play out the lousy hand you have been dealt. But, I am not with you on Afghanistan. Afghans deserve not one more drop of American blood, not one more dollar, neither military nor civil; they have nothing to give us in return.
Their behavior amply justifies abandoning them:
• Karzai’s firing of public prosecutors who get too close
• Rampant election fraud on all sides
• Karzai’s suspension of election board investigations and attempted suspension of parliament
• Channeling of aid, military spending and drug revenues into private hands
• The looting of Kabulbank and siphoning off public funds to Dubai
• Government take-over of internationally supported women’s shelters and in so doing betrayal of the safety and anonymity of those sheltered
• Pressuring NATO to release detainees linked to the establishment despite the malfeasances uncovered
Afghans have no strategic assets to offer – the most illiterate, impoverished, underdeveloped nation in all of Islam. They are only a strategic burden for those who would embrace them as “ally.” Afghanistan is a tribal kleptocracy poised between the 14th and 21st centuries and unwilling to live solely in either.
Abandonment as policy? Certainly it is rife with difficulty given the neighborhood, but isn’t it far better than wasting lives and treasure in a fruitless quest for some will-o-the-wisp stability and comity?
Please, please use their self-destructive behaviors to justify our turning about and focusing on useful, promising endeavors here at home and elsewhere in the world.
Sincerely,
And now Libya.
My brother-in-law, who has long advocated a Dept. of Peace, dredged up this quote from one of our most farsighted founding fathers:
“Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war…. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison, Political Observations, April 20, 1795
Madison would would be appalled at our military-industrial complex.
I have become very alarmed at our standing military with its “training” tentacles infiltrating standing armies throughout the world. It is we who trained and vouched for the Egyptian generals who now are cautiously protecting their self-interest and braking the move to representative government. It is our army who trained and armed the Saudi army now repressing Bahrainis. Pinochet’s boys, the Indonesian army that wreaked havoc on East Timor, the Korean army that slaughtered the people of Kwangju Island -- all trained by US Army counter-insurgency teams. And now Petraeus – Obama's counter-insurgency guru -- assures Congress that all is going well in Afghanistan.
But all is not going well. And even though the professionals were reluctant to embark on Libya, Madison’s warning is proven out once again: a powerful (by virtue of arms) Executive capitalizes on a continuous string of foreign turmoils, invokes “national interest” and “humanitarianism” and keeps his nation in thrall to debt, constraints in the name of security, and domestic turmoil.
Am I getting paranoid? Perhaps. But isn’t it time to close foreign bases, reel in and disband our secret JCET teams, and replace the 70-year old American Empire built on military assistance with one built on civil freedoms, competitive innovation, and exemplary representative democracy? Maybe my brother-in-law is right; maybe it is time for a new Dept. of Peace.
When I wrote President Ford (berating him for his pardon of Nixon – which in retrospect I think was prudent,) I received a direct and relevant response in less than two weeks. When I wrote President Reagan, after my trip to Nicaragua, I received a formatted, non-responsive acknowledgment in less than three weeks. I have yet to receive any White House response to this:
The Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
Dear Mr. President:
I have been with you for three years and still am though my enthusiasm waxes and wanes as you play out the lousy hand you have been dealt. But, I am not with you on Afghanistan. Afghans deserve not one more drop of American blood, not one more dollar, neither military nor civil; they have nothing to give us in return.
Their behavior amply justifies abandoning them:
• Karzai’s firing of public prosecutors who get too close
• Rampant election fraud on all sides
• Karzai’s suspension of election board investigations and attempted suspension of parliament
• Channeling of aid, military spending and drug revenues into private hands
• The looting of Kabulbank and siphoning off public funds to Dubai
• Government take-over of internationally supported women’s shelters and in so doing betrayal of the safety and anonymity of those sheltered
• Pressuring NATO to release detainees linked to the establishment despite the malfeasances uncovered
Afghans have no strategic assets to offer – the most illiterate, impoverished, underdeveloped nation in all of Islam. They are only a strategic burden for those who would embrace them as “ally.” Afghanistan is a tribal kleptocracy poised between the 14th and 21st centuries and unwilling to live solely in either.
Abandonment as policy? Certainly it is rife with difficulty given the neighborhood, but isn’t it far better than wasting lives and treasure in a fruitless quest for some will-o-the-wisp stability and comity?
Please, please use their self-destructive behaviors to justify our turning about and focusing on useful, promising endeavors here at home and elsewhere in the world.
Sincerely,
And now Libya.
My brother-in-law, who has long advocated a Dept. of Peace, dredged up this quote from one of our most farsighted founding fathers:
“Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war…. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison, Political Observations, April 20, 1795
Madison would would be appalled at our military-industrial complex.
I have become very alarmed at our standing military with its “training” tentacles infiltrating standing armies throughout the world. It is we who trained and vouched for the Egyptian generals who now are cautiously protecting their self-interest and braking the move to representative government. It is our army who trained and armed the Saudi army now repressing Bahrainis. Pinochet’s boys, the Indonesian army that wreaked havoc on East Timor, the Korean army that slaughtered the people of Kwangju Island -- all trained by US Army counter-insurgency teams. And now Petraeus – Obama's counter-insurgency guru -- assures Congress that all is going well in Afghanistan.
But all is not going well. And even though the professionals were reluctant to embark on Libya, Madison’s warning is proven out once again: a powerful (by virtue of arms) Executive capitalizes on a continuous string of foreign turmoils, invokes “national interest” and “humanitarianism” and keeps his nation in thrall to debt, constraints in the name of security, and domestic turmoil.
Am I getting paranoid? Perhaps. But isn’t it time to close foreign bases, reel in and disband our secret JCET teams, and replace the 70-year old American Empire built on military assistance with one built on civil freedoms, competitive innovation, and exemplary representative democracy? Maybe my brother-in-law is right; maybe it is time for a new Dept. of Peace.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Eleanor Taylor Waller 1912 - 2011
Tolstoy may have been right about happy families but when it comes to great wives and Moms, they are great each in their own, often surprising ways. Eleanor Taylor Waller was full of surprises.
• At Taylor’s Grove she rode the tippy barrel horse on Lake Moraine – fully dressed - to the amazement of those cool dudes from Colgate whom its instability had completely confounded; one of those dudes she married.
• They eloped since a senior at Syracuse U. could not be married – more than surprising, to put it mildly, my Taylor and Waller grandparents; her sisters, neighbors and class mates; and probably Dad as well.
• When we moved to Hinsdale and discovered in spring that the “side yard” was a strawberry field, she started canning and set up a fruit stand in front to the utter mortification of her socially awkward seventh-grade son.
• Out of the blue, she took my third-grade sister to buy a bowl of goldfish, “just to spend time with you” she explained years later, giving Carol the gift of a lifelong glow.
• Back in Maryland, she didn’t protest when Dad embarked on a budget backyard swimming pool per Popular Mechanics, nor did she mutter a peep when it turned into a bloomin’ disaster of rusty red water leaking away, followed by noxious algae blooms, mosquitoes and frogs.
• She was determined to hybridize a truly blue African violet. You had to watch where you sat, because there were cuttings in sulphurous eggshell-water sitting on every available horizontal surface in our house.
• We shrugged it off when she said she was saving to buy a greenhouse – until a truck pulled up and unloaded aluminum spars, crates of plate glass, a million bolts and nuts and minimal instructions. Next, the backhoe arrived to bash a hole in my bedroom wall and hollow out a below-grade foundation. Dad and I were conscripted laborers.
• She encouraged Dad to kick over the corporate traces; she becoming President of Door County Sailing; he: Exec. VP; headquarters: Fish Creek; total employment: two.
• When leasing boats and teaching sailing didn’t work so well during winters on Tampa Bay, they bought Beaver Flags. She hired retired ILGWU seamstresses, allowing Dad to hang out at yacht club bars sketching personal burgees on the back of cocktail napkins which she and staff then sewed and sold at exorbitant prices to delighted yacht owners throughout the south. Still the best burgees available.
• She ran Beaver Flags until near ninety, and couldn’t understand it when one of her seamstresses wanted to retire again at 75 or so.
• She took to making wine, this daughter of a Women’s Christian Temperance Union chapter president, terrible grapefruit wine happily bubbling away in carboys filling spare bathrooms and bedrooms until it reached alcohol levels somewhere north of 15%. I always brought a supply of Napa chardonnay when I visited. T-men never did show up.
• She spent a live-aboard year on a 32’ sloop, then was graduated by Dad into a 44’ ketch from Hong Kong; they sailed it in the Caribbean until they could no longer safely handle it alone. So then they homesteaded an abandoned dairy farm and sugar bush in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, building a cabin and planting an orchard for “future generations.”
• She started quadrennial reunions of the Taylor and Waller clans. Seven cousins, spouses, grandkids, great-grandkids, and even a great-great.
• In spring she held Rays seats and scored games into her late eighties, then during Vermont summers watched the Red Sox Network every game. Playoffs were an agony of conflicted loyalties.
• She was constantly expanding the Vermont cabin “for the grandkids” after Dad died. She played with her bridge group and volunteered at the Barton Library until her mid-nineties. The only project she didn’t fully complete was to build a putting green in the hay field. (And no, she didn’t play golf.)
• No retirement home for her. She designed and built an apartment onto Adrien’s home and lived out her winters there on Tampa Bay, basking in Adrien’s, Edward’s and grandkid Helms’ loving attention.
She loved us all, our spouses and our kids; our misadventures; the dogs -- Cindy, T-bolt, Hubbub, Trouble and Beau; the canaries and parakeets she was always trying to breed; Frisky, the award-winning oyster; her orchids and most of all and forever, Dad. She always told it straight, kept her disapprovals private, and always found in us, herself and the rest of the clan something to laugh about.
Truly, one of the great wives and Moms….
• At Taylor’s Grove she rode the tippy barrel horse on Lake Moraine – fully dressed - to the amazement of those cool dudes from Colgate whom its instability had completely confounded; one of those dudes she married.
• They eloped since a senior at Syracuse U. could not be married – more than surprising, to put it mildly, my Taylor and Waller grandparents; her sisters, neighbors and class mates; and probably Dad as well.
• When we moved to Hinsdale and discovered in spring that the “side yard” was a strawberry field, she started canning and set up a fruit stand in front to the utter mortification of her socially awkward seventh-grade son.
• Out of the blue, she took my third-grade sister to buy a bowl of goldfish, “just to spend time with you” she explained years later, giving Carol the gift of a lifelong glow.
• Back in Maryland, she didn’t protest when Dad embarked on a budget backyard swimming pool per Popular Mechanics, nor did she mutter a peep when it turned into a bloomin’ disaster of rusty red water leaking away, followed by noxious algae blooms, mosquitoes and frogs.
• She was determined to hybridize a truly blue African violet. You had to watch where you sat, because there were cuttings in sulphurous eggshell-water sitting on every available horizontal surface in our house.
• We shrugged it off when she said she was saving to buy a greenhouse – until a truck pulled up and unloaded aluminum spars, crates of plate glass, a million bolts and nuts and minimal instructions. Next, the backhoe arrived to bash a hole in my bedroom wall and hollow out a below-grade foundation. Dad and I were conscripted laborers.
• She encouraged Dad to kick over the corporate traces; she becoming President of Door County Sailing; he: Exec. VP; headquarters: Fish Creek; total employment: two.
• When leasing boats and teaching sailing didn’t work so well during winters on Tampa Bay, they bought Beaver Flags. She hired retired ILGWU seamstresses, allowing Dad to hang out at yacht club bars sketching personal burgees on the back of cocktail napkins which she and staff then sewed and sold at exorbitant prices to delighted yacht owners throughout the south. Still the best burgees available.
• She ran Beaver Flags until near ninety, and couldn’t understand it when one of her seamstresses wanted to retire again at 75 or so.
• She took to making wine, this daughter of a Women’s Christian Temperance Union chapter president, terrible grapefruit wine happily bubbling away in carboys filling spare bathrooms and bedrooms until it reached alcohol levels somewhere north of 15%. I always brought a supply of Napa chardonnay when I visited. T-men never did show up.
• She spent a live-aboard year on a 32’ sloop, then was graduated by Dad into a 44’ ketch from Hong Kong; they sailed it in the Caribbean until they could no longer safely handle it alone. So then they homesteaded an abandoned dairy farm and sugar bush in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, building a cabin and planting an orchard for “future generations.”
• She started quadrennial reunions of the Taylor and Waller clans. Seven cousins, spouses, grandkids, great-grandkids, and even a great-great.
• In spring she held Rays seats and scored games into her late eighties, then during Vermont summers watched the Red Sox Network every game. Playoffs were an agony of conflicted loyalties.
• She was constantly expanding the Vermont cabin “for the grandkids” after Dad died. She played with her bridge group and volunteered at the Barton Library until her mid-nineties. The only project she didn’t fully complete was to build a putting green in the hay field. (And no, she didn’t play golf.)
• No retirement home for her. She designed and built an apartment onto Adrien’s home and lived out her winters there on Tampa Bay, basking in Adrien’s, Edward’s and grandkid Helms’ loving attention.
She loved us all, our spouses and our kids; our misadventures; the dogs -- Cindy, T-bolt, Hubbub, Trouble and Beau; the canaries and parakeets she was always trying to breed; Frisky, the award-winning oyster; her orchids and most of all and forever, Dad. She always told it straight, kept her disapprovals private, and always found in us, herself and the rest of the clan something to laugh about.
Truly, one of the great wives and Moms….
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
It's the Advertising That Makes Me Feel Old
I’m fit, curious, busy and physically active. I still feel pretty young – until I watch advertising. I watch ads through the eyes of a former chief advertising officer of –at that time – the eighth largest user of TV, as one who wrestled with brand managers, agencies, consumer activists and the Feds over public policy issues like advertising to children; nutritional claims; NBBB, NAB and ANA codes and rules of disclosure. These days, my exposure to television ads is mainly through cable news and special events like the Pack’s Back Sunday. Today’s commercials make me feel old, and after the Superbowl, ancient.
My first question is always to whom is an ad directed? In the case of the Superbowl, one would surmise that the only audiences of interest were twenty-something, arrested development males or 35 year-old males with residual frat boys still lurking within. Crudity, babes, beer parties, talking animals, hot violence and crashing cool cars – the only commercial that seemed to catch fire with message rather than with shallow presentation was “Imported From Detroit” by Chrysler. One can only hope their cars will live up to it; better it had come from Ford, who has already restored some belief in American can-do. And if Chrysler/Fiat delivers, so much the better. It’s a hopeful theme. But for the rest … God, I feel old.
On cable news, it’s the pharmas that own the air – a parade of remedies for maladies for nightmares. And the disclosures: side effects may include excema, palpitations, sudden loss of blood pressure and sexual appetite, occasional blindness and warts.... OMG as my grandkids say. I don’t need to think about all that. Yeah, I know, bodies fall apart suddenly and I’m tempting fate to talk this way.
But so long as I stay away from commercial TV, I stay young... at least in my own mind.
My first question is always to whom is an ad directed? In the case of the Superbowl, one would surmise that the only audiences of interest were twenty-something, arrested development males or 35 year-old males with residual frat boys still lurking within. Crudity, babes, beer parties, talking animals, hot violence and crashing cool cars – the only commercial that seemed to catch fire with message rather than with shallow presentation was “Imported From Detroit” by Chrysler. One can only hope their cars will live up to it; better it had come from Ford, who has already restored some belief in American can-do. And if Chrysler/Fiat delivers, so much the better. It’s a hopeful theme. But for the rest … God, I feel old.
On cable news, it’s the pharmas that own the air – a parade of remedies for maladies for nightmares. And the disclosures: side effects may include excema, palpitations, sudden loss of blood pressure and sexual appetite, occasional blindness and warts.... OMG as my grandkids say. I don’t need to think about all that. Yeah, I know, bodies fall apart suddenly and I’m tempting fate to talk this way.
But so long as I stay away from commercial TV, I stay young... at least in my own mind.
Monday, January 31, 2011
"Investment!" "NO! Spending!" C'mon guys....
Obamians and Boehnerites, childish tribes on either side of the river, screaming taunts back and forth. When are they going to start gathering stones and building abutements for a bridge to meet in the middle?
Let's go to the dictionary: the word investment stems from the Latin investire -- to dress or enrobe. The vest we wear and the priest's vestments are derivatives (that's another kind of investment, now besmirched by Lehman Brothers, but that's a rabbit trail we won't follow.)
As a verb, to invest meant to put on the robes of an office, to become entitled. The investiture of a bishop was the act of enrobing him (not her, Catholics; but maybe her to some Episcopals, but that's another rabbit trail.) Investment was the ceremony, itself.
The first uses of invest and investment as financial terms came in correspondence within the East India Company. The verb, in 1613, "...invested in trading goods." The noun, in 1615, "...made an investment in...." I imagine this usage grew out of becoming entitled to something in return for the investment. (Not until 1860, did he who made the investment become an "investor," or was it a she? (Today, over 50% of investments are owned by shes -- yes, another other rabbit trail.)
What is the "something" that flows from an investment? This is the crux of the squabble between Obama's tribe and Boehner's. One believes in government investing; the other says it's just deficit spending. All my dictionaries (OED, American Heritage, an old Webster II) agree that the purpose of an investment is to earn dividends or realize appreciation in value. Government investing? Will a high speed rail system pay cash dividends to the Treasury or appreciate in value when we sell it to the Chinese? Not. Not judging from the huge government subsidies Japan and France lay out to keep their railroads running.
But Obamians argue that the dividends are indirect -- economic development that yields higher tax revenues over time; lower cost logistics that make our companies more competitive and reduce our balance of payments deficit. These, they say, are no less real than direct cash dividends, just take longer to realize. The dictionaries provide no help in sorting out direct vs. indirect, sooner vs. later.
But investing in undeniably spending. So what? You either save or spend the money you have, whether earned or borrowed. In industry, we "investment spend" a euphamism that makes one sound very wise for taking an intentional loss.
The critical point is not whether investing is or isn't spending. What matters is on what one chooses to spend. School equipment, roads, research labs and the like are tangible assets, stuff that lasts. So is spending on F-22s. Some capital assets may return dividends, indirectly, sooner or later. Eisenhower's Interstate Highways paid huge dividends over the years. F-22s? Arguable.
Sending out unemployment checks, paying Congressional salaries, reimbursing medical costs -- this is not capitalizing anything, no tangible asset is created, but saving lives and minimizing social disruption are undeniably beneficial. And perhaps higher Congressional salaries might get better people in play. (Ah, another rabbit... never mind.)
What they should be talking about is the balance of government spending between capital items and expense items. The White House should send Congress a capital budget and an expense budget. Then we could track the balance year to year. In lush times, there's nothing wrong with borrowing money against future growth in revenues and spending it on capital items that will create that growth. In lean times, better to swing the pendulum toward expense to salve people's distress and smooth bumps in the economic road. And deficits? National debt is useful if limited to a reasonable percent of GDP and if spent on capital assets that promise dividends over time. I know, this is not a new idea and one the economists say is fraught with ambiguities. But mightn't it stimulate more useful discussion than "Investment!" "NO, Spending!" ??
They haven't the courage to talk about the real issue. Instead, they enjoy squabbling over Investment!No!Spending! And indulging in over simplistic, inflexible solutions like a balanced budget amendment. C'mon guys. It's time to grow up and lead, to start using words that stand for ideas, to debate rather than just hurl cliches back and forth ... and yes, it's time to start building that bridge.
Let's go to the dictionary: the word investment stems from the Latin investire -- to dress or enrobe. The vest we wear and the priest's vestments are derivatives (that's another kind of investment, now besmirched by Lehman Brothers, but that's a rabbit trail we won't follow.)
As a verb, to invest meant to put on the robes of an office, to become entitled. The investiture of a bishop was the act of enrobing him (not her, Catholics; but maybe her to some Episcopals, but that's another rabbit trail.) Investment was the ceremony, itself.
The first uses of invest and investment as financial terms came in correspondence within the East India Company. The verb, in 1613, "...invested in trading goods." The noun, in 1615, "...made an investment in...." I imagine this usage grew out of becoming entitled to something in return for the investment. (Not until 1860, did he who made the investment become an "investor," or was it a she? (Today, over 50% of investments are owned by shes -- yes, another other rabbit trail.)
What is the "something" that flows from an investment? This is the crux of the squabble between Obama's tribe and Boehner's. One believes in government investing; the other says it's just deficit spending. All my dictionaries (OED, American Heritage, an old Webster II) agree that the purpose of an investment is to earn dividends or realize appreciation in value. Government investing? Will a high speed rail system pay cash dividends to the Treasury or appreciate in value when we sell it to the Chinese? Not. Not judging from the huge government subsidies Japan and France lay out to keep their railroads running.
But Obamians argue that the dividends are indirect -- economic development that yields higher tax revenues over time; lower cost logistics that make our companies more competitive and reduce our balance of payments deficit. These, they say, are no less real than direct cash dividends, just take longer to realize. The dictionaries provide no help in sorting out direct vs. indirect, sooner vs. later.
But investing in undeniably spending. So what? You either save or spend the money you have, whether earned or borrowed. In industry, we "investment spend" a euphamism that makes one sound very wise for taking an intentional loss.
The critical point is not whether investing is or isn't spending. What matters is on what one chooses to spend. School equipment, roads, research labs and the like are tangible assets, stuff that lasts. So is spending on F-22s. Some capital assets may return dividends, indirectly, sooner or later. Eisenhower's Interstate Highways paid huge dividends over the years. F-22s? Arguable.
Sending out unemployment checks, paying Congressional salaries, reimbursing medical costs -- this is not capitalizing anything, no tangible asset is created, but saving lives and minimizing social disruption are undeniably beneficial. And perhaps higher Congressional salaries might get better people in play. (Ah, another rabbit... never mind.)
What they should be talking about is the balance of government spending between capital items and expense items. The White House should send Congress a capital budget and an expense budget. Then we could track the balance year to year. In lush times, there's nothing wrong with borrowing money against future growth in revenues and spending it on capital items that will create that growth. In lean times, better to swing the pendulum toward expense to salve people's distress and smooth bumps in the economic road. And deficits? National debt is useful if limited to a reasonable percent of GDP and if spent on capital assets that promise dividends over time. I know, this is not a new idea and one the economists say is fraught with ambiguities. But mightn't it stimulate more useful discussion than "Investment!" "NO, Spending!" ??
They haven't the courage to talk about the real issue. Instead, they enjoy squabbling over Investment!No!Spending! And indulging in over simplistic, inflexible solutions like a balanced budget amendment. C'mon guys. It's time to grow up and lead, to start using words that stand for ideas, to debate rather than just hurl cliches back and forth ... and yes, it's time to start building that bridge.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The Wreaths Are Still Up
We hardly need more green in this soggy land of cedar, hemlock, and fir but the wreaths are still up on this West
ern Day of Epiphany, this Eastern Christmas Day. The gingerbread house has been consumed. All else is packed away. Another of the second generation has a Lionel train from grandpa. The house is quiet. All is at peace.
When one is well into their 8th decade, Christmas brings less joy than silent satisfaction, more nostalgia than excitement, a more somber reflective mood while letting it all swirl about him. Not sad; just that he’s been here before, has nothing left to ask of Santa (that Santa has in his power to give,) and too little understanding of children’s and grandchildren’s wants and needs (that he has in his power to give.) And he knows that another Christmas will come rushing at him unbidden and he increasingly unprepared.
A new year. We made much of 2010, for many such a lousy year, for most merely a tolerable one. We spent retirement money on together experiences and will do so again in this, our 20th year of marriage.
May 2011 turn out to be a pleasant surprise for everyone, a year in which we all stay well and do good… keep moving … practice empathy … and follow through on good intentions. Peace, love and laughter....
ern Day of Epiphany, this Eastern Christmas Day. The gingerbread house has been consumed. All else is packed away. Another of the second generation has a Lionel train from grandpa. The house is quiet. All is at peace.When one is well into their 8th decade, Christmas brings less joy than silent satisfaction, more nostalgia than excitement, a more somber reflective mood while letting it all swirl about him. Not sad; just that he’s been here before, has nothing left to ask of Santa (that Santa has in his power to give,) and too little understanding of children’s and grandchildren’s wants and needs (that he has in his power to give.) And he knows that another Christmas will come rushing at him unbidden and he increasingly unprepared.
A new year. We made much of 2010, for many such a lousy year, for most merely a tolerable one. We spent retirement money on together experiences and will do so again in this, our 20th year of marriage.
May 2011 turn out to be a pleasant surprise for everyone, a year in which we all stay well and do good… keep moving … practice empathy … and follow through on good intentions. Peace, love and laughter....
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Blood Alcohol Re-visited
My account of Ann and I acting out our curiosity about to what level an evening out might have driven our blood alcohol (blog post of 13 October) drew much banter at my expense along with some serious chastisements from the worldly-wise. Still curious and now defensive, I found a blood alcohol calculator on the web (www.bloodalcoholcalculator.org) which illuminates some important data. First, notwithstanding my friend's assumption that driving to the police station for a check was prima facie evidence of being over the legal limit -- 0.08% -- it turns out I was legal: 0.066. Aha!
But Ann was not: 0.128. We each had enjoyed a martini at 6:30 and shared a bottle of wine from 8:30 to near 10. It was somewhat after ten when we pulled into City Hall.
The difference is important to keep in mind this holiday season of exceeding good cheer. Women don't metabolize alcohol as rapidly as do men. And yes, body weight makes a difference. Had I been a female at my body mass, my blood would have registered 0.08 -- BUZZER! Had I, as male, been at Ann's svelte body mass, my blood would have hit 0.109 -- BUZZER again, though not as far off as her 0.128.
The moral of this tale for slight, young women: don't try to keep up with the boys as they assail the wassail bowl, or else plan on taking a cab home from the party. Dads of lasses, take note.
But Ann was not: 0.128. We each had enjoyed a martini at 6:30 and shared a bottle of wine from 8:30 to near 10. It was somewhat after ten when we pulled into City Hall.
The difference is important to keep in mind this holiday season of exceeding good cheer. Women don't metabolize alcohol as rapidly as do men. And yes, body weight makes a difference. Had I been a female at my body mass, my blood would have registered 0.08 -- BUZZER! Had I, as male, been at Ann's svelte body mass, my blood would have hit 0.109 -- BUZZER again, though not as far off as her 0.128.
The moral of this tale for slight, young women: don't try to keep up with the boys as they assail the wassail bowl, or else plan on taking a cab home from the party. Dads of lasses, take note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
