Vol. 2, No. 82 Feb. 1, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Got Change?
As Iowa and New Hampshire's caucuses and primaries become history, South Carolina and Florida's pass into the past and the February 5 “tsunami” looms large on the horizon, I have to confess – I'm confused.
I'm not confused about the Democratic candidates. Their aims seem to be pretty clear, i.e. be whatever George W. Bush isn't. If that fails, they can summon up the image of Dick Cheney, contrast his horns and tail with the wings and halos of the nearest Democrat, and move on. It's the Republican candidates who puzzle me.
Every G.O.P. hopeful, from Rudy Guiliani to Ron Paul, is calling for change. If the political campaign were to have a slogan, it could be “Got Change?” There are more appeals for change than you get walking through downtown Portland. I can understand Democrats yelling for change, but I don't understand the Republicans.
Change, just in case I'm missing the point, implies that something needs to be fixed. If something needs to be fixed, it has to be broken. If it's broken, someone broke it. Democrats agree the breaker was George W. Bush. What confuses me is who was the “someone” for the Republicans?
One doesn't expect anybody running for office to come right out and say the leader of their party was flat out wrong. The Democrats didn't say it for Lyndon Johnson and the Republicans didn't say it for Richard Nixon, although history shows both of them definitely were. But here we have McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Paul et. al. calling for a “change of direction,” a “change of focus,” and a “change of strategy.” Whose strategy needs changing?
In the last seven years, during six of which they controlled Congress, Republicans have been marching side by side with Mr. Bush in his efforts to implement his version of compassionate conservatism. They've praised his strength of character, singleness of vision and unwillingness to compromise. They've strenuously backed his tax cuts for higher incomes, fewer regulations for corporations, increasing government surveillance of private correspondence in the name of national security and his conviction that bringing American-style democracy to the world would be greeted with cheers and celebrations. In the face of an obvious absence of cheers, we also had a curious absence of boos.
In the words of Mr. Bush, you're either for him or against him. Therefore, anyone still backing the Bush policies should have the intestinal fortitude to say so, as John McCain is doing in the case of the Iraq war. The same goes for opposing them, as Ron Paul does. Merely bleating for change doesn't mean beans. In the words of Shakespeare, it's “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
So how about the Democrats? During the years the public approved of the Bush policies, Democrats were quiet as mice, with occasional exceptions like the 2000 and 2004 elections, which were bad years for mice. Now, since 2006, all the Democandidates (new word) have been dogfighting about which one was against Bush's policies first. Suddenly we have roaring mice.
Meanwhile, confusion deepens. No fewer than three Republican candidates have called for “restoring American prestige in the world.” Using the Bogus argument, before you can restore something, you have to lose it. If American prestige has been lost, who lost it? It's not only the mice that should be smelling stale cheese.
Explanations are called for, but I'm not hearing any. Instead, I'm told to consider Clinton's teary eyes or whether Obama did drugs when he was a kid. A group calling itself Vietnam Veterans Against McCain is accusing the Arizona senator of collaborating with the enemy during his years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam (sound familiar?). O.K. Do we want a robot who doesn't cry? Should doing drugs disqualify a president? (Oops) Would McCain have been better off with five Vietnam deferments? (Oops, again) Enough nastiness. Let's talk about issues.
If we want change, let's point out what led to the need for change. For instance, if globalization is threatening jobs and putting U.S. workers into a race for the bottom, let's figure out where it started, say, with Clinton's NAFTA proposals and how it continued unchecked through Bush's CAFTA and so on. This is strictly bi-partisan stuff.
We should find out whom globalization is benefitting. Are the workers or the companies getting the most out of the deal? Are the countries trading with us coming out better, or are we? Is globalization responsible for lowering our national standard of living? If we don't like the answers, we can move on to the next item: elect someone who can figure out how to change it.
To me, the main issue is getting back to a world where we're looked up to and respected for what we represent. We're certainly not there now. My personal opinion is this is mostly because we've had inferior leadership. Therefore, I'm planning to campaign for a change in that leadership.
If we're willing to work toward the kind of government we want, we might get a set of people in Washington who can put the country ahead of political party or special interest cash and legislate for the people who elected them – for a change.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Vol. 2 No. 82 Jan 18, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Money Talks
We live in a monied age. I was reading about Steve Jobs, the fabled co-founder and CEO of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer), biggest stockholder of Walt Disney Corporation, former head of Pixar (“Finding Nemo,””Ratatouille”) and number 95 on Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential Americans. One would expect a man with such a resume to collect a substantial paycheck. Yes and no. For the record, Jobs earns a dollar a year – a salary barely enough for a real apple, let alone a 24-inch super-duper iMac with iDisk, iPhone, iTouch and iWant. But Forbes Magazine last spring declared Jobs the highest paid CEO in the United States. Factoring in a little thing called “stock options,” the right to buy stock at a future time at a fixed price, Jobs' yearly income totaled $646,000,000 or, roughly, one million, eight hundred thousand dollars a day. That's a lot of apples.
Forbes figured the CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies, including some whose companies actually lost money, got raises last year averaging more than seven million dollars. Meanwhile a Pew Charitable Trust report shows just six percent of American children whose family income ranked in the bottom fifth in 1976 were able to work their way into the top fifth in 2006. Forty-two percent of kids born into that lowest fifth were still stuck there, having been unable to climb a single rung of the economic ladder in the same time period. Either we have an awful lot of lazy people among the poor or the American Dream has become the American Mirage.
It's one thing to know in your head that something is true. It's different when you start sensing it in your innards. Like many Americans, I feel something's wrong with the promise of the country – that's it's a little off kilter – there's something out of whack. I think the Pew Trust report helped me nail it down: we're burying democracy with the shovel of unrestrained greed.
Think about it: in America today, which is more important, money or people? I've asked that of folks ranging from doctors to garbage collectors and not one has picked people. I've read countless examples of decisions which impact the lives of families and were justified by “Nothing personal – it's just business.” Two months ago, a couple committed suicide after their house was foreclosed. Just business? Nothing personal?
While doing our income tax, my wife and I discovered the government is willing to allow forty-four and a half cents a mile for business travel, but only eighteen cents for medical travel. Why is it more than twice as important to drive to a stockholders' meeting than to take your kid to the doctor? We also found that federal penalties for copying a commercial video tape range up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, a harsher penalty than some states demand for manslaughter. We entrust the lives of airplane passengers to highly-trained professionals and pay them in excess of $100,000 a year. We entrust the lives of our children to anyone with a bus driver's license and pay them ten to twelve dollars an hour. Do we have a priority problem?
What else is for sale? How about our privacy? Remember the Bush decision to wiretap citizens without warrants? Well, the telecom companies have turned off the tap, so to speak. The FBI hasn't been paying its bills. "It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' (sic) when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills," said former FBI agent Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Is the presidency itself for sale? The estimated tab for this year's campaigns on both sides is approaching one billion dollars. With five major corporations owning almost 90% of the nation's media, should we be surprised if they want to maximize their profits via the publicly-owned airwaves with a wave of sponsored debates?
In a column three years ago, I proposed adding “Anything for a Buck” to our list of national mottoes. This was truly dumb since it implied our willingness to push aging Aunt Mabel off the nearest cliff for her insurance. So how about “Money Talks?” We've all heard the tune: If you're in the class labeled “the working poor” or “the retired poor,” you're going to have a hard slog. Them that has, gets. People who have the gold make the rule. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That's not the way we were meant to be. That's not the way most of us are.
A wise person once said it's not money that's the root of all evil – it's the love of money. The older I get, the more I agree with him (or was it her?). Money talks, but sometimes we find when we listen to it too much, we can't hear anything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I end this, I want to wish good luck to Gail Kimberling, who is leaving for better days. She's been my mentor and my editor and I'll miss her.
-30-
The Bogus Economist ©2008
The Bogus Economist
Money Talks
We live in a monied age. I was reading about Steve Jobs, the fabled co-founder and CEO of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer), biggest stockholder of Walt Disney Corporation, former head of Pixar (“Finding Nemo,””Ratatouille”) and number 95 on Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential Americans. One would expect a man with such a resume to collect a substantial paycheck. Yes and no. For the record, Jobs earns a dollar a year – a salary barely enough for a real apple, let alone a 24-inch super-duper iMac with iDisk, iPhone, iTouch and iWant. But Forbes Magazine last spring declared Jobs the highest paid CEO in the United States. Factoring in a little thing called “stock options,” the right to buy stock at a future time at a fixed price, Jobs' yearly income totaled $646,000,000 or, roughly, one million, eight hundred thousand dollars a day. That's a lot of apples.
Forbes figured the CEOs of America's 500 biggest companies, including some whose companies actually lost money, got raises last year averaging more than seven million dollars. Meanwhile a Pew Charitable Trust report shows just six percent of American children whose family income ranked in the bottom fifth in 1976 were able to work their way into the top fifth in 2006. Forty-two percent of kids born into that lowest fifth were still stuck there, having been unable to climb a single rung of the economic ladder in the same time period. Either we have an awful lot of lazy people among the poor or the American Dream has become the American Mirage.
It's one thing to know in your head that something is true. It's different when you start sensing it in your innards. Like many Americans, I feel something's wrong with the promise of the country – that's it's a little off kilter – there's something out of whack. I think the Pew Trust report helped me nail it down: we're burying democracy with the shovel of unrestrained greed.
Think about it: in America today, which is more important, money or people? I've asked that of folks ranging from doctors to garbage collectors and not one has picked people. I've read countless examples of decisions which impact the lives of families and were justified by “Nothing personal – it's just business.” Two months ago, a couple committed suicide after their house was foreclosed. Just business? Nothing personal?
While doing our income tax, my wife and I discovered the government is willing to allow forty-four and a half cents a mile for business travel, but only eighteen cents for medical travel. Why is it more than twice as important to drive to a stockholders' meeting than to take your kid to the doctor? We also found that federal penalties for copying a commercial video tape range up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, a harsher penalty than some states demand for manslaughter. We entrust the lives of airplane passengers to highly-trained professionals and pay them in excess of $100,000 a year. We entrust the lives of our children to anyone with a bus driver's license and pay them ten to twelve dollars an hour. Do we have a priority problem?
What else is for sale? How about our privacy? Remember the Bush decision to wiretap citizens without warrants? Well, the telecom companies have turned off the tap, so to speak. The FBI hasn't been paying its bills. "It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' (sic) when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills," said former FBI agent Michael German, national security policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Is the presidency itself for sale? The estimated tab for this year's campaigns on both sides is approaching one billion dollars. With five major corporations owning almost 90% of the nation's media, should we be surprised if they want to maximize their profits via the publicly-owned airwaves with a wave of sponsored debates?
In a column three years ago, I proposed adding “Anything for a Buck” to our list of national mottoes. This was truly dumb since it implied our willingness to push aging Aunt Mabel off the nearest cliff for her insurance. So how about “Money Talks?” We've all heard the tune: If you're in the class labeled “the working poor” or “the retired poor,” you're going to have a hard slog. Them that has, gets. People who have the gold make the rule. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That's not the way we were meant to be. That's not the way most of us are.
A wise person once said it's not money that's the root of all evil – it's the love of money. The older I get, the more I agree with him (or was it her?). Money talks, but sometimes we find when we listen to it too much, we can't hear anything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I end this, I want to wish good luck to Gail Kimberling, who is leaving for better days. She's been my mentor and my editor and I'll miss her.
-30-
The Bogus Economist ©2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Vol. 2 No. 80 January 4, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Resolutionless
Resolution for 2008: I shall make no resolutions.
For the last seventy-eight years on my birthday, January 1, people all around me have been making resolutions and for the last seventy or so, I have joined in. This year, after spending decades chasing around trying vainly to keep resolutions, I have arrived at the point where I can't even remember them. So, to spare myself hours of remorse and guilt, I simply won't make any. Read my lips.
All in all, this hasn't been a good year for resolutions anyway. Bullets and a bomb took care of any possibilities for a resolution in Pakistan. In an article written for Mother Jones magazine, an assortment of Iraq experts conclude there isn't one there. In Afghanistan, things don't look much better. Resolution for our economy, if there is one, seems to be hiding. If you have one for the Middle East, let me know. My conclusion, therefore, is simple: if there are more storm clouds than sunshine in the forecast from one direction, look elsewhere.
Next November, we should have a Bushless ballot. For the last twenty out of twenty-eight years, this hasn't happened. We should probably, then, be thinking about the chores for our next president after he or she is done picking up the policy droppings from our current Administration, whose leader has proven conclusively that one man can, indeed, make a difference.
I worry, with all the noise of campaigning, we may lose sight of the kind of superhero who would want to be the Leader of the Free World for a salary only a tad higher than that of an NBA rookie. Some might say the prerequisite is insanity. Consider the problems our next POTUS will have to face, including our per capita debt of over $29,000 – the base price of a Mercedes C-class. And that's just for starters.
In his or her spare time, our next president will have to think about squaring the need of agribusiness to find folks to pick fruits or vegetables with the stuff about the tired and poor written on the Statue of Liberty. If we kick out the tired and poor, we'll have to find people to pick the fruits and vegetables among the rested and rich, which will be a challenge.
Our next POTUS will have to consider another way of saying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is universal health care, better legal protection and a first-class educational system, although saying it that way costs a lot more money. Finding a person to do this isn't like picking a student for Safety Patrol, especially when we send a bunch of mixed signals as to exactly what we want. An example is the voter who likes Mike Huckabee because he is “a good Christian,” but worries that he's too nice. “I don't want somebody to turn the other cheek,” the voter said, ”I want somebody who'll haul off and punch 'em in the mouth.” Now there's a thought you can take to church.
By the time this column sees the light of day, the first of the primaries will be over and pollsters will be pontificating about what the voters in Iowa really thought about the candidates. I anticipate something like “The voters have spoken and this probably means the end of the presidential hopes of (fill in names here) and the beginning of the hardest part of the race for (fill in more names here). Exit polls show Democratic voters are most concerned about (fill in any one of a huge number of things here) and feel (one name) is best equipped to deal with them. Of course, the future depends on how much money can be raised from (fill in labor union, consumer protection group, etc.) as well as the support of the New York Times. On the Republican side, (one name) has most successfully deflected criticism about his (pick from several) and hopes to raise (fill in number) million dollars from (fill in major corporation, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) as well as the support of Fox News.”
Pollsters, listen up – I don't give a hoot about the religion, personal resources, marital woes or spendy haircuts of the people who want to take over as Head of State. If I had to choose between a gay, atheistic, smart, poor black woman and a straight, church-going, rich, white, male numbskull, there wouldn't even be a contest. Do you hear me, pollsters? And please don't tell me which choice is more likely.
Instead of resolutions, I'm going to make plans. Although both can lead to a change in behavior, plans are a lot more effective than resolutions. You can resolve to stop smoking, but without a plan to follow, your chances aren't too good. Therefore, I'm going to plan for 2008 by setting aside a portion of time to try being more useful. I'm going to plan on de-emphasizing the acquisition of stuff. I'm going to plan on investing some of myself in making the planet more livable. I'm going to plan to be a little less bogus.
Maybe it will help this year be better than last. And happier. And may it be so for everyone.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
The Bogus Economist
Resolutionless
Resolution for 2008: I shall make no resolutions.
For the last seventy-eight years on my birthday, January 1, people all around me have been making resolutions and for the last seventy or so, I have joined in. This year, after spending decades chasing around trying vainly to keep resolutions, I have arrived at the point where I can't even remember them. So, to spare myself hours of remorse and guilt, I simply won't make any. Read my lips.
All in all, this hasn't been a good year for resolutions anyway. Bullets and a bomb took care of any possibilities for a resolution in Pakistan. In an article written for Mother Jones magazine, an assortment of Iraq experts conclude there isn't one there. In Afghanistan, things don't look much better. Resolution for our economy, if there is one, seems to be hiding. If you have one for the Middle East, let me know. My conclusion, therefore, is simple: if there are more storm clouds than sunshine in the forecast from one direction, look elsewhere.
Next November, we should have a Bushless ballot. For the last twenty out of twenty-eight years, this hasn't happened. We should probably, then, be thinking about the chores for our next president after he or she is done picking up the policy droppings from our current Administration, whose leader has proven conclusively that one man can, indeed, make a difference.
I worry, with all the noise of campaigning, we may lose sight of the kind of superhero who would want to be the Leader of the Free World for a salary only a tad higher than that of an NBA rookie. Some might say the prerequisite is insanity. Consider the problems our next POTUS will have to face, including our per capita debt of over $29,000 – the base price of a Mercedes C-class. And that's just for starters.
In his or her spare time, our next president will have to think about squaring the need of agribusiness to find folks to pick fruits or vegetables with the stuff about the tired and poor written on the Statue of Liberty. If we kick out the tired and poor, we'll have to find people to pick the fruits and vegetables among the rested and rich, which will be a challenge.
Our next POTUS will have to consider another way of saying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is universal health care, better legal protection and a first-class educational system, although saying it that way costs a lot more money. Finding a person to do this isn't like picking a student for Safety Patrol, especially when we send a bunch of mixed signals as to exactly what we want. An example is the voter who likes Mike Huckabee because he is “a good Christian,” but worries that he's too nice. “I don't want somebody to turn the other cheek,” the voter said, ”I want somebody who'll haul off and punch 'em in the mouth.” Now there's a thought you can take to church.
By the time this column sees the light of day, the first of the primaries will be over and pollsters will be pontificating about what the voters in Iowa really thought about the candidates. I anticipate something like “The voters have spoken and this probably means the end of the presidential hopes of (fill in names here) and the beginning of the hardest part of the race for (fill in more names here). Exit polls show Democratic voters are most concerned about (fill in any one of a huge number of things here) and feel (one name) is best equipped to deal with them. Of course, the future depends on how much money can be raised from (fill in labor union, consumer protection group, etc.) as well as the support of the New York Times. On the Republican side, (one name) has most successfully deflected criticism about his (pick from several) and hopes to raise (fill in number) million dollars from (fill in major corporation, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) as well as the support of Fox News.”
Pollsters, listen up – I don't give a hoot about the religion, personal resources, marital woes or spendy haircuts of the people who want to take over as Head of State. If I had to choose between a gay, atheistic, smart, poor black woman and a straight, church-going, rich, white, male numbskull, there wouldn't even be a contest. Do you hear me, pollsters? And please don't tell me which choice is more likely.
Instead of resolutions, I'm going to make plans. Although both can lead to a change in behavior, plans are a lot more effective than resolutions. You can resolve to stop smoking, but without a plan to follow, your chances aren't too good. Therefore, I'm going to plan for 2008 by setting aside a portion of time to try being more useful. I'm going to plan on de-emphasizing the acquisition of stuff. I'm going to plan on investing some of myself in making the planet more livable. I'm going to plan to be a little less bogus.
Maybe it will help this year be better than last. And happier. And may it be so for everyone.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
