A WORD TO THE GRADUATES

 

"May you live in interesting times" often referred to as the Chinese curse and quoted to good effect by Robert Kennedy certainly has come true for our recent college graduates.  The class of 2013 has unlimited opportunity to fix what their parents have blown asunder.  I believe with a little help, they will be up for the task and do us all proud.

For the young political science graduate, there is a daily open classroom of American democracy to study and repair.  With gun violence, immigration reform, global warming and unemployment begging for congressional attention, one third of the committees in the House of Representatives are instead, investigating the White House administration.  The opportunity for meaningful legislation is slipping away as the political barricades go up.  The president’s second term is becoming an ongoing battle to defend his legacy from the first term.

It feels like my graduation in 1973, when I was still wondering what a newly minted political science major did for a living.  I spent the summer of 1973 traveling through Mexico and the West Coast, drinking beer and watching congressional hearings from another time and place. After the helicopter took the president away, I was not sure what kind of country my generation was inheriting and whether it was worth fixing.  Like so many of my peers, I shrugged my shoulders and entered law school.

In today’s world there are far too many lawyers out there cannibalizing each other.  I recommend sticking with political science as a career and studying how to make our democracy last another century or two. We boomers, for the most part, became lawyers and look how that turned out.

The graduate with a degree in journalism, who actually wants to report or write about national and world events beyond sound bites, facebook and twitter has some interesting choices to make.  First, where to work?  Print journalism is disappearing faster than the old journalists are hanging up their columns.  Second, do we really need another memoir by a member of the millennial generation or more books about vampires in love?

 I hope that those graduates who are debating whether to stick with the writing profession go see Lucky Guy with Tom Hanks and read the April 29, 2013 piece by NYT columnist David Brooks entitled Engaged or Detached?  I suggest the play, which recently opened in New York, because it shows that good old fashion investigative reporting can make a difference.  I recommend the David Brooks’ article because it struck a chord with me on how the journalist impacts the reader. 

Brooks maintains that the engaged journalist reminds his audience: “of the errors and villainy of the opposing side.”  In short, the engaged journalist aligns with a specific political team.  On the other hand, he suggests that the detached writer has a different worldview.  The goal here is to: “remain mentally independent because {the writer} sees politics as a competition between partial truths, and wants to find the proper balance between them, issue by issue.”  I have a hunch that our newest crop of journalists may make excellent detached writers and give us years of insight that: “spark conversation about underlying concepts, underlying reality and the underlying frame of debate.”

I will lump math and economics majors together because of their affinity for getting MBA’s and going into finance.  We need more math majors to teach math and economics majors to teach economics and go into research. We need to properly compensate them so that they will do so. Goldman Sacks should not be permitted to suck up all of our best and brightest in these fields to produce new algorithms that will hasten the next financial crash.    

You future engineers, teachers and physicians are easy to address.  Simply continue to learn your vocation and begin to practice your professions with all possible haste.  The need for new blood to build and fix infrastructure as well as to manage industrial concerns is paramount.  Government must give engineers the necessary funding to fix a crumbling America.  The same is true with teaching, where the Scandinavian model deserves a close look.  In Northern Europe teachers are paid and valued as top line professionals.  Our future physicians will need to learn the ever changing medical trade within the framework of the ever changing health care environment.

Those graduates who pursue the classics, drama, the fine arts and languages are to be encouraged and supported because our country is not simply a day to day concern, divorced from history.  We are also part of civilization and everything that being “civilized” entails.  A country without these career paths will wither on the vine.  We must remember that saving a place for the classics does not mean that every plumber must read Homer in the original text.

Lastly, a word of apology to all of our graduates. Your elders have saddled you with enormous debt, both personally and as a nation.  Many of us gave up our idealism and our parents’ role modeling to live beyond our means instead of saving and providing for you.  We are now scrambling for the exits with a larger piece of the national pie that we deserve.

Please forgive us and do not totally forsake us.  We have gained a bit of practical wisdom along the way that may be of some assistance. However, in the last analysis, it will be your own enthusiasm and instinct that will save the day.

 

 

 

 

LET THE MAYOR DO HER JOB

 

The ongoing dust-up between Washington’s Mayor and its police force is unfortunate, but a clear sign that Mayor Davis is protecting the rights of the City’s residents and doing her job.  When there is a public call to have an elected official back away from her mandate to oversee police activity, to in effect, let the tail wag the dog, the administrative democratic process in Washington is in real trouble.

 Mayor Davis was not elected to be the friend of the police department (nor the fire department, street department, or tax department).  She was elected to provide oversight and civilian guidance of important civic functions.  While it is not out of line to question her management style, to call for an abdication of her management responsibilities is beyond the pale.

One need not look far to determine the outcome, when police officials are permitted to let their will run riot.  An unsupervised rouge Police Chief in East Washington was in the pocket of drug dealers and gun runners.  In Pittsburgh, the cozy relationship between the Mayor and Police Chief resulted in a grand jury and the uncovering of large scale financial fraud.  The Mayor’s political career is over and the Police Chief is on his way to prison.

Mayor Davis is new to her position.  The bureaucracy of entrenched city departments is difficult to understand and manage.  It is more difficult to change.  In my opinion, it is well past time to scramble some eggs. The more micro management by Mayor Davis of City Departments, the better.

 

TWO QUESTIONS

 

A safer America versus an open America; regulation versus civil liberties; federal spending versus a hope and a prayer.  These issues are now at the forefront, with the recent events in Boston and West Texas, along with the ongoing debate over cutting federal spending to address the debt crisis.  When two young radicals are able to maim, kill and shut down a major city at a loss of millions in commercial activity, two questions must be asked.  When a non descript fertilizer company can ignore regulations on storing dangerous chemicals (ammonium nitrate) and a small town is decimated, the same two questions come to mind.

The first question is as old as democratic political theory and our constitution.  How much personal freedom are we willing to give up in order to avoid an act of intentional (Boston) or reckless (West Texas) harm?  How many cameras on poles; searches of our communication records; unannounced raids on fertilizer factories or suspension of constitutional legal guarantees are too many?  Where do we draw the line between security and regulation on the one hand and the open society that sets us apart from the rest of the world, on the other?

The second question is one of limited resources and the national debt.  Whether a tragedy is averted or not, enhanced security and enforcing regulations cost money, lots of money.  In this time of austerity, favoring these goals will force fiscal reductions in other worthwhile causes.  For example, many communities might prefer spending federal and state dollars on increased economic incentives to lure a large sporting event or chemical factory into their own backyard over providing security at major events or regulatory enforcement of dangerous chemicals.

Then there are the effects of the across the board deficit reduction.  The automatic sequester in January has forced layoffs and cutbacks in the very federal programs and agencies designed to prevent the events in Boston and West Texas.  We also know that state and local enforcement capabilities have been drastically reduced in recent years, due to mandatory cutbacks.

Sometimes events sharpen the landscape and force us to view what was previously in the fog and unpleasant to look at.  Each of us must determine our own tolerance for giving up some of the freedom that American democracy has come to represent and where providing funding for this goal fits among our other priorities. In other words, we must ask ourselves the two questions: (1) how much “big brother” national security effort to seek out and prevent intentional acts and how much regulatory enforcement to seek out and prevent reckless acts,  are appropriate for the common good and (2) how will we pay for it.

 

A COLLECTION OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & POLITICAL IRONIES

 

 

Ø  It seems like the only couples who want desperately to get married are gays and lesbians. Most heterosexuals are living together outside of marriage or go through life as single parents.

Ø  The identical congressional representatives, who drove the country into two wars, costing one trillion today and over 3 trillion when all is said and done, are now fiscal conservatives who want to balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed and underprivileged.

Ø  The neo cons in the Republican Party water boarded terrorists, the liberal progressives in the Democratic Party kill them with robotic planes.

Ø  The chief cause of financial failure and retirement unhappiness is trading what you will need most for what you want right now. Nearly 75% of retirees have not saved enough and said they would save more if they could do it all over again.

Ø  While Washington County is becoming a prosperous bedroom community, the “Montgomery County of the West”, the City of Washington is becoming a place that time and gas drilling forgot.

Ø  In Cypress when the government proposed to tax the bank accounts of wealthy Russians everyone cried theft.  In the United States when we tax the bank accounts of the elderly and unsophisticated saver by keeping interest rates at zero, we cheer the rising stock market.

 

Ø  Corporations who keep earned income off shore to avoid taxes are called prudent capitalists.  Individuals who do the same are labeled unpatriotic tax evaders.

Ø  City governance in Pittsburgh and Washington is significantly more entertaining than County governance, which is one of the many reasons this form of government should be abolished and the two city governments absorbed by their respective counties.

Ø   Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy.  There is a consensus that, on average, the incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of immigration. (NYT-February 12, 2013)

Ø  The Financial Times recently wrote: "In 2008, the three most admired personalities in sport were probably Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, and Oscar Pistorius." Given the volume of recent insider trading charges, something similar could occur among the investing "greats."

 

 

 

IT IS TIME FOR REASSESSMENT

 

I could not disagree more with the position of the Washington County Commissioners on reassessment.  Their recent collective comments sounded like our “Generals” had lost the valiant battle of Stalingrad and were about to be thrown into the Volga (if not the County Jail) unless they capitulated and permitted reassessment to move forward.  In fact, Washington County is in the sweet spot when it comes to reassessment.  The Commissioners should seize the moment and move forward with confidence and vigor, not anger and defeatism.

No one disputes that base year assessments are patently unfair and discriminate against owners of properties in lower-value neighborhoods.  Correcting this inequality is certainly sound governance and in the public good.  This leaves only three arguments against reassessment: cost, comfort and convenience.  I would argue that waiting for the Commonwealth to come up with standardized procedures, pursuant to Senate Bill 66, will be an unnecessary delay and more costly in the long run.  As for comfort and convenience, these excuses have never stood up in the face of discrimination and/or inequality.

The problem is not that there are no standards for reassessment.  In fact, there are many standards that have been used successfully in many different jurisdictions, inside and outside of Pennsylvania. Washington County is not Allegheny County. We are in the enviable position to learn from its reassessment experience and to not repeat its mistakes.  Following the guidance from the many other successful reassessment efforts, we will be able to tailor a program to our specific needs, demographics and tax base.  We can also address how to value properties with gas rights, both in and out of production, an issue unique to Marcellus shale counties.

When Washington County moves forward with reassessment, its request for a proposal will create a most valuable contract opportunity for vendors.  Getting our assessment program right will be of upmost importance because unlike Allegheny County, there are dozens of counties of similar size and situation as Washington.  Contractors will bid low and offer premiums in order to gain a foothold in Pennsylvania.  They will agree to performance criteria and to penalties for above average assessment appeals.  We will become a de facto pilot County, with all the perks and pampering that accompanies this status.

Given the size, cost and importance of the reassessment project, the Commissioners should retain the best consultant available to fashion a proposal and to review the bids for an optimal result.  In several years Washington County will be praised for its forward thinking and grateful that it moved ahead without delay.

A few thoughts on Senate Bill 66, which has now passed both houses of the state legislature and is headed to the Governor for signature.  The legislation is being hailed as “property reassessment reform”, when upon careful reading it appears to be a blatant case of further “property assessment delay.”  Creating an underfunded State Tax Equalization Board with the tasks of developing operations manuals, databases and training programs will not stop the Courts from enforcing the law or aid Washington County in any meaningful way from performing the task at hand.

 

AN AVIAN CONSPIRACY

 

As winter gives way to spring, I continue to wonder, what is the connection, psychological or otherwise, between humans and the compulsive need to feed the birds?  Almost every retired individual I know and many others develop a strong affection for these hardy creatures that will appear in our backyards when some seed is offered.  From several blocks away, our properties on South Wade in East Washington sound like an aviary, if we have all filled our feeders.  Favorite bird photos show up in this newspaper with great frequency.

This phenomenon appears to cross all political and economic boundaries and somehow fills an important niche in our lives.  We spend more than $3 billion a year on food for birds, and $800 million a year on bird feeders and other accessories.

 Many of us are not avid bird watchers and would never consider getting up at the crack of dawn to find them in the field.  We prefer viewing from porch windows with a cup of coffee and the morning paper.  Like serious birders, seeing a rare species in a place that it is not normally seen is grounds for celebration, but only if the event happens on our terms of comfort and space.  We have not been able to control our children or our retirement accounts, so why not the daily visit of nuthatch and finch.

I sometimes fear we may alter migratory habits by offering the avian community an easier domestic alternative when the leaves start to fall.  Such was the fate of Canadian geese that no longer fly south because of viable food sources around golf courses and manmade lakes. Moreover, ornithologists believe that bird feeding interferes with ecological processes, causes malnutrition, facilitates the spread of disease and increases the risk of death from cats, pesticides, hitting windows and other causes.  Of course, none of this impacts our desire to provide a feeding frenzy and enjoy the spectacle.

Some of us welcome squirrels and deer to the show, but most try to exclude all mammals as interlopers.  It is birds we want and all types of contraptions will be employed to exclude the others.  Raptors are acceptable, even though our feeders have provided the stage for the killing grounds.  After all, nature is nature and the swoop of a red tail hawk is fine entertainment.

Earlier this winter, I spent some time trying to film a blue jay and red cardinal fighting over the same peanut, thinking it would make a great political statement for the election.  Unfortunately, my avian friends were showing more compromise skills than Congress and it was not to be.

 One wonders, who is really in control of this feeding enterprise.  Research has shown that thousands of years ago, dogs and cattle were pulling the evolutionary strings as they charmed humans into providing a free ride, through domestication.  Maybe the birds are on to something and we are the ones being coaxed into buying the most expensive sunflower seeds to dispense on even the most blustery of winter days.  Heated bird huts anyone?

 

TAKE A STAND ON THE BUDGET DEFICIT

 

 

It looks like the sequester is our formal introduction to an extended period of austerity.  Unfortunately, this is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to dealing with the overall budget deficit. 

There is an intractable battle being played out in Washington, over how to move the economy forward. Does the average American have any idea what the dispute is about?  One gets the feeling that supporting the political “team”, democrat or republican, is easier for the man on the street than sitting down and working through the issues.  Unfortunately, this is not a sporting event where we can be idle couch potatoes. There is a scarcity of road to kick the can down before disaster strikes.  What looms at the end is a fiscal cliff that can leave economic scars for generations to come.  We need to understand the dilemma, get involved in the debate and take ownership for the solutions.

It is not enough for an independent voter to say: “I do not support one political party over the other, just do something!”  This is like inviting the surgeon to cut off an arm or a leg with a blindfoldand dull scalpel.  Better for Independents to closely study their individual x-rays and
get the cuts in the right place and in the right amount.

No one likes to complete their tax return, review the family budget, or study their retirement statements.  In this respect most of us are like Washington, waiting until the last minute to confront financial matters, when sometimes it is too late to salvage an acceptable result.  With the present federal budget impasse, we all have the opportunity to take on the deficit, right alongside our disgruntled congressional representatives.  It is time for each of us to study the options with vigor and to take a position on a problem that will profoundly affect our economic future.

Upon first reflection it will become apparent that not raising taxes, keeping all of our benefits and cutting no services is not an option.  If this position is what you were voting for in November, you were fooled by the negative campaign adds telling you only what abominations the other candidate had in store for the Country.  In fact, both political parties had bad news they were keeping under wraps until January.  Republicans knew that taxes would need to increase and Democrats were aware that uncomfortable cuts were necessary.  All around, the campaign incense was covering up the odor of a rotting mountain of debt.

What we need to do now is make some decisions and let our opinions be known.  A good place to start is to make a list of benefits each of us receive or expect to receive later in life.  This would include Social Security, Medicare, SSI and the like.  Remember that these items make up most of the budget deficit and must be addressed without delay. The question becomes, how much are we willing to pay (or have our children pay) to keep a certain level of benefit.

 Next make a list of public services that you believe must be maintained or expanded and those that can be curtailed or eliminated.  These discretionary expenses include supporting the post office, reliable bridges and roads, funding for education, day-care and preschool programs, mental health facilities, school loans, efficient airports, efficient court systems, an efficient power grid, disaster relief, national public television and radio, legal services for the indigent, museums and libraries.  Each individual’s list will provide a different set of priorities. 

Lastly, make a list, from personal experience, of where federal dollars could be saved through more efficient government.  Once each of us completes this exercise, we are competent to enter the debate on deficit reduction.  A few of us will weigh the options and conclude there should be no tax increases despite drastic cuts in benefits and services.  A few more will insist on cradle to grave benefits with exorbitant taxes.  Most of us will be willing to pay moderately higher taxes with moderate cuts to social entitlements and discretionary spending. 

Take a position and write to your representatives in Congress.  Invite your friends and family to do the same.  Do not expect your political “team” to make the correct decision.  After all, your political party’s priorities are unlikely to mesh with yours and while the House and Senate benefits are mandated by Congress, yours are not.