WHICH GENERATION IS MORE SELFISH?

 

I read the recent letter to the editor “Young lose their sense of morality” and was reminded of similar claims in the 1960s.  At that time the “moral majority” was convinced that the drug, music and sexual culture of the young would bring the country to its knees.  One could certainly argue that we baby boomers have brought irreparable harm to the American polity, but for quite different reasons.  Most of us cashed in our radical chips and took our turn at running things.  The result has not been all that spectacular.

I believe that the cultural tension between our youth and adults has always been a positive force in our nation’s history. In the 60s this tension lead to the end of an unjust war, an expansion of civil rights and the increased role of women in society.  Today, young people are leading the charge in social media, sexual equality and globalization.

 On a personal level, my parents were as horrified of Woodstock as I am of tattoos and body piercing. Our youth will outgrow their hedonistic and selfish tendencies, hopefully with more grace than we did.  If we old folks can tear ourselves away from the Viagra and Botox commercials, maybe we can provide a great example of unselfishness to the younger generation.  How?  By supporting the higher taxes and lower entitlements necessary to level the playing field as they begin to clash with their own children.  Generational inequality is a much larger problem facing our society than the moral indiscretions of our youth will ever be.

FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS

 

One of the great rewards of high school football is the interesting matchups during the playoffs.  For example, the recent WPIAL class AA playoff football game between Washington High School and Shady Side Academy brought together two groups of athletes from opposite ends of the educational and economic spectrum.  After the Prexies won the contest in convincing fashion, sending the prep boys back to make their early Thanksgiving plans to exotic locales, I started thinking about the inequalities of secondary education in Pennsylvania.

Small city high schools along with cities like Washington are dying institutions.  The tax bases are shrinking and home buyers want to live where their children can attend well funded suburban schools.  The older and poorer tax payers in small cities fight tax increases which would provide adequate education. Counties like Washington insure that troubled and/or special education students (who cost more to educate and bring down success rates) will proliferate in city schools by cramming public housing and other welfare resources within its urban areas.

On the other hand, Shady Side Academy represents the most privileged students in our society.  According to its web site: “virtually 100% of our students attend four year colleges and universities.”  Prep scholarships are offered, often to large, bright students who have a fondness for football.

I am told that until recently Washington had no official weight room. Shady Side has facilities that are among the best.  Washington has disadvantages in staffing, transportation, equipment and alumni support.  Yet, somehow, with similar sized student bodies, Washington was ranked #3 ahead of Shady Side, #14 coming into this playoff game.

Some would say that it is not fair to compare Washington’s resources next to an elite private school.  The truth is I could substitute Shady Side for public schools like Fox Chapel or Upper Saint Clair and make the same argument.  Ironically, only the underfunded city schools, parochial schools and wealthy private schools have comparable student populations to compete against each other.

Football and basketball have always been leveling fields for disadvantaged athletes and small disadvantaged public schools. This has been particularly true in Western Pennsylvania, in places like Washington and Aliquippa.  In sports, a small city school can make up a lot of ground with good coaching and a dedicated group of upper classmen. There is a great sense of community pride in seeing these kids succeed and be the best despite economic disadvantages. 

However we must not lose sight of the larger, more significant issue.  Inequalities in academics are not as easy to overcome as those in sporting programs.  All public school students deserve equal educational opportunities, across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, regardless of where they live.

 

OBAMA SOLVES THE ECONOMIC DILEMMA

 

The President’s comments at the second debate struck me as well reasoned and forward looking.   He spoke often of education, jobs for the new economy, restoring a level playing field and equal opportunities for all Americans. He also spoke of the importance of free enterprise to our culture as a nation.

            It is not readily apparent why equal opportunity and free enterprise should complement each other.  While the former seeks equality, the latter empowers individuals to accumulate wealth and property.  What is the bridge between these competing goals of democratic equality and capitalism that makes our system work?  What makes a market democracy stick together when the middle class comes under economic attack?

            Understanding the answer to these questions is critical to governing over the next four years.  Radicals who would trample all free enterprise with unwarranted regulations or punitive taxes are as misplaced as tea party conservatives who would disavow programs that create equal opportunity or who insist on favoring wealthy investors at the expense of the general public. 

President Obama understands the dilemma and he has the right solution. There is a middle ground that keeps the lights on for all Americans.  When the middle class knows that the system is fair and the opportunities are real (particularly for their children as creative destruction changes the job market in the new economy) there is political legitimacy and democratic support to move forward. This is why his plans to embrace the new economy as it unfolds and to provide low cost education and job training are so important.

The President is not a socialist or pie eyed idealist.  In the spirit of Bill Clinton (as Mr. Clinton eloquently expressed during his convention address) Barack Obama is a pragmatic realist who has a clear vision for the survival of our market democracy.

           

THE COLLEGE AND CITY MUST WORK TOGETHER

 

 Conflict between college students and “townies” in small college communities has been a fact of life since the beginning of academia.  Ivory towers have always interacted at some level with life on the street.  In my college experience the friction often centered on the bar scene and the local women as the born and bred alpha males sought to defend their territory against preppy intruders.  Unfortunately for both the City of Washington and W&J, what happened on the early morning of October 5^th was much more sinister, with tragic results.

 Two college students returning to their dorms from an off campus bar at 2 a.m.  A gang of opportunistic young men walking the streets and looking for trouble.  This perfect storm resulted in a confrontation, with one of the students sustaining mortal head injuries.

            While it is certainly not prohibited to be on the streets in the early morning hours, it is not the safest of places and arguably a bad choice for student athletes to make.  This of course does not excuse the criminality of an apparent brutal robbery attempt and homicide.

            I for one hope that this incident does not evolve into a contest of finger pointing or defensive posturing. While common sense and additional anti crime measures are in order, over reaction is not. The College and City have made noticeable progress in recent years on cooperative efforts to improve the community.  As horrible as this incident was, violence should never be a reason for pull back.  Both local government and the College need to double down on positive efforts to work together for the common good.

 

SACRIFICE & COMPROMISE

The two most important words the day after the election will be sacrifice and compromise.  These two principals must quickly mutate from campaign unmentionables to rallying cries to avoid another crisis.  The fiscal cliff will send us reeling into another recession unless the country comes together under its political leadership to make tough choices.  This must be done by a lame duck Congress and the President at the end of the year no matter who takes the oath of office in January.

Our political campaigns, particularly the presidential contest, have become a feel good fantasy based on: 1) positions along strict ideological lines to keep intact each parties’ base (no compromise) and 2) speeches on how each candidate will make us better off than the other guy, to capture independents (no sacrifice).  It is ironic how these two words, which are truly the lifeblood of a democratic republic, are conspicuously absent during the long election season. American voters do not want to be told the truth during campaigns.  They want their selfish addictions fed with “campaign-crack” and refuse to face the inevitable rehab which includes higher taxes and lower benefits.  Interestingly, this is not true in Europe, where even the socialist candidates, who have been winning elections of late, recognized the need to discuss austerity measures to balance budgets and the need for compromise with other political parties.

After the voters have spoken we can all blink, shake off the sound bite hangover, and the fantasy will disappear.  Decision making, similar to four years ago when the world’s economy was falling apart, can again be based on fundamental economic principals and sound political policy.  Conservatives will get a good measure of austerity and deficit reduction.  Liberals will receive progressive tax rates, with those who have more paying their fare share.  The whole shebang will be disguised so that the compromise does not look like either side “gave-in.”  In this way, when the political rutting season begins anew three years from now, each candidate can claim their pockets were picked by the other.

Post election, sacrifice will enter the discussion and become a positive image.  There will be more talk coming from our political leaders about “what we can do for our country” and less about “I built that without your help.”  Instead of the election message that stresses giving up hard earned rewards to help shiftless welfare recipients, sacrifice will be framed in terms of our children, our elders and neighbors.  Giving back will be patriotic again so that the next generation has something solid to build on to keep the dream alive.  Like compromise, sacrifice will be a fleeting thought as the next election cycle approaches.  Hopefully enough will be done in the time allotted to make a difference.

 

 

ELECTION IRONIES

The ironies of this election season appear beyond the pale.  In the first place Romney should be praising the President for his efforts on the economy.

 The financial system and economic healing over the last four years have been most generous and forgiving to wealthy citizens, many of whom are Romney clone Republicans.  These individuals depend on Wall Street and the favorable tax treatment of unearned income for their high maintenance sustenance.  Luckily for them, it was necessary that the first steps to recovery were to save the world’s money centers (banks, insurance companies and investment houses) and Corporate America to avoid a global collapse.  These wealthy individuals who have no job or earned income, like candidate Romney, have increased their wealth exponentially as finance and industry recovered from the recession and the stock market rebounded to new highs.  The “one per centers” who made the simple “buy low-sell high” decision to invest a few million dollars in the Dow or S&P at the 2008 lows have more than doubled their money. 

There is no question that the wealthy who do not work for a living and contribute nothing to the economy, except to buy goods and services, are much better off than they were four years ago.  And yet, these same individuals who should be thankful to the President and his policies are working the hardest to remove him.  Is it any wonder that Mr. Romney does not want to disclose his tax returns.  Not only were his taxes low because of tax loop holes including capital gains and dividend rates, he made a fortune as his “blind trust” advisors plowed his investment capital into stocks and bonds with the rising market.  I can only hope a debate question will be presented as:  “Mr. Romney, are you better off than you were four years ago and is it fair to ask you to share some of these gains with less fortunate Americans?  A second debate Question: “How has the trickledown effect of your families’ purchase of a new home with garage elevators helped the average American?”

The next irony, which is beyond my understanding, is the large percentage of white middle class citizens who insist on identifying with the Republican Party.  There is nothing Republican about being unemployed, having a family member in need of social services, having a child who is being denied a good education, not being able to obtain a low interest mortgage from a bank, or being compelled to face retirement with less social security or Medicare.

More specifically, how can any member of the middle class support a candidate who spent his earlier life’s work firing people? Who now disavows 47% of the electorate as lazy and shiftless?  No middle class in the world, outside our own white Republican voters, wants the kind of austerity measures being pushed by the Romney ticket.  This misplaced and cruel austerity policy has not worked to fix either deficits or unemployment in any other western economy. 

The last four years were necessary to build a foundation for the economy and it enriched the Romneys of America. It seems obvious that the next four years must be dedicated to bringing back the middle class, with policies that do not include austerity, except for reasonable tax increases for the wealthy.

Lastly, is the irony of foreign policy. The neocon mantra of the Bush II presidency was to strike first and hard against dictators in the oil patch to bring democracy to the masses. (Using nuclear weapons as a smoke screen and the locking in of oil reserves as a not so hidden motive) For better or worse, Bush II opened Pandora’s Box in Iraq.  Now that the Arab Spring is accomplishing this same goal from the bottom up, the Romney campaign is attacking the President for not supporting dictators and not taking steps to slow down the democratization process.

          Democracy is a messy business.  The model for Muslim countries is not that of a western democratic republic and is bound to include large majorities not aligned with our interests.  The Republican response has turned 180 degrees from attacking sovereign countries and creating democratically elected regimes to shutting off financial aid for Muslim governments elected by their citizens. This plan will guarantee the growth of anti western terror and give the neo cons someone new to attack.

Top tier Republicans are wealthier than ever, continue to scam the middle class, and are preparing for a new round of saber rattling.  The Republican scheme is to aggressively adopt the opposite of whatever policy the President presents. Maybe there is no irony at all and things remain the same.

 

THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY LEADS THE WORLD

 

If the economy is the fundamental issue in the presidential campaign, Obama has a critical ace in the hole which has not yet been played.  All of the negative campaign ads and Republican convention rhetoric about what is wrong with the economy belies an important fact that is impossible to deny.  The United States economy is healthier and doing better than anywhere else in the World.

This fact tends to be buried in the “economist speak” and technical indicators which the average voter and sound bite media would prefer not to investigate.  Those who would take the time would discover that the most recent Purchasing Management Index (PMI), maintained by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) (among other studies) clearly shows our country outperforming every other developed economy in the world. (China fell to a nine month low; Germany is in contraction, the U.S. expanded)  Expect to hear this message at the Democratic convention and in the presidential debates.

Coming out of the worst economic disaster since the great depression, Obama’s policies, despite a dysfunctional Neanderthal Congress have left us in the sweet spot.  His unwillingness to succumb to the global austerity wave (championed by the Republicans and presently destroying Europe) and a wise Fed have permitted a monetary and fiscal policy that has kept us out of a double dip recession.  If necessary,   Bernanke will provide additional stimulus in the coming months and the governments and wealthy of the world will buy more treasuries at zero interest, to insure our economy stays on top of the industrialized world.

The United States is somewhat insulated from the most recent economic slowdown by its size and unlike the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India and China) is not as tied to exports.  Germany’s economy is slowing down due to the euro crisis.   The slow but steady unwinding of our broken housing bubble has taken the necessary time to heal and is coming back to health.  Lastly, despite the Republican rants of over regulation and unfriendly business practices, our country is still considered by the international community as the best place in the world for investment and doing business.

Unfortunately, the middle class and working poor have gained little in economic standing over the past five years.   Voters should listen to the experts to learn why this is the case, which has little to do with Obama or Fed policy.   Many economists have referred to the “new normal” following the recession of 2008.  This structural rewiring of the economic landscape includes higher unemployment, lower inflation and wage growth, lower housing values, lower investment rates for retirement accounts and the need for restructuring of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.  The factors making up the new normal cannot be switched on or off by an election or new political party in the White House.  No single act or politician caused the new normal.  It is simply a worldwide fact of economic life following a disastrous recession.  Because of Obama’s well conceived policies, the United States is doing better than any other country to avoid the worst consequences of the new normal.  Better to crest the wave of the new normal with adept programs and stimulus than to wipe out and be one of the austerity competitors strewn across the beach.

 My view is that the Administration that has kept our economy on top of the industrialized world throughout the storm deserves the opportunity to fix the boat over the next four years as its policies begin to show tangible results.  Those who look to history will discover that Republicans have never been invested in or successful at providing the leadership necessary for such economic challenges.  Conservatives will simply throw the new normal into the same garbage bin with climate change, Darwinism and the Rise of China and claim it does not exist.