Category Archives: Essay

On The Age of America: Radio Essay for April 30, 2011

Perhaps you have heard about the bombshell dropped by the International Monetary Fund earlier this week? It is a simple statement, really, yet its’ implications will transcend our very way of life. More importantly, the lives of our children and their children will be forever changed.

I am talking about the declaration that the “Age of America” is nearly behind us. The US economy will be overtaken, says the IMF, by the year 2016. That seems to be a few decades sooner than anyone expected. The analysis is based upon a concept known as Purchasing Power Parity. Think of it this way: rather than compare how many dollars one earns, think about it in terms of what those dollars can buy. If you basic lifestyle essentials cost, let’s say, 10 times less in one country than another, than one needs 10 times less money to have achieved parity in lifestyle across borders. That describes the situation in China today.

So what, you say? Let’s begin to look at the ramifications that such a change in global economic leadership might bring. First of all, let’s recall that the official name of this new economic juggernaut is the People’s Republic of China. I grew up knowing it as Communist China or Red China. It was run by Mao Zedung, a despotic leader responsible for more death than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combined. He ruled China until 1976. That’s just 35 years ago.

We remember life in America 35 years ago quite vividly. It was the bicentennial celebration year. America was licking its wounds from Vietnam and Watergate and Jimmy Carter was elected President. Richard Nixon, who ironically opened China to Western trade, was in a national exile. We were at the height of the Cold War with conflict in Europe seemingly imminent. The US economy, though afflicted by inflation and high interest rates, still dominated the world. The era of Pax Americana was in full flower. America ruled the waves, dominated culture, was the leader in math and science and technology, research and development. In short, America was a benevolent, though hegemonic power.

There are countless millions of Chinese who remember the days of Mao; whose political futures were shaped by his policies; and who came of age in their shadow.

Now, the US faces a future every bit as bleak as that faced by the British Empire at the end of the Second World War. Great Britain then embraced the welfare state with open arms and watched as its’ world empire and its’ world leadership position dissolved before its’ very eyes into the benevolent, waiting arms of the United States.

That case will not be repeated today. If America’s grasp on world economic and political leadership slips away, it will not fall into benevolent hands. Once they have control of the reigns, The People’s Republic of China will not play nice. We already know that they will not play fair. And the world they will dominate will be the world that we have bequeathed to our children.

Shame on us. We have the means to make the 21st Century an American Century if we have the political will to make our country competitive again. It is a multi-pronged effort lead by two major forces: (1) restoring the economy and (2) controlling our spending. Sounds easy, right? But to listen to the incessant chatter about the social compact that our President keeps espousing and that the political class in Washington regurgitates, we are not making any in progress to heading off this drastic and dramatic rendezvous with destiny, we are simply kicking the can down the road to a post-2012 election environment, counting upon continued gridlock in Washington, taking the personal vilification of noble patriots such who dare to question the status quo of the American welfare state to the level of an art form, and squandering precious time in the pursuit of personal aggrandizement.

The People’s Republic of China can’t sleep: they are too excited about the prospect of taking over the world.

Press on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essay, Uncategorized

On Labels: Radio Essay for April 23, 2011

“Something’s burning somewhere. Does anybody care?” These are lyrics from the story-song folk writer, Harry Chapin. Our world is still spinning but it feels as if it is spinning upside down.

A funny thing happened to me on the way to a Tea Party event here in Worcester this week: I was called a racist. If one lives long enough, you are likely to be called a lot of things. Frankly, I am offended. A racist makes value judgments based solely upon irrelevant objective assessment such as the color of someone’s skin or their national origin. Objective logic does not play into the equation, only subjective emotion.

I was called a racist by a bunch of socialists. Now, I am not labeling them; they labeled themselves. There I was, bearing witness to our Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech and assembly, when a group, some say a mob, of masked protestors invaded our peaceful assembly. I was being verbally assaulted by a group of knuckleheads wearing bandannas over their faces like masked banditos in a John Ford western. They called me a racist. They labeled me because I support Tea Party values.

Is this the face of protest; the face of point/counterpoint? I was not comfortable with the standoff. Visualize this: two opposing viewpoints separated not only by ideology but by four lanes of traffic. A colleague of mine wanted to go over and talk some sense into them; to try and convince them that we were righteous. I admit I was leery. I did not think we could make any headway with avowed socialists, so why bother. My friend was more persistent than I and so we crossed the street.

What I met on the other side was a group of students ranging in age from maybe16 to 25. I introduced myself to Joe and said, “I won’t raise my voice to you and I expect you will do the same.” And so, we talked. It was not much different than talking to my own adult children, really. And when I stripped away the rhetoric, I found a child who was as frightened about their future as was I.

It is an old adage that one need not hunt squirrels with a shotgun. That was what it was like to discuss tax burdens with someone who has never held a real job or owned property or had to worry about the future of their children. But Joe was not without his dreams; he was simply without options and without optimism that someone such as himself could live a life with opportunity. Joe said he had often heard Tea Party people talk about loosing freedoms and asked me to describe one freedom that we had lost. I told him that we- he- was in danger of losing one of the greatest freedoms of all: his freedom of choice; his freedom to have options. He heard me and seemed to seriously consider what I had said.

Harry Chapins’ lyrics went on to say:

“I shook his hand in the scene that made America famous; and he smiled from the heart that made America great. I spent the rest of that night in the home of a man that we’d never known before. It’s funny, when you get that close, it’s kind of hard to hate.”

Labels are a coward’s way out. Each of us is unique in our own personal circumstance and in our outlook. I chose to believe that. I also choose to believe that the majority of Americans, a vast majority, want similar things, for our children and for our country. We need fewer labels and less demagoguery. When we strip away the rhetoric, we will be left with the facts. We can and must do the right thing. I believe that we can.

Press on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essay, Uncategorized

On the Next Budget Challenge: Radio Essay for April 16, 2011

I remember that great scene in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” when the two outlaws were forced to jump off a cliff into a raging river below. A fearful Sundance said to Butch, “I can’t swim.” To which Butch replied, “Are you crazy? The fall will probably kill you.” I can’t help think that there is some similarity to any elixir one has to offer to fix the budget deficit. Face the armed posse or jump off a cliff. Some choice.

For now, it is time to turn the page. The last act of a dysfunctional and dishonest 111th Congress is now behind us. The Fiscal Year 2011 budget is finally put to rest, passed halfway through the year that officially started on October 1, 2010. Amid the cacophony of protestations proclaiming the end of the progressive era, a modest reduction to the annual increase was taken. In fact, the actual budget cutting was quite minor. Much of the so-called savings were portions of budgets that were not ever going to be spent.
What the debate did do, however, was set the stage for the 2012 budget showdown to come. And what a battle that is shaping up to be.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is clearly the issue of reckless deficit spending and its’ concomitant affect on the national debt. There are only so many levers to pull and buttons to push in working towards balancing a budget. We know that the lion’s share of the budget is contained in a handful of program areas. On the entitlement side is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We all know that these are the third rail in politics. We can’t touch the interest on the national debt; we have to pay that. That leaves National Defense as the largest remaining non-entitlement program available.

The remaining budget items make up about 12% of the budget. And that was where a lot of the hullaballoo was focused last week. The Republicans picked a legitimate budget fight but the Democrats were successful in focusing the attention on the draconian cuts to the increases in spending. The debate on social issues was a distraction to the main intent of cutting spending. In the end, the Republicans seemed to win on paper but maybe the Dems got the best of them: actual spending reduction was far less than the advertised $38.5 billion dollars. And with an increase in Defense spending, the net reduction to the 2011 budget was only $353 million over 2010 levels. All in all, we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. All of the hand wringing got us nowhere.

Two things must be tackled simultaneously. Reducing spending is obvious but reducing spending without growing the economy is like death by a thousand cuts. If a rising tide floats all boats, so will a strong economy with real job growth provide the oxygen to fuel the recovery, end this blasted employment recession and restore confidence in an American Century.
So, let the 2012 budget battle begin. Everything is on the table and I mean everything. Every proposal in life is a beginning of a dialog. Government proposals are no different (except maybe that pesky Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that gave us ObamaCare). The Republican budget proposal offered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin takes aim at all of the sacred cows in the budget. You may not like it. Those who are seniors and those who intend to become seniors may not like it. Special interests who benefit from tax incentives may not like it. The Pentagon may not like it. Everyone’s ox may get gored but in the words of one notable patriot named Franklin: “If we don’t all hang together, then surely, we shall all hang separately.”

I challenge the parties in Washington to put country first, not special interest. I am not optimistic that fiscal reform will make much progress prior to the Presidential election but the stakes in this game are incredibly high. This is not a game the nation can afford to lose.

Press on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essay, Uncategorized

On the Federal Budget Battle: Radio Essay for April9, 2011

When I wrote this piece, Budget Armageddon was at hand. The sun has not yet risen a scant 7 hours later, and it appears that budget catastrophe has been avoided. Details are sketchy but it looks like the focus turned more towards financial issues rather than social issues. There is a short continuing resolution that will feature Congressional debate before the Congress votes to approve this compromise. We will have to be patient as this day breaks to gain full insight into the solution. Notwithstanding the facts of the compromise, the content of this essay remains germane.

The year was 1944 and the Allies had landed at Normandy in June and pressed forward through Western Europe seemingly at will for the next six months. Now comes the dead of winter in Belgium’s Ardennes Forest and the Nazis capitalize on an exposed weakness and severely threaten the entire invasion. When offered a Nazi ultimatum to surrender, General Anthony McAuliffe simply answered, “nuts.” Enter General George Patton. Blood and guts George Patton, who spins and whirls and brings his Third Army into the fight to relieve Bastogne and one General McAuliffe. The Allies, of course, go on to defeat Hitler, win the war and secure the peace on the continent for the next 67 years.

Where is one to stand on this Battle of the Budget? Is there anyone coming to rescue us? Is John Boehner the latter day General McAuliffe saying, “Nuts,” to Senator Reed and President Obama? Or is it the specter of the Tea Party caucus putting those words in Mr. Boehner’s mouth. The problem is we really don’t know what is going on in the negotiations.
If one believes the NY Times, the Republicans are moving the end zone by feigning to fight for fiscal cuts to the budget while their real agenda is one of pressing social agenda issues and neutering the EPA on regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Wall Street Journal seems to accuse the President of setting up this Battle of the Budget for political purposes of his own. It is an “all or nothing” gambit for the President. He has the power, through Executive Order, to make payments to our servicemen, to our seniors and to other important constituencies if he chooses. He does not. He is picking a fight.

But why fight this seemingly innocuous battle? Could it be that the real culprit in this current drama is not the Tea Party but the Democrats? Is it merely a smokescreen to fight on about a budget that was supposed to be wrapped up 7 months ago by a Congress entirely controlled by Democrats with a Democrat in the White House? If all we were talking about was money, 10, 20 or 30 billion dollars that would be one thing. What we are really talking about is the 2012 budget and the courageous piece of work put forward by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Let us be clear. The budget proposal put forth by Paul Ryan, the Republican budget proposal, is just that: a proposal. It is not necessarily a “Path to Prosperity,” as the subtitle implies any more that the Obama stimulus was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The Ryan proposal is just a point of departure. It is fraught with risk and uncertainty. It contains optimistic assumptions that stretch out far into the future. What I admire about the proposal is that someone in Washington is actually looking out beyond the next election cycle. In the case of this silly budget impasse that threatens to shut down the government, we are focusing an inordinate amount of attention on a five month spending plan while the real problems of our time are fertilized by our neglect. The Democrats are trying to paint the Republicans, and the Tea Party, in particular, as cold hearted, insensitive demons bent on starving Grandma. What is true is that we are all going to have to let go of some degree of government largess. We do not need it and we cannot afford it. There are bills to pay today that we cannot manage and the bill compounds with each passing budget year.

I used to fear for the future of our grandchildren and our children. It is time to think about fearing for our own future. It is time to demand accountability from our elected officials in Washington and stop with the meaningless and frivolous rhetoric of politics and begin to think about making American exceptionalism more than just a campaign slogan. We needed someone to say, “nuts.” It looks like we got that. I wonder who played the role of General Patton?

Press on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essay, Uncategorized

On the 112th Congress: Radio Essay for April 2, 2011

I recall with some fondness the kindly countenance of Ed Koch, the three term Mayor of New York City in the late 1970s and through the 80s. He described himself as a “liberal with sanity,” and would always ask anyone who would answer, “How’m I doin’?”

Today marks the 5 month anniversary of the Republican sweep to majority in the US House of Representatives and the shift away from a desperate minority position in the Senate. The balance of power clearly moved towards a more conservative legislative mandate. That mandate was fueled, in large measure, by an awakening of the American People.

Some would credit the Tea Party for this momentous change and they would be partially correct. True, the Tea Party movement provided invaluable “feet on the street” to power upstart candidates who espoused conservative and Constitutionally compatible viewpoints into office. While it would be correct, in my opinion, to credit their activism for the ideological shift, it would be incorrect to say that Tea Party activists accounted for all of the votes.

If we credited every Tea Party vote to a Republican candidate in 2010, we would fall far short of the number necessary to explain the good fortune of the Republicans. What the Tea Party did is to ignite a latent sense of outrage among what was formerly called the silent majority. Silent no more, disillusioned by the partisan rancor, the ideological gridlock, and the seemingly self-serving interest of long term incumbents who had never earned a paycheck, they voted to “throw ‘da bums out” last November.

When the Democrats label Tea Party activists as extremists, as Senator Charles Schumer recently did in front of a live microphone, they are essentially painting the mainstream American public with the same broad brush. They do so at great peril.
The issues last November were centered on the ailing economy; the soaring national debt; and, immigration reform, especially focused on illegal immigrants. Here are some issues you might recall from the campaign: the GM bailouts; the union-oriented stimulus bill; Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona immigration law. There were many more.

The questions before us three months into this term is this: has the 112th Congress advanced the ball? Have they advanced it in terms of reducing the national debt, or even in passing a budget for FY2011, now half over; have they advanced it in terms making a substantial dent in making American corporations more competitive by reducing income taxes; are US jobs being retained and increased here in the US; have they advanced the ball by requiring stricter border enforcement? In each case, the answer is, “no.”

The Tea Party caucus is struggling to do precisely what they were sent to Washington to do: reduce spending, reduce taxes and secure our borders. Instead, our Congress is kowtowing to special interests and focusing on gaining marginal victories on conservative social issues. They are compelling but can easily distract us rather than seize the advantage granted them last November. Our government is on the brink of shutdown as early as next week as Congress tinkers around the edges of reducing the amount of growth in the budget rather than resetting the bar to 2008 levels. Immigration reform is on the back burner.

So, what has changed since November? Unfortunately, not much. The “system” is weighing down the change agents in Washington. They are going to need our help to keep the faith and to fight the good fight to restore the promise of the American Dream for our children and their children. Do not become distracted by extremist rhetoric and do not give up hope. We have made tremendous inroads but the conservatives who have secured the beachhead need reinforcements and firepower. That happens in 2012.
So, as Mayor Ed Koch would, “How’m I doing?” My answer so far is: press on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essay, Uncategorized