Long ago, on a Roman galley, the captain tried an experiment. He let everyone on board -- oarsmen and aristocratic passengers -- vote on whether to change to a democratic system, where everyone would take turns, alternately rowing and lounging in the luxurious passenger quarters. Of course the aristocrats voted to retain the existing system. But then, to his surprise, so too did the galley oarsmen.
There is a simple explanation for why you are having a hard time financially, why you are in danger of losing your job or your health or your home, why you don’t have access to the luxuries that more privileged members of society are enjoying.
Why haven’t you realized the truth? In case you are too dumb to figure it out, here it is: It’s because you deserve what you are getting. And because deep down inside, you know this. That’s why you keep making choices that maintain the status quo, that keep you down and struggling.
You don’t believe it? Consider this:
Our legislators obviously believe what I’ve just said. They maintain a tax structure and an economic structure that does what it should do -- it rewards the deserving and punishes the undeserving. In other words, some people get rich, the rich keep getting richer, and the rest struggle to stay where they are, and sometimes, no matter how hard they struggle, they slip downward into poverty.
Look at the statistics -- they’re all around you. You’ve seen them. The top 2% make as much money as the bottom 50%. CEOs get paid on average 400 times as much as their lowest-paid employees. When failing businesses are sold out, the top managers (who ran their companies into the ground) walk away with “golden parachutes” worth millions of dollars.
And at the other end of the scale, 10% of our workforce is unemployed. This country has some 40 million uninsured people. The middle class is getting smaller. More people are in poverty than ever. Millions go to bed hungry every night. Hundreds of thousands of homes are being foreclosed, leaving ever more people homeless.
And how are our governments, local, state, and federal, coping with all this? They are reducing services to those most in need. Thousands of state employees are being laid off, hurting not just them but also all those that they were providing services for. Universities are cutting faculty and course offerings; students must pay higher tuition for fewer and more crowded classes. Public schools are laying off teachers and aides and increasing class sizes. Mental health programs, already appallingly inadequate, are being cut further, leaving the mentally ill in crisis and unable to receive treatment that might save their lives.
Clearly the decision-makers who have brought all this about are acting out of a morality that says that the deserving will be rewarded and the undeserving punished.
And who chose these decision-makers? You did. You have chosen to elect representatives who will carry out your moral values, who will punish you for all your flaws and shortcomings. And as long as you coninue to believe that you deserve the worst, you will keep on electing representatives who will make sure you get it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Has Obama Failed?
The hue and cry of the Republicans -- and some Democrats -- has recently been to the effect that the Obama presidency has failed. Key evidence: the continuing high unemployment rate.
Is our economic situation as we want it to be? Admittedly no. Ten percent unemployment is clearly unacceptable. So does this mean that Obama has failed? I would suggest that the implied comparison (where we are vs. where we’d like to be) is erroneous.
The proper comparison has to be between where we are, under Obama, and where we would be if his administration had not done what it has, or -- to put it very bluntly and starkly -- where we would be if McCain had been elected.
Of course, we do not know for sure what McCain and Palin would have done, but we have a pretty good idea, both from those candidates’ statements during the 2008 campaign and from the statements and positions of Republican leaders since. I think it is clear that under McCain/Palin we would be feeling the effects of more tax-breaks for the wealthy, more cuts in government programs for the poor and middle classes,and less effort at economic stimulus.
And what would those effects be? The CBO -- Congressional Budget Office -- recently released some projections that without the Obama stimulus programs, unemployment now might be 13% or 14%. And we can figure that there would be more people losing their homes, more people exhausting their unemployment benefits -- in short, we would be in a major depression, not just a painful recession.
So has Obama failed? Hardly. He has achieved a lot, compared to where the country was when he started and where it might have gotten to with different policies and programs.
And we need to recognize too that what the Obama administration as accomplished has been tempered -- and severely limited and distorted -- by the obstinacy and determination of Republicans to do everything possible to cause Obama to fail, regardless of what might be best for the country.
Is our economic situation as we want it to be? Admittedly no. Ten percent unemployment is clearly unacceptable. So does this mean that Obama has failed? I would suggest that the implied comparison (where we are vs. where we’d like to be) is erroneous.
The proper comparison has to be between where we are, under Obama, and where we would be if his administration had not done what it has, or -- to put it very bluntly and starkly -- where we would be if McCain had been elected.
Of course, we do not know for sure what McCain and Palin would have done, but we have a pretty good idea, both from those candidates’ statements during the 2008 campaign and from the statements and positions of Republican leaders since. I think it is clear that under McCain/Palin we would be feeling the effects of more tax-breaks for the wealthy, more cuts in government programs for the poor and middle classes,and less effort at economic stimulus.
And what would those effects be? The CBO -- Congressional Budget Office -- recently released some projections that without the Obama stimulus programs, unemployment now might be 13% or 14%. And we can figure that there would be more people losing their homes, more people exhausting their unemployment benefits -- in short, we would be in a major depression, not just a painful recession.
So has Obama failed? Hardly. He has achieved a lot, compared to where the country was when he started and where it might have gotten to with different policies and programs.
And we need to recognize too that what the Obama administration as accomplished has been tempered -- and severely limited and distorted -- by the obstinacy and determination of Republicans to do everything possible to cause Obama to fail, regardless of what might be best for the country.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
REAL Job Creation, REAL Prosperity
I listened yesterday to most of the debate between Sen. Richard Burr and his Democratic challenger Elaine Marshall. The two agreed on at least one thing: the need for more jobs.
But they differed, of course, on how that should be done. If I understand Burr and his Republican colleagues, government should reduce taxes and offer other incentives to business in order to encourage businesses to hire more workers. (Tell me if I am misconstruing their position.)
Unfortunately, this approach involves a vicious circle: Imagine that you are a business owner. You want to hire more people. But you can add employees only when your products are selling well, so well that your existing staff cannot keep up with the orders coming in. Then, when you foresee a continued high demand for your products, of course you will increase your payroll.
And why will your products sell better? They will sell better only because lots of unemployed people have gotten jobs and now have money to spend. In other words, people will buy your products only because you and thousands of other business owners have hired those people. People will buy things because they have jobs; they’ll have jobs only because people are buying things.
Are you, Mr. Small Business Owner, going to stick your neck out and hire, before demand for your products has increased? I think not. Will reduced taxes cause you to hire before demand increases? I think not.
Republicans oppose more government spending, thinking that more spending will mean more taxes, and taxes reduce the economic growth that will come if individuals and businesses keep more of their money. But if the scenario I’ve described above is correct -- and experience seems to confirm it -- then keeping tax rates low, if that also results in low economic growth, will mean reduced revenue for the government and increased deficits even as government expenditures are reduced. It’s a downward spiral.
To me, increased government spending -- if carefully planned and carefully monitored to minimize waste and fraud -- is the way to avoid both the vicious circle and the downward spiral. If the federal government (and state governments as well, for that matter) invests in public works -- primarily infrastructure improvement -- it can put hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of unemployed people to work. And unlike unemployment benefits, these projects would be producing things that would benefit the country for the next half-century or longer. Think “Hoover Dam.” Think “National Park System.” Think “Golden Gate Bridge.”
It’s a no-brainer:
1) We have millions of unemployed, ready and willing to start work.
2) Interest rates are at hitoric lows, so money borrowed for large projects would be cheaper than at any other time.
3) Our infrastructure needs are huge. Thousands of bridges need replacement or major repairs. Streets and highways are crumbling. Rail lines need to be improved or expanded. Our electric grid is a nineteenth-crntury patchwork. National parks are poorly maintained, in spite of -- and because of -- record crowds. Alternative energy -- solar generators and wind turbines -- needs a massive boost to start to free us from dependence on foreign oil. Work on any or all of these areas would provide benefits for the next fifty years.
And look at the cascade of benefits. Millions of formerly unemployed workers will be drawing paychecks. As they spend money -- first on debts and necessities and then on luxuries -- businesses can now afford to grow, putting even more people back to work. As more individuals and businesses pay more in taxes, federal (and state) revenues grow, and the federal deficit can be reduced and eventually eliminated.
But they differed, of course, on how that should be done. If I understand Burr and his Republican colleagues, government should reduce taxes and offer other incentives to business in order to encourage businesses to hire more workers. (Tell me if I am misconstruing their position.)
Unfortunately, this approach involves a vicious circle: Imagine that you are a business owner. You want to hire more people. But you can add employees only when your products are selling well, so well that your existing staff cannot keep up with the orders coming in. Then, when you foresee a continued high demand for your products, of course you will increase your payroll.
And why will your products sell better? They will sell better only because lots of unemployed people have gotten jobs and now have money to spend. In other words, people will buy your products only because you and thousands of other business owners have hired those people. People will buy things because they have jobs; they’ll have jobs only because people are buying things.
Are you, Mr. Small Business Owner, going to stick your neck out and hire, before demand for your products has increased? I think not. Will reduced taxes cause you to hire before demand increases? I think not.
Republicans oppose more government spending, thinking that more spending will mean more taxes, and taxes reduce the economic growth that will come if individuals and businesses keep more of their money. But if the scenario I’ve described above is correct -- and experience seems to confirm it -- then keeping tax rates low, if that also results in low economic growth, will mean reduced revenue for the government and increased deficits even as government expenditures are reduced. It’s a downward spiral.
To me, increased government spending -- if carefully planned and carefully monitored to minimize waste and fraud -- is the way to avoid both the vicious circle and the downward spiral. If the federal government (and state governments as well, for that matter) invests in public works -- primarily infrastructure improvement -- it can put hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of unemployed people to work. And unlike unemployment benefits, these projects would be producing things that would benefit the country for the next half-century or longer. Think “Hoover Dam.” Think “National Park System.” Think “Golden Gate Bridge.”
It’s a no-brainer:
1) We have millions of unemployed, ready and willing to start work.
2) Interest rates are at hitoric lows, so money borrowed for large projects would be cheaper than at any other time.
3) Our infrastructure needs are huge. Thousands of bridges need replacement or major repairs. Streets and highways are crumbling. Rail lines need to be improved or expanded. Our electric grid is a nineteenth-crntury patchwork. National parks are poorly maintained, in spite of -- and because of -- record crowds. Alternative energy -- solar generators and wind turbines -- needs a massive boost to start to free us from dependence on foreign oil. Work on any or all of these areas would provide benefits for the next fifty years.
And look at the cascade of benefits. Millions of formerly unemployed workers will be drawing paychecks. As they spend money -- first on debts and necessities and then on luxuries -- businesses can now afford to grow, putting even more people back to work. As more individuals and businesses pay more in taxes, federal (and state) revenues grow, and the federal deficit can be reduced and eventually eliminated.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Is Obama a Socialist?
Before we get mired down in arguments about what is or isn't "socialist," let's look at a basic difference in how people look at the relationship of individuals to society and vice-versa.
One basic principle, not a bad one in its intention, is that we should earn everything we get. If we find ourselves helpless, broke, sick, homeless, it's because we didn't plan well enough or work hard enough. The moral implication is that if society is properly structured, virtue -- hard work -- will be rewarded, and vice -- waste, laziness -- will be punished. Who can quarrel with that?
And in normal situations this is a good way to run things. If you work harder, you should earn more. And if you choose to be lazy or to squander your money on gambling or liquor or worse things, it's only fair that you should eventually be poor and miserable.
But what about disasters that we did not bring upon ourselves? What about droughts and famines and forest fires and floods? What about cancer and other devastating diseases not caused by our own stupidity? What about steady workers suddenly thrown out of work?
If you agree that such things happen, then you have to acknowledge that almost all of us could at some time find ourselves in a difficult situation which we did not cause and which we cannot fix by ourselves.
Here is where, for most of us, another principle applies: As a society, we all have a responsibility to care for others, and we all have a right to expect the help of others when disasters strike. Or, as the Bible says, "Do unto others," and "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me."
Unfortunately what I seem to be hearing from some politicians (and others) is a rejection of this second principle. "Cut welfare, cut Social Security, cut food stamps, eliminate Medicaid, reduce unemployment benefits," the litany goes on and on. The usual justification for this position is an unwillingness to support lazy bums who don't want to work.
But I think even most bleeding-heart liberals share that unwillingness. And we know that there are abuses of every system that doles out money -- there are always people (and not just poor people) who look for ways to con the system. So let's agree: Every money-spending system needs screening, controls, checks and balances, audits, investigations, and ultimately prosecutions of violators.
That being said, there are needy people, generally people who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives (or people with legitimate disabilities that have prevented them from doing so). And we as a society, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I," have a responsibility (which in the long run may turn out to be enlightened self-interest) to help those in need.
So is this "socialism"? Perhaps. But Obama did not invent it. He has simply seen -- and seeks to enlarge -- this principle of helping the needy as a guiding principle of our caring society, manifested over the past seventy years as Social Security and the more recent Medicare and Medicaid
One basic principle, not a bad one in its intention, is that we should earn everything we get. If we find ourselves helpless, broke, sick, homeless, it's because we didn't plan well enough or work hard enough. The moral implication is that if society is properly structured, virtue -- hard work -- will be rewarded, and vice -- waste, laziness -- will be punished. Who can quarrel with that?
And in normal situations this is a good way to run things. If you work harder, you should earn more. And if you choose to be lazy or to squander your money on gambling or liquor or worse things, it's only fair that you should eventually be poor and miserable.
But what about disasters that we did not bring upon ourselves? What about droughts and famines and forest fires and floods? What about cancer and other devastating diseases not caused by our own stupidity? What about steady workers suddenly thrown out of work?
If you agree that such things happen, then you have to acknowledge that almost all of us could at some time find ourselves in a difficult situation which we did not cause and which we cannot fix by ourselves.
Here is where, for most of us, another principle applies: As a society, we all have a responsibility to care for others, and we all have a right to expect the help of others when disasters strike. Or, as the Bible says, "Do unto others," and "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me."
Unfortunately what I seem to be hearing from some politicians (and others) is a rejection of this second principle. "Cut welfare, cut Social Security, cut food stamps, eliminate Medicaid, reduce unemployment benefits," the litany goes on and on. The usual justification for this position is an unwillingness to support lazy bums who don't want to work.
But I think even most bleeding-heart liberals share that unwillingness. And we know that there are abuses of every system that doles out money -- there are always people (and not just poor people) who look for ways to con the system. So let's agree: Every money-spending system needs screening, controls, checks and balances, audits, investigations, and ultimately prosecutions of violators.
That being said, there are needy people, generally people who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives (or people with legitimate disabilities that have prevented them from doing so). And we as a society, recognizing that "there but for the grace of God go I," have a responsibility (which in the long run may turn out to be enlightened self-interest) to help those in need.
So is this "socialism"? Perhaps. But Obama did not invent it. He has simply seen -- and seeks to enlarge -- this principle of helping the needy as a guiding principle of our caring society, manifested over the past seventy years as Social Security and the more recent Medicare and Medicaid
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Gays in the Military--What's the Problem?
The long-festering issue of gays in the military has again surfaced. And I still haven’t heard anyone explain in simple direct language what the issue is. I can imagine several fears, which get expressed as issues:
One is that some straights (I suspect those with fears of their own possible latent homosexuality) are simply uncomfortable being around gays.
Another is the fear that straight guys will be assaulted by gays in their beds or in the shower.
Another -- perhaps the one behind the resistance by some congressmen -- is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin, and we shouldn’t place these sinners side by side with our virtuous straight men in the military.
And the final one I can think of is the fear of the “homosexual agenda” -- the belief, related to the point above, that homosexuality is a (sinful) choice, and that homosexuals are trying to “convert” straights to be homosexuals.
These last two are matters of ideology, unsupported by any of the research on homosexuality. Medical science is emphatic that homosexuality is a condition, not a choice. And there is no evidence that homosexuals could, or would want to, “convert” others to homosexuality. In my experience, homosexuals want just two things: fair and equal treatment and acceptance, and, perhaps, the freedom to speak to encourage latent or “closet” homosexuals to accept their own homosexuality (which is not at all the same as trying to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals).
As for the first item, I think that is much the sort of thing that was said when the question of racial integration of the military was first considered: “Our boys wouldn’t feel comfortable having to associate with colored soldiers on an equal basis.” I’d say, “Get over it.”
What about the second item, fear of being assaulted by a gay guy in bed or in the shower? How about putting that to a scientific test? It should be fairly easy on a statistical basis. There are some reputable estimates of the number of gays currently in the military under the present “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And there are specific numbers of gays who have been discharged from the military since that policy was imposed.
I assume that if any of those gays were discharged for making homosexual attacks or advances on straight guys, that fact would be documented. And of all the gays currently serving without being identified as gays, they presumably have not attacked or made advances toward straight guys -- or they would have been discharged.
So where are the numbers? How big a problem is this? I suspect that the facts would make clear that it is a vanishingly small problem. All the news reports I have read on the subject mention gays (something like 1300 in the past year, 12,000 in the last fifteen years or so) who were discharged either because they themselves admitted that they were gay or because someone else reported them -- but none of these reports that I have seen mention gays being reported for making advances toward straight guys. More likely it was because someone observed some sort of sexual contact between two gays, or -- who knows? -- overheard a sexually explicit conversation between two gays.
I think it is fair to note that, according to published reports, a woman in the military has far more risk of sexual attack from a male in the military than a straight male does of an attack, or even an advance, by a homosexual in the military.
One is that some straights (I suspect those with fears of their own possible latent homosexuality) are simply uncomfortable being around gays.
Another is the fear that straight guys will be assaulted by gays in their beds or in the shower.
Another -- perhaps the one behind the resistance by some congressmen -- is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin, and we shouldn’t place these sinners side by side with our virtuous straight men in the military.
And the final one I can think of is the fear of the “homosexual agenda” -- the belief, related to the point above, that homosexuality is a (sinful) choice, and that homosexuals are trying to “convert” straights to be homosexuals.
These last two are matters of ideology, unsupported by any of the research on homosexuality. Medical science is emphatic that homosexuality is a condition, not a choice. And there is no evidence that homosexuals could, or would want to, “convert” others to homosexuality. In my experience, homosexuals want just two things: fair and equal treatment and acceptance, and, perhaps, the freedom to speak to encourage latent or “closet” homosexuals to accept their own homosexuality (which is not at all the same as trying to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals).
As for the first item, I think that is much the sort of thing that was said when the question of racial integration of the military was first considered: “Our boys wouldn’t feel comfortable having to associate with colored soldiers on an equal basis.” I’d say, “Get over it.”
What about the second item, fear of being assaulted by a gay guy in bed or in the shower? How about putting that to a scientific test? It should be fairly easy on a statistical basis. There are some reputable estimates of the number of gays currently in the military under the present “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And there are specific numbers of gays who have been discharged from the military since that policy was imposed.
I assume that if any of those gays were discharged for making homosexual attacks or advances on straight guys, that fact would be documented. And of all the gays currently serving without being identified as gays, they presumably have not attacked or made advances toward straight guys -- or they would have been discharged.
So where are the numbers? How big a problem is this? I suspect that the facts would make clear that it is a vanishingly small problem. All the news reports I have read on the subject mention gays (something like 1300 in the past year, 12,000 in the last fifteen years or so) who were discharged either because they themselves admitted that they were gay or because someone else reported them -- but none of these reports that I have seen mention gays being reported for making advances toward straight guys. More likely it was because someone observed some sort of sexual contact between two gays, or -- who knows? -- overheard a sexually explicit conversation between two gays.
I think it is fair to note that, according to published reports, a woman in the military has far more risk of sexual attack from a male in the military than a straight male does of an attack, or even an advance, by a homosexual in the military.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sarah Tucker, a Remarkable Woman -- In Memoriam
Kay and I drove on Thursday from our home in Durham to a funeral in Charlotte, the funeral of an amazing woman I had known for forty-five years (though I didn't realize fully how amazing she was until I heard the testimonials at the funeral).
Here's how I got to know Sarah Tucker:
In the mid-sixties I spent four years as the program director for an ambitious project in a low-income school in Charlotte. The mandate of the program was to select the most promising seventh-graders in six successive classes, work with them in a variety of ways, and prepare them for college. (I've written in more detail about this elsewhere.)
Carlene was one of that first group, and I soon got to know her mother, Sarah. I learned that Sarah was young (just six years older than I) and had been widowed for several years. She had seven small children and no job skills, not even a high school diploma. She was working as a domestic. Realizing that she could not earn enough to provide adequately for her children, she completed her GED and took a secretarial course, which prepared her for a higher-paying job. Then, a couple of years later, having somehow discovered what she really wanted to do, she went back to school again for nursing training, and got into the field she worked in for the rest of her working career. And of course she had to get all this schooling evenings and whenever she wasn't out earning a living.
This was potentially a recipe for disaster for her children -- seven kids at home, no adult supervision, all kinds of attractive trouble outside the home.
But it didn't happen. In a community where half the kids dropped out of school and many got in trouble with the law, every one of her children graduated. Why? She was both loving and firm. She let her kids know that she loved them and had confidence in their worth and their ability. And she laid down the law: "You will go to school every day. You will do your best in school. And you will graduate from high school." I'm not sure if she ever spelled out what she would do if any of the kids broke any of these rules, but I'm sure none of them ever wanted to find out.
So all seven graduated. Most went to college. Two became ministers. One completed a doctorate and became a clinical psychologist. And in later years -- as I learned at the funeral -- when several grandchildren were in danger of getting themselves into serious trouble and ruining their futures, they at various times came to stay with Grandma for a number of months. And they responded to her mix of praise ande support and confidence-boosting, and they turned their lives around -- as they emphatically and emotionally told the two hundred mourners at the funeral.
Here's how I got to know Sarah Tucker:
In the mid-sixties I spent four years as the program director for an ambitious project in a low-income school in Charlotte. The mandate of the program was to select the most promising seventh-graders in six successive classes, work with them in a variety of ways, and prepare them for college. (I've written in more detail about this elsewhere.)
Carlene was one of that first group, and I soon got to know her mother, Sarah. I learned that Sarah was young (just six years older than I) and had been widowed for several years. She had seven small children and no job skills, not even a high school diploma. She was working as a domestic. Realizing that she could not earn enough to provide adequately for her children, she completed her GED and took a secretarial course, which prepared her for a higher-paying job. Then, a couple of years later, having somehow discovered what she really wanted to do, she went back to school again for nursing training, and got into the field she worked in for the rest of her working career. And of course she had to get all this schooling evenings and whenever she wasn't out earning a living.
This was potentially a recipe for disaster for her children -- seven kids at home, no adult supervision, all kinds of attractive trouble outside the home.
But it didn't happen. In a community where half the kids dropped out of school and many got in trouble with the law, every one of her children graduated. Why? She was both loving and firm. She let her kids know that she loved them and had confidence in their worth and their ability. And she laid down the law: "You will go to school every day. You will do your best in school. And you will graduate from high school." I'm not sure if she ever spelled out what she would do if any of the kids broke any of these rules, but I'm sure none of them ever wanted to find out.
So all seven graduated. Most went to college. Two became ministers. One completed a doctorate and became a clinical psychologist. And in later years -- as I learned at the funeral -- when several grandchildren were in danger of getting themselves into serious trouble and ruining their futures, they at various times came to stay with Grandma for a number of months. And they responded to her mix of praise ande support and confidence-boosting, and they turned their lives around -- as they emphatically and emotionally told the two hundred mourners at the funeral.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Restore the Economy by Jobs and Education
All predictions say that even though the recession is technically over, unemployment will decline only slowly and over several years. Since -- as has been pointed out -- 10% of the population controls some 90% of the investment market, that 10% may be quite comfortable with the status quo, but for the other 90% of us the situation is at least worrisome and, for the 10% who are jobless, the outlook is just plain bleak.
It may be necessary to continue to pump money into Wall Street and big corporations and the like, but none of this has much immediate effect on the jobless.
There has been talk about job creation, but I have heard little emanating from Washington that sounds as though it will do much anytime soon, and what I've heard doesn't sound like a comprehensive coherent plan.
Here's my proposal:
First, some self-evident facts:
1) We are going to have to subsidize the unemployed for a long time.
2) The unemployed, for the most part, have lots of available time.
3) There is much work that needs doing in this country, including a) building/repairing/ upgrading facilities in national, state, and local parks and other public facilities; improving streets, highways, and bridges; building mass-transit (train, streetcar, and bus) roadbeds and rolling stock; c) upgrading the electric grid and transmission facilities; d) developing, manufacturing, and installing alternative power equipment -- solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
4) We are going to need more, and more highly trained, workers for a vast range of technologically advanced fields in the future: alternative power, medical technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and many others.
I would put all these indisputable facts together in this way:
Instead of just providing unemployment checks, let's offer most recipients two alternatives:
1) You can go back to school to learn some advanced skills. Government will put lots more money into paying stipends to those who want to improve their skills -- and perhaps the stipends will be bigger than the unemployment schecks. And while several million unemployed ate back in school, hundreds of thousands of teachers (who might be unemployed scientists and engineers) will also be given employment. And when the recession is truly over, and jobs are again plentiful, there will be a large workforce available of people with new high-tech skills.
2) Or you can move into any of a range of WPA or CCC type jobs: The government will pay wages for people who are available for relatively low-skill jobs improving the nation's infrastructure and public facilities. Many state and local governments have lists of "shovel-ready" jobs, some of which are already being done with stimulus finds. (Or if private companies need a boost to do many of the tasks suggested in (3) above, government might supplement wages, sort of like older OJT -- on-the-job-training -- programs.)
The advantages of this approach to the unemployment situation should be clear. Roughly the same amount of money would be spent, but this way it would produce improvements to the nation's infrastructure and facilities, and it would train a workforce for future jobs.
It may be necessary to continue to pump money into Wall Street and big corporations and the like, but none of this has much immediate effect on the jobless.
There has been talk about job creation, but I have heard little emanating from Washington that sounds as though it will do much anytime soon, and what I've heard doesn't sound like a comprehensive coherent plan.
Here's my proposal:
First, some self-evident facts:
1) We are going to have to subsidize the unemployed for a long time.
2) The unemployed, for the most part, have lots of available time.
3) There is much work that needs doing in this country, including a) building/repairing/ upgrading facilities in national, state, and local parks and other public facilities; improving streets, highways, and bridges; building mass-transit (train, streetcar, and bus) roadbeds and rolling stock; c) upgrading the electric grid and transmission facilities; d) developing, manufacturing, and installing alternative power equipment -- solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
4) We are going to need more, and more highly trained, workers for a vast range of technologically advanced fields in the future: alternative power, medical technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and many others.
I would put all these indisputable facts together in this way:
Instead of just providing unemployment checks, let's offer most recipients two alternatives:
1) You can go back to school to learn some advanced skills. Government will put lots more money into paying stipends to those who want to improve their skills -- and perhaps the stipends will be bigger than the unemployment schecks. And while several million unemployed ate back in school, hundreds of thousands of teachers (who might be unemployed scientists and engineers) will also be given employment. And when the recession is truly over, and jobs are again plentiful, there will be a large workforce available of people with new high-tech skills.
2) Or you can move into any of a range of WPA or CCC type jobs: The government will pay wages for people who are available for relatively low-skill jobs improving the nation's infrastructure and public facilities. Many state and local governments have lists of "shovel-ready" jobs, some of which are already being done with stimulus finds. (Or if private companies need a boost to do many of the tasks suggested in (3) above, government might supplement wages, sort of like older OJT -- on-the-job-training -- programs.)
The advantages of this approach to the unemployment situation should be clear. Roughly the same amount of money would be spent, but this way it would produce improvements to the nation's infrastructure and facilities, and it would train a workforce for future jobs.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Bill O'Reilly -- Secrets of Success
I've just read most of a new book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," by right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly (I hope that's the right way to characterize him). The book was given to me by my very right-wing father-in-law, perhaps with the hope that it would help to straighten out my thinking.
Interestingly, I agreed with many of Bill's beliefs -- in justice and fair play, for instance.
But as I read on (and on and on), I realized what Bill's blind spot was. His implicit (and sometimes explicit) argument throughout this childhood-memoir-as-polemic is: "I didn't start out with any advantages, and I made it, so anyone can." He often compares himself with his classmates at various educational levels, classmates who came from wealthy and socially prominent families. He harps on the fact that he had none of their advantages going for him.
Ergo, he's saying, any kid from the slums, any kid from a broken family, any abused child of alcoholic or drug-using parents, has no excuse for not striving and becoming a success.
So where's the blind spot? Right here: Again and again, Bill tells of his somewhat cold and unsympathetic father, who, when Bill came crying to him about some mistreatment at the hands of other kids, would tell him, "Don't come crying to me. Get out there and fix it yourself." And he talks about the nuns at the parochial schools where he got his early education -- they were tough, and their educational and disciplinary techniques may have been questionable, but they set tough standards and demanded that kids live up to them.
(It's a little ironic that as Bill talks about his first teaching job in Florida, he criticizes most of his fellow teachers for failing to set up the sorts of expectations he sets up for his students; he feels that most of the faculty disliked him as much as he disliked them, because he was willing to be tough and they weren't. But he fails to recognize that the majority of students have missed out on something he had and which he as a teacher was trying to instill.)
So Bill, even if he lacked material advantages, had the indispensable advantages of self-reliance, self-confidence, discipline, and high standards. And, though he can claim credit for retaining and using these characteristics, he cannot claim to have invented or discovered them on his own. In his life were some powerful influences -- without which he would almost certainly have amounted to nothing.
The moral: It's not, as Bill accuses liberals of, to coddle criminals and bums because they didn't have the advantages. It's not to overlook criminality and laziness. No. But our moral obligation is to do everything in our power -- as individuals and and as a society -- to create learning environments (and to improve parenting) so that every young person acquires values -- and motivation -- similar to that which inspired Bill O'Reilly to strive, to compete, and to succeed in life.
Interestingly, I agreed with many of Bill's beliefs -- in justice and fair play, for instance.
But as I read on (and on and on), I realized what Bill's blind spot was. His implicit (and sometimes explicit) argument throughout this childhood-memoir-as-polemic is: "I didn't start out with any advantages, and I made it, so anyone can." He often compares himself with his classmates at various educational levels, classmates who came from wealthy and socially prominent families. He harps on the fact that he had none of their advantages going for him.
Ergo, he's saying, any kid from the slums, any kid from a broken family, any abused child of alcoholic or drug-using parents, has no excuse for not striving and becoming a success.
So where's the blind spot? Right here: Again and again, Bill tells of his somewhat cold and unsympathetic father, who, when Bill came crying to him about some mistreatment at the hands of other kids, would tell him, "Don't come crying to me. Get out there and fix it yourself." And he talks about the nuns at the parochial schools where he got his early education -- they were tough, and their educational and disciplinary techniques may have been questionable, but they set tough standards and demanded that kids live up to them.
(It's a little ironic that as Bill talks about his first teaching job in Florida, he criticizes most of his fellow teachers for failing to set up the sorts of expectations he sets up for his students; he feels that most of the faculty disliked him as much as he disliked them, because he was willing to be tough and they weren't. But he fails to recognize that the majority of students have missed out on something he had and which he as a teacher was trying to instill.)
So Bill, even if he lacked material advantages, had the indispensable advantages of self-reliance, self-confidence, discipline, and high standards. And, though he can claim credit for retaining and using these characteristics, he cannot claim to have invented or discovered them on his own. In his life were some powerful influences -- without which he would almost certainly have amounted to nothing.
The moral: It's not, as Bill accuses liberals of, to coddle criminals and bums because they didn't have the advantages. It's not to overlook criminality and laziness. No. But our moral obligation is to do everything in our power -- as individuals and and as a society -- to create learning environments (and to improve parenting) so that every young person acquires values -- and motivation -- similar to that which inspired Bill O'Reilly to strive, to compete, and to succeed in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)