More Aquanomics?

Her name is Rio and she dances in the sand                                                     Just like that river twisting through a dusty land   Duran Duran

In my post Aquanomics?, I invited you to wade with me into the swamp that is the current state of the American economy. Well, I’d sure like to be able to say that the water was fine, so let’s dive in again, but that might be somewhat less than accurate. And I certainly don’t want to throw a wet rag on anyone’s belief that everything that you read on the internet is 100% true, so let’s just go with “Hey, I like to swim, and if the water is filled with leeches, I’ll just have to deal with it,” and leave it at that. (Economic leeches? Say it ain’t so.)

This time, I thought I would really go off the deep end, and drown in a subject that almost everyone agrees is all wet. Yes, I’m talking about trickle-down economics. In my earlier post, I said that didn’t claim to possess any mastery of grand economic theory, and that hasn’t changed. But nor do I believe that I have forgotten all of the simple facts of life that relate to how things work in the natural world. So let’s start with that.

High in the Rockies of Southern Colorado (Canby Mountain, to be precise), the winter snows melt, and cold water trickles down the slope. These drops join with other ex-snowflakes to form small streams, which combine with other rivulets and soon become what is known as the Rio Grande. (For any readers who happen to be too xenophobic to have learned a few words of simple Spanish, the words “rio grande” literally translate as “river large,” or in normal English syntax, “big river.” But then, those people have no idea what “xenophobic” means, so why do I bother to explain?) For 1,896 miles, this water flows out of Colorado, through New Mexico, between the state of Texas and the nation of Mexico, until it reaches the Gulf Coast somewhere between Brownsville and Matamoros.

Except that it doesn’t. On average, 80% of the natural water in the Rio Grande never makes it to the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the flow sometimes becomes so small that someone could walk into the United States from Mexico while keeping his feet, not to mention his back, dry. (Talk about a xenophobe’s nightmare!) So what happens to all of that water that was in the Big River? Where did it go? Did it soak into the ground? Did it just evaporate?

Simple Fact of Life: Water doesn’t trickle beyond the point where someone drinks it.

The reason that so little water reaches the mouth of the Rio Grande is that long before it gets there, most of it is used by people along the way. The melted snow from the Rocky Mountains has turned a naturally dusty part of North America into an area of abundant agricultural production. Of course, there is a price for that. The folks downstream can’t water their lawns. There’s never enough of anything for everybody to have everything they want.

So, how does this relate to supply side economics? I know what you’re thinking. Those upstream farmers who use the water are a perfect metaphor for the evil banksters and corporate greed-heads who take all of the wealth for themselves, with no regard for the plight of the thirsty masses downstream. Sure, I see your point, dead wrong though it may be. It seems to me that the farmers represent (and in fact often are) small businesses who go out and get what wealth they can, and use it to create new wealth, to the ultimate benefit of everyone. Even a nicely watered lawn is not a good place to starve. There is no good place to be hungry, which we all would be if not for the farmers.

But, you say, that doesn’t quench the thirst of the people camped next to the dry river bed. No, it doesn’t. For those poor individuals, I can offer only one simple piece of advice. Move upstream. If there is no water where you are, you need to go to where the water is. If it really bothers you that the farmers are using all the water, then you use it before it gets to them. Please, just use it wisely. But the whole point of this is: if you wait for the water to trickle down to the desert you are sitting in, you will be thirsty; if you wait for the wealth to trickle down to the sidewalk you’re occupying, or the couch where you sit with your Playstation, you will be poor. If you want more than you have, then you need to go get it. Simple fact of life.

Now, where do the banks and big businesses fit into this Waterworld? I think that they are best represented by the dams that I see on my frequent drives along the Columbia (a truly “Grande”) River. These massive structures control vast amounts of water, just as the banks control vast amounts of money. So, why are those dams there? What do they do? For one thing, the water stored behind them creates large lakes, which are a boon to local sportsmen. Sort of like the banks create large pools of cash, a boon to local bankers. But those are side effects, not the real purpose. What the dams do that is useful is to allow the water to pass through them. That does several things. First, it generates a huge amount of clean, low-cost electricity. Second, by allowing water to flow into and out of locks, rivers that contain natural areas of rapids become navigable waterways. In fact, because of those dams and locks, immense quantities of goods can be transported at low cost in large barges on the Columbia/Snake Rivers from the Pacific Ocean all the way to Lewiston, Idaho. And, of course, dams can help to keep the water flowing downriver at a more or less constant rate, lessening the chances for flooding. But for all these functions, the water does no good when gathered behind the dam, just as money does no good when sitting in a bank vault. Water only creates wealth when it is allowed to pass through the dam, and into the river. Money only creates wealth when it is allowed to pass through the bank, and into the economy.

Getting wrinkled. Time to dry off.

A Salt’s Thoughts on Assault Weapons

We must protect our children. Let’s ban assault weapons. We must protect viewers of the latest “Batman” movie. Let’s ban assault weapons. We must save ourselves from ourselves. I know, let’s just ban assault weapons. Well, sure, every sane person (and also me) wants children to be as safe as possible. And in a theater, blood and guts are fine on the screen. On my shirt, not so fine. But before we all board the bus to the land of perfect happiness and security, might I be allowed to ask (visualize raised hand) one rather silly question? What, exactly, is an assault weapon?

I suppose that if you’re one of those literate types, you could grab your dictionary and look up the words “assault” and “weapon.” You would then conclude that an assault weapon is something used as a weapon during the course of an assault. So it could be a rock, a chair, a car, or just about anything capable of being used to inflict bodily harm. But seriously, we all know that’s not what we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about assault rifles. Except that we’re not. Assault rifles, such as the M-16 and the AK-47, are military-style guns that can fire high-velocity rounds in a fully automatic mode. A more powerful version of a sub-machine gun. These sorts of weapons have been illegal since, well, for practical purposes, forever. And I don’t seem to recall hearing about even the NRA calling for that prohibition to be lifted. The so-called “assault weapons” that are at issue are guns such as the AR-15, which have some features in common with real assault rifles. Things like pistol grips, detachable magazines, and folding stocks. In other words, guns that look “scary.”

Simple Fact of Life #1: No gun looks scary when laying on a table; any gun looks scary when in the hands of an evil person.

I find it hard to believe that the M-16 was designed as it was so that it could look formidable. More likely that the appearance was the result of considerations of practical functionality. It had to be lightweight, easy to carry, simple to fire accurately, etc. You know, the same sort of considerations that go into the design of a civilian gun. Do you think maybe that’s why many sporting guns look a lot like military weapons? Because it’s a practical design? All guns are, after all, built to be used for the same purpose, to put a bullet in the intended target.

But why, you ask, would any civilian need a rifle that can rapidly fire 15 rounds without having to reload? Well, I see your point. That doesn’t seem to be very practical. Particularly if there are 16 people in that mob that’s storming your house.

Simple Fact of Life #2: The police are not responsible for your safety, you are.

It should not be up to the government to decide for you what you need to have in order to feel secure in your home. Now, I can think of a whole lot of reasons to not keep a gun in your house. I can also think of many reasons why you might want to. But that needs to be your choice. Whether to have a gun, or guns, or what type of gun. Your responsibility. Keeping those guns secure, how they are used is also your responsibility. But ask any cop what his job is. He’ll tell you that it’s to enforce the laws. Sure, he’d like to be able to protect you from all the nefarious evildoers out there, but that’s not possible. The police can’t be everywhere all the time. Would you really want them to be? The protection comes from the deterrence of crime that law enforcement provides. Just one little problem with that:

Simple Fact of Life #3: Laws don’t apply to outlaws. That’s why they’re called outlaws.

When you think about it, all compliance with all laws is strictly voluntary. If someone: a) believes he will not get caught, and can get away with breaking the law, or, b) is unconcerned with the consequences if he does get caught, then the laws simply don’t apply to that person. You see it every day. People drive a few miles per hour over the speed limit, thinking that the cops have better things to do than worry about them. And if they do happen to get pulled over, well, they’ll just pay the ticket and get on with their lives. Laws don’t apply to outlaws. While the percentage of the populace that volunteers to abide by the laws against shooting up a school is considerably higher than of those who never speed, the principle is the same. An outlaw can’t be deterred.

So what, exactly, is the point of banning those so-called assault weapons? To keep them out of the hands of those people who have volunteered to not shoot up a classroom? The bad guys aren’t going to turn in their guns. The old saying is “If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.” Is that what you want? To deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves? To turn conscientious gun owners into outlaws? By-the-by, if you’re sick enough to want to waste a room full of kids, and you don’t care what happens to you, then you don’t need an assault weapon, or any gun for that matter. A jug of gasoline, a piece of tape, and a book of matches will get the job done. Evil people will find a way to be evil. Outlaws will find a way to break the law.

A final thought about deterring outlaws. The best way to do that is to not give them what they want. In the cases of these mass shooters, they didn’t seem to have a beef with the people that they shot. So they must have wanted something else. It seems that they were trying to make some kind of statement. So why let them? Every time something like this happens, what do we see? The news media reports every detail of the shooter’s life, his family history, and his possible motivation. He gets what he wanted in the first place, and, of course, he doesn’t care about the later consequences. So here’s a suggestion: the next time it happens, the coverage should consist of “Some a**h**e shot up a school.” Period. Maybe talk a little, but not too much about the victims, but make the outlaw a non-person. Take away the motivation from the next sicko. But then there’s always

Simple Fact of Life #4: That will never happen in today’s media.

Listen to Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry.”

Hail Caesar? (Part Two)

“All Gaul is divided into three parts”  Julius Caesar

In my last post, Hail Caesar?, I wrote about a phenomenon known to some as “empire building,” in which people try to increase their stature in an organization by making themselves appear to be more valuable than they really are. So what does this have to do with the geography of ancient France? Well, I don’t know about Gaul, but if you observe the would-be emperor in his glory, you will likely notice a lot of gall. You don’t like to be around him, but you’re stuck with him.

The earlier post primarily dealt with empire building as it relates to government bureaucracies, which I believe provide the most hospitable environment for that type of fungus to thrive, and I only made passing reference to the private sector. But those mushrooms can grow in any forest, and here in part two I will discuss a type of empire building that does not lend itself to civil service as well as it does to private business. If I should happen to think of a third aspect, then the title will be really easy to come up with, and I can even use the same quote at the top of the page.

At my job, I find myself having to deal with some seemingly pretty useless paperwork. I can see what the intent was in killing all those trees, but I have a hard time understanding why people expend all the energy that they do worrying about it. So I have come to the conclusion that there must be some Caesar wannabe lurking about somewhere. Not sure who he is, or how he got there, but I do have a theory. I can’t help but think that this could be a manifestation of what I call “Idiot Nephew Syndrome.” To illustrate what this is, I have, in the immortal words of Rod Serling, “Submitted for your approval:”

The Nephew

A play in (much less than) one act
by QMC, USN (Ret)

Dramatis personae:

Mark   Proconsul (for you non-Romans, that means “big shot”) at Seven Hills, Inc.

Cleo     Middle-aged younger sister of Mark

The scene:

The stage is divided into two sets, with darkness between. Stage left is a suburban kitchen. Stage right is a corporate office. As the curtain rises, Cleo is sitting at the kitchen table, phone to her ear. Mark is at the desk in the office. Mark’s phone rings, he answers it.

Mark:  Hello, this is Mark speaking.

Cleo:    Hello, Mark. This is Cleo.

Mark:   Cleo! Well hello. How’s everything going?

Cleo:    (Looking nervous) Okay, but, well, you know I hate to ask for favors, but, well, you know my son Claudius?

Mark:   (Looking annoyed) Yes, Cleo. I know Claude. What has that worthless moron done this time?

Cleo:    He hasn’t done anything. And that’s why I’m calling. You see, I’ve been wanting to turn my basement into a sewing room. But I really can’t do that as long as Claude is living there. So I was thinking … maybe … Do you think that you could give him a job so he can move out?

Mark:   Well, I don’t know. I’m just not sure what …

Cleo:    Oh please, Mark. You know he turned thirty last month, and there aren’t any liberal arts classes left at the community college that he hasn’t taken at least once. I just have to get him out of my house! Please!

Mark:   Let’s see. What if? … Maybe I could … I’m trying to think of something … Well, maybe …

Cleo:    But you know, it can’t be anything menial. I mean, I know that he doesn’t have any fancy degrees or anything, but he has more or less been going to college for the last twelve years. I don’t thing that I’ll be able to get him to crawl out of bed for some low-level thing. It needs to be something that will make him believe that he’s as important as he thinks he is.

Mark:   Yes, I was kind of thinking about that myself. Okay, wait … what if … just a second … yeah, that’s it. I can …

Cleo:    You have something for him?

Mark:   Yes, Cleo, I believe that I do. I can make him my “Executive Supervisor of Administrative Compliance.” Think Claude will go for that?

Cleo:    Ooo! That sounds important. It also sounds complicated. Do you really think that Claude can do that job?

Mark:   A chimpanzee could do that job. You see, the only thing that he would really have to do is look at a bunch of pieces of paper and make sure that there is a check mark in every box, and an initial on every line. If the paper is filled out okay, Claude gives it to a secretary who will file it away, never to be looked at again. If there’s a check mark or something missing, the paper goes back to who it came from, to be completed, sent back to Claude, and filed away, never to be looked at again. I do believe that even Claude could handle a job like that.

Cleo:    Wow! That sounds like a job for a complete idiot. It’s perfect!

Mark:   That’s what I thought. And you know, this could also be good for me. Yeah, I suppose that I’ll need to come up with a few more useless forms for Claude to look at, But that’s fine. You see, the big bosses love to know that there is lots of paperwork flying around, as long as they don’t have to read it. Gives them the illusion that something meaningful is going on. And when they see that I’m so concerned about quality control that I brought in a new expert, my standing at Seven Hills will rise. And since the job actually doesn’t mean anything, even Claude ought to have a hard time messing it up. I just have to find an office for him that’s so remote that the bosses will never be able to actually see Claude. Well, he is used to living in a basement, right?

Cleo:   Yes he is.  Okay, this is great. I’ll go downstairs and unplug Claude’s X-Box and send him to see you first thing in the morning. And while he’s gone I can find a cheap apartment to send his stuff to.

Mark:   Good. Oh, but make sure that before he shows up here, he gets those metal studs out of his face. And that purple stuff out of his hair.

Cleo:    I’ll pull those things out with pliers myself, if I have to. And hold his head in the washing machine, if that’s what it takes.

Mark:   Oh, and he’ll need a suit and tie. Does he have those?

Cleo:    Well, I’m pretty sure the the suit he wore at his high school graduation still fits. And it should be in good shape, seeing as how it hasn’t been worn in over a decade.

Mark:   That should be fine. After all, Claude only has to make it from the basement in your house to the basement in my office. So it’s settled.

Cleo:    Yes it is. Thank you so very much.

Mark:   No problem. So, you are coming over for Thanksgiving dinner, right?

Cleo:    Wouldn’t miss it.

Mark:   Wonderful! It will be great to see you. And don’t feel obligated to bring Claude with you.

Cleo:    I understand. One turkey in your house is enough.

Curtain

Followed, of course, by thunderous applause and chants of “Author, Author.” What, I can’t have a bit of a Caesar complex?

So there it is. The Proconsul has added another centurion to his legion, and made the Thanksgiving get-together a little less unpleasant. His sister has her sewing room. And young (well, not so young) Claudius has set out on a journey that will lead to … who knows? But I can tell you what he sees as he dozes at his desk, waiting for the next stack of meaningless paper to arrive. He sees himself in larger-than-life bronze, his body draped in a loose toga, the better to display his imaginary muscles. His head is adorned with golden leaves, instead of horn-rim glasses. He gazes across his empire, his jaw firmly set, his lips tight, to conceal any evidence of his buck teeth. All hail Claudius Maximus, Prince of Paperwork Perfection.

The only ones that don’t win in this situation are the plebian masses, who, upon filing, unwashed, into the Seven Hills Coliseum, daily find yet another reason to scratch their heads. Besides the fleas in their hair.

So how long will this empire stand. Beyond the next Ides of March? Oh, even after he screws up, and they hire the chimpanzee, don’t worry about Claude. He’ll be fine. He is now ensconced in the bureaucracy. They can find a place for him. I do believe that Seven Hills, Inc. has a branch office in Kabul.

Hail Caesar?

“A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”
President Ronald Reagan

As I sit to write this, the Ides of March have come, but not gone. Not sure what that has to do with anything, and it didn’t occur to me until after the seventh time that I made a final decision as to the title of this post. But, considering all of the knives held by supposed friends of this nation, who knows? On to more substantive matters.

In my Navy days, most of my sea duty time (which was most of my Navy days) was spent serving aboard aircraft carriers. Besides being awesome weapons systems and marvels of engineering, these ships are something else. Monstrous bureaucracies. With the ship’s crew organized into over a dozen departments, most having several divisions consisting of multiple work centers, it’s hard to fathom how this huge machine can function at all. And when you throw in the Air Wing, which, if memory serves, consisted of about eight squadrons, each with their own department and division structures, the whole thing would seem to my simple mind to be quite unmanageable. It’s a tribute to the skill and dedication of our sailors that these ships can get away from the pier, much less make it across thousands of miles of ocean and put a whole lot of bombs on target.

Now, I’m not sure how it is in today’s cyber-world, but in my day, making all this happen required something besides food, fuel, bombs, and, of course, swabs. (That’s mops to you land-lubbers.) It required a humongous mountain of paper. And upon this mountain flourished an activity that evolved to thrive in the swamp of bureaucracy. A phenomenon that came to be known as empire building. Not something that’s unique to government, but that seems to be its most hospitable environment. Here’s how it works:

Our budding young Caesar wants to stand out from the plebeians, so he sets out to funnel as much activity through himself as possible. Not that much of this flurry of activity involves anything that would meet the dictionary definition of work, rather it mostly means getting his grubby fingers on as many pieces of paper as he can. Doesn’t do much with the papers, barely reads what’s on them. Just passes them off to some plebe, or some other wannabe Nero. But in an outfit run by bean-counters and paper-pushers, he quickly becomes the indispensable man, the magnificent emperor of the manila envelope. Hail Caesar!

And now our new hero has all of the benefits due to one in so exalted a position. The life of leisure in his palace of a desk. The fastest chariot on the road to promotion. But also, of course, the scorn and ridicule of those milling around the forum in their tattered togas, waiting for the next round of bread and circuses. But hey, they don’t matter, they have no power. Only the position of his thumb determines who lives and who dies. It’s amazing how much power comes from being the one to decide when that scrap of paper moves the six inches from the “in” box to the “out” box.

Now, while this sort of thing is easiest to spot in government agencies, it’s lurking everywhere. Can you think of a Caesar in the place where you work? You know that you can.

Simple Fact of Life: You can pretty much count on people to do what is in their own personal interest.

I did, somewhat grudgingly, qualify that with a “pretty much.” There are the Mosther Teresas of the world. A few truly selfless, humble people. And among our soldiers, acts of selfless valor are more common than any of us wish that they needed to be. But seriously, how many of us believe that we would want to be the guy that threw himself on that grenade? (I’ve sometimes wondered if that would really work anyway. I would think that lying on that much explosive would tend to blow someone apart. So instead of being hit by flying shrapnel, his comrades would be hit by flying shrapnel, flying bones, and flying guts. Oh well, as anyone who has ever received a Christmas gift from me has heard, “Hey, it’s the thought that counts, right?” But I digress) Me, I guess I might be that guy if the grenade just happened to land at my feet, and I saw myself as dead anyway. But if I knew where and when it was coming, I suspect that my self interest might compel me to be a little, okay, a lot, too far away to be that guy.

And so it is with the Caligulas that “work” in America’s fastest growing industry, the government paper mill. No, the feds aren’t grinding up wood pulp. You know what I mean. From HHS with the “Affordable Care Act” (Can you say that with a straight face? I didn’t think so.), to Department of Education “standards” (another laugher), to the EPA with who knows what, to … how long do you want me to go on?, there are legions or rule-writers toiling to make that paper mountain reach to the sky. And always among them are the would-be emperors who know that their nearness tho the throne is determined by quantity of production, not quality. What gets you the purple toga and laurel headgear is not the ability to come up with good ideas, but the ability to come up with, and sell, lots of ideas. That’s where they find job security and promotion.

Let’s take one recent example of this sort of thing in action. The Department of Agriculture runs the Supplemental Nutrition Program, commonly referred to as “food stamps.” Now there’s a growth industry if ever there was one. But okay, nobody, not even your blogger, “The Incredible Heartless Human,” likes the idea of hungry Americans. People need to eat. But that wasn’t good enough for the feds. So what did they do with your tax dollars? In the Appalachian region, they took out ads, and sent in people to convince the residents, many of whom were low-income, but not really hungry, that they could do better if they would take government handouts. Now these are proud, independent people, that thought that they were doing just fine without governmental interference in their affairs. So the fine folks at Agriculture got training in how to convince those “hillbillies” to get over their “mountain pride” and just put their hand out, palm up. I’ve heard some conservative cynics say that the real reason for this was to get more people under the government’s thumb, and dependent on assistance, so that they would want to vote for the liberal politicians who would promise to give them stuff. Maybe, but here’s my take. More people on assistance means more agents to administer the program, which means more supervisors, which means more opportunities for promotion, which means more chances to become the next Augustus.

Oh well, I guess all those government handouts will at least stimulate the national economy, right? Sure. Regular readers of this blog (both of them) know my thoughts on that subject. If that’s not you, and you’re interested, check out “Aquanomics?” I suppose that an industrious blogger would throw in a link somewhere around here, but that’s just too plebian for a Caesar like me. Particularly since if you scroll down a couple of inches, it’s right there, sitting in my “out” box.

What? Your mouse pointer isn’t rushing down the screen? Your finger isn’t twitching on the left button? Et tu, Brute?

Aquanomics?

“A rising tide lifts all boats.”  –President Barack Obama

OK, the President didn’t invent that saying, it’s older than he is. But even though he didn’t build that old saw, he used it as a metaphor for how his policies of economic stimulus and wealth redistribution would benefit the middle class and the nation as a whole. I am no fan of those policies, and I find that particular verbiage to be very instructive about the way that the President thinks. So let’s examine it.

I don’t claim to possess any mastery of grand economic theory, but I do know something about tides. My 20+ years in the United States Navy were mostly spent studying, practicing, and teaching the art and science of marine navigation. Anyone in that profession will quickly learn that a knowledge of tidal forces is essential, and a failure to take them into account can lead to disaster. So, on that authority, I will state with complete certainty that the old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats” is absolutely false.

Simple fact of life #1: Whenever the tide rises somewhere, it falls somewhere else.

The only way to lift all boats would be to create more water, just as the only way to lift everyone’s economic status would be to create more wealth. But, of course, tides don’t make water. They are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, and , to a lesser degree, the sun, which draw the water toward them, making the water level rise slightly. This rise is negligible in the middle of the ocean, but as the high water nears land, it piles up along the shore, which sets up currents that flow into bays and harbors, sometimes generating a significant rise in water level. So sure, a rising tide will lift all boats in that particular harbor. But since the total amount of water hasn’t changed, as the boats in that harbor are lifted from the bottom, boats in another harbor on the other side of the world are settling into the mud. And as the Earth turns, so does the tide, lowering the boats that were raised; raising the boats that were lowered. Tides don’t really raise water level, they temporarily redistribute it.

So what does this have to do with the tides of economic activity or the flood of money being printed by the Federal Reserve? Well, there is something that the President and folks of his ilk seem to be unable to grasp.

Simple fact of life #2: Money is not wealth, it is a medium of exchange. Wealth is the things that money can buy.

Increasing the amount of dollars in circulation does nothing to increase the amount of wealth (goods and services that people are willing to pay for) that is available. Money serves as the foundation of the economy, sort of like the bed of a lake. Printing more of it would be about as effective as trying to get more water into the lake by dumping rocks into it. The level of the lake might appear to be higher, but at the bottom, there will still be the same number of places to run your boat aground. A deeper lake requires more water; a deeper economy requires more wealth.

Also, there are many on the President’s crew who believe that redistributing money will somehow create more wealth. As presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett said some time back, “People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well.” It seems to me that this is like trying to make our lake bigger by digging the sand from the shore and letting the water flow outward (spreading the wealth?). Still the same amount of water, even though the lake looks larger. But what are the other consequences of our excavation? By making the lake appear bigger, we have increased its surface area, thereby speeding the rate at which the water evaporates, and actually making the lake smaller. Remember, real wealth is constantly being both produced and consumed. When people consume more wealth than they produce, the economy will shrink. In the big picture, giving hand-outs or make-work jobs does more harm than good.

So what to do about those people whose water glass is empty? Very few of us are so heartless as to not want their thirst quenched. And there are certainly many among us that feel that it is unfair that a few can spend the summer lounging in their huge backyard swimming pool, while most of us make do with a Slip-and-Slide. But remember, the vast majority of those with “excessive” wealth have it because they were able to do something special to earn it. And the poor, whether or not through their own fault, were unable to do so. Sure, I wonder why throwing a basketball through a hoop, or reciting lines into a camera, is more valuable than driving a truck, but that’s what people are willing to pay for. That’s the economy. And that brings us to:

Simple fact of life #3: Wealth cannot be given to someone who didn’t earn it without taking it from someone who did.

What obviously needs to happen is that more people must have the opportunity to create wealth. How to make that happen? Do you really believe that our federal government has the answer? To illustrate the way the feds think, let me try one more all-wet metaphor.

Suppose that tidal forces have caused a sandbar to form at the entrance to San Diego Bay, and there is not enough water trickling into the bay to wash it away, so ships can no longer get in or out of the harbor. Some clownfish in Washington will probably say “Hey, there’s plenty of water in Galveston Bay. Let’s build a huge aqueduct to San Diego.” Well, I guess this would work, but is it really the best solution? It would, like most federal programs, be ridiculously expensive. And a lot of the water would evaporate as it passed through the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona, just as your tax dollars evaporate in the deserts of bureaucracy and corruption. How about we just dredge the sandbar?

The United States has plenty of oil, and getting it out of the ground will create many real jobs which will produce real wealth. But regulations make it impossible for this to happen. Instead, the government pumps your money into the aqueduct of “green energy,” where it just evaporates. How about we dredge the sandbar of regulations.

And hey, if you’re one of the 17 people who still believe Al Gore, (oh wait, Al bought a 9 million dollar mansion on the Santa Barbara beach, and sold his TV network to the oil sheiks, so I guess Al Gore doesn’t even believe Al Gore — make that 16 people) we can melt those polar icecaps, create more water, and actually lift all boats.

A Good Start?

“What do you call a thousand lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?” — Old joke

In the debate about how to control rising health care costs, one thing that conservatives are certain to suggest is tort reform. While not the whole solution, this idea does seem to have a lot of merit. With the spectre of huge lawsuits hanging over them, physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine. This involves performing tests to rule out every possible cause of a problem, and is often more about protecting the doctor than about diagnosing an illness. And the cost of litigation has made massive malpractice insurance premiums a major operating expense for the medical business, an expense that must be passed along to the consumer.

But what kind of tort reform? A lot of talk centers around limiting the amount of damages that can be assessed. I’m not sure that this is a good idea. While we often hear about damage awards that seem outlandish, let’s face it, if someone suffers harm that costs millions to repair, that’s what he should be compensated. It’s hard to put an arbitrary maximum dollar figure on justice. Another idea centers on a loser pays system, where the party that does not prevail is responsible for all costs associated with the case. Better, but still some flaws. Just because a plaintiff does not win his case doesn’t automatically mean that the case was without merit. Sometimes it can be a close call that requires a trial to sort out, and people with legitimate grievances should not be denied their day in court out of fear.

But on the whole, I like the loser pays system, with some modifications which I will suggest. Bear in mind that the rules that I am proposing apply not only to medical malpractice, but the whole range of civil lawsuits where financial compensation is sought. And while it’s not uncommon to hear members of Congress discussing tort reform, these matters are traditionally covered by state laws, and that’s where I would like to see these rules tried. Let the federal government worry about defending the borders and delivering the mail. So, without further ado, here are some rules I would like to see:

#1 The amount of damages requested, both compensatory and punitive, must be specified up front when the suit is filed. No limit on the amount that can be asked, but that amount is the maximum that can be awarded, and includes lawyers’ fees and all associated costs. The court may award a lesser amount if that is deemed fair, but not a greater amount.

#2 Plaintiffs (and their lawyers) may only collect compensatory damages. No limit other than rule #1, and financial harm, pain & suffering, lost time, legal fees, etc. are considered compensation. If punitive damages are assessed, those funds will be disbursed at the discretion of the court, but no part of them can go to the plaintiff, his lawyers, or anyone associated with them. Personally, I’ve always felt that punishment belongs in the criminal justice system, but I can see how the civil courts may be a more cost effective way to mete out justice. But punishment should never be used to enrich lawyers.

#3 Once a suit is filed, it cannot be withdrawn without the concurrence of the respondent. Anyone accused of doing harm will, if he wants it, be guaranteed his day in court. The purpose of this rule is to minimize legal fishing expeditions, where a suit can be filed in hopes of getting a quick settlement, and withdrawn if that doesn’t happen. Commonly called a nuisance lawsuit.

#4 In any civil action in which monetary damages are sought, the adjudicating authority (judge or jury) will have the option, besides finding for the plaintiff or for the respondent, to issue a finding of abuse of process. This means that the suit was deemed to be frivolous. In that case the plaintiff, if not represented, or, more commonly, the council for the plaintiff can be held liable for compensatory (court costs, respondent’s legal fees, time, etc.) and punitive damages up to the amount specified in the suit. These damages can be awarded as part of the decision in the case, and will not require a new trial. If the plaintiff is not represented by council, he must, as part of the filing process, sign an acknowledgment of this rule. If the plaintiff is represented, he cannot be held personally accountable for abuse of process. The onus is on the lawyer to not file a frivolous suit. If he does, he can be made to pay. Big time.

#5 In any civil action in which monetary damages are sought, The judge may, at his discretion, require the council for the plaintiff to post a bond up to the amount specified in the suit. If the case is to be decided by a jury, the bond must be assessed without the knowledge of the jurors, and cannot be mentioned at the trial.

#6 If a lawyer has been found to be in abuse of process within the preceding five years, the judge must require a bond of no less than 50% of the amount specified in the suit. Again, the jury will not know about the bond, so the plaintiff can get a fair hearing.

There you have a few simple rules that I would like to see states enact. As this applies to health care, I think that I can make a prediction without going too far out on a limb. Physicians will flock to states that have these rules. Lawyers will migrate to states that don’t. So where are you going to look for health care?

But now, unfortunately, it’s time to mention one…

Simple fact of life: None of this is ever going to happen.

The reason this won’t happen is not merely because my readership is so miniscule (although if everyone who does read this shares it with everybody they know, it couldn’t hurt). It’s because of the makeup of our legislative bodies. I’ll leave it to people with more time on their hands than I have to research the exact numbers, but does anyone doubt that the percentage of lawyers among our elected officials is many times that of the general population? So, no matter how good lawmakers sound when they talk about tort reform, can we really expect rules like these when we live in a country that features government of the people, by the lawyers, for the lawyers?

By the by, in case there is anyone who didn’t know the answer to the question at the top of the page, it’s the title of this article. 

60′s to 60

As I write this, I am about to begin my last day as a fifty-something. Yes, in a matter of a few short hours I hit the big six zero. Okay, nothing unusual, we’ve all either done it or expect to do it. And, as Maurice Chevalier so aptly put it, “Growing old is not so bad when you consider the alternative.” But I was someone who always seemed to obsess about age, and birthdays, particularly those with a zero involved, were stressful times for me. A year ago I found myself dreading the feelings that I would be going through now. But, happy to report, something strange happened along the road to Geezerville. Not exactly sure what, maybe I just finally grew up, something I’ve tried to avoid doing for as long as I can remember. So now I’m having what appears to be the best major milestone birthday of my existence, and, me being me, I feel compelled to screw it up by trying to figure out why. So here goes:

Simple fact of life #1: Who you are is the sum of the experiences that you have had.
Simple corollary to the above: What matters most are the things that you learned since the time that you knew everything.

So, it was 1969, and I, like any 17 year old, knew everything. Well, except maybe for a few minor details, like how the world works and how I could fit into it. But I knew the important things, like “Rock & Roll is here to stay” and “Never trust anyone over 30.” It was, after all, only a couple years removed from the summer of love. But fast forward a bit and I still haven’t sorted out those minor details, so I’m just marking time in junior college when my plan to beat the draft seems to have just fallen apart. Birthday #20 approaches and I am stressed.

Birthday #30 wasn’t really so bad, other than the fact that I was coming face to face with what I knew when I knew everything. Beat the draft plan B was to join the Navy, so I did three years and got out. But, of course, the military isn’t really the best place to learn how to fit into the real world, but there’s a plan B for that also. After a year and a half of kicking around at dead-end jobs, I decide to go back into the Navy and make a career of it. Single and care-free, life wasn’t so bad. However, as the birthday neared, I became more and more aware of the wispy cloud hanging over me. I could in no way still consider myself a kid, and I was still marking time. And in that decade of my life, during one second of the time while I was out of the Navy, I came to grips with…

Simple fact of life #2:  Nobody lives forever.

I learned that in a totally meaningless life-changing moment. I was working on a construction job, and due to a stupid mistake, I fell off of the structure that I was working on. In that second, I believed that I was going to fall 15 feet and land head-first on concrete. As it was, I fell 18 inches and landed flat on my back on plywood. No injury whatever. But what stuck with me was what went through my mind in that second. I wasn’t scared or upset about dying. I was mad about being so stupid as to kill myself. Ever since then, I have had no fear of death. Maybe I worry about how, but not when.

#40 had to be the worst birthday in the best part of my life. Married for a few years to a beautiful young woman, we had just found out that our first child was on the way. And I had just reported to a new duty station for what I knew would be my final assignment in the Navy. So there I was, all grown up, facing genuine adult responsibilities, three years away from leaving the only job I knew, and still clueless about the real world. Frequent actual panic attacks, brought on by an overwhelming sense of foreboding.

Birthday #50 was a bit more mellow, but not entirely stress-free. With support from my wife, I had completed the transition to civilian life, and we were settled in the place that I expect to call home for the rest of my days. But I had been kicking around for a few years at jobs that I was ill-suited for, and by then had two young children to worry about. I got my commercial driver license a few weeks before, and I spent my 50th birthday in Wyoming with Mark the driver trainer (he bought me ice cream, not dinner, just desert).

Which brings us to today, and how I feel about turning 60. I’m still driving a truck, and being reasonably successful at it. And in recent times I have finally figured out…

Simple fact of life #3:  You can’t plan the past, only the future. So the older you get, the simpler life becomes.

I was always one who more than anything else, wanted to keep things simple. In my younger days, I thought I could do that by refusing to grow up or accept adult responsibilities. There was always my parents, or the school, or the Navy to do my thinking for me. But none of that can last forever, and eventually I had to do for myself. So I did.

And as I embark on my seventh decade of wandering this planet, I am keenly aware that I can no longer plan my life, since most of it is in the past. Sure, things aren’t completely simple yet, I still have a daughter in high school, and I certainly hope to keep going at least until she graduates. But after that, although I don’t expect to have any desire to quit breathing or even quit working, a weight will have been lifted from me. I can look death in the face knowing that I have discharged my life’s responsibilities. What a great, simple place to be!

So here I am, in the final hours of my fifties. The bucket list is getting pretty short, less because things are checked off as done, as much as they are erased. But I still have my whole life, even though it’s mostly memories. And there is plenty worth remembering. I’ll make a point of listening to some ’60′s music on my 60th.

The United States or America?

I have long believed that one of the greatest strengths of our country is that we are the United States. Not America, a vast homogeneous nation, but a union of many states, reflecting unique geographical, economic, and cultural elements, united for a common purpose. We retain our national identity, but the states can be free to chart a course that best suits their individual circumstances. Our Founders saw the wisdom of this, and formulated a system in which each state is represented equally in the upper house of Congress, and the president is chosen by the states, not the people at large. The ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution solidified the idea that our country is the United States of America. But, people being people, and politicians being politicians, it didn’t take long for those ensconced in Washington to seek to consolidate their power and relegate the state governments to second-class status.

Has the idea of individual states’ rights always produced the best results? Of course not. Early in our history, we struggled with the issue of slavery. As ridiculous as it seems to us today, there were many, in the culture of the time, that thought that this was acceptable. So it took nearly a century, and a civil war, to eradicate what we all now agree was an obvious evil. While I don’t claim to be able to fathom the mindset of the folks back then, look around, it persists today in some parts of the world. Think about the way women are treated in some Middle East nations. Same cultural mindset. And here at home, a hundred years after the end of slavery, there were still small majorities or powerful minorities in a few states that sought to deny some Americans the rights and dignity that are their natural due, by enforcing “Jim Crow” laws. It took the federal government to bring those states into line.

So, as someone who rails in favor of states’ rights, did I disagree with the federal government stepping in to change the laws and culture of some states? No, because civil rights became, admittedly much too slowly, an issue of national identity. While it happened too late for many innocent people, a true national consensus was finally reached. And so we move on.

Simple fact of life #1:  Consensus takes time. Often too much time.

What I see going on today is that many in the federal hierarchy assume that their opinion on a subject constitutes a national consensus, when none really exists. So they seek to impose nationwide laws about matters that have yet to be sorted out at the state level. They tell us what is proper, fair, and moral, but those are concepts that must be agreed upon by society as a whole, not by a few elites. And our nation is just too large, too diverse, to expect easy agreement on complex issues. But that’s OK. If our national identity has not been determined on an issue, then it’s perfectly fine for states to make laws according to their state identity. Even in matters of basic right or wrong, the rules can be very different in various parts of the country. If the constitution has no specific guidance, then the tenth amendment applies. If you don’t like what your state decided, you do have the right to move to a state where the rules are more attuned to your sensibilities. The best example I can come up with of this type of issue is abortion. As a nation, we have no idea where we stand, but people have strong opinions on both sides. The argument is framed in many ways, and the constitution is silent. So the federal government should butt out. If, for example, Nebraska wants to ban all abortions, and Kansas wants to allow them for any reason, I’m fine with both states’ laws. Should, in the future, a true national consensus be reached, then it will be time for Washington to step in and put the few remaining rouge states into line.

But a politician, being what he is, (power-crazed egomaniac) can’t stand the idea of letting other folks sort out their feelings. That would imply that he might not be the smartest person in whatever room he’s standing. And he can never admit that to himself, no matter what airs of humility he puts on for the morons (his constituents). And, to make things worse, our leaders have created a vast regulation industry, which employs countless bureaucrats who need to churn out a steady stream of new rules in order to justify their fat paychecks. They don’t need to know much about what they’re regulating, just how to write regulations. And how to make them stick.

Simple fact of life #2:  You can’t escape the Golden Rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

A while back, during the Nixon administration, if memory serves, a seemingly new, although rather old, concept was introduced. They called it “revenue sharing.” This was where the federal government would send money to state and local governments to help fund worthy projects. They could afford to do that at the time, since with Vietnam winding down, the feds didn’t have a major deficit problem, and I think they even balanced the budget one year. The state politicians thought it was a great idea. They had “free money” to spread around and buy votes without having to raise state taxes. And if federal taxes were too high, well, they could just shrug their shoulders. But of course there’s no such thing as free money. With the gold, comes the rules. And we became less like the “United States”, and more like “America.”

Simple fact of life #3:  Clothes on the one-size-fits-all rack seldom really fit anybody.

In the course of my work, more days than not I drive across at least one state line. Whenever you cross into a state, you will see several signs along the highway. The first will say something like “Welcome to Idaho” or wherever. There will also be a sign, usually the very next one, will inform you that you are required to wear seat belts. Is wearing seat belts a good idea? Sure, why not? But is it something that every state that I’ve driven through (that’s just about all of them) would find it necessary to worry about? Or was there something else going on? Well, I remember that in the Reagan administration, Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole thought it would be a good idea if we all buckled up. But did she have the authority to make that a rule, even if the driver never left his home state. Probably not. So she merely asked the states to pass “click it or ticket” laws. And if they didn’t, fine, no problem.They would just lose their federal highway funding, that’s all. So now we have a bunch of cookie-cutter laws that some states didn’t really want, and no state really needed. “You are now leaving the United States.” “Welcome to America.” “Buckle Up.”

If our country is to avoid going the way of other bloated, bureaucratic societies, we need to get back to our founding principles. The federal government should deal with truly national issues, and allow the states to take care of their business without federal interference or federal money. This will require a new (but actually old) way of thinking at all levels of government, and some courageous leadership in the state. For some ideas on what states can do, check out http://personalliberty.com/2012/04/17/how-states-can-protect-themselves-from-financial-collapse/ Some of the solutions presented may seem a bit (pick your cliche)( outside the box, over the top, out there), but they are interesting and worthy of consideration.

I believe that the United States can survive and prosper. I’m not so sure that America can.

 

A Poitician’s Job Is?

I believe that most of us can look back and remember a teacher, perhaps even a moment with that teacher, that had a profound, lasting, and unexpected impact on the shape of our philosophy and the way we frame our thoughts. For me, that teacher was Tom Carlin, Bishop Alemany HS, US history, 1969. The moment came when Mr. Carlin posed this question to the class: “What is the primary job of a politician?” His answer, which elicited some discussion, was “To get elected.” As I thought about this, the truth of his statement became increasingly self-evident. A politician, say a candidate for Congress, no matter how altruistic his goals, how noble his aspirations, can’t fulfill those aspirations if he doesn’t get the votes on the first Tuesday of November. He must first attend to his primary job.

But it seems that for most, the mindset that got him elected tends to remain with him once he is sworn in as a member of that august body. He gets to work on his main job, getting re-elected. If he is able to do some good things for his constituents, or the country as a whole, so much the better. But that is secondary. He still has a job to do.

Did you ever walk out to your mailbox, maybe around election time, and find a “newsletter” (produced & mailed at taxpayer expense as “official business”) sent by your representative in Congress? This letter will have pictures of the member of Congress, usually with some local officials, at an awards dinner, or some such function. There will be some survey questions (as if he cared about your opinion — he is, after all, so much smarter than you are) about various issues. And, of course, the obligatory box of numbers, detailing all of the federal dollars that your congressman was clever enough to procure for worthy projects in the district. But for some reason, the distinguished member failed to mention that, for every dollar he brings in to fund special interests in your district, he has to pull a buck out of the pocket of one of his constituents, to give to some other distinguished member for pork in that member’s town. This will allow that other distinguished member to stand erect in his district, produce a glitzy newsletter, be returned to Washington, and continue to do to his constituents what erect members do.

Simple fact of life:
Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, they’re all politicians. They, like all of us, must attend to their primary job.

A Piece of the Pie

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about wealth distribution and income inequality. A lot of folks are expressing righteous concern that there are many among us who are not getting their piece of the pie. In that spirit, I would like to point out a couple simple facts of life, and offer a couple simple solutions for how to deal with them.

Simple fact of life #1:
The only person that gets all the pie he wants is the baker.

Simple solution #1:
If you want pie, turn on the oven and grab a rolling pin.

Simple fact of life #2:
Every time a pie is cut, some crumbs are left on the plate. If you slice the pie into too many pieces, there are nothing but crumbs, and everyone goes without dessert.

Simple solution #2:
Refer to simple solution #1.