Living the Legacy of Yesteryear

Who said?:

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

Try another: 

“Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

Here’s a third to stimulate your brain:

“If you think back to the experiences of the early years of this Administration you will remember the doubts and fears expressed about the rising expenses of government. But to the surprise of the doubters, as we proceeded to carry on the program which included Public Works and Work Relief, the country grew richer instead of poorer.”

Some, no doubt, attributed at least one of the quotes to Barack Obama. But they would be wrong. And they’re not from John F. Kennedy, or Lyndon Baines Johnson, and, for sure, not from Ronald Reagan. All three emanated from the greatest president of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Gilda and I visited his ancestral home in Hyde Park, NY, last Friday. The quotations are from the exhibit in the presidential library and museum (little known fact—FDR created the nation’s first presidential library while he was still in office, no less). Spoken almost 70 years ago, the quotes bear witness to FDR’s commitment to providing a better life for all Americans.

Yet, they also reveal how far short we have come in realizing his dream. We still debate the validity of programs Roosevelt initiated: Social Security, the minimum wage, the Securities and Exchange Commission, to name a few. We have not resolved the question whether government should provide a helping hand to the less fortunate or just let them fend for themselves. We have not realized that equality and equal opportunity are everyone’s right regardless of skin color, religion, creed or national origin.

Roosevelt was a canny, pragmatic politician with extreme mental and physical strength, the latter despite the paralysis of his lower body from his bout with polio 12 years before he was elected president for the first time. It is hard to imagine a president more reviled than Obama has been during his tenure, except when you consider the Republican response to Roosevelt. While the vast majority of Americans saluted his leadership by re-electing him three times, and many hung his picture in their homes, Republicans chafed at what they called his imperial presidency. They questioned his attacks on business interests, his support for unions. They thought he was imposing socialism on the country.

For good or bad, sometimes both, every president leaves a legacy. It’s not easy to evaluate a legacy during a president’s time in office. Obama is finding that out while the public ruminates on the Affordable Care Act, his global initiatives for cleaner energy, the nuclear pact with Iran, the ongoing battles in the Middle East, among other actions.

Now 70 years after his death, FDR’s imprint on our lives is immeasurable. Consider, if you will, the following list of accomplishments and societal changes printed on the back of a T-shirt sold in the museum’s gift shop. Imagine what our country would be like without them:

Securities and Exchange Commission, Small business loans, Federal Communications Commission, Labor union right, Child labor laws, Soil conservation, 78,000 bridges, Home ownership, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 40 hour work week, Tennessee Valley Authority, Social Security, First presidential library, U.S. military superpower, 2 billion trees planted, March of Dimes, Disability Insurance, Rural electrification, Banking regulation, Fair employment practices, 650,000 miles of roads, Public housing, GI Bill, Unemployment Insurance, Farm subsidies, United Nations.

You can quibble whether some of these programs need to be retooled to meet modern conditions. Republicans opposed Social Security back in the 1930s and they remain committed to altering its promise of a secure retirement for working Americans. Roosevelt had laws passed to make employment and living conditions safer, less onerous and fairer. Yes, it required regulations, but they are not, as Reagan pompously proclaimed about government, “the problem.”

Roosevelt’s confidence and vision kept our democracy not just afloat but also buoyant. In the words of historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The world we live in today is Franklin Roosevelt’s world.”  

Fat, Fareed, Fear of Fractions, An Honest Face

Dieting Secret: Lost a few more ounces of fat today. Perhaps I should consider writing a how-to diet book. My first bit of advice—start with a high metabolism rate! 

Pit Stop: Fareed Zakaria, the renowned foreign affairs journalist, recently made news himself by violating professional  standards (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/business/media/scandal-threatens-fareed-zakarias-image-as-media-star.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1345474868-A8fm9PZAQn2i/+0DuUu7Sg), but I will always link him to an action I never witnessed by any public speaker in four decades of reporting.

About six years ago Zakaria was featured at the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) annual conference. To the Grand Poobahs of retailing he pontificated on the state of the world and America’s standing within it. After a speech of about 40 minutes, the audience expected a question and answer period. But before the first query could be launched, Zakaria requested their indulgence. He asked for a momentary delay. He had to run off-stage to the bathroom. An embarrassed giggle rippled through the audience. Several minutes later he returned to applause, having proven beyond a doubt that those we see on TV and read in print have no fewer human needs than the rest of us.

Fear of Fractions: Some years ago the Securities and Exchange Commission made the stock market shift the share valuation model to dollars and cents from listings based on numbers and fractions. It made it easier for the Average Joe and Jane to figure out what a stock bought and sold for. Of course, most stocks are traded these days by computers for large institutions. No matter. The new system makes it easier to understand when Brian Williams and other talking heads report the day’s activity. 

Now, a new study in the July Journal of Commerce by faculty at the Carlson School of Management, first brought to my attention by The Lempert Report, indicates our collective fear of fractions and our inability to process changes in percentages may be costing consumers money during their trips to retail stores. Faced with two different sales promotions—percentage off or a bonus pack buy—consumers will more frequently choose getting more of a product over paying less for a standard size of a product. This could lead retailers and consumer package goods (CPG) companies to camouflage price increases. 

As Phil Lempert reported, “Retailers and CPG continue to mask everyday price increases with smaller package sizes, fractional ounce content and uneven dollar amounts that shoppers find hard to compute. While everyday prices rise—and they will again due to the Midwest drought and other weather challenges—stores and brands push more promotions to convey value and retain shopper trips. When they price promote, they find that distraction works to their benefit because, frankly, shoppers aren't great at math,” specifically knowing how to calculate percentage changes. 

Bottom line: Before you go supermarket shopping, you might want to brush up on your math skills. 

The antipathy toward percentages might also explain why Mitt Romney has difficulty selling the public on his effective tax rate. Instead of emphasizing his rate, a comparatively low 13.9% vs. a higher rate most middle income households pay, Romney might want to stress his actual tax payment. Sure, it will imply he makes tons of money, but most people already know that. It’s the percentage he pays that is getting him in trouble. 

An Honest Face: I just found out I’m more honest than the average bald man. According to a study by Honest Tea, bearded fellows can be trusted 96% of the time compared to just 85% of bald men. 

This finding comes from one of the more unusual field studies. As noted on its study Web site, “This summer, Honest Tea conducted experiments in 30 cities to test people's honesty. We set up unmanned pop-up stores and asked people to pay $1 per bottle on the honor system. Data was collected and we compiled our findings into the National Honesty Index (http://thenationalhonestyindex.com/).

I’m not really a beachgoer, so it was comforting to know they’re only honest 91% of the time. I’m no longer a biker (pedal powered or motorized), so I was glad to see they didn’t cheat just 92% of the time. But I was troubled that suburbanites and those who wear hats, both categories of which I include myself in, both registered meager 90% honesty rates. And I was particularly depressed to see Brooklyn, the borough of my youth, now home to our daughter and soon-to-be son-in-law, recorded a dismal 61% honesty rating. 

Class Warfare

Republicans are right. President Obama’s proposal to raise the taxes of rich people is class warfare. They’re damn right it is, and it’s about time.

It’s about time the president stepped forward and led a revolt against Republican insensitivity to the plight of the middle class and the working class.

Let’s be clear about one thing, however. Obama’s not the aggressor in this war. Republicans have been waging class warfare for decades, decades, at least as far back as FDR’s successful implementation of the Social Security Act, the setting of a national minimum wage and the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The GOP has fought almost all attempts to protect and enhance the lives of working people and the middle class.

It’s class warfare when fat-cat Republicans carry the water for corporate America and the wealthy. It’s class warfare when they resist efforts to provide affordable health care to every citizen, regardless of their income. It’s class warfare when they try to dismantle social security, when they fail to provide adequate benefits to active and retired military personnel, when they work to overturn workplace and environmental protections, when they endeavor to cut back entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Aid to Dependent Children, and school lunch programs.

Now, it could be argued Democrats started class warfare by passing all that progressive legislation. Guilty. With an explanation. Government has an obligation to care for and protect its citizens, not just in times of actual war but also when natural and man-made disasters jeopardize safety and even our existence. The Depression, poverty and discrimination fostered the need for corrective actions. Industry and private wealth have shown no continuous commitment to care for our countrymen, leaving it to government to hold the safety net for tens of millions of our citizens.

Obama’s problem is one of his own making. Instead of taking advantage of the strategic high ground his 2008 election provided, he has squandered his resources and allowed the GOP to outflank him and redraw the battle lines. Let’s face it—they have a much more effective PR campaign. They have defined Obama as the enemy of the common folk. Only now is he showing a determination to use his veto to exact the quid pro quo tax increase he has asked for in return for cuts in entitlement spending.

In this latest tussle over taxing millionaires, it’s hard to visualize a Republican-controlled Congress acquiescing, not when most members are millionaires themselves. They may be patriotic (well, maybe), but it’s doubtful they’re like billionaire Warren Buffett, willing to pay their fair share.