Odds & Ends: Yankees, Swimming, Vegetable Oil, Romney, E-Mail

After another disheartening loss by the NY Yankees, this time to the Cincinnati Reds, I thought I’d ask one of my friends, a long-suffering NY Mets fan, how I could cope with a season of unfulfilled expectations. 

“Realistic expectations,” was Ken’s response, a philosophy he has perfected over many years but which he readily admitted was foreign to Yankees fans who have grown accustomed to regular season success, at the very least. 

Based on their play and their injury-laden roster, the Yankees and their fans are in for a very loooong season. Will it be a success if we manage to finish ahead of Boston?

Ken is my swimming instructor. He’s opened his pool, but it’s weeks too early to even consider dipping a dainty toe into the water, even if he heats it up. We agree I have the fundamentals down, that my failure to stay afloat is mostly, if not all, mental. Ken suggested adding a psychologist to the instructional team. My sister suggested a hypnotist. 

It’s still open to debate who will learn to swim first—two and a half year old Finley or his 63 year old grandfather.

The other day while driving home I was stopped behind a Mercedes with a decal across the back window proclaiming, “Powered by vegetable oil.”

Cool. Except the car really smelled like cooked French fries. 

The Sunday NY Times ran a profile of Mitt Romney and how the Mormon religion has shaped his life (“Romney’s Faith, Silent but Deep,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/how-the-mormon-church-shaped-mitt-romney.html?_r=1&hpw). 

He is, no doubt, a religious man. Nothing wrong there. But I was troubled especially by the last paragraph of the story, the one where Ann Romney was quoted about his decision to run for president. According to Gloria White-Hammond, a friend and pastor of a Boston-area African Methodist Episcopal church, Mrs. Romney said she and her husband “felt it was what God wanted them to do.” 

I’m troubled whenever anyone, other than maybe a clergyman, ascribes actions to what God wanted them to do. Is that how our government will be managed, by what is perceived to be messages from God? Romney, it turns out, as a practicing Mormon, is said to believe God has chosen the United States to be a special nation, that its Constitution is divinely inspired. 

“God is on our side” often is a rallying cry of countries that go to war. Heaven need truly help us if we devolve into a 21st century nation that believes our actions are always godly and beyond reproach. 

A friend sent me one of those right wing emails that deplore what is wrong with America and what we need to do to fix it. The thrust of this missive was too many people are taking money from the government without contributing anything in return. In other words, the have-nots are bleeding the haves dry. “We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.” 

Here’s the final credo:

Obama:Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

I can’t let these screeds go unanswered, so here’s a little of what I wrote back:

Here's a link to a USA Today article http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm . In essence it says: 

50 million are on Medicaid

40 million get food stamps

10 million are on unemployment

4.4 million are on welfare.

Assuming no one is double dipping, that means 104.4 million receive some form of government assistance. That's roughly one-third of the U.S. population, not a majority. Enrollments in these programs have gone up because of the recession George W. Bush left as his legacy. 

Would you really like to live in a country that does not care for its elderly, for its infirm, for those who are not provided a proper education so they can climb out of poverty? Would you really like to live in a country that has no compassion for the less fortunate? Are you comfortable living in the richest country in the world while millions of children go to bed hungry each night? 

For sure there is waste, lots of waste, in these programs. But just as we don't tar the full military for the wrongdoings of a few idiots, we shouldn't dismiss the benefits these programs provide to the needy, of all ages, sexes, creeds, religions, background, and country of origin. 

Many in our country donate to worthwhile charities and other helpful programs. Yet poverty persists. Hunger remains. Education budgets are cut at a time when we need better trained employees. Private solutions are not sufficient to solve our problems. An economy without controls will lead to more abuses a la Enron, Tyco, JP Morgan Chase, and the derivative crisis that is the derivation of much of the financial problems of today. Surely you can't believe that we live in a Pollyanna world where everything will turn out just right if we pray hard for it and wish for it because in their hearts all men and women are good and would not take advantage of their neighbors and countrymen? There's a reason the first thing new settlers build is not a church but rather a jail. 

Random, and Not So Random, Acts of Kindness

They are beautiful, heartwarming gestures I do not mean to belittle. But the anonymous charity of Secret Santas randomly giving out $100 bills to those they think are in need, or paying off a stranger’s layaway charges at Kmart, is not the answer to the paralyzing and pervasive poverty enveloping our nation. They are not the solution to a capitalist system that has divided our country, indeed, large parts of the rest of the world as well, into spheres of plenty and spheres of void.

However generous they are, random acts of kindness should not lull us into believing they can relieve our fellow citizens of the trauma of unemployment, of the despair of having a loved one in need of medical care without adequate health insurance, of squelching the pangs of hunger that ache each night in the bellies of too many of our young.

My conservative friends and relatives tell me government is not the answer. They would have the hungry and the needy rely on the generosity of their fellow human to ease their pain and tribulations, all the while exhorting them to bootstrap themselves into success. Newt Gingrich would dismiss child labor laws and have children of poverty clean schools so they can learn a work ethic, as if taking away the functions of school janitors is any way to reduce unemployment or increase the take-home pay of the working class.

I seem to recall George H.W. Bush more than 20 years ago waxing euphoric over a “thousand points of light” to help transform the country. Perhaps people are more charitable these days. But the number of families living at or below the poverty level keeps growing. The gap in income between the average worker and the average chief executive keeps growing. “Shared sacrifice” is a phrase that needs to be parsed in a new way—corporate executives get more shares, while the rest sacrifice.

Temporary generosity has but a temporary impact. Even if all of those who can afford it tithed, we would still require government intervention to bolster the economy and provide a safety net. How else to explain corporate America’s reluctance to invest in the United States, to hire more workers, even as companies sit on a treasure trove of cash. Neither government regulation nor a high tax rate is strangling our economy. Rather, it is the way we compensate our executives. They manage for short term gain, their bonuses tied to an annual bottom line. Say what you will about Amazon.com’s products and services, you can’t deny founder/CEO Jeff Bezos has stuck to his guns in defending a long-term strategy that has bedeviled Wall Streeters seeking more immediate returns.

Mitt Romney wants everyone to know not all businesses succeed, so don’t blame him if some of the companies his Bain Capital acquired filed for bankruptcy or had to lay off workers. Fair enough. So then let’s not allow him to scald President Obama for investing U.S. funds in Solyndra, a solar energy company that went belly up. New technologies need government assistance, sometimes direct, sometimes indirect. An example of the latter is the sales tax exemption many online retailers have enjoyed versus brick and mortar stores.

Compassionate conservatism is another hollow term. Even when conservative dogma is based on religious belief, as with the Right to Life movement, compassion for the unborn is not extended to the newborn. Conservatives want cuts in aid to dependent children, in early education programs, in school lunch programs.

Let’s not abandon the less fortunate. Let’s continue to donate food, clothing, dollars to worthy charities and individuals. But let’s not forget that without government assistance far too many of the citizens of the richest country on earth would not have a roof over their heads, meals to be eaten, schools to attend, pre- and post-school programs to enrich their growth years, doctors to visit, jobs to go to each day. These are not random acts of kindness. They’re the very foundation of what a government is supposed to do—protect and care for its citizens.

Dollar Daze, Made in China

Dollar Daze: Perhaps you saw the article in today’s NY Times magazine section, “The Buck Shops Here.”A well-written piece, the basic premise was more middle class and even affluent people buy goods at dollar stores, examples of which it noted were Dollar General, Family Dollar and Dollar Tree, each with thousands of links in their chains (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/the-dollar-store-economy.html?scp=2&sq=family%20dollar&st=cse).

They may all have the word “dollar” in their names, but only Dollar Tree is a true dollar emporium, a store that prices everything at a dollar or less. Dollar General and Family Dollar long ago abandoned any pretense they sell stuff for 100 pennies. Dollar General and Family Dollar, along with other companies such as Big Lots and National Wholesale Liquidators, are part of the extreme-value retailing segment of the industry catering to those who increasingly live paycheck to paycheck, or government assistance check to government assistance check.

Most Dollar General and Family Dollar stores blossomed in the southeast, though they’ve now sprouted up in more than half of the country, usually in small towns where rents are low and the needy are many. About 30 years ago I sent one of my writers to a Family Dollar store in Kentucky to outfit himself with clothing from head to toe, inside and outside, for less than $10. He easily fulfilled his assignment. It would be harder today, given the higher prices Family Dollar now charges.

But the strategy remains the same—provide basic affordable goods in small, low-rent, off-the-beaten-track stores customers can get into and out of in a hurry. The dollar and extreme-value stores are one reason Wal-Mart has not done as well lately. Customers view them as easier, less expensive outlets to shop.

If you do visit one of those stores, keep in mind you must check a package’s volume. That $1 bottle of shampoo might actually not be such a bargain. These stores are not above having suppliers put 8 ounces of product inside what appears to be a standard 11 oz. bottle. Check the label. Caveat Emptor!


Made in China: Here’s another retailing story that didn’t sit right with me. A recent Los Angeles Times article, citing a federal study, provided what I thought was a misleading impression (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-made-in-china-20110813,0,2746654.story).

No doubt you’ve looked at the country of origin of products you’ve bought and came to the conclusion everything was “made in China.” According to the government study, in the words of the LA Times, you’d have “Sticker shock: ‘Made in China’ ranks only 2.7% of U.S. spending.”

How could that be? Simple, if you include all services, groceries and gasoline purchased by Americans, none of which come from China. The economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve say in 2010 about 88.5% of U.S. spending was on American-made products and services. Services, such as dry cleaners or plumbers or auto repair shops, are the key to this analysis, since services make up two-thirds of all spending.

Hard to argue with those facts, but easy to dissent from the intended conclusion. Of course services, groceries and gasoline are not Chinese imports. Duh!

A better study might have been, what percent of the remaining 11.5% of consumer spending came from China. Perhaps my math is wrong, but my calculation (2.7% of 11.5%) puts that at 23.5%, meaning roughly one out of every four consumer products bought in the United States was made in China. According to the LA Times, 12% of all durable goods (furniture, appliances, automobiles) purchased here last year were produced in China. In other categories, such as toys and apparel, the percentage would be even greater, I believe. I'm also quite sure you'd find a high percentage of made in China goods in dollar stores and other extreme-value retailers.

Bottom line—we’re awash in Chinese goods and the tide is rising. Until more American firms choose to manufacture domestically rather than in the cheaper labor markets of China and other developing countries, we’ll continue to be plagued by high unemployment, a generation or more of skilled workers not able to find new, comparable jobs lost to overseas production, a growing trade imbalance, and our national status as a producer country will be imperiled.

Unemployment Blues

Unemployment figures came out today, a sober reminder our country has deep economic problems made all the more intractable by the inability of both major parties to get along to reach bi-partisan remedies. Democrats generally believe more government spending is needed to stimulate the economy; Republicans believe business will invest more and create more jobs once the federal government reins in spending.

Thursday’s “economic memo” in the NY Times by Binyamin Appelbaum starkly described Barack Obama’s challenge as he faces re-election. The lead paragraph summed up his problem: “No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/business/economy/02jobs.html?_r=1&ref=politics)

Unemployment today is 9.1% nationally. It is not expected to drop sharply in the next 18 months.

Which means the election will turn on whether Americans vote with their brains or their emotions. They’ll have to remember under whose presidential watch we tumbled into the worst recession since the Depression. They’ll have to decide if it’s better to place the nation’s future back into the hands of the party that put us into deep water in the first place with two wars, a Medicare prescription reimbursement program that was not sustainable and a tax cut for the wealthy, or if it’s more satisfying to blame the current occupant of the White House for failing to reverse eight years of destructive policies in four years. Our widening national debt is an emotionally charged issue, yet, as Stephen Colbert noted last night, Republicans pushed through a higher debt ceiling during the Bush presidency in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 and twice in 2008.

Let’s be honest. Obama’s policies have not been sufficient to turn the economic tide. He should have demanded more government money to stimulate the economy. Without the stimulus plan and TARP that Bush and Obama implemented, we’d be in worse shape. GM and Chrysler might be history, and with them many suppliers to the auto industry. Unemployment would be significantly higher. We’d have negative economic output, according to many economists.

Yet many Republicans, including their presidential hopefuls, say the stimulus program was a disaster. Obama needs to forcefully defend the program.

It will be up to the electorate to make sense of these countervailing claims.

If Applebaum is correct, Obama has little chance of staying in the White House beyond noon, January 20, 2012. But using the national unemployment rate of 9.1% could be misleading. As past Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill used to say, “All politics is local.” So let’s examine unemployment layered onto the electoral map of 2008.

Obama won 27 states and the District of Columbia in 2008. Of those blue states, only seven—Maryland, Minnesota, Hawaii, Iowa, Virginia, Vermont and New Hampshire—currently enjoy an unemployment rate below the 7.2% threshold. Another six—New York, Massachusetts, Maine, New Mexico Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—are close.

Of those 13 states, Minnesota, Virginia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania can be said to be “in play” because Obama’s margin of victory over John McCain was less than, or barely above, 10% and there have been rightward shifts in voter sentiment since the 2008 election.

Moreover, Obama’s fortunes are more precarious in the following states he barely won last time: Florida (by 2.5%), North Carolina (0.4%), Colorado (8.6%), Ohio (4%) and Indiana (0.9%).

All in all, it suggests the potential for a vastly different Electoral College map than when Obama won 365 votes to McCain’s 173 (270 are required).

It’s still a long way off until November 2012. The Republican field of candidates is far from stellar. The GOP might overplay its hand, as it appears to have done with a plan to overhaul Medicare. Its plan was widely considered the reason Republicans lost an upstate New York special congressional election last week. The lesson Democrats need to take from that election is they must draw strong distinctions between what they stand for and the impact Republican programs would place on the American family.

Obama’s task is much harder than four years ago. Harder, but not impossible.

(Editor’s note: I’m not the only one to react to Applebaum’s premise. Here’s Nate Silver of the NY Times with his thoughts: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/on-the-maddeningly-inexact-relationship-between-unemployment-and-re-election/?scp=2&sq=nate%20silver&st=cse.)

Season of Discontent

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

This election season has been cast as the season of discontent, voters angry about rising taxes under President Obama (they’ve actually gone down on the federal level, truth be told), angry at Obamacare, angry about unemployment, angry about a stalled economy, angry about illegal immigration, angry about incumbent politicians more interested in grandstanding and fighting among themselves than solving our nation’s problems.

But in a very real sense this election is at least a short term referendum on our devotion to our fellow human beings, particularly the less fortunate. Too many people seem to be okay with the idea this would be a better country if we simply cut social services, if we ignored the decay in our infrastructure and our school systems, if we abandoned the democracy of health care for all, if we permitted wealth to accumulate in the hands of a select few while the rest of the populace suffers through decreasing assets.

If you didn’t see 60 Minutes on Sunday, you missed two excruciating reports. The first, by Scott Pelley, focused on Newton, Iowa, devastated by the loss of Maytag due to outsourcing and other businesses. Even the part-time mayor lost his full-time job when another company plant reduced its work force. Pelley concentrated on how the fallout from these closing and layoffs forced small business owners to cut staff to the bone, in turn forcing some to shut down completely. Anyone who has had to meet a payroll, to manage workers, knows any layoff is traumatic, more so for the employee, but also for the supervisor. Having to pare my staff by 25%, having to let go wage earners who were either the primary or sole providers for their families, made my decision to retire that much easier. If you watch Pelley’s report, you’ll see pain and anguish in the eyes of small businessmen and their families.

The second report, by Leslie Stahl, exposed the hypocrisy of the political system. Stahl interviewed David Stockman, architect of the Reagan tax cuts, the largest in history. Stockman chided Republicans for adopting a mantra of no new taxes and reducing current taxes at a time of deep budget deficits. He skewered them for wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the top 2% of the country. Democrats, as well, came under attack for not being truthful about the need to raise taxes on the middle class.

In case you’re wondering, the quote at the top of the blog is nearly 50 years old. It’s part of the 1961 inaugural address written by John F. Kennedy and Theodore C. Sorensen. Sorensen died Sunday. Too many of his progressive thoughts might die as well if the country turns to the right in voting today as polls are predicting.