When Children Are In Charge

As I watched the State of The Union Address last night, I could not help but notice one overarching theme: bipartisanship. We have not had true bipartisanship in Washington in my lifetime. Both sides, whenever they have the majority, effectively isolates the other and only seek it when they want to symbolically use the word during a press conference or as they make the rounds on the talk show circuits. I my estimation, we have grown people who behave like children running our government.

 I, like many others kept hearing the reiteration of the theme bipartisanship. If America is to be first in the world then we will need the leadership on both sides to put aside their petty differences, roll up their sleeves and do the job they were sent to Washington to do. Both sides, because of gerrymandering, remain entrenched within their beliefs simply because they have no real opposition to move them along a different line of thought and this entrenchment has lead to where we are today as a nation.

Many of our governmental leaders act like children fighting over the ball on the playground, except in this instance, the playground is not constructed of concrete and blacktop, but instead constructed of trillions of dollars of our hard earned money.

Instead of working as a unit to solve the nation’s problems, our leadership is all too willing to work as individual fingers on a hand. Everyone wants their way and when they do not get their way, they want to pick up their marbles and leave the game. This is exactly how elementary children behave and not how grown people should conduct themselves. It is a pathetic spectacle!

When the president spoke about job creation, he did so with the idea of offering incentives and tax breaks to businesses. Why? Businesses do not need tax breaks and incentives to get them to hire or make them competitive. What they need is people buying their products. This only occurs when people have money to spend. The middle class needs greater tax relief not large corporations and small businesses operate in the same manner. I am sure that if you asked a small business owner to make a choice between a tax break or increasing their customer base, the later would be more desirable.

Our destiny is in our hands. The promise of America is not promised to anyone. It must be pursued with purpose, intelligence and thoughtfulness. Much of what was said last night did not, in my humble estimation; touch on significantly helping the middle class-which will serve as the catalyst for any economic recovery. The trickle down approach has not worked and will not continue to produce any results. Real recovery will only occur when the largest segment of the American economic engine has its burden reduced and is able to engage the other sectors of society with confidence and vigor.

My Money is my Money

The administration of President Obama appears to be developing a proposal for mandatory automatic enrollment in individual retirement accounts for those who do not currently have one, which could be supported by the creation of Treasury-issued retirement bonds. On the surface this may appear to be innocuous, but upon further examination, one quickly notices the inherent reasoning behind such a shift.

U.S. Treasury securities are the primary instruments used to finance the federal government’s debt. President Obama wants to spend more on his programs, thus he needs to find a way to get more money. I value such freedoms as free speech. With every dollar my wife and I choose to invest through our participation in 401k, 403B, TSP and other investment vehicles, we are making a conscious decision to grow wealth not maintain wealth. With this action, we are speaking with our dollars.

Having peoples monies involuntarily used to purchase bonds presents three problems for me: First, you are not allowing them to seek a better return on their investment, thus you are legislatively stymieing their economic growth; second you are mandating how people spend their money and third you are creating more debt.

Because I am fairly young, my financial advisor has advised me to be more aggressive with my investments. The reasoning behind this is that the market will produce a better rate of return over the long haul and since I am not planning on retiring any time soon, this strategy should bring me the highest rates of return. Conversely, he also said that as I get older I want to be less aggressive, since I would be moving closer towards retirement. If I were required to put all of my money in bonds, I would be receiving lower rates of return and would probably have to work longer than I may want.

America is still a country where individual rights mean something. I, not the federal government, should decide if I will or will not invest my hard earned dollars and I, not the federal government, should decide what path I want such an outlay to take. Last I checked, democracy is about people having a say in what is to take place.

 In my view, America already has too much debt. We should be looking at ways to decrease not increase our debt. And having it shifted from foreign owned to American owned means nothing to me- debt is debt regardless of who holds the notes.

If the administration is truly concerned about people having enough to retire on, instead of producing a separate mandatory account, how about investing a portion of social security in the market, since it is already a mandatory investment for the working class? This may also be a better venue since Social security currently has a surplus and being able to gain a higher rate of return would help to generate future solvency.

Don’t observe…Serve!

I see their mouths moving, but I cannot hear what they say. I see their gestures, but cannot locate their actions.  I believe, just as many others do, that our words are the catalysts for actions, because, if nothing is to follow, then they are just hollow sounds. Dr. King was a man of words and actions. At his core, his viewpoint of humanity posited itself on the proposal that “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’

As we celebrate the life of this great man, let us extend our hands to help those in need. We have all witnessed the suffering of the people of Haiti, but let us not forget that we have suffering in America as well. At this very moment, everyone is asking for financial donations to help. Understanding the economy we live in, if you do not have money to offer then offer your time. Time, for many organizations, is just as valuable as financial donations.

In keeping Dr. King’s dream alive, let us provide answers to that most persistent and urgent question. I am sure that Dr. King would say that it is not about what you would like to do or wish you could do, but about what you are doing and what you have done.

Deckplate Leadership

In the Navy, deckplate leadership is a slogan that was created to get the senior enlisted leadership to re-engage itself into the lives of their subordinates. The premise behind the slogan is that when you find out what’s going on, you can then direct resources to fixing whatever problem may exist. Moreover, by getting a clue, you may also become aware of emerging issues that could impact the performance of those within your division, department or command. I do believe that we are devoid of political deckplate leaders.

Far too long, it seems that our leadership has been far too concerned with those at the top or those at the bottom of the economic food chain. Policies put in place have done very little to ease the economic burden of the middle class. Middle class tax relief is needed. We have witnessed the federal government’s bailout of banks-only to have Wall Street reward its top executives with huge bonuses. We have witnessed federal and state legislatures kill the aptly named “death tax” and now, one of the measures that may possibly be looked at in the Commonwealth of Virginia is doing away with the corporate tax rate.

In all fairness, let me pronounce that I am not a fan of the “trickle down” economic theory. I am one who firmly believes that you can accomplish more by utilizing a common sense bottom up approach. My methodology is this: the more you allow individuals to retain of their hard earned dollars, the more they will spend and save. Some specific areas where this common sense approach could be instituted are childcare expenses and overtime/second job expenses.

Childcare expenses are straining the middle class. Many families classified as middle class are classified as such because they subsist on two incomes, and these two incomes are not ensuring financial security. Childcare expenses are eating up a good portion of one of the incomes. According to some estimates, childcare expenditures are rising just as fast as heath care expenditures. To begin addressing this issue, the government should consider increasing the amount allowable to be deducted for childcare expenses in the tax code.

End taxes on pay derived from second jobs and overtime-up to $10,000 per year. Why do this? People working second jobs and overtime are doing so, because they are trying to get ahead. Because of increases in college tuition, healthcare, childcare and other expenses, many need to work extra hours or get second jobs to maintain their current lifestyle. The ultimate question is: Why are they being penalized for working harder?

America will only go as far as its middle class can propel it. True tax relief for the most productive segment is just as important to our global competiveness as reducing the tax burden of our corporations. The leadership of this country needs to get out of the boardrooms and onto the sidewalks if it really wants to find out what’s going on on the deckplates.

Reid Between The Lines

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set off a firestorm with the revelation that he described candidate Barack Obama as a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”  In all fairness, he hasn’t said anything that other people have said-it’s just that his words were recorded. While others argue over the words, I would like to point out the meaning of the statements.

By pointing out that Obama is light skinned, what Reid was saying is that white America can more easily accept someone closer to how they look than a darker complexioned person. This does have some merit. One need only to look at the two black men who have served as governors in modern times: L. Douglass Wilder, former Governor of Virginia and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.  Both of these intelligent men are situated near the lighter hue of the black color spectrum.  The over-arching inference of Reid’s statement is that many in white America still have issues with color.

Now we move on to the Negro dialect statement.  I did not know that Negroes, blacks, or African-Americans (whatever the name du jour is) have our own dialect. Last I checked I speak the English language with a bit of my old Philly flavor-it has been corrupted some since I have been living in the south for the past fifteen years. But I don’t think that I or any of my similarly situated friends have differing dialects. No what mister Reid was trying to say is that Mr. Obama doesn’t speak like a nigger and because he doesn’t he could be better received by white America. This pronouncement is nothing new. Many people are educated to speak one way with friends and another in the workplace or other venues.

Personally, I do not care what Majority Leader Reid said. However, I care deeply about what he meant.  Those who want can argue for his removal, public flogging or his head on a platter-I have no problem with that. But let us be sure that we do so for the right reasons. For those who only care about the spoken words, you have taken your eyes off of the ball. Instead of being concerned with what he said, you should be calling for his removal over what he meant. Don’t just read the words, read between the lines!

What’s it worth to you?

During this time of economic hardship, many businesses-both public and private- are looking at their options going forward. If one reads the papers or watches the news, they would witness a constant stream of job losses, work hour reductions, furloughs, and what appears to be a never-ending cycle of people who cannot find jobs. Those whose professions seemed relatively insulated from this topsy-turvy experience are finding out that they are not as well insulated as once believed.

In Virginia, as in most states around our country, the government is now feeling the pain that many private companies have been feeling for the past two years.  Its woes are creating a trickledown effect of the worst kind.  Many localities, school divisions, colleges and public safety entities are struggling to fill huge voids left behind from a budget deficit that demands cuts.

By law, Virginia has to balance its budget. It cannot play the same game that the federal government does and run deficits. Because of this economic calamity many state, city and county employees are having their lives shape in a way that was previously nonexistent.

In order to deal with the fiscal mess created, state and local governments may be forced to raise taxes in order to help stave off some of the economic consequences. As a fiscal conservative, I abhor the mentioning of increasing taxes. To me, our government’s problem is that it wastes much of what it receives from the citizenry- and the profligate spending occurs on both sides of the isle.

As much as I bemoan an increase in my taxes, I am also cognizant that such an increase may guarantee that I remain employed.  So my question to my readers is “Are you willing to give up a little to keep a lot?”  Tip O’Neill once said “All politics is local.” In this instance it gets no more local than your economic survival.

The Decline of Professionalism

It appears that professionalism, in many areas, is in retreat. In many instances, I am witnessing employees inappropriately dressed for work, using foul language in addressing colleagues and just not being mindful that they are not on the street corner, but rather at a place of business. The one word that encapsulates what I see is “Embarrassing.” When did so called professionals stop behaving in a professional manner? And better yet, when did the abdication of professional norms become commonplace?

I can recall learning at an early age how to behave in public and that the words you use around your friends are not necessarily the same words you use in school. This isn’t new, since many of us learned the very same lessons.

Most of us interact with many people who exhibit nonprofessional behaviors on a daily basis. More importantly, it appears that as the college degree becomes more ubiquitous, more and more people who lack professional attributes will gain entry into professional settings and further erode professional values. This is primarily due to the fact that many businesses and educational institutions have allowed this to occur.

I firmly believe that the erosion of professionalism etiquette kills morale, decreases productivity and devalues what should be meaningful interactions amongst colleagues.

We need to get back to a point where professionals behave like professionals and not like thugs on a street corner.

The Goal Of Diversity

 As our society becomes more and more diverse from a citizenry perspective, the questions moving forward will concern themselves with how the allocation of precious resources-college admittances, jobs, government contracts, etc- will be distributed. In order to figure this out, we will have to figure out the definition of diversity that will be used as a common language when discussing our priorities, goals and criteria for resource distribution. Without such language, our society could be headed for a destructive relationship between those who previously received the benefits of society and those seeking a seat at the table.

I believe that the goal of diversity is great and should be pursued. I also understand that those who use terms such as Affirmative Action are purposefully using a term they know has many different meanings to many different people.The definition I like to use when thinking of diversity is fairness. All too often, when diversity is mentioned, some begin to think that unqualified people will be selected over qualified or that less qualified will be selected over more qualified. Once a baseline for qualified is established, then the terms “more” or “less” need to be removed from the dialogue. Fairness would then be installed to allow the organization to look at its historical structure-has it had a history of excluding certain segments of our society.

In reality, there exist no perfect application processes to determine the most qualified, since the term seems to be arbitrary at best. The smartest person is not always the best person for the job in any profession. There are other variables that go into hiring, college admissions and other practices that offer opportunities that people do not talk about such as legacy and who you know.

Diversity is an admirable goal, because if we are never exposed to different people, ideas and modes of thought, then we cannot grow as people or as a society. I am in no way saying that people who are not qualified should be given opportunities over those who are. What I am saying is that when those who have not been allowed in the door, do become qualified to enter, it needs to be opened up wide to allow them access.

I know that race and gender determinations make us as a society uneasy, but until you can truly make it a level playing field, then every factor should be taken into consideration.