Do We Want a President, or Do We Want a Boss?

Having weathered these past few months of presidential campaign rhetoric from both sides to the point of numbness, I, like most Americans, can hardly wait until the results of November 6th become history and we can then focus our attention on the many other important issues facing our country.  However, one thing that this particular campaign has caused me to focus on is a question I have pondered for many years and that is "do businessmen really make great political leaders"?

My first experience with this even being an issue was in 1966 when Raymond Rebsamen, a much respected business leader in our state ran for governor of Arkansas.  I vividly remember being impressed with his campaign vision of "Reach with Rebsamen" which projected him as one who had been very successful in the business world and wanted to bring that same talent and acumen to state government and make it more efficient.  As a young man trying to develop my own business career, his message had great resonance with me so I voted for him.  He ultimately lost to another well known and successful businessman, Winthrop Rockefeller, a Republican, who Mr. Rebsamen, a Democrat, himself described as someone who "served our state well", and he did.  Subsequently, we have had a series of businessmen who have sought that same office with a mixed bag of successes and failures.

But throughout these many election cycles both at the state and national level, I cannot recall when there has been as much emphasis placed on business experience being such a dominant qualifier as in the current presidential election.  It's as if one's personal net worth is the only thing that counts.  The main thing wrong with that criterion is that there is another side to businessmen that does not always render them as being the best qualified to serve in public office.  For starters, many seem to share the same linear mindset of maximizing profits at all cost, as well as possessing the singular power to make whatever decisions are necessary to achieve that end, with little or no responsibility to answer for their actions other than to their boards of directors, all of whom have been chosen by them.  If labor costs can be reduced in another country, go there.  If an employee's production quota goes down, fire him.  If a plant is not profitable, close it.  There is no public debate about these decisions or their impact on communities, society or national loyalty.  They are just simply coldly calculated business decisions based on one's sole desire to increase the bottom line.  Seemingly built into the DNA of these same corporate executives is a tendency to bark an order and expect immediate compliance by all underlings, no questions asked.  The problem with applying these same business executive attributes to government is that a whole slew of other considerations have to be factored into the decision making process because the end result is a broad public policy that applies to all citizens and not just a single corporate enterprise.

For one, there is a vast body of laws, rules and regulations that have been established by congress over the past 250 years, not to mention the Constitution, that must be respected and adhered to in making such decisions.  What's good for the bottom line does not always translate into what's best for the public at large.  Just witness the $16 trillion debt that has accrued over two administrations for a variety of complex reasons not to be explained here, but clearly resulted in funding many things important to the fabric of America, including stabilizing the economy and supporting social programs for those in need, both significant and valid roles of government.  To address these many needs of a nation requires formulating sound and reasonable public policy issues, getting the support of the American people and then persuading a wildly divergent group of other elected officials to approve these initiatives.  In other words, it requires political tact to form a consensus, artful skills not necessarily developed in corporate America.  Just think of it this way, if America were a corporation run by a business executive, we would have been declared bankrupt, shut down and sold off in pieces to the highest bidder long ago.  Consequently, just running government operations in the most efficient manner financially, particularly in stressful economic times like we have experienced these past four years, is not the primary role of government, as there are way too many other responsibilities which have to be met that may not always pass the cost/benefit test often times used in the business world. 

The contrast between these two approaches to the decision making process could not have been more clearly demonstrated than during the last two presidential debates where aggression appears to have been the measure by which effective leadership was being judged.  Debate rules to which both candidates had agreed, including not invading each others' space, no pointing fingers at your rival and refraining from asking each other questions, were blindly ignored, principally by the one participant who keeps touting his business credentials.  Hopefully, our nation will be spared such rude bullyism in next Tuesday's final debate and we will be allowed to gauge the true, meaningful and relevant qualifications of the two candidates in a calm and rational environment.  As James Lipton, Dean Emeritus of the Actors Studio in New York, most notably concluded this week on MSNBC's October 17th, HARDBALL program, "Do we want a president, or do we want a boss?"

The Role of Government

With fewer than 90 days now left before this nation can finally put our latest presidential election behind us, it might be useful to examine the central question that is at the heart of all the vitriol which has spewed from both sides over these past few months - i.e. just what is the role of government in our lives?  On the right you have the popular position that was advanced by Ronald Reagan in the 1980's that government is the problem and needs to get out of the way of private enterprise.  That spawned "Starve the Beast", "Trickle Down" and "Compassionate Conservatism" policies which I think have been abject failures.  On the left you have the position that government is the solution to our many problems and needs to be even more active in framing policies that improve our well being.  "The New Deal", The New Frontier" and "The Great Society" come to mind, but they came with great financial costs.  While this basic divide is not new, as even the framers of our constitution bickered over the same issue, what is different now is the total polarization of both sides that has created absolute gridlock and inaction at the very time we need our congress to be addressing full time the many profound issues that currently face our nation.  Instead they decide to take a five week recess. 

While I do not pretend to have the ultimate answer to what the role of government should be, some very qualified individuals have provided us with a prism through which we might at least begin to rationally examine this question.   In this regard perhaps the best place to start is with David Wessel's July 31st interview on NPR's Fresh Air program discussing his new book Red Ink about the federal budget debate.  Go to http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157610155/facing-the-fiscal-cliff-congress-next-showdown and listen to the entire discussion, but his main thesis is that unless something is done before December 31st of this year we face a "fiscal cliff" of higher taxes and draconian spending cuts that he likens to pulling the trigger on a loaded gun.  Furthermore, he blames this potential crisis on the fundamental impasse on the role of government emphasized by the central question posed in this blog - one side wants less government, one side wants more.  While we all are aware of the recent events that have led us to this precipice (e.g. two unfunded wars, reduced taxes, prescription benefits not paid for and a horrible economic crisis unlike any since the 1930's), some either do not understand or do not care about the true consequences of the political paralysis which has gripped our national legislative process due in large measure to a new wave of congressmen who are willing to risk everything just to advance their ideology.  And now that one of those ideologues, Paul Ryan, has been chosen as Mitt Romney's running mate, this divide is now going to be made even more prominent because, in effect, Mr. Romney has now made Mr. Ryan's proposed Path to Prosperity budget his.  As such, it becomes the centerpiece of Mr. Romney's agenda and, therefore, his vision for the role of government.

For those who may not know, Mr. Ryan wants to essentially gut Medicare as we know it, transfer Medicaid to the states; severely cut spending on programs that help the poor; do away with subsidies to agriculture, education, transportation and scientific research; revise the tax code to benefit the rich; and abolish many other programs that make this country great, including earmarks he once used to great advantage to resurrect the economy around his  own hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin.  Included in that government aid, which he seems to so despise, was a water treatment plant, funds for a technical college to retrain GM workers, improvements for a bus system, expansion of I-90 and creation of the Janesville Innovation Center to provide space from which entrepreneurs could launch their business innovations, facts well documented in an article by Ryan Lizza in the August 6th edition of The New Yorker magazine.  All of these government benefits illustrate precisely the point President Obama made on July 13th when he proclaimed in part that "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help" and that "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges".   What Mr. Ryan ultimately plans to do about Social Security is a little more murky, but he was the main architect of the privatization plan that George Bush abandoned in 2005, even though Mr. Ryan himself apparently survived on those benefits after the sudden death of his father (per article in the August 12th edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette).  So how disingenuous is it for someone to ridicule and want to dismantle the very government programs from which he so personally and politically benefited over the years?  In short, some of his ideas, which came from his ardent attachment to the writings of Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, are so severe that even Newt Gingrich labeled them "right-wing social engineering" during the Republican primaries.  Read even more about Mr. Ryan's thinking from a New Republic article dated August 11, 2012 at  http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106029/ryan-romney-vp-budget-cuts-medicare-medicaid-voucher-tax-cut. 

So, what exactly is the proper role of government?  Frankly, I think the answer to that question lies somewhere between the two extremes alluded to above, but government policies that further enrich the rich and only increase funding for the military but ignore the needs of the poor, elderly, infirm and disadvantaged are totally misguided, wrong-headed and bad for this country as a whole in my view.  Surely, we Americans deserve better than that.     





     

Emma Dilemma

She came into our lives 14 years ago this coming November as the result of a pledge I had made to my wife that she could get a dog if I got elected to the City Board.  I did, she did and our lives were never the same thereafter.  Even though we had experienced dog ownership before, none had ever come close to Emma in emotional attachment because we had never had a dog grow old on us.  Consequently, she became an integral and very important part of our family during her equivalent 98 years of human life.

To understand Emma you must first know that she was a Boston Terrier, an all-American breed we had owned before, but with her own unique independence, spirit and personality as captured perfectly in the occasional appearance of Cagney in John Deering and John Newcombe's comic strip Zack Hill published daily in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.  From the moment she demonstrated those traits by negotiating the steps up our then outside deck as just a small little black and white ball of puppy fuzz, we knew there was something very special about this one.  Of course there was the chewing phase during which she had a great time with socks, toys and chair legs, but why she chose to attack a couple of treasured stereo speakers, which put her in the figurative dog house with me, I will never understand.  But as all dog owners know, such misbehavior is soon forgotten and quickly replaced when those warm eyes look up at you and say "please give me a pat on the head or rub on the tummy (or a treat in Emma's case)".   And it sure did not hurt that her appeal came from a cocked head with a distinctive diamond on top of that classic black and white tuxedo body.  See for yourself.

As the years passed by, and with a totally empty nest, Emma became our child which we closely nurtured through all known phases of her development and care.  Sure there were the regular trips to the vet for checkups, shots, shampoo and nail clipping.  But as luck would have it, Emma fell victim to several afflictions, many of which were unique to her breed, not the least of which was loud snoring while sleeping.  But she had hardly been in our home a month when she developed a hernia that we were told was qualification enough to return her to the breeder.  However, my wife declared "no way", as the family bonds were already beginning to be formed.  Fortunately, we were able to have the hernia fixed at the same time we had her spade.  This duel surgery was followed the next year by a diagnosis of luxating patellae (back knees) that eventually required not one but two surgeries to fix, which meant two separate operations with both legs being wrapped in hot pink casts for several weeks.  How she was able to get around during those many weeks of recuperation and also negotiate her crate which she loved to sleep in, is still a mystery, but no doubt it had to be part of that indomitable spirit built into her DNA first noticed upon her arrival as a young pup.  And, finally, there were the eye problems which were initially diagnosed as glaucoma, resulting in her being scheduled to have one of those big black eyes that had turned cloudy at this point, removed.  Literally on the day before that surgery we decided to get another opinion from an out of town canine ophthalmologist who immediately diagnosed her condition as Endothelial Cell Dystrophy, a condition again unique to Boston Terriers.  He performed corrective surgery on the spot on one of her eyes, even though he had given us the option to have them both fixed at the same time.  That recuperation involved antibiotic pills, eye drops several times a day and that dreaded dog collar to prevent further damage to her eye.  Again, she never skipped a beat.  Then several months later we repeated this same grueling process all over again on the second eye.  It was during this period in her life that one of our beloved vet staff gave her the tag "Emma Dilemma".    

While my wife and I accepted the fact that Emma was totally dependent upon us for every aspect of her life (i.e. love, affection, food, water, safe housing, recreation, etc.), I don't think either of us realized how much our attachment to her was slowly growing ever stronger day by day through those many years, even as she slowed down due to blindness, congestive heart failure and deafness in the last two years of her life, but through it all still showing that same spunk and spirit which had so endeared us to her from the beginning.  I know I didn't, as her deteriorating condition including frequent incontinence in the last few months actually became very stressful to me.  Like most pets, though, during that last month even she recognized her condition was worsening, as she began eating less and less until finally on Wednesday, June 13th, she quit eating anything, including her beloved treats.  However, none of those signs prepared us for the end which began around 7:00pm that night when her little heart began to fail and she started gasping for breath.  Both my wife and I had vowed we would never let her suffer, so thanks to a most compassionate and caring vet who had cared for Emma her entire life, she agreed to immediately meet us at her office and bring an end to Emma's life with grace and dignity, for which my wife and I shall always be grateful.  Although our now empty and silent house has become almost unbearable, we both agree that Emma will most likely be our last dog, as the pain of loss is simply too great to endure again at this late stage in our lives.  We'll just let our fond memories of her fill that void.

"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" - Sometimes

No doubt we are all familiar with Clare Boothe Luce's famous quote "No good deed goes unpunished" which is often used to describe good and noble acts or service which sometimes result in unintended negative consequences for the persons committing these acts or rendering those services.  When that happens, it makes one wonder why even try to do good, as it tends to suck all positive energy from one's soul.  But as I resume this blog after a three month hiatus, I am happy to report that good deeds do not always get punished.  Just on an institutional level there are numerous charitable organizations which constantly do wonderful things that make a huge and measurable impact on people's lives and well-being.  However, the one in which I have recently become involved and would like to promote is Habitat for Humanity, and more specifically Habitat for Humanity of Pulaski County.

For those who may not know, Habitat for Humanity is an international nonprofit with over 2,000 affiliates world wide which "seeks to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action".  Founded in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built more than 150,000 houses in over 3,000 communities around the world, providing 750,000 people with "safe, decent and affordable shelter".  The cost of these dwellings range from a low of a few thousand dollars to an average of $53,309 in the United States which is achieved often times by donated material but always with volunteer, cost free labor.  However, these are not give away houses.  Each house is sold to qualified low income family with a non-interest bearing 30-year mortgage loan who is expected to contribute some of their own sweat equity into the project.

On a local basis, since 1987 Habitat for Humanity of Pulaski County has provided more than 100 families with affordable housing, and looks to expand that performance in the future by engaging other organizations (e.g. churches, businesses, civic groups and foundations) and individuals to partner with them by contributing either money or time through active volunteerism.  In addition we also have two area retail stores offering a wide selection of donated items at very reasonable prices, one at 2657 Pike Avenue in North Little Rock and a newer one at 6700 South University in Little Rock which will be celebrating a Grand Opening next Thursday, June 14th starting at 11:00am.  In fact one of the main purposes of this blog is to extend to you all the following cordial invitation to attend this Grand Opening:

And, finally, there is so much more you can learn about this wonderful organization that does many good deeds every day that go unpunished at http://www.habitatpulaski.org/ , so please go look and see for yourself.  I think you will be greatly rewarded by that experience.