Government Responsibility…and automobiles

Penned Monday December 15th 2008

These days you hear a lot about “the Big 3″. They want money to support their business, because the American public has stopped buying their cars. There are lots of industries that influence our economy and many who have seen a shrinking of their profits. Small business makes up 2/3 of our economy. Big business only 1/3. Where is the small business stimulus? Thankfully our Senate has had enough backbone to refuse the auto deal. But when will the political pressure overwhelm common sense? The old adage money talks and bullshit walks means if as a company you are not generating enough business you must adapt to the market and fill people’s needs to bring in the money. It’s that simple and it that hard. If the government is asked to prop up a company that the public no longer supports with its wallet, a few basic questions must be asked and answered before a government pay day is even considered.

Why are these Big 3 companies not doing well?
Everywhere you go you see a car. Some old some new. What’s the problem? It’s not like we all junked our cars and started riding the bus or a bike. Perhaps their business model has been in trouble for a while. Personally I own a rice burner, not because I don’t love the USA or dislike American cars. Mostly because it was cheap, got decent gas mileage and cost little in maintenance and repairs. Ideals that most average people look for in a vehicle. American cars are big and bulky and suck up gas like no other. Why do I keep hearing that Americans won’t buy smaller more efficient cars, but at the same time the automakers can’t keep enough in stock? My ten year old car gets 30 mpg, I am not very excited when I see a current ad for a car that touts its environmentalism and gets the same mileage as my TEN YEAR OLD car. Really, in ten years that the standards haven’t been raised, is that the best they could do? Our choices swing from one end of the spectrum to another, from the smart car that hardly holds two people to giant suburban’s that hold 9 people but rarely land in the middle. Where is the midsized miracle that gets great gas mileage and holds enough people to satisfy the average American family’s needs? People are not going to continue to invest in the same old dirty technology when we see our green future staring us in the face…and it doesn’t look like your average American car, it looks more like your average foreign car. What have US auto makers done to fill the real needs of their customers?

How are they running their businesses?
Every business must balance the costs of their activities, advertising, payroll, and materials with cash flow and profits. These costs of doing business are reported internally at least quarterly, if not monthly, weekly or daily. Executive compensation, costs for lobbyists, advertising and other frivolous costs are sore spots in the budget as executives apportioned considerable sums of money to inefficient and self-serving spending. Who are the Boards financial advisors? The Board of Directors is put in place to manage the business; it would seem they were asleep at the wheel or perhaps unmotivated to be efficient. Maybe if they were more interested in reducing their costs while contributing to our global environment they would have long figured out how to partner creatively with junk yards to reclaim steel, plastics and other valuable materials. Perhaps if they spent some time in R&D to actually improve the efficiency of their cars and trucks they might have more funds on their bottom line. Perhaps if they had been leaders in their industry instead of laggards of technology, they would not be in the position they are in today. It cannot be overlooked that while company financials have signaled serious problems for years, frivolous and irresponsible spending continued.

What are their plans for the future?
Even before the thought of Government money crossed their minds they should have had some plans for the future. The auto industry is estimated to employ 3 million people, a point that many auto bailout supporters cling to. Currently more than 10 million people are collecting unemployment, what is so especially about these particular 3 million. If the Big 3 have no corporate plan for the future, they should go back to business school, where they teach you to always have a business plan with clear goals and strategy. If the Big 3 have failed to plan, they are planning to fail. The US government should not stand in their way.

So where does Government responsibility land in all this private industry mess? The US government should only take a stance in the auto wars in terms of the tax payer’s big picture. Environmental emissions, toxic waste, physical safety and other consumer protections are the beginning and the end of what the government should regulate. If thirty years ago, we passed regulatory laws that required min. 40 mpg Americans and automakers might be in a better position than we are now. But when you look back thirty years ago, the Big 3 were the first to implore to lawmakers that higher mpg was everything from impractical to impossible, not to mention too expensive to implement. The Big 3 are victims of their own success. The annals of history will show that the American people have already paid dearly for the auto industry and its wasteful practices, let’s hope our Government doesn’t increase the burden.

Bankruptcy is not the death of a company. It is a marked change from its past, something of which US automakers are desperately in need. Our government has no right to enter this debate; it is a war being waged on the streets of every town USA. The American people speak quietly but effectively with their wallets. The US government should follow our lead.

Government Responsibility…needs and wants

 2/18/09

In the world today we have a complete failure of economics because the US has been scamming the world and selling worthless paper. Blame wall street, the banks, the SEC, home flippers, agents and the various other players in a financial game that went unchecked and unguarded because the perceived risk did not outweigh the reward. (It never does) Lots of people made lots of money while we had a lack of oversight. Now taxpayers have to foot the bill for their extravagance. The government has tough choices to make, always will. Market forces should be allowed to play out as they will, government cannot force confidence back in on the system. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! They have bitten the hand that fed them, we will be far more skeptical now than ever. No amount of government money tossed to these wasteful greedy corporations will make people invest with them. Ever. Tangible things like gold become favored over “papers or notes” for investing. People come to value other things.

When the government proclaims they prefer that Americans pay their mortgages and reduce debts and save money, and in the same breath allows this leeching of the nations economics system happen, how dare they approach taxpayers asking to give even more money to the same groups who sucked up all their other money the first time around and still failed to provide stability for themselves or their customers. No one forced these companies to exist; they took up their business with full knowledge of the work they intended on doing. Unfortunately the last administration was asleep at the wheel and loads of bad “things” happened. Most unfortunate was the loss of consumer protections. Triple A rating, really? Beyond this segment, consumer protections in loans and credit have vanished. Until the laws change to protect the consumer, we as consumers are foolish to do business or hold assets with them. People can survive without money, trade and barter become efficient transactions whose benefits include connections amongst the community. The government should get out of the business of banking and get into the business of regulation.

The three basic tenants of our government are the people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is clearly the basics you learned about in grade school. Liberty is freedom and a tolerance for peoples wants. The Pursuit of Happiness is love, everyone has a right to love and be loved. The first word is LIFE because without life- liberty and happiness are mute. Currently money is washed all over the government in some areas that seem ill chosen and frivolous. The government should protect the people’s needs as the foundation of their relationship and only support the peoples wants as it can afford. In other words, taxpayer money spent on a marine research outpost or new skate park should only be spent if the people’s basic needs are being met. LIFE boils down to affordable food and water, affordable shelter and affordable medical access. Let’s start there! You could make a case for all sorts of other needs (like education, art, energy etc); I am talking strictly biological life needs. I am not advocating that the government should be responsible to keep all its citizens alive, they should, however be making sure that the market place provides AFFORDABLE access to life’s basics as well as support and care for the old & young who have no one to care for them. That seems reasonable to me. And these should be the only items considered for stimulus. Any other “need” is ill timed. This is not a Mardi gras cash party, it is a survivalist workshop, get it straight please!

Governments are put together for by and of the people. Yes we are in fact a republic, but a democratic one. Public opinion has always swayed the powers that be, but I don’t know that our government really understands what has happened or how we feel. Do they really understand the anger created from this preventable failure? Are we not shamed on the world stage? I hope the DC machine of it all does not keep Obama from seeing what the real truth is in the whole of the country. I have to say I am scared about Tim G. in the treasury, I think his vision is cloudy.

Government Responsibilty…checks and balances

3/18/09
As I sit here tired from listening to the testimony of AIG CEO and listening to the questions and comments of the committee panel, the least of my concerns at this point is their bonuses. Bonuses are often fractions of what the executive and employee earns in a year. I am concerned that their strategy for the future is to sell all their profitable businesses in order to pay back the loan. Huh? So they are again depending on an interested big-money buyer of their stuff! Explain to me what sense that makes. AIG solicits the government for funds, and then sells off its businesses to pay it back? Why didn’t they just sell them off in the first place! Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. I’m tired of learning about so many schemes in so many places. This is the worst terrorism of all.

The last minute Bush Administration push for this AIG bag-o-shit is now in the hands of Obama. Let’s never be confused about when this fire-storm we are experiencing was initiated. I trust Obama can fix it, his major hurdle is changing the way things work, top to bottom. But this is not about partisanship, this is not a matter of politic, financials are finite and free of emotion. Outrage from deception is found on both sides of the aisle about both sides of the aisle. A lack of transparency and oversight always increases room for deception. White collar crimes are the most detrimental of all. Silent killers. Market confidence will be restored when the Justice System becomes a definitive player in this debacle.

Tim Geithner has been involved one way of another for some time, if he proves to be a major conflict of interest player in all this, Obama should consider a complete outsider to replace him. Transparency and future vision often comes with impartiality.

I hate to hear Obama saying that things are “too complicated to get into” when speaking to the press. We can understand, the “people” are not stupid, but our media sources might be! The internet has created a much needed checks and balances for media information. Complete access is powerful. But it also changes the way we move toward the future. People don’t want to pay for things they can get for free. Newspapers lose business. Things are changing and it’s great! That’s a free market; the people speak with their wallets. Newspapers will have to change to keep their market share. If change was really a problem we’d still be riding in horse and buggies. If only our government leaders had more confidence in or paid more attention to, the voice of the people.

Checks and balances are in place for a reason. We must be sure not to impede them. Perhaps the Justice Branch should weigh in on all bills and legislation. Someone should have to read the bills in their entirety. How on earth do they know what they are agreeing to, Senators saying they didn’t have time to read the legislation before passing it? Make time (expletive here). What else are you there for? You would think a huge systemic program like this would have been reviewed many times over, thoroughly discussed and debated. Maybe they should require a pop quiz before the vote, so they have to have read the damn thing to be able to voice an opinion on it! Hello is ANYONE at home?

As a nod to public anger, those who have called on people to hurt themselves or others are out of line. But justice must prevail and this little Bonuses tidbit is reasonable cause to blow the whole thing open and really look at it. Let’s slow down and take the time to read. By the by, all contracts have exit clauses, they are usually based on performance. If contracts aren’t negotiable they would never exist in the first place.

Middle Class America

1/30/2009

I am thrilled to hear the words spoken on this issue by both Obama and Biden. As an small business owner/operator and artist, and I consider myself middle class although my households’ income falls below the median income of fifty two thousand a year. Middle class issues are health care and its exorbitant rates, the loss of consumer protection in the financial and insurance sectors, and rising costs of energy and education beyond the growth in income. Low interest rates do nothing for those who cannot afford to purchase a home. Credit card rates are higher than mortgage rates, many Americans pay over 15% interest some as high as 32%. Usury laws must be revised and state exemptions must be carefully reviewed to ensure fairness in lending and credit for all Americans regardless of headquarters location. All Insurance becomes a pyramid scheme when motivated solely by profit and not human need. If every policy holder needed help tomorrow, insurance companies could not provide the level of coverage they promised to everyone. It’s a statistics game.
Generally, the privatization of government functions over the last 40 years has shifted motive and abuses have been allowed to take place in many arenas. We extol the virtues of the work of non-profits because there is an inclusive goal of improvement and filling community need. Our government is invested by us to act as a non-profit with a focus on the American people as beneficiary, after all, we create the funds our government plays with. Consumer protections must be taken seriously.
Historically, the populous are far more fiscally conservative than businesses and governments tend to be. I must say I am concerned about all this quick spent TARP and other Funds, not put back in the hands of the taxpayer, instead pumped into slow lumbering corporations that already have (but refuse to use) exit strategies built-in to free enterprise. Sustainability is the cap stone of a free market economy, in that capitalism only works when consumers truly have the power to kill a business. Every household could have received more than $7,000.00 for the same expense in funding budget. For many people it would pay a year of mortgage payments, pay down expensive debt or pay for medical expenses, and otherwise provide savings/spending for everyone. If the businesses needed government assistance because homeowners were defaulting, how many people could the government have kept in their homes while also sustaining the customer base for these big companies? I work hard in my business, when I have to tell my employees that they aren’t getting a bonus while I cut my pay, then hear that executives of bailout recipient companies are getting bonuses on top of pay increases and not changing wasteful spending. Disgusting. Executive retention?! Why are they worth keeping? They are not victims of their business, they are responsible for it, and the captain must go down with the ship!
In order to control the beast that is corp. officer compensation while gaining valuable tax revenue, the government should remove the caps (in tax) for Medicare, let it be a simple percentage of the dollar amount earned, a flat tax if you will. It’s currently 7.65% of a person’s income if they make $102,000.00 a year or less. So the person making 4 million a year is contributing the $7803.00 the same as the person who makes 103 thousand a year. How can you ask one person to contribute 7.65% of their income and ask another to only pay .2%? Respecting human life requires a priceless attitude when it comes to health. We should all be just as valuable as each other, refer to both the Constitution and the Bible to understand this concept. If a millionaire can’t afford to contribute 7.65% of their income, how can you ask anyone else to?
I understand that the spending in the government is huge dollars, but the line items on those budgets must be revised and prioritized according to “people first, then money, then things”, as Suze Orman likes to say, and she’s 100 percent right, morally and fiscally.
I hope Obama can cope with the rigors of the office of President. I sometimes feel like Bush did this on purpose, squeeze the last possible dollars out of the system for his buddies…and then leave the next guy to fix it. A giant “fuck you” if you will. Good luck President Obama.

 

LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS

penned  10/20/2008
Recently I read a letter to the editor of Mountain Xpress, from a person who suggests that we no longer spend wisely, or live within our means, and instead recklessly rack up debt to afford our lifestyle. While it is easy to blame an individual in specific circumstances like the retail therapy patient or shoe-aholic, I do not think we are as frivolous as the writer thinks. I wanted to learn more about what “living within our means” means for the average American and why it seems hard for us to do it in this day and age. With this financial meltdown, everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. Some blame the government or Wall Street, banks and creditors, others blame the individual. Historically, individuals are far more conservative with funds than governments or businesses tend to be. This current crisis began with the claim that “too big to fail” banks were going under because of sub-prime loan defaults. The fact is 75% of subprime loans continue to be paid on time. These banks chose the terms and path along which the average American would acquire a home loan. Companies that claim bankruptcy still have assets. Now we have our government throwing money at the problem instead of taking the time to analyze and think. If businesses are “too big to fail” is our government “too big to fail”? If this crisis is so complicated that our financial leaders don’t agree on a solution, how is the average American to understand?

Since living within your means equals the B word, I researched budget calculators and tried to make a composite of what the budget guru’s recommend. What a flummox! Depending on whom you talk to or where you look, there is not one definitive budget. Those from debt counselors and financial advisors vary widely and most budget calculators’ percentages add up to more than 100 percent. Most calculate between 82 and 147 percent, which I think is truly disastrous. How can anyone understand budgeting advice with a disclaimer that categories do not add up to 100 percent? Here are the categories with the % ranges; savings 5-20%, housing 20-35%, utilities 5-10%, food 5-20%, transportation 6-20%, personal/clothing 7-10%, medical/health 2-10%, recreation 5-10% and charitable 4-15%. Any household budget must include all the realistic expenses required to survive while staying within the framework of their income. The best approach to budgeting I found was from a guy who suggests only five categories; needs/commitments 60%, wants/fun 10%, long-term savings 10%, short term savings 10% and retirement 10%. Personally I like the five categories idea, needs and commitments category includes whatever fits your life, the rest is for savings, the future and fun stuff. It feels easy, and that is the best place to start when making a budget.

To find the budget for the average American, I looked up median incomes, median home prices, and other data for the average Household; all of which are available through government websites. So let’s look at the needs category of 60%. Most would agree the average household (or any human for that matter) needs food, water, shelter, clothing, transportation, health care, education and art/religion. I suppose that the funds from the wants /fun category could combine with the needs category to give the budget extra funds, but as we know all work and no play make Jack a dull boy. Living within one’s means should mean that we have room for life and living. In 2008 the average household earns $50,233.00 a year. A proper budget will allocate $30,150.00 a year to pay for all their needs. $5,023 for fun/wants and the rest for savings and retirement adding up to $15,060.00.

So since homeownership is at the crux of this “living within our means” crisis, let’s have a good look at costs for shelter and what has happened to our ability to buy a home while considering we must live within our means.

A few years ago I remember hearing about 0 down payment loans or 100% financing and thought it was a mistake to allow people to have a home without first saving some funds. The standard down payment is 20% of a house’s value, so perhaps lowering the down payment to 10 or 5 percent would have been a better idea than no down payment. There is no question that banks had dollar signs in their eyes and never thought for a moment about the financial impact of a borrower without the ability to save before becoming a homeowner. If you can’t save anything, not even 5%, how will you be able to pay for the new roof, furnace or other home upkeep? I am sure those who wanted to buy a home and could not accumulate a down payment were not attempting to get something for nothing as many would imply. Instead, they ended up getting nothing for something by paying interest only and gaining zero equity for the few years they could afford the loan. The secure feeling of being a homeowner was their motive and we cannot fault anyone who has those feelings, it human to need shelter. The banks simply should have known better, they are the financial experts and it is their instruments they are selling. Even when you go to a carnival you have to be “so many inches tall” before you can ride the rides. While I am sure carnies would love to have the extra income from the littlest ones, there is a reason why there are qualifications to ride. It should not be up to the rider to know what those safety pitfalls are; it’s up to the carnival to know what they are selling and inform their customers. What happened to consumer protections?

In order to compare where we are we have to look to a time prior, I picked forty years, 1968 because it seems long enough ago to be a “different time” and not so long ago no one remembers it. In an effort to simply examine all the points of home buying on a budget let’s assume that the average household saves a modest 5% of their income for a 20% down payment on a home. Let’s also assume that with their down payment they qualify for a loan and get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage in order to keep their payments affordable. This is the traditional, safe, sound way of buying a home.

In 1968 the average household made $7,740.00 dollars a year. The average home price was $20,100.00 and the average interest rate was 6.75%. The average household in 1968 would need 10 years to save for a down payment, and once they got a loan they would spend $104.00 a month, or 16% of their income. In 2008 the average household makes $50,233.00 a year. The average home price is $203,000.00 and the average interest rate is 5%. The average household today would need 16 years to save for a down payment, and once they got a loan they would spend $872.00 a month or 21% of their income. Wait a minute, what happened? Why does it take us 6 years longer and cost us 5% more to secure a home than it did 40 years ago. Let’s assume that the average household starts saving at 18 years old. In 1968 they would save and pay for a home by the age of 58, four years before retiring. In 2008 they would save and pay for a home by the age of 64, two years after retiring. What does this mean for the future average household, will it take them 70 years to save for and buy a home? At what point does it no longer make sense to even try to buy a house, if you die before you can pay it off? Is there something flawed in my simplicity?

Perhaps the gap is not caused by the price and financing of a home but in the buying power of our income. Perhaps this only shows us that our incomes have not kept pace with cost of living. What happened to our income? Let’s compare average executive compensation with the average worker compensation for 2008 and 1968. In 1968 the average executive made 24 times their average worker, or the executive made in one day what the worker made in one month. In 2008 the average executive makes 50 times their average worker, or the executive makes in one day what their average worker makes in two months. This is the average mind you, as we have seen in the news; some executives get paid as high as 275 times the average worker! American executives are the highest paid in the world bar none. The average Japanese executive makes only 25% of an average American exec. In Canada, the average exec. makes 50%. Why are our executives so overpaid? What should the average household do about this, not go to work or maybe work for themselves? But I digress.

This article is about living within our means and whatever the reason is, average housing for the average household costs 21%. Now this does not include utilities like electric, heat or water, maintenance, property taxes and flood insurance, so let’s assume that the yearly cost for all that is another 9% or $4520.00 a year. So the cost of living in your own house is 30%. Half our budget for needs is gone. But it seems to fall in line with most budget calculators. We still have to eat, have transportation and health care.

Let’s tackle health care first; we can eat beans and rice and ride a bike. If you are fortunate enough to have employer provided health care, they help cover half of the expense. If you aren’t, the average household is paying for a policy that costs about $10,000. This is an average policy that has a high deductible and does not cover vision, dental or prescriptions. Lord, help those with preexisting conditions. I went to several “compare a policy” sites and they only got more expensive to cover everything or got cheaper but covered only catastrophic costs. Independent health care costs 20% of our average household’s income. Let’s hope that the average household has health insurance through their employer and their cost falls to just 10%. However, if they end up needing to pay their deductible ($5,000.00), that cost will rise back up to 20%. And if the independent policy is used and they need to pay the deductible, their health care costs could soar to 30%. Bye-bye to the rest of the needs budget, yikes. I tried to find health insurance statistics but the only information I could find begins in 1988 and it doesn’t cover cost related info. I wonder why.

Okay… housing 30% plus health care 20% equals 50%, which means the average household has 10% left or $5023.00 to eat and get to work 5 or 6 days a week for one year. Transportation is an expense that depends on where you live, what you do and how you do it. If you live in New York City you are likely to not own a car and take public transportation. If you live in Los Angeles you are likely to have a car and drive long distances to get to work. With the millions of cars driving around on the streets let’s assume the average household needs at least one car to get to work. Budget calculators range transportation between 6-20% Hopefully the average households paid for this car with their short term savings and do not also have a car payment. If they do have a car they either bought an old cheap car that gets terrible gas mileage or an expensive new car that gets terrible gas mileage. In Europe cars are mandated to get higher gas mileage than in the US. You can’t blame an “addiction to oil” on the average household, because the available technology doesn’t give them a choice to reduce consumption.  I was in England recently and the Land Rover SUV got 45 miles to the gallon. Yup, it’s true, I checked and double checked. Now it was different in that the car body was narrower than one you’d find here, but just as comfy, everyone had a cup holder and there was enough room for 4 peoples’ luggage. Where is this car in America? Why are the Land Rovers here only good for 18 mpg at best? Why don’t we have a choice? Again I digress; it does nothing in real terms for our budget. Assuming that in order to stick to their budget the average household can only spend on the low end 5 % $2511.00 a year on transportation, or $209.00 a month for gas, oil changes, inspections and insurance. Repairs will have to come from their short term savings. That leaves 5% or 50 dollars a week for food for our average household or $7.14 a day. No eating out for them, beans and rice it is. Already they have spent the entire needs/commitment budget and they haven’t bought clothes, shoes, soap, or a toothbrush. They haven’t tithed their church or bought birthday gifts.

So let’s figure out how much money we have left of our average income. Housing- 30% plus Health care 20%, plus transportation 5% and food 5% equals 60 percent.

 Add clothes, shoes, soap, a birthday dinner out and car repairs- 10% That’s 70% We’ve busted our Needs Commitments percentage and sucked up the wants and fun, dang.

Plus education or early child care-5%, plus charity 5%, now we have spent 80%. That leaves 20% for savings, retirement, and the ever mysterious miscellaneous.

 In order to save funds for retirement let’s assume a modest 10% ($5,023.00 a year) in the budget. Let’s also assume that our average American saves 5% for a long term savings. Now we have spent 95% of our budget. But wait there are more bills to be paid. What haven’t we paid for yet?

Oh right, vacation, gifts, leisure activities, well…we’ll see. What else? Uh visits to the dentist, life insurance, right, I forgot about that, oops. Take prescription drugs? That might take a bite out of things. Now what else do you need to pay for if you are an average household? Ooooh… credit card debt, never mind…  any remaining cash will easily be sucked into paying off credit card, maybe even more than that, sucking up potential savings and retirement dollars. YIKES we are flat broke. But we will survive, that’s what people do. It’s just money. In this scenario the household has middle class income, but half the households live under this median amount.

I think we have created a new world order where the costs of basic living are getting too expensive. Who the “we” is depends on who you ask and how you look at the world, I guess. Ultimately, the problem is that we cannot collectively as humans allow the cost of basic existence on this planet more than what an average human life can afford. Churches travel all over the world and build schools and hospitals, help find clean water sources, feed the hungry, actions that insure the basic survival of the people. Governments are similar to churches in that we all tithe our government (taxes) in exchange for expenditures on our behalf. Clearly the largest problematic segment of the average households’ budget is insurance at 30%. The privatization of insurance has created greed not tempered by the humanity of need. Basic human needs require the protection of leaders in order to maintain a civilized group, hence the word government. The questions of whom what where when or why about governments is beyond my scope for today.

Living in our means is important, in both discussion and practice, but only when there is enough income to pay first for the fixed cost items you have little control over, such as health care and housing. The problem we face today is bigger than one individual household’s ability to exert force on this failing economy. We must be wary of blaming each other as individuals when we are talking about sacrifices for balanced budgets. There clearly are forces at work increasing the cost of living beyond acceptable limits for the average household. We have to make choices and it is clear what sacrifices people are making. We have record highs of 47 million uninsured. We have foreclosures and defaulting loans in record numbers. Savings at all time lows. We can’t remove eating from the budget, so we scrimp and bargain hunt as the cost of food rises to record highs. Charities beg and plead for donations, while the average household feels terrible about having to say no. Restaurants and retail sales are hurting, while oil and gas companies are thriving. Is all of this because true market factors are at work or is there manipulation, price fixing, and wage suppression occurring? Who or what has warped the true cost of human survival? Should we be more concerned with a balanced budget than the line items on that budget? What if the average household did not pursue owning a home? What if the average household was paid properly and fairly? What if executives had caps on their ratio percentages thereby creating incentive to bring everyone else up in order to increase their own pay. What if the average household lived within their means because it was possible to do so!

Here we go again!

I am not entirely surprised at the Republican leaders’ reactions to the Presidents song. All politicians (R or D) are in a race (aka popularity contest) for votes more than anything else. American voters’ opinions are rarely summed up in the singular hard-line of party agenda. The first amendment right might be the right to free speech, but on a deeper level it is also the right to free thinking. Republicans and Democrats do agree on some issues, they are actually not very different in the big wide world of political ideology. But how can a voter pick one person over another if the candidates share the same beliefs and opinions? That’s ineffective campaigning and the only way for one candidate to stand out from another is for there to be specific differences that are the main topic of conversation. Sensibility is boring, political candidates put it aside to gain public support and polarize the population along party lines.

First it was the President’s speech to school kids telling them to stay in school. Republican leaders rallied before knowing the exact content of the speech, creating a public fever over “indoctrination”. When I saw schools banning the President’s speech addressing kids, I was shocked and amazed.  Every President since the dawn of Presidents has addressed school kids; President Reagan had a huge contract-signing campaign in “Just Say NO”, on the morning of 9/11 we see President Bush in a classroom reading a book to children. There was no indoctrination outcry because that’s what Presidents do; the leadership position of President and Commander in Chief demands respect, you don’t have to agree with them but you have to listen. I was a Clinton supporter and thought had it been Hillary addressing our students, the Republican reaction would never have been as severe as to ban and censor the President. What Republican leaders are in effect saying by their radical opposition of the event is that “we don’t want our kids to see leadership from a black man”, because certainly the content of the event “we want our kids to stay in school” is supported by most Republicans. All Americans believe in the power of education to make lives better, but that is not a politically polarizing story.

Now it’s the songs. Have you actually read the lyrics? In them, the songs reflect what past Democratic leaders have said in much stronger terms. Kennedy said “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”. Martin Luther King said “I have a dream”. The rest of the lyrics mirror the Constitution, supporting equality and justice for all. These are American principles, not political ones. Any Presidents name could be insert into these lyrics (except maybe the part about being the first African American President). So the fever again is not about the content but about the man. It is a mistake for Republicans leaders to misrepresent the Presidents intent on a grand public scale like this. Most Americans do not believe the content of the message is “indoctrination” rather the core of our beliefs, basic American family values. If Republican leaders really do believe the content is indoctrination, they have yet to address exactly what President Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children into.

Winston Churchill said “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, it is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” He was right, no matter the politic. The Republican party took a beating this past presidential election, they are clearly grasping for straws (and voters).  For Republicans to gain back the sensible majority they must respect Obama’s leadership role and engage in the great debates of our time. Fear is a temporary motivator, truth is an everlasting one.