This Thanksgiving, as I read news stories about people in this country out of work trying to pay bills and put food on the table, and countless numbers around the world who are chronically short of food and basic necessities, it’s hard for us with jobs or good pensions, or both, not to be thankful for what we have.
But, then, this depends on what we are satisfied with. The word “satisfied” often suggests abundance, but it actually comes from a Latin word “satis,” which simply means “enough.” How much is enough? That’s a challenging question for members of a society bent on accumulating more things and possessions. But, I suspect for most of us, if we’re honest, it means far less than what we think we need and maybe a lot less than what we already have.
Recently, we had a chance to hear author Michael Schut discuss his book, “Money and Faith: The Search for Enough,” a series of essays he compiled by authors as diverse as Henri Nouwen and Dave Barry. Schut spoke mostly on a macro scale. Among other things, he noted that the U.S. constitutes 5 percent of the world’s population, yet consumes 24 percent of the world’s energy resources and is responsible for 72 percent of the world’s hazardous waste. Yet, getting this country to do something about that imbalance is a tough, almost impossible, political challenge.
Then, there’s the baffling case of tax cuts for the super rich, which apparently Congress will allow to continue because tax cuts for the middle class and the least affluent members of society are being held hostage in the process. This even though, according to one reliable source, the wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34 percent of the nation's net worth, the top 10 percent of families owns over 71 percent, and the bottom 40 percent of the population owns way less than 1 percent. Yet, the Tea Party and other conservatives seem to be okay with this, even though we we’ll have to knock on China’s door again, asking to borrow another $700 billion to pay for the tax cut for the wealthiest.
On the other hand, when the President, out of concern for the 30-40 million Americans who don’t have access to affordable health care, makes that his top political priority and helps usher health reform through the Congress, their anger sparked a political firestorm that wreaked havoc in the last election. Don’t try to get your head around that – it’ll give you a headache.
But, in the spirit of the season, let’s not finish on such a downer. Instead, let’s end with a stunning example of how one incredibly generous person has answered the question of how much is enough. It’s an example provided by Sue Hendon, wife of my long-time friend and former FAA colleague, George Hendon.
In a recent letter, George wrote that Sue was at a Costco store in Kansas City when she ran into an acquaintance, not a close friend, who told her that her husband was approaching renal failure and was looking for a suitable kidney donor. Not one of the seven family members and friends who had volunteered provided a suitable match, the woman said. Sue thought: Well, we can’t allow this to happen. But, she went home and discussed it with George first. Two days later, she had made up her mind. As it turned out, she was a perfect match, and three days after the operation she was home. George says that Sue’s explanation for her selfless act was simple: “If you had two cookies and a good friend desperately needed one, wouldn’t you offer one of yours? Of course, you would.”
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Gerald E. Lavey
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Parsing the Punditry
A shellacking it certainly was, as the President described it. The Republicans scored a resounding victory in the House and now hold a comfortable majority. They also substantially reduced the Democrats' majority in the Senate, along with winning a large number of state houses. So, there’s no sugarcoating the results. It was a bloodbath.
Yet, what it all means is far less certain. “Cutting spending and reducing the deficit” is a sure-fire winner on the campaign trail, but how that translates into actual cost cuts is another matter. How do you reconcile that goal with tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans? And, if you exempt defense spending and entitlement programs from spending cuts – as many of the tax-cutters seem to favor – you have taken 85 percent of the Federal budget off the table, leaving only15 percent to deal with.
Do the Republicans have a mandate to repeal health care? It would appear so, judging by the number of candidates who ran on that specific platform. But, were they running against the health care reform legislation or the hideous caricature of it as advanced by the Republicans? Moreover, exit polls showed that while 48 percent were in favor of repealing health care, 47 percent favored keeping it or expanding it. Interestingly, too, “blue-dog” Democrats, most of whom voted against health care reform and distanced themselves from the President during the campaign on that particular issue, were decimated in the election. Their caucus has been cut in half, while progressive Democrats, who voted unanimously for health care, lost only four seats.
Unfortunately, moderates in both parties lost in a big way, which does not bode well for reaching across the aisle. Besides, keep in mind that traditional Republicans held their nose and rode the enthusiasm of the Tea Party to victory, but now they have to deal with Tea Party legislators and that could be divisive and distracting for the Republican leadership. It could be fun to watch. The expression “herding cats” comes to mind.
So, while the overall results for the Democrats were bad, it remains to be seen how events play out over the next year or two. Don’t pay much attention to the pundits who are predicting the end of the Obama reign. Pundits give astrology a bad name. In 1982, after the mid-term elections, they proclaimed the end of the Reagan era, and they did the same to President Clinton in 1994 when Newt Gingrich, Tom De Lay and their gang took control with their Contract with America. In short order, the Republicans overplayed their hand and Clinton coasted to an easy victory in 1996. Moreover, despite the Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton finished his two terms with highest end-of-term rating for any President since World War II.
Don’t underestimate President Obama, either. He is an incredibly intelligent and resourceful person. However, he needs to pick up his game and be willing to show more political fight, or he won’t be able to turn the tables. And, while the problem with the latest election was not just a communications problem, as the President seemed to indicate in his post-election press conference, the administration’s failure to craft a coherent message around his initiatives was a major factor and left it to their Republican and Tea Party opponents to define them. It’s no wonder the basest of charges took root among the electorate, such as death panels and the massive government takeover of health care plus the claim that the stimulus package was a pork barrel roll that did absolutely nothing.
Meantime, as the process unfolds over the next few months, we all need to take a deep breath and relax. If nothing else, it’s going to be amusing watching the Republicans trying to decide what programs need to be cut and what regulatory restrictions need to be eased. Reading a little history helps as well. There’s nothing like an historical perspective to help ease the angst and stinging pain of such a defeat. In politics, two years are like an eternity. Stay tuned.
Gerald E. Lavey
Yet, what it all means is far less certain. “Cutting spending and reducing the deficit” is a sure-fire winner on the campaign trail, but how that translates into actual cost cuts is another matter. How do you reconcile that goal with tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans? And, if you exempt defense spending and entitlement programs from spending cuts – as many of the tax-cutters seem to favor – you have taken 85 percent of the Federal budget off the table, leaving only15 percent to deal with.
Do the Republicans have a mandate to repeal health care? It would appear so, judging by the number of candidates who ran on that specific platform. But, were they running against the health care reform legislation or the hideous caricature of it as advanced by the Republicans? Moreover, exit polls showed that while 48 percent were in favor of repealing health care, 47 percent favored keeping it or expanding it. Interestingly, too, “blue-dog” Democrats, most of whom voted against health care reform and distanced themselves from the President during the campaign on that particular issue, were decimated in the election. Their caucus has been cut in half, while progressive Democrats, who voted unanimously for health care, lost only four seats.
Unfortunately, moderates in both parties lost in a big way, which does not bode well for reaching across the aisle. Besides, keep in mind that traditional Republicans held their nose and rode the enthusiasm of the Tea Party to victory, but now they have to deal with Tea Party legislators and that could be divisive and distracting for the Republican leadership. It could be fun to watch. The expression “herding cats” comes to mind.
So, while the overall results for the Democrats were bad, it remains to be seen how events play out over the next year or two. Don’t pay much attention to the pundits who are predicting the end of the Obama reign. Pundits give astrology a bad name. In 1982, after the mid-term elections, they proclaimed the end of the Reagan era, and they did the same to President Clinton in 1994 when Newt Gingrich, Tom De Lay and their gang took control with their Contract with America. In short order, the Republicans overplayed their hand and Clinton coasted to an easy victory in 1996. Moreover, despite the Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton finished his two terms with highest end-of-term rating for any President since World War II.
Don’t underestimate President Obama, either. He is an incredibly intelligent and resourceful person. However, he needs to pick up his game and be willing to show more political fight, or he won’t be able to turn the tables. And, while the problem with the latest election was not just a communications problem, as the President seemed to indicate in his post-election press conference, the administration’s failure to craft a coherent message around his initiatives was a major factor and left it to their Republican and Tea Party opponents to define them. It’s no wonder the basest of charges took root among the electorate, such as death panels and the massive government takeover of health care plus the claim that the stimulus package was a pork barrel roll that did absolutely nothing.
Meantime, as the process unfolds over the next few months, we all need to take a deep breath and relax. If nothing else, it’s going to be amusing watching the Republicans trying to decide what programs need to be cut and what regulatory restrictions need to be eased. Reading a little history helps as well. There’s nothing like an historical perspective to help ease the angst and stinging pain of such a defeat. In politics, two years are like an eternity. Stay tuned.
Gerald E. Lavey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)