Monthly Archives: September 2011

Moderate

Posted on September 5, 2011 | 1 comment

There’s been much talk in the last few days weeks months years about the need to compromise.  To reach out, walk the aisle and find partners in diplomacy in order to strike a deal, pass legislation. And I think, to a large degree, that such sentiments are noble and admirable.  In the end, a compromise or coming together, where both sides can walk away and succeed in front of their “bosses” is, or should be, the goal.

Much of what I do in my job is such positioning, or compromising.  There are certain jobs that have to be done, some that don’t of course, and they must be done, or sunset, by a certain group of people.  Often times, the group that SHOULD be doing the work doesn’t WANNA do the work.  Or, the converse is true as well, the organizations that own the work today don’t wanna give it up.  Either way, two divergent thoughts about how to get the thing done.  Only in rare circumstances do I advocate for a total power play.  Most often I urge an agreement that will allow both managers to succeed in front of their boss.

Politics should be no different.

However, it assumes that both players are moderates.  That they don’t have the dogma associated with the zealot.  Faced with conflicting ideas and paths toward success, they feel sure that the “other guy” has the same goal in mind.

Today, that is not the case.  We are dealing with a different kind of conflict today.  We’re debating the very essence of how our government should be organized.  We are NOT debating about how we are going to run an agreed upon government.

On one side, you have a group of people who feel as free and as open a market is best suited to bring about prosperity to a nation as a whole.  On the other, you find a group f of people who feel that by taking more and more of another’s property is the best way to bring about prosperity as a whole.

This is not a debate about a middle ground, this is a debate about which form we wanna live under.

Ayn Rand said it best:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

I can’t compromise with today’s Democrats when it comes to their larger world view.  It has come down to what system of government we will agree to abide by.

1 Comment

Posted in Diplomacy, Government, Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

Income Disparity

Posted on September 5, 2011 | 1 comment

Income disparity.

Wikipedia describes it like this:

Income inequality in the United States of America is the extent to which income, most commonly measured by household or individual, is distributed in an uneven manner.

Pretty fair I think.  It hits what I think are the important aspects of the topic:

  1. Income
  2. How measured
  3. Distributed
  4. Uneven

I think that most reasonable people wanna help out the folks who need the help.  Further, I think that most reasonable people wouldn’t personally help those folks, who-while down on their luck, aren’t down due to luck.

Anyway, very often when solutions are discussed, or when examples of success are presented, I am faced with the argument that the Income Disparity, the Income Inequality of America is very very poor.  So poor, perhaps, that we rank near, tied for or dead, last.  A common tool to measure the disparity in incomes is the GINI Coefficient.  Or the GINI Index.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper “Variability and Mutability”

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of a distribution, a value of 0 expressing total equality and a value of 1 maximal inequality. It has found application in the study of inequalities in disciplines as diverse as sociology, economics, health science, ecology, chemistry, engineering and agriculture.

It is commonly used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth.  Worldwide, Gini coefficients for income range from approximately 0.23 (Sweden) to 0.70 (Namibia) although not every country has been assessed.

Most uses of the GINI Coefficient that I have ever heard of deal with Income Disparity.  Though from reading wiki, it seems that the GINI Coefficient is simply a tool to measure dispersion.  So, it’s nice to learn that the GINI is simply a statistical tool that has been applied to measure income disparity.

As I am generally ignorant of many things the measuring of income between the people of a nation, I think it’s important to learn more.  As I enter into this investigations, I’m struck by two aspects of the inquiry:

  1. Does it matter?
  2. What is being measured?

The second first.  Because the GINI can be used to measure seemingly anything at all;  fish in a body of water, water in a body of land or pine cones in a body of grass.  It’s important to know what the subject of the measurement is.  And I think that most discussions surrounding the GINI are clear on what they are measuring.

For example, we are having a discussion concerning taxation on my post concerning Denmark and the United States.  One of my friends  points out that:

The US pre-tax and transfer GINI index is at .46, while Sweden is at .43, and Denmark and Norway are at .42. That means pre-tax they are slightly more even in income distribution, but not much. German has a bigger pre-tax gap between the rich and the poor than the US at .51.

After tax the US GINI index moves to .38 — a modest improvement. But it is the most income disparity of the entire industrialized world. Taxes and transfers move the wealth distribution from .46 to .38.

After taxes and transfers Denmark is at .23.

Clearly the GINI is being used to measure two different things.  Income pre-tax and then income post-tax.  Which is valid as long as the measurements are clearly labelled.  And again, I think in most cases they are honestly so represented.

Now the first.  Does it matter?

This is trickier.  Does the fact that the richest among us make more than the poorest among us matter?  Perhaps.  It sounds like there is a body of evidence that suggests it does matter AND that when that disparity is high, society suffers.  I don’t know, I haven’t looked at it.  First blush, I think my take is that I don’t care as long as I have a reasonable shot at getting pretty close to the top.  And reasonable can mean many things.  When I buy a lottery ticket I have as reasonable a shot as anyone else.  I certainly would resent the rich having a better shot at winning numbers than me JUST because they were rich.

So, where are we.

I wanna look at Income Disparity.  Perhaps as it’s measured by the GINI.  And I wanna know, at the end, several things.  The first of which is: DOES IT MATTER?

And if it does, which of the following matters the most:

  1. Straight income.  The MONEY paid from employer to employee.
  2. Total compensation.  The total compensation from employer to employee.
  3. This measurement BEFORE taxes.
  4. This measurement AFTER taxes.
  5. Finally, this measurement AFTER social entitlement programs.

Let’s see how this goes.

Thoughts?

1 Comment

Posted in Economics, Economy, Liberty, Politics: National

Tagged ,

Beware The Liberal Siren Song

Posted on September 2, 2011 | 9 comments

If you believe the likes of Barack Obama and his of his socialist, fascist friends, you will believe that the American system of economics benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

The rich get the breaks and the poor are exploited.

Don’t believe it:

Did you know that in Denmark, the poorest 30 percent pay 14.1 percent of all taxes and the richest pay 48.7 percent, while in the United States, the poorest 30 percent pay just 6.1 percent of all taxes and the richest 30 percent pay a whopping 65.3 percent? The surprising thing is not that the richest pay most of the taxes but that the U.S. has nearly the most progressive tax system in the world, while the Scandinavian countries have about the least progressive tax systems, contrary to commonly held belief.

Obama and his team are radical extreme thinkers when it comes to organizing our economy.  The only thing saving us is the fact that he and his team don’t have any experience in running an organization.  He simply couldn’t manage his way out of a wet paper sack.
Thank God!

9 Comments

Posted in Economics, Politics: International, Politics: National

Tagged , , , ,

Comments On Obama And Boehner

Posted on September 1, 2011 | 7 comments

All of this has caveats like crazy. All of this has elements of the “crazy”. All of it. And all of the people.

The Republicans are in the process of picking their nominee. Some are crazy, some are moderate, some are forceful and others are meek. All of that’s true and just because it IS true doesn’t make the process invalid. The primary is a key process in the larger process we loosely call “Democracy”. And THAT process should be respected.

The President wants to deliver a speech. And when the President wants to do that, in front of Congress or not, we should listen and pay attention. And if we are Congress, all the more so. However, with power comes responsibility. Recently I requested meeting with…my boss’s boss’s boss. He found time on his schedule and it was set. As the day to that meeting got closer, HIS boss requested time; the same time that he had blocked for me. He could have simply told me that we had to reschedule, he didn’t. He asked.

With power comes responsibility.

Obama shouldn’t have scheduled this speech on a date that conflicted with the debate. After all, he picked a day more than a week away after, AFTER returning from a 10 day vacation. The time clearly wasn’t crucial. But Obama didn’t do the reasonable thing-he did the partisan thing. And when he did that, he forced the Republican’s hand. And they pushed back.

Now, back to my example. My vice president asked me if we could reschedule. Even if I hadn’t been okay with it, I was, I would’ve agreed; he’s the boss and he gets to do things, even if I don’t like those things. Boehner should have called his Congress and told them to get to DC and be in their seats at the appointed hour.

But he didn’t. He declined to meet with the President of the United States of America. And instead, offered his own new date.

The whole nation was holding its breath, waiting to ee why Obama would do. We all knew it was chumpy of Obama to schedule the speech over the debate, but that Boehner pushed back was remarkable. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not fully comfortable with power. I’m not skilled in the proper use of it. But I’m a low-level manager still learning.

Obama isn’t. He’s the ‘effin President. And he got schooled in about as bad a way as I’ve seen in a long long time.

I don’t know what leaves me more saddened. The fact that we have a Speaker of the House who doesn’t respect the office of the President or that we have a low-level administrator sitting in the White House who doesn’t respect the office of the President.

Either way, today was the day that demonstrated, more than any other day, that Obama is in over his head. That he doesn’t know how to lead, to manage, to drive change, to innovate to take command. He simply doesn’t have the life experience to be the President.

To any reasonable American, today should have removed any doubt that this man does not deserve another term.

7 Comments

Posted in Government, Politics: National

Tagged , ,

Words And Definitions

Posted on September 1, 2011 | 2 comments

After the debt debate and compromise, all the talk was about the Tea Part and extremists holding the Republican party hostage.  In fact, our administration even refers to that element as terrorists lamenting the fact that there is simply no compromising with them.  That when faced with a group of people, “that extreme”, there is nothing that can be done.

I resonate.

Compromise in general and typically implies a healthy merging of ideas and policies.  It means we’ll take a little of this and combine it with a little of that and we’ll end up with something that resembles what we each started with.  However, since Barack Obama has come into office, that version of compromise has changed.

Since he famously started “negotiations” with “we won” he has done business differently.  Compromise no longer means moving from one’s position in order to find a reasonable solution.  To this administration compromise doesn’t mean “meeting in the middle”.  It means, rather, how much will it cost me.

So conversations begin with Obama saying that I want this thing.  And that thing doesn’t change during the debate.  What DOES change is what he’s willing to pay to have it.  And THAT is what he calls compromise.

Which means, of course, that there is no compromise.  Instead, you have ideology being forced through salesmanship. And the people we’re dealing with, the ideology of these people, is frightening.  Absolutely frightening.  In normal times, times when people will walk away from the cliff, it’s bad enough.  They are taking positions as a point of negotiation.  But not this President.  Not today’s Democrats  Not these people.

These people wanna rule by force.  They want to impose their agenda and are unwilling to walk it back.  I’ve used words like Socialist and Fascist.  Folks have objected to such language.  It’s very unpleasant being called socialist or fascist.  I get it, I don’t like those words or ideas either.

But when the facts are the facts, it’s hard to hide from ’em:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has had an outspoken recess, sparring with the Tea Party, the president and other members of Congress during the Congressional Black Caucus’s (CBC) multicity jobs tour.

Tuesday night was no different, as the congresswoman urged President Obama to use his bully pulpit to demand that “gangsta” banks offer mortgage modifications that would enable people to stay in their homes or face withering taxation.

“It’s time for the bully pulpit of the White House to bring the gangstas in, put them around the table and let them know that if they don’t come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they’ve worked so hard for, we’re gonna tax them out of business,” Waters said at an event in Los Angeles.

She is specifically advocating that Obama use his power by fiat to force banks to change mortgage contracts for people who can’t pay on them or “force them out of business”.

THAT is the definition of fascist.

THAT is the implication of socialism.

Take from other people in order that others may benefit.  And if that must be done through force of law, gun and sword, so be it.

When Biden says that you can’t negotiate with these people, it’s because there is no negotiating with Obama and his people.  You can not even START to have a conversation that includes the concept of the government taxing these people out of business.

When you combine an administration made up of people unwilling to step away from their ideology and are willing to to use the White House as a “dictator” to institute their version of society, you push away from the table and walk away.

2 Comments

Posted in Government, Politics: National

Tagged , , ,