It was the summer of 1989. I had just finished my freshman year at Boston College, and was determined to get a job quickly so that I could maximize income over the summer to have spending money for my sophomore year. I followed the "path of least resistance". Instead of doing a quick job search to find the best fit, I followed a friend who had done the quick job search and got a "temp" job at a shoe factory in a neighboring town. It's interesting to me that I'm even writing about the job. You see, I worked there for less than a week. I was one of a select few people who were temporary workers there. We were the summer help, the additional labor. Most of the folks who worked there held the jobs as full-time jobs. Many of them smoked, taking advantage of the "smoke'em if you got'em" breaks many factories offer.
Anyhow, my tenure there was short. Aside from the boring nature of the job, organizing and stacking shoe boxes, styles and sizes, I ended up getting an offer for another temporary job at a records management company. It was another "path of least resistance opportunity" through my brother's job. But prior to leaving, I got a lesson from some of the full-time workers there.
It was my first day, and the floor supervisor asked me to stack shoe boxes by style and size. They were in a misfit pile of enormous size. At first glance, I would have never imagined that I'd be able to do it in a day, let alone less than a day. However after diving in and getting started, the job of organizing this pile was actually quite simple. Separate by style first, then organize each style by size. And although the original pile was gigantic, shoe boxes by themselves are pretty large, so putting a dent into the pile was rather rapid. Anyhow, I finished before lunch. I searched around for the floor supervisor, looking everywhere for him. I asked people who were doing similar exercises as I was asked to do, and they had no idea where he was. I kept looking. Guiltily, I didn't want to stand idle, so I kept looking. I finally found him, and he told me he'd meet me by my station just after lunch. So, he met me there. He was a bit surprised I had finished, and assigned me to another task for the afternoon.
Then, it happened. I was "greeted" by some of the full-time resources. They were none too pleased that I had finished my task in the a.m., letting me know that next time, it should take me a couple of days. And they weren't giving me an "estimate". They were telling me how long it should take. It was most definitely a threat. At the age of 19, this was the first time I encountered job protectionism, people fabricating how much effort was required to complete work in order to justify their position. If everyone was as efficient as I was that morning, they'd need fewer workers, and some might lose their jobs. Of course, if the company had excess bandwidth, maybe they wouldn't fire people. Maybe they'd make more shoes, have more supply and prices would be reduced for consumers. Then again, these guys didn't think that way. And so, feeling as though my efforts to streamline, improve and complete tasks were underappreciated, I moved on and left the factory behind.
This past week, I had the privilege of experiencing this phenomenon again. Although construction is way down in Chicago, the Building Department has actually gotten slower in their ability to produce permits. Major jobs (including my own) sit on hold while "project managers" reviewing the applications intentionally delay the completion of the review so their desks may appear busy. You see, if they finished their reviews as soon as possible, they would have no backlog. And if they have no backlog, they fear that they may get let go. So, my permit sat for 35 calendar days in "final" review status. The remaining task? Check a box and print the permit. That's it. And so, I went into City Hall, spoke to a manager, who had someone check the box and print the permit. I have my permit now. And my tax dollars continue to pay for the Building Department's project managers to sit idle.
Makes me want to put on a new pair of shoes.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
We The Persons
I don't like the word "people". Is it singular or plural? I think no matter the context, the word "people" never aptly describes the individual persons comprised within itself. "On behalf of the American people...the American people want this...the American people want that...etc.". Since I rarely feel as though my view is represented when the word "people" is used, I've grown a distaste for it. I'd like to propose that we try to speak without using it anymore.
As you can imagine, eliminating the use of the word "people" would have a strange effect. It might even change the way we hear rhetoric. If an elected official said, "we did this on behalf of the American Persons", our inclination would be to ask them to qualify that statement. "Which persons? ALL persons? Or was it only for the persons who voted for you?". The past couple of years have gotten extremely divisive in this country. The rhetoric has been extreme. I've heard passionate members of both houses of Congress from both major political parties say that "the American people want this bill" and others simultaneously say "the American people do NOT want this bill". Is one right? Is one wrong? The answer? They are both right and they are both wrong. There are many American persons who want the bill and many American persons who don't. But maybe an interesting omission from the English dictionary (i.e. the word "people") would create a sudden inclusion of qualifiers from elected officials so that they can explicitly state which persons about whom they are speaking. We would react, "which American persons want this bill?" and "which American persons do not?". We'd force them to answer. We'd force them to qualify it.
I've written before in this space that our country's elected officials have gotten away from the concept of representing ALL of their constituents and have moved towards representing only those constituents who voted for them (or who share their beliefs). So, we go from a 51 - 49 win one year where the winner tries to cater to the 51% who voted for them, followed by a 49 - 51 loss two years later. And throughout the past few decades, favorability for government has only decreased, despite the "political victories" that occur in between. Perhaps it is because the elected officials think that receiving 51% or 58% or whatever percent they received constitutes the right to neglect the views and opinions of all those people whose vote went elsewhere. I'd like to think that someday, someone will view themselves as the representative of all their constituents.
I think of the government as a giant checking account. ALL taxpayers (Note: From a Federal Tax standpoint, this is about 53% of American persons) make deposits into this giant checking account. Our elected officials are the "signors" on the account. They are the only ones authorized to write checks. They have to pay for themselves, their staff, their travel expenses, etc. Don't forget all the agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc. After they are all paid, they then write checks for government programs, including entitlements, endowments, etc. So again, taxpayers make deposits. Government officials make withdrawals/write checks. And as of this writing, our elected officials from both major parties have written enough checks to ring up a debt to the tune of nearly $13 trillion dollars.
So, by catering to their supporters and condoning acts such as earmarks, renegade borrowing and printing money, our elected officials will tell you that the spending that has occurred has been "on behalf of the American people". But I say, "Not this person!". I'd like our elected officials to take consideration of every bill before they vote and ask themselves the question, "The price of this bill comes at whose expense?". The answer would be persons who are likely against the bill. And if a bill has a cost to a group of persons who do not benefit from it, and a group of beneficiaries who do not pay for it, it is legalized theft. So, a natural question would be, "what bills would ever pass this test?". And that is my point entirely. Government spending ought to occur when the price comes at "every person's expense" and reaps benefits for "every person". If our elected officials had governed this way and better yet, if the future elected officials resume this practice, the result would be the smaller, less bureaucratic government our founding fathers created. A novel concept, indeed.
A friend of mine and I talked the other day about a concept of optional taxation. I believe many persons would like to be able to "opt in" to taxation for certain government programs. If you opt in, you pay taxes marked for the program and when needed, you are entitled to utilize the program in question. If you opt out, you don't pay those particular taxes and you are not eligible to receive the benefit. Persons planning to raise a family might opt in to pay taxes for public education. Persons not planning on raising a family might opt out. Persons wanting to save their own retirement money throughout their career might opt out of Social Security. Others might not want to bother with the retirement planning and may want to opt in. The concept is an interesting one, because it would allow each and every person to choose how their deposits into the big checking account get spent, and would even allow each person to choose how large their deposits are. In this scenario, each and every person would be happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Good programs would get the support they need. Bad programs would go to the wayside.
I'd be able to shop for what I want, pay for what I want and opt not to buy things I find unnecessary. Sounds like the free enterprise system to me. We should try that sometime. My suspicion is that our elected officials would tell me that this "is not good for the American people". Well, it's good for this American person.
As you can imagine, eliminating the use of the word "people" would have a strange effect. It might even change the way we hear rhetoric. If an elected official said, "we did this on behalf of the American Persons", our inclination would be to ask them to qualify that statement. "Which persons? ALL persons? Or was it only for the persons who voted for you?". The past couple of years have gotten extremely divisive in this country. The rhetoric has been extreme. I've heard passionate members of both houses of Congress from both major political parties say that "the American people want this bill" and others simultaneously say "the American people do NOT want this bill". Is one right? Is one wrong? The answer? They are both right and they are both wrong. There are many American persons who want the bill and many American persons who don't. But maybe an interesting omission from the English dictionary (i.e. the word "people") would create a sudden inclusion of qualifiers from elected officials so that they can explicitly state which persons about whom they are speaking. We would react, "which American persons want this bill?" and "which American persons do not?". We'd force them to answer. We'd force them to qualify it.
I've written before in this space that our country's elected officials have gotten away from the concept of representing ALL of their constituents and have moved towards representing only those constituents who voted for them (or who share their beliefs). So, we go from a 51 - 49 win one year where the winner tries to cater to the 51% who voted for them, followed by a 49 - 51 loss two years later. And throughout the past few decades, favorability for government has only decreased, despite the "political victories" that occur in between. Perhaps it is because the elected officials think that receiving 51% or 58% or whatever percent they received constitutes the right to neglect the views and opinions of all those people whose vote went elsewhere. I'd like to think that someday, someone will view themselves as the representative of all their constituents.
I think of the government as a giant checking account. ALL taxpayers (Note: From a Federal Tax standpoint, this is about 53% of American persons) make deposits into this giant checking account. Our elected officials are the "signors" on the account. They are the only ones authorized to write checks. They have to pay for themselves, their staff, their travel expenses, etc. Don't forget all the agencies, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc. After they are all paid, they then write checks for government programs, including entitlements, endowments, etc. So again, taxpayers make deposits. Government officials make withdrawals/write checks. And as of this writing, our elected officials from both major parties have written enough checks to ring up a debt to the tune of nearly $13 trillion dollars.
So, by catering to their supporters and condoning acts such as earmarks, renegade borrowing and printing money, our elected officials will tell you that the spending that has occurred has been "on behalf of the American people". But I say, "Not this person!". I'd like our elected officials to take consideration of every bill before they vote and ask themselves the question, "The price of this bill comes at whose expense?". The answer would be persons who are likely against the bill. And if a bill has a cost to a group of persons who do not benefit from it, and a group of beneficiaries who do not pay for it, it is legalized theft. So, a natural question would be, "what bills would ever pass this test?". And that is my point entirely. Government spending ought to occur when the price comes at "every person's expense" and reaps benefits for "every person". If our elected officials had governed this way and better yet, if the future elected officials resume this practice, the result would be the smaller, less bureaucratic government our founding fathers created. A novel concept, indeed.
A friend of mine and I talked the other day about a concept of optional taxation. I believe many persons would like to be able to "opt in" to taxation for certain government programs. If you opt in, you pay taxes marked for the program and when needed, you are entitled to utilize the program in question. If you opt out, you don't pay those particular taxes and you are not eligible to receive the benefit. Persons planning to raise a family might opt in to pay taxes for public education. Persons not planning on raising a family might opt out. Persons wanting to save their own retirement money throughout their career might opt out of Social Security. Others might not want to bother with the retirement planning and may want to opt in. The concept is an interesting one, because it would allow each and every person to choose how their deposits into the big checking account get spent, and would even allow each person to choose how large their deposits are. In this scenario, each and every person would be happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Good programs would get the support they need. Bad programs would go to the wayside.
I'd be able to shop for what I want, pay for what I want and opt not to buy things I find unnecessary. Sounds like the free enterprise system to me. We should try that sometime. My suspicion is that our elected officials would tell me that this "is not good for the American people". Well, it's good for this American person.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Common Census
I, like most Americans, completed my 2010 census. As I checked off the two major elements of the census, gender and nationality (for me, male and white), I thought about the roots of the census, how it started, why we have it, etc. Many are not aware of the fact that the United States Constitution calls for the census every 10 years. It is heartening to know that there are still aspects of the United States Constitution that are actually still followed and respected.
On this monumental weekend, on which our country will in all likelihood have a newly approved Health Care bill and further violate the United States Constitution by mandating that all people buy something, I thought I would take some points under consideration, and think about other common sense approaches to Constitution violation.
First off all, did everyone enjoy seeing the entire cast of the movies "Best In Show" and "Waiting for Guffman" in Super Bowl ads for the census? Yep. Super Bowl ads. The most expensive 30-second spots per year, and the CENSUS spent our tax dollars using one of the most famous ensemble casts in Hollywood to produce them.
Another good one is embedded in the new Health Care bill. As mentioned above, the new bill includes a mandate that all individuals must purchase health insurance. I do have to say, it is a noble idea, a goal that everyone would have access to quality care and the means to pay for it. But let me ask this, why would Warren Buffett need health insurance? He is one of the most wealthy people in our country. He already has access to quality care and the means to pay for it. So, we are going to take it a step further and REQUIRE that he pay for insurance? Bill Gates? "Sorry sir, even though you are worth umpteen billion dollars, we are requiring that you buy health insurance." Another common sense approach to violating the Constitution.
I don't have dental insurance, because I don't think it's worth it to pay the premiums, given that I have the means to pay for dental emergencies out of pocket if they happen. I'm no Warren Buffet and I'm no Bill Gates. I want (and am happy I have) health insurance. But in their income bracket, isn't it likely that it's not worth it to them to have health insurance? Sorry gentlemen, sign here and buy something you don't need.
When 95% of our population pays for 100% of all entitlement programs, it may be sustainable. When 90% of our population pays for them, it becomes less sustainable. I think all would agree that there will be a point in time when the lower end of that 90% will become less motivated to pay for the 91st percent. When will it end? When 85% pay for all of them? 60% paying for them? When will the people who work, earn and have their taxes increase to pay for the entitlement programs they don't intend to use decide to stop working? We'll see.
I know I'm less motivated today. I will have bad news to deliver at work this Monday. Our medical expenses will be increasing. For those that don't have strong math skills, that means that salaries will have to decrease OR our workforce will need to shrink. What do we get? Voila! More people on entitlement programs. And these were people who were gainfully employed, paying taxes and contributing positively to our country's GDP. Not anymore.
Given the abject failures of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it's common sense to create yet another government entitlement, right? So all kidding aside, what is the motivation? Is it the altruistic "get coverage for everybody" concern? I hope that's the case. Unfortunately, I am jaded. It is my belief that if one of the parties can successfully increase the number of people on entitlement programs that the party supports to a majority, then they've created a monarchy. Handcuff people to the entitlement and say "vote for me, I'll keep your entitlement".
Gone are the days of motivating people to earn what they get. Here to stay are the days of motivating people to take what they give you.
On this monumental weekend, on which our country will in all likelihood have a newly approved Health Care bill and further violate the United States Constitution by mandating that all people buy something, I thought I would take some points under consideration, and think about other common sense approaches to Constitution violation.
First off all, did everyone enjoy seeing the entire cast of the movies "Best In Show" and "Waiting for Guffman" in Super Bowl ads for the census? Yep. Super Bowl ads. The most expensive 30-second spots per year, and the CENSUS spent our tax dollars using one of the most famous ensemble casts in Hollywood to produce them.
Another good one is embedded in the new Health Care bill. As mentioned above, the new bill includes a mandate that all individuals must purchase health insurance. I do have to say, it is a noble idea, a goal that everyone would have access to quality care and the means to pay for it. But let me ask this, why would Warren Buffett need health insurance? He is one of the most wealthy people in our country. He already has access to quality care and the means to pay for it. So, we are going to take it a step further and REQUIRE that he pay for insurance? Bill Gates? "Sorry sir, even though you are worth umpteen billion dollars, we are requiring that you buy health insurance." Another common sense approach to violating the Constitution.
I don't have dental insurance, because I don't think it's worth it to pay the premiums, given that I have the means to pay for dental emergencies out of pocket if they happen. I'm no Warren Buffet and I'm no Bill Gates. I want (and am happy I have) health insurance. But in their income bracket, isn't it likely that it's not worth it to them to have health insurance? Sorry gentlemen, sign here and buy something you don't need.
When 95% of our population pays for 100% of all entitlement programs, it may be sustainable. When 90% of our population pays for them, it becomes less sustainable. I think all would agree that there will be a point in time when the lower end of that 90% will become less motivated to pay for the 91st percent. When will it end? When 85% pay for all of them? 60% paying for them? When will the people who work, earn and have their taxes increase to pay for the entitlement programs they don't intend to use decide to stop working? We'll see.
I know I'm less motivated today. I will have bad news to deliver at work this Monday. Our medical expenses will be increasing. For those that don't have strong math skills, that means that salaries will have to decrease OR our workforce will need to shrink. What do we get? Voila! More people on entitlement programs. And these were people who were gainfully employed, paying taxes and contributing positively to our country's GDP. Not anymore.
Given the abject failures of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it's common sense to create yet another government entitlement, right? So all kidding aside, what is the motivation? Is it the altruistic "get coverage for everybody" concern? I hope that's the case. Unfortunately, I am jaded. It is my belief that if one of the parties can successfully increase the number of people on entitlement programs that the party supports to a majority, then they've created a monarchy. Handcuff people to the entitlement and say "vote for me, I'll keep your entitlement".
Gone are the days of motivating people to earn what they get. Here to stay are the days of motivating people to take what they give you.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Massachusetts Brown Out
Just six short months ago, during one of my typical rants on hypocritical government practices, I focused in on Massachusetts, and its vacant Senate seat. (See older blog here.) As you may recall, Massachusetts' legislature had previously voted to take away the governor's constitutional right to select a replacement for open US Senate seats. This was done in 2004, when Sen. John Kerry was leading the polls in that year's presidential election and the Massachusetts' governor at the time was a Republican, Mitt Romney. So, in 2009, when Sen. Ted Kennedy died, the very same Massachusetts legislature overturned that vote and returned the power to the governor, Democrat Deval Patrick. How convenient. FYI, this fact got very little press. I think the fact that my blog has mentioned it twice is two more times than most of the leading news bureaus.
Hold the phone. Scott Brown? Republican Scott Brown? Taking the seat once held by Ted Kennedy? You have got to be kidding me.
I will tell you, I did not see this coming. Sure, in the last week leading up to the special election, when the polls were telling me it was possible, I tuned in. But prior to that? No way. THE MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE UNION ELECTED A REPUBLICAN WHO CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION'S AGENDA!!!
But not so fast. I am so grateful that our elected officials are smarter than we are. Despite the outcome of the election, and despite the fact that exit polls showed that BY FAR, the leading reason for the election's outcome was based on people's opposition to the Healthcare Plans approved in the House and Senate, our leaders have concluded otherwise. Again, I say, thank goodness we have elected officials smarter than the American people. They say the reason why people are against the plans is because they didn't approve of the process. A HA! That's what it is! They didn't like the process! Gotcha!
Perhaps, just possibly, is it remotely possible that the people who voted in Massachusetts were smart enough to know what was in the plans? Is it remotely possible? And perhaps, just possibly, that people might not have liked them?
If you can humor me just for a moment, and consider the ever-so-remote possibility that the same electoral community who elected Ted Kennedy senator for 47 years might have known what was in these plans AND DIDN'T LIKE THEM, how best to respond to the people?
Well, our current administration says, "they'll like these plans once we pass them, they just aren't happy with the process". Got it. Thank you for basically letting me know that you are smarter than I am. So, if CSPAN had broadcast the healthcare negotiations as Candidate Obama had promised, the American people would be cool with the deals Louisiana and Nebraska got. Because you see, the plans are well-liked. It was just the process that was the problem. And thank goodness the unions are exempt from "cadillac taxes" on their "cadillac plans". But if you have the SAME EXACT PLAN and you are NOT in a union? Taxes come your way! Yes, Mr. President. You are right. We LOVE these plans. We just didn't like the process. Thank goodness you are here to explain our views for us. I am so grateful to have you.
I am going to let my employees know that I am going to take some of their vacation time and give it to people who are not working. Essentially, that's what the health plans will cause me to do. As a small business owner who would get clobbered with new taxes to pay for these new plans, I would need to reduce pay of my employees (which I would do through no increases, reduced vacation time, etc.). They won't be happy with it. But thank you, Mr. President, for the example you have set for me. I'll let them know that they like the plan, but that they didn't like the process.
Hold the phone. Scott Brown? Republican Scott Brown? Taking the seat once held by Ted Kennedy? You have got to be kidding me.
I will tell you, I did not see this coming. Sure, in the last week leading up to the special election, when the polls were telling me it was possible, I tuned in. But prior to that? No way. THE MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE UNION ELECTED A REPUBLICAN WHO CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION'S AGENDA!!!
But not so fast. I am so grateful that our elected officials are smarter than we are. Despite the outcome of the election, and despite the fact that exit polls showed that BY FAR, the leading reason for the election's outcome was based on people's opposition to the Healthcare Plans approved in the House and Senate, our leaders have concluded otherwise. Again, I say, thank goodness we have elected officials smarter than the American people. They say the reason why people are against the plans is because they didn't approve of the process. A HA! That's what it is! They didn't like the process! Gotcha!
Perhaps, just possibly, is it remotely possible that the people who voted in Massachusetts were smart enough to know what was in the plans? Is it remotely possible? And perhaps, just possibly, that people might not have liked them?
If you can humor me just for a moment, and consider the ever-so-remote possibility that the same electoral community who elected Ted Kennedy senator for 47 years might have known what was in these plans AND DIDN'T LIKE THEM, how best to respond to the people?
Well, our current administration says, "they'll like these plans once we pass them, they just aren't happy with the process". Got it. Thank you for basically letting me know that you are smarter than I am. So, if CSPAN had broadcast the healthcare negotiations as Candidate Obama had promised, the American people would be cool with the deals Louisiana and Nebraska got. Because you see, the plans are well-liked. It was just the process that was the problem. And thank goodness the unions are exempt from "cadillac taxes" on their "cadillac plans". But if you have the SAME EXACT PLAN and you are NOT in a union? Taxes come your way! Yes, Mr. President. You are right. We LOVE these plans. We just didn't like the process. Thank goodness you are here to explain our views for us. I am so grateful to have you.
I am going to let my employees know that I am going to take some of their vacation time and give it to people who are not working. Essentially, that's what the health plans will cause me to do. As a small business owner who would get clobbered with new taxes to pay for these new plans, I would need to reduce pay of my employees (which I would do through no increases, reduced vacation time, etc.). They won't be happy with it. But thank you, Mr. President, for the example you have set for me. I'll let them know that they like the plan, but that they didn't like the process.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
