Thursday, May 31, 2012

CNN/Fareed Zakaria Interviews Simpson & Bowles

Good friend Sandy Parker put this interview up on Facebook. (The link is below.) It is a must-read interview with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles by Fareed Zakaria on CNN's GPS. It provides an understanding of what's at stake in the budget process at the end of this year, which is essential for anyone who is concerned about a prudent and effective approach to our national budget, strengthening our economy, and working our way out of an outsize budget deficit. 

The Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations of late 2010 comprised just such a balanced approach. But both the Republicans and Democrats responded reflexively, dismissively, because it required too much compromise on their own sacred policies and programs. President Obama, the interview makes clear, supported it, but recognized that the congress was not ready for reason and compromise--as we all found out in suffering through the ugly, embarrassing process of raising the debt ceiling. But now, with approximately $7 trillion dollars (2% of GDP) in "economic events," budget issues, presenting themselves for decision at the end of this year, the right balance of legislative wisdom and compromise must be brought to bear in addressing these budget issues and policies--or the country will likely be the worse for it. 

Click on this link:

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

On My Dad's Passing

My Dad, a force in my life and a week short of 94 years old, passed on a few days ago.  Yesterday, the funeral and saying-goodbye process with family and friends came to a close. He is gone, but will always be with those of us who loved him.

He was strong, fiercely self-reliant, willing himself and others on. He was proud of his service as a paratrooper in WWII and his 50 years a Mason. He built and prospered his Hudson's Dry Cleaning business with the help of his devoted wife and partner of 68 years, my mother Polly. He was a sportsman: a wing shooter, a fisherman, and he continued to play competitive golf until he was 91. But if he was a force in my life, I never fully acknowledged or even understood how much until it was finally clear to me that he was not really immortal: on the day that he died.

He faded notably in the past year, and quickly the last month. He had become so frail and weak that he could not quite speak a word, but just utter sounds approximating one. We brought in the Hospice folks a week and a half before his passing. They were wonderful. Over the last three days, I sat with him during the day, and my brother, Gary, during the night, 12 on, 12 off. My sister, Loretta, also spent hours with him, too. We brought my mother to be with him whenever her dementia-Alzheimer's and his deteriorating condition offered an opportunity. They nonetheless shared some sweet and touching time holding each other's hand, kissing and expressing their lifelong love.

As it became too clear he would not be living forever, or even another day, as I began to realize what a force in my life he had always been, his fragile, life-exhausted body finally gave in, and he passed on. It happened as a gentle, caring Hospice Chaplain and I were holding his hands and praying for him and for we who must carry on without him. He took his last breath as we finished praying. There was one more half-gasp, then nothing. He was no longer there. The sense of loss and unexpected flood of emotions were overpowering. It affected all who loved and respected him in the same way. But he died leaving a full, rich life and no complaints or regrets behind, and with the assurances of his faith held close. He left it all on the field of life.

The next day, he felt present to me again; and I expect he will for the rest of my life. He was present in all my hurried steps preparing for visiting hours, family sharing time with clergy, a graveside service with military honor guard, and the interment of his ashes. After committing his ashes to the earth, we gave thanks for him, reached down and pulled up as much joy and thanksgiving as we could muster for a family-and-friends celebration of his life. Only good wines, and the most joyful, edifying stories and remembrances would do. Dad would have enjoyed that; I know we all did. 

Thanks for listening. I needed to share it, and I felt you'd likely be okay with that. In the midst of it all, I've taken refuge from my emotions in busywork, attending to his needs, administering the preparations for the necessary next steps in the funeral and saying-goodbye process. But at the end of that prayer, at the time of his passing, the emotions and tears flowed. I'd unconsciously been shaped by him to be something of a next-generation, stoic swamp Yankee. And often, that served me well. But I'd also been graced by the influence of a Southern Baptist, sweet-hearted and kindly mother from North Carolina who used to send me to elementary school with bags of clothing for the poorest members of my class. I am both people. But at that moment, it was my mother's honest, earnest and compassionate heart that held sway over my emotions, my respect and, yes, my expression of love and loss. There has been richness and life affirmation in this process of his passing, as well. I'm sure I'll be unpacking and processing the experience for some time to come. 

Greg

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

On Mitt Romney, "Jobs Creation" & Economic Realities, and He as President


I need to share some reflections about Mitt Romney, "jobs creation," economic realities and the half truths from both sides, and then his likely brand of Presidential leadership, too. I just had to write about these things and send it to some folks. You drew a short straw.

On Presidents, "Jobs Creation" & Economic Realities

First, I've recieved a few e-mails from the Obama campaign countering Romney's claim to better qualifications to "create" jobs based on his experience as CEO of Bain Capital. But, while Romney's use of this campaign tactic, and the Obama camp's response, are both well within acceptable campaign bounderies, it all has much more to do with campaign issue creation than jobs creation. And both sides are dealing in half truths and suggestions that go beyond the realities. The simple truth about the limits of Presidential leadership in "jobs creation" would be much more informative and useful to voters, even if much less entertaining politics. Most of you know this, of course. But it is just another of those stupid, insulting and tortured bi-partisan treatments of an important issue, much like all the stupid opinions and comments made about the well-settled judicial review implications of Marbury vs. Madison. (And they even came from President Obama, who taught constitutional law. I was embarrassed for him and all of us.)

Let's begin with the simplest, clearest of facts. All businesses and businessmen are in business to make money. That is their primary goal, not "jobs creation". When they do it well, or are lucky enough, their businesses grow and they have to hire more people--and employment rises. But more important to employment levels is the economic environment within which businesses operate. When the economy is on the strong side of the cycle, businesses are more likely to make more money, grow, and therefore to hire more people. Jobs are "created", some might say. On the other hand, when the economy is on the downside of the cycle, when it is weaker, businesses are likely to make less money, contract, and some employees are fired or furloughed in order for the business to remain profitable and viable. Jobs are "killed" or "destroyed", in the vocabulary of some. 

So, it's most often not about businessmen creating or destroying jobs; it's most often about the economy and, in turn, resulting business profitability and sustainability. In that way, it is the economy that ultimately drives the need for more or fewer employees--and there is little the businessmen and businesses can do to change that fact. They can only respond by adjusting to it--including adjusting the numbers and types of employees.  

And government can only do so much to support the economy through monetary or fiscal policies that either help strengthen a weak economy or keep it from falling into disaster, or avoid overheating a healthy one. For example, under the right circumstances--like the recent financial crisis--and within workable longer-term debt limits, government economic stimulus can help (i.e., putting more spendable cash in more people's hands through higher government spending and, if taxes are not already too low, lowering taxes). Within those limited circumstances, government action can help avoid deep economic recession (or worse, depression) and prime the pump of recovery. But beyond that, a weaker economy must heal and strengthen itself--and that can take time. And even Presidents can't change that. 

All businessmen understand that--or they should. Much of the campaign hype you hear is just so much political breast-beating and posturing trying to suggest that Presidents, other politicians or candidates for office know more and can do more to improve national employment levels. But it's just not true; they can't. They all have the best economists in the country to help them do what can be done to support or tweak the economy, or help keep it from economic contraction. President Obama's team, and notably Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, have done an effective job of keeping us out of disaster and stabilizing the economy. But now, we appear to be at that point where only the economy itself can slowly build itself back to strength. (Of course, failure of remedial, collective action in the Eurozone may yet produce an international economic disaster that adversely affects the U.S. as well.) 

Now, it's also true that Mr. Romney did not work for the kind of company that makes money by manufacturing and selling things or providing services to the public. His company, Bain Capital, is what is often called a "financial player." According to Wikipedia, Bain Capital is "a Boston-headquartered alternative asset management and financial services company that specializes in private equity, venture capital, credit and public market investments." That means they invest in or buy outright everything from start-up companies to blue-chip public companies. The companies they buy may be managed for some period of time, restructured, or reshaped, then resold at a profit. Sometimes they will buy a few companies in the same or related businesses, restructure and repackage them, and sell them as a new, integrated business.  

But here's the rub: in addition to the changes in employment dictated by economic conditions, financial players like Bain often "restructure" the companies they acquire to make them as profitable as possible in the shorter term. And that often includes reducing the number of employees to the short-term minimum, or having the company take on debt to pay dividends or management fees to them. Then they sell the company, arguably weakened but appearing profitable, for more profit. In that way, they often reduce employment, not increase it; and often, they weaken companies rather than make them stronger. To be sure, that's not always true--many times these acquired companies have grown and employment has increased under Bain management, but that's not so often the case. Regardless, that's just what they do, and how they make money. And Bain has done a good job of making money on the vast, majority of it's deals and investments. It's altogether perfectly legitimate, and many would argue it plays a healthy role in reshaping and sustaining many of those businesses. 

So, it's hard to see how any of that should suggest that Mitt Romney doesn't understand about economic cycles and how businesses grow or contract in those cycles--or that he doesn't understand about the economy and other business factors affecting employment levels. Quite the contrary, it suggests he likely understands it as well or better than most businessmen, politicians and political candidates. 

However, what economic policies he might actually embrace as President would likely have more to do with his ideological or philosophical bent and--most importantly--what course and positions will most likely get him elected as a Republican. And improving employment levels is especially important to voters these days, so it will likely enjoy his full attention. But a very ideological Republican Congress that he is inextricably tied to will likely have more to say about all that than him--and they are embracing the Ryan budget proposal that would phase-out or dramatically reduce social welfare programs, social security and Medicare programs in the U.S., and over time privatize them as much as possible. Not a good approach--not for providing public goods and social services, not for societal welfare and strength, nor for productivity, consumption-spending and the economy generally, not from my perspective, anyway. And a lot of jobs would likely be lost under those proposals, both in government and the private sector.  

Therefore, on the subject of jobs, Romney can only continue a course of misdirection, obfuscation, and half truths. And the President will continue to play along with the "jobs-creation" ruse, satisfied to argue over who will do a better job at something that, ex officio and given the economic realities, they can only influence in the positive or remedial sense to the same limited extent. Of course, if unwisely informed, they can also take actions that make worse an already weak economy. That's what happened in the Great Depression, that is what has been going on with Germany's austerity prescriptions in the Eurozone, and that is likely what would happen if the Republicans actually were to pass something like the Ryan budget. Surely, you say, they must understand the potential for significant long-term societal and economic damage. But then, we are talking about ideological true believers, aren't we. 

On Mitt Romney as Presidential Leader 

So I would ignore all the puffing and posturing about Romney's prior work life and pay more attention to what he is likely to do, and why. The Obama camp would still try to bring you back to the way he managed Bain Capital to make money as the best indicator of the approach and values he would bring to Presidential leadership, and what his views about economic and employment policies might be. But these are very different mandates, the CEO of Bain and the President of the United States, and don't we have evidence that Romney surely does recognize and adapt easily to a different mandate? Don't we have his very different orientation to his public service as Governor of Massachusetts? And the judgment on his performance during his tenure there was mostly that of a good and effective moderate governor. And I heard little complaint about his economic views or approach to employment-related policy positions. But, he was governor of a generally progressive state and represented a more moderate Republican party. In fact, the real problem is that he is more than flexible and resilient; he is all too capable of managing a complete change in orientation and agenda. He adapts frighteningly well to an easily redefined political identity and mandate, and allows that mandate to redefine his goals and success, as well. And he has a long record of success. 

As our President, one who will represent and be dependent on a dominant and stridently ideological Republican Congress, I fear the worst in leadership from Mr. Romney. As we have observed, he has proved very much an unabashed and unapologetic political chameleon, and he will likely take any position he feels necessary to appease those who control his election and agenda--and that begins with those Republican leaders in Congress. He appears to be perfectly okay with becoming that kind of leader, really more a proxy for Congressional Republican leadership. It's just about becoming President, winning in that sense, and then succeeding in his new political identity and mandate. It is very difficult for me to trust or respect that so readily changable aspect of his political identity, or to expect much of anything in the vein of independent or moderate leadership from him.  

And that's the evolving feature of the Mitt Romney resume that should concern you--doing whatever he was hired to do, becoming whatever changed political identity he feels he needs to be associated with, and doing it very successfully. And that's been true whether it's making lots of money for Bain or representing a moderate Republican party and more progressive agenda in Massachusetts. And if elected President, it will likely also be true in fulfilling his mandate to successfully advance the agenda of a throwback Republican Congress that appears the antithesis and the ideological enemy of anything progressive. This analysis may well comfort the most conservative or ideological of today's Republicans, but it frightens the hell out of me. 

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Former Republicans & Their Republican Friends

As we acknowledge our increasingly divergent economic and social policy preferences, we nonetheless strive to reflect personal integrity and honesty, and protect our mutual regard and respect. But it's often not easy, not when the dialogue is between former Republicans and their still-Republican friends.

Friend Marc Schulman explains some views to a Republican friend, below. Marc is a fellow former Republican--the kind of Republican who was a concerned advocate for the effective, efficient and fair functioning of a vibrant market economy, but also of government in its important roles of social support and protection. And that includes provision of the public goods and services that form a material part of the social contract and foundation that supports and strengthens that market economy. But there was also a clear sense that government needed to function more effectively, more efficiently, with more budget and cost accountability.

But that Republican Party doesn't exist any more, and therefore, neither do many of those kinds of Republicans. The new GOP even has a name for those few that remain: RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. I chose not to be one. Here's how I saw and experienced the extinction: 

It was evolving well before President George W. Bush, but he changed things, materially, in abandoning budgetary integrity with unjustified tax cuts (albeit done in the name of the Gipper), his misadventure instigating an unjustified war in Iraq, and the resulting unfocused approach to the war in Afghanistan. And all the while, he turned a colder, more insensitive shoulder to the needs of the poor, infirm, aged and unable. His inherited budget surplus became a gaping budget deficit, and he left the world a more dangerous and unstable place while damaging America's credibility and role in global leadership--and he left it all with no resolutions in sight. (Although, in fairness, he does get credit for a flawed but well-intentioned education initiative in "No Child Left Behind," and better providing for prescription drug coverage for the poor and elderly.)

Evolving behind Bush and beside him was a new-wave Republican Party that sought ideological purity around rigid, often superannuated political, economic and societal values. Those values appeared to some of us to abandon all sense of public responsibility and accountability, and any appreciation for the importance of strong and effective government in a world of increasing economic and societal complexity. Yet, their prescriptions failed to acknowldge the need for more effective, more equal education, healthcare and social services to support that society and economy, and that it would take more effective, more efficient government, and in some areas greater government resources, not less. In fact, their views were very much to the contrary, as was their agenda.

More, it seemed clear to many, and to me, that the challenges of world leadership increasingly required a more consultative process. But the U.S. under Bush chose unwisely to go its own way--to cowboy up--and arrogantly try to dictate to the world.  They actually succeeded in bullying their way through for a time. But the folly of it all became apparent as the fruit of that arrogance was realized in broadly soured international relationships. (Fortunately, President Obama has healed and restored trust and respect in those allied relationships and shared leadership on global issues.)

In that context, and in all those areas, the new GOP appeared to many of us to be looking back to the past rather than forward to the future for its ideas, motivations, and vision for our country and its leadership. And in the financial crisis, when they looked back to the economic policy responses to the Great Depression, and the recession within a depression, most Republicans ignored the research findings, the understandings gained, the lessons learned. 

(Now, here again I must pause and give credit to President Bush for calling on and trusting the well-informed work of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who along with Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulsen ably led us through the early days of the financial crisis. But with the election of President Obama, and his wisdom in keeping Chairman Bernanke (a Republican) on the job, and appointing Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary (another former Republican, now Independent), the Republican congress would turn on both Bernanke and Geithner. And more, they would ultimately embrace and advocate for the society-rending Ryan budget proposal and the policies dictated by it. They have put on the table the phasing-out or material reduction of essential government social services. It's become about purity of ideology and party.)

That view of the GOP today, that analysis and those opinions, unavoidably register as misguided understandings, misperceptions, or fighting words for most new-wave, 21st-century Republicans--including some of our old Republican friends. But as you likely know, we are not uninformed or fools. You know there is a substantial percentage of highly successful executives and professionals who hold those same views, whether now Democrats or Independents, many are also former Republicans. Having traveled and lived on most sides of the issues and arguments, we like to think we understand and appreciate both sides better than most. We are now Democrats or Independents, many with extensive educations who have spent our careers at the centers of market capitalism, whether on Wall Street, in major multinational corporations, in the legal, financial or management consulting firms that advise them, or in the government agencies that regulate them. But, as Marc says below, we do see society, the world and the future differently.

Marc comes out of a Wall Street career that put him at the center of thinking and data on capitalism, the market economy, and corporate competition and culture. He was a highly regarded stock analyst on Wall Street, where he worked for some of the biggest investment banking houses. I spent 18 years as a tax and financial executive for major multinational corporations, and sometimes led M&A projects. We are advocates of strong, efficient markets--but that also means we understand the necessity that they be intelligently, effectively regulated. And we understand why universal education, universal health care, and financial support of the poor, infirm, unable and aged, are essential for the lowest cost, most effective work force, and the most stable society. (And if it took us some time for these understandings to evolve, if that evolution at all coincided or overlapped with our professional retirements, it might be surmised that the interests and demands of our professional environments reshaped--or co-opted--our views to emphasize more the interests and concerns of those market environments--views that later, more freely, migrated back toward their more natural disposition and balance.)

And scholars propose that those natural dispositions are largely dictated by biological and environmental factors, or more accurately, by the attitudes and identities resulting from them. Some researchers of the genome have found combinations of genes that appear associated with attitudes toward the individual, society and government. And social scientists point out the powerful conditioning and shaping effects of family identity and associations. Some combinations of these factors are more associated with the view that "it takes a village," a strong sense of the value of shared, supportive community, and the importance of supportive, protecting government roles viewed as critical to both individual health and success, and to that of the polity and country. Think Democrats. Another group of gene's and factors appear to be associated with the need for a strong sense of individual independence in choice and action, of self-determination, and more an aversion to community requirements and government dictates. Think Republicans. Now, I have taken some liberties in my paraphrasing and fleshing out these ideas and implications, but these same types of observations have been made by researchers in a range of fields.

So it appears our political identities and and social policy preferences may not be so much a purely deductive, intellectual decision making process, choices we intelligently make. (Might it be relevant, then, that I was born to a multi-generational New England Republican family, and a fiercely self-reliant father who was an entrepreneurial small businessman? But also that my mother came from a Southern Democratic, Southern Baptist background and was always emphasizing the desperate circumstances and needs of the poor--and the importance of helping provide for them? Hmmm.)

Others have noted that my migration of policy emphasis was temporally associated with two other experiences. The first was retiring, yes, but to pursue a doctorate in higher education policy at Harvard. (Due to illness, I left after two years with an Ed.M.) The thinking goes that I was misled and brainwashed with too much liberal thinking. If that means being exposed to credible research findings, convincing evidence that advanced some of my thinking, I can only agree and be thankful for that. The second was a more personal movement in my faith or spiritual life, placing more emphasis on contemplative, prayerful reflection on the most basic charateristics and teachings of Christ, including love/charity, forgiveness, compassion, and generosity in helping provide for the poor and to heal the sick. And if I'm accused of embracing more and internalizing more deeply these spiritual callings, and if my orientation to social policy is better informed as a result, I can only be thankful for that as well.

Regardless of the mix of reasons and processes that may have led me and others here, it is both dispiriting and politically unhealthy that there is no room for people with our evolving views in today's Republican Party, and has not been for some years. We like to think our reasons are well thought out and compelling in their support of both markets and the society they serve. Naturally, some of us now feel much more welcome and at home in the Democratic Party, and most all of our central views now track more closely with those of the Dems. Others of us feel safer, their integrity more self-defined and protected, as Independents. I prefer to see myself as an independent, pragmatic fiscal centrist and social progressive, more or less. But regardless, I do support President Obama's re-election. He is the only hope for views and values such as mine. That does not mean I agree with all his policies or views, but just that he has proven himself a good, strong and pragmatic president in extraordinarily difficult times--and that he will likely prove to be the president we need to lead us into the best directions in the areas that matter most to America, the world, and to me, at least as I understand them.

Still, I will hold close my sense of friendship, or at least friendly relationship, with many old Republican friends--however strained or more difficult it can become in public policy discussions. Staying among the Republican ranks means they must toe the line to what I see as an ever more rigid ideological and backward-looking conservatism. And I increasingly travel, read and share views with a range of people with different economic and societal orientations than those. But in all this, I have found that good people are still good people, whoever they are and wherever you encounter them--and many of these old friends are still just that, good people. I hope they still think the same of me.

So, we keep working at respectful exchanges with these old friends, people we otherwise still like and respect. I include below Marc's views shared with a Republican friend, views his old friend does not, likely cannot, share. But can there still be respectful listening and understanding, or at least patience and tolerance, when each rightly feels as much moved by personal integrity as personal regard and respect to share openly and honestly? Yes, there often can be, but it can also be frustrating. It's just difficult when we live in worlds of increasingly different, often mutually-exclusive, economic and societal values. Of course, we could just ignore the elephant in the room, just talk of common experiences, interests and views. There's nothing wrong with that. And that's exactly what we try to do when it's the only way to preserve a valued relationship.

Greg

And now, this from Marc:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:49 PM
Subject: Try this argument on independents and possibly persuadable Republicans

I've been having an email debate with a good friend who sees the world very differently than I do. In other words, that friend is a Republican – and a Republican who voted for someone other than Romney in the Florida primary.

Here's the latest installment from my side of the debate:

I agree that spending growth must slow. This will hurt the middle class and the poor, who are the primary beneficiaries of government spending. The wealthy aren't nearly as dependent on government spending. if spending reductions are the only way we attempt to get our budget deficit under control, everyone except the wealthy will bear the burden. That's what the Ryan budget proposes.

So, if you believe that everyone must sacrifice for the sake of our children – and you say you do – how can the wealthy sacrifice? There's only one way: by paying more taxes. Then everyone bears the burden: the middle-class by taking less and the wealthy by giving more. That's what I call fairness.

Take a look at the following chart, which tracks the top 1 percent's income share. The U.S. (in black) has the greatest concentration of income in the hands of the top 1%. Income concentration has been trending upward since the early 1980s, which explains why the wealthy have been paying a growing share of income taxes. In the U.S., income is now as concentrated as it was in 1928 – and we know what happened in 1929.

--Marc

Top 1 Percent Income ShareSource: Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, Paris School of Economics' World Top incomes Database


Friday, May 4, 2012

Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying (And Believing)

This article courtesy of daughter, Laura:
"What the hell?" you're probably thinking, if you're somehow both rich and reading an article with this title, "I didn't crash the economy!" You might even be tempted to take to a microphone, to defend yourself and your wealthy friends. But before you do, I want you to stop and ask yourself, "Will this make me sound like an out-of-touch douchebag?" 
---"6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying," by David Wong, Cracked.com (3.5.2012)
You really must read the whole article (just click on the highlighted title, above)--not merely because it hits right at that raw nerve of truth when it comes to the defensiveness of many of the well-heeled, but also because it does so with such blunt, ironic humor and fun. And since I am possibly one of those people at whose expense he is poking this ironic fun--and since I am sympathetic to, and more than a little amused at, his observations--it is easy for me to see and understand that it's mostly true! 

Unfortunately, so many of those fortunate folks in the top 1% or so of income don't tend to see themselves as all that fortunate, or having benefited from their circumstances and the help or direction of others. But more, it appears very important to their sense of self-determination and personal accomplishment that they make clear their winning superiority has come at the expense of other's losing inferiority. It's all about what they single-handedly did and most others didn't or couldn't do.

About six years ago, I felt the need to share some thoughts about the realities of all that, and why, in a most real sense, the accomplished and successful were no more the authors of their success than the poor and less able were of their lack of success. And further, why that substantial chunk of reality should create the realization that any real community--and the successful within it--have a financial interest and owe an obligation to help provide for those less successful and in need. And it rings even more a true and fair judgment today. Here's some of what I wrote:
It's not a fabrication, a lie. It's just not the whole truth. And the part that's been omitted—--or is it just ignored?—--should provide the basis for us to consider providing better for those most in need. I'm speaking of our unwarranted overemphasis on personal merit and, as we've discussed elsewhere, freedom of choice.  
It really does appeal to us, all of us. It panders to our self-esteem, our sense of self-determination and self-sufficiency, our self-congratulatory tendencies. We want to believe that we earned what we have—that we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, mapped out our plans, prepared ourselves, then worked hard, harder than the next guy, earning our way to our definition of success. And in a very real, experiential sense, it is true. (Most of us feel that's exactly what we've done!)   
And what of the poor, the competitive failures of whatever stripe? Why, they just suffer the natural consequences of their own failings and failure. And that's not our fault, either. How could it be? (So, why should it be our responsibility?)  
Of course it's not your fault or mine, —at least not most of the time. But most often, neither is it theirs. Notably, in a most real sense, we are no more the author of our successes than they are of their failures. Heresy, indeed! But let me briefly explain why, in more empirical terms, this is also true.  
---"The Limits of Merit & Choice," Cassandra's Tears (2006)
Yes, I've provoked you and left you hanging short of my explanation, hoping you'll also click on the link and read the rest of this piece, too (which isn't much longer, really). And then, you might also read the related, companion article that follows it, "See Me, Help Me," on the topic of the public interest and economic wisdom in public goods and programs like education, health care, and subsistence income and support for the infirm, aged and unable, all of them, but also all children. That's the kind of stuff, the realities, that too many tax-averse, high-income folks just don't want to hear or understand.