Ideals & Accountability

Our sense of peace and stability is shaken by the strident, dissident, even angry voices from the houses of broken community, the houses of failed government, the misguided houses of God. Everything sane and good and Godly calls out for humility and listening, the appearance of respect, at least, an earnest striving toward understanding and caring, accountability and compromise. As individuals, how can we acquiesce to anything less than real and accountable community, responsible governance, and faith life that reflects God's love, forgiveness and compassion toward all?

Out of the broken peace comes that call to wisdom and more worthy ideals, a call to higher ground. But whether or not we recognise moral authority of any kind behind these ideals, shouldn't we at least recognize in them worthy standards to aspire to? Yet, we have reached a time when so many do not. But for those of us who do recognize or sense authority or wisdom in these notions, these ideals--whether through faith, social values or convictions--a profound sense of responsibility and humility should come over us, call to us, and bend us to a greater commitment to honor them, and an earnest effort to live them.

 

Old You, New You

The first-century Christian apostle Paul speaks to us across the millenia to inform us, to assure us, of the transformational promise and hope that is ours in faith, prayer and compassionate community. The shared, often documented, experience of the disciplined faithful over those years attest to the reliability of that promise and fulfillment of that hope. The Apostle Paul:

Set your mind on the things above, not the things in the world. Therefore, consider [yourself] dead to immorality, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. [P]ut aside anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech. And do not lie.

[Y]ou have laid aside the old self with its evil ways, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the [nature] of the One who created him--a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, for Christ [or God] is all, and in all.

And so, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience, bear with one another and forgive each other. Whoever has complaint against another, forgiving the other; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things, put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. And let the peace of Christ [or God] rule in your hearts, and be thankful.

--The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Colossians, Chapter 3.

Surely we could choose to listen to worse advise, as many have. But, we could hardly find more worthy sentiments to embrace or characteristics to aspire to, however we may assess the Deistic authority or spirituality of this promise, or whatever it may mean to us personally.

For those of us who've found in Paul's words both resonance and a sense of personal affirmation of our faith and prayer intuitions (Christians of a type, mostly), they inform our evolving, increasingly transcendent sense of spiritual identity. Facilitated by a meditative and contemplative orientation, by mindful attention to God's creation, people, and realtionships, we can explore our own relationships and identity, and then turn prayerfully to our relationship with God. 

A more universal sense of understanding and shared love can then fill the empty spaces in our evolving relationships in the world and with God. Those understandings and God's love, His compassion, caring and kindness, more often mark our relationships with others because they overflow to us in a deeper, more selfless and exploring relationship with God, the Reality of it all. And we find gratitude a sentiment more often reflected in who we are becoming.

(And the closer some draw to God, to that Reality, the clearer it seems that place is shared by the selfless seekers of many spiritual traditions, those loving, compassionate God-seekers, Truth-seekers, of Christian, Judaic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu,Taoist, and other traditions, too, no doubt. Now, wouldn't that be what you'd expect from the God who loves us all, from the Reality that speaks to us all?)

Deficit Answers Easy--but Leaders Won't Lead, Americans Won't Sacrifice

The White House fiscal commission did their job--or at least the co-chairmen did. Co-chairs Alan Simpson, the former Republican Senator from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina and former Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House, recently fulfilled their charge and delivered their set of proposals and possibilities. It was a worthy shot across the bow of the government and Congress on the importance of leadership and strength in addressing the gaping budget deficit.

Sadly, the others appointed to the commission could not get past partisan posturing and wrangling long enough to work toward anything like a larger consensus. And the co-chairs, in presenting their own consensus, may not have gotten everything just right--healthcare, for example, deserved more and better focus. But they provided a good, principled and dispassionate look at the challenge and how it might reasonably be met. They did not shrink from the task. From an article in TPM:

The White House's fiscal commission's co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and former-Sen. Alan Simpson today released their draft recommendations on how to reduce the country's budget deficit. But while the deficit, writ large, proved a potent political issue during the election season, the tough medicine recommended by Bowles and Simpson is likely to be met with more than a few raised eyebrows.

Their recommendations are more or less a list of the third-rail issues of American politics, including cuts in the number of federal workers; increasing the costs of participating in veterans and military health care systems; increasing the age of Social Security eligibility; and major cuts in defense and foreign policy spending. They also encompass a range of tax system reforms that have been floated by many in Washington for years to little effect, including funding tax rates reductions by eliminating many beloved credits and deductions.

--"Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations," Megan Carpentier, TPM (10.10.10)

They got the dimensions of the problem and the nature of the necessary solutions and sacrifices on the table. In that, they provided us a great service. Congress now has a framework to begin with, something helpful to work from--if and when they are so inclined. And soon after the Simpson-Bowles report, another proposal was presented by an able group led by Alice Rivlin, President Clinton's director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Pete Domenici, former Democratic Senator from New Mexico.

Most of the same areas of focus, reforms and solutions were addressed by both groups, even if there were also differences.  And there are other well informed groups and voices echoing those messages. If a general consensus from a dispassionate, experienced and informed array of responsible voices is what was needed to move us toward budgetary integrity, the government and Congress are reading and hearing them. And that includes specifics on moving forward meaningful reform of taxation, social security, Medicare, defense, and other areas. For example, from The Economist:

Mr Obama badly needs to show that he can still lead on domestic policy. He should start by cajoling Congress into an agreement to tackle America's ominous fiscal arithmetic. Conventional wisdom says such an agreement is impossible: the problem is too big, the politics too difficult. But it is wrong to suppose that the deficit is unfixable, as two proposals for fixing it have shown this month (see article). And even the politics may not be totally intractable...

The solution should start with an agreement between Mr Obama and Congress on a target for a manageable level of publicly held federal debt: say, 60% of GDP by 2020. They should also agree on the broad balance between lower spending and higher taxes to achieve this. This newspaper believes that the lion's share of the adjustment should come on the spending side...

Yet, there are good reasons for letting taxes take at least some of the strain. Politically, this will surely be the price of any bipartisan agreement. Economically, there is sensible room for manoeuvre without damaging growth. American taxes are relatively low after the reductions of recent years. In an ideal world the tax burden would be gradually shifted from income to consumption (including a carbon tax). But that is politically hard—and there is a much easier target for reform.

America's tax system is riddled with exemptions, deductions and credits that feed an industry of advisers but sap economic energy. Simply scrapping these distortions—in other words, broadening the base of taxation without any new taxes—could bring in some $1 trillion a year. Even though some of this would have to go in lowering marginal rates, it is a little like finding money behind the sofa cushions. The tax system would be simpler, fairer and more efficient...

There is legitimate concern that, done hastily, austerity could derail a weak recovery. But this strengthens the case for a credible deficit-reduction plan. By reassuring markets that America will control its debt, the government will have more scope to boost the economy in the short term if need be—for instance by temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts...[Emphasis added.]

On pensions [i.e., social security], the solution is clear if unpopular: people will need to work longer. America should index the retirement age to longevity and make the benefit formula for upper-income workers less generous. The ceiling on the related payroll tax should be increased to cover 90% of earnings, from 86% now.

Health-care spending is a much tougher issue, because it is being fed by both the ageing of the population and rising per-person demand for services. Richer beneficiaries should pay more of their share of Medicare, while the generosity of the system should be kept in check by the independent panel set up under Mr Obama's health reform to monitor services and payments. The simplest way for the federal government to restrain Medicaid would be to end the current system of matching state spending and replace this with block grants, which would give the states an incentive to focus on cost-control.

Devising a plan that reduces the deficit, and eventually the debt, to a manageable size is relatively easy. Getting politicians to agree to it is a different thing. The bitter divide between the parties means that politicians pay a high price for consorting with the enemy. So Democrats cling to entitlements, and Republicans live in fear of losing their next party nomination to a tea-party activist if they bend on taxes. Even the president's own bipartisan commission can't agree on what to do.

But true leaders turn the hard into the possible...

--"Sorting out America's fiscal mess is relatively easy; what's needed is political courage," Leaders section, The Economist (11.18.10)

So, what kind of response have we heard from the congress, or at least from various Republicans and Democrats that populate it? This editorial from the Boston Globe appears to have captured the spirit of the responses:

THE DEBATE over reducing long-term federal spending got off to a rocky start this week when several Democratic leaders flatly rejected proposals by the leaders of a deficit commission to adjust Social Security, including a rise in the age of eligibility. Whatever the merits of the draft report cobbled together by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, deficit reduction is too important to have a major entitlement program like Social Security taken off the table...

While most Republicans in Congress have taken a more wait-and-see approach to the Bowles-Simpson report, the likely next chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, David Camp, is as unbending on tax increases as the Democrats are on Social Security cuts. The Michigan Republican, himself a member of the Bowles-Simpson panel, told Bloomberg Television that Congress should forswear tax increases. "If we raise revenue,'' he said, "we'll never get to the reductions in spending that we need to see to have a more sustainable government.'' Under the proposal by Bowles and Simpson, about a quarter of deficit reductions would come from higher taxes, and three-quarters from spending cuts...

It's easy to see what's happening here. The political message of the last few elections has been that adamant stands carry the day, be they Democratic refusals to discuss changes to Social Security or Republican refusals to consider comprehensive reforms of health care ("socialism'') or immigration ("amnesty''). It's more than a recipe for gridlock: It's a serious misreading of the public will. Voters are desperate for pragmatic solutions to taxes, Social Security, health care, and immigration, and want their representatives to engage with each other. Of course, those same voters should be more rigorous about assessing blame: Another of the lessons of the last three election cycles is that any politician who sticks his or her head out is likely to get it cut off.

The mission of the deficit commission was to provide a framework for compromise that would get members of Congress off their ideological toadstools, primed for serious action on the deficit. Sadly, the Simpson-Bowles report, and its reception by key leaders this week, evoke more skepticism than optimism.

--"Deficit panel offers toughness, but political deadlock remains," Editorial, Boston Globe (11.13.10)

And if that is not discouraging enough, things look darker still when we test the Boston Globe's views on what the electorate was really saying and what people really want. Is there really a "serious misreading of the public will"? Are "voters desperate for pragmatic solutions to taxes, Social Security, health care, and immigration, and want their representatives to engage with each other"? It depends on what you think that means. If you think it means support for the deficit reduction proposals of the fiscal commission and others, you may want to rethink that. As it turns out, a recent NBC/WSJ poll of people's attitudes toward the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission, and similar proposals, indicates that the Boston Globe may have it wrong. The sad and dispiriting findings:

NBC/WSJ poll shows the country is united at last -- against the deficit-reduction proposals…

From NBC's *** Unity at last -- against the deficit-reduction proposals:

Want to know why the Bowles-Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, or Schakowsky plans to reduce the deficit/debt are unlikely to go anywhere? Just look at these results from our new NBC/WSJ poll. While 66% of voters in the survey say cutting spending was a "major" reason in their support of a candidate in the midterms, a whopping 70% of adults say they are uncomfortable with cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and defense programs -- which just happen to be the biggest sources of federal spending. Another 59% say they're uncomfortable about raising taxes (on gasoline, for example) or changing the tax code (like eliminating deductions on home mortgages) to reduce the deficit. And another 57% are uncomfortable about raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075 to reduce the deficit. Said NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R): "We found a way to unite everybody -- which is producing a deficit commission that managed to irritate every different political constituency." What was even more amazing about this data: Fully 36% of EVERYONE we surveyed said they were uncomfortable on all THREE facets of the debt commission proposals. Nearly half of that 36% are African-American (46%) and the other half, self-described conservatives (46%).

"First Thoughts: Unity at Last," Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg, NBC News First Read (11.18.10)

So that's what we've come to. That's who we are. Ironically, as our young soldiers and Marines continue to sacrifice their lives and limbs for their nation, to most Americans back home, citizenship, civic duty, and sacrifice now means first securing their own prerogatives and entitlements, and not having to pay for them. This is how we do our part. And pandering to this unsustainable delusion is how statesmanship, leadership is rendered by our Congress. It's an empty feeling, isn't it.

Henninger: The Economy & the "Burden" of Business Regulation

Daniel Henninger is editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and for many years before was an editorial page writer. He recently (11.3.10) wrote a WSJ editorial offering what he views as the most important thing the new congress could do to help the economy move more quickly toward recovery.

Reducing entitlement costs would be nice, he allows, but the congress has no appetite for reducing the level of social programs society actually relies on, nor for meaningfully reforming them. And rather than give even a word to the notion of tax increases, he placed all his emphasis on unwinding some or all of the healthcare and financial reform legislation recently passed. This should be done, we are to understand, in the interest of business--the empty, anachronistic WSJ and Republican threat-argument that only by reducing the regulatory burden on the nation's businesses can they be freed up to be about the nation's business. Mr. Berringer:

It is conventional wisdom that what voters, tea partiers and talkers want the Republican Party to do is cut the spending. Yes, but . . . Republicans—into whose waiting laps control of Congress has fallen—are mistaken if they think the federal budget is what drove this historic upheaval...It's a good idea. But that alone won't revive the economy...

This is a crucial aspect of the tea party complaint, maybe its central insight. What voters are looking for is a party—and the GOP has the chance now to be that party—to reorder its relationship with the country in a way different than the 50-year-old Washington status quo. Not just a reversion to the norm... The simplest way for the Republican Party to free itself and the economy from this unending Beltway hell is by reviving a core belief of one of the country's most successful presidents: If the government will get out of the way, Ronald Reagan argued, there's no limit to what the American people can achieve...

You cannot understand the way any business functions and then pass a 2,000-page law to regulate the health economy and then a 2,000 page law to re-regulate the entire financial economy. You cannot—in one year—load 4,000 pages of limitless uncertainty on the back of the economy and expect it to grow without Washington life support.

Rather than wait for Barack Obama or Ben Bernanke to figure this out, Congress's new Republicans should look to do whatever they can to unlock and liberate the American economy. If this means tossing over some cherished provision in the famously titled "Dodd-Frank bill," such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so be it. Whatever is causing the uncertainty crisis, get rid of it. One of Ronald Reagan's lasting insights (in truth it began under Jimmy Carter) is that federal regulatory intrusion can kill the economy...

This will be spun as "going back to the dangerous deregulatory era of the Bush years." [And that's what it is. GH] In reply, Mr. McConnell should ask his rookie senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, the Senate's only genuine manufacturer (how far we've come from the first Congress), to give his maiden speech explaining to faraway Washington the real world of the private economy.

I understand the appeal of the simple, old-time laissez faire religion of the WSJ editorial page, largely unchanged since the middle of the 20th century. They are the superannuated views of the wide-open, frontier market of a young, growing America with nothing but open spaces, endless resources, and opportunities for anyone with the health, some ability, and the ambition to claim them. I read and applauded that stuff daily for 25 years.

But it is only a simplistic restatement, an inadequate treatment, of one aspect of the realities and obligations of corporate big business in a 21st century society and market economy. That modern society and market economy is now more clearly, more necessarily, responsible to all people in an environment where the best spaces are now claimed, the resources too, and often poorly managed by poorly regulated, unaccountable business interests. And individual opportunities are now much less for most working and professional people (although there is always opportunity for the very best, brightest and most ambitious). We are now a more mature society--yes, more and more facing the same realities of the mature societies and markets of Europe.

Daniel Henninger is a clear and effective writer. But he is a professional editorial writer--or more accurately, a presenter of a partisan publication's position (and if he were to veer materially from the established dogma of the WSJ, he wouldn't have a job offering up those recycled editorials any more). He has no background or work experience as an economist or manager of a large, sophisticated and socially accountable business in 21st-century American. He is, in effect, a WSJ-co-opted, conservative apologist for early- and mid-20th-century American markets, Wall Street, and a poorly regulated corporate America. 

Meanwhile, American society and economics, along with the passage of time, have moved onward to more complex social, cultural and economic realities and responsibilities. The WSJ had nothing new to say about all that in the 25 years I read it, and apparently has not in the ten years since. Of course, they're just serving their market. But that's why I quit reading it, and why it still has too little to offer in understanding today's more complex social and economic realities, and the greater accountability that government and business have to all of society. Trickle-down economics--and that is precisely what is behind this simplistic thinking--still unabashedly argues that if we will just give business carte blanche in the marketplace and not let it's accountability to society and people get in the way, then all will be all right. But it will only be all right for business--not for society as a whole.

Yet, I am a strong open market and business advocate. Always have been. An open marketplace and American business are the engines and authors of America's progress, quality of life, its international commercial and financial leadership. But that is precisely why I am now so concerned about its effective regulation. The unwelcome reality, as we have recently learned, is that it takes only a few "rogue" companies or a single industry to do great harm--if they are in particular industries, are large enough and intertwined enough with the rest of the economy, if they are "to big to fail." We have learned that these large businesses, inadequately regulated, are fully capable of undermining and incapacitating open, competitive markets, the economy and themselves, and in the process, doing great harm to society.

We came much closer to disaster than most anyone wants to think about or openly contemplate. But some of our best economists and social scientists have, and the picture is deeply unsettling at the very least. And so, as intemperate as this may sound, we have been thrust face to face with the real-life fact that, when financial and other businesses, their products, methods and technologies reach the level of power and sophistication that they have--"to big to fail," and incomprehensible to 99% of the people--we live day-to-day at the mercy of those financial and business interests. I have to acknowledge that because I just lived it. And everyone else did too. If there remains a problem today, it is that finance and business regulation does not go far enough; it does not adequately protect us and the marketplace from "too-big-to-fail" businesses.

A few years ago, I would have allowed--but without great concern--that there were areas that still required stronger regulation (or re-regulation) of financial and manufaturing businesses. I had lived that, too. But I would never have antipicated that what happened could or would happen. If at that time I would have read what I now write, I would have likely considered it overstated, even alarmist. But now, sadly and soberly, I feel I know better.

And universal access to healthcare is now as much the hallmark of an advanced, civilized society as education--and for all the right reasons. Not only is it fully justified on humanitarian grounds, it is necessary for greater productivity in business and all aspects of society. The problem with the healthcare legislation is that it did not go far enough. We addressed access--although not fully or effectively--but did not address at all sufficiently the needed efficiency, cost reduction and cost containment in the system.

It will be efficient only when we have a single-payor system, when more basic, more reasonable, cost-justified coverage is established, and when the best and most efficient practices of medical service providers are established and effected. And the examplars are out there. The rest of the advanced, civilized world--both in Europe and Asia--provide that to their people at half the cost per capita of our cobbled-together, dysfunctional, and unaccountable non-market U.S. system. Ironically, the Republicans (and the healthcare business players) did everything possible to assure that the legislation failed to achieve those things--even the things they agreed with--so they would have a result they could more easily attack and destroy later.

And I'm sure you know there are better publications than the WSJ when it comes to fairly, openly representing the interests of all of society, along with the health of the economy and marketplace. But when it comes to the interests of Wall Street and business, then yes, there's lots to read there, often good stuff. So don't get me wrong, their perspective is always worth understanding--but it is half the story and half the nation's interests. And I would argue the other half--society (and the health of its marketplace)--is the half that must first be served by government and big business.

As to the economy, it is on its way back, but it is a very weak recovery with persistent high unemployment--and it is so because Wall Street and financial businesses so arrogantly, unaccountably, and with such a sense of impunity almost single-handedly destroyed the American economy. Only heroic government action and investment kept us from a depression worse than the '30's, and one that would likely have lasted longer. Most all economists--certainly the most responsible and respected ones--agree on that.

It will take time for the economy to slowly strengthen itself and move back to the vibrancy that once characterized it. Although, I don't think the Feds action to buy back all that Treasury paper, to print all that money, will help very much. Interest rates are about as low as they can go. We will just have to slowly, patiently allow society and the economy to heal at this point. But if Henninger's simple prescription may have served us in the middle of the last century--and I doubt that, too--it will do nothing to help us now. To the contrary, it will surely do more harm than good.

At this time, it is the huge, unprecedented budget deficit that threatens our economic recovery. That's what economists actually believe and advocate correcting at this time. And raising taxes--as Stockman, the budget and tax-cut guru, has clearly admonished us--is the only way to get that done. The rest of it is merely self-serving rationalization, populist demogoguery, or superannuated ideological dogma.

60 Minutes: David Stockman: We Must Raise Taxes--For All

A sane and sober voice--measured, resonant, true--is finally heard from that small corner of the political world where reason still resides. It is the voice of David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's budget director and an architect of the Reagan tax cuts. Times and circumstances change, and so do the dynamics that support tax cuts and those that support tax increases. And David Stockman wants us to know that now is not a time for tax cuts; it is a time for tax increases.

More, the scope and threat of the budget deficit is so compelling that we must increase taxes for all, not just high-income idividuals. Middle-income America will also have to contribute. If the TARP and stimulus programs saved us from a much worse economic situation than we now face, they (and our wars) have left us with an unsustainable budget deficit that all recognize must be remedied as soon as practicable. But not one notable figure in either political party is willing to step up to the political microphone to deliver the unwelcome prescription.

But I should let Mr. Stockman speak for himself. From the text of his interview with 60-Minutes' Leslie Stahl last Sunday:

But with our national debt in the trillions, budget experts will tell you that just taxing the rich isn't enough. One Republican brave enough to go public is David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. He says all the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated - even those on the middle class. And he says his own Republican Party has gone too far with its anti-tax religion.

"Tax cutting is a religion. What do you mean by that?" correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Stockman.

"Well it's become in a sense an absolute. Something that can't be questioned, something that's gospel, something that's sort of embedded into the catechism and so scratch the average Republican today and he'll say 'Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts,'" he explained.

"It's rank demagoguery," he added. "We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."

These frank words come from Ronald Reagan's old budget director. Stockman was the architect of the largest tax cut in American history. But he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook. He says he cringes when he hears President Obama say things like this: "I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent."

"We have now got both parties essentially telling a big lie," he told Stahl. "With a capital 'B' and a capital 'L' to the public: and that is that we can have all this government, 24 percent of GDP, this huge entitlement program, all of the bailouts. And yet, we don't have to tax ourselves and pay our bills. That is delusional."

"Why isn't this statement correct? We cannot really deal with the deficit until we get our recovery underway?" Stahl asked.

"The recovery has already happened. It is weak, it is tepid," Stockman said.

Asked how he can say the recovery has happened considering there is a ten percent unemployment rate, Stockman said, "The unemployment rate is not going to drop by any material amount any time soon. And we're going to be in a period of austerity. We've had a 30-year spree of really phony prosperity in this country."

Now our national debt is growing by $100 billion a month. For those who say cutting spending is the answer, Stockman says both parties have thrown in the towel on that. "Even Republicans have said there's nothing significant we want to cut. They don't want to cut Social Security entitlements; they don't want to cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors; farm subsidies; education loans for middle class students. Certainly not defense!" he said.

For those who would like to view the entire interview--and I recommend it--you can find it at the CBS 60-minutes web site. 

Isn't it time to straighten our spine and set our jaw, time for a well-grounded sense of patriotism to again call to mind President Kennedy's inaugural admonition? Isn't it time to ask first what our country needs of us--especially at a time of such dire budgetary circumstances? And all that's required of us is to contribute a modest increase in taxes. Not much more, really, not even for high-income people. Surely our sense of entitlement, our preoccupation with what the country owes us, doesn't obscure our sense of duty to do our part, to meet that need. Does it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/28/60minutes/main6999906.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=9c5TduXwidJrETmnTFs8U7mB4wubkqGJ&vs=homepage&play=true

Love & Compassion: Thich Nhat Hanh

From Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen monk:

Love is a mind that brings peace, joy, and happiness to another person. Compassion is a mind that removes the suffering that is present in the other. We all have the seeds of love and compassion in our minds, and we can develop these fine and wonderful sources of energy.

We can nurture the unconditional love that does not expect anything in return and therefore does not lead to anxiety and sorrow. The essence of love and compassion is understanding, the ability to recognize the physical, material, and psychological suffering of others, to put ourselves "inside the skin" of the other. We "go inside" their body, feelings, and mental formations, and witness for ourselves their suffering...

To look deeply is to understand. When we look deeply...once we understand the reasons...we become reconciled with ourselves...and we will long for others to suffer less.**

These are wonderful sentiments and much needed understandings. But our humanity and our selfish, self-protecting barriers most often make it all seem so unlikely, Polyannaish, even risky or unwise. But that should not be so--and it cannot be if we are to continue humanity's  "non-zero-sum" progression toward wider and stronger community. It certainly cannot be if we people of faith are to meaningfully, obediently, answer our call.

For those of Diestic faith--Christians like me, for example--shouldn't we see this kind of teaching, discipline, and experience as consistent with the example and teachings of Jesus and the revered Scriptures of faith? Isn't it a compatible, practical and helpful adjunct discipline in living the Christian life of love, forgiveness, and compassion? And given our understandings of God's indwelling, transforming relationship with us and His purposes for us, shouldn't we walk such a path as Thich Nhat Hanh sets out with joy, but also with the confidence and trust that must reside with that indwelling, overflowing Love in God? Shouldn't we trust that God's Love casts out fear?

And shouldn't we find in this humble Zen monk a welcome brother in God's work in the world whether he understands or accepts in the same way a relationship with Christ and God, or not? Thomas Merton thought we should, and so do I.

[**From "Meditation on Compassion," in Peace is Every Step by Thich Nhat Hanh]

A Poem by the New Poet Laureate, W.S. Merwin

W.S. Merwin is the new poet laureate of the United States. For all his giftedness and the power of his verse, and for all the years he has been sharing this gift with the world, I was introduced to his poetry only a couple years ago. Kerson Huang, emeritus professor of physics at MIT, poet, and friend to me, suggested that, as good and touching as my preferences in poetry might be, they were missing something important, something profoundly personal and moving, if they did not include the poetry of Hawaii's octogenarian treasure, W.S Merwin. 

He directed me to an interview and discussion with Merwin by PBS' Bill Moyers which was both engaging and intriguing. (The interview can still be found on-line. And the other night, Merwin was again interviewed by PBS, this time by the News Hour on the occasion of his appointment as poet laureate.) But to encourage my interest in reading more of W.S. Merwin's poetry, Kerson first sent me this poem:

"Yesterday" My friend says I was not a good son you understand I say yes I understand he says I did not go to see my parents very often you know and I say yes I know even when I was living in the same city he says maybe I would go there once a month or maybe even less I say oh yes he says the last time I went to see my father I say the last time I saw my father he says the last time I saw my father he was asking me about my life how I was making out and he went into the next room to get something to give me oh I say feeling again the cold of my father's hand the last time he says and my father turned in the doorway and saw me look at my wristwatch and he said you know I would like you to stay and talk with me oh yes I say but if you are busy he said I don't want you to feel that you have to just because I'm here I say nothing he says my father said maybe you have important work you are doing or maybe you should be seeing somebody I don't want to keep you I look out the window my friend is older than I am he says and I told my father it was so and I got up and left him then you know though there was nowhere I had to go and nothing I had to do --W.S. Merwin

Biggest Lies of the Midterms: factcheck.org

Regardless of your political leanings or candidate preferences, your level of frustration, disappointment or anger, you may find this article illuminating, or at least useful. Before you dismiss or cry bias over whichever finding does not affirm your understanding or assuage your emotional angst, do read the assurance that it has all been compiled and written in collaboration with factcheck.org. It is worth reading before next week's mid-terms. I have edited out a lot of the unique and outrageous statements that apply to individual races, but I encourage you to read those too in the full Newsweek article, "The Biggest Misstatements of the Midterms" (10.26.10).

From the article: 

A roundup of the most widely repeated falsehoods or misleading claims of the 2010 campaign.

Summary

Midterm elections are an embarrassment of riches for fact-checkers — this year more than others. With Democrats fighting desperately to keep control of the House and Senate, and a torrent of money from corporations and other undisclosed, unaccountable sources adding fuel to the Republican attack, the amount of deceit in political advertising is at least as high as we've ever seen.

Some candidates slung whatever mud they thought would stick, regardless of the facts. One falsely claimed his opponent had been a Vietnam draft dodger who "doesn't love his country" — and then compared his opponent to the Taliban.

Republicans accused Democrats of favoring cuts in Medicare benefits, while Democrats claimed their opponents would cut Social Security benefits. Republicans accused Democrats of planning to unleash a huge tax increase on ordinary families and on small-business owners, while many Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to slap a 23 percent national sales tax on everything from groceries to medicine, as though that would come on top of all existing taxes. We found fault with all those claims, on both sides.

For our round-up of the campaign year's most widely repeated misstatements — and the wildest — read on...

Analysis:

Health Care Retreads

Misrepresentations of the new health care law have been a staple of Republican campaigns. Some ads go so far as to claim (falsely) that the law would cause Medicare patients to lose their doctors, or (also falsely) that Democrats favored giving Viagra to sex offenders, or (false again) that typical families will pay $2,100 more in premiums.

A common theme is that the law contains a $500 billion Medicare "cut" that will translate into less benefits, but that's misleading. The law calls for reducing the future growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years by about 7 percent. Plus, the law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won't be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals. Those seniors on Medicare Advantage plans (one out of four beneficiaries), however, will likely see their extra benefits reduced. These private insurance plans currently receive higher payments from the government than traditional Medicare, and the law decreases those payments over time. In addition, the law calls for reducing the future growth in payments to hospitals and other providers. While experts say some hospitals will have trouble coping with the new spending restraints, ads go too far in claiming that the law will "gut Medicare" or "hurt the quality of our care."

Social Security Hyperbole

A number of Democratic candidates — in Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Colorado and other states — have claimed that their opponents want to abolish or "privatize" Social Security. In most cases that's a serious overstatement. At one point, the president himself claimed that Republican leaders were as eager to "privatize" Social Security as they were to repeal his health care law, which isn't true.

Some Republican candidates and incumbents do favor allowing younger workers to invest some portion of their payroll taxes in the stock market, but few if any have supported replacing the current system entirely with a fully privatized system, like the one in Chile. And even voluntary, partial privatization is far from the top of the GOP agenda. The idea died for lack of GOP support when President Bush tried to push it through a Republican-controlled Congress in 2005.

Taxing the Truth, Part I

Another misleading Republican theme is that Democrats are about to unleash a huge tax increase on the typical family, or on small-business owners. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." Similar claims have been spread by Republican TV ads, by widely forwarded chain e-mails, in interviews and even by "tweets" and other social media.

It's true that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire at the end of this year, under terms set in law by a Republican Congress and President George W. Bush. But Democrats have said all along that they don't intend to let all of the tax cuts expire, or even most of them. President Obama and most House and Senate Democrats favor keeping all the cuts that apply to taxpayers who earn less than $250,000 as a couple, or $200,000 as single filers. In addition, a number of conservative Democrats (or those nervous about reelection) even say they favor extending the cuts for everybody — including those at the top — at least for another year or two. A lame-duck Congress will decide, after the election.

As for the claim that Democrats favor "a huge tax hike on small business," in the words of one ad, that's also wrong for the vast majority of small-business owners. Only about 3 percent of those with any business income showing on their personal returns would see a tax increase. Republicans retreated to claiming that half the small-business "income" — as opposed to business owners — would see an increase. But that's wrong, too. Much of the "small"-business income they are counting comes from businesses with yearly income of $50 million or more — which is big business income in just about anybody's book.

Taxing the Truth, Part II

In dozens of TV ads, Democrats or Democratic-leaning groups accused Republicans of favoring a 23 percent national sales tax, as though such a thing would come in addition to existing taxes. The attacks (which were also made in fancy mail pieces) amounted to a misrepresentation of the "FairTax" proposal. The claims failed to mention that the sales tax would replace — not add to — existing federal income and payroll taxes. Democrats also left out any mention of offsetting rebates designed to mitigate the increased cost of essentials like food and medicine — a main feature of the FairTax proposal.

In the past, we've written about the FairTax from the other side: In 2007, we pointed out misleading claims by FairTax proponents. We noted that a bipartisan panel of tax experts — put together by President George W. Bush — had rejected the idea and said the tax would have to amount to at least 34 percent (not 23 percent) of the sales price of goods and services to raise enough revenue to replace other federal taxes. But that's no excuse for misrepresenting the proposal, so this year our darts are pointed the other way.

Stimulus Spin

Ads by Republicans in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have claimed that the economic stimulus has failed to create jobs. We heard the same claims on talk shows and in speeches. House Minority Leader John Boehner even said in an address that the stimulus had harmed the job situation, since "America's employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by 'stimulus' spending and hamstrung by uncertainty."

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. Observers may differ on whether that's a reasonable return on investment, but it's not accurate to say that the stimulus harmed employment or that it didn't help.

Far Out on Bailout

Everybody took the Wall Street bailout's name in vain this campaign season. Democratic House incumbents in nine states claimed that they voted against "the bailout" — meaning the Troubled Asset Relief Program — when in fact they weren't yet in office when it was enacted. (They voted against a later bill to allow release of the second half of TARP funds, a purely symbolic and futile vote. The Senate had already approved release and only disapproval by both houses could freeze the funds under terms set by the original bailout legislation.)

Meanwhile, some Republican ads accused Democratic House members of voting to give huge bonuses to Wall Street employees. That's a misleading reference to the stimulus bill — its final version contained looser restrictions on bonuses than the version originally passed in the Senate. But the actual funds used by companies for those bonuses came from TARP, not the stimulus, and nothing in the bill the Democrats supported called for or supported bonuses. The enacted bill simply failed to prevent as many of them as the Senate version might have.

Viral Favorites

The claims we're asked about most often don't always come from the mouths of politicians, or even their TV ads. Maybe because these claims are pure bohonkey. The falsehoods circulate widely by e-mail, forwarded by people who either don't know or don't care that they are spreading misinformation the way a virus spreads disease.

Whopper: The health care law puts a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales. Actually, the new health care law's tax only applies to the sale of a primary residence in rare cases. For individuals, it falls on profit that exceeds $250,000, if the individual's income exceeds $200,000. For couples, the tax falls only on profits exceeding $500,000, if joint income is more than $250,000.

Whopper: Obama plans a 1 percent tax on all bank transactions. That's based on a single House member's bill that isn't supported by the White House, has no cosponsors, and has never even gotten a hearing in committee.

Whopper: Congress voted itself a pay raise at the expense of the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment. It's true that there has been no COLA for 2010 and 2011, but the COLA is calculated automatically based on inflation rates. And Congress voted to freeze its pay for 2010 and 2011.

by Jess Henig, Viveca Novak and Brooks Jackson for factcheck.org.

Click below for entire article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/26/the-biggest-misstatements-of-the-midterms.html

Nightmare on Orms Street

From friend Jim Stahl, a letter to the Providence Journal:

Letter to the Editor

Nightmare on Orms Street

Monday afternoon an apparently disabled man stumbled and fell walking up Orms Street. Watching him teeter and fall in my rearview mirror, I turned around, parked, approached him and asked if he needed help. He was bleeding from stitches in several places, he was drunk, and a near-empty gin bottle lay on the sidewalk nearby. I asked his name, his destination, where he'd just been. His reply: he'd just been released from a nearby hospital. One of his shoes was oddly crooked. Walking caused pain, which explained some of his stumble. He wore hospital-issue pants, blood stained. I wondered whether a beating or a car accident had caused his multiple wounds: above his brow black stitches had closed a swollen bump the size of a baby carrot.  Large Frankenstein-style stitches scarred his head and arm. How long had he been out of the hospital? Twenty minutes, he replied. Why was he discharged? No insurance, he said. He had handsome blue eyes and an intelligent voice. He said he worked recently in housekeeping at a nearby hotel.

Given the stumble and fall I had just witnessed, it seemed possible that his next fall might bring him under the wheel of a bus. I decided to take him in my car to his destination up Orms street. I was scared – of the blood on his body, of the possibility of sudden violence, of my liability should he fall and get hurt under my charge. And I was oddly embarrassed: no drivers witnessing this scene offered a hand. I felt foolish. I thought of calling 911 but could not be sure this man's complete vulnerability, and his inexcusable public drunkenness, would not invite more abuse.  Recent and old stories in the ProJo, and video clips on the evening news, of kicks and night sticks aimed at Providence's most helpless gave me pause. So holding him under the arm, I got him into my car.

At his destination, thankfully, someone knew him. A milk crate appeared and I sat him down. My job done, I drove off sad, angry, and confused: confused that this bloodied and bewildered Rhode Island man, for lack of medical insurance, was released from a well-regarded hospital with so little concern for his personal safety or his dignity; sad that a lack of trust and confidence made me afraid to call 911 on his behalf; and angry for two reasons—that helping the helpless has become so out of vogue that doing so made me feel embarrassed, and that a life of good fortune -- free from the crack of abuse, negligence, misery, and indignity ---  is available only to those of us with money in the bank. This man obviously had none. When the money's gone, watch out. Any one of us could be the next to fall on Orms street.

---by R. James Stahl, Providence RI, publisher of Merlyn's Pen, and Merlyn's Pen New Library of Young Adult Writing

I wish you were not such an accomplished story teller, Jim. This is a heart-wrenching and dispiriting story made all the more vivid and troubling by your most personal and sensitive account. You reflect a sense of responsibility, even accountability--and yes, a range of human reactions--rarely shown and only occasionally expressed by individuals, institutions and government. Thank you. I hope they publish it and it is widely read.

Something like this story is now-and-then told or written about in more prosaic, detached terms about such neglected individuals and the hospitals around the country that neglect them. There are all the understandable reasons: the limitations of our system and institutions, the defeated, muted voices of those denied help, the preference of most of us not to see or hear. All we can do is keep telling the stories, Jim, and advocating for the healthcare system all Americans deserve. Thanks again for doing your part, for sharing your story.

Greg

Demography and Economic Destiny: An Unnerving View

[T]he global economic crisis is really about old age—and how to encourage prosperous countries to have more children.

Europe's demographic problems are not only forcing startling cutbacks in the welfare state but also are damaging the Continent's prospects for sustained growth and economic recovery. Worse, Europe's today is the rest of the world's tomorrow.

We have now entered a radically new phase in human affairs. Due primarily to the global decline in birthrates, such population growth as remains is mostly in the form of increasing numbers of old people. The absolute supply of children is already in steep decline, not only in Europe but even in once highly fertile places like Russia, China, Mexico, and Iran.

Over the next 40 years, according to the UN, world population will grow from 6.9 billion to 9.1 billion, which may sound like more of the same robust growth that we saw throughout the 20th century. But this will be a very different kind of population growth from anything humankind has seen before. The rate of growth is perpetually diminishing toward zero, and more than half of the remaining increase in population (56 percent) will be among people over 60 — among people, that is, who have already been born.

This may seem impossible, but when calculating population growth, declining death rates are just as important as rising birthrates. Today's children are more likely than their parents to live to advanced ages. Even without any new children being born, this decline in mortality by itself would add to the number of people on the planet. Today's population explosion among those over 60 will be echoed in twenty years by a population explosion among those over 80. Most of the predicted 2.2 billion in world population growth between now and 2050 will not come from children. Indeed, over that period, the population of young children (0 to 4) is expected to fall by 49 million.

---"Demography and Economic Destiny," by Phillip Longman, Big Questions On-Line (8.17.10) [Phillip Longman is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Washington Monthly. His latest book, co-authored with Ray Boshara, is The Next Progressive Era: A Blueprint for Broad Prosperity.]

So, we are to understand that most of the future population growth in the world will be first among those over 60, then those over 80. If what is being reported here is anywhere near correct--and it has that credible ring to it, doesn't it?--it is sobering stuff, my friends. And if you think about it, we should not be surprised. We have seen the trend to fewer children and older populations work its way through the European countries, then Japan and our own. Projections for China are for more of the same--and there it could create the most challenging situation of all. The article further explains:

The financing of the welfare state depends critically on population growth. So long as there are rising numbers of younger workers, each new generation of retirees can get back far more in pensions and health-care benefits than they ever paid in, and they can do so without creating a financial encumbrance on the future. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson once proclaimed, in defense of America's Social Security system, "a growing nation is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever contrived. And that is a fact, not a paradox." But Samuelson was writing in 1967, when it looked as if the Baby Boom would go on forever.

Consider the popular understandings and prescriptions for our social security system that have been the subject of greater concern and more hand wringing with each passing decade. It is projected to start operating at an annual deficit sometime around 2017, and then to be operating without sufficient funds to meet its obligations sometime before 2040. And we know that is in large part because of the bloated Baby-Boom generation now beginning to fall into their retirement years. And the dramatic, necessary increase in social security tax cost per worker in the following generations will be onerous indeed, regardless of adjustments or changes.

But we've been addressing this issue as though it were a unique phenomenon which, after it passes through the system, will leave behind a normal array of generations reflecting the demographic growth of those preceding the Boomers. That is, each succeeding generation will have more children and be larger than the last. But not likely. And so our problem becomes larger, much larger, and the implications more frightening.

These data and prognostications forewarn us that what we will be left with--indeed, what is already the case and proceeding--are following generations themselves unique, but for their growth in the elderly, not the young. It's true that this is not the first time we've read suggestions or ominous projections along these lines. Perhaps the headlines are never prominent enough, the publications not influential enough, the data not unequivocal enough, or the authors not authoritative enough. Or, perhaps we are holding on to every possibility of a silver lining, every short-term reprieve that we hope will somehow be longer lasting. There are apparently transitional stages, temporary upsides, that give us that hope. As the article explains:

Falling birthrates do not instantly damage an economy. Indeed, at first, they often do just the opposite. A first-order effect of a society's producing fewer children is that a rising share of the population occupies the prime productive years of young adulthood. Also, with fewer children around to demand attention, vast reserves of female labor are freed up, and there are more resources available to invest in each remaining child, so that, for example, literacy rates improve. Japan experienced this demographic "sweet spot" in the 1960s and 1970s, and China is experiencing it today.

But, apparently, this too will pass--and what will be left to us is a failed social welfare funding scheme. And it's effects lurk just another decade or two down the timeline, just around the next political bend. But, regardless, we remain somehow in denial, and the reality does not achieve traction, not really, not the right level of attention by the right people, the opinion makers and reporters, and those who move and define the political agendas. But perhaps, it's because it's just too challenging, too complicated and threatening to know how to begin to address it or place it before the voting public--especially when no one yet has workable, politically-viable answers. From the same article:

Perhaps there is an economic system that can preserve prosperity even in the face of an aging, stagnating population, but it has not yet been devised. It is no coincidence that modern industrial capitalism emerged amid the population explosion of late 18th-century England or that it flourished most in the rapidly growing United States. A young, growing population creates more demand for products and a larger supply of labor. By encouraging people to look for more efficient ways to provide food, energy, and other essentials, it also spurs innovation and entrepreneurism...

[And] In every country of the world, regardless of its stage of economic development, form of government, or age structure, the highest rates of entrepreneurial activity are found among those who are age 25 to 34.

We can't be surprised about that either. If we cannot find the political will to deal with social security funding and the retiring Baby Boomers as an isolated phenomenon--especially when the answers have been around for decades, and the pain modest, indeed--how do we ever expect politicians and governments to deal with world-wide stagnant demographics and increasingly aged populations? Politicians don't get elected on platforms like that, and governing parties don't remain governing when they address them realistically.

It will take a completely fresh and innovative rethinking of social welfare benefits and funding--and perhaps, as this author suggests, a rethinking of economic models, creativity and productivity, informed by a competent, sober sensitivity analysis of the economic effects of changing demographics. 

Can democracy and democratically-elected government meet these challenges and effect the necessary changes before an angry and denying citizenry votes them out of office? How does the level of anger and impatience in today's economic and political environment inform us about answers to that question? Will more autocratic governments fare better? The next generations deserve and will require more effectual, more accountable government than we now have. It will be absolutely essential to meeting their future with the necessary level of informed understanding and commitment to timely, orderly change that will assure economic and social stability in their time.

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/phillip-longman/demography-and-economic-destiny

Higher Education Pays? How Much? Is It Worth the Cost?

Higher education has a public-relations problem. Family incomes are stagnant, but tuition keeps going up. Many students who begin college don't graduate. Even among those who do, students who borrow are finishing with greater and greater average debt burdens. And then they're walking into a tough job market. So what is a college degree really worth?

On Tuesday, the College Board released its latest installment of "Education Pays,"  a report that showcases the financial and nonfinancial payoffs of earning that degree. In the introduction, the report's authors make clear that they know the fray they're stepping into: "Too often, colorful anecdotes about individuals who have had unfortunate experiences capture the spotlight and lead to inaccurate generalizations about the dangers of making this major life investment," they write.

Despite that mission, Sandy Baum, an independent analyst for the College Board and one of the report's authors, says that "Education Pays" is about data, not advocacy. "This report per se is presenting evidence," says Ms. Baum, who also writes for The Chronicle on its Innovations blog. "We're not telling anyone to do anything."

-- "Education Pays, but How Much?" by Beckie Supiano, The Chronicle of Higher Education (9.21.10)

Here's the good news: the more education you have, the more money you make--on average. The College Board's latest report reaffirms this again. It is not news. These general data were well known and understood by all ten years ago when I was studying higher education in graduate ed school, and for a long time before that. What is different is how controversial the reports are now, how much the value of higher education is called into question because of the continuing annual increases in the cost of higher education, and the financial strain created by the Great Recession on so many families and students. But first, from the same article, the latest College Board data on the relative earnings strength of different levels of education, particularly higher education:

     Earnings ratio relative to high school graduates

• Not a high school grad                       0.71
• High school graduate                         1.00
• Some college, no degree                    1.13
• Associate degree                               1.24
• Bachelor's degree                              1.66
• Masters degree                                  1.97
• Doctoral degree                                 2.58
• Professional degree                            2.74

Of course, in real-life individual cases, it matters how able you are--how smart you are, how well you perform, where you went to school, what you studied, professional training and certifications, your confidence and industry. In individual cases, it depends on a lot of things.  Some will make much more than the averages, some less. That said, it is still clear that, in general, the more education you have, the more likely you are to ascend ladders of success and earn more income. No surprises in all that. 

How does this translate to real dollars? Because of misinterpretation or misuse of the information, this year the College Board did not attempt to estimate the total earnings a college or graduate degree would add to that of a high school diploma over the course of a career. But in 2007, the report estimated that number to be $800K for college grads and $1 million for those with advanced degrees. Of course, the "present value" of those earning today is a lot less; they estimated $450K in the case of the college graduate and $570K in the case of the advanced degree holder.

Now this present-value adjustment is of more than passing interest when you consider that, for those who can afford it, the cost of higher education is paid in today's dollars. But for large and increasing numbers of students, those costs are first met with loans that will be repaid by them or their parents over a period of years, usually about ten years--plus interest. So, for the borrower-students, too, those present-value estimates are much closer to the true added value of income they will receive than the larger nominal amounts. 

Still, it may seem easy to conclude that $450K in additional earnings justifies the cost of a college education. But that college education can cost very different amounts depending whether you attend a state college, a state university, or a private university. Important also is the timing of when you earn that money--that is, how much will you earn in the earlier years of your career when you will be repaying those education loans. Since most families and students must finance college with ever-increasing amounts of education loans, the timing of that new job and the starting income compared with the required debt service in the early years can make a pauper of the new graduate. And if you drop out of college, cannot find an appropriate job on graduation, or must accept a lesser paying job, the burden of that education debt becomes oppressive, indeed--or just unworkable. And it could be ten years or more before that financial burden is lifted.

Let's look at the cost of attending various types of colleges today:

• Selective private universities & liberal arts colleges: tuition: approx. $39K / room, board: $13K.
• State flagship university (e.g., University of Rhode Island): tuition: $10K, out-of-state, $27K / room, board: $11K.*
• State college (e.g., Rhode Island College): tuition: $7K, out-of-state, $17K / room, board: $9500.*
• State community college (e.g., Community College of R.I.): tuition: $3650, out-of-state, $9800 / room, board: NA.*

An article at msnbc.com presents Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff's example of the relative cost and payback for an accountant based on whether he attended a selective private university or a state university. From the msnbc.com article:

Perhaps the greatest lesson of the Great Recession isn't that you shouldn't go to college, but that you should approach it like you would any other investment: with caution.

"It's a very risky investment," said Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University and president of Economic Security Planning Inc., which makes financial planning software. Calculations done by Kotlikoff for msnbc.com suggest that attending a public college might make more financial sense than a private college. Private schools charge $26,300 a year on average, compared with $7,000 for in-state students at public, four-year schools, according to the College Board.

Using his company's website, ESPlanner.com, Kotlikoff calculated how much discretionary income a student would have after graduation, assuming he or she took out loans to fund an education at University of Massachusetts at Amherst, a public school, or private New York University. The calculation assumed the student earned a business degree, got a job making $65,900 (the median industry salary, according to the BLS)  and paid 8 percent interest on the loans.

After factoring in everything from taxes to 401(k) contributions, Kotlikoff calculated the graduate paying off the debt from UMass would have $36,515 for discretionary spending. That would remain stable even after his debt was paid off. The NYU graduate would never catch up. He or she would have $22,128 for discretionary spending at age 22, rising to $35,311 at age 42, when the debt is paid off.

Of course, there are factors that could make the higher debt more worthwhile. Perhaps the NYU graduate would find that degree translated into a higher salary over time, making the extra tuition pay off. But even at the most elite private universities, there are no such guarantees.

---"Is it worth it to go to college? Daunting debt makes some wary of higher education," by Allison Linn, msnbc.com (8.9.10)

Not only are there no such guarantees, but recently reported research indicates that the choice between a highly selective school and a state school appears to make but little difference to one's future success. The reported research I'm talking about found that kids with the same SAT scores and high school performance who go to the most prominent schools they can get into--including the Ivies and other elite schools--have, on average, no more long-term career and financial success than those who attend less prestigious, less expensive schools, including state colleges. That is, a similar level of ability and industry, combined with a competent college education and degree--whether at an Ivy or a public college--usually yields a similar level of success.

In addition to popular lore, don't we already understand that instinctively, empirically? Of course, there's always the cache and appeal that attaches to brand-name schools--and they may make a difference in opening those first doors. But are they worth subverting one's financial future when, in the end, ability and industry will more likely open the doors to your long-term future? For most middle-class and less well-off families and students, it is not.

And most recent graduates do not find jobs paying $66K per year, not as starting salaries. Top CPA firm accountants or engineers, perhaps, but not most liberal arts, education and public service graduates. For them, the required levels of education debt to attend private universities are often just not workable.

Given all we've presented, you will understand my recommendation to families and children for whom financing higher education is a major financial burden. First, if there is any workable way for the student to attend college and get that bachelor's degree, do it. But, the options and decisions should be approached with caution. Unless there is an academic or athletic scholarship to be had at that private university, they should choose the home state university or college--and apply for every scholarship grant available, both at the school and in the community. If necessary, commute from home.

The best value? Spend the first two years commuting to a state community college, then transfer to a state college or university ($3600 for two years, then $7000-10,000 for the last two years). It is not the most glamorous option for higher education, but in most cases, this will assure the fastest return and the maximum return from one's higher education investment. And the related loan payments will be much less likely to impoverish the new grad.

But here's another exacerbating problem: most all states have been backing away from their higher levels of financial support for their state schools of higher education. This has been happening in slow increments for some years. But just since 2006-07,  Rhode Island's contribution to higher education has decreased by 23%. And now, the dire budgetary situation authored by the Great Recession has the state budget office asking for another 15%.* In the short term, this can only mean further increases in state university tuition. In time, it will contribute to setting the table for restructuring all higher education. It has to come soon, for both private and state institutions.**

State-supported higher education has been the foundation of America's economic success, and the springboard of the American dream. It is at the heart of our national strength and international prominence. It has long provided and inspired a better informed and contributing citizenry in civic and political affairs, and a quality of life that is the envy of the world.

A sense of both concern and sadness necessarily attends an understanding of what the weakening of public financial support for higher education portends for public access and financial affordability for most American families and students, and for the foundational strengths of our country. But in the end, our hope lies in rethinking the definition, structure and delivery of high education in the U.S.**

* As reported in the Providence Journal (9.30.10)

**For further thoughts on the need for higher education reform, see the "Education" section of my recent post, "On Public Goods: Providing Education & Healthcare."

http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Pays-but-How-Much-/124552/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561562/ns/business-personal_finance/