Previously we wrote about our responsibility in attracting good leaders. The essence of that essay was, they are all over the place but we have to show them that we will follow their leadership; not ask them what they can do for us. Leaders don’t want to be charitable foundation benefactors. They want to bring their skills to problems; they want to examine, analyze and choose from the alternatives; they want to set goals and give themselves a bit of margin for error and then they want to get the job done. If they get the job done; good leaders want very little else. Maybe a thank you. A kiss or a hug from a loved one (in private; not in front of a campaign donating audience) and some privacy for their private lives.
This essay is about how to tell a good leader by the things he/she does and does not do.
What good leaders do and do not do:
1. They don’t write books that make them look good and that enrich them. They let historians write history books. Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, required a one hundred year waiting period before publishing his autobiography. As a matter of fact, a good leader might write his/her memoirs but if it covers a period of public service when they were paid as a public employee, they would turn any monies received over to their employer who happens to be the taxpayer. They would also postpone publication for at least ten years.
2. They don’t establish foundations with their names prominently displayed on the door. Again, much the same issue. If they had a private life, let them do as they see fit. If they take a public paycheck, they owe any receipts based on that service to their employer – the taxpayer.
3. Examples: Al Gore lost; he made a movie about global warming and lots of people paid to see it. Okay. It may be patent nonsense but it's OK.
4. Examples: Bill Clinton: earned a lot of public paychecks. Then earns a small fortune based on his public employment. Small fortune is not based on his private activities; it’s based on his public employment. Monies are due the taxpayer. But that is not the law. So, what does a real leader do? He turns it over to the taxpayer and gets a real job. Where’s the money Bill? Ditto for fellows like Rudy Giuliani and Tony Blair.
5. Leaders do not blame the situation they wanted to manage on their predecessor. They sought out the job! If there are problems that continue from the predecessor they make changes and explain why they did what they did and why the changes will make a measurable improvement. And then they move on and accept responsibility for everything that follows. When you encounter a person or a group of people who blame others for things, past or current events, you have all you need to have to know that you are dealing with losers. You have prima facie evidence that the blamers will never take responsibility; never be accountable and never show any real evidence of leadership. If you stick by them, you know that you are sticking by a loser.
6. Leaders constantly accept responsibility. They make it a point to say that this is what they are doing and why. They do not find someone who disagrees with them and blame the unacceptance of their ideas on those who see the situation or world differently.
7. They do not use teleprompters when giving a speech. As a matter of fact, they make their speeches very brief because they know what they need to say; they say it concisely; they set out their goals against which progress or failure will be measured and they will succinctly report back when progress is either achieved or not. They don’t need a teleprompter because they know what they’re saying!
8. Good leaders do not buy votes or supporters or watch polls that measure their popularity. They analyze issues, they consider alternatives, they measure consequences – intended and otherwise; they decide and watch what happens carefully and if they see that they made a mistake or that what they choose is not working out, they make changes fast and they own up to the mistake.
9. They do not offer things. For example, they do not say you have a right to health care or a right to food stamps or unemployment benefits, etc. They do say you have a responsibility to get an education; obey the law; get a job; pay your bills and marry the woman you impregnate. They also tell you to educate your child which means you help them with and make sure they do their homework; you attend their school meetings and you come home sober after work.
10. Good leaders step down. They do not stick around because they have either nothing to do; no alternative or they just like the trappings of power and the public attention. They are busy people. They get out of town. They go home and go back to their real life job.
11. Example: GWBush does not keep showing up, yapping and criticizing his successor even though his successor cannot stop blaming him for everything bad.
12. Good leaders do not set up theoretical and hypothetical measurements that cannot be objectively determined. Good leaders do not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on activities that cannot be measured such as “jobs saved” or “jobs created” when the overall jobs number is either flat or declining. If you can’t measure the results of the program do not fund the program. Good leaders know this simple truth.
13. Trust. Leaders do not repeat old nonsense about how the world used to be. If someone wants to kill you, they say, let’s kill em first. They do not let bad guys into the country because we are free and we want our principles to be honored. Safety and survivability precede principles. Leaders speak honestly about issues; they face facts and they build trust. They deal with reality; not theory. Leave the latter to the theoretical physicists and the Sunday preachers.
14. Bad leaders speak with forked tongues. Speak one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. Always look good. Always be right. Be above the fray. Talk a good game. Blame the other guy. All examples of forked tongue syndrome. Forked tongue syndrome in now an epidemic among the tenured members of PIP and POOP. PIP and POOP are infested with bad leaders.
We’re sure you can think of even more situations and examples of what good leaders do and do not do. Remember, all it takes is one or two good leaders to correct the failings of hundreds of bad leaders. Let’s get moving America. One or two good leaders will correct the decades of bad leaders we have chosen. America, stop choosing bad leaders.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Leadership Series: Finding Good Leaders
Over the past several weeks TheFundamentals has posted essays and references to other essays/articles that touch upon issues of leadership. Ted Koppel spoke about initial measured response from Mr. Bush and then overkill by Mr. Bush. He spoke to the issue of the continuation of these policies under Mr. Obama. He spoke to the failure of our political leaders to rein in both the military activities and other governmental activities that occur under the umbrella of safety and homeland security.
TheFundamentals quoted from President Eisenhower on much the same topics. Prioritize, don’t overreach or establish unreasonable goals; only so much can be done; don’t burden future generations with debt as you try to do things today that sound good/feel good but are elusive and immeasurable in their accomplishment.
Both Bush and Obama have reached way too far with other people’s money and we want to take out a few minutes in this essay to address this failing. Government is established to basically keep order and keep fairness or equity in various aspects of human and group endeavor. It is not the primary place to seek charity or subsidies to buy cars, homes and insulated windows. Charitable organizations and churches and not for profit organizations are the appropriate place to seek needs funded with other people’s money. Unless we embrace this fundamental, America will continue to attract vote buying candidates for public office. We must return to responsible and consistent fiscal, monetary, tax and pro competition policies to replace the corrupt policies of subsidies, vote buying, protected classes and appeals to special interest groups.
Now why do we bring up this matter in an essay on leadership? Our leaders today play a game of giveaway. The game is offer more and get more votes. The game is figure out what larger groups of voters seek and then try to buy them to support your candidacy. It is not at all a game of setting rules, expecting fairness and sacrifice and it is not about seeking commitment to do more with less. Think back to the slogan that JFKennedy offered in his inaugural address. What can you do for your country? Not what your country can do for you.
JFKennedy followed Dwight Eisenhower into the presidency. Eisenhower said set limits. Set priorities. Control those who would seek undue influence. Control what you do. Don’t promise too much. Be sensible. Don’t burden future generations with your plans and schemes and spending.
All this is now gone. No one is talking about cutting back. No one is talking about even balancing spending with receipts. No one is talking about limiting laws and rules and bureaucrats and lawyers. No one is insisting on sacrifice and frugality. These concepts in this paragraph are never even brought up in the American political conversation. Why would a well founded, fundamentals following, sensible, responsible individual throw their hat in the ring to swim against this current; this tsunami of entitlement, giveaway promiscuity?
Managing and spending other people’s money is a fiduciary responsibility in most agency relationships. If you don’t do it with reasonable care, you can be sued and in some instances even subject to criminal penalties. A good leader, be he or she a business person or a regular citizen who lives by the standards of responsibility and common sense is not going to enter the arena of American politics. It is a counter values based environment. It does not run on the rules of goals and objectives and measurement and accountability. It runs on the promiscuity of corruption and excess and very minimal measurement standards. All one need do is examine the major areas of government involvement. The budgets are not balanced. The pensions are not funded. The employees are not given measurable tasks with consequence for failure. The main thing is to always find votes to buy and then find some more. This is not leadership. This is not an attractive vocation for a person who lives by measurement, accomplishment and accountability. A person with fundamental values.
There is great concern in this land of ours that spending is out of control; debt is at the point of self destruction and that the so called leaders, the people in charge, don’t have a clue about what to do so they just keep following what they did yesterday and the day before. Recently, we published brief bios of those identified as being important financial leaders. No; nada real life experience in the entire gang. All have been in their jobs for years. They are not the solution; they have nary a clue about what to do. To use Obama's metaphor, they drove the car into the ditch. Obama just can’t admit that he was in the back seat giving directions.
There are many people who can and would lead us out of this vote buying, future mortgaging debacle that is our public sector. All we have to do is let them know that we will embrace their values and their standards and their accountability techniques. We have to let them know that we want their fundamentals and we will not insist that they buy us off with promises and giveaways and more deficits and more debt. Right now, they think politics stinks because they see the weak people we put in office. We settle for low accomplishment, non competitive vote buyers. The good leaders don’t trust us. They just want some inclination that we are serious. We will follow good leadership. We will sacrifice. We will ask what we can do. We will not ask what someone can do for us.
That’s how simple it is to get good leaders. Show them that you want them. Show them that you will not settle any longer for poor, weak leadership. Good leaders are not going to play a vote buying game. The expression that comes to mind is “build it and they will come.” It’s true. Ask for; no, insist on; no, DEMAND good leadership. Support good leaders. They will come! Tell them we don’t want anything other than good values, common sense and fiscal responsibility. They will get the job done. And, hallelujah, they will then go back to what they do best. Work. They will not hang around to become lobbyists and diplomats and presidential commissions can kickers.
There are a lot of good leaders who will do the job and not stick around. All they want to know is that they do not have to sell out their good values and their fundamentals trying to buy votes and please one group after another who are constantly seeking something from their government. So stop thinking and asking someone to do something for you and you start asking what you can do for your country. And then you do your part when the good leaders lead you to responsible policies and balanced budgets. You do your part and you let the new leaders know that they must make sure everyone else does the same. The new, good leaders will get the job done. Faster than you can believe. And then they will leave. That is what good leaders do. It is a fundamental.
TheFundamentals quoted from President Eisenhower on much the same topics. Prioritize, don’t overreach or establish unreasonable goals; only so much can be done; don’t burden future generations with debt as you try to do things today that sound good/feel good but are elusive and immeasurable in their accomplishment.
Both Bush and Obama have reached way too far with other people’s money and we want to take out a few minutes in this essay to address this failing. Government is established to basically keep order and keep fairness or equity in various aspects of human and group endeavor. It is not the primary place to seek charity or subsidies to buy cars, homes and insulated windows. Charitable organizations and churches and not for profit organizations are the appropriate place to seek needs funded with other people’s money. Unless we embrace this fundamental, America will continue to attract vote buying candidates for public office. We must return to responsible and consistent fiscal, monetary, tax and pro competition policies to replace the corrupt policies of subsidies, vote buying, protected classes and appeals to special interest groups.
Now why do we bring up this matter in an essay on leadership? Our leaders today play a game of giveaway. The game is offer more and get more votes. The game is figure out what larger groups of voters seek and then try to buy them to support your candidacy. It is not at all a game of setting rules, expecting fairness and sacrifice and it is not about seeking commitment to do more with less. Think back to the slogan that JFKennedy offered in his inaugural address. What can you do for your country? Not what your country can do for you.
JFKennedy followed Dwight Eisenhower into the presidency. Eisenhower said set limits. Set priorities. Control those who would seek undue influence. Control what you do. Don’t promise too much. Be sensible. Don’t burden future generations with your plans and schemes and spending.
All this is now gone. No one is talking about cutting back. No one is talking about even balancing spending with receipts. No one is talking about limiting laws and rules and bureaucrats and lawyers. No one is insisting on sacrifice and frugality. These concepts in this paragraph are never even brought up in the American political conversation. Why would a well founded, fundamentals following, sensible, responsible individual throw their hat in the ring to swim against this current; this tsunami of entitlement, giveaway promiscuity?
Managing and spending other people’s money is a fiduciary responsibility in most agency relationships. If you don’t do it with reasonable care, you can be sued and in some instances even subject to criminal penalties. A good leader, be he or she a business person or a regular citizen who lives by the standards of responsibility and common sense is not going to enter the arena of American politics. It is a counter values based environment. It does not run on the rules of goals and objectives and measurement and accountability. It runs on the promiscuity of corruption and excess and very minimal measurement standards. All one need do is examine the major areas of government involvement. The budgets are not balanced. The pensions are not funded. The employees are not given measurable tasks with consequence for failure. The main thing is to always find votes to buy and then find some more. This is not leadership. This is not an attractive vocation for a person who lives by measurement, accomplishment and accountability. A person with fundamental values.
There is great concern in this land of ours that spending is out of control; debt is at the point of self destruction and that the so called leaders, the people in charge, don’t have a clue about what to do so they just keep following what they did yesterday and the day before. Recently, we published brief bios of those identified as being important financial leaders. No; nada real life experience in the entire gang. All have been in their jobs for years. They are not the solution; they have nary a clue about what to do. To use Obama's metaphor, they drove the car into the ditch. Obama just can’t admit that he was in the back seat giving directions.
There are many people who can and would lead us out of this vote buying, future mortgaging debacle that is our public sector. All we have to do is let them know that we will embrace their values and their standards and their accountability techniques. We have to let them know that we want their fundamentals and we will not insist that they buy us off with promises and giveaways and more deficits and more debt. Right now, they think politics stinks because they see the weak people we put in office. We settle for low accomplishment, non competitive vote buyers. The good leaders don’t trust us. They just want some inclination that we are serious. We will follow good leadership. We will sacrifice. We will ask what we can do. We will not ask what someone can do for us.
That’s how simple it is to get good leaders. Show them that you want them. Show them that you will not settle any longer for poor, weak leadership. Good leaders are not going to play a vote buying game. The expression that comes to mind is “build it and they will come.” It’s true. Ask for; no, insist on; no, DEMAND good leadership. Support good leaders. They will come! Tell them we don’t want anything other than good values, common sense and fiscal responsibility. They will get the job done. And, hallelujah, they will then go back to what they do best. Work. They will not hang around to become lobbyists and diplomats and presidential commissions can kickers.
There are a lot of good leaders who will do the job and not stick around. All they want to know is that they do not have to sell out their good values and their fundamentals trying to buy votes and please one group after another who are constantly seeking something from their government. So stop thinking and asking someone to do something for you and you start asking what you can do for your country. And then you do your part when the good leaders lead you to responsible policies and balanced budgets. You do your part and you let the new leaders know that they must make sure everyone else does the same. The new, good leaders will get the job done. Faster than you can believe. And then they will leave. That is what good leaders do. It is a fundamental.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Next Herbert Hoover
Who wants to be the next Herbert Hoover? Just line up over there on the right. See where all those chairs are arranged in a circle? Now here is what you do. Just join the others and after you all are standing behind a chair; you see there is one chair for each of you; you wait for the music to start playing. Then you start walking around the chairs, clockwise of course. When the music stops, you sit down in the chair that is in front of you. See how easy it is. Oh, there is one more thing. While the music is playing we are going to take away one chair. So, each time the music stops, there will be one person without a chair. That person gets to go home. We will do this until there are only two of you left and just one chair. And then, when the music stops, if you can sit down in the chair, you are the next Herbert Hoover. Much fame will come your way.
So far, we have had five or six players already go home. Let’s see where is that list with their names. Oh here it is. Christina Romer went home. Peter Orszag went home. Larry Summers went home. Rahm Emanuel is going home. So is David Axelrod. Five have already gone home. They don’t get to be the next Herbert Hoover. Too bad. They don’t know what they’re missing out on. Lots of fame. Invites to the Sunday talk shows. Lots of security protection. Heck, probably around the clock for the rest of their lives. The next Herbert Hoover is going to be getting a lot of attention.
Now here is what else is going to happen. In a few weeks there will be an election. You will notice that a lot of the people running for office are still trying to have a chair to sit on. They also want to be the next Herbert Hoover. Here are some of their names: Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Henry Waxman; John McCain, John Boehner and Harry Reid are all there around the chairs hoping that they will have a seat when the music stops. Others didn’t seem to be so anxious to stay in this fun game. Chris Dodd walked away. He would have had a good chance to be the next Herbert. So did Evan Bayh and the senators from NDakota, Kentucky, Kansas, Delaware, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio. We wonder why? A bunch of them were associated with places and events like FNMA and FHLMC and making sure everyone, mostly those important speculators could buy as much real estate as they wanted. And they were always voting for giveaway programs and new ideas they called stimulus and TARP and all sorts of fun ideas they had. They walked away too. They don’t seem to want to play the game either. Why not? Are they seeing something the rest of us who want to play are not? We doubt it. It’s not every day you can get to be the next Herbert Hoover, huh?
Some people haven’t shown up for the game yet but they sure want to play. As a matter of fact two of them are so busy trying to get outside support to be named the next Herbert Hoover that we think they might just fix the game when they show up. A lot of the current players are worried that the fix is in. In one case they think some of the Chicago boyz who left early may have already pulled a fast one to make sure that their favorite is going to win this game. Who are these two you ask? Well here are some clues.
The first one should be odds on favorite. He studied Herbert Hoover in school and he claims to know more about good old Herbert and his economic policies than almost anyone ever. He says he studied Herbert very carefully so that, when the time came, he would know exactly what to do to not be like Herbert. What? That doesn’t make sense. Why would someone who didn’t want to be Herbert now work so hard to become Herbert? Boy, oh boy. It sure is hard to figure out how the minds of these really smart people work, isn’t it?
The other one, the kid from Chicago, probably has the inside track because he does get to say yes or no or maybe to almost everything so he can probably fix the game so that he is in the right spot when there is only one chair left and the music stops. He has been working real hard to be the winner. Some even say that the fellow who studied Herbert has been writing the scripted, teleprompter speeches for this kid from Chicago to keep him in the game to be the next Herbert. That sure would be very nice of him to help out the kid with all these great “Herbert” ideas, wouldn’t it?
Boy oh boy oh boy. We can’t wait. How about you? Pretty soon we will have a brand new Herbert Hoover. As Yogi Berra might say, "It's déjà vu all over again". Yogi also said something else that is guiding us as we watch the Herbert Hoover candidates do their thing. He said, "You can observe a lot by watching."
So far, we have had five or six players already go home. Let’s see where is that list with their names. Oh here it is. Christina Romer went home. Peter Orszag went home. Larry Summers went home. Rahm Emanuel is going home. So is David Axelrod. Five have already gone home. They don’t get to be the next Herbert Hoover. Too bad. They don’t know what they’re missing out on. Lots of fame. Invites to the Sunday talk shows. Lots of security protection. Heck, probably around the clock for the rest of their lives. The next Herbert Hoover is going to be getting a lot of attention.
Now here is what else is going to happen. In a few weeks there will be an election. You will notice that a lot of the people running for office are still trying to have a chair to sit on. They also want to be the next Herbert Hoover. Here are some of their names: Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Henry Waxman; John McCain, John Boehner and Harry Reid are all there around the chairs hoping that they will have a seat when the music stops. Others didn’t seem to be so anxious to stay in this fun game. Chris Dodd walked away. He would have had a good chance to be the next Herbert. So did Evan Bayh and the senators from NDakota, Kentucky, Kansas, Delaware, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio. We wonder why? A bunch of them were associated with places and events like FNMA and FHLMC and making sure everyone, mostly those important speculators could buy as much real estate as they wanted. And they were always voting for giveaway programs and new ideas they called stimulus and TARP and all sorts of fun ideas they had. They walked away too. They don’t seem to want to play the game either. Why not? Are they seeing something the rest of us who want to play are not? We doubt it. It’s not every day you can get to be the next Herbert Hoover, huh?
Some people haven’t shown up for the game yet but they sure want to play. As a matter of fact two of them are so busy trying to get outside support to be named the next Herbert Hoover that we think they might just fix the game when they show up. A lot of the current players are worried that the fix is in. In one case they think some of the Chicago boyz who left early may have already pulled a fast one to make sure that their favorite is going to win this game. Who are these two you ask? Well here are some clues.
The first one should be odds on favorite. He studied Herbert Hoover in school and he claims to know more about good old Herbert and his economic policies than almost anyone ever. He says he studied Herbert very carefully so that, when the time came, he would know exactly what to do to not be like Herbert. What? That doesn’t make sense. Why would someone who didn’t want to be Herbert now work so hard to become Herbert? Boy, oh boy. It sure is hard to figure out how the minds of these really smart people work, isn’t it?
The other one, the kid from Chicago, probably has the inside track because he does get to say yes or no or maybe to almost everything so he can probably fix the game so that he is in the right spot when there is only one chair left and the music stops. He has been working real hard to be the winner. Some even say that the fellow who studied Herbert has been writing the scripted, teleprompter speeches for this kid from Chicago to keep him in the game to be the next Herbert. That sure would be very nice of him to help out the kid with all these great “Herbert” ideas, wouldn’t it?
Boy oh boy oh boy. We can’t wait. How about you? Pretty soon we will have a brand new Herbert Hoover. As Yogi Berra might say, "It's déjà vu all over again". Yogi also said something else that is guiding us as we watch the Herbert Hoover candidates do their thing. He said, "You can observe a lot by watching."
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Leadership Series: American Mythology
Myth #1: America is the world’s leading exporter of goods and services.
Fact #1: 2009 exports as estimated by The World Factbook (CIA) in trillions of dollars:
Myth #2: American has the world’s best health care system
Fact #2: Most certainly not as measured by either cost per citizen or life expectancy (source: United Nations.) Japan is number one in life expectancy: 82.6 overall; 86.1 for females. Virtually all the European countries and Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, S. Korea and Australia have higher life expectancy. The US ranks 38th in the world, after Cuba. The US overall age is 78.2; 80.2 for females. As pointed out on numerous occasions on these pages, the cost per capita for health care in the United States is at least double and, in many cases, triple that of other developed nations, all with higher life expectancy. Cuba’s cost per citizen is a fraction of the cost in the US.
Myth #3: American has the world’s greatest education system
Fact #3: If you look at young adults (25 – 34) who have an associate’s degree or higher, the US is tied with Belgium for 7th. Canada is 1st followed by Japan, South Korea, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Source: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Debt on Clinton’s last day in office, Jan 20, 2001: $ 5.728 trillion
Debt of the United States rose over $1.5 trillion during Clinton’s time in office.
Source: USTreasury
Myth #6: America leads the world in innovation
Fact #6: The United Nations has taken a crack at measuring a nation’s capacity for innovation. It calculates an Innovation Capacity Index. Here are their results:
Sweden and Finland rank 1 and 2; the US is third followed by Switzerland, Netherlands, Singapore, Canada, United Kingdom, Norway and New Zealand. Japan is 15; Germany is 20.
Do you have any myths about America? Please share them with us; but also research and share the facts. Myths are stories told by leaders and others to present a picture of how they would like the listener to perceive events and situations. Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke are now spreading the myth that their massive spending programs, massive deficits and massive debt buildup (well, they tend to not refer to the latter two consequences of the first reality) have saved the world. Kind of reminds one of the concept that myth spreaders think their audience will believe bigger lies (myths) than smaller lies. Obama just told the United Nations that he prevented the world from slipping into a great depression - “...over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink.” Bernanke just told the world that he saved the financial system of the world. “We avoided what could have been a global meltdown,” Bernanke said.
TheFundamentals has said it before. Real leaders let measurable facts speak for themselves. Real leaders let historians write history. Neither Obama nor Bernanke have the insight, the facts nor the historical reference to make their statements. Mythology? Perhaps. Leadership? Absolutely not!
Fact #1: 2009 exports as estimated by The World Factbook (CIA) in trillions of dollars:
- $ 1.525 European Union
- $ 1.204 People’s Republic of China
- $ 1.159 Germany
- $ 1.046 United States (on a per capita basis, US of A is 41st)
Myth #2: American has the world’s best health care system
Fact #2: Most certainly not as measured by either cost per citizen or life expectancy (source: United Nations.) Japan is number one in life expectancy: 82.6 overall; 86.1 for females. Virtually all the European countries and Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, S. Korea and Australia have higher life expectancy. The US ranks 38th in the world, after Cuba. The US overall age is 78.2; 80.2 for females. As pointed out on numerous occasions on these pages, the cost per capita for health care in the United States is at least double and, in many cases, triple that of other developed nations, all with higher life expectancy. Cuba’s cost per citizen is a fraction of the cost in the US.
Myth #3: American has the world’s greatest education system
Fact #3: If you look at young adults (25 – 34) who have an associate’s degree or higher, the US is tied with Belgium for 7th. Canada is 1st followed by Japan, South Korea, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Source: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Myth #4: America paid down its debt during Clinton’s presidency
Fact #4: Debt on Clinton’s first inaugural day, Jan 20, 1993: $ 4.188 trillionDebt on Clinton’s last day in office, Jan 20, 2001: $ 5.728 trillion
Debt of the United States rose over $1.5 trillion during Clinton’s time in office.
Source: USTreasury
Myth #5: America is a nation of laws.
Fact #5: Well, we probably have more laws, containing more words, and more courts and more court employees and more prosecutors and, most certainly many more lawyers, than any other nation. But we either don’t like to be law abiders or we like to put people in jail for more reasons than any other nation on earth. The US leads the world with incarcerated people: 715 for every 100,000 citizens. Next in line is Russia with 584 per 100,000. Iran is 226; Israel is 174; Mexico is 169; China is 119 and Italy, Germany and France are all 100 or less. The US incarceration rate is seven times greater than Italy, France and Germany! How can this be? Japan is 54 and India is 29! Source: International Centre for Prison Studies. Myth #6: America leads the world in innovation
Fact #6: The United Nations has taken a crack at measuring a nation’s capacity for innovation. It calculates an Innovation Capacity Index. Here are their results:
Sweden and Finland rank 1 and 2; the US is third followed by Switzerland, Netherlands, Singapore, Canada, United Kingdom, Norway and New Zealand. Japan is 15; Germany is 20.
Do you have any myths about America? Please share them with us; but also research and share the facts. Myths are stories told by leaders and others to present a picture of how they would like the listener to perceive events and situations. Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke are now spreading the myth that their massive spending programs, massive deficits and massive debt buildup (well, they tend to not refer to the latter two consequences of the first reality) have saved the world. Kind of reminds one of the concept that myth spreaders think their audience will believe bigger lies (myths) than smaller lies. Obama just told the United Nations that he prevented the world from slipping into a great depression - “...over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink.” Bernanke just told the world that he saved the financial system of the world. “We avoided what could have been a global meltdown,” Bernanke said.
TheFundamentals has said it before. Real leaders let measurable facts speak for themselves. Real leaders let historians write history. Neither Obama nor Bernanke have the insight, the facts nor the historical reference to make their statements. Mythology? Perhaps. Leadership? Absolutely not!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Madison Avenue
Can responsibility for the decline of American values and fundamentals be assigned significantly, if not completely, to Madison Avenue and the influence and impact of the combination of advertising themes and approaches with the development and pervasiveness of mass electronic media?
That is our theme; our question; our premise.
In order to analyze this question we start by displaying the list of the seven deadly sins. They are:
• Lust
• Gluttony
• Greed
• Sloth
• Wrath
• Envy
• Pride
Humans have a tendency to sin. Usually their sins fall within one or more of these seven human weaknesses.
Can we see any connection between the advertising worlds output – their ads, their appeals and this list of sinful conduct? Well, perhaps. OK. Who’s kidding whom? Advertising is built around the sins, all seven of them. Most ads incorporate at least two or three of the sins. Most really good ads will have an attractive and underdressed (lust) female or twenty; will have the theme of looking good compared (envy) with others and will appeal to your need or inclination of feeling about very good about yourself (pride.) Greed is a big seller too. Like, how much of this advertised crap do we really need? The bigger the car; the more dependable and frequent the erection; the pills that offset the problems of being obese or almost obese; gadgets or machines or appliances that do everything for you; constant promotion of silly TV programming; the list goes on and on. Sloth sells. So does gluttony. The only one we can’t directly build is the concept of wrath in an ad. But that does bring us to the electronic media: television, movies, internet, bluray, Netflix, Hollywood and all their content.
How much of Hollywood and TV is based on anger or bad guys or people doing bad things to others? Well just about all of it, pilgrim. Unless you like movies named after animals, you can pretty well count on a bunch of murders; a bunch of sex (usually outside marriage); a bunch of car chases; a bunch of punching and karate chopping and swordplay and countless episodes of things being blown up – usually material things which, of course, leads to replacement of material things and the circle of life on Madison Avenue continues.
Are you beginning to see our theme come together?
But you say, no, no, you’re missing the point. Good wins out. Evil is overcome. Sin doesn’t win. Virtue wins. The good guys always prevail. The hero wins the heroine. Tears of joy flow at the end of each film; of each segment; of each episode. If you say so pilgrim.
And that is where we end our analysis for the day. In closing we do want to list the seven virtues:
• Chastity
• Temperance
• Charity
• Diligence
• Patience
• Kindness
• Humility
We don’t know if we should put all the blame on Madison Avenue or just split it between them and Hollywood and TV land. Essentially the bookends of America - New York and California. Two of America's most corrupt places, most fiscally promiscuous locales; most indebted governmental entities. We do know this. The people we admire; the people who we place on a pedestal are very human and they struggle each day to overcome their weaknesses and sinful tendencies with attention and commitment to virtue. And we know that everything that we can do to value this struggle and bring testimony to its historic consequences is worth every second of every minute of every hour so spent. We are in the struggle. We just aren’t big fans of the people who make money off it. Or the politicians who play to our weaknesses. Should we shut them down? No. But it wouldn’t hurt for some more voices to join the discussion and bring more balance to the struggle. Sin. It’s a fundamental. Struggle is too.
That is our theme; our question; our premise.
In order to analyze this question we start by displaying the list of the seven deadly sins. They are:
• Lust
• Gluttony
• Greed
• Sloth
• Wrath
• Envy
• Pride
Humans have a tendency to sin. Usually their sins fall within one or more of these seven human weaknesses.
Can we see any connection between the advertising worlds output – their ads, their appeals and this list of sinful conduct? Well, perhaps. OK. Who’s kidding whom? Advertising is built around the sins, all seven of them. Most ads incorporate at least two or three of the sins. Most really good ads will have an attractive and underdressed (lust) female or twenty; will have the theme of looking good compared (envy) with others and will appeal to your need or inclination of feeling about very good about yourself (pride.) Greed is a big seller too. Like, how much of this advertised crap do we really need? The bigger the car; the more dependable and frequent the erection; the pills that offset the problems of being obese or almost obese; gadgets or machines or appliances that do everything for you; constant promotion of silly TV programming; the list goes on and on. Sloth sells. So does gluttony. The only one we can’t directly build is the concept of wrath in an ad. But that does bring us to the electronic media: television, movies, internet, bluray, Netflix, Hollywood and all their content.
How much of Hollywood and TV is based on anger or bad guys or people doing bad things to others? Well just about all of it, pilgrim. Unless you like movies named after animals, you can pretty well count on a bunch of murders; a bunch of sex (usually outside marriage); a bunch of car chases; a bunch of punching and karate chopping and swordplay and countless episodes of things being blown up – usually material things which, of course, leads to replacement of material things and the circle of life on Madison Avenue continues.
Are you beginning to see our theme come together?
But you say, no, no, you’re missing the point. Good wins out. Evil is overcome. Sin doesn’t win. Virtue wins. The good guys always prevail. The hero wins the heroine. Tears of joy flow at the end of each film; of each segment; of each episode. If you say so pilgrim.
And that is where we end our analysis for the day. In closing we do want to list the seven virtues:
• Chastity
• Temperance
• Charity
• Diligence
• Patience
• Kindness
• Humility
We don’t know if we should put all the blame on Madison Avenue or just split it between them and Hollywood and TV land. Essentially the bookends of America - New York and California. Two of America's most corrupt places, most fiscally promiscuous locales; most indebted governmental entities. We do know this. The people we admire; the people who we place on a pedestal are very human and they struggle each day to overcome their weaknesses and sinful tendencies with attention and commitment to virtue. And we know that everything that we can do to value this struggle and bring testimony to its historic consequences is worth every second of every minute of every hour so spent. We are in the struggle. We just aren’t big fans of the people who make money off it. Or the politicians who play to our weaknesses. Should we shut them down? No. But it wouldn’t hurt for some more voices to join the discussion and bring more balance to the struggle. Sin. It’s a fundamental. Struggle is too.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Professional Politician
What is the motto of the professional politician? We’ve been told it is, “Your first job is to get elected; your second job is to get reelected.” Cynical of us you may ask? Perhaps but why would a person seek public office if the sole purpose is “to get the job?” Isn’t America about the private citizen who does his/her duty in public service and then gets back to their real job? Isn’t this a guiding principle of our national character? Isn’t this what our founders did? Let’s look at this issue.
What comes first, the politician or the philosophy? Does one say, “Hey, I’d like to be on the city council or senator or president but I don’t know what I stand for? I’d like the job; it pays well; they call me Mr. Councilman or senator and everyone listens to what I say.” Or does one say, “Hey, I stand for this and that and it’s about time someone who supports this and that get a voice in political affairs. You see no one else stands for this and that so I am going to go public with my stands for this and that and see if voters see this and that the way I do?”
There are some interesting examples that TheFundamentals would bring to your attention. The one that really jumps out at us is this guy John McCain from Arizona. Now, we preface all of our comments with this stipulation – the people of AZ have the right to elect anyone they choose to any of their national offices at least under current law. Just because McCain has been around for years and appears to never have been employed in a real life experience job and just because he ran for President on the POOP ticket and just because he has held committee chairmanships of great power in the national congress does not make him a bad guy. He does, however, appear to subscribe to the motto quoted above of the professional politician and his lack of any interest in or success at any other form of employment (yes, we know he flew military jets and yes we know he got shot down) would suggest that he is a professional politician.
Here is another example. This guy also appears to be a professional politician. His name is Arlen Specter and he even changed parties a few years ago so that the voters of his party would not defeat him in a primary election. Guess what? Yep. The voters of the other party threw him out after he switched to their side. So what does one make of that situation? Is it best to get thrown out by the gal (guy) that brought you to the dance or is it best to switch partners while at the dance and then get thrown out by the new partner? We don’t know but you can pose that question to Arlen at http://specter.senate.gov/ and see if he will give you a straight answer.
Last example. This guy is the present governor of Florida and he wants to be FL’s next US senator. He was also a POOP guy and he was elected governor on the POOP ticket and signed up for senator on the POOP primary ticket and then he started to read the polls. Apparently the POOP voters were nowhere near as impressed with his this and that stands so they were clearly going to vote for one of his primary opponents which would have left him on the POOP pile so to speak. So, what did he do? Nope he did not switch to PIP like good ‘ole Arlen. He declared himself an independent. And now he is the third guy running for the senate seat from FL.
Are these three fellows’ just examples of “survivorship” or are they just professional politicians or a little of both? Do we care? Should we care?
TheFundamentals suggests that all three are examples of professional politicians and we should care greatly. Perhaps we should not be picking on them simply because they had to scurry like rodents to try to keep their jobs. Most professional politicians do not have to do much more than show up to keep their jobs. Think about the lifers; the long timers; the really well imbedded politicians with names like Nancy Pelosi and Richard Durbin and Henry Waxman and Charles Schumer and Barney Frank and the late lion of the senate – Edward Kennedy and the living senatorial corpse – Robert Byrd. The list is quite long and they all were imbedded, professional politicians. And as much as some may argue that voters should be able to choose whomever they wish to fill these jobs, TheFundamentals argues that their pattern of behavior is a distortion at a minimum and more likely a corruption of democracy because the imbedded national professional politician develops powers that extend way beyond her or his electoral base. They also embrace an entitlement mentality about their offices and their power and their influence which is usually available for sale under the guise of legal fund raising. This entitlement mentality extends to their voters/supporters. For these reasons alone they must be limited to an arbitrary cumulative time in office. Otherwise how are they different than a ruling monarch or tyrants like the North Korean lineage or some Arabian family of despots with their sycophantic followers, supporters and hanger-on-ers?
Please support a constitutional amendment to limit the cumulative time in office for any national politician, except president because that office is already limited to two terms via the 22nd amendment. Twelve years total, cumulative in any combination of national offices should be more than enough. America does not need professional politicians and we clearly cannot afford their financially promiscuous conduct. They are part of America’s problem. The solution is simple: TERM LIMITS. National term limits require an amendment to the US Constitution. Make sure the candidates you support this November will support and vote for a term limit amendment in the next year.
What comes first, the politician or the philosophy? Does one say, “Hey, I’d like to be on the city council or senator or president but I don’t know what I stand for? I’d like the job; it pays well; they call me Mr. Councilman or senator and everyone listens to what I say.” Or does one say, “Hey, I stand for this and that and it’s about time someone who supports this and that get a voice in political affairs. You see no one else stands for this and that so I am going to go public with my stands for this and that and see if voters see this and that the way I do?”
There are some interesting examples that TheFundamentals would bring to your attention. The one that really jumps out at us is this guy John McCain from Arizona. Now, we preface all of our comments with this stipulation – the people of AZ have the right to elect anyone they choose to any of their national offices at least under current law. Just because McCain has been around for years and appears to never have been employed in a real life experience job and just because he ran for President on the POOP ticket and just because he has held committee chairmanships of great power in the national congress does not make him a bad guy. He does, however, appear to subscribe to the motto quoted above of the professional politician and his lack of any interest in or success at any other form of employment (yes, we know he flew military jets and yes we know he got shot down) would suggest that he is a professional politician.
Here is another example. This guy also appears to be a professional politician. His name is Arlen Specter and he even changed parties a few years ago so that the voters of his party would not defeat him in a primary election. Guess what? Yep. The voters of the other party threw him out after he switched to their side. So what does one make of that situation? Is it best to get thrown out by the gal (guy) that brought you to the dance or is it best to switch partners while at the dance and then get thrown out by the new partner? We don’t know but you can pose that question to Arlen at http://specter.senate.gov/ and see if he will give you a straight answer.
Last example. This guy is the present governor of Florida and he wants to be FL’s next US senator. He was also a POOP guy and he was elected governor on the POOP ticket and signed up for senator on the POOP primary ticket and then he started to read the polls. Apparently the POOP voters were nowhere near as impressed with his this and that stands so they were clearly going to vote for one of his primary opponents which would have left him on the POOP pile so to speak. So, what did he do? Nope he did not switch to PIP like good ‘ole Arlen. He declared himself an independent. And now he is the third guy running for the senate seat from FL.
Are these three fellows’ just examples of “survivorship” or are they just professional politicians or a little of both? Do we care? Should we care?
TheFundamentals suggests that all three are examples of professional politicians and we should care greatly. Perhaps we should not be picking on them simply because they had to scurry like rodents to try to keep their jobs. Most professional politicians do not have to do much more than show up to keep their jobs. Think about the lifers; the long timers; the really well imbedded politicians with names like Nancy Pelosi and Richard Durbin and Henry Waxman and Charles Schumer and Barney Frank and the late lion of the senate – Edward Kennedy and the living senatorial corpse – Robert Byrd. The list is quite long and they all were imbedded, professional politicians. And as much as some may argue that voters should be able to choose whomever they wish to fill these jobs, TheFundamentals argues that their pattern of behavior is a distortion at a minimum and more likely a corruption of democracy because the imbedded national professional politician develops powers that extend way beyond her or his electoral base. They also embrace an entitlement mentality about their offices and their power and their influence which is usually available for sale under the guise of legal fund raising. This entitlement mentality extends to their voters/supporters. For these reasons alone they must be limited to an arbitrary cumulative time in office. Otherwise how are they different than a ruling monarch or tyrants like the North Korean lineage or some Arabian family of despots with their sycophantic followers, supporters and hanger-on-ers?
Please support a constitutional amendment to limit the cumulative time in office for any national politician, except president because that office is already limited to two terms via the 22nd amendment. Twelve years total, cumulative in any combination of national offices should be more than enough. America does not need professional politicians and we clearly cannot afford their financially promiscuous conduct. They are part of America’s problem. The solution is simple: TERM LIMITS. National term limits require an amendment to the US Constitution. Make sure the candidates you support this November will support and vote for a term limit amendment in the next year.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Leadership Series: Real Experience Required
Meredith Whitney is a young woman who figured something out before others figured it out. She was a guest on a show we catch from time to time – CSPAN’s Q and A. We have no observations about Ms. Whitney’s specific professional skills. What caught our attention was her list of most influential financial personnel in this administration. We caught the list and we were both shocked and incredulous about what has happened to the adults when we most need them. It reminded us of the story, Lord of the Flies, of the young boys shipwrecked and the unfortunate havoc they wreak on each other until the adults arrive.
Well, here is Meredith’s list:
1. BBernanke
2. TGeithner
3. SBair
4. EWarren
5. LSummers
6. BFrank
7. CDodd
Just think these are the gals and guys who are making the decisions about fiscal and monetary policy as well as financial regulation. They are not newcomers on the scene. Many have been in government positions for years. In other words, to use their leader’s metaphor, they drove the car in the ditch. Why are they still behind the wheel?
Here is a very brief work experience bio on each of these influential financial gurus. At the end of each recap we note the time spent working in a real life job which, if you read TheFundamentals thoughtful and well researched essays, you know simply means the opportunity to be terminated without any reason or accommodation. Five years minimum required to warrant reference.
BBernanke. Summer work at a restaurant. Balance in either government or academic. Zero.
TGeithner. 3 years at Kissinger Associates. Balance in either government or think tank. Zero.
SBair. All government/academic. Zero.
EWarren. Summer law firm work. Balance in academic/government. Zero.
LSummers. Limited hedge fund work. Balance in academic/government. Zero ( Harvard fired him)
BFrank. Virtually all government. Zero.
CDodd. US Army Reserve. All rest government. Zero.
These folks have combined, barely a smidgen, of real life experience. Real life experience in the private sector. Think about it. They write the laws, set up the bureaucracies and oversee the bureaucrats that now dominate the private sector and dominate its ability to compete and they have no real experience in the private sector.
Now what does this have to do with TheFundamentals, you ask? Experience is a fundamental. We accept that some individuals are born with certain characteristics that support their leadership propensity. These characteristics may include their competitiveness; intelligence; ability to think strategically and charisma. But without experience they flail with theories and concepts.
We are not kidding when we say it is time, way past time as a matter of fact, to get back to TheFundamentals. What fundamental are we talking about? Try this one: don’t send a boy to do a man’s job. Don’t like that one. How about this one? If you want to get something done, give it to a busy man. Sorry folks. Academicians, bureaucrats and politicians just don’t qualify for this definition of busy. America was not built on the accomplishments of academicians, bureaucrats and politicians. We did not become a competitive commercial society based on their direction or leadership. We have lost our way with their meddling and their disconnect between theory and getting something done. If we want to get back in the game, if we want to get something done, it is time to find a busy man and a busy woman or two to do the job. It’s that simple. It’s that fundamental. Many jobs require experience as a prerequisite for employment. It is time to require some real life experience when we hire our politicians and bureaucrats. Not much we can do about the academics but in the college towns their damage is limited to students. When they go to Washington they damage America's competitive capability. All government job descriptions need one basic change. They need to require at least 5 years experience in the private sector in a job where the employee could be terminated at any time for any reason. Real experience in a real competitive environment. It's a fundamental of leadership.
Well, here is Meredith’s list:
1. BBernanke
2. TGeithner
3. SBair
4. EWarren
5. LSummers
6. BFrank
7. CDodd
Just think these are the gals and guys who are making the decisions about fiscal and monetary policy as well as financial regulation. They are not newcomers on the scene. Many have been in government positions for years. In other words, to use their leader’s metaphor, they drove the car in the ditch. Why are they still behind the wheel?
Here is a very brief work experience bio on each of these influential financial gurus. At the end of each recap we note the time spent working in a real life job which, if you read TheFundamentals thoughtful and well researched essays, you know simply means the opportunity to be terminated without any reason or accommodation. Five years minimum required to warrant reference.
BBernanke. Summer work at a restaurant. Balance in either government or academic. Zero.
TGeithner. 3 years at Kissinger Associates. Balance in either government or think tank. Zero.
SBair. All government/academic. Zero.
EWarren. Summer law firm work. Balance in academic/government. Zero.
LSummers. Limited hedge fund work. Balance in academic/government. Zero ( Harvard fired him)
BFrank. Virtually all government. Zero.
CDodd. US Army Reserve. All rest government. Zero.
These folks have combined, barely a smidgen, of real life experience. Real life experience in the private sector. Think about it. They write the laws, set up the bureaucracies and oversee the bureaucrats that now dominate the private sector and dominate its ability to compete and they have no real experience in the private sector.
Now what does this have to do with TheFundamentals, you ask? Experience is a fundamental. We accept that some individuals are born with certain characteristics that support their leadership propensity. These characteristics may include their competitiveness; intelligence; ability to think strategically and charisma. But without experience they flail with theories and concepts.
We are not kidding when we say it is time, way past time as a matter of fact, to get back to TheFundamentals. What fundamental are we talking about? Try this one: don’t send a boy to do a man’s job. Don’t like that one. How about this one? If you want to get something done, give it to a busy man. Sorry folks. Academicians, bureaucrats and politicians just don’t qualify for this definition of busy. America was not built on the accomplishments of academicians, bureaucrats and politicians. We did not become a competitive commercial society based on their direction or leadership. We have lost our way with their meddling and their disconnect between theory and getting something done. If we want to get back in the game, if we want to get something done, it is time to find a busy man and a busy woman or two to do the job. It’s that simple. It’s that fundamental. Many jobs require experience as a prerequisite for employment. It is time to require some real life experience when we hire our politicians and bureaucrats. Not much we can do about the academics but in the college towns their damage is limited to students. When they go to Washington they damage America's competitive capability. All government job descriptions need one basic change. They need to require at least 5 years experience in the private sector in a job where the employee could be terminated at any time for any reason. Real experience in a real competitive environment. It's a fundamental of leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)