1/21/2012

Mitt Romney has a money problem.

For weeks the former head of Bain Capital has dodged calls to release his tax returns. His reluctance is, of course, understandable—a man’s money is his own concern. But in a system where elected officials are required to make financial disclosures (look up your congressman here: http://tinyurl.com/3bm3a6v) and where it is customary for presidential contenders to challenge their richer opponents to release theirs (see Obama’s call for Hilary Clinton to release hers in 2008: http://tinyurl.com/7ph2clw), Romney’s dithering makes it appear as if he has something to hide.

There are a number of reasons why he’d want to keep his 1040s under wraps. The US tax system wrongly favors individuals with high incomes and who have access to creative accountants. Mitt Romney claims to earn an “overwhelming majority” of his income from investments, which are taxed at fifteen per cent—ten per cent lower than the marginal tax rate for a person making $50,000. And if he were to release tax returns from the years he spent at Bain, they would reveal that he benefited from the infamous “carried interest” rule. So in a general election where income inequality will be a vanguard issue, is Mitt Romney the man the republicans want to represent them?

But as much as his past can be a burden, it is also what buttresses his campaign. At Bain Capital, Romney sought out struggling companies, then replaced ineffective managers, improved operations, and sold the presumably healthy companies to pocket huge sums of money for investors and himself. It’s this experience that gives his presidential campaign credence. This experience, he claims, imbued him with the knowledge and principles to be an effective leader.

It’s no wonder then that republicans receive his candidacy with such trepidation. On one hand, he’s the businessman and outsider that they yearn for– the quintessential capitalist with sharp business acumen. But on the other, he is the cigar-chomping rich man who makes ten thousand dollar bets in public and who says he “did not earn very much” from speaking fees last year, even though it is estimated he received nearly $340,000 for his services.

No one begrudges Romney for being rich. In fact, most people probably envy him. He certainly has qualities we’d all like to see in ourselves—determination, entrepreneurship, and self-efficacy. But we remain disenfranchised by his detachment from us after a lifetime in the upper echelon.

What’s damning is that many do not believe that he earned his wealth in an honorable way. Attack-ads paint him as corporate raider, coming in the night to pillage and suck dry any business in his path. People see him not a creator of wealth and jobs, but a bizarre-o-world Robin Hood who crumbled the homes of the poor to build his own mansion. People are still hungover from the Wall Street party that went on for far too long, and that left the country with nearly nothing to show for it. As Henry Ford said, “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.”

1/19/2011

As someone partial to business I’m really liking Nick Kristof’s defense here of banking and finance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/kristof-is-banking-bad.html?ref=opinion

1/15/2012

The last time I posted was the day before the spaceship Atlantis slipped those surely bonds of earth and made its historic final voyage into space. A few days later the ship safely glided back into the earth’s atmosphere and brought home not only the crew of space cadets, but a long history of ingenuity and innovation. The astronaut’s midnight walk from the landing strip to the transport vehicles was an underwhelming curtain call and an homage to the dreams of a baby booming generation who made science fiction a common reality. The shuttering of the space program continues to be, in my opinion, a metaphor for a larger narrative playing out across the world: the end of eras.

After toppling a murderous dictator and after nearly a decade of occupation, on December 18^th, 2011 the US finally withdrew its last combat brigade from Iraq. To some, the Iraq invasion was a prudent, humanitarian effort aimed to topple Saddam Hussein and release millions of Iraqis from the vice-like grip of a dictator. To others it was a miscalculated, conspiratorial invasion based on revenge that resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and countless more innocent Iraqis. Either way, we know the war was governed by a scorched earth policy that left the country in ruin and teetering on the brink of full blown civil war.

The day prior, Kim Jong-Il—the man who supposedly learned to walk in three weeks and talk in eight; who supposedly scored five (or by other accounts eleven) holes-in-one during his first round of golf; and who did indeed commission the kidnapping of his favorite director and actress to make films in North Korea—died of a heart attack. He left behind a quarantined country, riddled with famine and swarming with a population ignorant of humanity and equality. His son, the supreme successor, appears to be as vindictive and obdurate as his deceased father. We can only hope that this new leader, who is as young me and has nuclear capacity, is guided by a more finely tuned moral compass and rejects the ridiculousness bequeathed to him by his father.

And on smaller scales, in all of the universes in which we are the center of, daily events continue to shape who we are. For me, 2011 was the year I dealt with cancer, finished my CPA testing, and chose to find a new job. My recovery from cancer and chemo treatments taught me that I’m not as invincible as I once thought, and that if I have any hope of hanging around for a while I better take better care of my body. Passing the CPA exam marked the end of the “student” era in my life, and from now on I carry the responsibility (and the honor I’m very proud of) of being a professional who represents not only myself but everyone else who holds the same distinction. And when I left my first real job, I made the conscious decision to leave a comfortable place to take a path that I feel may lead to a more successful destination.

My point here is that the ends of eras mark new beginnings. The Iraqi people may have been left in a situation as fragile as a dry winter twig, but are before an empty work bench on which they can construct their own future. The tenderfoot North Korean leader has the opportunity to bend the moral arc of his country toward justice instead of succumbing to the inevitable fate many leaders of Middle Eastern countries faced this year. And in my own little world, I have the opportunity to take my cancer scare as a wake-up call to live a healthier life and to use my recent career opportunities to open unmarked doors.

___________________________________________________________________________________

My New Year’s resolutions are as follows:

1- Watch one movie per week in a movie theater;

2- Watch one classic movie per month (January – Casablanca; February- Citizen Kane );

3- One biography a month (January- Steve Jobs; Feb- American Lion, Andrew Jackson)

4- Pay a little more attention to the details in my work and in my life

7/8/2011

Just before high noon on July 8th, the space shuttle Atlantis will slip the surely bonds of earth and embark on its final launch into outer space. This will mark the final manned shuttle mission for the United States and an end of an era.

When I was a young boy I spent many nights dreaming of becoming a space cadet. I’d wave to the crowd below as I walked the platform leading to the capsule of my rocket ship and I’d mouth inaudible nothings to my crewmates as we boarded.  After a flawless takeoff we’d overcome death-defying events throughout our mission and, of course, make it home safely to the embraces of our wives and an adoring public.

I was certainly not the only kid to have such a dream. In fact, it was this dream that imbued generations before me with the spirit and willingness to make it a reality. It was their dreams that allowed mine to be had.

Yet, I see the end of the manned space shuttle missions as somewhat of an inevitability. After thirty years, 135 launches, and two wrecks, what tangible benefits have we, as a country, reaped from spending hundreds of billions of dollars to send men and women into space? Sure we’ve completed a few science projects, gathered moon rocks and can boast that only Americans have stepped foot on the lunar surface–leaving an unwavering US flag stabbed in the heart of the Sea of Tranquility as elucidation our exceptionalism. But to a fickle electorate and politicking politicians, yesterday’s achievements are today’s burdens.

The burden of mountainous debts and indiscernible returns on investment are the shackles grounding future space missions. Also, our country does not face the Soviet threat as we did in the 1960s and we have not been challenged by a Kennedyesque figure to achieve what many thought was the unachievable. Because the reservoir of public support to confront these challenges ran so deep, NASA conjured the credibility to suck up roughly 4.4% of total government spending during the Apollo-era.

In a 2010 speech, president Obama effectively cancelled the space program then went on to make an unpromising call for a manned mission to a nearby asteroid and to Mars by 2030. But after tomorrow, the future of the US space program will be in the hands of private corporations like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, which, if compared to NASA and its achievements, appear still to be in the nascent stages of rocketry and exploration. It seems that the next Americans in space will be paying guests aboard Russian spacecrafts.

I remain confident, however, in the future of space exploration.  It wasn’t the need to figure out a science problem or taxpayer benevolence that led to our past achievements—it was a sense of national solidarity, a can-do spirit, and personal challenge.  While the country’s political and economic resources will always be limited, a human being’s capacity to dream is endless.  One day we’ll all dream big dreams again.

6/12/2011

1) One of the few good things to come from being diagnosed with cancer is that I’ve changed how I eat. My discipline is far from perfect, but over the past six months I have made a conscious effort to eat healthier.

When I say that I have been eating healthier I don’t necessarily mean a low carbohydrate, low-calorie, “lets-get-lean” diet. I refer more so to a “clean” diet. I’ve read that cancer tumors develop, and are supported, by feeding on sugar in the bloodstream. So over the past six months I’ve tried to reduce my refined sugar intake. This means I’ve cut down on artificially sweetened drinks and foods, foods made with white flour, and foods with “simple carbohydrates,” such as candy and boxed cereal…which I love(d).

In my quest to eat healthier I take in more fruits and vegetables, which are high in complex carbohydrates. I eat a ton of zucchini, green beans, and salads. Also, I try to buy organic. Now I know what you’re thinking, “get the Harper’s magazine out of your hybrid-driving, sandal wearing ass.” But just today I read that 80% of all antibiotics in the US are pumped into our livestock’s food and farmers use tons of pesticides on fruits and vegetables, which are believed to cause hormone-related cancers such as breast, prostate, and of course, testicular. A few extra dollars for anti-biotic free meats and pesticide-free, organic vegetables is a small price to pay for my health.

2) Here’s hoping for a big Miami Heat win tonight.

5/29/2011

1) I highly recommend anyone coming across this page to take fifteen minutes of their day and read Atul Gawande’s Harvard Medical School commencement address. If only our policy makers could have this level of discourse.

5/24/2011

I’m very pleased with yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Brown v Plata.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that California’s prisons are so overcrowded that they are unconstitutional according to  the 8th amendment, which protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment.

I understand and emphasize with those who oppose this decision.  It is difficult to make sense of releasing nearly 37,000 convicted criminals.  Justice Sacalia, who authored the fourteen page dissent, provides a scathing rebuke and eloquently lays out the opposing talking points.

It is entirely true that this decision will lead to prisons opening their gates and allowing thousands of inmates back on to California’s streets.  It is true that an already battered state economy will have difficulty absorbing thousands of potential workers (that is, if companies elect to hire convicted felons) and that law-abiding, tax paying citizens may flee the state in fear of the newly released convicted felons.  It is also true that the opinion orders the release of  prisoners, but provides NO guidance on how to actually do it.

But these worries, among countless others, fail to consider the bigger picture.  Prison reform has long been an ill-debated and under reported issue in this country.  The US has the leading incarceration rate and the courts impose draconian sentences on non-violent criminals.  Prisons have nefariously become a profit making industry and most greatly affect blacks and latinos.  Additionally, and I make no claim to be prison historian, but I have lived my life believing that the system is meant not only to punish, but rehabilitate inmates.  I fear the latter goal has gone ignored.  Our prison system leaves inmates disenfranchised and unskilled, and today, released inmates are more likely than ever to return to a life of crime.

My hope is that prison reform gets the debate it is worthy of.  Politicians loath such debates because they don’t want to appear weak on crime or have blood on their hands.  So the easy course is to keep our prisons brimming with inmates.  With any luck, this supreme court decision will set in motion a healthy debate about reform and how to better handle non-violent criminals.

5/19/2011

1) Cynicism, in my opinion, is one of the most unattractive and repulsive qualities a person can have.  I find that most cynics are shortsighted and have no capacity for nuance.  In today’s NYT, Nick Kristof addresses some of the shortcomings of aid and acknowledges the need to spend our dollars wisely.  But when one takes the time to dig a little deeper and get past the pettifog that clouds clear thinking, it becomes evident that there are ways to spend aid dollars efficiently.  And results abound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/opinion/19kristof.html?src=tptw

2) I stumbled upon a gold mine today.  The Atlantic runs a series called “What I Read” where they ask opinionators, literary figures, reporters, and prominent businessmen to comment about their reading habits and daily news diet.  For a nerd like me, especially a nerd that only gets to consume content instead of create it, this is a very fun.  I finally get to size up the people I rely on to help me understand the world around me.  And I finally understand why these people are so much more informed and so much smarter than me: ALL THEY DO IS READ!  It’s funny how at my sort of job it is taboo to spend more than a few minutes per day reading the newspaper or checking out blogs.  For these guys, that’s their job.  (NOTE: Kudos to The New Yorker.  I don’t think one person failed to mention it as required reading.  Damn uppity media elites.  Stop hating your country!)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/posts/media-diet/?page=1

5/18/2011

1) In the next life I want to be a Navy SEAL Team 6 tracking dog.  Here’s a pretty neat photo essay by Foreign Policy.  (Unfortunately, the titanium teeth myth gets busted.)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/12/war_dog_ii?page=0,0

5/15/2010

I’m not sure that you’d call it a phrase or a figure of speech, or even a writing tick.  But please, please, we must ban the following from our writings: “I myself would never…”; “She herself denied…”; “We ourselves acknowledge…”

I get it!  You are yourself.  She is herself.  We are ourselves.  I am no David Remnick, but if I were I’d start a campaign to combat this repetitive, redundant (get it?)  language.  To me this is the equivalent of running one’s nails over a chalkboard.  I cringe every time I see it.  And what’s worse, this language is pervasive–I see some of my favorite writers do it in some of my favorite newspapers and magazines.  Now this of course instills in me some doubt, that maybe this sort of language is perfectly acceptable or even proper.  But it can’t be.  Can it?

____
Anyway, some good reads:

1) Turns out HUD is a highly wasteful and has poor oversight.  Wait, a government agency that’s wasteful and incompetent?  You don’t say.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-pattern-of-hud-projects-stalled-or-abandoned/2011/03/14/AFWelh3G_story.html?hpid=z1

2) Adrew Ross Sorkin asks us to rethink “Rich.”  $250,000 just ain’t what it used to be. (And may not be the right level to start raising taxes.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weekinreview/15tax250copy.html?ref=todayspaper

Note:   1) I work with HUD fairly often and I have seen evidence of tremendous inefficiencies and flutters of incompetence at certain levels.  But HUD provides good services and support for many elderly and indigent people who rely on their funding.  I offer this article in no way to promote HUD bashing, but rather in hopes that this issue gets daylight and the agency cleans up its act.