As my wife and I sat down to sipping a cup of Joe from Gloria Jean’s at the Bridgewater Commons Mall, we began to discuss the question of integrity.
Think of how often you are called upon to make a quick choice about whether or not you can trust a person. It happens every day in innumerable situations and contexts. How are you to deal with the quote that you’ve just been given from the salesman from that siding contractor? What about that relative, co-worker or acquaintance who is always shading the truth or holding back on information? Or the elected official whose conduct you are trying to evaluate, but who seems to be just a little too slick?
Priscille and I had begun discussing the topic earlier that morning, as we did our early morning pacing around the inside perimeters of the Mall’s three floors. It happens that the person which we were discussing has had a long history of withholding information, reinventing the past, and holding others responsible for actions of her/his own doing.
If you were the person in question, you would have wanted to have my wife on your side because, in the presence of even the slightest iota of doubt, she will always cut you a great deal of slack: “What about this?” she will remind me. Or, “You don’t really know what happened, because you don’t have all of the facts.” Such an approach to evaluating personal integrity is sound. I’m lucky to be married to such a person.
I, on the other hand, will exhibit a lot of patience with people, but not when I begin to suspect that they are trying to roll me – again!
If, at the end of the day, a person – or a company – consistently exhibits behavior patterns inconsistent with the facts, then that person’s or that company’s integrity begins to fracture. All of us have to make such evaluations constantly.
Just think of what’s going on at the national level right now. We have to decide which person will become President of this country: Clinton, Obama, or McCain? Who do you really believe and trust? The answer to that question is irrevocably tied to a personal evaluation of each candidate’s integrity.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Too Old to Serve?
Robert Andrews, Congressman from New Jersey, has announced that he will be running in the Democratic primary against incumbent Senator, Frank Lautenberg. So far, so good. Anyone has the right to challenge Lautenberg for the Senate seat.
But what, exactly, does Andrews bring to the table, and just what is his beef with Lautenberg? Well, it seems that the Senator, at 84, is too old. As reported in the Star-Ledger, Newark power broker Steve Adubato declared, “I can’t support him because of his age.” Andrews claimed that, “The people of the state want a choice and they want a change.”
I agree that if a person is in deteriorating health – at any age – that condition could, of and by itself, affect the quality of her/his ability to represent us in Washington. But look all around us here in New Jersey. Have you noticed that Trenton, and even some of our county and local offices are saturated with young bucks below the age of 60? And what else have you observed? Are we better off simply because of their youth? Or is the state drowning in a pit of serial bad management, fiscal irresponsibility and over-taxation?
At least Frank Lautenberg seems to have passed the integrity test. There have been no reports of scandal on his watch, and we are not reading that he has been romping around Washington, D.C., chasing any person who looks great in a skirt and a tight blouse. Think about it for goodness sake! The man is clean. He is impeccable. He has character. He has wisdom. He has governmental and business experience.
I don’t think that he should be knocked off his seat just because he is 84. What is fair for Lautenberg and to the rest of us is for him to make a full disclosure of his physical condition, so that voters can make a reasonably informed judgment about whether his health, not his age, will get in the way of his representing New Jersey in the U.S. Senate.
Note: For the full text of the article referred to, see http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/120720091911340.xml&coll=1
But what, exactly, does Andrews bring to the table, and just what is his beef with Lautenberg? Well, it seems that the Senator, at 84, is too old. As reported in the Star-Ledger, Newark power broker Steve Adubato declared, “I can’t support him because of his age.” Andrews claimed that, “The people of the state want a choice and they want a change.”
I agree that if a person is in deteriorating health – at any age – that condition could, of and by itself, affect the quality of her/his ability to represent us in Washington. But look all around us here in New Jersey. Have you noticed that Trenton, and even some of our county and local offices are saturated with young bucks below the age of 60? And what else have you observed? Are we better off simply because of their youth? Or is the state drowning in a pit of serial bad management, fiscal irresponsibility and over-taxation?
At least Frank Lautenberg seems to have passed the integrity test. There have been no reports of scandal on his watch, and we are not reading that he has been romping around Washington, D.C., chasing any person who looks great in a skirt and a tight blouse. Think about it for goodness sake! The man is clean. He is impeccable. He has character. He has wisdom. He has governmental and business experience.
I don’t think that he should be knocked off his seat just because he is 84. What is fair for Lautenberg and to the rest of us is for him to make a full disclosure of his physical condition, so that voters can make a reasonably informed judgment about whether his health, not his age, will get in the way of his representing New Jersey in the U.S. Senate.
Note: For the full text of the article referred to, see http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/120720091911340.xml&coll=1
Monday, March 31, 2008
Cats, Squirrels and Speculators
Our daughter and her family, who live in Potomac, Maryland, have two cats who like to roam in their spacious home. They are the same age and play constantly with one another. These are young house cats, in good shape, and not declawed.
The kitchen eating area is situated in a spot near window walls which look out upon a ground-level deck, facing a lawn which runs up to a line of trees and a woodpile further out in back. The deck sits near double-pane glass doors which form the window wall.
One Friday morning, at breakfast, my wife and I watched two squirrels who like to hop on the deck in search of bird seed fallen from the feeder. The two active cats like to watch them as well. The cats run along the perimeter of the glass, looking for a way to get at those squirrels.
The squirrels have come to know that the glass barrier protects them. They are very audacious, having lost all fear as they run alongside the outer perimeter of the glass doors, taunting the cats. Indeed, one Friday morning, my wife spotted one of those squirrels which came right up to the bottom of a glass door, stood on its haunches, and defiantly began scratching the glass, a mere half-inch away from Lightning, the male cat on the opposite side.
The following Saturday evening my wife and I, just after retiring, heard a ruckus outside the bedroom door. Early the next morning, I discovered the source: Lightning the cat had found an unwelcome intruder -- a mouse. I don’t know how it entered the house, but it would not be leaving intact. Unlike the audacious squirrel of the previous day, the mouse did not enjoy the protection of a glass wall.
Investment bankers and their minions who ginned up the sub-prime debacle threatening the economy (hedge fund executives of Bear Stearns are a few that come to mind) might have thought they were like that squirrel on the opposite side of the glass. They teased the ‘cat’ incessantly, thinking that they could get away without penalty, gorging on ‘free seed.’ Like those Potomac squirrels, investment bankers believed they were safely beyond reach of the regulatory ‘cat.'
What they discovered is that the protective window wall of financial speculation was a mirage and that, for some of them, their fate would become that of the mouse.
Note: For recent articles about proposed regulation of the nation's financial services industry, including securities firms, mortgage brokers and insurance companies, see www.washingtonpost.com/
The kitchen eating area is situated in a spot near window walls which look out upon a ground-level deck, facing a lawn which runs up to a line of trees and a woodpile further out in back. The deck sits near double-pane glass doors which form the window wall.
One Friday morning, at breakfast, my wife and I watched two squirrels who like to hop on the deck in search of bird seed fallen from the feeder. The two active cats like to watch them as well. The cats run along the perimeter of the glass, looking for a way to get at those squirrels.
The squirrels have come to know that the glass barrier protects them. They are very audacious, having lost all fear as they run alongside the outer perimeter of the glass doors, taunting the cats. Indeed, one Friday morning, my wife spotted one of those squirrels which came right up to the bottom of a glass door, stood on its haunches, and defiantly began scratching the glass, a mere half-inch away from Lightning, the male cat on the opposite side.
The following Saturday evening my wife and I, just after retiring, heard a ruckus outside the bedroom door. Early the next morning, I discovered the source: Lightning the cat had found an unwelcome intruder -- a mouse. I don’t know how it entered the house, but it would not be leaving intact. Unlike the audacious squirrel of the previous day, the mouse did not enjoy the protection of a glass wall.
Investment bankers and their minions who ginned up the sub-prime debacle threatening the economy (hedge fund executives of Bear Stearns are a few that come to mind) might have thought they were like that squirrel on the opposite side of the glass. They teased the ‘cat’ incessantly, thinking that they could get away without penalty, gorging on ‘free seed.’ Like those Potomac squirrels, investment bankers believed they were safely beyond reach of the regulatory ‘cat.'
What they discovered is that the protective window wall of financial speculation was a mirage and that, for some of them, their fate would become that of the mouse.
Note: For recent articles about proposed regulation of the nation's financial services industry, including securities firms, mortgage brokers and insurance companies, see www.washingtonpost.com/
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tamping Down N. J. School Costs
Sometimes, it takes a little perspective coming from a different place to get a better view of how things are in your own neck of the woods.
"The News-Press," a Fort Myers, Florida newspaper which covers Lee County, had a front-page story on March 26, about the financial condition of that county-wide school district. The county includes Cape Coral and tony places such as Sanibel Island. For its 2008-2009 school year, the county is proposing a $1.5 billion budget, of which $700 million is for operating expenses.
Because of economic conditions in Florida, Lee County School District faces a cut of $30 million in state aid. Therefore, the district is considering cuts of $3.76M in personnel and $3.83M in other reductions. Even the Collier County School District, which includes poshy Naples, Florida, is facing a proposed $8 million cut, according to The Naples Daily News. The newspaper indicates that the causal factor is a predicted "general revenue shortfall of more than $2 billion" at the state level.
So, while states like Florida are cutting back on school subsidies because of reduced state tax revenues, New Jersey continues to dole out cash which it doesn't have, while proposing to sell off a large chunk of New Jersey's asset base to give out even more Monopoly money. Simultaneously, New Jersey places no serious limits on the extent to which its school districts can continue to increase real estate taxes.
I'm not arguing for downgrading education in New Jersey -- but, when is enough, enough? How long, if ever, will it take for New Jersey, which has the highest education costs in the nation, to get serious about addressing the high expense of its school districts, and to place permanent, real, and enforceable limits on school tax increases?
"The News-Press," a Fort Myers, Florida newspaper which covers Lee County, had a front-page story on March 26, about the financial condition of that county-wide school district. The county includes Cape Coral and tony places such as Sanibel Island. For its 2008-2009 school year, the county is proposing a $1.5 billion budget, of which $700 million is for operating expenses.
Because of economic conditions in Florida, Lee County School District faces a cut of $30 million in state aid. Therefore, the district is considering cuts of $3.76M in personnel and $3.83M in other reductions. Even the Collier County School District, which includes poshy Naples, Florida, is facing a proposed $8 million cut, according to The Naples Daily News. The newspaper indicates that the causal factor is a predicted "general revenue shortfall of more than $2 billion" at the state level.
So, while states like Florida are cutting back on school subsidies because of reduced state tax revenues, New Jersey continues to dole out cash which it doesn't have, while proposing to sell off a large chunk of New Jersey's asset base to give out even more Monopoly money. Simultaneously, New Jersey places no serious limits on the extent to which its school districts can continue to increase real estate taxes.
I'm not arguing for downgrading education in New Jersey -- but, when is enough, enough? How long, if ever, will it take for New Jersey, which has the highest education costs in the nation, to get serious about addressing the high expense of its school districts, and to place permanent, real, and enforceable limits on school tax increases?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Voter Enfranchisement
Although it doesn't affect New Jersey voters directly, the ongoing debate about how to deal with delegates from Florida and Michigan in the last Democratic primary can't be confined to those states.
Cut through the issue of what to do about the seating of delegates in the upcoming Democratic National Convention, and what you encounter is the basic right of voter enfranchisement -- the obligation of government to count every person's vote.
Viewed in this light, it doesn't really matter what Howard Dean or the DNC think. The votes of Michigan and Florida need to be counted as cast in the party's primary elections. Voters should not be made to pay for the mistakes and disagreements of party leadership.
A recent front page story in the Cape Coral Daily Breeze (Florida), affirmed that the "Democratic delegates will be seated." But, when you read further into that article, what you come across is that Leonard Joseph, Executive Director of the Florida Democratic Party concedes that, "The slates's composition is out of the voters' hands and (is) now up to the national party's rules and bylaws committee and the credentials committee." So much for according the respect which voters are due!
We in New Jersey have our own problems, and they are not trivial. But at least the votes of both Democrats and Republicans will be counted as cast in each party's primary. Where are Al Gore and of all the other Democrats who were so outraged in 2000, when Florida was in the midst of its 'chad' problem, an issue which resulted is the election results of that state going all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Cut through the issue of what to do about the seating of delegates in the upcoming Democratic National Convention, and what you encounter is the basic right of voter enfranchisement -- the obligation of government to count every person's vote.
Viewed in this light, it doesn't really matter what Howard Dean or the DNC think. The votes of Michigan and Florida need to be counted as cast in the party's primary elections. Voters should not be made to pay for the mistakes and disagreements of party leadership.
A recent front page story in the Cape Coral Daily Breeze (Florida), affirmed that the "Democratic delegates will be seated." But, when you read further into that article, what you come across is that Leonard Joseph, Executive Director of the Florida Democratic Party concedes that, "The slates's composition is out of the voters' hands and (is) now up to the national party's rules and bylaws committee and the credentials committee." So much for according the respect which voters are due!
We in New Jersey have our own problems, and they are not trivial. But at least the votes of both Democrats and Republicans will be counted as cast in each party's primary. Where are Al Gore and of all the other Democrats who were so outraged in 2000, when Florida was in the midst of its 'chad' problem, an issue which resulted is the election results of that state going all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)