The Difference Between Moral Hazard and God’s Grace

28 04 2011

 

If corporations are considered to have most of the same rights as humans should they also be entitled to Grace?

Last summer the Supreme Court decided that corporations had the right to make unlimited contributions to political candidates.  For a number of years labor unions have also been able to make contributions to political campaigns.  This ruling is just another incident where the law has held that corporations have many of the same rights and responsibilities of humans.  Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by theU.S.courts.  On the other hand those same shareholders, employees, and officers have limited liability from suits and actions.  In fact, one reason for incorporating is to limit the liability of those in this corporate association.  This convergence makes me wonder if there is a relationship between what has come to be called Moral Hazard and God’s Grace. With the financial crisis that we’ve experienced in the past two years there’s been a lot of discussion about Moral Hazard.  Massive bailout of banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry have made many wonder who’s responsible for this crisis and that not only should the corporations be punished, but also that individuals within those corporations should have accountability for their imprudent decisions.  So, what is Moral Hazard?

Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.  Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company. (Wikipedia)

 CITI bank is a good example of Moral Hazard occurring over and over because no accountability or responsibility is taken for imprudent, unethical or criminal actions. Citibank was started in 1812 and has been bailed out successive times in its history.  
  In the latest financial crisis other banks and two of our major auto companies were determined to be too big to fail. It was believed that for them to fail would have more far reaching and long term disastrous effects.

So, is forgiveness of debt and poor judgment by corporations, their officials and shareholders sufficient to create situations where we bestow corporate grace on them? 

Biblical Grace can be explained by the following scripture:

Eph 2:4,5, 8-10 (NIV) But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Somehow it seems a bit ludicrous for me to suggest that God can forgive a corporation even though it’s easy to see how an individual can be guilty of Moral Hazard.  So, what happens when a powerful corporation creates a situation like we faced in the 2008 financial meltdown?  In this case there’s a lot of blaming, hearings and promises of new legislation to remedy the problem.  Occasionally there are a few people who are tried and put in jail, but often after the furor dies down, nothing substantive happens and we’re off and running to our next crisis.  And if you saw the congressional hearings those with the power who were complicit in the crisis didn’t even make an apology.  In many cases the buck was passed to someone else including the government and congress.  Contrast this to the CEO of Toyota who came to the congressional hearing and took full personal responsibility for his company’s lax engineering of the gas throttle installation. 

To me Moral Hazard is tantamount to what Dietrich Bonheoffer called cheap grace.  Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.  Grace without accountability or responsibility.  So, it’s no surprise that as a society whether it’s in business, labor or government we see the equivalent of Cheap Grace.  And it’s no wonder that individuals and other institutions practice a lot of cheap grace.  Whether it’s about being responsible for children we produce, or holding the sanctity of marriage intact or working for an organic and wholesome community, we often seem to think we can leave it to someone else.   We abdicate responsibility and want to blame others or expect to get off Scott free.

On the other hand Bonheoffer also talks about costly grace.  In his case he was talking about the costly grace of standing up against the Nazi’s in Germanyand finally dying in a concentration camp for his actions. As he put it so well, costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

Can we call ourselves to accountability?  Can we call our institutions to accountability?  The price is high and it’s hard to go it alone like Bonheoffer did.  As persons involved with our faith communities we can work together to hold ourselves and our institutions accountable and embrace Grace as the Incarnation of God.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Internet Ethics—Caveat Emptor

8 05 2010

 

 

If you’re like me, you are forwarded e-mails that present stories that on their face seem plausible, particularly if they play into your own biases.  They are presented as truth and you’re encouraged to pass them along to your friends.  The latest one that I received purportedly is from a newspaper article including a picture of the article itself stating that Hispanics conducted a boycott in Victoria Texas that they concluded was successful.  The full document is included below.

 “Victoria, Texas is a town about 80 miles west of Houston. Local Hispanic leaders there, in opposition to pending Immigration Legislation, boycotted all Caucasian owned businesses last month as a demonstraton of their economic impact on the community.

The boycott was declared a success by the Hispanic community, noting revenue in Caucasian owned business was down by 19 percent.

Business owners declared the boycott a success as well, pointing out that shoplifting was reduced by 77 percent, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97 percent, and the cost of daily clean-up and trash collection was down by 84 percent. Shoppers reported they could actually hear english being spoken throughout the community for the first time in recently memory, and customers paid for purchases with real money, not government debit cards or food stamps! The handwritten date is August 12 – 18th, 2009”

 I would site the paper and author but as is often the case in these situations there’s no way to check the veracity of the article or any of the statistics.  Also you will note that “revenue in Caucasian owned business was down by 19 percent” and that “shoplifting was reduced by 77 percent, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97 percent, and the cost of daily clean-up and trash collection was down by 84 percent.”   I wonder who did the statistical analysis on this event and why didn’t the national media pick it up.  Even if the “liberal” press passed it up I would think a story like this, if found to be true, would make it to Fox News.

 The point of all this is that the internet is a wonderful source of information but more than ever we have to be vigilant in checking our sources.  I’m amazed at how many people believe these stories whether it’s that Obama is a Muslim, or that he gave up his citizenship and therefore can’t be president or that an autistic child captured a Troll and put him in a closet while his mother was at the grocery store.  With MSNBC and Fox News, when they run a story they at least cite a source.   With the internet we may not be so lucky.  To me acknowledging the veracity of these urban legends as true is like buying male enhancement drugs on line from Russia, or sending money and giving your bank number to the Prince of Nigeria in order to get the major portion of his ill gained $40million.  If you’re interested, there are several internet sites that check out rumors and urban legends.  One is called www.snopes.com  and another is called www.truthorfiction.com  . However, in the interest of full disclosure there are a lot of people who don’t think the site is truthful and as one comment said, “it’s owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.”

 Truth is hard enough to glean without being subjected to out and out fabrications and distortions.  We know that it’s even difficult for two people witnessing the same event to see it the same way.  The human mind has so much information to filter, we often find ourselves in overload.  And unfortunately with technology, we’ve just begun in the explosion of our ability to have access to interactive information that can help us critically assess this information.  But our minds have got to be open to these differences in perception and facts and filter through our biases realizing that your truth may not be mine.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

An Alternative Strategy for Tea Partiers

26 04 2010

In the article Tea Party Angst, I sought statistics or stories about Tea Party followers.  Recently, the New York Times/CBS News poll made a survey of the 18% of Americans who say they support the Tea Party.

 A—Are men

B—Are white

C—Are age 45 or Older

D—Report a household income of over $100,000.

E—Describe themselves as very conservative

F—Have a college or post-graduate degree

 Even though 18% of those contacted considered themselves supportive of the Tea Party movement, given a list of 10 possible presidential candidates though, 49% chose “none of the above”.

 As you can see the numbers are skewed towards being a movement made up of white males over 45.  Even though a majority said that their financial situation was good or very good, none the less they were worried that someone in their family will be out of a job in the next year.  “More than 2/3rds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship.”(Houston Chronicle, 4/15/10).  Nearly 3/4ths wanted smaller government but did not want to lose some of their Social Security, rather focusing on “waste”. 

 I don’t think that it’s an accident that the demographics of the movement is towards males.  My article “Save the Male” bears out the frustration and anger that older men in our society feel.  Some pundits have tried to make the case that since most of the Tea Partiers are white that this is a racial and gender response to Obama’s election.  I think it would be unfair to make that conclusion as no one can see what’s in another person’s heart.   And I would have to say that many of the concerns of the Tea Partiers are justified.  The national debt is out of control.  There is little evidence that entitlements will be held in check in the future.  Other questions that they have are a little puzzling though.    Such statements as “I want my country back” and “I want my freedom back” and “Let’s go back to what our founding father’s believed in” make me wonder exactly what they mean.  What was the country like that they want back?  Was it a country dominated by white males or a country where segregation was the social structure of the time or is it better schools, lower healthcare costs, a sound social security system,  a country where getting married and staying married was the thing to do, or a country where going to church every Sunday was the norm?  It’s paradoxical that they want change in government but to this point have not been able to articulate a cogent plan other than to lower taxes and cut spending.  In wanting less input from government they are actually seeking more government intervention.  These nebulous statements and the lack of a leader to rally them show the magnitude of the frustration of looking to government for answers.  The truth is, no government official or legislature can turn back the hands of time.  As I stated in Save the Male we have to save ourselves.  But let’s consider some other statistics that are either forgotten or are being ignored that if acknowledged might return us to reality.

The first number is the top income tax rates and the last two numbers are the beginning and end % of debt to national debt as a percentage of GDP during presidential tenure:

Truman—National debt as percentage of GDP  120% (due to WWII)

Top Income Tax Rate                             % of National Debt/GDP

  • Eisenhower—91%                                           Start 70%+ –End 55%
  • Kennedy, LBJ—91%–70%                             Start 55%+– End 38%           
  • Nixon 70%–                                                    Start 38% -End 30%
  • Carter 70% –                                                  Start, End 30%
  • Reagan 28% Bush 31%–                                 Start 30% End 66%
  • Clinton 39.5% —                                              Start 66%–End55%
  • Bush 2 –31%–                                               Start 55%–End75%

(The Washington Monthly; Politics.gather.com)

From these figures it would indicate that the good old days had high tax rates, lowering of the national debt and a rise in personal GDP and the creation of wealth by individuals and corporations.  This goes against the perceptions of many Tea Partiers.  But part of being ethical and responsible is looking deep within ourselves at what motivates us, what’s real and what we’re afraid of.  Being the age of many Tea Partiers and empathizing with many of their concerns, here are some strategies that I suggest those of us over forty five might consider:

  1. Make a covenant with God that we will follow His word in doing mercy and seeking justice. (Micah 6:8)
  2. That we will covenant to tithe ten percent of our income and time in our churches and community to build a better America based on mercy and justice.(Lev. 27:30)
  3. We will recognize that 80% of all Americans over 65 are white and that 70% of all Americans under 60 are persons of color and of foreign descent and that they are the future and that if we want our children and grand children to flourish they will have to deal with that reality.
  4. Our tithe will help transform our education system, our churches and our communities as we mentor, tutor, coach, staff food pantries, visit in prisons and the hundreds of other volunteer programs available to bring about change. 
  5. We will advocate for families and children so that each child will be able to flourish.

Making education of our youth and adults through the encouragement of immigration and total commitment of our nation to education is the primary solution to keeping social security solvent, getting people off welfare and Medicaid, keeping families together, and keeping people out of prisons and jails.  But it will take a Marshall Plan dedication by our nation to make this happen and it can’t be done by just throwing money at the problem.  It should be national policy to give all who are eligible a free education from pre-K to a community college certificate or degree so that they can be competitive in today’s world economy.  Money is a part of the solution, but as important is also having adults involved in the education of the young.  That’s why I advocate the tithe both in money and time.  Older adults have experience and wisdom that is often overlooked.   For many, the attitude is that they’ve done their part and they’re going to take it easy.  On the other hand I know men and women in their eighties who live out the double tithe of time helping in so many ways. 

 After WWII our country created a system that encouraged our veterans to go to college to become engineers, scientists, doctors, and business people.  We built a public school system unparallel to any in the world.  The values that Tea Partiers profess focus on personal responsibility and covenant.  It’s time to stop fantasizing about the good old days and dedicate ourselves to bringing ourselves into the realities of the 21st century.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Save the Male

15 04 2010

 

 George Bernard Shaw wrote, “This is the true joy of life:  the being used up for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clot of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.”  Warren;   The Purpose Driven Life

 For some time now many observers have said that the American male is in crisis.  Whether it’s the angry and depressed white man who feels that he has been displaced by women in the workforce or the angry and depressed young black who will either end up in prison or who has a poor education that relegates him to unemployment or underemployment, many American males find themselves living in a malaise of uncertainty and lack of direction.  Statistics can give us a glimpse at a situation that in many cases can help us understand the changing landscape facing men. 

  • In the latest economic downturn men are suffering more job loss than women.  The rate of white male unemployment is over 11% while the rate for white females is about 8%.  Men are also remaining unemployed longer.
  • Males make up about 80% of incarcerated prison inmates.
  • One in three black boys born in 2001 will spend time in prison
  • 60% of school drop outs are male.
  • Even though there is still a wage disparity in many companies between men and women, in the current recession as companies re-organize, management positions are more and more being offered to women.
  • Currently in college freshmen classes nearly 60% of entering freshmen are women.
  • Men are four times as likely to commit suicide and six times as likely to commit homicide as women.
  • Older white men commit suicide more often than any other demographic group.

 It’s impossible to generalize about all men or even men from different ethnic, social and economic groups.  And over time men can change.  But in order to reflect on the plight of the endangered male we have to make some assumptions about men in general and men in varying demographic groups to see if these men have things in common regardless of differences.  These sited statistics can possibly give us a glimpse of what is going on in men’s world.  .

 The simple answer is that many men have difficulty dealing with change.  In my work with couples as a marriage counselor several traits became clear about a majority of men. 

  1. Men had difficulty dealing with feelings unless it was anger which often turned into depression.
  2. Men tended to be more rule bound.  Not that they always followed the rules  but when engaged in counseling they tended to want a laundry list  of things to do and then they would try and do them. 
  3. The old joke about a mans wife asking him what he was thinking and him responding by saying, “nothing” is often the case. 
  4. Men lead very compartmentalized lives.  Family, friends, work, and pleasure tend to be separated and only shared with the appropriate groups and then the subject tends to be superficial. 

5.  Men tend to want to go it alone, rather than asking for help.

So what can we infer about men from these statistics and traits of men and the current situation of the endangered male.  Because many men feel left behind and impotent to being the man that they think they should be or that the world has dealt them a raw deal or that the system is against them, their responses are predictable.  Even though they might profess a philosophy of self reliance and autonomy they respond with rage and depression, often without seeing a way out.  Whether the rage is against government, big business, women, or the “man” their rage is focused on others rather than finding ways to help themselves.    

 And society doesn’t give them much encouragement.  Wives and family members may have their own financial expectations of the man, that if not fulfilled  to those expectations results in them becoming angry and rageful.  Men can’t just decide to stay home and play golf twice a week.  He’s expected to work and bring home the bacon.  Otherwise, he’s considered a drone.   But what of the drones in our society—men who father children out of wedlock and never participate in the rearing of those children. 

 In a recent visit to his prison inmate skills class, a friend of mine who was the facilitator asked his group how many of them had a relationship with their father’s.  Only two out of 10 had any kind contact with their father.  He then asked how many children had they fathered out of wedlock.  Of the nine men, there were eighteen children fathered out of wedlock.

 So, what is the answer?  One answer is for men to get their spiritual lives in order.  Since it seems that men respond best to direct imperatives here are some things to do.

  • God doesn’t care whether you’re rich, famous or good looking; only that you’re in relationship and covenant with Him.  We often listen too much to what the world holds out as success.  
  • God calls us to be in covenant with one another; with family, friends and co-workers.  Pray and study about what that means for your life.
  • God has given us all gifts but sometimes we don’t see them or we undervalue them.  This may mean that we have to retool for the future rather than being stuck in the past.  The Bible calls us to be faithful and responsible.  Society’s criterion for success often contradicts what Jesus calls us to be and do. 
  • Deal with your anger and your addictions.  They only cloud the mind to keep us from seeing God.  Join a twelve step program and stick with it.  Fake it until you make it.
  • God is always there, waiting for us and to give us his loving acceptance.  Stop thinking that you have to go it alone. 
  • Every man regardless of age should mentor a boy or another man.  Our wives, mothers or another woman can’t save us.  With God’s help and other men we can make our spiritual journey together.  That’s something that most all of us can do and if we will it will change our world. 

 We are living in an ever changing world.  Whether male or female, we’re in this together.  We can deal with change with anger or rage which only results in more anger and rage.  We can displace that anger on others or we can see ourselves as all being lovable in the eyes of God and the world may not be as we want it to be, but we can embrace the challenges of life, knowing that God is with us and suffers when we suffer and is joyful when we are joyful.


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Ethics and Accountability

11 04 2010

 

Romans 3:9-20

“So where does that put us?  Do we Jews get a better break than the others?  Not really.  Basically, all of us, whether insiders or outsiders, start out in identical conditions, which is to say that we all start out as sinners.  Scripture leaves no doubt about it:

‘There’s nobody living right, not even one, nobody who knows the score, nobody alert for God.They’ve all taken the wrong turn; they’ve all wandered down blind alleys. No one’s living right; I can’t find a single one……Every word they speak is tinged with poison.  They open their mouths and pollute the air.  They race for the honor of sinner-of-the year, litter the land with heartbreak and ruin, don’t know the first thing about living with others.  They never give God the time of day.’

This makes it clear doesn’t it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us to whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place?  Our involvement with God’s revelation doesn’t put us right with God.  What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else’s sin.”  Petersen’s, The Message.

 We humans have a blind spot.  Some would call it the unconscious, others would call it the Shadow and some would just call it denial and the Bible calls it sin.  Whatever you call it, it’s something that affects our moral and ethical behavior.  From the view of Christianity it’s why we have confession as a part of our worship or faith journey.  It’s how the person in a twelve step program can look deep inside to make a moral inventory as a part of recovery.  And it can be intensely painful to take that hard look at oneself. Even when we want to be aware of our shortcomings, prejudices and ethical lapses, we have difficulty seeing it or admitting it.  But within most of us, there is the capacity to see that part of self that is less than beautiful.  

John Wesley

 John Wesley used bands, classes and societies to create “a community of brotherhood of discipline, edification, correction and mutual aid, in conscious separation from the world, as the primary visible expression of the church.”  He did not just focus on “correction” but considered the whole person.  Most would say that implementing such a methodology would be impractical if not impossible in today’s complex, fragmented and secular society.   Being “corrected” by others smacks of guilt tripping and religion has too long had guilt as a way of keeping people subservient to the Church.

 Even today though, there are some Christians who are attempting to implement accountability among themselves.  To what degree they are successful is not known but most people would not see themselves in such a relationship.  I have heard stories of some men’s accountability groups that will meet at an IHOP once and week and go through a confessional procedure of accountability.  But one of the problems with this, particularly with men, is that we tend to be so competitive that we engage in one up-manship.  If a man states that he’s been struggling with lust, another one states that he’s actually carried out his lustful thoughts, while another might say that he’s carried out his lustful thoughts with three women. But who am I to judge.  If it works for them, it should tickle the hell out of me. 

 So, is there any answer to these challenges that more of us would embrace and be useful in holding ourselves and others accountable?   There may be some clues to help.  One of the greatest difficulties with self analysis is that we tend to be myopic.  We only see what we want to see and the more we surround ourselves with those who are either like we are or that will not address our shortcomings, the more difficult it is to change and be accountable.  I recently watched a TV program about Enron and was astonished at how pervasive the Skilling attitude of survival of the fittest and the religion of profits permeated the entire company.  It was as if no one believed that there was anything that they couldn’t get away with.  Trying to figure out ways to beat the system was the order of the day and anyone that denied that philosophy or questioned it did not last very long in the company. 

 Here are four possible ways to deal with this myopia.

             1.  Don’t just surround yourself with people who think or act like you, but with people who will give you honest feedback.  This should be a person with integrity as opposed to someone who will give into your weaknesses.  But they should not just be willing to give feedback but also to look at themselves with at least the same degree of objectivity that they give to you. Inbreeding within institutions becomes an anathema if allowed to go untested.  In those situations no one is willing to say “the emperor has no clothes.”  

             2.  Recognize that “we are complicit in everyone else’s sin.”   It’s not enough to just throw stones.  As an example, we may feel that our country is on the road to financial ruin. But if we give in to the religion of consumerism, easy credit and meism, we must recognize that in order to change the system we not only have to speak up but we have to make some fundamental changes in ourselves and our personal expectations. 

             3.  Look at our own prejudices and blindness.  Part of prejudice is taught from early childhood but part of it I believe is hard wired.  It’s hard to split out the influence of prejudice in our thinking, but if we’re honest with ourselves we have to admit its presence.  No one is free of prejudice.  What’s yours?

            4. Look beyond the obvious and see how interconnected sinfulness can be.  As we have shown in other articles, there is a cumulative effect to poor ethics.  One error in ethical behavior can permeate an entire system.  We tend to create a disconnect between our faith commitment and our actions.  I use the simple example of leaving the parking lot at church on Sunday morning.  We’ve just come from a sermon on compassion, brotherly love and kindness, only to charge out of the parking lot and not allow others to get out ahead of us.  (yes, I’m guilty). 

5. Know what the scripture says and put it into its proper context.  Jesus was always showing those in power that they were missing the intent of the law when they tried to impose the letter of the law.  A good example of this is the story of the woman caught in adultery.  The men gathered around the woman wanted to stone her as the law required but Jesus pointedly showed them that they were sinners too and that if any of them was without sin that they should be the first to stone her. 

 6. What about calling out elected officials on ethical issues?  Many persons may not agree with their faith community’s position on certain issues.  But do we point out this disconnect between their actions and their denominations position.  We currently see this on such issues as abortion, comprehensive immigration reform and fair distribution of wealth.  Or is that too legalistic and intrusive into the personal?  Does personal belief, despite denominational stance trump institutional positions?

It’s been said that in genteel company it is not proper to talk about religion or politics.  Maybe that’s the place that it should be discussed, but in a civil and respectful way.  What do you think?


Comments : 66 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Is there an answer to gridlock in Washington?

18 03 2010

The Ethics of Compromise and Conflict

 We Americans have become accustomed to instant results. We want conflicts resolved and tied in a neat bow within a maximum of 57 minutes, less commercials.  We also tend to only focus on the immediate problem rather than looking at the long term results of our actions.  Such is the case with the situation in Washington concerning everything from healthcare, restructuring the financial industry, to immigration reform.

 On one level we citizens know that there are structural problems in our economy,  that if not fixed will have possible catastrophic results.  We have a debt that is growing out of control and a budget that is comprised of  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt and the military and homeland security,  making up 80% of expenditures.  In addition to those items we’re in the process of passing a healthcare bill that will add an additional trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years.  These are areas that in the past we have been reluctant to even seriously talk about and there’s very little indication that we’re willing to address these areas holistically now.  So, we chip away at the edges talking about earmarks and pork to individual spending cuts without being willing to step up and say, “In order to get this thing under control we’re going to have prioritize what is most important to us and then decide what sacrifices we’re going to have to endure in order to bring about desired changes”.  Congress is quick to condemn the $2000. toilet seat by the military but not willing to confront the challenges of such things as Social Security and Medicare. 

 Fundamentally, there is the philosophical schism between the concept of individual freedom and responsibility and what is the greatest good for the most people.  If we assume that both concepts have a place in a 21st century society, how do we ensure that both are heard and that in some way they can accommodate the others presence.  Currently, that seems like an insurmountable obstacle.  In a NBC news/Wall Street Journal poll taken between March 11-14, only 17% of voters believed that congress was doing a good job.  On the issue of health care voters are pretty well split right down the middle.  Specifically on the report card for congress 38% of those polled believed that congress only wants to stay in office and not solve problems; 28% believed that congress was too close to special interest groups, 19% said that congress was too partisan, and 16% said that congress supports pork.  Not in my memory has congress been held in such low regard and whoever is elected in the fall will not have an easier go of it even if one party has more than 50% of the seats in congress.  If some sort of healthcare bill is passed I anticipate that things will settle down for a while but the day of reckoning is at hand sooner or later.  Everyone seems to know it but no one seems to have an answer.  But lets look at some scenarios.

 In order to change our current situation we will have to change our priorities and adopt painful austerity measures.  Currently, people make statements such as “we need to cut spending and lower taxes”.  Yes, we’ll have to cut spending but where.  Not the $2000. military toilet seat.  That’s a drop in the bucket.  With about 80% of the budget being used for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and the military and homeland security amounting to nearly $3 trillion and a current debt of about $13 trillion.  If you sent all the government home and assuming you had enough revenue to pay down the debt after you did all these draconian measures, it would still take about 20 years to pay off the national debt and you’d still have the problem of  funding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 

 Jeb Henserling (R.) from Texas has another answer—limit the national debt to 20% of annual GDP.  The only way it could be increased is by a 2/3rd vote in both houses or a declaration of war.  The current GDP was about $14.4t in 2008 which would limit the national debt to about $2.9t.   Let’s see, with a current debt of about $13t and growing, we would have to immediately pay off about $10t.   Humm, so how do we do that Jeb?   Details, details… 

 On another front we have to decide what our priorities are as a nation.  Do we want to continue to be a consumer oriented country that doesn’t save, doesn’t take care of the poor or provide a good education for all our children.  What would seem in order is an educational Marshal Plan that would teach children all the way from pre-k through college or trade school to be a productive member of society.  But presidents since Jimmy Carter have declared a war on ignorance with little results.  We hear a lot of blame being thrown around including union intransigence, ivory tower experts, parents, and lack of funding to name just a few.  We know that the best determinant of future success or failure of a child is the educational level that a child achieves.  It costs about $7000. per year to send a child to school.  It costs anywhere from $25,000. to $35,000. per year to keep a person in prison, not to mention the cost of policing and healthcare, resulting from drugs and violent behavior.  Then there’s the loss of the economic contributions of poorly educated low wage earners.   Until we effectively address the issue of education we will continue to fall behind other countries in technological training and innovation. 

 But here I am suggesting spending more money when we’re already in the red.  Whatever the answer to our current situation, it will take sacrifices by all of us.  And it will require that we move in a different direction with bold strategies for our future economic and political well being.  We’re in a war to save our political and economic system.  In WWII we were willing to work harder, go into the military, tax ourselves, buy war bonds that often were never redeemed and make sacrifices on the home front.  I think we’re there again and it will take more taxation, more saving on our part, foregoing consumer buying of things we don’t need and making hard choices on spending. 

 This sounds like socialism.  And admittedly there are elements of planned economies and national direction.  And that’s risky and my sense is that we’re not ready to embrace the kind of austerity necessary to turn things around.  But the longer we wait the harder it will be. 

 But there’s another alternative to Washington gridlock and economic disaster.  Remember Ross Perot?  During the presidential debates of 1992 the feisty third party candidate Perot was asked what he would do to change the flagging economy.  His answer in retrospect was both on target but also quite chilling.  He stated that among other things he would bring all the leaders from both parties into his office and lay out his plan which included raising the gasoline tax, cutting spending, social security and other programs, and scrap NAFTA.  After discussing the program with them, if they wouldn’t go along with his proposals  HE WOULD SEND THEM ALL HOME.  At one point he led the polls with 39% of voters and even though he dropped out of the race for a brief time, for personal reasons, still garnered over 19% of the popular vote;   And this with an economy and social environment a lot less problematic than today. 

In the January 28, 2010 issue of the New York Times, David Brooks wrote an op ed entitled The Perot Option stating that Ross Perot or his clone is lurking out there in the weeds and concludes that if President Obama doesn’t become more of a leader and take on both sides of the aisle a new Ross Perot will emerge. And that scares the hell out of me.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Okay! I’m a Homer on Natural Gas

13 03 2010

 

I’ve been around long enough to know that pretty much everything has political implications.  But PLEASE, someone explain to me why coal is getting preferential treatment as a fuel over natural gas.  And why all the talk about alternative fuels being the wave of the future when there’s little developmental funding available, in particular for the small inventor.  Only large companies can afford to spend the kind of money necessary to do research and to bring alternative fuels to the market.  And most of them, due to the length of the time horizon to bringing them online would rather invest in areas that will bring energy online quicker. 

 My sons have a small company called www.swellfuel.com that for the last three years has been developing a system to make electricity from ocean waves.  In order to test his units he’s had to go outside the United States because the regulations on obtaining test sites take too long to obtain and cost too much to get.  Investors are reluctant to fund projects where they can’t see results in a short time.

 And then there’s the companies that talk the talk but don’t really walk the walk.  They talk about being Green and what they’re doing for the environment, but when you drill down deeper you see that it’s not much of a commitment, but more of a public relations effort.  That in of itself doesn’t seem ethical.

 Growing up in Houston, we had a gas stove in the kitchen and we used gas heating.  It got the job done without a lot of pollution.  So, to all my good friend out there who are engineers and scientists, please, please explain how it can be ethical not to utilize a source of energy, natural gas, that our country has that could make our country fuel sufficient for a long tome to come.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Sex Education Redux

9 03 2010

 

                                                                                              

Deut. 25: 5-10

“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family.  Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of brother-in-law to her.  The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

 The scripture goes on to say that if the brother refuses to marry his sister-in-law, she can go before the council of elders and demand that he marry her.  If he refuses she may take her sandal, spit in his face and the man will be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.  Strange law, huh.  For Israel sex was more about necessity than pleasure.  Women were considered property and had limited rights.  But this law is referenced again later in the old testament where a man refused to marry his dead brothers wife and even when God told him directly to marry her, he refused and as a result, God killed him.

Today the purpose of sex and its relationship to family, covenant, and responsibility is much more blurred.  For those of us who are older, we mostly learned the facts of life in the locker room or the back of a car on a weekend date. If we had “the talk” with our parents it was generally pretty superficial and stressful for all concerned. And as far as the church giving information, it too was generally pretty superficial, stressful, and the message generally was “don’t” or riddled with messages of guilt.  As the culture began to open up and become more permissive we began to get our information from the media, which was usually unreliable.   Since the fifties and sixties the media and behaviors have gone through a revolution and yet we still live in a world where it’s difficult to talk openly about behaviors that are at the core of the human condition.  The culture on the one hand wants us to be responsible and careful, but gives little good information to help young and old alike.

 During the nineties, Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was making a speech before the United Nations on the world Aids pandemic.  Someone asked her in a Q and A what she thought about teaching people alternate ways of dealing with their sexuality, and in particular masturbation.  Her answer was, “I think that masturbation is a part of human sexuality and perhaps it should be taught.”  For that statement and a public outcry for her to resign, President Clinton asked and received her resignation saying that he did not agree with her on the subject– and this coming from Clinton.  Hardly a month passes without us seeing somewhere on the back pages of our newspapers where a person in some authority like a school administrator has made statements about sex and sexuality and has been asked to resign.  Much of the time the argument is made that sex is not to be taught in school unless it’s about total abstinence.   Those who protest, state that it is either for the parents to teach their children about sexuality or for the church to do so.   Unfortunately, most often neither happens. Today our children have new sources for learning about sex.  They can just turn on the TV, or go to the internet or for many who are latch key kids, learn about it while mom is away at work. 

 Sex and sexuality is more than learning about the nuts and bolts of the act itself.  It’s about learning about responsibility and self worth.  It’s about a young girl learning that she doesn’t need to “put out” and get pregnant to have self worth.  It’s about a young man learning that he doesn’t get his manhood from “scoring” and that if he fathers a child he will be expected to help take care of that child.  Sex has become more of a sport than about relationship.  Sex is depicted as momentary and lacking in intimacy.  There are no consequences.  Even STD’s hold little concern for many. 

 Many young people engage in serial relationships, sometimes ending in marriage and often not.  And what becomes of those multiple relationships.  Among middle class women we know that in breakups women are more likely to seek help from friends, therapy, etc.  while men tend to internalize their feelings and move on.  Even serial relationships and one nighters are often depicted as having little effect on the parties who engage in them. These multiple breakups can have a negative emotional cumulative effect.  In the movie “High Fidelity” with John Cusack and Iben Hjejle, Cusack is in the process of breaking up with Hjejle and tells her that this breakup doesn’t even make the top five of his life long breakups.  It becomes obvious that all of his multiple breakups have taken a toll on his ability to trust and to be intimate.   

 So, what of morality and ethics.  In this situation I equate morality with those taboos of behavior that our religion or family teaching gives us.  Ethics is about the way we treat one another and the covenantal relationships we establish with one another.  For young people the concept of ethical implications of a relationship may be too sophisticated.  Hormones are raging and they’re blinded by their new found power.  Friends and media depict this behavior as normal.  And they can’t see beyond the moment.  That’s why it’s important to give correct and sound information.  Since they’re not mature enough to understand the implications of relationships, it’s important to give them adequate information.  Even though the law of relationships given in Deuteronomy seems quite bizarre to our modern mind, it’s about ethics and not morality.  It was believed by Israel that a man had an obligation to help his brothers’ line continue if he died and not to do so, was an abomination to God.  Women had few rights but this was a right that she had to ensure that her children and her husband line be continued.  It was an ethical issue because it dealt with the realities of the time. 

So, what are the ethics of relationships and sexuality for us today?  To me, it’s that we’re all blessed children of God, worthy of respect and concern.  Sexuality is not just about an act. It’s that even in a moment of passion we consider the full humanity of the other as well as our own selfhood.  Children who are born into loving families where both parents are involved in raising children are more likely to stay in school, stay out of poverty and prison and live a productive life.

 As parents and teachers,  we can’t just see the world as either being like Father Knows Best or a world of internet porn— neither is reality.  Reality is that today 40% of all children are born out of wedlock with 70% of African American babies born out of wedlock to women who often have no network to help them cope and will soon find that the quickest way to find ones self in poverty in America is to start out poor, have a child with no father around and little education.  Reality is that over 60% of college grads in their thirties live in co-habitation relationship. Reality is that 50% of all first marriages end in divorce.  Reality is that there are different sexual expectations between upper middle class persons of all races and those who are poor. 

 When Jocelyn Elders made her statement about masturbation, no one asked her what she meant and how she might suggest teaching.  But we know that living in a masturbatory fantasy world is also not the answer.  I mean, what do we think men and women who frequent porn sites do, just read the articles?    Maybe if we had waited to let her explain herself we might have a clearer understanding about what she meant.  But we closed her off and we’ll never be able to engage her in a more open conversation about what it means to be fully human.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Is My Bonus too Big?

2 03 2010

Over the past year we’ve all been inundated with articles about large executive compensation packages and in particular about compensation packages to executives in companies that received bail out money from the government.  And this at a time when those same companies were laying off thousands of lower level employees to cut expenses.  Of the eight banks bailed out, Citigroup, Inc.  seems to be the most beleaguered and along with Goldman Sachs and AIG has received the most criticism for their high executive compensation packages.  One of the major arguments in favor of these high salaries and bonuses is that in order to keep good talent you have to pay high salaries.  Some might say and have said that if these are the best minds to run the business, that American business and in particular banking is in big trouble.  The disparity between the top and lower level Citi employees is huge and the anger among the rank and file is well documented.  A blog run by Indeed, Inc., an executive employment website documents numerous postings about Citigroup’s wage levels.  Here’s just one:

 “A Citigroup recruiter called me for a  SENIOR Accountant position @ Citigroup. I was told that the position maxed out @ $35k. For a SENIOR level position. I would hate to see what they pay their entry level people.”   

 From Zacks investment research           “Citigroup Inc.  may cap cash bonuses for 2009 at below $100,000. The 2009 bonus pool at the company is expected to be similar to the 2008 level, which was low compared to the other years. Citi may pay a large part of the bankers’ and traders’ bonuses in stock that cannot be sold for a number of years.

Citi may pay up to 40% of bonuses in the form of deferred cash and stock and the balance in the form of non-deferred cash and IOUs, which will turn to common stock in April.

Currently, Citi is working out the details of its bonus plan. Recently, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo asked Citi and 7 other of the largest banks in the nation that received significant federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide information on the amount of 2009 bonus packages and their structure. Cuomo also asked the banks to explain the effect the bonus pools would have had if the banks had not received the TARP funds.

 According to Cuomo, the full disclosure and transparency of the bonus information are essential as recent government actions have given rise to public accountability issues, and TARP banks are struggling with these actions.

Citi received $45 billion in bailout money from the TARP at the height of the credit crisis. Later, around $25 billion of that was converted into common stock, representing nearly 34% of its stake held by taxpayers. The company repaid the remaining $20 billion in bailout money in December 2009, freeing the obligatory pay restrictions on its key executives.

  Citi’s plan to cap cash bonuses is to save the bank from people’s fury over the TARP banks’ 2009 bonus plans. However, the bank says may still find it difficult to keep its top employees.”

 From Reuters      “Regulators, lawmakers, and others are trying to determine how changing compensation packages might reduce the chances of future financial meltdowns. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp is considering charging lower rates for deposit insurance to banks with pay practices that it deems superior.

According to a July report from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Citigroup as a whole paid $5.3 billion of bonuses for 2008.

 Officials at rival companies told Reuters that Citigroup employees will essentially receive at least 60 percent of their bonuses in cash or stock that can quickly be sold. That level is high compared to some rivals, which could help the bank retain employees.  But some Citigroup employees groused at the relatively low portion of the bonus that will come in cash.

 Loren Steffy in the February 26 Houston Chronicle reports on executive pay for the General Motors Ceo, Ed Whitacre and past interim CEO Fritz Henderson.  Whitacre’s package includes $1.7million a year plus $7million in stock.  Fritz Henderson who for all practical purposes was fired is being given a $60,000. per month consulting agreement plus an expense account.  He is required to work at least 20 hours a month on the job.  Steffy suggests that Whitacre take the job for $1. per year since he received $158million from AT&T when he retired.  The interest on the $158million is about four times the $1.7million he’s receiving now.  By contrast Ford CEO Alan Mulally agreed to accept a $1. salary if Ford needed a federal bailout.  That was not necessary and Ford has gained market share and is expected to soon be in the black.  Mulally’s salary is slightly more than Whitacre’s at $2 million.  Last year GM received about $50 billion in bailout.  And as a result of that bailout you and I are now Whitacre’s employer. 

The media, the public, government regulators and congress are going through their hand wringing dance asking what should we be doing with all the bad guys.  Much of what has happened in the past few years was a long time in coming.  Questions of whether employment contracts should be honored in companies that are either bankrupt or being kept afloat to keep from going bankrupt are being used as a defense of big severance packages.  Arguments about high paid executives going elsewhere if they aren’t paid huge pay packages seems a bit contrived.  Where will they go?  Hedge funds which have shut down over 200 shops in the last two years?  Or, Europe which hasn’t had the bottom fall out yet?  Probably the best place for many of them to get employment would be with lobbyists who deal with the Washington bureaucrats, regulators and politicians who will probably not make any substantive punitive changes except as it may affect those companies and executives who played the game ethically and by the rules. 

My observation is that most relational issues such as this begin as ethical issues and because a minority acts unethically, new laws and regulations are passed in order to close loopholes or deal with unintended consequences.  But the sad truth is that those that want to circumvent the law will find ways to do so, and in so doing will effect the ability of the rest of us to carry on ethical business dealings.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Texas Has the Best Textbooks in the Country. Or do we?

27 02 2010

My good friend Nancy W from Little Rock Ark wrote me the other day with a concern she has with State Board of Education of Texas.  You might ask why does someone in Arkansas care about the SBOE?  The reason is that the SBOE of Texas is the state that about 46 or 47 states in the US follow when it comes to deciding on school books for their schools.  So, don’t we make good book choices?  Not according to many citizens and school officials.  Texas has become the battlefield for issues revolving around science and creationism and more recently over what is being included in history and government books as it pertains to references to the founding fathers creating a Christian nation.  According to many, this is first of all not true and trying create the impression that that this misrepresentation is a clear breach of the “wall of separation between Church and state” that Thomas Jefferson spoke about.  The current issue is whether the United States was conceived as a Christian nation.  Conservatives argue that it was.   Others would say that the founding fathers even though religious espoused the idea that God was not necessarily a Christian God.  Consider the words of the Declaration of Independence that states, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…..that all men are endowed by their Creator….  This asserts that God has a hand in the affairs of men but that is more a deist conception of God, rather than a Trinitarian God.

 A good book to give a balanced assessment of religion in the creation of the United States is Jon Mecham’s book American Gospel.  Here are several quotes attributed to the founders. (2006)

 “Writing to a Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I., in 1790, President Washington assured his Jewish countrymen that America “gives…bigotry no sanction.”  In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the senate in 1797, the Founders declared that, “ the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” p. 19

 Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1790:“ I believe in one God, creator of the universe.  That he governs it by his Providence.  That he ought to be worshiped.  That the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children.  That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.  These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them.

 As to Jesus of Nazareth…I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, an I have…some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.” P.2

 “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles,” he [Jefferson] said, “ all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”  P. 29

 “I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another,” Jefferson wrote. “I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to changer another’s creed.  I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives…” “ For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read,” Jefferson said.  “By the same test the world must judge me.” P.35

 The most controversial appointee running for re-election Don McLeroy and his opponent Thomas Ratliff are so far down the Republican primary ballot they’re lost in the myriad of judges, representative and straw votes that it’ll be difficult to find them, much less know the issues involved.

 I’m sorry Nancy, but anyway, here’s your comment it its entirety.

 I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.  I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 1, ethics

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.