Obama's Hobson's Choice

I had a sinking feeling tonight after the Republican controlled House of Representatives could not get enough support from their own party to pass their own bill; not because I think it’s a good bill.  I don’t.  But this failure of leadership means that there will likely be no compromise with Democrats, and there will be no successful measure passed, and the country will likely default.

If the debt ceiling is not raised by Congress, Obama will be faced with a “Hobson’s Choice.”  This is a choice where there are no good alternatives.  And this crisis is entirely unnecessary – a contrived crisis manufactured in order to gain “leverage” and reduce the size of government.  At least, that’s the generous interpretation given the statements of some of the House and Senate Republican leadership.

The alternatives still remaining for Congress are to pass a clean debt bill, compromise, or deliberately do nothing.  I am reminded of Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz who, belatedly, discovered that all she had to do was click her heals together and say, “There’s no place like home.”  It’s that easy to pass a clean debt ceiling bill.  They could compromise with Democrats and Moderate Republicans forming a coalition in order to raise the debt ceiling.  

As of now, the President has rejected the idea of invoking the 14^th amendment to the Constitution which says that our debts shall not be questioned.  Even if he were to invoke that, we could expect that he would likely be impeached by the TEA party controlled House of Representatives. 

The rigid ideological position of the TEA party is still, at this late hour, focused on reducing the size of government.  The goal of reducing the size of government sounds nice to many people until they see how it affects them.  Before the last “almost” government shutdown which was resolved literally minutes to midnight, actions were taken to start the government shutdown, and you should have heard the ruckus.

Active duty pay was cut in ½ (they later received all of the money owed), and my anti-Obama relatives in the military were saying, “How could Obama do that!?”

When he was talking about perhaps not having enough money to pay social security checks if the debt ceiling was not raised, the elderly (and those who might have to be financially responsible for them) cried, “How could Obama do that?!”

The choices faced in this situation are all that and more.  Someone’s checks aren’t coming.  And you can expect a lot of bitching and moaning, and they will cry, “How could Obama do that?!”

The TEA party knows that Obama will be blamed, so why should they even consider raising the debt ceiling? 

Congress has already reached a stalemate regarding the FAA, and about 70,000 workers are idle.  Taxes that would be collected can’t be collected.  The cost will be tremendous even assuming that they eventually pass the authorization for the FAA.  That will be peanuts compared with what’s to come.

Every federal government related construction job, administrative job, teaching job and law enforcement job is on the line.  We can at least guess how the available money might be distributed.  Maybe the FBI and CIA would be paid (to keep the criminals and terrorists from having an open door), the interest on our debt will be paid (to avoid global panic and economic disaster), and, I think, Social Security will be paid. 

But with $172 billion to pay $306 billion in expenses due, a lot of people will be idled.  A lot of checks will not be paid.  A lot of citizens will be hurt financially.

I can’t even fathom the consequences of a credit downgrade on interest rates, hiring and investment, but I’ll bet it won’t be pretty.  With as many government checks not going out as are due, our buying capacity will be dramatically decreased, and there will be less stuff bought, less income, less profit, and ultimately fewer jobs.

The markets?  Oh, lord that’s gonna hurt.  I’ve already lost a bunch from the dropping market, and it will get a lot worse.

Much of the world has assumed that this crisis will be averted and all will sail on as usual.  There is still hope, but it diminishes each hour that a compromise can’t be reached.  The world, and the TEA party perhaps, expect the Democrats to cave.  They have before again and again, but this time I sense something different.  There is nothing left to cave into.  The Democrats conceded every demand.  Both deals considered have only spending cuts that amount to the amount that the debt will be increased (which is a totally arbitrary demand from the TEA party caucus).  Increased revenues, even from the most wealthy, are not even being considered.  There is nothing else left to give.

At this moment, and not until now, I fear that there can be no compromise.  No deals will be wrought out of this hostage taking of the debt ceiling (and the American/World economy). 

Perhaps a “good deal” was never the Republican agenda after all.  Perhaps we should have listened to them when they said, “We will not vote to raise the debt ceiling.”

If this is some TEA party misunderstanding, miscalculation or blunder, maybe they will learn from their mistake.  But how much will it cost us to pay for their mistake?

Trickle Down and Taxes

It was Will Rogers who coined the phrase “trickle down economics” when he commented that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."  It didn’t work in the Great Depression, and it hasn’t worked since Ronald Reagan promoted this policy during his presidency.

The trickle down economic theory (supply side economics) makes the assumption that when the wealthiest individuals have more money, they will invest in their businesses promoting growth.  This, in turn, relies on two other assumptions:  First, that investment alone drives economic activity and second, that wealthy individuals invest because they have the money to invest.  As a corollary, the wealthy individuals would be expected to invest in their own businesses rather than types of investments that would be unlikely to promote the greater good of society.

The problem is that human nature does not follow the assumptions given above.  It seems that wealthy individuals invest in things that benefit themselves but may have little or no benefit for their business or any other specifically American business.

It turns out that there are many ways to spend money without investing in business, and for the wealthy, uncertain of the future, some means of protecting their wealth or otherwise enjoying the benefits of wealth are very personal.  Buying gold, for example, does virtually nothing for the economy.  Neither does purchasing another company.  Mergers and acquisitions are relatively safe bets, but the actual money exchanging hands tends to remain in the hands of the wealthy who already own most businesses, and if there is a benefit to the purchaser, it is the potential for creating a veritable monopoly.

Also, with respect to investing, the driving force of greatest import is demand instead of supply.  It does not behoove an investor to produce something that no one will buy.

Consequently, wealth accumulates with the wealthy who seek desperately to hold on to what they have rather than risk their wealth for the benefit of any business or nebulous benefit for society. 

Almost paradoxically, higher tax rates do promote investment.  Buying gold with after tax dollars when the tax rate is low may be a reasonable investment, but when tax rates are high, the government has the opportunity to use “loopholes” to allow the wealthy to hold on to a greater portion of their wealth by giving exemptions for investing in those things that truly do benefit society and the economy.

Allow me to give a hypothetical example.  The government would like to promote hiring.  Giving a wealthy businessman the choice between turning his money over to the government versus hiring more workers and growing his business will usually result in growing the business by hiring.  The same applies to capital purchases, growing the business within the United States (as opposed to foreign expansion), or almost any other goal that the government may wish to promote. 

Businesses do indeed seek to maximize profits, but they will do so through the path of least resistance.  It seems that foreign investment and expansion is significantly more profitable than domestic investment and expansion because of several advantages offered by foreign countries, not the least of which is a labor force that is disorganized and unaccustomed to high salaries.  It is the businessman’s dream of virtual slave labor or indentured servitude. 

Tax policy, carefully targeted at the income of the wealthy with specific loopholes that benefit the profitability of his company by directing domestic investment will promote expansion of his own business domestically.  It is the personal income of the wealthy that guides investment strategies as much as “what’s good for business.” 

In the Randian world, the positivists would assert that the wealthy, given the choice of using tax loopholes to preserve their wealth versus doing what would be most profitable for the business (at the expense of the United States) would choose a third option:  Leave the country.  There are two reasons this anticipated exodus of the wealthy would not take place in significant numbers.  First, moving to another country while still a citizen of the United States does not automatically exempt one from paying taxes to the United States.  A tax attorney wrote, “As U.S. citizens, we are taxed on our worldwide income.”  To the extent that there are advantages, that too can be changed.  Second, most people who are considered American would not wish to move from the country of their birth.  It is unrealistic to suppose that anyone with sufficient wealth would automatically leave his family, friends and society.  Relinquishing U.S. citizenship is a poor choice for several reasons, not the least of which is that U.S. taxes continue to be in effect for a number of years after this rather drastic action (currently 10 years, I believe). 

Incidentally, for those who are wealthy and conducting business in the U.S., tax policy could also encourage both the business and the owner to move to the U.S. regardless of the actual tax rate.  Anyone, or any business, conducting their business in the U.S. would likely be persuaded to move their business to the U.S. rather than be excluded entirely or taxed at a higher rate than domestic businesses (either by statute or by virtue of “loopholes” that allow deductions to domestic businesses preferentially).

On the other hand, the Randians may have one thing right.  After a certain point, more wealth is not personally beneficial.  After the first or second billion dollars, this individual does not really need any more income.  He or she could take their billions of marbles and leave without risking anything significantly.  Who needs a million dollars a day when you already have thousands of millions of dollars in wealth after taxes?  This is true now, however.  Bill Gates finally realized that he does not need to get more money from Microsoft to be rich, but he has not decided to live in another country.  He could afford to give away all of the money he is still accruing from Microsoft stock.  And he is.  100% or even more. 

Besides, most people who choose to have their products manufactured in China would likely agree that China is a nice place to visit, but they would rather live in the United States.  Businesses have no such compunction however, but most business decisions are made by those who live in the United States – or would like to.

The threats of the Randian libertarians are hollow.  Call their bluff.  The Galts of the world, exercising rational self-interest, will remain in the United States, invest in a manner that will preserve their wealth, and pay their fare share of taxes.

Weiner, the Internet and Psyche

As I write this, the pressing question in the news is, "Should Anthony Weiner (congressman from NYC) resign?"  Since I started writing this, Anthony Weiner has resigned.

I dismiss the Republican arguments (all, naturally, recommending that this firebrand congressman resign) as partisan hypocrisy.  That doesn't mean they are wrong, but to take their self-serving recommendations seriously is impossible.  The main source for the accusation of hypocrisy is the continued service of David Vitter, currently a Senator from Louisiana, who was embroiled in a controversy regarding the “DC Madam”, a house of prostitution.  He was never asked to resign, and was subsequently reelected.

The Democrats themselves have been gathering in larger and larger numbers to recommend that Weiner resign.  They presented several arguments, some of which are also voiced by Republicans, including 1) He can not effectively represent his constituents after this embarrassing sexual impropriety, 2) The country is distracted from serious matters by this ongoing national joke, 3) He needs to take time for himself and his family, 4) He has engaged in at least one ethics violation:  Don't engage in behavior that would reflect poorly on the House of representatives or the United States, and 5) he lied to the media, fellow congressmen and congresswomen, and even his wife.

There are, of course, other reasons given, some more artfully articulated than others, but they lack specificity.  Some extrapolate from the other reasons given above:  "If he lied about that then he is vulnerable, or a liar, or hiding something else, etc."

Some said he shouldn't resign.  They argue that he never claimed moral superiority, others have done worse without resigning, he did not violate any laws, and there is no reason to think that this indiscretion will affect his effectiveness as a congressman.  We don't know the extent of congressional bad behavior, but the reasons for his behavior are as understandable as they are reprehensible.

There remains something that was not been given much attention, but is probably the most important thing to consider.  Has Weiner gone nuts (no pun intended)?  He looks and acts sane publicly, his apology seemed sincere and appropriate, he seems to understand that what he did was wrong, and he has vowed not to continue to do it.  So, he's sane, right?

Some say that, as a powerful man, he is predisposed to "risk taking" and may be more likely than most to engage is risky sexual behavior than most people.  I'll grant that, but there are some aspects of this particular indiscretion that scare the pants off of me.  Not literally.

First, when men take risks, they generally do so with an awareness of the consequences and a concerted effort to avoid detection.  Part of the thrill is avoiding getting caught, but Weiner took no precautions.  He did not disguise himself and, in fact, flaunted his identity to the women he had never meet personally.  Another congressman, Chris Lee, resigned in disgrace in a matter hours after he had been outed by a woman with whom he had been corresponding via Craig's List.  One photo of his bare chest was enough to shame him into resigning.  Weiner was certainly aware of that episode, but he was sending photos which were virtually identical in pose, if on occasion more explicit, with no apparent awareness that he too could be exposed and suffer extreme embarrassment and pressure to resign.  Watching a colleague fall next to you while you are engaging in the same behavior without any attempt to disguise yourself is beyond foolish; it's (politically) suicidal.

Second, he engaged in this behavior over a period of years with multiple women, even after marrying his current wife.  Being married does change things.  It is no longer just embarrassing, it is hurtful, and he should have known that.  He lacked the awareness that his behavior would affect his family.

The complete self-absorption, narcissism, lack of awareness and relentless pursuit of this activity in the face of risks that he could not see, but should have, leads me to believe that this is beyond a peccadillo; it's an illness.  He is right to seek "treatment" and, if he does, that would go a long way towards reassuring others that he is not likely to reengage in self-destructive behavior. 

If this is an illness, it would fall into one of several categories.  It might, for example, be a paraphilia.

Paraphilias are ... “characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning. Tends to be chronic and lifelong, although frequency and intensity may vary.  Often not associated with distress.  Clients often claim the problem lies in others’ responses.  This is about justifying and normalizing their behavior to alleviate guilt and embarrassment.  Most deviant people choose to lower their inhibitions by justifying their behavior or engaging in distorted thinking that supports the behavior.”

The term "sexual addiction" is not included in the current version of the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-IV), but the topic is under consideration.  Addictive behavior, in sexual terms, would involve “compulsivity (inability to stop), continuation (despite consequences), and obsession (their minds are so preoccupied by these thoughts, other areas of their lives that they could be thinking about are neglected).”

It is not possible now to know if Weiner will have the characteristics that would suggest addiction, but clearly if the behavior continues despite this public shaming he could be considered addicted.  The question is whether he will continue the behavior despite consequences and neglect his work and marriage.

In any event, the behavior he has engaged in is deviant, incredibly risky, and harmful to his family and his occupation.  How likely is it that treatment will be successful?  How long will treatment take?  How likely is it that he will be able to function in his job after treatment?

It is too soon to know the answers to these questions, but my suspicion, based on the nature of the behavior, is that this will not be an easy road for former Congressman Weiner.  He has underestimated the problem from the beginning, and his unrealistic approach has thus far shown, if not a lack of sincerity, at least a failure to appreciate the inevitability of his current dilemma.  I am sure that Congressman Weiner is confident he can put this behind him, live a normal life, stay married, and eventually resume a life of public service in some capacity, but as much as he has underestimated the problem, I think he is overestimating his ability to change his habits.

In order to accept Congressman Weiner as their representative, the constituents will have to extend an extraordinary amount of trust or accept that they have a sexual deviant representing them.  Even assuming they would accept the latter, trust is still necessary, and his actions have already betrayed that trust.

If he should run for reelection, his constituents will decide if they are willing to be disappointed.  I hope that Congressman Weiner can gain some insight into his problems that he has so far failed to demonstrate, but his constituents should be prepared for disappointment.

Regarding the push for resignation addressed towards Weiner and not David Vitter, there is a perceived difference.  Most people understand infidelity, even with prostitutes, as being within the range of normal behavior (although that is not necessarily true).  Even without studying abnormal psychology, the behavior of Weiner clearly falls outside of the normal range of behavior.  Although usually unspoken, there is a fear of an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder; one that may have only now become uncovered, but that may affect every other aspect of his life in ways that cannot be predicted.  When people say, “I’m glad he’s seeking the help he needs”, they are saying that until he has been evaluated and treated by professionals, he should not be allowed to function as a congressman or in any position of responsibility.

My personal assessment is that human interaction via the Internet and social media is so foreign to our psyche that our normal impulses can be warped, and our normal inhibitions can seem unnecessary.  Perspective can be lost, and we have a strong tendency to fool ourselves.  Although unjustified, we may feel safe revealing thoughts, feelings and even images of ourselves that we would not share under any other circumstances because it all seems less real, or anonymous, or private.  It is therefore not at all clear that bizarre behavior via the Internet is reflective of deep psychological disorders.  It may actually be a distortion of our normal, if “antisocial”, nature.  There’s a paradox for you.

There are layers upon layers upon layers of psychological motivation that affect our behavior over the Internet.  The psychology isn’t new perhaps, but the circumstances that affect behavior are new – as new as the Internet as a means of communication.  Maybe it was necessary for Weiner to resign for his own health, but then maybe he is one of us that just went overboard and, given the embarrassment, he might be jarred back into reality.  Or maybe he is so deeply disturbed that he won’t be able to stop.  Even Weiner probably doesn’t know the future at this point. 

I will say that, given our almost universal lack of understanding of his behavior, it was probably necessary for him to resign for the benefit of his fellow congressmen. They might fear that he will begin to act bizarrely in public and moon C-Span, or shout out inappropriately (“You lie!”). 

With time, perspective and counseling, Weiner will understand his behavior and, I think, control it.  He is not the first to find himself embarrassed by the Internet, and I suspect he won’t be the last.  It’s human nature.

Gun Sense and Common Sense

Gun ownership, deaths, injuries and crime set the United States apart from the rest of the world.  Bolstered by the second amendment to the Constitution and a belief that having a gun will provide protection for the household, gun ownership is common. 

I won’t write about how many guns there are or who has them.  I won’t write about the types of guns or how much ammunition they hold.  I’ll just be writing about common sense.

The recent Florida law HB 155 prohibits a pediatrician from asking parents if they have guns in the house.  From the pediatrician’s point of view, it’s a public safety issue on par with safety devices for electric plugs, child safety seats, poison control and a host of other aspects of ordinary life that endanger children.  The NRA backed law sees the issue as one of freedom from being hassled about owning guns.

This law reminded me of something I saw years ago that I will never forget.  It shapes my thoughts and actions to this day.

I met a 13 year old boy in the operating room at Darnall Army Community Hospital during the fall of 1983 when I was on the surgical team on call that day.  We opened him up and found that a bullet had passed from his left side through his body and out the right side transecting the aorta and vena cava (in addition to other serious injuries).  There was too much bleeding, too much damage, and the boy died on the table.

I removed my bloody gloves and gown, got dressed and walked towards my car, but as I passed through the emergency room on the way to the parking lot, there was an elderly man in distress.  His shirt was off and he had electrodes attached to his chest, and he was wailing.  I was told that he was the boy’s grandfather, and he was the one that shot and killed his grandson.

The emergency room doctors told me that they had been hunting deer, and they were wearing camouflage.  The grandfather saw his grandson walking and mistook him for a deer.  I can only imagine the emotions that went through that man’s mind after he fired his rifle.  He was probably joyous at first, terrified when he saw his grandson instead of the deer he expected, and then he probably experienced guilt.

I have no doubt that his guilt was a contributing factor to his chest pain, and I have no idea if he lived or died that day.  I left him there, crying, but I’ll never forget the expression on his face.

Sometimes I see men in the fall wearing camouflage, or men tell me they’re going hunting.  Most are proud to tell me that they are taking their children or their grandchildren hunting with them.  Maybe they might be upset with me for recommending that they wear orange vests, but if they are, I tell them what I experienced, and I hope I never experience again.  Maybe they’ll listen, maybe not.

The Florida law would keep me from even asking if they are going hunting, although their clothing, from boots to hat, scream hunting.

The Florida law isn’t about gun ownership.  It’s a law to protect the sensitive ears of gun owners from stories like mine, and warnings about dangers, and recommendations for safety.  Maybe doctors aren’t qualified to make such recommendations, like keep the guns locked up and the ammunition separate from the guns.  Maybe the gun owning parents already know everything a doctor could possibly tell them about gun safety – and more.  But children still get guns and shoot themselves or others – on purpose or accidentally.  And hunters still wear camouflage without an orange vest in the hopes they can be more effective hunters.

Those, of course, are aberrations, lapses of common sense, bad judgment or neglect and not at all representative of the average American gun owner, but I can see no harm in hearing advice even if the person hearing it needs no warning.  The advice is, after all, only common sense.

A warning is only unnecessary if there is absolutely no risk of danger.  As long as there is risk, common sense should tell us that the voices giving warnings should not be silenced.

Is this such a dangerous concept?  “According to federal statistics, there are guns in approximately half of all U.S. households. Even if no one in your family owns a gun, chances are that someone you know does. Your child could come in contact with a gun at a neighbor's house, when playing with friends, or under other circumstances outside your home.”  This is from the NRA.  It seems they realize the risks of unsecured guns in homes, but hope that nothing happens.  They go on to say that you should teach your child about gun safety, but children aren’t adults; they aren’t as responsible, as knowledgeable, or as mature as adults.  The NRA still does give some good advice.  In this web site (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/infoparents.asp), they offer information that they would prevent pediatricians from offering. 

Almost everyone could agree that leaving a loaded weapon within reach of a child (depending on how you define child) would be child neglect, or possibly child endangerment, or possibly worse.  We find out about most cases like these after the fact – the cold fact of the injury or death of a child or adult resulting from the “accidental” or even intentional discharge of the weapon by a child.  By law, pediatricians, and indeed all physicians, are obligated to report child neglect and child abuse.  Many cases of child abuse and neglect come to the attention of the pediatrician, sometimes as a result of the questions asked during a visit.  When gun owners successfully stifle the questions, they are in effect saying, “It’s none of your business” if I decide to engage in behavior that is dangerous to my child.

But it is the business of the pediatrician.  It is the business of all of us, but pediatricians are uniquely placed to examine the child (literally) and speak with both child and parents.  The purpose is not nefarious and the result is not intended to be punitive.  The goal is keeping the children alive.

Do parents fear that they will be suspected of neglect?  They shouldn’t unless they gleefully admit to being neglectful.  “I let my kids play with my loaded weapons.  They like the noise the guns make when they shoot ‘em.  Heck, it’s better ‘n fireworks.”  The questions asked are only meant to determine if there is a situation that would put a child in danger.  Parents who are knowledgeable about gun safety are a blessing for pediatricians.  We, doctors, parents and children, are all on the same side.

If a family’s pediatrician seems to be “stepping over the line” and giving unwanted advice, the parents are free to find another pediatrician, or ignore the advice, but to deny that guns are a safety concern worthy of the attention of the pediatrician is ludicrous.  People should not be forced to see physicians (or other health care providers) with whom they disagree, but to silence the doctor in an effort to avoid the issue is, or should be, as illegal as it is willfully ignorant.

I’m sure there are parents who would like to silence doctors on the issue of diet and exercise for children.  Maybe the parents don’t want or need to hear it, and perhaps physicians can avoid offending by avoiding the subject, but that is contrary to the best interests of their patients.  All questions of child safety are uncomfortable for some parents, but the duty of the physician is to the patient, the child, even when it comes to “uncomfortable” issues.  At the very least, the discussion of guns and safety may be redundant.  At most, it is life saving. 

Imagine if the tobacco lobby persuaded a state legislature that pediatricians should not ask parents if they smoke.  Or imagine the automobile industry lobbying to prohibit pediatricians from asking parents if they are using appropriate child car restraints.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the automobile industry would like to avoid having parents think of their children dying in automobile accidents when they purchase a new car.  The list of lobbyists that might like to suppress the speech of pediatricians is almost endless. 

The only reasonable course is to allow pediatricians to do the best job they know to do, and if the patient/parent is unsatisfied, find another.  Laws prohibiting this speech are un-American, unconstitutional, and an intrusion of Big Government that should be an anathema to everyone regardless of political persuasion. 

Education

Knowledge is power.

Francis Bacon, 1561-1626

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826

Child labor laws exist at least in part to promote education for children.  Of course, there are issues of safety, cruelty, health and disparity of pay since the children are unfair competition for adults who do the same job.  Children, you see, were paid less for the same amount of work. 

In 1832, the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Workingmen argued that “Children should not be allowed to labor in the factories from morning till night, without any time for healthy recreation and mental culture,” and because it “endangers their . . . well-being and health”

The first federal laws against child labor were passed in 1916.

It was in making education not only common to all, but in some sense compulsory on all, that the destiny of the free republics of America was practically settled.

James Russell Lowell, 1819-1891

It is hard to say whether individualism (libertarianism), anti-intellectualism or sheer greed is driving the efforts to eliminate public education, or at least reduce it to an ineffective shell of its former glory.  Perhaps all three to different degrees lead conservatives to denigrate public education and simultaneously work to defund it. 

At one time, public schools were held responsible for decreasing competitiveness of American students compared with students from other countries.  Studies were conducted to see how to fix the system, but there have been no initiatives that have significantly improved the public education system.  Rather than attempt to make public schools more effective, many parents and legislators have made the decision that “alternative” education should replace public education, at least for some children.

Simultaneously, two trends in public education have taken hold for apparently similar reasons.  First, many people became enamored of Home Schooling.  Second, private schools were put forth as an example of excellence in education, and some states have promoted transferring public funds to private schools in order to support the education of children who would otherwise have only been able to afford public schools.

Some of the reasons behind these trends reveal something about the motives of the parents and legislators.  Public schools cannot endorse religion.  Public schools were said to be dangerous because of the high percentage of children from backgrounds that some associate with a tendency towards criminal activity (or a lack of morality).  Public schools were decaying physically, and the teachers were not accountable to the public.  Public schools teach evolution and other scientific ideas that may conflict with an interpretation of the Bible. 

(NCES)

Reason for homeschooling	Number of homeschooled students	Percent	s.e.
Can give child better education at home	415,000	48.9	3.79
Religious reason	327,000	38.4	4.44
Poor learning environment at school	218,000	25.6	3.44
Family reasons	143,000	16.8	2.79
To develop character/morality	128,000	15.1	3.39
Object to what school teaches	103,000	12.1	2.11
School does not challenge child	98,000	11.6	2.39
Other problems with available schools	76,000	9.0	2.40
Child has special needs/disability	69,000	8.2	1.89
Transportation/convenience	23,000	2.7	1.48
Child not old enough to enter school	15,000	1.8	1.13
Parent's career	12,000	1.5	0.80
Could not get into desired school	12,000	1.5	0.99
Other reasons*	189,000	22.2	2.90

Advocates of home or private schooling have conducted studies to prove that home or private schooling produced better (or at least similar) outcomes for students, but the results are disputed for various reasons.  Philosophically, public schools are intended to be an equalizing force in society for the economically disadvantaged under the assumption that equal opportunity for advancement is related to equal educational opportunity.  Opposition to home schooling also derives from a potential for social isolationism, child abuse and even religious extremism. 

There are also advocates for a complete lack of any formal teaching at home or elsewhere.  This idea is called “unschooling” or “natural learning” and assumes that children will learn what they need to know on their own without formal instruction.

When I reviewed the studies that examine home schooling, I found an overwhelming number of organizations whose agenda was specifically to promote home schooling.  Organizations with strong “right wing” philosophies from the Cato Institute to the TEA party have endorsed studies, but there is virtually no information from well conducted multicenter mainstream educational organizations.  This may be due in part due to the disorganization of home schooling (by design). 

I can’t say what the ultimate effect of such efforts to dismantle public schooling will be, but clearly home and private schooling are being promoted at the expense of public schools.

My suspicion, based in part on personal experience, is that many children who are home schooled (or “unschooled”) will be unable to be competitive with children who have had opportunities provided by public education.  My experience was that, despite a sincere effort to home school my son (at significant personal expense), my son has become trapped in a job that is relatively low paying with no opportunity for advancement.  Perhaps my son was never destined to compete for high paying jobs or great academic success, or perhaps it is just my personal failure, but how many other home schooled children did not receive scholarships for college, or simply “aimed lower” academically and financially because of their lack of exposure to competitive environments provided by public schools?

One parent’s disappointment with home schooling does not justify a prohibition against home schooling of course.  In fact, I suspect that many highly motivated parents will do better than teachers in public schools, but how many are simply lost to follow up?  How many would we classify as “dropouts”?  Studies of home schooling hopefully include all children that stay at home instead of attending public schools.  If they focus only on SAT scores, ACT scores or college admission testing, they will have missed children like my son.  He never took any of those tests, and he never obtained a college degree.  He would be invisible to any measure of success or failure of home schooling.

I have been wondering about the ultimate fate of these home-schooled children.  How do they fare in society at large?  How many become college educated?  How many enter the teaching profession?  How many obtain advanced degrees?  I have read at least one study that claims these children generally become productive members of society active in their communities.  That certainly sounds better than becoming a drug-addicted prostitute or gangster, but how does their achievement compare with their potential?  Are these children reaching some limited goals their parents are setting, or are they going beyond their parents’ expectations?  Can a genius accomplish as much with home schooling as he or she could have with the support of an educational establishment with resources to bring them to the pinnacle of their abilities?  Perhaps studies may reveal the impact of home schooling on a large scale, but measuring potential and matching that to accomplishment may be impossible. 

Charter, or private, schools are perhaps more capable of providing an environment that is at least similar to public schools in terms of socialization, although many private schools specifically cater to the prejudices of people who oppose public schooling because of sincerely mistaken ideas about science, history or race.  In some cases, indoctrination replaces teaching, and critical thinking is discouraged.

Can a private school that will not teach evolution produce students that are competitive in biological sciences?  Can parents who are themselves uneducated or otherwise ignorant consistently teach their children chemistry and mathematics and “graduate” students that can become chemists and mathematicians?

The diversion of public funds to private educational organizations via voucher programs facilitates a profit-based system less interested in education than profit.  Private enterprise does things only as well as necessary to continue to receive funds.  One must wonder though, what will become of voucher programs and public assistance to charter schools as public funds dry up because of declining revenue.  Won’t their incentive to promote universal education suffer from the same fate as public schools? 

There was recently a charter school in Michigan designed to provide educational opportunities for pregnant underprivileged children.  As part of the state’s austerity program, the school is being closed.  It seems that providing these kinds of services to these kinds of children was not the aim of the charter school program.  What now?  “Home schooling”?

If I were to speculate about the kind of society that we are “designing” for a future without public schools, I envision an agrarian society, or perhaps an industrial society where there are no opportunities for employment other than “unskilled labor” or, at best, skilled trade school graduates.  The rich and their progeny will always be educated, and for the accumulation of wealth, education provides a major advantage.

It is only the ignorant who despise education.

Publilius Syrus, First century B.C.

Corporations

Corporations do not have a conscience.  That may seem odd given that they are organizations that are composed of human beings, but although the individuals may have a conscience, they are required to act on behalf of the corporation, not their own sense of morality.  On the other hand, in the absence of accountability, greed can overcome patriotism, empathy, loyalty or any other human characteristic.

Individuals are good at self-deception, and we can convince ourselves of the benefits to society generally even though we recognize that actions may be harmful to large numbers of people.  There is a filter for decisions in corporations that judges actions based on the benefit of any action to the corporation and by extension to the profits of the corporation.  The overriding purpose of corporations is not to better society, but to maximize profit. 

The idea that a corporation might care about pollution, workers’ rights or health, or even the quality of the product of the corporation comes from the fact that adverse consequences hurt the bottom line.  Pollution can result in fines and bad publicity.  Workers can sue.  Liability for dangerous or ineffective products can drain money from the profits.  Corporations weigh the benefits and risks of their actions, and when the penalties for actions are sufficiently harmful, they change their ways.

The flip side is that corporations do a lot of good.  They provide jobs, goods and services, and without these our standard of living would be dismal indeed.  They donate to charities, help out the community, pay taxes (sometimes), and provide benefits for their employees over and above salaries.  Even if everything they do is somehow to improve their public relations and ultimately benefit the bottom line, it cannot be said that everything they do is harmful.

The problem is that without some incentive, direct or indirect, for doing good, corporations would do nothing good.  If it were legal to just take money without providing anything in return, and there were no adverse consequences that would redound to lower profits, fines or loss of employees (by injury, resignation or strike), they would.  We give the name “subsidy” to this practice.  If their actions (through pollution, monopolistic practices or unsafe working conditions) created profit without any penalties, they would have no compunction about continuing the same practices.  If there were no minimum wage and no restrictions on child labor, corporations would certainly take advantage of the labor force.  Well, until the labor force rebelled, quit or went on strike.

By analogy, a person walking a dog would be less likely to pick up the poop if there was no penalty. And smokers would not voluntarily segregate themselves or refrain from smoking in public restaurants if no one asked them to do so.

It has been argued that the absence of accountability led to unrestrained greed that resulted in the recent Recession.  Stockholders were left to pay the penalties for the malfeasance of the executives in corporations, while the executives themselves left with their pockets lined with gold.  Or stayed and continue to stuff their pockets to this day.  Governments provide some accountability (assuming that the legislators and regulators are not in bed with the companies they purport to regulate), but even then the executives are rarely (or never) held personally liable for their own misconduct, even if that misconduct results in illegal actions on the part of the corporation.

When Ayn Rand wrote of John Galt, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugs who persuaded the wealthy industrialists to leave the country, she wrote of an amoral culture of greed and personal aggrandizement at the expense of everyone else.  Corporations are the ultimate Galts; without loyalty or patriotism, not beholding to any system of ethics, incapable of mercy, compassion or sympathy, acting solely on the principle of “rational self-interest”. 

It may seem that corporations, workers, government and the public have reached an uneasy truce.  This would be incorrect.  They aren’t all being good corporate “citizens”; many are “Going Galt.”

The cost of manufacturing goods overseas is significantly lower than here in the United States, and corporations have no qualms about taking advantage of the appetite of Americans for cheap goods imported from other countries.  They have found a way to avoid laws against pollution.  They have found a workforce that will work for less than minimum wage, no benefits, in unsafe conditions.  They have found ways to avoid paying taxes. 

The transfer of manufacturing to these foreign countries obviously benefits the corporations.  They made a calculated gamble that Americans would rather pay less for their goods than seriously engage in a campaign of “Buy American!”  They see the negatives as less than the positives, and whatever ill will they may be engendering on the part of the average American is overshadowed by the abundant profits they have garnered.

Some people on the right see the workers as having shot themselves in the foot by demanding safe working conditions, generous benefits and high salaries.  The American workforce, they contend, negotiated itself out of the jobs they lost to foreigners.

Carrying this criticism to its logical conclusion, the American workforce should become like the Chinese workforce to be competitive. 

Really?

Without adequate financial incentives to keep Americans employed (or adequate disincentives in the form of taxes or other penalties for exporting jobs), there is little doubt that this downward spiral will continue until the United States is unable to afford to pay for even imported goods. 

Jobs, jobs, jobs

There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.

            ▪          Warren Buffet, New York Times, November 26, 2006.

The signs are there.  Granted, there are many ways to interpret the signs showing the economic status of the United States, but I see signs all around me that say the United States is in decline.  Every day I pass the building that housed the Buster Brown Shoe Company and I am reminded that almost all of the shoes worn in the United States are manufactured in other countries.  I live in a building that housed the manufacturers of shoes, Catholic school uniforms, gun holsters and party supplies.  It’s a loft apartment building now.  On my way to work, I pass closed factories and abandoned burned out buildings.

Michael T. Snyder writes, “What we are witnessing is the slow-motion deindustrialization of the United States.” 

There are statistics that back up this assertion.

 The statistics and graphics show what is also plainly obvious; that manufacturing is a less significant part of the American economy.  The difference between manufacturing and finance is that the latter does not employ a large labor force.  It does not, therefore, contribute to the standard of living of the average American. 

From the diagram below, it can be seen that the number of people employed by manufacturing has declined significantly.  Even if the total amount of manufacturing has increased, the labor force necessary to maintain the factories and do the work has clearly declined.  Several factors including automation have led to less need for laborers.  

 There are now fewer jobs for manufacturing than at the end of the Great Depression.  It is ironic that many of these jobs consist of assembling parts that are manufactured in other countries.  Even those jobs are in danger of extinction.

Here is an example of a job that is decreasing if not vanishing because of automation:  Lathe and Turning Machine Tool Setters, Operators.  From an article on job losses:

“Turns out there are still people who make things in this country, cutting and shaping metals and plastics with these old but faithful machines. The main reason this job will be declining in the next decade is due to a gradual switch to computer-controlled machines. Oh, and did we mention robots? That’s right, companies will start to rely more on robots to do the tasks that people once did in order to cut costs and be more competitive. So these tool setters will gradually be phased out and switched with computer programmers who understand how to run the new technology.”   

There are dozens more jobs being replaced with automation described in the article which can be found at the following address (URL):  http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/career/employment/endangered-professions-25-declining-jobs?cm_ven=outbrain&psv=outbrainselectedarticle&obref=obnetwork

Jobs being shipped overseas have received a lot of attention in the news.  Even if other jobs in other sectors are available, there is downward wage pressure from the increase in overseas employment by American companies.  Wages and income have been virtually stagnant since the 1980s. 

From an article entitled “The Only Things That Matter… And No One Talks About” written by Phoenix Capital Research comes a summary of the problem that is concise and understandable.  Here is a small excerpt:

“The fact of the matter is that the US economy, on a structural basis, is BROKEN. Starting in the early ‘70s, we outsourced our manufacturing and began shifting to a services economy (particularly financial services). We also outsourced our wealth to Asia, OPEC, and Wall Street.

“Because of this, the average American has seen his income decline dramatically in the last 30 years. This is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain. Forty years ago one parent worked and people got by. Today both parents work (if they can find jobs) and still can’t have a decent quality life.

“THESE are the items that matter for economic growth: jobs and income. If you want people to have money for them to spend and consequently boost economic growth, they need to have decent jobs that pay them well.”

When I read this, I was reminded of a story about Henry Ford who reportedly gave his employees good wages so that they would be able to purchase his automobiles (and to reduce turnover at his factory).  Of course, for most manufacturing jobs, the employer could not assume that giving his employees better wages would result in increased demand for his particular product, but as a general principle, the better the wages for the most people, the greater the demand for products of all kinds.

Increasing profits by employing an overseas workforce is both shortsighted and ultimately self-destructive. 

On some level, I am sure that companies shipping their manufacturing jobs overseas realize this, but it seems that they are not persuaded by arguments such as the above because they assume that their small stake in employment will not significantly affect the purchasing power of the public.  Other companies will pay the wages that will buy their products.  On the other hand, some executives have taken a decidedly anti-labor and anti-United States attitude.  Remarks from an editorial by Bill McClellan in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch from May 2, 2011 are revealing:

David Farr received the Citizen of the Year award in March. He is the CEO of Emerson. He is best known for complaining about labor laws, environmental regulations and health care reform. In November of 2009, he spoke at a luncheon in Chicago and said, "What do you think I'm going to do? I'm not going to hire anybody in the United States." He would instead expand in what he called "best-cost" countries.

…

We're not hiring in the U.S.

This is serious stuff. Farr, and others of his mind-set, are talking about breaking a social contract. It's an unwritten contract, but it's real. It's what we've always told our young people: If you work hard and do the right thing, you'll have an opportunity. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but there is a job.

In Farr's defense, it really is cheaper to send work overseas. People in developing countries — "best-cost" countries — will work for very little.

On the other hand, Farr made $24.8 million last year. That's $476,923 a week. Figuring a five-day workweek, that's $95,384 a day. Which means $47,692 each morning before lunch.

The signs say that if this trend continues, we will cross a line beyond which the demand for products will drop.  It is a downward spiral fed by corporate greed and consumer frugality, and it portends poorly for the United States.

It’s a long way down, and it will take a while, but we will see abundant blame and recriminations, political opportunism, and proposals for solutions that are self-serving and frequently counterproductive.  Fasten your seatbelt, because it has already started.