Advertising Ourselves to Death

The elections are over, and apparently not much has changed. Once again America has opted for a status quo of inaction followed by crisis. We’ll probably never learn, but maybe that’s because of who we let teach us.

The bright spot in our after-election picture is that we are no longer inundated by the political attack ads that ran endlessly here in swing state hell, Ohio. Not to worry though, the non-stop Christmas advertisements have stepped smartly up to fill the void. Thank goodness for the DVR and its ability to skim past the commercials. On election night I heard one of the talking heads on TV saying that $3 or $4 billion were spent on political ads this year. He speculated how far along we would be on curing whatever disease we would have chosen to spend that money on instead. Noble thought, but man’s lust for power has always overshadowed his benevolence, and likely always will.

On my way out the door yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Dr. Oz show on TV. He was talking about cancer, and offered some insight on the cause of deadly pancreatic cancer. Now I don’t know the sources of this guy’s research, but I understand that he is a fairly brilliant cardiothoracic surgeon. So you might be right to maintain a healthy skepticism with regard to his advice in the area of oncology, since cancer isn’t his specialty. However, Dr. Oz has always struck me as a well-meaning person, as well as someone who does his homework, so I listened.

Oz said that as little as two 12-ounce cans of soda pop a week leads to an excess of insulin production, which is a major factor leading to cancer of the pancreas. Drinking two cans of pop doubles your chance of getting pancreatic cancer. That’s twenty-four ounces of soda. I know lots of people that drink that much in a day, if not more. Now if you’re feeling pretty smug because the soda that you gulp daily is diet soda, you probably shouldn’t be feeling so swell either. I read something recently that said diet soda (as well as lots of other products containing artificial sweeteners) leads to excess belly fat and a host of other health problems. Seems that it triggers a desire for more food and more sugar in our bodies, and the processed foods that we rely on in our diets are full of sugars.

Now I’ve been a skeptic most of my life, and I don’t always fall for statistics that sound meaningful, but really aren’t that important. But when you combine all of the “expert research” that we’re subjected to with the observations available from the life (and death) that surrounds us, much of this stuff makes sense. The other day, I ran into an old friend from high school days that I hadn’t seen for years. At one point in our conversation, she ran down a list of people from our class who have already died (we’re still almost two decades shy of our average life expectancy). It was quite a list. Personally, both of my brothers are already dead, although both of my parents are still alive. My oldest brother was killed in a traffic accident when he was a teenager, so I certainly can't put that down to his diet, but my other brother succumbed to cancer.

For our parents’ generation (here I’m speaking of people born in the late-1920’s through early-1940’s), soda pop was a rare treat. Coke came in 6 ½ ounce bottles, and most other soda pops weren’t much larger. Pepsi made a big impact when it introduced a 12-ounce bottle in 1936. Most of the food consumed was made from scratch, not prepackaged and over-processed. Maybe that’s why my generation is dying-off while my parents’ generation lingers on.

Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, has proposed a ban in the city for selling soda pop in sizes larger than 16-ounces. It’s probably a good idea for the health of the citizens, but most people think it’s a little crazy. It probably won’t even help much. I’m sure there’s one group of New Yorkers that aren’t pleased: the folks on Madison Avenue that dominate our advertising industry. I know that advertising has spread far beyond the confines of a single street in New York, but “Madison Avenue” still invokes the advertising industry, and is still instantly recognizable (think of TV’s “MadMen” a show about advertising in the late-50’s and early-60’s). These people have been influencing our decisions all of my life.

There lies our greatest problem. Our “education” is based on information provided by people who just want us to buy something. Once you buy it, they want you to buy more of it. If you don’t, they go out of business. Think about who it is that advertises most in this country. They’re the people who have the most to gain: makers of simple, low-cost products with high profit margins. Soft drink makers sell sugar-flavored carbonated water (either cane sugar-now rare, high-fructose corn syrup-the vast majority, or artificially sweetened) which is pretty cheap to make. The packaging and advertising cost more than the product itself. So we have to have more. Originally, Coca-Cola contained a pretty significant amount of cocaine, but now it uses “spent” coca leaves for its flavoring, as well as caffeine from the kola nut, also an addictive substance. One of the “benefits” of drinking Coke brought out in its early advertisements was its ability to “cure” morphine addiction. I’ll bet it’s pretty easy to “cure” alcohol or nicotine addiction with a switch to heroin, too. Probably not a good health choice though.

We succumb to advertising claims on a daily basis and not always to our benefit. Phosphate in our detergents made our washing machines more effective in removing stains from our clothes. But then we found out that it stayed in our wastewater and did severe damage to our lakes and streams. They had to change the formula (President Nixon signed the bill into law that banned phosphates, and launched the EPA), but they still need advertising to tell you that there is a major difference between different formulations of soap and water, and get you to favor their brand above all others.

In recent years we have seen a significant rise in advertising for prescription medicine. We see and hear claims for products that will cure a wide range of problems, including those that we didn’t even know were problems, like “restless leg syndrome”. The list of potential side effects is usually frightening, but they speed through those in a hushed voice at the end of the commercial, so how important can they be?  Pharmaceuticals have extensive costs associated with their development, but once you have the formula, they’re usually pretty cheap to make. The companies also have to reap the benefits while they are protected under patent laws, because when that expires, a flood of generic brands usually takes over the market. It’s easier for doctors to acquiesce to their patients’ desire for a particular medicine in order to “cure” the symptoms that the TV ad told them they had, than it is to try to get the patients to make healthier choices to begin with. It’s much, much easier if the doctor also has an investment portfolio that includes big blocks of stock in large pharmaceutical companies.

The biggest problem is that our nation continues a slide into lazy stupidity. How many issues were on the ballot in your area that would have increased tax funding for schools? How many of them were successful? The majority in my area failed. People don’t want to pay more taxes, and who can blame them? That’s fine with the folks in power (and I don’t mean our political leaders exclusively). The people that really call the shots in this country (and other countries as well) have very good educations, usually at exclusive private schools. If we enhanced public education, the entire population might become a bit more skeptical and less inclined to believe those authoritative voices on TV ads (we’re much too busy to read these days so we must get information from simpler sources). Those voices of authority tell us that buying more of their product will enhance our lives. Instead, we might be more inclined to follow the advice of those thoughtful people who only make money giving advice, instead of selling some mass-produced consumer good (yes, I know, consumer ads keep TV shows like Dr. Oz on the air).

If you are tired, try taking a nap instead of a stimulant, or just get more sleep at night. If you are thirsty, have some water (don’t worry, Coke and Pepsi bottle that stuff, too. They won’t go out of business) instead of soda pop. Try steaming broccoli, or making macaroni and cheese from real ingredients instead of a box. Seriously, learn a few simple recipes because you are killing your children with processed foods. It is much easier for parents to give-in to whining children screaming for candy at the store, but try another approach. I’ve witnessed the results first hand: harried mothers quickly buckling to the demands of their out-of-control kids to have some candy. The kids looked wired and unhealthy. I’ve seen other mothers remain firm and deny such requests, going as far to tell the kids “no” (Gasp! Can it be true? Doesn’t that lead to tormented psyche?). They then inform their child that they can have an apple or plum or nectarine or some grapes when they get home. It may not come as a surprise to you how much better such children look physically, and how much better they behave in public.

There has been a good deal of speculation about the failure of the massive amount political ads in the election, especially here in Ohio. Karl Rove simply couldn’t believe that the voters of Ohio were not swayed to vote for the Republican candidate. He had an on-air meltdown on Fox. It was really pretty sad. He did persuade almost half the Ohio electorate to vote his way. Thankfully it was just under half. But he, like many other political king-makers (and avid advertisers), failed to allow for the all-important “Law of Unintended Consequences.” What they mostly did was make us distrust all politicians. They made us so sick of commercials and other political ads that in an effort to maintain our sanity we simply tuned them out. Our state’s famous tiny fraction of undecided voters (really, you couldn’t decide even a few days before the election?) that swung the state to the incumbent must have simply flipped a coin in the end, and the fickle odds of chance made the decision for them. Or maybe they finally tuned out the bullshit, and searched their soul for reason. I think it was probably the coin, because if you didn’t understand the issues well enough, you probably lack the necessary mental acuity to find reason within yourself. Blame under-funded public schools. I do.

For the most part, however, advertising is effective. We are an easily swayed life form, and that is a shame. As a species, humans have a great deal of promise, but we’re blowing it. We are allowing ourselves to be advertised to death. All too often we fail to take the long view. Our health will improve if we make healthy choices. Our economy will improve if we produce more things here instead of buying cheaper foreign-made goods. Our people would be better off if we spent more money educating them to make good decisions, but these things don’t benefit us immediately, so it’s out of the question that we would do something to help our future generations at our own immediate expense. Yet, when you ask a parent what it is that they hope for most, the most likely reply is that they desire for their children to be healthy, and live in a better world than today’s mess. Most people don’t even stop to think about it. Their answer is routine. Probably something they heard on TV.    

“Children must be taught how to think, not what to think.” 

― Margaret Mead

Never Stop Learning

“Never stop learning.” Those were the words of advice that the Commander-in-Chief gave a US Marine as the two men drank ale on a porch off of the White House West Wing on the eve of an awards ceremony. It is a short sentence with great meaning, and we would be wise to always remember it, and take it to heart. The next day, President Obama presented Sergeant Dakota Meyer with the Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation’s highest military award. Meyer was the first living Marine recipient of the CMH in 38 years, only the third since the Vietnam War, and was given the award in recognition for his extraordinary courage under fire.

Yesterday, I finished reading Into the Fire: A Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle in the Afghan War, written by Dakota Meyer and Bing West. It chronicles Meyer’s life and military service, and includes a description of the Battle of Ganjgal in Afghanistan conveyed with such intensity that it left me vibrating and reaching for a cigarette. I have the utmost respect and admiration for those who serve our country’s military, and this book only served to reinforce that feeling. Meyer was given top-notch training and top-notch equipment. Then they sent him into a no-win situation that would drive the sanest man crazy. The book points out the problems and ultimate futility of trying to wage a limited war in a country that has been fought over, but never fully subdued, for all of recorded history. Read the book for yourself and draw your own conclusions. It won’t take very long, and it’s worth the additional knowledge that it provides. Never stop learning: it’s very good advice.

I read something else last night, although it turns out that some people in a position of power would have liked it best if no one read it. A report was prepared by the Congressional Research Service and released to members of Congress in September. Usually, such reports are not released to the general public, and after reading this one it is clear that most people wouldn’t even try to slog through the details. The CRS does that sort of thing all of time. It’s one of three agencies that also includes the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which provide our legislative branch with non-partisan, accurate, and objective information, so that they can hopefully make better decisions. The CRS serves as a “think tank” for our government, and their reports and research are generally highly regarded.

The report in question is titled “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945” and for the most part it lived up to the non-excitement promised by its title. It’s full of things like multivariate linear regression analysis that used to make me yawn in business school, and still do now. It is important to remember that this report was prepared objectively, on a non-partisan basis. The CRS exists only to provide a service; it has no ideological ax to grind. One of the main conclusions of the report is that there is no relationship between reducing top income tax rates for the wealthy and new job creation. No evidence supports a link between allowing the wealthiest Americans to keep a bit of extra money after taxes so that they can supposedly use those extra funds to invest in new jobs for everyone else. There is however evidence that indicates lowering the top marginal tax rate increases the gap between rich and poor, by allowing more funds to accrue to top earners. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The reason that I almost didn’t get to read it was that Mitch McConnell, the leading Senate Republican, and his Senate followers, objected to wording and conclusions in the report and forced the CRS to withdraw it pending further study. Seems they had issues with phrases such as “Bush Tax Cuts” that referenced reductions to the top marginal tax rate made during Bush’s administration, but not directly by Bush himself. The report also references House Budget Committee Chairman (and current Republican VP nominee) Paul Ryan’s the Path to Prosperity by name and disagrees with Ryan’s solutions. One could easily draw the conclusion (most already have) that what really irked those forty or so Republican Senators (who seem to wield way too much power these days), was that the report refutes the central premise of their party’s economic theory. Supply-side economics don’t work. Lowering taxes for rich people does not create jobs. It is time that we all learn to deal with that reality, but as our election approaches, Republicans continue to say that we need to lower taxes for wealthy people in order to create more jobs.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), referencing the CRS report, told the New York Times, "This has hues of a banana republic. They didn't like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down." Yes, this is strong-arm politics at its worst.

In the war in Afghanistan, policies in place to prevent potential harm to the civilian population prevented Dakota Meyer’s team from receiving the artillery support that might have saved their lives. Among the many allied casualties that day were four Marine advisors from Meyer’s four-man training team (Dakota had been replaced that day, because he was trained as a sniper, and they were going in just to talk with village leaders). Command decisions were made (or in this case, avoided) at a rear echelon command base, instead of in the field where they would have been more effective, and where most military scholars, including Gen. Colin Powell, believe they should reside. During the battle, the civilian population of Ganjgal had either fled the area, witnessed by Meyer and others from their rear echelon position before the battle, or joined in with the Taliban to fight the joint US-Afghan forces who had come to town for a talk with village elders. Such is the ebb and flow of political allegiance in Afghanistan, and one of the reasons that makes finding the bad guys so difficult in that country. They change sides daily.

On the other hand, in the war for the hearts and minds of the American voter, we are faced with information controlled by a handful of self-interested senators, instead of being able to read and digest the information for ourselves. The evidence really points to a small group of people more interested in consolidating wealth and power into the hands of a selected group of followers, instead of providing a workable solution to the problems faced by the vast majority of Americans. But if you believe that these people have your best interests at heart, then give them your vote. Just think about renaming the country “The Banana Republic of America” because the country we will live in will not the one envisioned by the framers of our constitution. They proudly named us “The United States of America” and it remains the country that I love, and maintain a hope for its future.

Never stop learning. These are words of advice to live by. Use your brain, don’t let it rot, or be influenced by thirty-second bursts of misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies. Seek out unbiased information if you can, and try to discern the real reasons behind the information that you are being provided. Most importantly, make your voice heard. Make your vote count. Protect yourself. Above all, never stop learning.

“There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
 -From “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945” published by the Congressional Research Service

      

(Congressional) Medal of Honor

Navy Version

Worst Socialists Ever

Well, the US General Election is barreling toward us like a hurricane. It will be over soon, one way or another, and I won’t be missing those political ads at all. They’ve reduced one poor little girl to tears: in her viral video, she said she hates both candidates for president. Here in Ohio, we’ve been spared from the worst of Hurricane Sandy’s wrath, but my thoughts go out those who have suffered the most. A friend used to always say that “we hang by a silver thread,” meaning that something life-changing can happen at any moment, and that was surely on display on our east coast this week.

Last week, before the storms grabbed all of the headlines, my local paper’s business section had several stories (which I mentioned in an earlier post) that seemed to bode well for our economy. The unemployment rate continued to fall in our area. A headline proclaimed that the United States could become the world’s top oil producer, explaining that there is currently a boom in oil and other liquid hydrocarbon production in our country. In our local economy, a new retail store and a new hotel that caters to long-term business travelers are planned for the county. It was such a flood of good economic news, that I was startled by the headline of an article at the bottom of the page.

“Stocks sink as DuPont, Xerox, 3M scare investors” the headline of The Associated Press release announced. It seems that despite three years of growing profit for these and other “Blue Chip” companies, revenues (money received from operations, such as sales) are down. Part of the problem lies elsewhere in the world: these are truly global companies after all, and demand has fallen off worldwide. In addition, investors are worried that corporate cost-cutting has reached its limit. I don’t think that’s really the case. There is one area with enormous cost saving potential that is never discussed: executive compensation.

In 2011, the CEO of Xerox was paid $12,902,607 (all figures include salary/bonus, benefits and stock options) representing an amount 379 times what was paid to the average worker. The Chief Executive of DuPont received $15,926,631, or 468 times what the average employee earned, and 3M’s CEO was compensated $25,391,738 which was 746 times the pay for one of the company’s average employees. Those CEOs are way behind the leader. The CEO of Apple, Timothy Cook, was paid $377,996,537, or 11,100 times the average employee compensation. To be fair to Cook, most of his compensation was in the form of stock options, which could decrease in value by the time he exercises them, but still, that’s a whole lot of executive compensation.

Of course you know by now that I love history, especially the insight that it can offer to our current situation. So let’s look back a few years. In 1980, the average CEO compensation for all of the companies included in the Standard & Poor 500 was 42 times the average worker’s pay. In 2011, the average CEO in the S&P 500 received 380 times more than the average worker. I don’t know about you, but I find that number staggering. It boggles my mind, and it raises a few questions, including the main one: why so much more now than just over thirty years ago?

It also answers the question that I thought of when I first saw the headline, which was why would a company come out at the end of October and warn its investors that problems are on the way for the companies’ profitability? Well, I think the simple answer is that these executives would like everyone to think that our current President isn’t up to the task of doing what is best for American businesses. Furthermore, we would be much better off if we would elect a Republican who has more than demonstrated his own support for big business, as well as support for the concept of rule by the wealthy. Personally, I don’t think it really matters, since history has shown (there’s that old “historical perspective” thing again) that the stock market has actually performed better under Democrat presidents than it has under Republicans. Both parties are in the pockets of the corporations, and there is little evidence that any significant changes are forthcoming. However, those people at the top, the top 1% of income earners, want to make sure that they stay where they are: at the top. Also, in order for that to happen, that everyone else stays at the bottom.

The new flood of unrestrained PAC-money sponsored political ads really has me freaked out. Does anyone really believe this nonsense? Is anyone really this uninformed? Of course they are. We’ve been taught from an early age to respect authority, and what’s more informative than the deep, reassuring voice of authority from TV news, which is mimicked in the political ads? Serious television journalists such as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite set a standard for unbiased reporting in the middle of the 20th century, and many of us assume that this integrity continues in all newsrooms today. It really doesn't. Our media is owned by large corporate entities that mostly dispense the news that they want us to hear. The political ads twist facts so badly in an effort to frighten us into giving them our vote that it should be a criminal act. It won’t be unless we speak up as an overwhelming group, and that won’t happen.

The latest political ad that has made me nauseous is from an Eastern European guy who talks about growing up under Socialism. He speaks in the background about the failure of the Socialist system while pictures from post-World War II Europe flash across the screen. He concludes with the statement that he plans to vote Republican this election, because Socialism doesn’t work. The implication is that Democrats favor Socialism. They don’t. Never did. Not once.

I reiterate the following fact: our economy has fared better in recent history under Democratic administrations than it has under Republican administrations. That is information supported by evidence. The commercial cited above is the worst kind of fear-mongering propaganda. The people who fill your head with such nonsense do not deserve your vote. I was once a pro-business Republican. I’m not sure if I’m now a Democrat, but I still love my country, and want what is best for her people, as well as what is best for all of the world’s people. I’m fairly certain that capitalism is the best way for people to succeed in this world, but I have seen the problems associated with unrestrained capitalism. Human greed needs to be kept in check. We need rules and regulations to help the little guy, because the success of our nation rests on the success of our rapidly vanishing middle class. History has demonstrated this time and again. Capitalism works, but unrestrained capitalism only works for the ones with the most money and most power.

So what should you do? Cast your vote for the people who are going to benefit you the most. If you are a member of the middle class, or even poor, you would be wise to vote for the Democrats. If you’re a multi-millionaire, that means you probably think you should vote for the Republicans. Guess what? History has shown us that your stock portfolio will probably improve more under a Democrat’s administration (check out the following graph). As far as Socialism goes, history has already demonstrated that the last two Democrats to hold the office of President of the United States of America would be considered two of the worst Socialists ever. More like Capitalists, really good Capitalists.

“Self-interest makes some people blind, and others sharp-sighted.”

-Francois de La Rochefoucauld

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

High School Football and Political Rallies

It’s late October in Ohio. Thursday’s temperature topped eighty degrees with abundant sunshine, but Friday started out gray and overcast, and temperatures fell all day, with the promise of a bit of rain by evening. That’s Ohio: if you don’t like the weather, stick around a few minutes, it’ll change. The political weather in Ohio is subject to similarly wide variations. It’s an important “swing state” if one wishes to become the chief occupant of the White House for the next four years. According to those who know such things, this year Ohio is the only key to a win. So tonight, here in solidly middle-class North Canton, both Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan are putting on a show in a last ditch effort to win the election by taking this state.

The mayor, apparently a hopeful up and coming aspirant in the party, was giddy with anticipation when he announced the event a few days ago. It would be held on the Hoover Viking’s baseball field on Friday night. The venue was available because the football team played their last game of the regular season against their archrival, Jackson Township’s Polar Bears, at Jackson (apparently even the possible next President couldn’t get the football field, because Hoover has playoff potential, and NO ONE gets to mess up the football field). Football’s close to a religion around these parts. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is just down Interstate-77 in Canton. The Massillon-McKinley game (played on Saturday afternoon, instead of Friday night) is a high school game with national recognition. But Romney-Ryan needs Ohio, so they risked playing against the area’s favorite pastime in order to secure votes.

The turnout was probably as good as they had hoped. Crowds began preparing at the start of the day. Disposable rain ponchos sold out by 10 AM at the dollar store on the corner of North Main Street, a few blocks west of the high school. As evening approached, the crowds began to stream in from all over. The manager of the dollar store is a farm kid from the sticks who describes himself as a “true independent,” but whose father was an old school union man. An atypical collection of Cadillac SUVs, Lexus and Mercedes-Benz automobiles begin to occupy his store’s parking lot, free of charge, for the duration of the event, squeezing out potential paying customers. He expresses regret that he didn’t dress his cashier in a “Big Bird” costume and charge $10 per car, with all proceeds going to save the Public Broadcasting System (Romney has already threatened to eliminate funding for PBS). Republicans may speak with disgust at those Americans seeking entitlements, but apparently no one feels more entitled to do as they please, such as steal free parking from a local retail outlet and make it impossible for actual customers to park, than an upwardly-mobile Republican on a mission to see their candidate. So much for a pro-business stance: yeah, we’re pro-business, unless your business is in the way of our goal for the moment.    

Inside the dollar store, the assistant manager adds his regret, wishing that a coin operated box would have been installed on the restroom doors, another very popular destination for the pre-rally crowd with their bladders full of Starbucks. He added that those proceeds could have been donated to Planned Parenthood, another planned funding victim for the candidate down the street. Down the street, a budding entrepreneur was hawking Romney-Ryan T-shirts, buttons and stickers, obtained free from campaign headquarters, for a hefty mark-up. Through the wonders of modern technology, he was able to accept payment at his little cart on the street in the form of credit or debit cards. I wonder how far such technology would have progressed if our nation hadn’t funded the space program back in the 1960’s? So much of the technological wonders that we take for granted today are a direct result of that noble ambition spearheaded by President Kennedy over fifty years ago. But hey, who needs big government now, right?

At the rally, the newspaper reported, The Oak Ridge Boys, with their bizarrely long, gray beards waving in the brisk wind, performed the National Anthem. One of our County Commissioners, a former high school cheerleader-turned-politician introduced a nun that led the opening prayer for the event of mainly Protestant onlookers. Other local politicians took their turn at the podium, building up excitement for the night’s main guests, who had yet to arrive. Back at the dollar store at the corner, the State Trooper who had been dozing in his SUV in the parking lot for hours suddenly stirred and performed the one duty expected of him. He blocked traffic at the intersection for the motorcade speeding on its way from the airport to the baseball field. Then he vanished into the night, freeing up one precious parking space at the store for anyone unimportant enough to wish to shop at a store catering to lower-income types. Inside the store, the manager watched the endless procession of flashing lights speed by and jokingly whispered to his assistant that a well-placed RPG could do a lot of good for the country right now. The independent had momentarily morphed into a would-be anarchist, but only for a moment, and only in his dreams.

Less than an hour later, fireworks filled the sky, announcing the end of the festivities and sending the crowd home filled with hope for a bright future under the leadership of the multimillionaire Leveraged-Buyout-King who would-be President. As the BOOM-BOOM-BOOM of explosions from the pyrotechnic light show rattled the glass at the dollar store, the manager and his assistant watched the procession returning to their illegally abandoned cars in the parking lot of their empty store. None of them came inside to make a purchase, or offer an apology for their rude decision to take what wasn’t theirs. Outside, the store’s employees were saying farewell to one of the night’s last customers, a young man who had spent all day setting-up the event. He was now heading back to clean up the mess, fortified by a candy bar and an energy drink, and facing a sixteen-hour workday, for minimum wage. The assistant manager called out to him: “Say hello to Thurston for me!” The young man stared back blankly. “You know, Thurston Howell III,” he added, hopeful that the youngster would make the connection between the clueless fictional millionaire from TV’s Gilligan’s Island and the candidate who had just spoke. The reference may have been lost on the sugar-amped event worker, but an older woman, walking by and carrying a “Romney-Ryan” sign, was unable to repress her smirk. Good thing she has a sense of humor, because she’ll need it if her candidate gets elected: things don’t look too hopeful for her gender under Romney. Perhaps she’ll be lucky and end up in one of Mitt’s “Binders Full of Women”.

North Canton, Ohio, may seem a strange choice for a Republican rally. Right in the center of the city’s square sits the former Hoover Company, a pioneer in the production of vacuum sweepers. They used to make great products: the area is full of sweepers forty, and even fifty years old, that still work fine. There’s one in the closet at my house. The city lost 2,400 jobs when the plant closed and its jobs were sent to Mexico and China (the same sort of thing that Bain Capital has been doing to American jobs for years). But the city has always been on the conservative side. McCain won North Canton in the last election, although the current President carried the county and the state. The city has one of the two best public school systems in the county, with Jackson Township (that Friday night’s football opponent) having the other one. That night at the rally, the candidate spoke about his plan for a voucher system that would allow people the freedom to send their kids to any charter school they wanted. However, the citizens watching had moved to this city so that their kids could attend one of the best public schools in the area. Go figure.

In his speech, the candidate agreed that the President had inherited a poor economic situation when he took office (yes, only the worst one since the Great Depression). He didn’t mention that it was caused by Republican tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of financial markets, which he has previously promised to do again (worked so well the first time). Romney went on to say that President Obama’s policies were not working to improve our financial condition. However, two days earlier in the local paper’s Business Section, headlines reported that the area’s jobless rate continued to decrease (6.5% currently in our county vs. 8.6% a year ago), as well as a headline that said: “US soon may become the world’s top oil producer.” In addition, the paper reported that a new retail operation was planned for a rural area in the county, and a new extended stay motel (the kind favored by visiting business people) was planned for the county’s main commercial district. If I’m not mistaken, all of those things point to positive growth in the economy. Seems like something must be going right, doesn’t it?

The would-be leaders of the free world were whooshed out of town as fast as they could be after the rally, as their now freezing supporters strolled back to wherever they had abandoned their expensive automobiles. If the staff at the dollar store had been a little less fearful about an adverse reaction from the corporate office, they would have blessed each bumper on the illegally parked cars in their lot with an “Obama-Biden” bumper sticker. But that would have been nasty, and they’re really much nicer guys than that. And even though they work at rather menial positions at a dollar store catering to lower income customers, they may have a better idea of what’s good for the country that they love as anyone attending the rally that night.

Oh, by the way, a little later that night the North Canton Hoover High Vikings defeated the Jackson Polar Bears by a score of 42 to 7, giving them a berth in the high school football playoffs. It’s important to remember things that really matter to a community. I hope that when the residents of my hometown are driving to the polls on Election Day, they will drive past the abandoned factory in the Town Square and think of the good jobs that were sent to foreign countries by LBO specialists like the guy running for president. And I hope they do remember what’s best for them and their country.  

    Budding entrepreneur at Romney-Ryan campaign event, hawking merchandise from his cart. Handheld technology allows him to accept credit and debit cards.

Oak Ridge Boys perform national anthem at North Canton Rally

Osso Buco and the Downside of Risk

I was at the supermarket today and had already put some diced prosciutto in my cart for the Spaghetti Carbonara that I was going to make for tonight’s dinner, when I saw the veal shanks in the meat case. I thought about buying them in order to make Osso Buco, but passed them by, probably because the recipe calls for several items that I wasn’t sure that I had at home, and it takes a long time to make it properly. If you’re unfamiliar with the dish, and find yourself in a good Italian restaurant that offers it, give it a try. Basically, it’s slow-cooked crosscut veal shanks in a wine sauce. Tasty stuff.

I can’t think of Osso Buco without remembering the first time I was ever made aware the dish’s existence. I was 16 or 17 at the time, and my brother was going to school at West Palm Beach Junior College (at least he was enrolled there, no strong evidence exists of any significant attendance on his part) in Florida. Mom, Dad and I flew down around Thanksgiving to visit him, and the first night we were there, we went across the bridge for dinner at a nice Italian restaurant in Palm Beach, where the really rich people live.

Even at my young age, I was not a stranger to fine restaurants. We dined regularly at the Mergus in Canton, which had a menu more than a dozen pages long, offering well-prepared specialties from various cultures, and my parents were kind enough to take me along to other great restaurants wherever we visited. The place we found ourselves at in Palm Beach was only mildly intimidating, with tuxedo-clad waiters (no waitresses) and a suitably dark and refined atmosphere. The menu had mainly recognizable entrees, and we sipped our cocktails (losing one’s hair at a tender age does have certain advantages, along with having liberal parents) and scanned the offerings, each of us making our choice in silence, without discussion.

The waiter came to take our orders in his very professional manner. Mom went first (we later learned that her menu didn’t have prices on it, since she was the lady and thus unconcerned with such trivial matters), then Gary and I, and finally Dad gave his order. “I’ll have the Osso Buco,” he said with the utmost confidence.

“Ah,” the waiter smiled his approval with a knowing nod of his head, then added, “the gentleman knows what he wants.”

We handed back our menus and waited until the waiter had returned to the kitchen before one of us asked: “What’s Osso Buco?”

“I have no idea,” Dad confessed. We all got a good laugh out of that, especially considering the waiter’s comment.

But it didn’t really matter to him. He reasoned that a dish listed as a “specialty of the house” in a really good restaurant would probably taste somewhere between good and exceptional, and he was right. His portion was adequate enough that he allowed us all a taste. I’ve ordered it in a few other restaurants, and made the dish at home, and I’m pretty sure that the first time I tasted it was the best I’ve ever had.

You see, there are times when it makes good sense to take a risk and try something new. What is there to lose? If Dad found his entrée lacking, he could always order a spectacular dessert (we had already seen the dessert cart circulating the restaurant and it was packed with goodies). He might be out the cost of his meal, but it was only a relatively small price to pay for an experiment that had a really good upside potential.

There are other choices we make in life that have more far-reaching consequences, and far worse negative outcomes. I’m reminded of the guy I knew who voted against every single incumbent in office, then found out that he had voted against his own interests in several cases. We face major choices in the upcoming election as well.

The incumbent candidate for President seems to have a less than stellar record with regard to our nation’s economy, until you consider the situation he faced when he took office. Having faced a financial abyss brought on by the previous administration’s lax oversight combined with a love of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy, our current President has done the best possible job that he could, under the circumstances that he operated under. Our largest bank, once on the verge of bankruptcy and requiring government assistance to stay solvent, has declared a record a profit. It cited an improving housing market as a major contributing factor. Manufacturing is improving, and unemployment is gradually trending downward.

The challenger in the race for President says that his opponent hasn’t done enough, and promises more action. He has promised that cutting taxes for the truly wealthy of our country will free-up capital that will be used to create more jobs. He doesn’t add that more action will only be possible with cooperation from our legislature, which currently has a terrible record for both action and cooperation.

What is the right solution? Who gets the most precious thing we have to offer in this situation: our vote? I read recently that history is circular, and often repeats itself. Having seen this phenomenon, I tend to agree. History tells us that cutting taxes for the wealthy usually results in a large amount of money seeking speculative investments, not in job creation. If tax cuts did work as promised, why did we just go through the most adverse economic period since the Great Depression? The wealthy got their tax cuts, but we got the Housing Bubble and a stock market crash.

The last time we had a two-term Democrat for President, we got a budget surplus, a healthy economy and more peacetime jobs created in the private sector than at any time in our nation’s history. The last time we had a two-term Republican we got the Housing Bubble and the Financial Meltdown. The time before that, a two-term Republican left us with a devastated Savings and Loan industry, a ballooning deficit and a stock market crash.

Former Governor Romney has made lots of promises, but they are built on a foundation of speculation and half-truths (not to mention a few outright falsehoods). True, he seems so reasonable and so presidential. He better, he has billions of dollars of the best media money can buy behind him. The one thing he lacks is a strong foundation in historical perspective. Our past experience points to the flaw in his argument, but are enough people paying attention to reality? Let’s hope so.

So what do you plan to do with your vote? Should you throw caution to the wind and try something new? When Dad did that at the restaurant, he knew that if he left hungry there was a McDonald's that he could stop at on the way back to his hotel. If you try that at the polls this election, you may not even be able to afford to stop at McDonald's in the near future. Choose wisely.

Osso Buco (veal shanks)

   

Damned Bureaucrats

It’s a familiar scene, a staple for sitcoms, and an annual event on “The Simpsons”: a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Busy people stymied in their effort for a renewed driver’s license by dimwitted, agonizingly slow bureaucrats.  A woman watches as an elderly gentleman, responding to the call of his number, slowly shuffles up to the desk. My god, she thinks, they’re not going to renew that old fossil’s license, are they? Lord help him if he gets in the way of my gargantuan SUV when I’m late for brunch at TGI Friday’s, and the special on cheap mimosas ends at noon. I’ll run the old bastard off the road and do society a favor. Oh wait. Looks like he failed the eye test. Good, now send him on his way and call my number. I’ve got more important things to do. Hurry up you damn bureaucrat! The word “bureaucrat” has taken on a bad meaning in our vocabulary, immediately associated with a needlessly ponderous government functionary. A new acquaintance in a bar may tell you that she “works for the government”, but will never say, “I’m a bureaucrat.”

Ronald Reagan was our 40th President and was known as “The Great Communicator”. He is remembered for telling us that the most dangerous words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” He also said: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” as well as: “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.” Obviously, he wasn’t a big fan of government, nor bureaucracy. Reagan is remembered fondly by Republicans, primarily for lowering the top rates for income tax, not once, but twice. The first time he lowered the top tax rate, it was considered too high, and the economy improved. The second time he did it, economists warned him that he shouldn’t do it. After he went ahead with it anyway, the stock market crash combined with the Savings and Loan Scandal (caused by an easing of government oversight as well as an excess of newly freed-up investment money in search of a good bet) wiped out the savings of many hard-working Americans.

The truth is that no one is a fan of “big government”, myself included. As we sit waiting at the DMV, we think: if only the government didn’t interfere so much in our lives. Consider the woman in the example above leaving the DMV with her new license (fuming over the poor likeness in the photograph, no doubt). She climbs into her SUV, and likely forgets that the fees she just paid help to fund the nicely paved roads that speed her to her destination. She doesn’t associate that the traffic lights and police officers that keep her trip safe do so by means of a functional government bureaucracy. Sadly, like many of us, she has a short memory. The truth is that there are many aspects of peaceful existence on this planet that requires more than the effort of a single person, or even a group of like-mined individuals. An even bigger truth is that the best way to run a government is through bureaucratic controls.

It would be a mistake to allow free market economics control such functions. Suppose a wealthy man’s limousine ran a red light and crashed into our harried SUV driver? Would it be OK if he could offer a large payment to the arresting officer to forget the whole thing, even though his driver was at fault? No, that wouldn’t be fair. We need the government to equalize the situation in order to protect what is right. We hear a lot of talk these days about the need to privatize Social Security and Medicare. What worries me most is that we would surrender any type of control in these situations to a free market that is populated by human beings. Human beings are by human nature predisposed to their own self-interest. That means we are greedy by nature, and don’t always do what is right for everyone unless something compels us to do right. Deregulation may be more efficient, but in the long run it may not be the most effective course of action.

Today’s paper had several news stories that caught my eye, and all had a common theme. The first story concerned a report published by the Government Accountability Office. In case you forgot (or perhaps are just so busy that you don’t care), the GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. The report in question concerned the emerging technology of getting gas and oil from the process of hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking. Environmentalists are concerned that fracking will have adverse consequences on our groundwater, which is a major source of our drinking water. The report stated that the part of the drilling process called fracking has not been identified as a cause of groundwater contamination. No doubt proponents of fracking will seize on this portion of the report as proof of the safety of the process.

However, the report went on to say that risks to the water supply have been found to exist from migration of underground gases and chemicals. In one case a faulty seal on a gas well allowed gas to build up and migrate into the local aquifer, contaminating wells used for drinking water. Contaminated wastewater from the drilling process can also leak into aquifers from faulty well casings and other studies have shown air quality problems around gas wells. The industry points out that the practice is safe when it is done properly. Government officials echo this claim, and point to recently strengthened regulations to assure us that fracking will be done safely. Another report indicated that it was a challenge for state regulators to hire and retain the staff needed to police the newly strengthened regulations. In other words, they can’t find enough well trained bureaucrats, and when they do, private industry will likely pay them more money to come work for them.

A second news story focused on a recent deadly outbreak of meningitis that has been linked to contaminated pain injections from compounding pharmacies. Pharmaceutical compounding (done in compounding pharmacies) is the creation of a particular pharmaceutical product to fit the unique needs of a patient. Since the recent outbreak, Congress is seeking more authority over the industry, citing a lack of specific laws and uncertainty over how much power the FDA has to regulate compounding pharmacies. Experts see the current state of inactivity and Congressional gridlock as preventing any significant action in this regard anytime soon. Perhaps not enough people have died yet for Congress to actually act, or maybe they think deregulation will work best in this case, since bureaucrats might just muck things up worse.

So what is a bureaucrat? German sociologist Max Weber defined a bureaucratic official as the following: “He is personally free and appointed to his position on the basis of conduct. He exercises the authority delegated to him in accordance with impersonal rules, and his loyalty is enlisted on behalf of the faithful execution of his official duties. His appointment and job placement are dependent upon his technical qualifications. His administrative work is a full-time occupation. His work is rewarded by a regular salary and prospects of advancement in a lifetime career. He must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately he is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice his personal judgment if it runs counter to his official duties. Bureaucratic control is the use of rules, regulations, and formal authority to guide performance. It includes such things as budgets, statistical reports, and performance appraisals to regulate behavior and results.”

Are you still awake? I know, even the definition tends to bore you to death. But do you think that we need to regulate certain aspects of our lives for our own personal safety and well being? If so, then we need bureaucrats. Unfortunately, we also need to reward them amply. The next time you see a story about some former government retiree making a decent pension with great benefits, remember that he or she was once a thankless bureaucrat, working to ensure your safety or even protecting your life.

The last story that caught my eye this morning doesn’t directly deal with bureaucracy, but is concerned with regulation. The Republican candidate for President of the United States has called for a loosening of federal regulations relating to banks. This is the sort of deregulation that led to the Financial Meltdown of 2008, when many of our major banks were on the verge of becoming insolvent, and had to be rescued. These banks included JP Morgan Chase Bank, the nation’s largest bank, which received $94.7 billion in federal bailout money, which has since been repaid. The article reported a record profit for JP Morgan of $5.3 billion, in excess of what had been forecast for the third quarter of 2012. The results were helped by a surge in mortgage lending, with the CEO commenting that the housing market “has turned a corner” and is improving.

This little blurb points out some very fundamental points relative to the upcoming election. The first is the claim of the opposition party that our economy is unsound. Their policies of deregulation almost caused the collapse of our entire financial sector. Now they’ve said that they’d like to have another go at it. It seems to me that if our housing markets are improving and our banks are earning record profits, maybe the economy isn’t so bad after all. The second point is that we had to have big government in order to bail out this bank. If it hadn’t done so, the results would have been difficult to comprehend. Massive unemployment, unprecedented lost savings, and a worldwide depression of enormous proportions would have been likely. Just because the economy suffered, and times have been tough on us all, don’t make the mistake in thinking that it couldn’t have been worse. If we allow for less regulation, it’s likely that it will get worse again.

So next time you’re at the DMV, remember to smile and thank the person behind the counter for their service. You’ll show a better and more informed view of their function as bureaucrats in keeping our lives in order, and your driver’s license photo might look better, too.

“Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge.”

— Max Weber

Willard's Second Week (a short story)

President Willard swiveled in his new chair in the Oval Office, obviously enjoying the well-lubricated mechanism of the seat of power. The telephone on his desk buzzed. He stared at it quizzically for a moment, sat the cup in his hand down on the desk and then shouted in the general direction of the phone, “Yes?”

“The Vice-President to see you, sir,” the female voice on the intercom announced.

“Send him in,” the President replied.

“Paul, come in. Sit down. Beautiful day, isn't it?”

“Very nice, sir. Much warmer than Wisconsin this time of year. Had to get past a pretty colorful group of protesters at the White House gates though.”

“Colorful? Were they minority groups?”

“No, sir,” the VP chuckled. “It was Big Bird and some of the other Muppets from Sesame Street.”

“Oh, you mean because I cut funding to PBS? I told Lehrer that I was going to do that. Shouldn't have been a big surprise. Besides, PBS actually educates people, and we can’t afford too much of that, can we Paul?”

“No sir, we don’t really want a well-informed electorate. Could spell the doom of our party. So anyway, how was your weekend, sir?”

“Just splendid. The boys are still in town, and we all went to church together. The bishop told us that we doubled the size of his normal choir. How about you Paul? Did you manage to find a nice service for your family?”

“I didn't go to church sir.”

“Really?” the President looked surprised. “Aren't you a Catholic?”

“Only during the election season sir. I’m really a follower of ‘Objectivism’. We don’t have regular meetings.”

“Objectivism? What’s that?”

“It’s a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. It’s based on ‘rational selfishness’.”

“And they say Mormonism is a cult,” Willard muttered under his breath. “You know, I've been thinking about finding jobs in the government for my boys. Think we could do that? I’m a firm believer in public service, you know.”

“All of your boys, sir? We might have to expand the government to do that,” Paul chuckled nervously.

“Well that shouldn't be a problem, should it? All of the Presidents do it, don’t they?”

“Well…you did campaign on the concept of reducing the size of government, sir.”

“Oh fiddlesticks!” Willard chortled. “Every President breaks campaign promises. The people expect it.”

“If you say so sir…”

“Can I get you a cup of this stuff?” he asked his visitor, holding up his own cup. “It’s really amazing. I feel energized when I drink it. They tell me the White House would cease to function entirely if we didn't serve gallons of it every day.”

“Yes sir, it’s called coffee,” Paul replied. “It’s quite popular.”

“Never had the stuff before. Help yourself,” Willard gestured to the sterling silver coffee service on the table in front of his desk. The Vice-President poured himself a cup, and then topped-off his boss’s cup as well. “Have you seen my desk? They tell me it used to be a boat at one time.”

“Yes sir, it’s called ‘The Resolute Desk’. President Kennedy made it very popular when they took photos of his children playing under it.”

“Kennedy, huh?” Willard scoffed. “Wasn't he an adulterer and a Democrat?”

“I believe that is true sir.”

“I was never unfaithful to Ann, you know.”

“Can’t imagine you ever had the time sir.”

“Maybe I’ll get rid of this desk. I can do that can’t I?”

The Vice-President nodded in agreement. “I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to redecorate anyway you want, sir.”

“Maybe I’ll get something sleek and modern. I sure don’t need all these drawers. Can’t imagine I’ll need to store much of anything. Except for this,” he added, holding up the ‘veto’ stamp. “I’m going to keep this close at hand, just in case those pesky legislators manage to pass something that wasn't approved.” Willard looked mysteriously skyward, as if at some unseen power.

“Well, that really hasn't been a problem so far, sir.” Paul smiled. “They've done everything we've asked for so far. Repealed Obamacare, tax cuts for the super-rich, a hike in taxes for the middle class, a huge increase in defense spending. We've got everything in place to privatize Medicare and Social Security. It’s been quite a successful honeymoon period for you sir. Now we’re ready to put the rest of your programs into place.”

The President stared back blankly at his visitor. “What programs are those, Paul?”

“You know, sir. Like Romneycare, your own version of a national healthcare system.”

The President looked around and lowered his voice, as if his every word and action were monitored by an unseen force. “That was never…approved, Paul. I just said that to get elected.” He then spoke up, smiling. “I said lots of things during the campaign that I didn't really mean. Don’t even remember most of them.” The Vice-President’s eyes widened in disbelief. The President’s intercom buzzed again. “Yes?” he shouted back at it.

“The Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor are here to see you, sir.”

“Send them in.” Two conservatively dressed gentlemen entered the Oval Office, and were offered coffee by the Vice-President. Both declined.

“I’m afraid we’re facing some fallout over the Iran situation, sir,” SecDef began.

“Fallout? What do you mean?” the President replied.

“Well, sir,” SecDef continued, “most of the world is a bit upset about us using nuclear weapons against Iran, without warning and all.”

“We didn't nuke Iran,” Willard protested. “That was the Israelis.”

“But we used our planes, sir,” the NSA added, “and our bombs.”

Willard’s eyes sneakily swept the room before returning his gaze to his new visitors. He then whispered: “But they were stealth bombers.”

“Yes sir,” SecDef rolled his eyes. “But apparently an Iranian spy saw them land in Tel Aviv before the mission.”

“Spies?” the President seemed perplexed.

“Yes sir,” his NSA added, then explained, “seems the Middle East is full of them. Fairly ubiquitous in fact.”

“Then there’s also the matter of the actual fallout sir. It seems that a vast cloud of radioactive material is now sweeping across India and heading directly toward China. I've heard that they’re both pretty pissed-off at us right now,” SecDef added.

“India and China?” the President mused. “What do they matter to us?”

The Defense Secretary and National Security Advisor exchanged a worried glance, and then the NSA spoke up. “Their combined population is about 2.6 billion people sir. That’s almost one-third of the world’s population.”

“Oh,” the President answered, still unsure of the consequences. Just then his intercom buzzed again. “Yes?” he shouted toward the device.

“The Secretary of the Treasury is here to see you, sir.”

“Send him in,” the President replied wearily.

“Sir, I’m afraid we've got big troubles,” SecTreas began without the usual pleasantries. “The capital markets are collapsing. The Dow lost half of its value already, including all of last week’s big increase. I've already ordered all of the exchanges closed until further notice. I’m afraid the bubble burst a bit prematurely. Oh, and I just heard that China is demanding that we repay all of our debt to them immediately.”

“Oh no,” Willard moaned, “that will wipe us out.”

“Not really sir,” SecTreas explained. “The Chinese hold only about 8% of our total debt. That’s really the least of our problems right now. It will increase our borrowing costs a bit, if we can still borrow from anyone, that is. We may actually have to default on our debt obligations. Seems most of the rest of the world doesn't want to do business with us right now.”

“Eight percent? So that was true then. I thought the Democrats just made that up. You know, like most of the figures I used during the campaign.” The President’s intercom buzzed again. “Yes, what is it?” he screamed at the device.

“Your personal financial advisor is here to see you sir.” The woman’s voice responded wearily.

“By all means, send him right in,” Willard beamed.

“Sir,” the Vice-President interrupted. “Do you really think that’s wise? We seem to be dealing with important matters of national security right now. Besides, I thought all of your personal wealth was held by blind trusts.”

“Well yes, Paul, they are held in blind trust,” the President explained. “But I’m not looking at my money, am I? Just discussing it. The trusts are blind, not deaf and dumb.” Willard acknowledged the bespectacled newcomer to the room, and offered him a cup of coffee, which he declined. “What have you got for me, Smithers?”

The accountant glanced around the room, recognizing the powerful men standing next to him, and gulped before beginning. “Well sir…um…we’re in a bit of a fix right now it seems…um…the banks sir…the off-shore banks…in the Caymans, and Ireland? Well…it seems they've nationalized the holdings of all American investors.”

“What?” Willard exploded, “even mine?”

“Especially yours, sir. Seems they’re blaming you for the new worldwide financial collapse.”

“Worldwide financial collapse? When the hell did that start?”

The accountant checked his watch before replying. “About thirty minutes ago, sir.”

“What about Switzerland? Certainly the Swiss didn't nationalize my accounts. They do business with everyone.”

“That’s right sir. Those funds are safe. Your Swiss bankers noticed a small uptick in the U.S. Treasury Bond futures market last night and put all of your money in good old, safe T-Bills.” The accounted smiled for a moment, until he observed the stricken look on the President’s now ashen face.

“But we’re about to default on all of our debt obligations you idiot! I’ll be completely broke!”

“Oh…that is bad news. Perhaps you’ll excuse me for a moment, sir? I've got some other calls to make. I need to switch some of my really rich clients into gold futures.”

As the accountant beat a hasty retreat through the door of the Oval Office, with his cell phone at his ear, the President’s intercom announced the arrival of the Secretary of State, who entered the office before waiting for the boss’s OK.

“Ah, I’m glad I've found you all here,” SecState observed. “Paul, the helicopter’s outside ready to take you to your secure location in West Virginia. Everyone else come with me, we've got to get to the underground bunker right now. Seems the missiles are in the air and we’re under attack.”

“Do you have any orders for us, sir?” SecDef asked.

Willard appeared shell-shocked, blinked twice, then responded: “I don’t know. Just do whatever it is you normally do.” In the hall, as he headed for the elevator surrounded by his Secret Service detail, he heard the  alarms going off. Then he realized that they sounded exactly like his alarm clock.

Willard opened his eyes, and feeling the 1000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheet beneath him, rolled over to face his wife.

"Good morning, dear," her smile was bittersweet. "Did you sleep well dear? You seemed to be moaning right before your alarm went off. Are you alright?"

"Fine dear, just fine...the election...I didn't...?" he remained a bit groggy, having gone to bed much later than he was accustomed.

"No dear...Don't you remember?"

"Yes...of course. Just a bad dream is all...Ann, we're still rich aren't we?"

"Yes dear, as far as I know. We have more this morning than we did last night. Just like every morning."

"Good."

Note to readers: Willard's Second Week is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any similarity of the characters to persons alive or dead, events, or locales is purely coincidental, and not intended.