Saturday, May 4, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1917

    Declining Dollar’s Many Dangers

    The dollar is lower again against the euro Tuesday, so that one euro is now worth $1.13, a fresh four-year high for the European currency. The dollar has lost almost 19 percent of its value against the euro in the past year and 6 percent of its value against the Japanese Yen. It looks set to weaken further, posing dangers for the United States and the rest of the world.

    There is a simple reason for the dollar’s fall. The United States has had a large deficit on current account (the broadest measure of trade, including services, like tourism, and dividends) for several years. The annual deficit in 2002 was its biggest ever, at half a trillion dollars. Close to 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Capital inflows into the United States used to exceed the current account deficit and the “extra” demand for dollars tended to push its value up. But now that is no longer the case. Capital inflows are not sufficiently high to offset the current account deficit and the US currency is weakening.

    It is a trend that poses dangers for the United States and for the whole world economy.

    In the first place, the falling dollar might be seen as positive for the United States. U.S. companies’ output is made cheaper for foreign buyers, while foreign buyers themselves lose competitiveness in the American market. A weaker currency should help the United States to export more and will tend to reduce its imports as consumers in the United States find domestic produce cheaper relative to imported goods. The huge current account deficit should decrease. Greater balance will be achieved. This is how free currency movement can be a good thing.

    Usually, however, a falling currency, also poses a threat, of higher inflation, because the cost of imported goods rises when the currency — the dollar, in this case — loses value. But, at present, inflation does not appear much of a danger to the U.S. economy. The annual consumer price inflation rate in the United States rose to 3 percent, reflecting the influence of higher oil prices prior to the Iraq war, but the so-called core inflation rate, which excludes volatile energy and food prices, is down to just 1.7 percent.

    Statements made by U.S. Federal Reserve Bank officials suggest it is the threat of deflation, in which prices actually fall, that has been troubling them, more than the threat of inflation.

    But the falling dollar does pose other dangers. The United States’ ability to grow in the past ten years despite the current account deficit has hinged on capital inflows. In the late 1990s huge amounts of foreign investment poured into the United States, some of it “direct,” purchasing companies or merging with them, some of it “portfolio,” placing money in stocks and bonds. The inflows helped to feed the boom in U.S. stocks and the economy that lasted until 2001.

    Since then both stocks and the economy have faltered and foreign capital inflows have slumped. Yet it might be argued that the United States needs those inflows now more than ever. For a second deficit is emerging, a fiscal one, as President George W. Bush raises spending, primarily on defense, and cuts taxes. In the current 2003 fiscal year, which began last October, the deficit is officially projected at a little over $300 billion but seems more likely to be of the order of $400 billion. The deficits, fiscal and on current account, need financing. Foreign money is important to both.

    But will foreign buyers be as keen to buy U.S. government securities, or corporate bonds or stocks if the dollar looks likely to fall further? For the Japanese or European buyer, any return on U.S. assets will be eroded if the dollar is plummeting against the Yen or the euro.

    The risk this carries for the United States is that a lack of foreign buyers of Treasuries and other U.S. assets drives down the prices of bonds and stocks. Falling prices for Treasuries drive up their yield and push up other long-term interest rates. The U.S. housing market, which has benefited in the past two years from some of the lowest mortgage interest rates ever recorded, would be vulnerable. A final bastion of the U.S. economy could be undermined and recession would become likely.

    Meanwhile, for the rest of the world, the falling dollar creates danger, too. It means, for example, that European and Japanese exports will be pricier in the United States. Growth in Germany and France, and even more, in export-dependent Japan, is going to be hurt.

    And that, too, will have knock-on effects. If growth is lower in Europe and Japan, demand for commodities and goods worldwide will be affected. Commodity prices may weaken. The poorer countries of the world are particular victims of that.

    And the United States, too, will not be unaffected. If European and Japanese growth proves weak because of a loss of exports to the United States, then demand for U.S. exports will not be buoyant, even if the declining dollar makes American products cheap.

    The world will be paying a price for relying on the U.S. engine for too long. That engine has worked too hard to keep the U.S and the world economy humming. Its deficits are signs of that. They cannot be cut without pain being felt all around.

    ”’Ian Campbell is the chief economic correspondent for the United Press International and can be reached via email at isc@eudoramail.com”’

    The Secret To Achieving Targeted Businesses Growth

    0

    Joseph had reached the end of his rope.

    It had been just 10-months since he launched his residential construction business when Joseph was referred to me. As we completed his “New Player Benchmark” (all clients at RPM Success Group are considered “players” in the game of business) Joseph was expressing how frustrated he was and questioning whether he’d make it to the one-year anniversary for his company. When Joseph started to list the methods of marketing he had applied up to that point, I immediately saw why he was so frustrated.

    Joseph had fallen into a common trap that many business owners fall prey to.

    There are literally hundreds of ways to market your business and create surging streams of new prospects and clients. But all those methods boil yield three specific impacts – the only three ways to grow your business.

    Each and every marketing method you will ever employ will (primarily) either:

    *Increase the number of clients you serve.
    *Increase the number of times you serve them in a week/month/year.
    *Increase the total dollar amount of each sale.

    Choose a great marketing method that doesn’t match the type of growth your business needs and your success will be uncertain at best. Joseph knew what his goals were, but he didn’t understand how each marketing method he chose would grow his business in a different way.

    For example, one area Joseph put quite a bit of energy into was a customer referral program. He promoted it to everyone he met, provided excellent incentives to his few current clients and even placed ads touting the benefits of working with a contractor who grew their business through referrals vs. pure marketing. While all these efforts were rooted in a proven low-cost, hi-impact marketing principle – investing nearly 50% of his marketing resources into this method was not having the impact on the business that Joseph had intended.

    Joseph had matched a great marketing method (incentive based referral system) with the wrong goal (bringing in a significant volume of new prospects.) While this method would have been an excellent tool to compliment other methods, it should not have been the primary way Joseph expected to quickly grow his business from scratch. As a new business owner, Joseph’s job was to focus on #1 from the above list – increasing the number of clients he attracted so he could build a critical mass of satisfied clients who would help him achieve the type of exponential growth he was looking for.

    To correct this, what Joseph and I did together (and what you will need to do yourself) was to clarify exactly what his current stage of growth was and what his immediate goals were. Joseph and I sat down and developed a simple strategic plan that would allow him to attract a significant number of pre-qualified prospects while simultaneously build up his back end. Armed with this strategy, Joseph and I were able to look at a targeted number of ways he could achieve this specific goal.

    The choice he made was to meet with a new window manufacturer in his area and form a strategic partnership deal that would feed him plenty of new “basic” installation jobs. It turns out that more than 60% of those window replacement clients added on at least $5000 in additional work to the core work – plus they were now Joseph’s clients, not the manufacturers. Within just 9-months Joseph had the critical mass he needed to attract more business than he could handle without one dollar being spent on advertising.

    Once you understand your growth stage and know what your marketing goal is for that stage, then (and only then) will you be able to choose the best marketing method to use.

    For instance, let’s say you’re an established retail business and you have a solid base of satisfied clients. They visit your store and buy every time they come in – but they visit irregularly. You can employ a more varied set of marketing methods with different impacts on growth. Actually, I’d advise you to employ at least three marketing methods so you can exponentially increase your business growth.

    You’d want to:
    *Simultaneously attract more new clients (maybe with a special sale);
    *Increase the frequency of purchases made by clients (possibly starting with something simple like a frequent buyers club);
    *Increase the total of each purchase made.

    This last point is not what you think though. You don’t have to raise prices. Actually you can lower individual prices and still increase the total of every sale you make. (Need a hint how? Can you say “value meal”?…)

    Many people ask what I mean when I say exponential growth. Here’s a pretty straightforward explanation.

    If you only increase one of the three areas by 10 percent you’ll grow linearly – a total growth for the business of 10 percent. But if you grow all three areas by 10 percent you’ll grow geometrically – a total exponential growth of 33.3 percent. The point is that growth of 33.3 percent in any one area is a serious challenge. But increasing growth by just 10 percent in each area is pretty painless with the right methods.

    No matter what stage of growth you’re at, most of the growth goals you have can be met by using low-cost, hi-impact marketing principles. That means lower investments in your marketing with higher returns.

    Stop restricting your growth, accepting dismal returns on your efforts and spending more money on marketing that you need to. Start on the road to exponential growth today. Simply determine your specific growth stage, clearly define your immediate growth goals and then step outside the box of conventional marketing to pick the best, low-cost hi-impact marketing method that will help you get there.

    ”’John-Paul Micek is the lead business strategist and COO of the leading international business coaching organization RPM Success Group

    America Faces Troubling Economic News-What the Bush Administration is Proposing to Fix the Economy, Create More Jobs

    0

    ”’The president spoke today in Washington D.C. about his plans to boost the American economy”’

    The Tax Relief Coalition is a broad group, united by the commitment to the spirit of risk-taking. You understand the free enterprise makes this economy go. You understand the role of government is not to create wealth, but an environment in which the entrepreneur can flourish. You understand that our duty here in Washington is to set pro-growth policies in place that reward and respect Americans who work hard and take risks. That’s what you understand.

    I appreciate your understanding, and I’m glad you’re here because you’re here at just the right time. You see, Congress is now considering what to do. Congress is debating the package. They’re trying to figure out what course to take. And I’m glad you’re bringing your voices to the halls of Congress, and can be a loud voice, as both the Secretary and I understand, and that’s going to be important in the halls of Congress.

    Last Friday, we received some troubling economic news. The unemployment rate is now at 6 percent. The news ought to serve as a clear signal to members of the United States Congress that we need a bold economic recovery plan.

    Congress will hear from me. Congress will hear from the Secretary. Congress needs to hear from you. We need tax relief that creates the greatest number of jobs.

    The goal is to create a million new jobs by the end of next year. I’ve submitted a good, strong plan that will help meet that goal. The United States Congress must not only listen to your voice, but must listen to the voice of somebody looking for work. We need aggressive action out of the United States Congress now.

    I want to thank our Secretary of Treasury, John Snow. He’s experienced; he’s capable; he’s able. He just as — he could easily have looked me in the eye and said, no, I don’t want to serve my country. I think I’m kind of happy where I am in the private sector. But, no, he said, Mr. President, I want to serve the country. And our country is better off because John Snow said yes. Mr. Secretary, thank you.

    I want to thank my friend Dirk Van Dongen, who’s been a tireless advocate for policies that help people looking for work. He’s the President of the Tax Relief Coalition. I want to thank all the members of the Tax Relief Coalition who are here, who have joined us, who realize that democracy can work if you work at it. And I appreciate you coming.

    I want to thank Tom Donohue, who is the President and CEO of the Chamber, for lending this fantastic hall and this beautiful building for — lending us this for the purposes of making a statement to the country about our mutual desire to help people find a job.
    I want to thank all the entrepreneurs who are with us today, the risk-takers, the — really, truly the engine of growth for the American economy. We’ve got the Brindley boys here from Vienna, Virginia. I’m going to say something about them a little later on.

    They started what they call Jammin’ Java. The good news is, Jammin’ Java is succeeding. I had a chance to visit with them before we came in, as I did with the Rickards, as well, who have got their own business. I’m going to say something about them a little later on.

    The reason I point them out is there are people in this audience who own their own business, who are part of the ownership society in America, who are creating new jobs. So, for all the entrepreneurs who are here with us and all across America, thank you — thank you for working hard to realize your dreams.

    America is a strong and confident nation. And those qualities are seeing us through some challenging times. For nearly 20 months we have waged a relentless campaign against global terror. For 20 months, we have done what the American people expect, and that is to hunt down the killers, one at time, so that America is more secure. We are winning the war on terror.

    And as a part of the war against terror, we removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Thanks to the skill and courage of our military and other coalition forces, America is more secure, the world is more peaceful, and the Iraqi people are now free.

    We will continue to meet our responsibilities to secure America. We will continue to dismantle the al Qaeda network. We will continue to promote the peace. We will continue to promote freedom, because we know a free society is one that is more likely to be a peaceful society. We assume those responsibilities. We’ll follow through on our responsibilities.

    And here at home, we have responsibilities. As we press forward on national security, we must promote job security here in America. Our goal is a vibrant and growing economy. That’s our goal — in which the entrepreneur can find new opportunities, in which every person who wants to work can find a job. That’s the stated goal of this administration. It’s I know a goal that you share, as well.
    The American economy has faced one challenge after another over the past several years. The stock markets peaked in early 2000.

    The economy began to slow in the summer of that year. In early 2001, our economy was in recession. And then we got attacked by the terrorists, and that affected our capacity to grow. And we’ve endured the uncertainty of war. We’ve seen failures in corporate responsibility across America. Unfortunately, some of our citizens forgot what it means to be a responsible citizen of this country. They didn’t tell the truth.

    They didn’t tell the truth to their employees and their shareholders. They self-enriched at the expense of small investors and public interests. In every case, we’ve taken action to confront these challenges.

    Our economy is growing. We’ve got many strengths in our economy. First, the economy is growing because interest rates are low. I want you to know that in spite of all the hurdles and the challenges we faced, we’re still growing faster than nearly all the industrialized countries.

    And interest rate — low interest rates help because it helps Americans buy a home, or refinance, or remodel a home. And that helps. That helps create employment opportunity. Inflation is low, and that helps. Energy prices are now falling. That’s like tax relief on a daily basis when you go to the pumps.

    We’ve got two great strengths even better than the statistics I just cited — one, the entrepreneurial spirit is strong. And secondly, we’ve got the best workers in the world in America. Last year, productivity growth in America was about 4.8 percent. That’s the best annual increase since 1950.

    When you’re talking about productivity increases, you’re really talking about technology, and more importantly, the human capacity of the work force. Our workers are great. The best in the world. But even with the strengths I just outlined, it’s important for members of Congress to hear from you that we’ve got more work to do, that’s there unmet potential in this economy. It’s not growing fast enough. In spite of the strengths, there’s still people looking for work, and we’ve got to do more. And that’s the message I want you to take to the halls of the United States Congress.

    This isn’t the first time I’ve been talking about this subject. Four months ago I sent a jobs and growth package to the Congress. That was four months ago. And we’ve seen some progress since then, and that’s good news. First of all, both parties, in both Houses of Congress, now recognize that tax relief helps create jobs.

    That’s important, that both Houses understand that when somebody keeps more money, they’re likely to demand a good or a service, when they have more of their own money to spend. By the way, when you’re up there, remind them something that you and I know is true; the money we talk about in Washington D.C. is not the government’s money, it is the people’s money.

    And so the debate is not if there is going to be tax relief, the debate now is how much tax relief. And when they ask you, how much do you think, citizen, what you ought to say is, enough to make sure that we create a million new jobs by the end of 2004. That’s the definition of the right amount.

    The definition of the right amount is not some theory, is based upon theory, it’s based upon the practical application of tax cuts, and it ought to be based in human terms. The right answer for how big the tax cut ought to be is a million jobs. That’s the right answer. And that’s the package I submitted to the United States Congress.

    The good news is many in this room have already been through the tax relief exercise in recent history. Many of you in this room were involved in the spring of 2001 to convince Congress to pass tax relief. And it’s a good thing you were involved, and it’s a good thing they did, because the tax relief helped make the 2001 recession one of the shortest and shallowest in America history.

    The issue we now face results from the fact that Congress phased in tax relief over 10 years. In other words, they passed tax relief, but it was going to be incremental. My proposal would get the tax relief into effect this year.

    Our motto is this: If tax relief is good for Americans years from now, it is even better when the American economy needs it today.

    Instead of lowering all tax rates little by little, the Congress needs to do it all at once, and needs to do it now. Instead of gradually reducing the marriage penalty, we should do it now. Instead of slowly raising the child credit from $600 to $1,000, we ought to do it now. And we should send the extra $400 per child to American families this year.

    You’ll hear all kinds of rhetoric about how this plan is not fair. Well, let me just describe to you what it means to the family of four making $40,000 a year. It means their taxes would go from $1,178 a year to $45 a year.

    That’s what that means. That sounds fair to me.And it will sound really fair to the family making $40,000 a year. You see, that’s $1,000 not just one year, but for every year. It’s $1,000 of that family’s own money coming back into their personal treasury, so they get to decide what to do with the money. They get to decide whether to save for a college tuition. They get to decide whether to prepare for retirement. They get to decide how to make their family stronger with their own money.

    It’s also important for your message to understand — it’s important for your message to understand that this tax relief will help 23 million small businesses create new jobs. Any good tax relief plan must understand the role of the small business in American economy.

    This plan says loud and clear to the Congress, we understand the role of the entrepreneur; we understand most new jobs are created by small business owners. And this plan directly affects small business, because most small businesses pay taxes at the individual tax rates. You know why? Because they’re either a sole proprietorship, or a limited partnership, or a Subchapter S corporation. All three of those entities pay tax at the individual tax rates. So when we reduce individual tax rates, we help the bottom line of every mom-and-pop business in America.

    When we accelerate the tax rate reduction, it really means we’re putting capital into the treasuries of the small businesses all across America. More capital means more investment. More investment means more jobs. If Congress is interested in job creation, if you want to join us in creating a million new jobs, cut the tax rates on the small businesses all across the country.

    Our tax code should also support small business owners who want to invest in the future. So today, a small business can deduct $25,000 for investment in new equipment. The proposal that you’re advocating there in the halls of Congress, the proposal I have submitted, says that we would triple the amount of expensing new equipment, from $25,000 to $75,000 per year, and index that to inflation. (Applause.)
    I mentioned the Brindley boys were with us today, from Vienna. They — let me talk about — they help define the entrepreneurial spirit in America. They started their business right after September the 11th, 2001. Those are confident people.

    Those are people that said, we’re not going to allow a terrorist attack to diminish our dreams to have our own business. I appreciate not only the courage, but I appreciate this — that they have gone from five employees to 25 employees.

    Here’s what Luke says. Luke says, “Buying equipment is something we need to do in order to grow the business, in order to stay up with competition. Any break we get obviously encourages us to hire more people and buy equipment.” In other words, tax relief will be used by the Brindleys to buy new equipment. And when they buy new equipment, it means their work force becomes more productive. It means they can compete better in the marketplace. It also means that somebody has got to make that equipment. And when somebody makes the equipment, somebody is finding work. In other words, good tax policy ripples throughout our economy.

    And Randy and Harriet Rickard are with us. I cite these examples because Congress must understand that behind the numbers is just people that are taking risks for the sake of creating jobs. The Rickards are here; they started their own business three years ago. It’s a home remodeling business. Randy runs a tight ship. He’s got — he’s got four employees, and he’s one of them. He comprises 25 percent of his work force.

    But that’s the nature of most small businesses. People who are working hard, people who are expanding, people who are providing a good or a service.

    This proposal that we’ve proposed will save him nearly $2,400 every year. That’s enough to help pay health insurance for employees, or it’s enough to add a new truck, to make sure his business is competitive. He says, anything is helpful. “If the economy does well, I do well.” Well, Randy, this plan is all aimed at making sure the economy does well, so you can do well. And when you do well, somebody is going to work. That’s the whole basis of the plan.

    The jobs and growth plan would encourage investment by ending the double-taxation on dividends. Taxing profits at the corporate level is fair. That’s fair. Somebody makes a profit, that profit ought to be taxed. However, when the profits get distributed to the shareholders, and it gets taxed again, that’s unfair. It’s counterproductive.

    Ending the practice makes the tax code fair. It makes it fair especially for our seniors, who receive more than half of all taxable dividend income.

    Economists say that this move will boost the stock market. That’s what the economists say. Not all, but a lot of the smart ones say that. In other words, there’s a wealth effect that will take place. An increasing stock market means a lot for many of our fellow citizens, because we are becoming an ownership society. Many people own stocks directly.

    Many people own stocks through their pension plans. Many people will be directly affected by an increasing stock market. And so getting rid of the double-taxation of dividends will help an ownership society realize more wealth. Getting rid of the double -taxation of dividends will be good corporate reform.

    We went through a period where people said, invest in my company because I happen to have a good story; I may not have any cash flow, but I’ve got a good tale to tell. The problem — the new economics sometimes overlooked old accounting. And that is, when you run out of cash, it doesn’t matter what the story is like. A dividend-paying society is one that says, I’ve got a good story, and oh, by the way, is I’m going to distribute on a regular basis cash out of my treasury in the form of a dividend.

    Getting rid of the double-taxation of dividends will be good corporate reform. It will make our balance sheets more reliable. It will be better for small investors. It will also help create new jobs. We estimate that 400,000 new jobs will be created when we get rid of the double-taxation of dividends. So when you hear people say the proposal only helps a certain investor class, they’re not telling the whole story. Ending the double-taxation of dividends will help 400,000 people find work by the end of next year.

    The House of Representatives is considering a proposal that would include all the elements of the growth plan which I just described to you. It would also significantly reduce the double-taxation on dividends. It’s a positive step. And they’re making progress. I’m going to continue to work both with the House and the Senate, with the goal of making sure as many people can find work as possible. But the more the members of Congress here from you, the more likely it is that this plan is going to pass.

    What you need to do is tell them what tax relief will do for our country; if you own your company, how much it will help your company grow; how many jobs that you’ll be able to create with tax relief. That’s what you need to tell them.

    You’ll also hear talk about the deficit. And, yes, we’ve got a deficit because we went through a recession. You see, a recession means you get less money coming into your treasury. When the economy goes down, there’s less tax revenues coming to the Treasury.

    Secondly, we’ve got a deficit because we’re at war. And one thing is for certain about this Commander-in-Chief, we will spend whatever is necessary to win the war.

    We owe it to every soldier in the American military to make sure they’ve got the best pay, best equipment, best possible training. We owe it to the families of the military to make sure that they’re as well protected as possible. So our expenditures went up because of the emergency in war, and revenues went down. That’s the ingredients for what they call a deficit.

    And there’s two ways to deal with that deficit, in my judgment. One is to hold the line on spending. I submitted a bill to the — I submitted a budget to the United States Congress which holds the discretionary spending to 4 percent. That’s a reasonable level. We, of course, will work with Congress to make sure they stick to that budget — control spending on the one hand, and on the other hand, in order to get rid of the deficit, you boost revenues coming into the Treasury by encouraging economic growth and vitality.

    I’m concerned about the deficit, but not as concerned about the deficit as I am about people trying to find work. I’m more worried about the person looking for work. And, therefore, we’ve got a plan that is robust and strong, that encourages economic vitality and growth, so our fellow citizen can get to work and get to work soon.

    You all can make a difference in this debate. Not only the people present in this room can make a difference, but people who are listening across the country can make a difference. That’s why they’ve got emails — or telephones, or in some cases, buses.

    People on the Hill are responsive to the voice of their fellow citizens. So thanks for coming, to be a part of a process that distinguishes — that really distinguishes us in many ways from many parts of the world, a process in which the citizen can make a difference. Part of the process that says democracy is by far the fairest way for people to live. And that’s what we believe.
    We believe strongly in certain principles. We believe in the dignity of every single human being.

    That’s why we want to make sure — that’s why we care when we hear somebody can’t find a work. That’s why we grieve when a fellow citizen who wants to work can’t find a job, and that’s why we’ve put policies out there that promote growth and economic vitality. But we not only believe in the dignity of every American, we believe in the dignity of every person. See, we believe that freedom is the Almighty God’s gift to each and every person on this — who lives on this globe. That’s what we believe.

    You’re representing the best of a free society. The willingness to speak out really does speak to the great freedoms of America. And we hold those freedoms dear. We believe in freedom not only for our own people, but we believe in freedom for those who are enslaved. We believe so strongly in freedom that we’re willing sometimes to take risk for not only our own freedoms, but the freedoms of others. That’s the great thing about our country. We’re a strong country; we’re a confident country; but we’re also a compassionate country that believes in values and principles that will endure the test of time.

    Thank you for coming to Washington to exercise your freedom. May God bless you all, and may God bless America.

    From Feeling Left Out to Being Late

    0

    “Suzanne Gelb Image”

    ”Left Out – Why Don’t I Fit in?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    Recently I attended a workshop with my peers. As I was driving to the workshop I realized that I had strong feelings of not fitting in or feeling welcome at the workshop. Why would I feel that way when my credentials entitled me to be there?

    Left Out

    Dear Left Out:

    I believe that it is so valuable to learn the lesson that credentials have nothing to do with self love, self worth and self respect. It is not uncommon for children who are raised in an environment where caregivers did not teach them that they matter and what they have to share matters, to develop into adults who do not feel like they fit in, be that intellectually or socially. The old saying, “children should be seen but not heard or have anything to say about what adults talk about” can be so destructive. Children then get the message that they should not interfere with the adults’ conversation and that what they have to say is not important. Unfortunately many carry this negative message into adulthood, and it can manifest with feelings of insecurity, and then when they have something to share as an adult, that insecure attitude tends to default.

    The key is for children to be engaged and involved with interactions, and for adults who missed out on that experience to begin to acknowledge that what they have to share and say does matter and is worth listening to.

    ”Missing Out – Why Does it Bother Me?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    I get so bothered when I’m late for an appointment because of something unforeseeable like car problems or even unexpectedly heavy traffic. Why can’t I let go of being bothered, rather than seething on the inside for hours about missing out?

    Bothered

    Dear Bothered:

    For many people, the bother that you describe often has its roots in a fear of being thought of as untruthful. This invariably is linked to some aspect of childhood conditioning, where a child was either punished for not telling the truth, or disbelieved, even when they told the truth. The feeling of rejection is one of the most painful emotional experiences someone can have. This is why it is important to allow inner authority (self-confidence) to be one’s keeper. Then how other people judge us and think of us can be accepted as an opinion, and not be associated with some type of fault-finding.

    ”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

    ”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

    ”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

    Putting it on the Governor's Desk

    0

    The lights have been turned out at the state capitol and lawmakers have scurried home to escape the fall out of their actions and now it is up to the governor to deal with the mess left behind by lawmakers. Unfortunately, it seems that many, and in particular the business community, have put their bets on the governor to stop bad legislation from becoming law. Among the measures that may be vetoed is the proposal to impose a new tax on everyone in the state for the purpose of funding a long-term care insurance program.

    It is amazing that lawmakers would support raising nearly $100 million in new taxes through the long-term care proposal while fiddling with all kinds of schemes to balance the state budget. On one hand, lawmakers decried the loss of services for the poor, cuts to education, and reductions to public safety. They raided special funds to help balance the budget, took the proceeds of fees paid by professionals for licensing and sapped the fund that is supposed to help people acquire their first home.

    The long-term care proposal is patterned somewhat after Social Security, but instead of the contribution being based on a percentage of a person’s wages, it is a flat dollar amount per month — initially $10 per month rising to $23 per month by 2011. As a result, it is a regressive tax, that is $10 to a low-income family is a larger percentage than it is for a high-income wage earner. Indeed, the new tax will be a true burden on the poor and middle-income families of the state as any single person earning more than $10,000 in gross income or a couple earning more than $16,000 will be subject to the new tax.

    And in their drive to make the proposal more palatable, the proponents added features like making the amount paid into the program tax deductible and providing a tax credit to those who buy their own private long-term care insurance. Those features favor largely upper-income taxpayers as middle- to low-income taxpayers probably are better off taking the standard deduction at the federal level and barely have enough deductions to make it attractive to itemize deductions at the state level.

    As for the tax credit, if a person has the means to afford long-term care insurance on his or her own, they would probably be in a higher income bracket. Thus, the tax benefits of the bill favor upper income taxpayers while those at the lower end of the income scale will just end up paying the tax and having no tax benefits.

    And speaking of benefits, it should be remembered that any income tax benefit means that it is that much less that will accrue to the state general fund, the fund where the state is having all of these shortfalls. So the tax benefits created by the long-term care proposal will mean less money for schools and less money for human services. The net effect is that the general fund will be subsidizing the long-term care fund.

    As noted earlier, the proposal is patterned after the Social Security model where there are enough contributors to the fund to match and cover the benefits paid out. However, as anyone who was around in the 1970’s knows Social Security has needed several fixes and a number of tax increases to keep up with the benefits paid out. As the baby-boomer generation ages, the prospect that Social Security will be able to pay the benefits grows even more doubtful. This long-term care plan will eventually become the big black hole that Social Security is.

    Proponents might argue that future rate increases won’t be necessary because the money will be invested and should produce enough income to forgo rate increases in the future. First of all, the rate increases are already established by the legislation, rising to $23 a month by the year 2011. Second, if the contributions are to earn any kind of decent return, it is a certainty that they will have to be invested outside the state. Think about it, $100 million or more a year will have to be sent outside the state to earn the money to pay for the benefits. That’s $100 million that could have been spent and invested in Hawaii. So instead of bettering the economy, proponents have driven another stake into the heart of the economy.

    And the economy? Well, here is one more thing with which employers will have to contend. Proponents believe that this new tax will just be filed like any other income tax. Not so, the employer will have to keep track of which employee worked enough hours this month in order to make the $10 contribution, attach that record to a Social Security number and reconcile it at the end of the year. Yes, it will add to the cost of doing business.

    The long-term care issue needs to be addressed. The problem with the proposal currently on the governor’s desk is that it will ensure that there will be automatic tax increases in the future as the funding scheme fails. It deserves to be vetoed.

    ”’Lowell L. Kalapa is the president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, a private, non-profit educational organization. For more information, please call 536-4587 or log on to”’ https://www.tfhawaii.org

    Putting it on the Governor’s Desk

    0

    The lights have been turned out at the state capitol and lawmakers have scurried home to escape the fall out of their actions and now it is up to the governor to deal with the mess left behind by lawmakers. Unfortunately, it seems that many, and in particular the business community, have put their bets on the governor to stop bad legislation from becoming law. Among the measures that may be vetoed is the proposal to impose a new tax on everyone in the state for the purpose of funding a long-term care insurance program.

    It is amazing that lawmakers would support raising nearly $100 million in new taxes through the long-term care proposal while fiddling with all kinds of schemes to balance the state budget. On one hand, lawmakers decried the loss of services for the poor, cuts to education, and reductions to public safety. They raided special funds to help balance the budget, took the proceeds of fees paid by professionals for licensing and sapped the fund that is supposed to help people acquire their first home.

    The long-term care proposal is patterned somewhat after Social Security, but instead of the contribution being based on a percentage of a person’s wages, it is a flat dollar amount per month — initially $10 per month rising to $23 per month by 2011. As a result, it is a regressive tax, that is $10 to a low-income family is a larger percentage than it is for a high-income wage earner. Indeed, the new tax will be a true burden on the poor and middle-income families of the state as any single person earning more than $10,000 in gross income or a couple earning more than $16,000 will be subject to the new tax.

    And in their drive to make the proposal more palatable, the proponents added features like making the amount paid into the program tax deductible and providing a tax credit to those who buy their own private long-term care insurance. Those features favor largely upper-income taxpayers as middle- to low-income taxpayers probably are better off taking the standard deduction at the federal level and barely have enough deductions to make it attractive to itemize deductions at the state level.

    As for the tax credit, if a person has the means to afford long-term care insurance on his or her own, they would probably be in a higher income bracket. Thus, the tax benefits of the bill favor upper income taxpayers while those at the lower end of the income scale will just end up paying the tax and having no tax benefits.

    And speaking of benefits, it should be remembered that any income tax benefit means that it is that much less that will accrue to the state general fund, the fund where the state is having all of these shortfalls. So the tax benefits created by the long-term care proposal will mean less money for schools and less money for human services. The net effect is that the general fund will be subsidizing the long-term care fund.

    As noted earlier, the proposal is patterned after the Social Security model where there are enough contributors to the fund to match and cover the benefits paid out. However, as anyone who was around in the 1970’s knows Social Security has needed several fixes and a number of tax increases to keep up with the benefits paid out. As the baby-boomer generation ages, the prospect that Social Security will be able to pay the benefits grows even more doubtful. This long-term care plan will eventually become the big black hole that Social Security is.

    Proponents might argue that future rate increases won’t be necessary because the money will be invested and should produce enough income to forgo rate increases in the future. First of all, the rate increases are already established by the legislation, rising to $23 a month by the year 2011. Second, if the contributions are to earn any kind of decent return, it is a certainty that they will have to be invested outside the state. Think about it, $100 million or more a year will have to be sent outside the state to earn the money to pay for the benefits. That’s $100 million that could have been spent and invested in Hawaii. So instead of bettering the economy, proponents have driven another stake into the heart of the economy.

    And the economy? Well, here is one more thing with which employers will have to contend. Proponents believe that this new tax will just be filed like any other income tax. Not so, the employer will have to keep track of which employee worked enough hours this month in order to make the $10 contribution, attach that record to a Social Security number and reconcile it at the end of the year. Yes, it will add to the cost of doing business.

    The long-term care issue needs to be addressed. The problem with the proposal currently on the governor’s desk is that it will ensure that there will be automatic tax increases in the future as the funding scheme fails. It deserves to be vetoed.

    ”’Lowell L. Kalapa is the president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, a private, non-profit educational organization. For more information, please call 536-4587 or log on to”’ https://www.tfhawaii.org

    Performance Audit of the Management of Capital Projects by the City Department of Design and Construction-Report 2003-2, April 2003

    0

    ”Findings and Recommendations”

    The Department of Design and Construction was established by the 1998
    reorganization to centralize the City’s construction function. At the
    close of FY 2002, the department managed over 1,000 ongoing projects
    and construction contracts totalling $579 million in value.

    The objective of this in-house audit by the Office of Council Services
    was to assess the management of capital projects by the department and
    develop recommendations to address any weaknesses identified.

    *1. The Department Manages Its Projects in an Ad Hoc Manner. Policies and procedures for managing projects have not been established, resulting in questionable change orders, inconsistent project oversight, and problems for client agencies.

    Recommendation: the department should adopt written policies and
    procedures on project management, provide training, and monitor
    compliance. The policies should minimize change orders during
    construction, require the work authorized pertain to the project, and
    preclude change orders after project completion. The department
    should consider enabling a single project manager to oversee all
    phases of a project through completion. The policies should also
    define the role of client agencies in approving project plans and
    designs.

    *2. The Department’s Project Information is Incomplete and Inaccurate.

    Incomplete and inaccurate information in the department’s project
    files and in reports on capital projects hinders project oversight by the department, City Administration, the Council, and the public.
    Recommendation: the department should establish written policies and
    procedures controlling project documents and controlling record
    keeping by both employees and contracted project managers. Project
    files should include a project summary identifying all project
    managers and other participants, initial budgets and timetables, current
    status, appropriations and expenditures to date, and all required studies
    for the project.

    ”Agency Response”

    The Department of Design and Construction generally agreed with our
    report. However, it maintained that it was not responsible for budgeting
    capital projects, approving change orders, selecting project consultants,
    and reporting project status or expenditures. It also stated that it does
    hold consultants responsible for any errors or omissions. We stand by
    our report.

    *3. The Department’s Workload, Coupled with the City’s Appropriation Deadline, Leads to Rushed Plans, Impaired Bids, and Unnecessary Change Orders.

    The heavy workload has delayed the start of work on each year’s new
    projects, so design work is rushed, plans and specifications go out to
    bid that are incomplete or contain obvious errors, consultants are not
    held responsible for mistakes, and ad hoc methods are used to prevent
    funds from lapsing.

    Recommendation: Construction funding should be budgeted in the
    year following the budgeting of planning and design funding,
    consultants should be held responsible for their work, and the City
    Administration should exercise its existing budget allotment authority
    to match project workload to the existing project management
    resources.

    *4. The Department Failed to Provide Complete and Accurate Information for this Audit.

    During this audit, departmental staff denied current involvement with
    the projects audited even though documents, client agency staff, and
    written approvals of contract amendments showed otherwise.
    Requested information was denied to the auditor and official City
    project documents were discarded.

    Recommendation: The department should adopt a policy ensuring
    auditors have access to all files, records, staff, and contractors, that
    employees and contractors are familiar with laws and policies relating
    records tampering, records retention, and audits, and that serious
    consequences result for employees and contractors who violate those
    laws and policies.

    ”’Audit reports of the Office of Council Services (OCS) are available at the City Clerk, City library, state library, state archives, and the University of Hawaii library. An electronic copy of the report is also published on the OCS audit section Web page:”’
    https://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/council/ocs/audit

    The Democrats Smell a Repeat of 1992 in the Making

    The Democrats smell a repeat of 1992 in the making: A president named Bush has high approval numbers coming off a successful war against Saddam Hussein but with an economy in trouble. They couldn’t be more wrong, for one, simple, all-important reason: George W. Bush is ”’not”’ George H.W. Bush.

    Popularity: #41’s popularity was never assured. Yes, he crushed Dukakis in the 1988 election, but he nuked the Republican base in 1990 when he went back on his no-new-taxes pledge by signing on to that stupid tax increase. The 90 percent high coming off the Gulf War truly was a temporary bounce. By running a terrible campaign that misread public angst over the economy, and having already stuck it to his base, #41 was vulnerable to Perot’s candidacy, which sapped far more votes from Bush than it did from Clinton. Consequently, Clinton won with a mere 43 percent of the vote.

    His son, however, is popular in his own right. Unlike the 1991 Gulf War, 9/11 did not produce a temporary bounce. #43 already had a base of just over 50 percent during the first eight months of his presidency. He has done nothing to make his base abandon him. In fact, he scored a huge pre-9/11 victory through the passage of his tax reform plan. After 9/11, he added greatly to that base – and his overall job approval has never sunk meaningfully below 60 percent. Sixty percent in any election these days can be considered a landslide.

    Another factor: most people trust #43. Agree with him or not, most find his transparent, consistent plain-spoken honesty refreshing. He hasn’t given us any reason to doubt his word.

    The economy: The economy during the last year of #41’s term was in recovery. In fact, the recession was a very mild one, but you’d never know that from listening to the “mainstream” media and the garbage from the Clinton team about the “worst economy in the last 50 years.” Worse, you never heard it from #41’s campaign, either.

    Contrary to Democrat and media belief, the today’s economy is not terrible. It’s just not growing fast — now. It’s been under pressure since the last year of Clinton, when the boom began turning into an echo. Then came 9/11 and then the corporate scandals. Those three events would have happened regardless of who was in the White House. The majority of people know that, and don’t blame Bush.

    Had the corporate scandals not happened, we would have recovered already from 9/11. The corporate scandals hurt public trust in business, and that trust won’t be reinstated overnight. The Iraq question has weighed down the market for months. But now that it’s been settled overwhelmingly positively, the market is starting to rebound. Witness how the Dow has stayed above 8,000 since it became clear that the US would win quickly and big in Iraq. The economy will take off shortly. Bush’s tax plan will have the affect of kicking in the afterburners, because reductions in taxes and tax rates, by freeing up capital, always result in more tax money coming in. Democrats know this, but they cannot ever let Bush or any Republican win on this argument, else part of their reason for being will dissipate like so much smoke.

    9/11: Any Democrat who thinks the state of the economy will defeat Bush is a fool, because such calculations leave out the 9/11 demarcation line. The terrorist attacks were as much of a dividing line between “then” and “now” as were the Revolution, the Civil War and WWII. “Everything is different now” is a clich

    Peer-to-Peer Pressure -Recent Threats from Recording Industry were Foolish at Best

    The recent threat from Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), intending to scare Internet music swappers was, at best, foolish, and at worst, an invitation for rebellion. Don’t these people read their history? It may be a bit much to compare the prohibition of peer-to-peer music swapping to the prohibition of alcohol in the Twenties, but at least one basic lesson might have been learned: To attempt to stop what people want and can readily produce will only exacerbate the situation.

    Is the RIAA going to follow through with the threat to identify offenders and drag thousands of them into court? Of course not. And do swappers believe they are really at risk? Of course not. The RIAA, now seen as a bunch of greedy whiners in an industry that already exacts exorbitant prices for the most banal productions, have irritated cyber-pirates the world over. Any effort by the government to intervene will multiply the problem, as happened with the temporary death of Napster, now bigger and better in the forms of Morpheus, Grokster, and Kazaa. If the authorities get tough, or even kill Napster’s successors, new techno-babies will be born. Under the heavy hand of the courts or the corporations or the feds, the swappers will learn to be very covert, to hide their computer addresses, to create fictitious profiles, to produce encoded names for the insiders, and so on (all doable right now). No company would be able to keep up with them; no agency either.

    Attempting to change the behavior of music downloaders will not work. We can’t even stop people from killing their own babies, and we’re going to make them feel bad about stealing a little music? Most people involved don’t believe they are stealing; the music’s already on the airwaves, they say — how is this any different?

    I have yet to see any solid evidence that music swapping has a significant impact on sales. It may be a convenient excuse to cover all kinds of ills in the music industry, such as the prevalence of mediocre artists whose talents are overrated. But even if it is hurting sales, there’s no stopping the swapping.

    So is there a solution? An old adage will suffice: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

    The music industry should work with the peer-to-peer folks, building in incentives for people to buy what they are downloading. Many downloaders like the packaging that comes with the music, so it needn’t be a hard sell. (I once had a taped recording of Brian Eno’s Before and After Science, and later went out to buy the album when I heard it came with ready-for-framing art prints.)

    If I were in the music industry, I would form alliances with the peer-to-peer businesses and, for example, start counting how many times swappers download new releases. Not to spy on them, but to sell to them. If they reach a certain number of downloads, they earn coupons to buy CD’s at a discount. That would drive them to the stores (on-line or traditional) and other sales would result.

    The music industry needs to be ahead of the technology, not behind it. It should prepare itself for the inevitable, the day when music (and film) is digitally on-demand. Already I can sample my DVD’s via Netflix; why not the same with CD’s? And how long will it be before I can forget the disc altogether and listen to CD’s via web jukeboxes?

    Bottom line: The RIAA and others in the entertainment world need to get over themselves and start rethinking their business models. If they don’t, some innovative, young Grokster will.

    ”’A. M. Siriano AMSiriano.com is with the Frontiers for Freedom based in Washington DC and can be reached at:”’ mailto:siriano@amsiriano.com

    Grassroot Perspective – May 5, 2003-Rule Doesn't Aid Privacy; FDA Chief's Novel Mission: Cut Americans' Drug Costs; Teaching the Virtues

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – Rule Doesn’t Aid Privacy

    By Sue A. Blevins

    Source: USA Today, 4/10/03

    “What would you call a federal regulation that gives more than 600,000
    doctors, insurers, and data-processing companies permission to share
    your medical records without your consent?” asks Sue Blevins, president
    of the Institute for Health Freedom. “The U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS) calls it a medical privacy rule.” Her recommendation: “Rather than implement a new rule that eliminates patient consent and gives greater decision-making power to the federal government, medical privacy should be ensured through private contracts between patients, doctors and hospitals. Such contracts should be enforceable under state laws, with damages awards going to patients – not governments.”
    Full text:

    https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-04-10-oppose_x.htm

    For a good history of how the medical privacy rule evolved, see Blevins’ article in the Christian Science Monitor. Full text:

    https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0415/p09s01-coop.html

    – FDA Chief’s Novel Mission: Cut Americans’ Drug Costs

    By Leila Abboud and Laurie McGinley

    Source: The Wall Street Journal, 4/16/03

    Dr. Mark McClellan, a physician and the first PhD economist to serve as
    commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, ” is trying to make
    health care, especially prescription drugs more affordable” by speeding
    the approval process, The Wall Street Journal reports. “His goal, he
    says, is to make the FDA’s drug-review process quicker and more
    efficient, thereby reducing the escalating costs of drug development.”
    Toward that goal, he is bringing in more economists to assess the costs
    and benefits of FDA regulations, moving quickly to have an independent
    review of the drug-review process, and changing the guidance for reviews
    of cancer products. Full text online at Wall Street Journal, subscription required.

    Above articles are quoted from Galen Institute, Health Policy Matters, April 18, 2003 https://www.galen.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – Teaching the Virtues

    By William J. Bennett

    William J. Bennett is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation,
    co-director of Empower America and chairman and co-founder of K12, an
    Internet-based elementary and secondary school. He has a B.A. from
    Williams College, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Texas and
    a law degree from Harvard. In 1981, President Reagan chose him to head
    the National Endowment for the Humanities, and in 1985 he was named
    Secretary of the Department of Education. In 1989, President Bush
    appointed him director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He
    has written and edited 14 books, two of which — The Book of Virtues and
    The Children’s Book of Virtues — rank among the most successful of the
    past decade. His latest book is Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War
    on Terrorism.

    Teaching the Virtues

    When I was Secretary of Education under President Reagan, I visited an
    elementary school in Raleigh, North Carolina. As I did at many of the
    120 schools I visited during that period, I taught a lesson there on
    George Washington. Afterwards, I asked the kids if they had any
    questions, and one little guy raised his hand and asked, “Mr. Secretary,
    when you and President Reagan and the other people get together at
    meetings of the Cabinet, do you really eat Jelly Bellys?” He’d heard
    about Reagan’s penchant for Jelly Belly jelly beans. I answered, “Yes,
    the president has a bowl of jelly beans at the meetings, and he eats
    some and passes them around, and I’ve had a few.” And this kid looked me
    in the face and said, “I think you’ve had more than a few, Mr.
    Secretary.”

    This was quite funny, and I remember President Reagan laughing when I
    told him about it. But the story also makes an important point. Do you
    recall when Gorbachev was visiting the U.S. and trying to figure out
    what America was like? He went walking up and down Connecticut Avenue,
    and he went over to the National Archives to look at documents. But he
    should have gone to that elementary school in Raleigh. I can guarantee
    you that never in the history of the Soviet Union did an eight-year-old
    look into the eyes of a heavyset minister of education and say, “I’ll
    bet you eat all the caviar you can get your hands on.” Maybe the kid’s
    comment was a little fresh — a little over the top — but it showed that
    the ethos of liberty is in our hearts, and that is a good and important
    thing. But of course it’s not the only good and important thing.

    Later, when I was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
    — or Drug Czar, as some called me — I visited about 140 communities and
    heard over and over a much different concern. Whether I was talking to
    teachers, school administrators, parents, cops or judges, they wanted to
    know: Who’s raising the children? What kind of character do our kids
    have? Who’s paying attention to their morals? A judge in Detroit once
    said to me: “When I ask young men today, ‘Didn’t anyone ever teach you
    the difference between right and wrong?’ they answer, ‘No sir.’ And you
    know, Mr. Bennett, I believe them. It is a moral vacuum out there.” I
    remember teachers in the public schools asking, “Can you help us develop
    some materials that we can use with our kids to teach them right from
    wrong?” Isn’t that ironic? The public schools of this country, which
    were established principally to provide common moral instruction for a
    nation of immigrants, were now wondering if this was possible. Many
    people expressed the concern that we had become so enamored of our
    economic and material success that we were neglecting more important
    things. Someone wrote me a letter and said, “If we have streets of gold
    and silver, but our children do not learn to walk with God, what will we
    have gained?”

    Three Ways of Teaching Virtue

    Some of us, frankly, had our doubts about whether this moral dilemma
    could be solved. I authored a series of studies called the “Index of
    Leading Cultural Indicators,” which, instead of measuring inflation or
    interest rates, measured things like school dropout rates, drug
    addiction, illegitimacy, divorce, SAT scores and crime. A lot of the
    numbers were quite alarming. I wrote in the introduction to one of the
    studies that if we kept moving in the direction we were going, this
    great republic — this great experiment in self-government — could
    conceivably unravel. So “teaching the virtues” seemed very much to me
    then, and still seems to me today, a concern of prime importance for the
    American people. And I think the answer regarding how to teach the
    virtues is pretty straightforward. Aristotle had a good read on it, and
    modern psychology and other contemporary studies back him up: We teach
    by habit, we teach by precept, and we teach by example.

    Aristotle says that habituation at an early age makes more than a little
    difference; it can make almost all the difference. So if you want kids
    to learn what work is, you should have them work. If you want them to
    learn what responsibility means, you should hold them responsible. If
    you want them to learn what perseverance is, you should encourage them
    to persevere. And you should start as early as possible. Of course, this
    is harder to do than to say. Being a parent and teaching these things is
    a very rigorous exercise.

    Precepts are also important. The Ten Commandments, the principles of
    American democracy, rules of courteous behavior – these and other lists
    of rights and wrongs should be provided to young people. But as we
    provide them, young people need to know that we take these precepts
    seriously. That leads to the third part of teaching virtue that
    Aristotle talked about, which is example. And that, probably, is the one
    we should emphasize the most. I have been to school after school where
    the administration thinks it can solve its “values problem” by teaching
    a course in values. I don’t believe in courses in values. I don’t think
    that’s the way to go about solving the problem. If we want young people
    to take right and wrong seriously, there is an indispensable condition:
    They must be in the presence of adults who take right and wrong
    seriously. Only in this way will they see that virtue is not just a
    game, not just talk, but rather that it is something that grown-up
    people, people who have responsibilities in the world and at home, take
    seriously.

    Let me give you an extreme example of the futility of precept in the
    absence of example. More than once I’ve been in schools where they are
    teaching a “virtue of the week.” In one such school, the virtue of the
    week was honesty. There had been a test on honesty, and the teacher told
    me that she had had to prepare a second test because she had caught so
    many students cheating on the first. We are missing the point of the
    enterprise here. Our children won’t take honesty seriously until we
    grown-ups demand honesty of ourselves and others, including our leaders.
    Needless to say, the Clinton years were not good years for impressing
    the virtue of honesty on our kids.

    The Lessons of 9/11

    Along these same lines, there are many lessons to be drawn, it seems to
    me, from the events of September 11, 2001. They are teachable events,
    and there is much in them for young people to learn. Many sophisticated
    or pseudo-sophisticated people have been nursing the idea for years that
    concepts like right and wrong and good and evil are outmoded. But we saw
    these things in full force on 9/11. We saw the face of evil and felt the
    hand of evil, but we also saw the face of good and felt the many hands
    of good, and our kids saw and felt these things, too.

    We also saw the sinew, the fiber, the character of the American people.
    I am not just talking about the firefighters and the cops. I’m talking
    about the people associated with Xavier High School who died trying to
    rescue and help people. I’m talking about those folks on American Flight
    93 – the American businessmen traveling across the country with their
    laptops. These are the guys who are the butt of humor for every aspiring
    pseudo-intellectual and every Hollywood filmmaker who wants to run down
    America. Life in the suburbs, according to these so-called elites, is
    full of emptiness and desolation and misery. Perhaps I am overstating
    this, but the middle-class American businessman has been the target of
    an awful lot of criticism from an awful lot of directions for an awful
    lot of years. When the chips were down, though, these businessmen did
    pretty well, didn’t they?

    I was reading an updated transcript a couple of weeks ago in which one
    of the four men who rushed the cockpit on Flight 93 said to the person
    on the other end of the phone line, “We are waiting until we get over a
    rural area.” They knew what was likely to happen, so they were waiting
    in order to minimize the death toll. What extraordinary human beings
    these ordinary Americans turned out to be.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, I am re-thinking some of the things I wrote a
    couple years ago about the American character. I had feared, frankly,
    that we had drifted so far from the ideas and principles of our Founding
    Fathers that their understanding of nobility had become but a dim
    memory. Certainly it remains true that the words and deeds of George
    Washington and of the other great figures of American history are not
    sufficiently vivid in the minds of our kids, or even of too many of our
    adults. Nevertheless, 9/11 provided pretty compelling evidence of the
    solid virtues we Americans retain.

    The Importance of Learning

    In conclusion, let me connect my point about teaching by example to
    another 9/11 story. You have probably seen Mrs. Beamer on television –
    Lisa Beamer, the wife of Todd Beamer, who was one of the heroes on
    Flight 93. She has said that her children will look at the picture of
    her husband every day, and that she will tell them daily that he is a
    hero and that they are to try to be like him. This reminded me of a
    statistic I uncovered in a book that I wrote on the American family a
    few years back. We all know, based on countless studies as well as
    common sense, that if you want to raise happy and successful children,
    the best formula is a two-parent family. Despite the fact that not all
    of us have that opportunity – my brother and I were raised by a single
    parent who was married several times – it’s nevertheless true. But the
    statistic I discovered when writing my book was that children who lose a
    father in the line of duty – because the father is a police officer or a
    soldier, for example – are indistinguishable from children who grow up
    in intact two-parent families. Why is that? It is because the moral
    example doesn’t have to be there physically. It can be in the mind and
    in the heart. As a result of Lisa Beamer saying, “Be like him,” then,
    Todd Beamer will be in the minds and hearts of his kids.

    This illustrates one of my favorite themes: the importance of the things
    we can’t see, of non-material things. Moral examples can exist in the
    memory of a father or in the memory of the Founding Fathers or in the
    memory of any of the marvelous heroes in the long history of humankind.
    The historian Tacitus wrote, “The task of history is to hold out for
    reprobation every evil word and deed, and to hold out for praise every
    great and noble word and deed.” So we don’t need courses in values. We
    need good courses in history. We need to revive the reading of good
    books. We need to provide good precepts and encourage good habits. Above
    all we have to teach by example. Nor is this to say that we need to be
    perfect to be good examples. Our children can see us try and fail from
    time to time. But then they can see us try again and do better, or get
    it right, the second time. Thus they learn about human limitations, but
    also about human perseverance.

    It’s an old notion and an old responsibility, the teaching of virtues.
    Virtues don’t come in our genes, so it is the duty of every generation
    to pass them on. It is a duty we are not allowed to surrender.

    Above is quoted from Hillsdale College, Imprimis February 2003
    https://www.hillsdale.edu “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national
    speech digest of Hilldale College (www.hillsdale.edu).”

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quotes)”

    “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
    — Albert Einstein

    “We need to restore the full meaning of that old word, duty. It is the
    other side of rights.” — Pearl Buck

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/