Not the big PCS yet, but my new online home is here:
bluestateonbase.wordpress.com
Friday, August 5, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
A Tale of Two Incentives: Entrepreneurship and Moral Economics vs. Corporate Welfare
It’s been said that we cannot legislate morality. Usually this phrase corresponds with teen pregnancy, alcohol abuse, gambling, and increasingly with environmental negligence.
It is rarely used, however, in discussing business practices. The EPA can site plenty of research designating BPA as a toxic substance, but it is still being used to manufacture baby bottles and food cans. Moral economics is a new field altogether, one whose very name reminds most Americans of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In secular America, it’s more commonly known as ethics. The linguistic difference here is important: ethics is about following the rules, morals is about doing the right thing even if the rules don’t require it.
Capitalists can be moral too. The irony is that many of the same people who call Obama’s economic policies “socialist” are the same ones who preach both economic conservatism and social conservatism. If you don’t see the contraction here, I applaud you from tearing yourself away from Fox News, even if it’s only because I’m your niece, cousin, or former coworker.
Rep. John Carter [R-TX] has introduced a bill that could reward the kind of moral behavior I’m talking about. H.R. 687, the Military Spouses Employment Act, would give a tax break to businesses that hire military spouses.
I work for such a business. One that has acted with integrity and morals. A business that has only 27 employees and has managed to avoid layoffs despite a depression in our industry.
I am also the wife of a deployed active duty Senior Airman. My employer has been very understanding and supportive of the demands of a military lifestyle. They even allowed me to extend my maternity leave to make the most of my husband’s time home and are developing a work plan so I can be retained after our next PCS.
Besides the benefits to the company and myself, the state of Nebraska is benefiting. We are in a higher tax bracket, I was able to buy a more efficient car, my daughter can attend a local daycare, and we’ve starting saving for her college education while making payments on our own.
But not all military spouses are given these benefits. In fact, many businesses are hesitant to even hire military spouses, which is why we see unemployment rates as high as 25% among military spouses at some bases. This bill’s potential economic benefit to military families and to local business is huge, especially in Nebraska.
When enthusiastic campaigners tell crowds that new business would boom if government “gets out of the way,” they call to mind young entrepreneur trying to market his idea, but getting lost in the legal paperwork. But this mentality has emboldened big businesses to seek the same incentives as a startup.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that we cannot ignore greed as a basic human characteristic.
Early this year, GE faced a swell of outrage at reports that, despite $11 billion in profits, it paid $0 in income tax because of domestic losses. GE Capital received a $139 billion federal bailout to offset these losses. Zero is well below the so-called outrageous 35% corporate tax rate conservatives decry. TARP funds should not be something a company can write off, like student loan interest or new homeowners finance fees.
Late in 2010, after receiving aid and collecting their tax refund, a GE plant in Massachusetts that received $1.8 billion from Defense contracts fired 600 workers. The plant had another 150 layoffs slated, but decided to first request an additional tax break from the state to prevent further layoffs.
GE’s bargain was as follows: tax credits worth $25 million to save 3,000 jobs for the next six years.
Read that sentence again. Let it sink in, read a third time if necessary. It breaks down to less than $1,500 per year per employee. So why does GE need this money up front?
Rather than seeking a tax break for jobs created, to use the Republican rhetoric, GE is seeking aid to prevent it from killing jobs. This is backwards, it is unethical and amoral. It is offensive to businesses with integrity. It isn’t just corporate welfare, this is a corporate hostage crisis.
It is offensive that a business that acts both without ethics and without morals is awarded billions of dollars in government contracts.
By contrast, this week the Small Business Administration (SBA) put out a list of 100 businesses who had used SBA programs to hire at least 100 people. Which is the kind of job creation tax incentives and economic programs were created for.
Revenue was completely left out of last week’s Deficit Deal. Whether or not the so-called Super Congress will even discuss corporate tax reform – or whether the proceedings will be open to the public – is yet to be seen. Lobbying efforts are no doubt already underway. Last year GE spent over $39 million to make sure its interests were given consideration. Even if we could consider this a tax – we could call it the Representation Tax – it would be less than 0.05% of their 2010 profits.
How much is my vote worth in comparison?
It is rarely used, however, in discussing business practices. The EPA can site plenty of research designating BPA as a toxic substance, but it is still being used to manufacture baby bottles and food cans. Moral economics is a new field altogether, one whose very name reminds most Americans of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In secular America, it’s more commonly known as ethics. The linguistic difference here is important: ethics is about following the rules, morals is about doing the right thing even if the rules don’t require it.
Capitalists can be moral too. The irony is that many of the same people who call Obama’s economic policies “socialist” are the same ones who preach both economic conservatism and social conservatism. If you don’t see the contraction here, I applaud you from tearing yourself away from Fox News, even if it’s only because I’m your niece, cousin, or former coworker.
Rep. John Carter [R-TX] has introduced a bill that could reward the kind of moral behavior I’m talking about. H.R. 687, the Military Spouses Employment Act, would give a tax break to businesses that hire military spouses.
I work for such a business. One that has acted with integrity and morals. A business that has only 27 employees and has managed to avoid layoffs despite a depression in our industry.
I am also the wife of a deployed active duty Senior Airman. My employer has been very understanding and supportive of the demands of a military lifestyle. They even allowed me to extend my maternity leave to make the most of my husband’s time home and are developing a work plan so I can be retained after our next PCS.
Besides the benefits to the company and myself, the state of Nebraska is benefiting. We are in a higher tax bracket, I was able to buy a more efficient car, my daughter can attend a local daycare, and we’ve starting saving for her college education while making payments on our own.
But not all military spouses are given these benefits. In fact, many businesses are hesitant to even hire military spouses, which is why we see unemployment rates as high as 25% among military spouses at some bases. This bill’s potential economic benefit to military families and to local business is huge, especially in Nebraska.
When enthusiastic campaigners tell crowds that new business would boom if government “gets out of the way,” they call to mind young entrepreneur trying to market his idea, but getting lost in the legal paperwork. But this mentality has emboldened big businesses to seek the same incentives as a startup.
If the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that we cannot ignore greed as a basic human characteristic.
Early this year, GE faced a swell of outrage at reports that, despite $11 billion in profits, it paid $0 in income tax because of domestic losses. GE Capital received a $139 billion federal bailout to offset these losses. Zero is well below the so-called outrageous 35% corporate tax rate conservatives decry. TARP funds should not be something a company can write off, like student loan interest or new homeowners finance fees.
Late in 2010, after receiving aid and collecting their tax refund, a GE plant in Massachusetts that received $1.8 billion from Defense contracts fired 600 workers. The plant had another 150 layoffs slated, but decided to first request an additional tax break from the state to prevent further layoffs.
GE’s bargain was as follows: tax credits worth $25 million to save 3,000 jobs for the next six years.
Read that sentence again. Let it sink in, read a third time if necessary. It breaks down to less than $1,500 per year per employee. So why does GE need this money up front?
Rather than seeking a tax break for jobs created, to use the Republican rhetoric, GE is seeking aid to prevent it from killing jobs. This is backwards, it is unethical and amoral. It is offensive to businesses with integrity. It isn’t just corporate welfare, this is a corporate hostage crisis.
It is offensive that a business that acts both without ethics and without morals is awarded billions of dollars in government contracts.
By contrast, this week the Small Business Administration (SBA) put out a list of 100 businesses who had used SBA programs to hire at least 100 people. Which is the kind of job creation tax incentives and economic programs were created for.
Revenue was completely left out of last week’s Deficit Deal. Whether or not the so-called Super Congress will even discuss corporate tax reform – or whether the proceedings will be open to the public – is yet to be seen. Lobbying efforts are no doubt already underway. Last year GE spent over $39 million to make sure its interests were given consideration. Even if we could consider this a tax – we could call it the Representation Tax – it would be less than 0.05% of their 2010 profits.
How much is my vote worth in comparison?
Military Spouses Employment Act
Below is the letter I sent my Representative in support of HR 687, the Military Spouses Employment Act.
If you send a letter, or make a call, please make sure to direct it to the Defense or Finance LA, otherwise an intern will read and log it.
Mr. Schweer,
I work for a small business, a business that has only 27 employees and has managed to avoid layoffs despite a depression in our industry. I am also the wife of a deployed active duty Senior Airman. My employer has been very understanding and supportive of the demands of a military lifestyle. They even allowed me to extend my maternity leave to make the most of my husband’s time home and are developing a work plan so I can be retained after our next PCS.
Besides the benefits to the company and myself, the state of Nebraska is benefiting. We are in a higher tax bracket, I was able to buy a more efficient car, my daughter can attend a local daycare, and we’ve starting saving for her college education while making payments on our own.
But not all military spouses are given these benefits. In fact, many businesses are hesitant to even hire military spouses, which is why we see unemployment rates as high as 25% among military spouses at some bases.
We are asking you to support H.R. 687, the Military Spouses Employment Act, to encourage other business, especially small ones, to hire and retain military spouses. The potential economic benefit to military families and to local business is huge, especially in Nebraska.
Thank you,
If you send a letter, or make a call, please make sure to direct it to the Defense or Finance LA, otherwise an intern will read and log it.
Mr. Schweer,
I work for a small business, a business that has only 27 employees and has managed to avoid layoffs despite a depression in our industry. I am also the wife of a deployed active duty Senior Airman. My employer has been very understanding and supportive of the demands of a military lifestyle. They even allowed me to extend my maternity leave to make the most of my husband’s time home and are developing a work plan so I can be retained after our next PCS.
Besides the benefits to the company and myself, the state of Nebraska is benefiting. We are in a higher tax bracket, I was able to buy a more efficient car, my daughter can attend a local daycare, and we’ve starting saving for her college education while making payments on our own.
But not all military spouses are given these benefits. In fact, many businesses are hesitant to even hire military spouses, which is why we see unemployment rates as high as 25% among military spouses at some bases.
We are asking you to support H.R. 687, the Military Spouses Employment Act, to encourage other business, especially small ones, to hire and retain military spouses. The potential economic benefit to military families and to local business is huge, especially in Nebraska.
Thank you,
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Promise and Pressures
“Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you”
Before Delta and I were engaged, he asked me if I would wait for him when he left. I wholeheartedly agreed. We didn’t know then where he’d be going, for how long, or where he’d go after. We didn’t know if I’d be able to go with him, or what would be waiting for me if I did. But I promised anyway.
“For wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge”
After he proposed, he was moved to Germany. It’s a common joke of ours: it gets serious, you run off to Texas; you propose, you leave the continent. Since then, business trips of every kind have kept us from spending more than a few weeks together. Staying with my family made the most sense, especially when we found out Baby Girl would be making her surprise debut. It’s been a blessing being home, but a bittersweet one.
“Your people shall be my people and your God, my God…”
Delta’s schedule for next year isn’t looking much different from this one. I know better than to ask for specifics, he won’t say anything I want to hear, but I ask anyway.
And he asks me again if I would wait here or if I would wait there.
If it means spending 25 weeks with him instead of four, yes. If it means 30 days together and 30 days apart, yes.
“…if anything but death parts you and me”
And then another bittersweet reality, like a bag being placed over my head, it’s not just the two of us. She’s resilient, but she’ll feel the move. For me it’ll be like waking up from a prolonged nap, but for her, everything will change.
Grandparents will not be there to welcome the morning. Aunts and uncles will not be there to play in the afternoon. There will be no more school, with a dozen little friends and dozens of books and toys and playmats. There will be someone new playing games and taking mamas attention. There will be some days when my arms are the only ones holding her.
I’ve never felt pressure to be anything different with Delta. That’s one perk to our lifestyle, there’s been no expectations at the end of the honeymoon or about homemaking or romance or support. There are overwhelming pressures that come with being a parent – being a first-time parent, a working parent, a single parent. In the next year, I will be the only constant in Baby Girl’s life.
Part of me (the wife part) is desperate to fast forward. Another part of me (the adventurous part) is already planning weekend itineraries and daydreaming about walking – not driving! – to a farmer’s market with berries and chocolate and wine. But another part of me (the mama part, which is taking over) is terrified. I will be breaking promises and breaking hearts, every day will still be bittersweet.
My promises to her will be much harder to keep.
Before Delta and I were engaged, he asked me if I would wait for him when he left. I wholeheartedly agreed. We didn’t know then where he’d be going, for how long, or where he’d go after. We didn’t know if I’d be able to go with him, or what would be waiting for me if I did. But I promised anyway.
“For wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge”
After he proposed, he was moved to Germany. It’s a common joke of ours: it gets serious, you run off to Texas; you propose, you leave the continent. Since then, business trips of every kind have kept us from spending more than a few weeks together. Staying with my family made the most sense, especially when we found out Baby Girl would be making her surprise debut. It’s been a blessing being home, but a bittersweet one.
“Your people shall be my people and your God, my God…”
Delta’s schedule for next year isn’t looking much different from this one. I know better than to ask for specifics, he won’t say anything I want to hear, but I ask anyway.
And he asks me again if I would wait here or if I would wait there.
If it means spending 25 weeks with him instead of four, yes. If it means 30 days together and 30 days apart, yes.
“…if anything but death parts you and me”
And then another bittersweet reality, like a bag being placed over my head, it’s not just the two of us. She’s resilient, but she’ll feel the move. For me it’ll be like waking up from a prolonged nap, but for her, everything will change.
Grandparents will not be there to welcome the morning. Aunts and uncles will not be there to play in the afternoon. There will be no more school, with a dozen little friends and dozens of books and toys and playmats. There will be someone new playing games and taking mamas attention. There will be some days when my arms are the only ones holding her.
I’ve never felt pressure to be anything different with Delta. That’s one perk to our lifestyle, there’s been no expectations at the end of the honeymoon or about homemaking or romance or support. There are overwhelming pressures that come with being a parent – being a first-time parent, a working parent, a single parent. In the next year, I will be the only constant in Baby Girl’s life.
Part of me (the wife part) is desperate to fast forward. Another part of me (the adventurous part) is already planning weekend itineraries and daydreaming about walking – not driving! – to a farmer’s market with berries and chocolate and wine. But another part of me (the mama part, which is taking over) is terrified. I will be breaking promises and breaking hearts, every day will still be bittersweet.
My promises to her will be much harder to keep.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The title says it all
They tell you not to judge a book by its cover, but sometimes you can use your high school education to deduce all you need from the title itself. So it is with Speaker Boehner's current approach to the debt ceiling.
Not his career approach, his current approach. Boehner did, after all, raise the debt ceiling seven times during his last term as Speaker of the House, when Congress approved tax cuts that have cost us almost $2 trillion in revenue while writing blank checks to the DoD and defense contractors.
Boehner's answer to this crisis is such a book: "Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable."
This "plan" makes very similar cuts to the plan Harry Reid put forth, the difference is that one force us would relive this entire hissy fit again in six months (how conveniently timed) and one at least waits until 2013. Using that high school education, one can only deduce that Boehner's sole goal is to discredit President Obama. Like he has for much of his career, he will do this ignoring all other costs.
Not his career approach, his current approach. Boehner did, after all, raise the debt ceiling seven times during his last term as Speaker of the House, when Congress approved tax cuts that have cost us almost $2 trillion in revenue while writing blank checks to the DoD and defense contractors.
Boehner's answer to this crisis is such a book: "Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable."
This "plan" makes very similar cuts to the plan Harry Reid put forth, the difference is that one force us would relive this entire hissy fit again in six months (how conveniently timed) and one at least waits until 2013. Using that high school education, one can only deduce that Boehner's sole goal is to discredit President Obama. Like he has for much of his career, he will do this ignoring all other costs.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
From the GOP Dictionary
Tea Party
-noun
1. socio-political movement stemming from an attachment to the past and/or severe detachment from modern realities, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. adherence to safety and environmental standards is limiting entrepreneurship
b. land, trees, air and water are infinitely renewable resources
c. they, personally, are paying for abortions via federal payroll tax
d. health care, education and retirement benefits are socialist
e. tax cuts create jobs
2. driving force behind the 2010 GOP takeover of Congress
3. driving force behind the dissolution of Republican unity
Synonyms: constitutional conservative, fiscal conservative, social conservative
Antonyms: constitutional conservative, fiscal conservative, social conservative
-noun
1. socio-political movement stemming from an attachment to the past and/or severe detachment from modern realities, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. adherence to safety and environmental standards is limiting entrepreneurship
b. land, trees, air and water are infinitely renewable resources
c. they, personally, are paying for abortions via federal payroll tax
d. health care, education and retirement benefits are socialist
e. tax cuts create jobs
2. driving force behind the 2010 GOP takeover of Congress
3. driving force behind the dissolution of Republican unity
Synonyms: constitutional conservative, fiscal conservative, social conservative
Antonyms: constitutional conservative, fiscal conservative, social conservative
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Cut Subsidies, Save on Health Care
Part Two of the “What would you cut” saga, wherein I attempt to kill to birds (very expensive, wasteful, more-harm-than-good birds) with one stone: agricultural subsidies.
Tackling this topic has proven a huge time commitment for me for two reasons: first, because I just can’t stop referring back my own time at USDA*; and second, because I can't stop referring to the proven relationship between growth hormones and pesticides and cancers and hormone disorders - the American Cancer Society, Cancer Prevention Coalition, European Union, and Canada are all as alarmist as I.
This is what it boils down to: Americans are being billed for cheap crops, reduced to cheap choices, suffer chronic health consequences, and are then billed again for medical treatment.
This is what cheap food costs us:
$5 billion
Direct payments issued under the 2011 Farm Bill
Environmental Working Group
90,000
Number of farm subsidy checks written to city-dwelling farm owners and investors in 2011
$26.5 billion
Amount saved by chicken, pork, beef and corn syrup producers between 1997 and 2005, thanks to Farm Bill subsidies. Estimate by Tom Philpott, citing a Tufts University study
$50 billion
Federal government subsidies for animal feed crops (such as corn and soy)
Time Magazine
Americans are faced with an onslaught of media messages that have convinced us we need more protein than we actually do. Both the USDA and CDC (which do not have high standards when it comes to "healthy") recommend 5-6.5 ounces of protein per day. The American Meat Institute boasts on its website that its members produced 92.1 billion pounds of meat last year. Divide that number by 307 million Americans and the average daily consumption is more than twice the recommended amount.
There is an ad campaign running that tells us "Whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar." That's true, but subsidies to corn mass producers have kept prices at mere fractions of what they should be. So food manufacturers use high fructose corn syrup in everything from your morning cereal to your afternoon soda and your goodnight ice cream novelty. Corn syrup is a cheap vice. It's not bad for you if you stay under a daily limit, but unless you made it yourself, it's got corn syrup.
Obesity, on the other hand, is no cheap vice:
42%
Annual estimated medical bill increase of an obese person, “An obese person will have an average of $8,315 in medical bills a year in 2018 compared with $5,855 for an adult at a healthy weight. That's a difference of $2,460.”
David Stipp, Miller-McCune
7 out of ten
states with the highest poverty levels are also among the 10 states with the highest obesity rates, according to a 2009 NYT report by Nicholas Bakalar
$147 billion
Obesity-related 2008 medical costs, almost 10% of all medical expenses
CDC
$344 billion
Estimated 2018 obesity-related medical costs, more than 21% of all medical expenses
$1.8 trillion
Annual medical costs associated with chronic (but almost entirely preventable) diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer
Nanci Hellmich, USA Today
Michelle Obama has been pushing veggies, but she hasn’t just said that you should cut back on meat and dairy. Even though the Farm Bill encourages the production of (my estimate, but easily) twice as much meat as is sustainable, their nutrition recommendations are telling.
“In 2009, 1.5% of the nation’s harvested cropland (4.4 million acres) was used to grow vegetables. How much was used to grow feed for domestically consumed animals?” “Answer: 50% (149 million acres)”
Environmental Working Group
*Of course, the insertion of personal reflections in this post are a cheap ploy to keep your interest, and I have so many hilarious and baffling stories from my days at USDA. I quit when I realized that the USDA was the most self-hating of any agency in the federal government. It is served by the most conservative employees, each knowing that he/she serves the second largest and second most wasteful Department – DoD is the biggest and the most. The USDA is filled with Ron Swanson reluctant bureaucrats. I'll tell more of the story later.
Alpha Mama
Tackling this topic has proven a huge time commitment for me for two reasons: first, because I just can’t stop referring back my own time at USDA*; and second, because I can't stop referring to the proven relationship between growth hormones and pesticides and cancers and hormone disorders - the American Cancer Society, Cancer Prevention Coalition, European Union, and Canada are all as alarmist as I.
This is what it boils down to: Americans are being billed for cheap crops, reduced to cheap choices, suffer chronic health consequences, and are then billed again for medical treatment.
This is what cheap food costs us:
$5 billion
Direct payments issued under the 2011 Farm Bill
Environmental Working Group
90,000
Number of farm subsidy checks written to city-dwelling farm owners and investors in 2011
$26.5 billion
Amount saved by chicken, pork, beef and corn syrup producers between 1997 and 2005, thanks to Farm Bill subsidies. Estimate by Tom Philpott, citing a Tufts University study
$50 billion
Federal government subsidies for animal feed crops (such as corn and soy)
Time Magazine
Americans are faced with an onslaught of media messages that have convinced us we need more protein than we actually do. Both the USDA and CDC (which do not have high standards when it comes to "healthy") recommend 5-6.5 ounces of protein per day. The American Meat Institute boasts on its website that its members produced 92.1 billion pounds of meat last year. Divide that number by 307 million Americans and the average daily consumption is more than twice the recommended amount.
There is an ad campaign running that tells us "Whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar." That's true, but subsidies to corn mass producers have kept prices at mere fractions of what they should be. So food manufacturers use high fructose corn syrup in everything from your morning cereal to your afternoon soda and your goodnight ice cream novelty. Corn syrup is a cheap vice. It's not bad for you if you stay under a daily limit, but unless you made it yourself, it's got corn syrup.
Obesity, on the other hand, is no cheap vice:
42%
Annual estimated medical bill increase of an obese person, “An obese person will have an average of $8,315 in medical bills a year in 2018 compared with $5,855 for an adult at a healthy weight. That's a difference of $2,460.”
David Stipp, Miller-McCune
7 out of ten
states with the highest poverty levels are also among the 10 states with the highest obesity rates, according to a 2009 NYT report by Nicholas Bakalar
$147 billion
Obesity-related 2008 medical costs, almost 10% of all medical expenses
CDC
$344 billion
Estimated 2018 obesity-related medical costs, more than 21% of all medical expenses
$1.8 trillion
Annual medical costs associated with chronic (but almost entirely preventable) diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer
Nanci Hellmich, USA Today
Michelle Obama has been pushing veggies, but she hasn’t just said that you should cut back on meat and dairy. Even though the Farm Bill encourages the production of (my estimate, but easily) twice as much meat as is sustainable, their nutrition recommendations are telling.
“In 2009, 1.5% of the nation’s harvested cropland (4.4 million acres) was used to grow vegetables. How much was used to grow feed for domestically consumed animals?” “Answer: 50% (149 million acres)”
Environmental Working Group
*Of course, the insertion of personal reflections in this post are a cheap ploy to keep your interest, and I have so many hilarious and baffling stories from my days at USDA. I quit when I realized that the USDA was the most self-hating of any agency in the federal government. It is served by the most conservative employees, each knowing that he/she serves the second largest and second most wasteful Department – DoD is the biggest and the most. The USDA is filled with Ron Swanson reluctant bureaucrats. I'll tell more of the story later.
Alpha Mama
Neither of us likes sand
Baby Girl looks so much like her daddy (Call Sign Delta) that I revel in the little things she gets from me. I know pride is a sin, but it's almost impossible not to wonder whether or not the two of us will be able to share interests and hobbies, so I'm focusing on reactions and mannerisms rather than physical characteristics.
The effort is almost futile. She sleeps with her blankie snuggled against her face, like my sister (Call Sign) Annie. She doesn't sit up or crawl yet because someone is always both holding and entertaining her, like Annie. She opens her mouth and bounces and grunts when she wants more food, like Delta. Her expressions are so overdramatized they are almost cartoonish, like Delta. So far, the only thing she gets from me is that she likes to sleep in.
Yesterday, my cousin, her husband and three (all under 3 years!) little ones came to visit. Living in Florida, they all love the water. My Baby Girl, though also born and (so far) raised near the water, does not. Despite it being a 95+ degree day and the lake as refreshing as day-old bathwater, she heaved tiny wimpers each time I dipped her in. She doesn't like the lake, she doesn't like the way I hold her in the lake, she really doesn't like the way sand feels.
My mom (Call Sign) Gigi tells us about my first summer in San Diego, I hated sand. I hated sand so much I would life my hands and feet up away from it like a yogi balancing on his rear in full boat pose. I hated sand so much that if any of it got on the towel I sat on I would point and cry until it was removed and once again pristine to my standards. So now we have that in common.
She did eventually warm up to the water. But I had to trick her by snuggling her close to my chest, then gradually wading in until it hit us both at the tummy. A few times, she reached down and touched it with her hands. With a sly little smile as if to remind me who's in charge, she grabbed a piece of floating seaweed and slapped it to my chest, just like Delta.
The effort is almost futile. She sleeps with her blankie snuggled against her face, like my sister (Call Sign) Annie. She doesn't sit up or crawl yet because someone is always both holding and entertaining her, like Annie. She opens her mouth and bounces and grunts when she wants more food, like Delta. Her expressions are so overdramatized they are almost cartoonish, like Delta. So far, the only thing she gets from me is that she likes to sleep in.
Yesterday, my cousin, her husband and three (all under 3 years!) little ones came to visit. Living in Florida, they all love the water. My Baby Girl, though also born and (so far) raised near the water, does not. Despite it being a 95+ degree day and the lake as refreshing as day-old bathwater, she heaved tiny wimpers each time I dipped her in. She doesn't like the lake, she doesn't like the way I hold her in the lake, she really doesn't like the way sand feels.
My mom (Call Sign) Gigi tells us about my first summer in San Diego, I hated sand. I hated sand so much I would life my hands and feet up away from it like a yogi balancing on his rear in full boat pose. I hated sand so much that if any of it got on the towel I sat on I would point and cry until it was removed and once again pristine to my standards. So now we have that in common.
She did eventually warm up to the water. But I had to trick her by snuggling her close to my chest, then gradually wading in until it hit us both at the tummy. A few times, she reached down and touched it with her hands. With a sly little smile as if to remind me who's in charge, she grabbed a piece of floating seaweed and slapped it to my chest, just like Delta.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
One reason the GOP has such a loyal following
I’m not particularly loyal to the Democratic Party. For one thing, I live in the state whose Senior Senator is constantly named “The Most Conservative Democrat in Congress.”
I am loyal to Ben. He is well known amongst staffers for buying Happy Hour rounds at Tortilla Coast; when I was a young intern everyone wanted to be my friend so they could meet Ben. Yes, my adoration is cheaply bought with several rounds of dollar beers.
Happy hour friendships and creative social propaganda aside, Democrats should be taking a few cues from Republicans when it comes to getting business done.
One of their biggest problems, is a fundamental characteristic of their base: pragmatism. It seems that today’s Economist/YouGov survey has identified one fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats want to get something accomplished, even if they have to compromise. While Republicans would rather stick to their principles, even if it means nothing gets done.
For students of the old-school definitions of “liberal” and “conservative,” this makes perfect sense. “Liberals” believe that society can manifest itself as a democratic government to provide for the greater good. “Conservatives” believe that individuals can only reach their potential in the absence of interference.
For voters, it means that Democrats don’t have the balls to do what they think is best and Republicans are so stubborn that stalling has become their go-to tactic.
If only we could institute a proportional representative election system. We could be free from the choice-limiting two-party system once and for all. And yes, that is the most conservation wording I could use. I hope the irony isn’t lost.
I am loyal to Ben. He is well known amongst staffers for buying Happy Hour rounds at Tortilla Coast; when I was a young intern everyone wanted to be my friend so they could meet Ben. Yes, my adoration is cheaply bought with several rounds of dollar beers.
Happy hour friendships and creative social propaganda aside, Democrats should be taking a few cues from Republicans when it comes to getting business done.
One of their biggest problems, is a fundamental characteristic of their base: pragmatism. It seems that today’s Economist/YouGov survey has identified one fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats want to get something accomplished, even if they have to compromise. While Republicans would rather stick to their principles, even if it means nothing gets done.
For students of the old-school definitions of “liberal” and “conservative,” this makes perfect sense. “Liberals” believe that society can manifest itself as a democratic government to provide for the greater good. “Conservatives” believe that individuals can only reach their potential in the absence of interference.
For voters, it means that Democrats don’t have the balls to do what they think is best and Republicans are so stubborn that stalling has become their go-to tactic.
If only we could institute a proportional representative election system. We could be free from the choice-limiting two-party system once and for all. And yes, that is the most conservation wording I could use. I hope the irony isn’t lost.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Generation 'Rents
Like an increasing number of my peers, I live with my parents.
This would be less surprising if I graduated college less than a year ago, I graduated in 2008. It would be less depressing if I wasn’t happily married, I am. It is much more understandable when you learn that I am an Air Force wife with deployed husband and a six-month old.
Like many of my peers, my living situation is a result of numerous life choices. I have student loan debt, so living overseas with my husband is not an option unless it coincides with well-paying career options. Two years ago, when he went to Germany, I stayed behind and soon after took a job in the family business. I can only credit God with this decision, because only He could have known at the time that D would spend less than two of the next 18 months at his PDS. Only He could have known that I was six weeks pregnant with Baby Girl when I moved home. My family classified this situation as temporary, but still longer in duration than initially expected – like most TDYs.
But for most of my peers, our roommates are the only things we have in common.
Like some of them, I am what you could call “dependent on the government.” I admit it, I am. Conservative politicians use this term to describe the unemployed who rely on food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs. It’s the PC term for “lazy,” “free-rider,” “someone who takes more than he/she contributes.”
We are not on welfare, we both work full time, but the description still fits. My husband’s paycheck and our health care is paid for by the government. Because I work in the Military/Aerospace industry, at least 75% of my paycheck is indirectly from the government.
It’s a matter of personal opinion whether reliance on the government or reliance on one’s parents is worse. Parents are stepping up and offering financial assistance. Yes, some of these are the self-fulfilling prophesy of helicopter parenting. But most of Generation ‘Rents are educated and are working, at least part-time.
Income inequality has exponentially exploded. And with it, the American dream has gone up in smoke.
This inequality epidemic has all but erased decades of progress between the 1950s and 1990s, when education and hard work were the keys to success. Recent graduates, single parents and part-time workers take a punch in the gut. The Middle Class has become the Working Poor.
Both graphs from "It's the Inequality, Stupid"
This ruse was advertised under many names – “Fiscal Conservatism,” “Supply-Side Economics,” “Reaganomics,” – and despite its unintended consequences is still heralded as our economic savior. Even this week, as Congress debates the conditions under which they will raise the debt ceiling, we still hear Republicans fighting for the “Job Creators.”
What we’ve learned over the past ten years is that tax breaks do not create jobs. This argument has been disproven by economists, policy analysts, historians and journalists. It is obvious to anyone who watches the news. It is the same flawed argument that went into George W. Bush’s failed 2008 tax refund stimulus. The idea was that every taxpayer would take their $300 check and spend it. It didn’t matter whether it was on groceries or home repairs or daycare, the money would go right back into the economy. As a student at the time, I made a payment to my credit card; which is exactly what most people did with it. Instead of a quick cash infusion to the most needy segments of the economy, the banks got a nice bonus. Ironically, this didn’t seem to help Bank of America.
We’ve also learned that deregulation invariably leads to corporate abuse and bursting bubbles. Closing loopholes and holding corporations accountable for tax cheating would raise almost $100 billion every year. If we make it harder to dodge taxes, we could lower corporate rates and still see an increase in revenue.
Yet Republicans continue their rhetoric as if Democrats are proposing major tax increases when, in fact, Democrats have offered greater cuts and smaller revenue increases than any deficit measure since 1982. Alan Greenspan once famously called President Clinton “the best Republican President we’ve had in a while,” and President Obama seems eager to take this title.
Like an increasing number of my peers, I am becoming more cynical by the day.
This would be less surprising if I graduated college less than a year ago, I graduated in 2008. It would be less depressing if I wasn’t happily married, I am. It is much more understandable when you learn that I am an Air Force wife with deployed husband and a six-month old.
Like many of my peers, my living situation is a result of numerous life choices. I have student loan debt, so living overseas with my husband is not an option unless it coincides with well-paying career options. Two years ago, when he went to Germany, I stayed behind and soon after took a job in the family business. I can only credit God with this decision, because only He could have known at the time that D would spend less than two of the next 18 months at his PDS. Only He could have known that I was six weeks pregnant with Baby Girl when I moved home. My family classified this situation as temporary, but still longer in duration than initially expected – like most TDYs.
But for most of my peers, our roommates are the only things we have in common.
Like some of them, I am what you could call “dependent on the government.” I admit it, I am. Conservative politicians use this term to describe the unemployed who rely on food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs. It’s the PC term for “lazy,” “free-rider,” “someone who takes more than he/she contributes.”
We are not on welfare, we both work full time, but the description still fits. My husband’s paycheck and our health care is paid for by the government. Because I work in the Military/Aerospace industry, at least 75% of my paycheck is indirectly from the government.
It’s a matter of personal opinion whether reliance on the government or reliance on one’s parents is worse. Parents are stepping up and offering financial assistance. Yes, some of these are the self-fulfilling prophesy of helicopter parenting. But most of Generation ‘Rents are educated and are working, at least part-time.
Income inequality has exponentially exploded. And with it, the American dream has gone up in smoke.
This inequality epidemic has all but erased decades of progress between the 1950s and 1990s, when education and hard work were the keys to success. Recent graduates, single parents and part-time workers take a punch in the gut. The Middle Class has become the Working Poor.
Both graphs from "It's the Inequality, Stupid"
This ruse was advertised under many names – “Fiscal Conservatism,” “Supply-Side Economics,” “Reaganomics,” – and despite its unintended consequences is still heralded as our economic savior. Even this week, as Congress debates the conditions under which they will raise the debt ceiling, we still hear Republicans fighting for the “Job Creators.”
What we’ve learned over the past ten years is that tax breaks do not create jobs. This argument has been disproven by economists, policy analysts, historians and journalists. It is obvious to anyone who watches the news. It is the same flawed argument that went into George W. Bush’s failed 2008 tax refund stimulus. The idea was that every taxpayer would take their $300 check and spend it. It didn’t matter whether it was on groceries or home repairs or daycare, the money would go right back into the economy. As a student at the time, I made a payment to my credit card; which is exactly what most people did with it. Instead of a quick cash infusion to the most needy segments of the economy, the banks got a nice bonus. Ironically, this didn’t seem to help Bank of America.
We’ve also learned that deregulation invariably leads to corporate abuse and bursting bubbles. Closing loopholes and holding corporations accountable for tax cheating would raise almost $100 billion every year. If we make it harder to dodge taxes, we could lower corporate rates and still see an increase in revenue.
Yet Republicans continue their rhetoric as if Democrats are proposing major tax increases when, in fact, Democrats have offered greater cuts and smaller revenue increases than any deficit measure since 1982. Alan Greenspan once famously called President Clinton “the best Republican President we’ve had in a while,” and President Obama seems eager to take this title.
Like an increasing number of my peers, I am becoming more cynical by the day.
From the GOP Dictionary
Job Creator
-noun
1. Individual whose personal income tops $27 million annually
2. Top 0.01% of American population
Synonyms: Wall Street, campaign contributors
Antonyms: Main Street, small business owners, voters
-noun
1. Individual whose personal income tops $27 million annually
2. Top 0.01% of American population
Synonyms: Wall Street, campaign contributors
Antonyms: Main Street, small business owners, voters
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Truely Bluely
Until this weekend I have been able to distract myself from the overwhelming loneliness I am drowning in. The ironic part is that this weekend I had two college friends in town. I should have been excited and energetic, I was hoping I could recapture who I was when I knew them. Instead, I was revealed to them as the me who I was before college. I have lost the happiest version of myself.
A new mother isn't supposed to miss the life she had two years ago. She isn't supposed to say that her time with her baby is bittersweet. Every baby book I've read has a chapter on healthy marriages/relationships, it is a given that every couple will transform when they become parents. It would be different if D was here - but he's not - and I'm not able to enjoy every moment, I just handle it the best I can.
A military wife is never supposed to complain, not to friends or family and certainly never to her husband. Thank God for Snarky's "Feeling Down? Well! You're a ******* Loser" when I can't talk at least I can read and chuckle.
Back at home I am a wallflower, the awkward, un-social older sister. I have three friends from high school who I still talk to, only one who I am really close with. I could say the being pregnant made it difficult to go out and make friends when I moved home last year, but that would just be a cheap cover.
You can go home again. Coming home during D’s deployments was by far the best possibility in my range of choices. If you’re lucky, your family will be as supportive as mine. Just know that when you do go home again, you won’t be the only one who finds that you have left yourself behind.
Sorry, I should have warned you that this wasn't a Democratic Party pride post.
A new mother isn't supposed to miss the life she had two years ago. She isn't supposed to say that her time with her baby is bittersweet. Every baby book I've read has a chapter on healthy marriages/relationships, it is a given that every couple will transform when they become parents. It would be different if D was here - but he's not - and I'm not able to enjoy every moment, I just handle it the best I can.
A military wife is never supposed to complain, not to friends or family and certainly never to her husband. Thank God for Snarky's "Feeling Down? Well! You're a ******* Loser" when I can't talk at least I can read and chuckle.
Back at home I am a wallflower, the awkward, un-social older sister. I have three friends from high school who I still talk to, only one who I am really close with. I could say the being pregnant made it difficult to go out and make friends when I moved home last year, but that would just be a cheap cover.
You can go home again. Coming home during D’s deployments was by far the best possibility in my range of choices. If you’re lucky, your family will be as supportive as mine. Just know that when you do go home again, you won’t be the only one who finds that you have left yourself behind.
Sorry, I should have warned you that this wasn't a Democratic Party pride post.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Washington Post asks: What would you cut?
Hypocrisy is expensive.
Today Leon Panetta outlined $178 billion in DOD budget cuts. No details were released, but soon after, via Twitter, WaPo asked its followers what they would cut.
I thought about the conversation I had with D last night, about how he's been working 16-hour shifts, how he'll need me to send him more toilet paper and baby wipes and Gatorade powder, about the clause in his contract limiting the amount of aid he'll get if he is disabled in the line of duty.
I thought about the hypocrisy I’ve heard from politicians who gift-wrap million dollar contracts but ignore homeless and unemployed veterans. That, of course, isn’t a national security issue; it is an issue of our national honor.
America derives its honor from our democracy and all the beautiful language that goes with it. Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Hope. Yet in our international exploits, our strategy often clashes with our ideals.
Not only is this hypocritical, it is dangerous.
America’s support for abusive regimes and intervention on their behalf is al Qaeda’s number one recruitment tool.
This fact is regularly stated by our politicians, the National Security and Intelligence communities, but we knowingly continue on a risky self-destructive path. We give these regimes jets, bombs, ammunition and cash.
Back in 2006, we slapped Israel’s wrist for using cluster bombs they promised they wouldn’t use in populated areas. The question here is: what did we think they were going to use them for?
The Center for Public Integrity has a nice little (albeit outdated) list of the world’s human rights offenders and the amount of military aid they’ve received in the first few years after September 11. There is no amount given for Saudi Arabia.
The Top Ten Offenders
(by Dollar Amount between 2002-2004, not by worst abuses)
Israel: $9 billion
Egypt: $6 billion
Pakistan: $4 billion
Afghanistan: $2 billion
Jordan: $2 billion
Columbia: $2 billion
Turkey: $1 billion
Peru: $445 million
Bolivia: $320 million
Poland: $313 million
Iraq comes in 11th with almost $284 million.
Let's keep in mind that between 2002 and 2004 it was the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" that approved these expenditures. This party is currently refusing to raise taxes, despite fifty years of economic history (see Reagan’s 1982 increases and Clinton’s 1993 increases) and proposing cuts to “entitlement programs.”
I need to talk about that for a minute. The word “entitlement” suggests that the beneficiaries did nothing to deserve what they are getting. But over 95% of Medicare recipients paid federal income taxes for 50 years or more. Moreover, many of these recipients - like my Grandfather - lived through the Great Depression, spent his youth in the Navy, paid his taxes and honored the law. We DO owe them. We owe them as much as we owe those who are serving today.
But Democrats, afraid of the majority-Republican House, seem to forget that only a few years ago a Republican president and his minority party did whatever the **** they wanted.
I guess cowardice is costly too.
-Mr. A
Today Leon Panetta outlined $178 billion in DOD budget cuts. No details were released, but soon after, via Twitter, WaPo asked its followers what they would cut.
I thought about the conversation I had with D last night, about how he's been working 16-hour shifts, how he'll need me to send him more toilet paper and baby wipes and Gatorade powder, about the clause in his contract limiting the amount of aid he'll get if he is disabled in the line of duty.
I thought about the hypocrisy I’ve heard from politicians who gift-wrap million dollar contracts but ignore homeless and unemployed veterans. That, of course, isn’t a national security issue; it is an issue of our national honor.
America derives its honor from our democracy and all the beautiful language that goes with it. Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Hope. Yet in our international exploits, our strategy often clashes with our ideals.
Not only is this hypocritical, it is dangerous.
America’s support for abusive regimes and intervention on their behalf is al Qaeda’s number one recruitment tool.
This fact is regularly stated by our politicians, the National Security and Intelligence communities, but we knowingly continue on a risky self-destructive path. We give these regimes jets, bombs, ammunition and cash.
Back in 2006, we slapped Israel’s wrist for using cluster bombs they promised they wouldn’t use in populated areas. The question here is: what did we think they were going to use them for?
The Center for Public Integrity has a nice little (albeit outdated) list of the world’s human rights offenders and the amount of military aid they’ve received in the first few years after September 11. There is no amount given for Saudi Arabia.
The Top Ten Offenders
(by Dollar Amount between 2002-2004, not by worst abuses)
Israel: $9 billion
Egypt: $6 billion
Pakistan: $4 billion
Afghanistan: $2 billion
Jordan: $2 billion
Columbia: $2 billion
Turkey: $1 billion
Peru: $445 million
Bolivia: $320 million
Poland: $313 million
Iraq comes in 11th with almost $284 million.
Let's keep in mind that between 2002 and 2004 it was the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" that approved these expenditures. This party is currently refusing to raise taxes, despite fifty years of economic history (see Reagan’s 1982 increases and Clinton’s 1993 increases) and proposing cuts to “entitlement programs.”
I need to talk about that for a minute. The word “entitlement” suggests that the beneficiaries did nothing to deserve what they are getting. But over 95% of Medicare recipients paid federal income taxes for 50 years or more. Moreover, many of these recipients - like my Grandfather - lived through the Great Depression, spent his youth in the Navy, paid his taxes and honored the law. We DO owe them. We owe them as much as we owe those who are serving today.
But Democrats, afraid of the majority-Republican House, seem to forget that only a few years ago a Republican president and his minority party did whatever the **** they wanted.
I guess cowardice is costly too.
-Mr. A
Monday, June 27, 2011
Newlywed Glow
Military wives get a lot of pity, especially during deployments. No matter how well things are going otherwise, no matter how convincing her happy face, she is met with the look more often than makes her comfortable.
I moved back to my hometown a few months after my husband proposed and here I’ve stayed since we’ve been married, awaiting the endless cycle of TDYs. In the last eighteen months, he’s been on three TDY’s averaging four weeks each and is currently serving a six-month deployment. Before that he was in training, so in the past two years we’ve spent nine and a half weeks together.
Two years, nine and a half weeks. To preempt the aforementioned look: this isn’t my obligatory “happy face,” it’s my newlywed glow.
We get to be newlyweds for a long, long time. I still get butterflies when he kisses me. We still send each other flirty texts and ims. I still daydream about lazy days spent doing nothing together. He still looks at me with the same awed, adoring eyes as when we first met. I still enjoy cooking for him. We haven't had a single fight about household chores. We don’t talk about “someday” as a distant future, but as a “soon.”
Several seemingly contradictory and amazing things can happen during and after a deployment (but I’m only going to write about happy ones this time). First, the stress that bonds couples can give a new marriage the feeling of a golden anniversary. Second, the time apart can make you feel all the feelings you felt at the beginning. I’m not saying that my life is suddenly filmed in a soft glow whenever he’s back. But for all the growing up we’ve done together, all the big decisions and bad days, we aren’t an old married couple.
And I hope we never will be.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The First, About Time
Last night President Obama formally announced his Afghanistan Withdrawal plan. Rather, he formally announced his Surge Removal plan. Ten thousand troops out by the end of this summer, another 30,000 out by September 2012.
It’s about time.
I have defended our involvement in Afghanistan, but it’s time we acknowledge that our continued presence is more costly than beneficial. We have accomplished our original goals: we’ve taken out the Taliban’s leadership and provided a political framework that gives the people the sovereignty they have been fighting for since the Soviet Union started this mess. Afghanistan still faces terror attacks and government corruption, but Americans too are facing political and economic corruption and terror attacks from our own citizens – already this year we’ve seen shootings in grocery stores, post offices and pharmacies, but that’s its own post.
Before you go thinking that this huge withdrawal is a political buy meant to tell voters “Half off now, half off next term!” consider that this still leaves 70,000 troops hanging onto whatever dimpled chads happen between now and any foreseeable date in the future.
Republican contenders wasted no time in blasting their reactions, but since I can’t do voice impersonations (via blog or otherwise), I’ll summarize:
Mitt Romney: Nobody likes war, but that doesn’t mean we should plan the end of this war. We cannot plan the end of a war anymore than we can plan the beginning of a war! That my friend, was the problem with Iraq.
Tim Pawlenty: “This decision should be based on conditions on the ground and success…” A responsible end is not success. Since the surge was declared a success and this initial withdrawal is simply to reestablish the troop levels as they were before the surge, either Pawlenty does not believe the surge was a success or his speechwriter is on vacation and his interns just grabbed a bunch of phrases out of a hat.
Herman Cain: Afghanistan is still unstable. Cain wants to position himself as the fiscal candidate, since he knows so very little about Foreign Policy, war and presidential politics, he’s going to say as little as possible about anything other than job creation. The problem is he is trying to woo fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and party Republicans.
Ron Paul (via Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton): Too little too late. Bring them all home now. This war is an unwinnable game Al Qaeda tricked us into playing. Oh Ron, how I wish the “conservative” Republican party would battle to the death with your own little Libertarian party, it would be like Challenge of the Gladiators for recovering frat boys and self-made Napolean-complex Uncle Ralphs.
Rick Santorum: “[Obama] does not emphasize the need for victory.” RE: A responsible end is not success. What is it with Republicans and the ‘V’ word? I would like to see Santorum or Pawlenty specifically define ‘victory’ as it pertains to this war. Before he left office, Bill Clinton’s note to George W. Bush proclaimed that terrorism was the new battlefield, ‘Victory’ as it existed in previous wars does not exist. As often as the GOP reminds Americans of this fact, their Talking Points Office has been excluded from the thread.
So far that’s four contenders who would keep us in Afghanistan indefinitely and one who would pull out so fast Karzai himself would still be on his back prolonging a big finish. (Don’t think about this metaphor too much, the point is that Karzai is taking it and loving it whilst claiming vagrant assault. He’s exactly where he wants to be and we’re getting bleeped in the other sense of the word.)
Finally, the former employee said what POTUS should have said:
Jon Huntsman: “We need a safe but rapid withdrawal which encourages Afghans to assume responsibility, while leaving in place a strong counter intelligence and special forces effort proportionate to the threat.” Muscles and guns win wars no more. President Obama took out Osama bin Laden with an intelligence-based strategy that planned - rather than running raids after each lead, with bin Laden always one step ahead, which was the previous administration’s misguided strategy. It looks like Huntsman is preparing to lead an Intel-ilitary, and I have only one response to that:
It’s about time.
-Mrs. A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)