Zero tolerance = zero inteligence?

I just read a sad article in the Washington Post about a teen killing himself because he was about to be expelled from high school because he possessed marijuana in violation of the school's zero tolerance policy. Very sad, but then I started looking at some of the reader's comments. Wow. The venom in some of those posts. He was a kid and kids make mistakes. While I don't feel there should not have been consequences for the student's actions, ruining his life by expelling him for just smoking pot is a bit extreme. We're not talking about a kid selling drugs to his classmates, we're talking about a kid who was only harming himself.

We've all made mistakes in our lives, especially when we were younger, where the only person harmed was ourselves. Fortunately most of those mistakes didn't have long lasting consequences.

Re-reading the posts in that thread and I'm still not sure if some of the responders are just trolls or the type of people so afraid of every little thing that could go wrong that we've legislated ourselves into a nanny state with limited rights so we can feel safe from the bad guys; you know, the type who live in Iowa but were fine with New Yorkers being searched on the subway so they in Iowa would feel safe from terrorists, regardless of whether New Yorkers were potentially having their Constitutional rights violated.

Whatever happened to using the brains we were born with and looking at every situation individually? If the kid was a seller, expel him. But if he was just a user, then place him in some appropriate program so he can continue his education and move on from this mistake. Get rid of these zero tolerance policies and let justice prevail.

Abandoned dogs, cats and alligators? - oh my

The bad economy is forcing pet owners in Boston to abandon dogs, cats and even alligators (a self correcting problem, the alligators take care of the dogs and cats and then winter takes care of the alligators -- I kid). Actually, the article is pretty sad, but the bit about the pet alligator reminded me of a story from my youth.

My grandparents had a "pet" alligator. By pet I mean my grandfather was a science/biology teacher in Brooklyn in the 1940s and his classroom had many animals. He was able to find summer homes for the ducks, hamsters and other critters but, for some reason, not the gator.

So the gator ended up summering in my grandparents apartment, living mostly in the bath tub (he wasn't that big). Whenever someone wanted to take a bath or shower, the gator was simply moved to a crate on the fire escape. This worked well until the day someone forgot to lock the crate. Did I mention the fire escape was one of those old fashioned ones with stairs?

When my grandmother noticed that the alligator had wandered off, she went looking for it. She passed an open construction pit on Ave P (near Coney Island Ave for those who know the area) and heard some men screaming and hissing from the hole. She looked down and there was the gator about to be clobbered by some sewer workers. She screamed down "Don't hurt my alligator!" climbed in and rescued it to the bemusement of the workers.

This being Brooklyn in the 1940s, no one really thought this was strange. Today my grandparents probably would've been fired (my grandfather), sued and evicted. The gator remained in the class for another year or two before moving to the Staten Island Zoo where I presume he lived a long happy life.

$500,000 is not enough

President Obama has decided that those financial companies that choose to accept aid from the government to survive should limit compensation to senior executives to only half a million dollars a year. And of course, many are whining that those businesses, will simply lose the top talent to their competitors. Wah.

To all those complaining about socialism and the government taking over businesses by limiting pay, the solution is simple: don’t take taxpayer money and let the chips fall where they may. If your company survives, great. You obviously didn't need the money. If not, too bad for you , your stockholders and your employees.You work for the government now and new rules apply. You have demonstrated that the oldlaissez faire business model is broken and needs to be repaired, or at least adjusted, for a time.

I understand that the government is not the best player to create wealth, outside of making long term investments in infrastructures like schools, roads, police etc. that capitalists can exploit to create wealth. But the capitalistsystem is broken for the moment. You are dependent on the taxpayers' money and different rules apply. The government is the player of last resort and as the player of last resort, gets to dictate the rules. Don't believe me? Ask Andy Pettitte how well that rejection of $10M guaranteed for 2009 from the Yankees worked for him (he ended up signing for $5M, plus $7M in incentives after no one else would meet his price). And let's not start on the still unsigned Manny Ramirez, who was insulted by a one year, $25M offer from the Dodgers.

And as to leaving for other companies? Good luck. You have already failed at what you do. You’ve put your company on welfare. While you may have friends who will give you jobs, they will also have more competent friends than you. You have run your company into the ground. You have not acted in a prudent manner as you were supposed to have done. The only way for your company to survive to accept government money. You don’t deserve even $150k a year. You have failed.

And, Mr. Failure? $500k a year will be a lot better than $0 a year if your company fails and those assets (including jobs and customers) go to competitors. But go ahead. See if someone will hire you for more than $500k when they realize you're one of the ones responsible for killing the golden goose. Your successors, who will happily accept whatever fringe benefits and stock options (for when the company is off the dole) that replace the excess bonuses, can’t do worse than you and might even do better. However I doubt it. And if I'm wrong, I plan to make sure I dis-invest out of whatever company you land up in. My childrens' college funds have already taken a big enough hit.

No one is forcing them to accept only $500k per year. They're still free to take their failures to a competitor or allow their companies to go belly up. If it's the former, I'm sure there are some bright folks right behind them willing to take $500k and gamble on possible stock options etc if things go well. If it's the later, while there may be a little pain at the start, their competitors should become healthier a little more quickly and new businesses will be created to take their places.

This financial crisis won't last forever. It probably won't even last more than a few years at worse. Consider this challenge a speed bump on your road to riches.

Who cares about tomorrow?

Because it has worked so well lately, the GOP is advocating even more tax cuts, despite the ever growing debt of money we owe to others. So far, President Obama is having none of that. I wonder if that is because, as a fairly young man, he realizes it will be his generation (tail end of the Baby Boomers and Generation X) are going to be left to pay the bills left by the last 2 generations. If we and our children are going to be stuck with the bills, we should at least invest in making sure that the tools that will enable us to earn the money to pay these bills are available. However, some want more tax cuts so Americans can run to the mall and get the economy moving again.

I have to admit, I can see why the idea of tax cuts to juice the economy is popular, at least for the short term. After all, we are a consumer nation. We like to buy our way to prosperity, or at least put it on our credit card. And, as we've already seen, unless we can entice citizens of othernations to act like us and spend instead of save, no one will be able to buy the world out of a recession but us, so to heck with the future. Tweet. Time out! As someone fairly young (40) I'm a bit interested in what happens to this country's future as I hope to live in it for many more decades.

What has happened to this country that we are so afraid to sacrifice for a few years to right our economy for the long term? Enough of robbing from the future to buy more garbage we don't need today. We've already spent too many years not properly investing in our future. It's time to get back to work and stop squandering our legacy and the newest iPod or couch.

We've been exporting more money than goods for decades. There is already trillions in debt that needs to be paid. Social Security, Medicare will be broke before long. Our roads, rails and schools stink. Our competitors, such as India and China see the future and keep investing in science and math. We won't because it may interfere with that tax break that we need to buy an even bigger flat screen TV. Sooner or later those high paying, dominating jobs will go elsewhere because we had avacation to go on in lieu of increasing our brainpower. When that day comes we really will be at the mercy of the rest of the world.

Silicon Valley, where the world's leading industrial research labs are, know we are in trouble for scaling back our investments in the sciences and are worried about it. Technology has been delivering most of the innovation and profits for our economy for years, yet we refuse to invest in it because that would cause taxes to rise. It is not hard to see the coming storm andforesee a time where the US won't be the dominate player in the highly lucrative tech field that has given us robust jobs and superior weapons. But sure, lets cut taxes now so we can continue the party that should've ended years ago. I hear Nero has a fiddle and some matches for sale.

Politics as usual in NJ

Recently, a town's representative on the Regional High School District Board of Education resigned "saying the politics of some members and a too-powerful team of administrators were getting in the way of good decision-making."

Why is anyone surprised? Granted, we're only hearing one side of the argument, but this seems to be another example of how things stay the same. Those who want to do right find they can not. Those who want to do something unpopular that will adversely affect those in power, or their friends, find themselves personally and professionally attacked (as seen on various message boards on the net). Money and energy is wasted if filing lawsuits or attacking members of governing bodies (I'm expanding beyond the school board here) instead of actually doing the work that is supposed to be done.

The biggest stories in this area lately, so it seems, has been the use of the term doctor incorrectly by the school superintendent and a lawsuit by another town, that has seemingly gone on forever, against their former attorney that is costing God knows what in lawyer fees. Anyone who opens their mouth against whoever is in power is viciously attacked and then delegated to some corner. That is if they are not somehow sued by politicians annoyed that the citizens criticize their actions. This results in many of us deciding not to participate as we don't want to put ourselves or our families through all the crud that is politics as usual in this area, making us all poorer. How many of us have seriosuly thought I could do something to change things but for I don't have the stomach to play the dirty full contact politics that would cause Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to blush.

Pay for what you get

I saw a letter to the editor in my local newspaper whining about the injustices of those without children being forced to pay taxes to subsidize the education of those goldbricking, layabout slug a beds working parents who dare to populate his town with freeloading children. He makes a good point. Why should he pay for school now that his children are done with it (assuming he had children in the first place). I'm willing to entertain his idea and pay more taxes for my children (only one of whom is in public school at the moment). But, before I do, I want the answers to the following questions (and before someone complains, I'm just using children and senior citizens in the next paragraph as handy examples).

Why should I pay taxes to fund my county's senior citizen center as they don't provide a service I can partake of (the senior center, not the seniors themselves)? Why should I subsidize their bus transportation through either taxes or higher fares for me? Speaking of taxes, I think my property taxes can be lowered if the government eliminated any tax breaks senior citizens get for their property for the simple benefit of not dying. Perhaps my utility bills can be lowered if the utilities took away any breaks it gives to the seniors or the poor. Going further, I'd like to see my social security and Medicare taxes to stop supporting those older freeloaders since I don't use those and, as a 40 year old looking at those funds, realize they won't be there, at least as is, by time I'm a senior citizen. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment -- I want all my tax money back from that too (especially as I'll need that to pay for school and increased taxes if my tax credit iseliminated as the writer suggests). If some don't want to pay taxes to subsidize education, why should I subsidize their pet needs? I'll tell you why.

I pay those taxes because I live in a society, not a private island. We all live in this society where we live by certain implied agreements to maintain a social order. We live in a society that has remained free and incredibly wealthy in part due to those investments our tax dollars have made to educate our young, keep our seniors in their homes and care for them as they age, while not burdening individual families with costs that could force them to decide between Grandma's medicine or heat for their child's bedroom (my mother is in a nursing home now and those bills would've bankrupted me and my siblings by now), a society that takes care of its poor (I'm not here to debate welfare cheats) or those temporarily down on their luck. We've agreed, by living in this nation, to give up our national rights, where it's pretty much every man for himself (read Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau for more information) and agreed to live under a social contract because we realize it is ultimately in our best interests to do so. If the price I pay is higher taxes, so be it. The investment is much less to each of us personally and the rewards are much greater to us as a nation as a whole.

You can argue that paying for education and senior services in New Jersey through property taxes and not income taxes, or at least a fairer ratio so a senior who is house rich but income poor can pay an affordable rate, is unfair. But to suggest, as the writer of the original letter did, that the property tax should be adjusted based on the number of children a family sends, or doesn't send to school is wrong. Sometimes our self interests are outweighed by the greater good. Stop being cheap and looking out only for yourself or feel free to move to a society that will support selfish people (I believe some 3rd world country where the rich lock themselves in enclaves while the uneducated poor scrounge for crumbs would suffice).

Money for nothing and tax cuts ain't happening

NJ's Governor has finally realized the state is broke and wants to slash the state's budget by a few billion. Yay. He wants to do this, in part, by freezing the salaries of state workers or even ... gasp .... laying them off. Do the state workers getting their salaries frozen or, possibly being laid off, include political appointees who don't really provide anything not already being done by the people actually doing the work? Cause that I approve. If he's going to noose a few guys at the motor vehicle office, meaning I spend a day instead of just an hour or so conducting my business, then I might have a problem.

Personally, I'd like to see the Governor attack the bureaucracy. If you don't personally serve the public, or can someway prove you directly supervise or work with those who do, you should expect to be forced to justify your position. Can't do it, expect to look for a new job or take additional responsibilities. As to salary freezes and benefit reductions: my company will still have raises, but the percentage will be dropped to about 2%. Benefits aren't being reduced per se, but we'll have to pay more.

By the way, if we ever get the finances in order, we really need to invest in automating our back offices. How much head count is needed to answer questions or provide directions to the public that could easily be provided automatically via the internet? For example, I needed to call an office for some information on how to do something and, more importantly, fill out some forms. Why did I call? Because the information wasn't available on the internet. Instead, I spoke to a real live person, which was nice in this day of automated service, who gave me the information I needed. When I hung up, I realized that the information could have been provided on the internet. That made me wonder: how much of our human resources expenses could be reduced by simply investing in a better computer system?

Of course, financial problems aren't limited to NJ. There is a chance that interest on the national debt will eat up most of the federal budget by 2010; not some time in the future -- this year. This is what happens when you pay the minimum on your credit card balance. Let's face it, the economic "boom" of the 00s was from maxing out the country's credit cards. Worse, we don't really have anything concrete to show for it. I could understand it if we had plowed the money back into our nation's infrastructure, as an investment into our economy that would pay for itself in the coming decades, but that would've been duller than the fun we had.