Thoughts on Taxes

Taxes are going up while people are getting laid off and business is slowing down. When the economy struggles, why does the government need more operating money? Even in the case where it doesn't seem obvious, such as the CTA (where ridership has increased more than 10% in the past year) who needs to increase fares to meet "operating budget".

This leads me to a question...why do service fees increase when the demand increases for public services?

The purpose of public services is to provide a service that the public needs and the private sector cannot offer. It is not supposed to turn a profit, but is supposed to be provided by the government for its operating costs. How, when ridership increases, does this call for higher fees? There is an increase in revenue, so shouldnt that compensate for the increase in funds needed? Uhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patience with the Mind/Body Connection

Many times in life we seem to lose track and caught up in the routines of life and the drama associated with social situations. Listening to a podcast by Zencast, Andrea Fella discussed using the virtue of patience in meditation and in everyday mindfulness. Emotions and the mind seem to be heavily influenced by the lives we live, such as impatience in traffic and in the grocery store. Sometimes the mind seems to formulate its behavior around common mindsets and activities that can be unpleasant or destructive.

To actively change some of these mental formations, we must change the conditions we put into place using mindfulness. Being aware of our mindsets and tendencies can allow us to subtlety of changing our behavior. Fella differentiates this insight from that of knowledge, which is like a book we can take off a shelf to remember a lesson learned. When we are aware of our behaviors, such as being stressed in a slow moving line at the grocery store, we can remove the fuel feeding the impatience fire. Being stuck in a pattern or mindset without an escape can be very difficult to break, but mindfulness is the method in which you remove the mind's impetus to sustain the unconscious or conscious mind.

Many times we wait for the cessation of emotion to just occur, and this can happen. But many times it is the awareness of an unwanted or unconsciously formulated mindset that we have created that actually cessates the negative emotion.

We can also carry suffering in our mind with the relation of experience. In picking up an object we can be reminded of a past experience, reopening the floodgates of emotion. The way the mind relates to experience can be a source of suffering. And again, being mindful of the reemergence or reintroduction of the suffering can be abated by being aware of it. Putting ourselves in an active awareness can allow us to patiently letting go of past suffering.

There are also times in relative peace that we become dissatisfied with peace. The lack of action or the relatively low need of mindfulness as a tool to let go of suffering also can lead to boredom and a feeling of a lack of meaning in life with peace. To move out of this rut, we can think about the direction of our life. To let go of suffering, many times we are taught to live in the present, and that is correct. But to actively live in the present, we have to know the direction we are moving. Life does not just stand still. The movement of the present must also be kept mindful. Again, Fella reminds us that letting the process enfold is key; however, we do need mindfulness to have a direction for an active life.

Patience is a virtue; on that can free us from our stress and allow for clear perception of life. Unfortunately, we are only reminded to use it when we feel negatively about a life situation. Patience in mindfulness can enrich our lives and our spiritual health. During this economic downturn and holiday season, having patience and reacting to life with mindfulness is more important than ever.

Reflections while listening to "Still" by the Commodores

Why is it that sometimes we cannot stop thinking about someone? Even if they hurt you and cannot allow you to heal, sometimes you just want to forget about them but the mind stays fixed. How can the soul carry on? Why does the heart scream so incessantly?

A betrayal bred from logical confusion that nontheless was a betrayal of trust. I can't blame her too much. But to betray his to choose a course based on a reason, and to withhold motive indicates a hidden guilt. I fear the source of that guilt as something that would make me lose any respect left, and in fact make me deplore the person. It is speculation but the only possibility that i can see.

'Accept me as I am' she said. But what if who you have become hurts me? The rollercoaster tug-of-war strains my heart strings to the breaking point. I want to get off the ride because it makes me sick.

Lady,
Morning's just a moment away
And I'm without you once again
You laughed at me
You said you never needed me
I wonder if you need me now

We played the games that people play
We made mistakes along the way
Somehow I know deep in my heart
You needed me

Remembering the pain, if I may say,
It’s deep in mind and locked away
But then most of all
- I Do Love You - Still...

Those memories,
times I’m sure we’ll never forget
Those feelings we can’t put aside

For what we had
Sometimes I try to understand
But it’s so heavy on my mind

So many dreams that flew away
So many words we didn't say
Two people lost in a storm
Where did we go?
Where'd we go?

We lost what we both had found
You know we let each other down
But then most of all
- I Do Love You - Still...

We played the games that people play
We made our mistakes along the way
Somehow I know deep in my heart
You needed me 'Cause I needed you so desperately!
We were too blind to see

But then most of all
- I Do Love You - Still...

The Death of Dating

An Op-ed article by Charles M. Blow begs the question: Is dating dead?

The old way of social mingling with the opposite sex (and today a lot more open same-sex mingling) of dating and then taking the relationship to the physical level has become antiquated. Now, the method is hooking up with someone, be it making out or sex, and then deciding whether to date. What does this change in social interaction conventions suggest?

The author cites "group friendships over the one-pair model of dating" as well as vetting mates in a friend group to let the relationship develop through friendship and letting attraction carry it to the next level. The elder generation says that the "increase in hooking up" is due to "the collapse of advanced planning, lopsided gender ratios on campus, delaying marriage, relaxing values and sheer momentum". So basically, young people are just morally and socially deficiently wooed by sex, and social conventions are breaking down to make romantic social relations easier. I defer.

In this fast-paced world, the window of time to get to know someone personally is very limited. Many young people in college have full class loads and multiple groups of friends to relate to. Conflicting social schedules and academic commitments are further complicated by work, as well as the wider world in which people live; from family and friends that are scattered across the country to friends that go to different colleges. The increasing specialization of our relationships due to the volume of people an individual comes into contact with does not allow for casual dating in the same way as in times past.

Unless both people are patient, have the desire to see each other regularly, and have that ability to see each other with relative ease (in terms of schedule and distance), it is difficult to casually date until a more serious relationship can be generated. What is left are sexually charged young adults meeting at house parties or clubs that are attracted to each other and know that conventionally dating will require a lot of work and probably will not work out. It is easier to hook up and ask questions later if the situation arises again.

The friendship circle of dating has also developed because if you are a member of a social group, the chances of seeing those people more frequently are higher, and getting to know individuals can be a more gradual process. Unfortunately, it is also more complicated as you move from friend to more than friend, and the transition can be awkward. Hooking up is symbolic of crossing the friendship line, a physical unspoken affirmation of affection that speaks silent volumes.

The tradition of asking someone out also is at odds with feeling vulnerable. We have access to many different kinds of people and as a society have become more judgmental and individualistic in society. A person you date becomes a judgment of your desirability. Also, people take numerous precautions to prevent awkwardness. They are less likely than ever to make a sober decision to make themselves vulnerable to someone else. If someone does bare their soul or express interest upfront, it seems to be almost an aphrodisiac due to its rare occurance.

The sheer volume and accessibility of people can be problematic for someone to choose one individual to date. The rise of online social networking like facebook, the text culture bourne from cell phone use, mass transit and an increasingly wide net of social networks allows for contact with multiple people in different social contexts. The days of meeting at the drive-in on a friday night to meet your crush on a show like Happy Days has evolved into dinner with friends, bar hopping in Wrigleyville, clubbing on Division, and then going to a house party around midnight, where you have the ability to rendevous with any number of people with a cellphone.

It seems to me that the only way to navigate this new world of dating and hooking up is to be honest with people in the brief time you have to get to know them. Integrity is the only way to get out of the hooking up trap, and making an effort to maintain contact in any relationship type (friendship or romance) is the key to letting a relationship grow.

In this new world, it's amazing relationships can exist at all.

On Social and Intellectual Segregation

How did our country become so polarized and relatively easily swayed by identity politics? What about the resulting pandering of incessant repetition of a party position in the face of new and possibly argument changing facts? This polarization has many roots, newly exposed in the social landscape.

The historical segregation of people by ethnic group has a long history in American society, from immigrant groups populating in neighborhoods, to the structural setup of American society during slavery and its resulting population shifts during reconstruction and great migrations. The increase of different immigrant groups also contributes to changes in demographics. In the background, subcultures and secondary categorizations, such as religious affiliation clusters, specific industry clusters like Silicon Valley or Washington D.C., and others also further specialize and polarize the thoughts and social groups we are surrounded with daily.

This spatial clustering affect has allowed for greater specialization of ideas to the detriment of consensus building between these groups. It allows individuals to vet out the media and company one keeps to turn a blind eye to any views or beliefs that lie outside the individual’s belief system. This compartmentalization of thinking has gone uncorrected with the lack of consensus leadership and has pigeon-holed the understanding of complex problems. Structurally, this has led to the dependence on “market forces” to unwittingly deal with the complexities of the market, and to allow for individuals to exploit complexity for their own selfish gain. We have seen what happens when one-dimensional thinking has control of the government and deregulation is preached as the solution to market demands. Ignorance is not the solution to complex problems. The little bubbles created by history, bigotry, group migration and small short-sighted worldview must burst if we are going to fix the root of our current economic and social problems.

*inspired by the book review on december 1 in the NY Times entitled Subdivided We Fall

Addressing the Problem of Globalization on the working class in The First World

In an age where globalization has replaced the political division of capital flows between U.S./Soviet Union affiliations, the promise of alleviating the ills of poverty faces both free market optimism and capitalist paranoid pessimism, both with compelling evidence. The accessibility of more people into a global marketplace promotes the opportunities for individuals to do business that possibly did not have the connections or ways of communicating before. As noted on Kristof's blog yesterday, quoting Kim Tan “FDI (foriegn direct investment) is the key. I’m from Asia, and that’s how Asia has developed, bringing in capital, technology and inspiring young entrepreneurs who build businesses.”

The other side is not as compelling. Protection for workers from the competition of foriegn firms can also diminish the wages, and therefore the base, of prosperity in the USA. Then when a business fails because its costs are too high, the first thing blamed is the wages of workers. Any negative externalities in the growth of the global marketplace are overlooked, such as this business contraction in First World countries, which somehow most adversely affects wage earners.

An example of this is the auto industry's perilous times with the pay grade of its manufacturing employees. The negotiated contracts for laborers were based on market share and success of the auto industry in the past. The fact that shortsighted and greedy executives did not adapt to the new global marketplace with R&D and instead focused on advertising, future-oriented technology that only manifested in dream concept cars without making the bridge to affordable production, and the culture of bonuses, high executive pay and excesses show are not as heavily factored into the equation. The execs point to the "overly high" expenditures to its workforce as the major problem instead of its lack of foresight. As a result, the UAW is forced to renegotiate to save jobs, while the executives are asked to "voluntarily" give up their bonuses and/or some of their pay.

The public sector has responded by hearing business plans from the Big 3 that should have been pursued a decade ago, and then to ask them to intervene on their behalf. In effect, the taxpayers are paying to have a business plan proposed to us in order to dole out our money. A streetwise vendor is making a better transaction than these jokers. The market has already given judgment that the business of the Big 3, without a drastic restructuring and reinvestment overhaul in R&D is an unviable business in this new marketplace. The job of the government is to guarantee the unemployment insurance all the workers have been paying into for years, and to let other automakers absorb some of the market share that will be lost with the Big 3. Their production scales will increase with this void in market share if the Big 3 cannot properly restructure.

If the government wants to help out business, it should invest in its citizens in education and healthcare. Benefits seem to be a substantial cost to businesses, and by absorbing that cost across the board, or coming up with a system that alleviates some of the healthcare costs of individuals and businesses could be a big help. Creating a highly educated work force will also allow for increased productivity in businesses.

But make no mistake, this depression is in part because the US is losing its competitive advantage and lower costs to developing nations who are trying to catch up in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, leadership in government has decided to focus on the needs of investors and focused on guaranteeing their investments instead of focusing on a level playing field. They do this by bailing out failing businesses who have not played by the rules of regulation or smart business practices. The investment risk will bare its ugly head eventually, and the government has shifted that burden to the taxpayer. Subsidizing investors for the sake of attracting more investment is a disasterous policy position that is ready to snowball or avalanche.

Let businesses compete fairly, and let the winners and losers accept the outcome. It is the government's job to make sure the bottom doesn't fall out. Too bad Bush didn't know that, and too bad it seems like the "change" that is supposed to be coming may have a difficult time pursing through the veins of the old market worldview.

Dark Skies ahead for the economy

Thursday, over 500,000 jobs were lost in the United States. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Wall street has become a rollercoaster (or maybe a giant drop). Healthcare costs are rising. 401(k) plans have lost their value. Housing prices are falling while taxes are going up. And the government response? Bailout the financial system. Bailout the auto industry. Did I miss something?

When did it become the job of American taxpayers to help the financial system and businesses correct their shortfalls? Bailing out the credit industry amounts to having citizens pay for the ability to have credit companies charge them money to borrow the money we gave them. Does that make any sense? Complex mortgage-backed securities that have an undetermined value should not be bought by the government, nor should taxpayer money be used to fortify their value. Our government has put investors first before any other group, and, while investment in the global marketplace is important, it was the fault of these systems for not checking the viability of the financial products they were creating. They took a risk and now must pay the piper. These bailout efforts have been passing down the risk to hard-working taxpayers who have to not only bailout the work of incompetent executives, but then also have to suffer job cuts and reduction in pay on top of that.

The Bush administration and Congress claim that the economy will "collapse" if these measures are not all passed, but when a bubble of complex securities and bad debt had been created in an inflated market, it does have to deflate. And after years of recruiting investment in these failing firms and companies, and also telling citizens that the economy is strong, you cannot blame mortgage holders for the collapse of the financial markets.

Political preference in favor of bond holders and investors is the exact reason for the troubled market. Protecting investment from the risks that they face in the market helped to create this bubble in the market. De-regulating to allow for extra risky investment does come at a price, and we are paying this now. Unfortunately, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the tax cuts passed by the Bush Administration also have put into trouble the social funding to lessen the blow of a recession. We are going further into debt because of these costs, and now the entire global market is oscillating uncontrollably.

The way I see it, the economy is like a tree. The soil represents to American worker, sunlight represents consumer spending and investment, and rain is federal funding. When there is too much rain, the soil cannot properly absorb it and the ground floods, causing structural damage to the tree. That is why welfare reform was necessary. However, if there is not enough rain for the soil (funding for healthcare, education, infrastructure) the tree cannot grow and leaves shrivel up. When the government favors policies that encourage too much investment, the sunlight also further dries up the soil, and then consumer spending shrinks, lessening the amount of sunlight for the plant. The result is a dry and shady economy where the tree does not grow. An unhealthy tree can also become afflicted with tree rot (due to incompetent manangement) and there are no mechanisms to save the tree. The only way to attempt the growth of the economy is by investing in the people by watering the soil. Give them jobs rebuilding our roots (infrustructure) and preparing them for competancy as an antidote to tree rot (education) and restore their health (with a better healthcare plan).

The greed of business leaders and the ideology of the Bush administration has undermined the power and authority of the United States around the world. Instead of investing in human brain power and innovation to be competitive in the marketplace, leadership simply tried to falsely advert the risk of investment by deregulation and while withholding funding from programs or failing to address real fiscal problems like the healthcare industry.

We need to let the economy return to its normal size without letting it collapse. Time to trim the Bush.