Written mid-July, 2008

By Way of Background

 Much of my primary and high school career was spent cosseted in the ivied halls of college preparatory schools.  This represented a considerable sacrifice by my parents, and their reasoned thought was that I needed to be sufficiently challenged or I would stray.  In another example of the laws of unintended consequence, my private school experiences would, instead, have a catalytic effect upon my already questioning nature, something that I inherited from both sides of my ancestors.

 By the time I arrived at a local private school, I had a disturbingly bad case of teenaged angst.  Nor was I alone in this situation.  While the members of the Class of 1967 have gone on to careers wreathed in respectability, at that time we looked like a sociological hand grenade with the pin half-way pulled out.   And it was the 1960’s, a period of social and political ferment; there were those who claimed to know what was actually happening, but, in truth, nobody knew quite what the society was doing to  itself. 

 It was the task of the Headmaster to keep a lid on things, and it was just a matter of time before I popped up on his radar.  He spotted me early on; perhaps it was my being seen reading Atlas Shrugged.  Whatever gave me away, he eventually found time to corner me.  “Mr. O’Connor, I’ve been studying you for a while now and I’ve figured you out.  You are a nihilist.  Do you know what a nihilist is?”  I replied “No, sir.”  “That’s somebody who doesn’t believe in anything.”  Imagine, a teenaged nihilist, but in a rare moment, I immediately replied “Well, I can’t get into that sir”.  To this day, I’m unsure if the headmaster ever got the wit of my response.  Perhaps later that night, in the privacy of his home with a glass of scotch, he might have chuckled “Kids.”, but he wasn’t giving anything up in front of me.  It would be a long while before I was again put on the spot in the way that he did that day.

The Meeting

To atone for the self-indulgent behaviors of my youth, I have tried to take an active role in my community.  I am the Denis Thatcher of Brookhaven Fields.  So, I was sitting quietly in anticipation of the BFCA annual meeting when De Kalb County CEO Vernon Jones, who is now running for the United States Senate, entered the room and walked directly over to me.  As a matter of courtesy, I got up and started to say “Good to see you again Mr. CEO”, when I realized that he was talking to me in a very strong manner.  “I’ve read your emails and you’re wrong……New sidewalks…. better police….lower taxes.”  In other words, all the talking points of his current campaign for a higher office plus a shot at me.  After several protestations from me, he finally tired of this and moved on the greet other people in the room.  But there I was, in the musty basement of a Brookhaven church, once again the target of the headmaster’s ire. 

 Mr. CEO  later made a stirring presentation to our little group about why the City of Dunwoody was a bad idea, again pointing to me as being a bad example.  His discussion of the Dunwoody matter was particularly irrelevant for our meeting since we are not in a position to vote on the matter.  In fact, the only way that we might effect the impending vote is if we chained ourselves to the ballot boxes in Dunwoody.  I am still mystified as to why he made such a presentation unless he was bored and stopped in for a few laughs as he was on his way to Haven Restaurant.

 In subsequent debriefings, I have tried to figure out just what he was upset about with me.  The term “your emails” leaves the field wide open for whatever I might have said electronically over the last 25 years.  Initially, I thought that it might have been an offhand comment that I made when the neighborhood online group started talking about the possibility that Mr. CEO was buying a house in Brookhaven Fields.  I observed then that he would probably buy it in increments of $49,000.00, since that was his customary way of paying for big ticket items.  But, no, in the fullness of time, I have figured out that what he was angry about had to do with a lengthy piece that  I wrote about the possibility of the City of Brookhaven.  So, let us go back down memory lane…….

 The Original Issues

Cityhood for Brookhaven

 However unlikely such a movement might be, any suggestion of cityhood remains an effective method of gaining the attention of politicians who would otherwise ignore the plight of a group of their citizens.  Bad or good, the notion of breaking large municipalities down into smaller parts seems to be growing.  The opponents use terms like Balkanization, but the compelling need for political representation offsets the economies of scale that a larger political entity brings.  As with so much else, it becomes a matter of balance.  Will Brookhaven become a city?  Probably not.  Is the public discussion of such a city an expression of frustration of inadequate political representation?  Probably so.

 While the residents of Brookhaven might experience an increase in taxes due to the formation of the City of Dunwoody, they already are feeling the effects of higher taxation, and Dunwoody is still just another neighborhood.  We’ll see.

 Unique Powers of the DeKalb CEO

 As was posed in that original posting, the current structure of DeKalb County’s government is unusual and prone to interesting, unanticipated problems.  Nothing has changed, although there is supposedly a ballot item on the matter coming up in November, 2008.  The current crop of candidates for the CEO position have all sworn that they will not be as confrontational as the current administration.  This would likely change once one of them reaches the CEO’s elected position.  Talk is cheap during the campaign.  We’ll see.

Transparency

 One of the issues discussed in that original email dealt with the matter of transparency.  That is, you and I can sit at our computer, in our bathrobes, at 4:00 AM and handle our financial affairs.  We can see the latest news, we can search public records.  Why can’t we see a budget for DeKalb County or for the DeKalb County Public Schools?  This sort of thing is expected from most other institutions of our society, why not this one?

 Counterintuitive?

 Even with Mr. CEO’s irritation with me, it would seem to be counterintuitive for a candidate for the United States Senate to be yelling at a potential voter.  This is one of the highest offices in our Great Republic, but, then again, maybe his consultants are on to something.  Maybe yelling at a small inconsequential fish such as myself is an effective way to gain the votes of others.

 But since there is the possibility that Mr. CEO will become Senator CEO, let’s talk about the issues.

 On Change

 “Change” is the most overworked word in this year’s election.  It is the ultimate in political vanity that whatever change we are offered comes from the existing political establishment.  It is possible to call this political leadership, but you also have to acknowledge that whatever constitutes “change” is coming from the existing framework of the political structure.  The current Congress merits single digit approval ratings, and it is difficult to see this institution rising above itself to come up with something substantial.  As a conservative, I distrust the notion of “change”, but I also acknowledge that change is the basis of our society.  Given sufficient thought, change makes us better; change made for the sake of the cameras is dangerous and the outcomes are unpredictable.

 How Opinion Is collected

 Mom always said that if you look hard enough for something, you will find it.  This points to an interesting peculiarity of scientific research; you tend to find the answers in the data you collect that will support your original thesis.  So, consider that Congress’ main sources of information that lead to policy come from focus groups, polls and the lobbyists.

 People don’t like telephone polls, and land-line telephones are becoming a rarity.  Many find that going to focus group meetings are inconvenient.  So you have to wonder about the character of the people who do actually show up at these focus group meetings as being representative of the general population as a whole.  If you do not believe that expensive research can go badly wrong, just look back to the example of the New Coke; everything pointed to the need for a change.

 If college taught me anything, it was the fact that research is not always meant to determine the truth.  As a means of selling media advertising, we are being exposed to a deluge of polls, which are starting to edge toward triviality.  Who really cares whether pet owners like one candidate or the other?  I, personally, don’t want to have barbeque in my back yard with a candidate; I want them to be busting their rears to figure out solutions.  The only poll that really matters will be on the second Tuesday of November.  And, say what you will about the interim polls, there’s a voter attached at the other end.

 The Times

 Even when discounting the negative drumbeats from the media and the markets because it is an election year, many of us have the sense that something’s wrong.  It goes all across the political spectrum.  Needless to say, just exactly what is wrong is a reflection of your political tastes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the electorate is restless.

 Certainly, having the best Congress that money can buy isn’t helping.  The poster child for this may be Angelo Mazillo, who has his own personal loan program in place with Members of Congress.  From a pure business perspective, his is money well spent since several of the Members who received these sweetheart loans are now voting on cleaning up the mess that his firm has helped to create in the housing & mortgage market.  Whatever the outcome, this little vignette helps to feed the sense that things are badly wrong.

 There’s an ample supply of bad ideas out there, ones that originally seemed like good ones.  Everyone should own their own home.  Every child should go to a four year college.  Third world countries should give up subsistence farming and rely upon the global economy.  We should use our farm land to feed our automobiles rather than our people.  The list goes on, but what really matters is how we react when what seemed like a good idea turns out to be bad one.  In the current environment of a Congress for sale to the highest bidder, it is unreasonable to expect reasonable solutions.

 There’s a reason that the current Congress is in single digit approval ratings.  The relationship between the elected and the electorate has become adversarial.  Things have devolved to the point that when the elected take action on something, it is often results in wrong outcomes.  Or if the elected take an action that proves to be right, it has been for the wrong reasons.  I trust that the people will do the right thing.  It is government’s duty to either assist this course or to stand out of the way.  I trust the market.

 On Personal Responsibility

 It has been pointed out that when there was a Bear and a Sterns leading Bear & Sterns with their own money fully involved, the Company was successful.  But when it became publicly held, it was now the “stockholders money” and individual responsibility was subrogated.  A lot of those bad mortgage loans that were created were done so by individuals who then turned the responsibility for those loans over to some anomalous entity.  They took their money and left, leaving the outcomes of those bad mortgages to others.  Now it appears that the responsibility will become that of the United States Taxpayers.

 On Leadership

 A friend once observed that his respect for his late father had grown once he, himself, began a family.  He had come to realization that his Dad had just been winging it along, making the best decisions that he could with the information that he had.  To expect anything higher from our political leadership is unreasonable.  Frank Knight’s unknown unknowns will always mean that history will repeat itself, with slight twists every time.  A legislative action will address the existing problem, but human ingenuity will always mean that someone, somewhere, will figure out a way around things.  Chance favors the prepared mind, and the real political skill is the ability to adapt and manage the unanticipated when it eventually arises.

 Stale atmosphere in Congress

 My personal sense is that the electorate is ready to move the furniture around.  And while politicians may come and go, the political support staff on Capitol Hill remains.  Their employers, the Members of Congress, are a series of interchangeable pieces.  The staff remain in Washington for a career; they never go outside the Beltway, never really see what is America except for periodic vacations, Congressional recesses and accidental turns off of the Interstate.

 The Georgia General Assembly

It is entirely possible that the General Assembly has lucked into something.  The 2008 session was the focus of many great expectations, ones that were largely unfulfilled.  Yet, at that time, there was not the emerging consensus about energy and transportation that there is today.  In the intervening months since the session, the character and scope of the 2008 energy crisis is becoming apparent.  In the next five months, the General Assembly members will have an opportunity to articulate their positions to the electorate.  They will also have the opportunity to meet with each other and to determine acceptable energy and transportation policy.  The people of the State of Georgia did not know what was needed in early 2008; they have a better idea now and there will be time to form an acceptable action plan.  The politicians that survive the election process will have a chance to act decisively. 

 Taxes and the Georgia General Assembly

All you have to do is look at the numbers.  Higher taxes make people move to lower tax environments; it’s getting hard to sell a house in Michigan.  There is enough competition between the states that some will always be offering lower taxes than others.  People will not sit still for tax increases.  They will figure out a legal way to avoid them or move to a place that is more tax friendly.

Energy

 Well, it’s in all the newspapers right now.  And maybe the Chinese have caused this by a combination of hoarding and subsidized fuel costs.  No matter.  Whatever else Americans might feel about the cost of gasoline, they have come to realize that the United States is terribly vulnerable because of our lines of supply for petroleum.  And that they are personally vulnerable because of the inefficiencies that have crept into our system; people drive long distances to go to their place of employment, long miles to go to friends and relatives, long miles anywhere. 

 The present market has all the signs of crisis; a weak dollar, increased demand and a fixed supply all have conspired to cause prices to severely rise.  The hunt is on for a scapegoat, which now appears to be “speculators”.  Suit yourself, but if you own mutual funds, you might look in the mirror to see one near at hand.  In times like these, there is always a need for someone to hang unhappy sentiments upon; Samuel Insull comes to mind.  In the interim, it appears that the market is already showing signs of change; gasoline consumption has declined for the first time in many years.  A free market does adjust.

 General Motors, Firestone Tire and the oil companies did not hold a gun to the public’s head and tell them to drive.  The public chose to drive because it was easier and more convenient than standing around waiting for the clunky old streetcar to show up.  Cheap energy made it possible.  In that era, American oil was king and the United States was energy independent.  It is not now.  There was a time when every town worth visiting had a streetcar line, but it is going to take more than a streetcar line to solve this problem. 

 Energy “Solutions”

 The first major solution to this problem was ethanol, just right for the farm lobby and votes.  Now, there are calls by Congress to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive gasoline prices down.  Now, more than ever, the real purpose is to save this emergency pool of oil for when a real crisis arises.  Such as when the Iranians get around to sinking a couple tankers in the Straits of Hormuz and supplies get really tight.

 The current argument now is over whether to drill or to put on another sweater and get used to the cold.  Regardless of your position in the matter, any solution is going to take years to achieve anything of substance.  And, it is just a matter of time before we have The Robert C. Byrd Center for Energy Independence, located somewhere in the great state of West Virginia.

 As the petroleum crisis has blossomed, the political demagoguery has started.  In an effort to gain votes, one presidential candidate suggested that the Windfall Profits Tax be reinstituted to “punish” the oil companies for the high price of gasoline.  There are a lot of industries with profit margins much higher than the oil industry, but we don’t quite need those other products quite as much as we need oil.  And such a proposal denies the reality that the petroleum companies will simply pass these extra costs along to the consumers.  I vividly remember the last Windfall Profit tax; it came from the President whose solution to the energy crisis was to tell people to put on an extra sweater and get used to it.  The Windfall Profits Tax killed domestic exploration and production.  Eventually, it was discovered that the Windfall Profits Tax cost more to administer than it generated in revenue. 

 Likewise, there’s the political urge to just grab someone’s property and make it into a government entity.  Maxine Waters suggested just that in one of the oil company show trials in Washington on May 23, saying to the president of Shell Oil: “….Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …"  Maurice Hinchey, from upstate New York, then tagged up and repeated the same general sentiment.  Once word got back to the adults at 430 S. Capitol Street, the Democratic hall monitors fanned out to tell everyone that this really wasn’t a serious policy statement.  But, there it was and although the damage control was done to avoid a confrontation with the oil companies and those who value private property rights, the damage control might have just as well been directed to the environmental lobby.

 Government Ownership of Oil

 Mary Anastasia O’Grady observed in the June 16^th number of the Wall Street Journal: “I have another theory. And mine fits the pattern of resource development – or lack thereof – all over the Western Hemisphere. It comes down to this: Where government has the property right, restrictions on development tend to be low. But when the private sector is the owner, environmental concerns blossom.”

In other words, once the government has a financial role in the production of petroleum and the distribution of its products, then the environmental lobby may no longer enjoy the cachet that it did when the energy companies were independent.  I can see it now.  The government takes over the oil business and discovers the marketplace realities.  Out front of the Capitol, the environmental lobby becomes flattened fauna on Pennsylvania Avenue, Schlumberger trucks are parked all over the White House lawn and the Energy Services Group is well on its way to redeeming the tattered reputation of Halliburton.  So, given the laws of unintended consequence, the Democrats should be careful for what they wish for.

 Today’s generation has never known a time when the Unite States was energy independent.  I remain confident that the market will eventually see its way through this crisis, but it needs to happen soon.  It’s damaging a society that is not yet ready to change.  The post-Katrina $3.00 prices for 87 are looking pretty good now.

 On Common Sense

 A friend told me in the 1980’s that the hand-held video camera would develop into a tool for political revolution.  As these inexpensive cameras with their high quality video came into the market, no event would go uncovered.  What was missing was the distribution network.  With YouTube, that element is now fulfilled.  The public record has become unflinchingly accurate.  A political promise cannot be made in Boise and then the opposite promise made in Charleston.  And, YouTube has become an avenue for ideas.  Consider this video:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPch2k63uj4

I know nothing about this video, but I do know that if Thomas Paine were alive today, trying to get the ideas expressed in “Common Sense” out to those who cared, he would do it with a video on YouTube.

 Why Are We So Unhappy?

 Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.  The dissatisfaction of the populace is palpable.  Things are not right.  But in the overall sense, there are a large number of people in the rest of the world that would love to have our problems.  Uncertainty is not the same as hopelessness.  It is interesting when you look at what we have created. 

·         A society which has produced both Britney Spiers and Maya Angelou. 

 ·         Microsoft Widows and Microsoft Office has enough presence to have two very capable competitors, Mac OS and Linux.  If these industries were regulated, would they be as innovative?

 ·         Doug Teper, my very favorite local liberal politician, is currently in Iraq, at considerable threat to life and limb, to help the Iraqi politicians learn how to conduct political campaigns.

 ·         A group of Iowa Boy Scouts experience a terrible natural disaster, and promptly use their training to help others.

If there is a problem, it is that we have become a society devoted to no risk, to no danger.

Conclusion

 It is not realistic to expect our politicians to be agents of change; it’s just not in their nature.  Granted, there have been some very notable exceptions, but that’s not the way to bet.  One of the Democratic presidential candidates came into the primary races as “inevitable” but lost in the end.  That candidate’s mistake was actually believing the “inevitability”, which took the voters for granted.  The voters in that scenario were not even necessary.  The voters felt otherwise.  

 For there to be change, it has to come not from the politicians but from electorate itself, and that is us.  See you at the ballot box.