Showing posts with label Deficit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deficit. Show all posts

April 27, 2021

Motif For The U.S. Economy


This seems like it could be a major theme of the U.S. economy. 

"Buy Now, Pay Later!"

And then...

"Foreclosure"

You can't borrow infinitely.

It eventually has to be repaid. 

Where will the money come from?  

Print more.

Worth less!  ;-)

(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)


Share/Save/Bookmark

November 23, 2020

What A Dumb Education System

School is supposed to help teach our children. 

Unfortunately, the education system here starts out dumb from the get-go!

As the WSJ today reports, $400 billion out of a $1.4 trillion educational loan portfolio is likely uncollectible.  

That's almost 30% bad debt!

But what is unforgivable is that they system is geared towards crappy lending practices. 

As per a former head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

"We make no attempt to evaluate the quality of the borrower, the ability to repay, the effectiveness of the loans...[so] the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab."

Is that fair to all the responsible students and families that pay for their education and repay their student loans?

This systems is so broken, and on top of it yet we want to forgive more student debt all together and teach our children to be deadbeats!

It seems like this education system can't teach anything of value except how to play an already broken system!  ;-)

(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)


Share/Save/Bookmark

July 3, 2017

The REAL Problem Is NOT Healthcare

Why can't all the really smart people in this country solve the healthcare crisis?

The democrats tried and it didn't work out to well. 

And now the republicans are trying and sort of the same thing so far.

Is it politics?

Sure, that is what it can easily look like. 

One side wants to give more to these folks and less to someone else, and the other side vice versa.

But I don't think that is the truth!

Wouldn't we all like to give health coverage to every single man, woman, and child in this country!

Seriously...doesn't everyone have a heart and soul somewhere in there.

And we all know and/or fear what it's like to be at risk, without proper coverage, and without the medical care and medicine that can be lifesaving!

So here's the real problem folks:

It's not healthcare, nor any of the other social or national security issues we face--whether the military, space exploration, environmental concerns, jobs, or anything else. 

This is what it is...

It's called the national debt, which stands art $20,000,000,000,000

And that doesn't even include ANOTHER 127,000,0000,000,000 of unfunded liabilities for things like social security and medicare etc. 

This is a nation that collectively doesn't save--it spends--and it spends not only it's current purse, but it's future one too!

In fact, total U.S Household wealth in aggregate of $90,000,000,000 is eclipsed by our overall national debt!

True, this doesn't include trillions of dollars of other significant business or national assets, but it does point to the overall severity of our highly-leveraged financial position.

So where does this leave us?

We can't really solve healthcare or any of our other problems--if we are BROKE, busted, and a debtor nation. 


Yes, it takes money to invest, and money to pay for solutions for now and for the future. 

But how can you possibly solve anything, if your pockets are not only empty but have a big f*ckin' hole in them. 

So folks, the lousy decisions of the past and present are coming back to haunt us. 

It's a tidal wave, a tsunami of debt--of unbelievable corruption and kicking the can down the road--of fraud, waste, and abuse--of shortsightedness and lack of real leadership--and the time is coming to pay the piper!

If you think the political infighting--liberal and conservatives--tea party and progressives--alt left and alt right--socialists and dictators--is bad now?

But unfortunately, unsolvable problems lead to accusations and recriminations--finger-pointing all around--calls for impeachment--calls to let the other party or some independent lead us out of this mess.

Do you think being in such a challenging situation could also lead us to make rash and stupid mistakes or even go to war? 

In the end, how do you lead us out of a dead-end caused by generations of recklessness with our country's finances?

Some say perhaps we can grow ourselves out of the debt--maybe we need to go back to school and all get our MBAs and start the whole messed up story all over again?

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

October 5, 2013

Debt Default--Now Or Later

So reopening the government, narrowing our deficit spending, and raising the national debt ceiling is coming together in planned negotiations this week. 

Despite all the talk, we continue to spend beyond our national means and basically we must raise the debt ceiling or else the game of borrow and spend is over. 

Almost like insatiable gamblers, we use up our money at the table, head to the pawn shop to sell our watch and car to replenish for the next game, and then borrow against our credit card to fuel our addiction to the game some more. 

Eventually though the house always wins and the borrower must pay up (or they get their legs broken or something nasty like that). 

So while the question posed by the pundits this month is whether the U.S. will default on its debt now, the real question is whether a default is just a matter of time anyway--as we continue to spend more than we generate in revenue as a country. 

Sure can we raise the debt limit again--hey, why not borrow more, if others are willing enough to lend to us (and for little to no interest too)?  

And can we through sequestration or more surgical spending cuts, decrease the rate of our deficit spending--however actually balancing our budget is not even on the table anymore, as booming entitlements for Social Security and Medicare are expected soon with the aging baby boomers to drastically increase our spending again. 

The hope that we will somehow, magically grow our way out is fanciful thinking--almost rising to delusions of national grandeur--that just don't mathematically add up (since we have a median GDP growth rate over the last 80 years of just over 3%). 

Perhaps, we don't care if we can't pay our debts, because we are the superpower and what is anybody going to do to us about it anyway?  

Or perhaps, we rely as a backstop on our ability to print more money and pay off old borrowed sums with worthless new money galore?

Maybe it's not a default if no one acknowledges it or we just get away with it...but somehow, someway, no one and no country can spend more than it generates in perpetuity.

If you believe in the endless virtual cycle of borrow and spend, then the mind control program is working just great, indeed. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

May 30, 2013

Balancing The National Books

Bret Stephens had an interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (28 May 2013) called "The Retreat Doctrine."

He argues that America's retreat militarily from Iraq and Afghanistan may not mean revitalization for us by refocusing on domestic issues, but rather decline by prematurely ending a war with enemies that may not have ended their hatred and hostilities to us. 


Interestingly enough, it is not just on the battlefield that we are retrenching, but on many other fronts as well, for example: economically, we are cutting federal budgets; monetarily, we are anticipating cutting the $85 billion per month bond buying by the Federal Reserve; social entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are on the butcher block, defense cuts are imperiling military programs, and employment cuts have resulted in a labor force participation the lowest in 30 years. 


While many cuts are beneficial in terms of beginning to get our arms around the over $16 trillion deficit we've accumulated and in forestalling another rating downgrade by the big three credit rating firms, it is as Stephens implies, perhaps not a sign of health and renewal, but of national illness and a retrenchment of a global power. 


I remember in Yeshiva learning (Exodus 34:7) about the sins of the fathers being visited on the children and grandchildren--3 and 4 generations--and I always wondered how could a just G-d hold future generations responsible, accountable for what the prior generations did?


But perhaps, the answer is evident here, where we cannot blame G-d for our own actions, where we live big, beyond our means, and cause future generations to pay the piper.  


When the stock market is rallying--up almost 17% year to date and about 27% over the last year, while our GDP growth is only about 2.4% annually, something is very off-Kilter. 


You can argue that retreat is renewal or you can see retrenchment as leading to decline, but either way we will be paying the national bill coming due and all our children will be on the hook for cleaning up after the party is over. ;-)


(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

November 16, 2012

Either Way A Fiscal Cliff

Okay, so here's the dirtly little secret...

The "Fiscal Cliff" that everyone is supposedly working on to avert--is really unavoidable!

Yes, the Sequestration that was put in place that eliminates the broad-based tax cuts from a decade ago and reduces spending across military and domestic government spending--can be replaced by more surgical tax increases and spending cuts. 

But with a National Debt of more than $16 trillion dollars and one which has been trending up over a trillion dollars a year, we have gorged ourselves and spent beyond our means for too long--and the time to pay up is fast approaching.

For example, critical entitlement programs like social security and medicare are running out of funds and will not be able to cover benefits by 2033 and 2024, respectively.

What is even worse though is that the money you have been paying into "the system" from your payroll taxes for decades hasn't been put aside in trust for you, but has been spent on other things--sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul. And now what?

At a time when national competitiveness is suffering, jobs are going overseas, test scores in science and math are trending down, and we have the lowest percentage of Americans working in 30 years, we are saying that we've essentially spent our last dime decades ago and have been doubling down with more and more borrowing--that we don't really know if we can ever pay back. 

While we would like to "grow" our way out, by having more people working, earning more, and paying more into the system, our growth projections of slightly more than 2% next year and a historical average from 1947-2012 of just 3.25%--this seems more than wishful thinking. 

More likely, as the percent of our national debt to GDP continues to rise and our national credit ratings are are at risk of falling, interest rates will start to rise first slowly and then faster to elevated levels to compensate for the increased borrowing risks, and we will see inflation rear it's ugly head--it is ugly because inflation will mean your savings are worth less or potentially even virtually worthless. 

This will make the $16+ trillion deficit also worth less, so we pay it back through inflation as Germany did with hyperinflation after WWI, and the essential wiping out of our personal savings. Viola, deficit paid down, but pay attention to at what personal costs! 

Unfortunately, the fiscal cliff is here and will happen whether spending is cut here or there and taxes go up on some or everyone. This is just the negotiation of how to spread the pain and spin the tale. 

And either way the fiscal cliff is going to hurt, because you have to cut spending and increase taxes leaving people with even less money in their shrinking pocketbooks, and if you don't, the credit agencies will continue cutting our national credit rating leading to higher interest rates on the debt and higher inflation--so either way, our creditors will get their pound of flesh. 

In the E.U. now, we are seeing the effects with countries from Greece to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and more reeling from the impact, but this is only the beginning, because the lending spigot instead of being turned off, has been opened up further to kick the can down the road. But who will be the lender of last resort, when there is no one that can reliably pay it back?

In the end, you can't raises tax or cut your way out of decades of financial mismanagement, overnight. In the corporate sector, we say Chapter 11--what do you say for Western civilization? And what do we tell our children and grandchildren?

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 15, 2012

Go Curly!

This was a funny picture hanging around a local eatery in D.C--at election season.

Curly for President--sort of reminded me of when I was in grade school and had a head full of curly hair and some of the other kids (especially the females in the class) fondly called me "chief curly chicken"--yeah, it stuck for about a year or two. 

Anyway, maybe this is something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on: the three Stooges--Moe, Larry, and Curly--were pretty darn funny. 

With the big looming issues facing America today (exploding national deficits, high unemployment, endangered social programs, declining global competitiveness--now 7th, and more), we can certainly use a little humor to get past it, along with a good dose of strong leadership and breakthrough solutions. 

Whoever you vote for--keep smiling!  :-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

July 8, 2012

To Die or Not

Yesterday, I read in the Wall Street Journal (7-8 July 2012) about end of life decisions. 

With healthcare costs spiraling out of control, driven especially by the care given to those in their final year of life, as a society we are confronted with horrible decisions.

When do you do "everything possible" for the patient's survival and when do you make the call to "pull the plug." 

The article was about one man specifically--age 41, I think--who needed a heart transplant--which was expensive but successful, but then infection and complications set in over the course of the year and resulted in doctors removing part of his lung, his left leg above the knee, his gallbladder, and with the patient eventually living off of a ventilator. 

The medical staff described the patients wincing in pain and the horrific image of at times with the tube down his throat, his screaming with no sounds coming out. 

Doctors and the hospital's ethical counselors spoke with the parents of the man (as his wife had divorced him prior) about discontinuing care.

Part of the conversation was about the practically futile attempts to keep the man alive, the pain of the patient, but subtly there was also the notion about the high cost of care and the patient having reached Medicare limits.

When the father was told that the nurses were having ethical questions about treating the man, the father wanting to keep his son alive at virtually all costs said, (rather than his son being taken off of the medical care he was receiving) maybe these nurses who had an issue with it shouldn't be working on his ward!

The patient died within the year and at a cost of something like $2.7 million dollars (and the man leaving behind a 9 year old son himself). 

There is no question that we want to provide the best care for our families and loved ones--they mean everything to us. 

But when does the greater cost to society (i.e. the greater good) outweigh the benefits to the individual?

Yes, can we come up with hard and cold actuarial calculations about what a person contributes into the system, how much value they bring the world, what the anticipated cost is to keep them alive, and what are the chances of success--and then we can draw a line of what as a society we are willing or able to spend to save this person. 

That is very matter-of-fact--objective, but practically devoid of feeling, compassion, and hope. 

What if the calculation is wrong and the person could've been saved, lived longer, at lower cost, and/or would've been a great contributor to society--how do we know how to really figure individual life and death decisions.

And what of the cost--the meaning--to the family that relies and loves this person and needs him/her--the cost is priceless to them.

But what about others who don't, can't, or won't receive proper care because others ended up taking more than their "fair" share--aren't they also human beings deserving as well of proper care--and to their families are they not also invaluable?

From an ethical standpoint, this is one of those horrible dilemas that plague our consciousness and to which answers do not come easy. 

An almost insane question-- but can we be, in a sense, too giving to an individual, too generous societally, and with some things trying too hard to be ethical? 

Like we are seeing now with the financial decline of the European Union and the frightening fiscal challenges ahead for America--how do maintain the traditional "safety net" (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and more) without bankrupting the system and underlying society itself? 

In essence, what happens when in our effort to be humane to people and give them a basic standard of living and care, keep our country safe, drive research and innovation, and secure human rights and democracy around the world--we overextend ourselves.  

Like many a great society before us that flourished and then declined and even disappeared--do we get overconfident, overly ambitious, and ultimately become self-defeating?

No one--a family member, a compassionate and caring human being, and especially an elected politician wants to say "no" when these decisions hang over us.

But the reality is we will soon be faced not only with the life and death decisions of today, but also generations of built-up overspending and borrowing to finance generous, and yes even corrupt, spending habits.

This will affect present and future generations requiring harder and longer work lives to get a lower standard of living and care, and could even result in our noble society's decline.  

The result is we not only face individual life and death decisions every day, but we also are facing a potential existential threat to our way of life.  

Expect gut-wrenching decisions over the next decade(s) and prepare for life to change in painful ways for all of us--on and off the deathbed.

While no one wants to face these questions and make the hard decisions, this is exactly what will need to happen--sooner or later. 

Fiscally-speaking, there is no longer one way to freedom, but through a collective fight to secure our nation's future. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

May 19, 2012

Those In The Know, Sending Some Pretty Clear Warnings

There have been a number of leaders who have stepped up to tell people the real risks we are facing as a nation. 

They are not playing politics--they have left the arena. 

And as we know, it is much easier to be rosy and optimistic--let's face it, this is what people want to hear. 

But these leaders--national heros--sacrifice themselves to provide us an unpopular message, at their own reputational risk. 

That message is that poor leadership and decision-making in the past is threatening our present and future. 

Earlier this week (15 May 2011), I blogged about a documentary called I.O.U.S.A. with David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States for 10 years!

Walker was the head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)--the investigative arm of Congress itself, and has testified before them and toured the country warning of the dire fiscal situation confronting us from our proclivity to spend future generation's money today--the spiraling national deficit.

Today, I read again in Fortune (21 May 2012) an interview with another national hero, former Admiral Mike Mullen, who was chairmen of the Joint Chiefs (2007-2011).

Mullen warns bluntly of a number of "existential threats" to the United States--nukes (which he feels is more or less "under control"), cyber security, and the state of our national debt. 

Similarly, General Keith Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the head of the Pentagon's Cyber Command has warned that DoD networks are not currently defensible and that attackers could disable our networks and critical infrastructure underpinning our national security and economic stability.

To me, these are well-respected individuals who are sending some pretty clear warning signals about cyber security and our national deficit, not to cause panic, but to inspire substantial change in our national character and strategic priorities.

In I.O.U.S.A., after one talk by Walker on his national tour, the video shows that the media does not even cover the event.

We are comfortable for now and the messages coming down risk shaking us from that comfort zone--are we ready to hear what they are saying?

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Vagawi)


Share/Save/Bookmark

May 15, 2012

Getting Off The Debtor Highway


I.O.U.S.A. (2008) is the best explanation of our nation's financial problems and the deep severity of these that I have ever seen.

This video is a 1/2 hour condensed version of the full almost 1 1 /2 hour award-winning documentary.

David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the U.S. (1998-2008) is the star of this movie.

The documentary, with Walker's steadfast warnings, describes the 4 ominous deficits that are driving this country to Financial Armageddon:

1) Budget Deficit

2) Savings Deficit

3) Trade Deficit

4) Leadership Deficit

What is incredible is how rather than listening to Walker's exhortation, when the National Deficit was $8.7 trillion in 2007, just 5 years later now, there is a deficit going on nearly double that of $15.7 trillion.

We are facing a financial ticking time bomb that could result in huge inflation, economic stagnation, and the undoing of our economic and national security.

Moreover, towards the end of this year, we are facing the economic one-two punch of rising taxes and reduced national spending that could easily send our economy spiraling into recession or even depression.

Add to that rising interest rates, a financial crisis in the  European Union, a continued housing crisis and high unemployment at home, and a true economic reckoning is at hand.

Watch I.O.U.S.A. and become proponents for financial discipline for ourselves and for the country.

Share/Save/Bookmark

April 8, 2012

Returning From The Brink Of National Suicide

It is not only because we are in an election year that politics in Washington D.C. has become more cutting, oppositional, and unproductive.

Unfortunately, there has been a downward trend for some time and we saw this recently with everything from confrontations to raising the federal debt ceiling, passing a federal budget, near government shutdowns, and what has now become regular showdowns over every major legislation from healthcare to deficit reduction.

We are a nation with government at the crossroads of neuroticism where situations get treated as virtually unsolvable by oppositional political movements who themselves appear hopeless of genuinely working together. 

Harvard Business Review (March 2012) in an article titled "What's Wrong With U.S. Politics," described the "ineffectiveness of America's [current] political system," where instead of opposing sides coming together to craft compromise positions that bring together the best of multiple points of view to find a balanced approach and prudent course for the American people, now instead compromise is seen as surrender, and "the fervor to win too often appears to trump everything else."

While traditionally the source of political parties and politics itself in America is founded in the opposing views of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton--one who opposed strong central government and the other who favored it, these diametric opposites where a source of national strength, because they strived ultimately to find an almost perfect compromise to whatever ailed the nation.

However, something has profoundly changed--from where "rigorous rivalry between the two political philosophies used to be highly productive" to the current situation of absolutism, where like in July 2011 debt-ceiling crisis, "some politicians even suggested that a government default or shutdown would be less damaging than compromise."  

When last August, Standard and Poor took the historically unprecedented step of downgrading U.S. debt from AAA to AA+, they cited "that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions had weakened."

This should be of dire concern to everyone in this nation, because we all depend on government to solve problems and do what is ultimately right for the people. 

One of the suggestions that HBR makes is grounded in the techniques of negotiation, where we facilitate and help each side "not merely split the difference," but also "articulate their highest parties, with an eye toward facilitating the best of best of both over time."

While this is certainly an important element in moving to compromise, there is another core element that is missing and needs to be addressed and that is a mutual respect for all parties and points of view, one where we see ourselves first as one nation, and only second as political parties and positions--in other words, we recognize that our common values and goals obviate the more subtle differences between us.

This coming together as a nation can only happen when there is basic trust between the all sides, so that each knows that the other will not take advantage of them when they wield power, but rather that the views of all will be respected and duly represented in any solution, and moreover that the core beliefs of each will be protected at some fundamental level, even when they are not in power or outvoted.

What this means is that compromise, balance, and fairness prevail over whichever political party resides in power in at the time, and assures each side of the same treatment and protections under the other.  

Violating this ultimate balance of power is tantamount to taking the first shot in a situation akin to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), when each side wields destructive nuclear capability. 

With critical decisions coming up again on deficit reduction, federal debt ceiling, and social entitlements and national defense spending, and each side digging in, we are fast approaching the equivalent of a thermonuclear showdown in politics, and it is time for both sides to pull back from the brink of national suicide and to once again reinforce the basic principles of mutual respect and enduring compromise--even when one side, or another, has the upper hand. 

As a next step, let each side of the aisle demonstrate true compromise in negotiations with the other to reestablish confidence and trust that neither will be wholly overrun or defeated in the political wrangling and fighting that ensues.

The important question in politics must not be which side will wield power, but who can bring the best leadership to the nation to forge a path of sensibility, balance and mutual respect to any solution. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Elvert Barnes)

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 10, 2012

Robots, Coming to An Agency Near You Soon

There is an article today in the Wall Street Journal (10-11 March 2012) about how an Anybot Robot attended a wedding party in Paris dressed up as the man's 82-year old mother who logged on from her home in Las Vegas and by proxy of the robot moved and even danced around the party floor and conversed with guests--she was the hit of the party. 

While sort of humorous, this is also amazingly incredible--through robotics, IT and telecommunications, we are able to close the gap in time and space and "be there," even from a half a world away.

The QB Anybot robot is life size, rolls around on 2 wheels like a Segway, and has glowing blue eyes and a telescreen for a forehead on a long skinny cylindrical body that can be controlled remotely and costs only $9,700.

While this is the story of a robot "becoming the life of the party," I believe that we are at the cusp of when robots will be reporting for duty at our agencies and organizations. 
 
The function of robots in workplace has been tested with them performing everything from menial office tasks (like bringing the coffee and donuts) to actually representing people at meetings and around the office floor--not only keeping an electric eye on things so to say, but actually skyping back and forth with the boss, for example. 

As robots become more dexterous, autonomous, and with better artificial intelligence, and abilities to communicate with natural language processing, we are going to see an explosion of these in the workplace--whether or not they end up looking like a Swiffer mop or something a little more iRobot-like. 

So while we are caught up in deficit-busting times and the calls for everything from "Cloud First" to "Share First" in order to consolidate, save, and shrink, maybe what we also need is a more balanced approach that takes into account not only efficiencies, but effectiveness through innovation in our workplaces--welcome to the party, Robots!

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

January 8, 2012

A Race To The Future

This last week, we learned of the new defense policy that shifts the U.S. from a full two war capability to a "win-spoil" plan, where we have the ability to fight one war, but still disrupt the military aspirations of another adversary elsewhere.
While we would all like to have unconstrained capabilities for both "guns and butter", budget realities do not permit limitless spending on anything or anytime.
The Wall Street Journal (7-8 January 2012) had an interesting editorial that cautioned against reduced military spending and latched on specifically to focusing too much on the Asia-Pacific region and somehow neglecting other danger spots around the globe.
Basically, the author says it is dangerous for us to put all our proverbial eggs in one basket. As he writes, this single-focus approach or "strategic monism" is predicated on our ability to accurately predict where the trouble spots will be and what defensive and offensive capabilities we will need to counter them.
In contrast, the author promotes an approach that is more multifaceted and based on "strategic pluralism," where we prepare ourselves for any number of different threat scenarios, with a broad array of capabilities to handle whatever may come.
What is compelling about this argument is that generally we are not very good at forecasting the future, and the author points out that "the U.S. has suffered a significant surprise once a decade since 1940" including Pearl Harbor (1941), North Korea's invasion of the South (1950), the Soviet testing of the Hydrogen bomb (1953), the Soviet resupply of Egypt in the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Iranian Shah's fall from power (1979), the Soviet Union collapse (1991), and the terrorist attacks of 9-11 (2001).
Similarly, Fortune Magazine (16 January 2012) calls out "the dangers inherent in...long-term forecasting" and points how almost comically "the 1899 U.S. patent chief declares that anything that can be invented has been."
The Fortune article goes on to say that a number of the experts interviewed for their Guide To The Future issue stated that "cyberterrorism, resource shortages, and political instability around the world are all inevitable."
In short, the potential for any number of catastrophes is no more relevant now in the 21st century, than at any other time in history, despite all our technological advances and maybe because of it.
In fact, Bloomberg Businessweek (19-25 December 2012) actually rates on a scale of low to high various threats, many of which are a direct result of our technology advancement and the possibility that we are not able to control these. From low to high risk--there is climate change, synthetic biology, nuclear apocalypse, nanotechnology weaponry, the unknown, and machine super intelligence. Note, the second highest risk is "unknown risks," since they consider "the biggest threat may yet be unknown."
So while risks abound and we acknowledge that we cannot predict them all or forecast their probability or impact accurately, we need to be very well prepared for all eventualities.
But unfortunately, being prepared, maintaining lots of options, and overall strategic pluralism does not come cheaply.
In fact, when faced with weapons of mass destruction, threats to our homeland, and human rights abuses is there any amount of money that is really enough to prepare, protect, and defend?
There is no choice but to take the threats--both known and unknown seriously--and to devote substantial resources across all platforms to countering these. We cannot afford to be caught off-guard or prepared to fight the wrong fight.
Our adversaries and potential adversaries are not standing still--in fact, they are gaining momentum, so how much can we afford to recoil?
We are caught between the sins of the past in terms of a sizable and threatening national deficit and an unpredictable future with no shortage of dangers.
While everyone has their pet projects, we've got to stop fighting each other (I believe they call this pork barrel politics) and start pulling for the greater good or else we all risk ending up on the spit ourselves.
There is no option but to press firmly on the accelerator of scientific and technological advancement and break the deficit bounds that are strangling us and leap far ahead of those who would do us harm.
(All opinions my own)
(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

December 2, 2011

Who Will Protect Those Who Protect Us?

This is a video that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) sent to Congress to appeal to them not to cut funding to all the activities that our law enforcement officers do for us.

While the functions of government can always be more efficient--and we should constantly work to achieve these--federal law enforcement is incredibly important.

From the FBI to the Secret Service and from Border Patrol to DEA, we need to support all our federal law enforcement efforts.

These agents and officers risk their lives every day for all of us, and it's time that we stand by them to protect their mission and jobs.

Share/Save/Bookmark

November 19, 2011

Will You Survive?

If you are interested in your chances of survival in the event of a nuclear blast, check out the website for Would I Survive a Nuke?
I ran the simulation as if was still living in my old neighborhood of Riverdale, New York and 50 megaton bombs were hitting 5 cities with populations over 1 million people.
On the map, you can see the horrible destruction--gone is Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
The concentric circles around each blast shows 5 levels of devastation as follows (associated with the colors zones of red, pink, orange, yellow, and clear/outside the blast):
Devastation
This is not a pretty picture and warrants our consideration of how critically important is missile defense and homeland security is.
This position was advocated by the late Dr. Fred Ikle the former Pentagon official who passed away this week on 10 November 2011--Ikle challenged the status quo policy of MAD asking "Why should mutually assured destruction be our policy?" -WSJ
I, for one, don't like any of the 5 scenarios above and would like to keep our society and way of life going with a strong national security posture that includes the gamut of diplomatic, defensive, and offensive capabilities for safeguarding our national security.
With this in mind, this coming week with the deadline for Super Committee to come up with recommendations for reducing our budget deficit or else the automatic $1.2 trillion cut goes into effect--half of which is to come from the Department of Defense is extremely concerning.
Moreover, with well-known hostile nations having achieved (North Korea) or very near to achieving (Iran) nuclear weapons capabilities, we must take the threats of nuclear attack to us and our allies very seriously or else we can end up with not just scary looking colored concentric circles on a map, but the very real deadly effects they represent.

Share/Save/Bookmark

November 6, 2011

Desperate For A Meal

I was really moved by an article in The Washington Post (5 November 2011) called "A Hungry Challenge With Food Stamps."
Last week was the launch of the 2nd nationwide Food Stamp Challenge--"part of an interfaith campaign to raise awareness about America's poor."
For one week, Rabbis, Pastors, Imams, and members of Congress (600 people) took part in the program to live on $31.50 a week (or $4.50 per day) for food--the average that an adult gets on the food stamp program.
Intuitively, knowing what food costs these days, it makes no sense!
Even a basic meal from a fast food restaurant costs more than what the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides for a whole day.
The money for food is so meager that participants in the challenge report being overwhelmed by thoughts of food--"When am I going to eat? What am I going to eat?"
According to the USDA, food stamp usage has risen to the highest level ever, with almost 46,000,000 Americans on the program (that's more than 1 of every 7 people in this country!)
This is up almost 65% from 28,000,000 people in 2008--just 3 years ago.
With the food stamp program, while better than getting no help at all, people are still surviving on limited types of food and meager portions of things such as lentils, cornflakes, eggs, and so on.
It is frightening and humbling to think that any one of us--or our families--could be in that situation--wondering where our next meal is coming from.
I remember as a kid, before the SNAP program issued the food assistance on debit-like cards, seeing people in the supermarket actually tearing off and handing stamps to the cashier--they never seemed to have enough and invariably had to put back groceries. They were noticeably embarrassed, self-conscious, and fearful--often holding children in their arms or by the hand as they tried to work the math of feeding them all with what was obviously not enough.
While I have not participated in such a program as the Food Stamp Challenge, I am awed by those who take the time and effort to see what such hunger feels like and to learn the lessons of empathy, social justice, and charity.
As we enter the last few weeks of deliberation by the Deficit Panel Super Committee, I am afraid at what $4,000,000,000,000 (trillion) in cuts looks like to our nation and how the very real pain coming will be distributed.
With a nation already feeling squeezed by lost jobs, sunken housing values, near zero interest rates on fixed income investments, an rickety stock market, and global economic challenges from abroad, I wonder how our nation can take the deep cuts that we must without going into economic cardiac arrest.
Yet, Moodys and Fitch are waiting in the wings to downgrade our debt, if we do not embrace the tough love or if we fudge the numbers rather the do what our long-term economic health demands.
I pray that G-d helps us through this challenging period for our country and that the people who are hungry today and those that may suffer tomorrow are spared by the almighty in his everlasting mercy.
(Photo Source: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 10, 2011

Growing America's Jobs

Robot

ABC News reported tonight of a home builder in Montana making a house entirely from American made products--as difficult as they are to find.

The home uses more than 120 products from 33 states and costs only 1 to 2% more than a foreign-sourced one.

The builder who is also an economist says that if builders around the country would just increase their use of made in the USA products by 5%, we could increase jobs by over 220,000 right now.

Multiple it by ten, if we actually produced these homes 50% or more here in the USA--that's 2+ million jobs.

It makes you wonder if all the outsourcing is just another addiction where we feel good now--by saving a little today at the checkout line--but we pay the piper down the road, through the gutting of our own labor force and the future capacity for us to produce.

While, I don't believe in circle-the-wagon protectionism out of fear of competing in the global marketplace, I do think we need to assess the deals we make to ensure that we are getting the best for our people and our future--and not just for the next quarter or two, but for the long-term!

Having started my career in business, I am well aware that this is "one big balance sheet" and things have to add up or else short-term profits today are made at the expense of long-term capabilities tomorrow.

If the strategy was that we would somehow give the blue collar work to others and keep the white collar work for ourselves, it seems like we have deluded ourselves into thinking that a one-size fits all economy will keep America running.

We need broad based opportunities for our diverse workforce in all areas of work, and we need to remain strategically self-sufficient, so that we do not outsource ourselves to economic death, where we lose the know-how or capability to help ourselves.

Buy, build, and work America into an economic powerhouse that the world relies on, rather than one that is fed by others with economic loans and cheap goods made in wherever-land.

In my opinion, there is no real alternative to balancing the national budget as well our current account deficit--if we consistently spend more than we earn, and the ships keep unloading more stuff here and then going back overseas half empty, eventually the system has got to go kaput!

As the world's superpower, our coffers can once again be full and our ships can brim proud with made in America wares--but this can happen only if we focus on products that outlast, outlook, and outperform.

Competition has never been more fierce and the stakes never higher for us individually and as a nation--we will need technology to keep us steadily improving and releasing the pressure from this enormous economic cooker.

(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

August 20, 2011

Cloud Second, Security First

Leadership is not about moving forward despite any and all costs, but about addressing issues head on.

Cloud computing holds tremendous promise for efficiency and cost-savings at a time when these issues are front and center of a national debate on our deficit of $14 trillion and growing.

Yet some prominent IT leaders have sought to downplay security concerns calling them "amplified...to preserve the status quo." (ComputerWorld, 8 August 2011)

Interestingly, this statement appeared in the press the same week that McAfee reported Operation Shady RAT--"the hacking of more than 70 corporations and government organizations," 49 of which were in the U.S., and included a dozen defense firms. (Washington Post, 2 August 2011)
The cyber spying took place over a period of 5 years and "led to a massive loss of information."(Fox News, 4 August 2011)

Moreover, this cyber security tragedy stands not alone, but atop a long list that recently includes prominent organizations in the IT community, such as Google that last year had it's networks broken into and valuable source code stolen, and EMC's RSA division this year that had their SecurID computer tokens compromised.

Perhaps, we should pay greater heed to our leading cyber security expert who just this last March stated: "our adversaries in cyberspace are highly capable. Our defenses--across dot-mil and the defense industrial base (DIB) are not." (NSA Director and head of Cyber Command General Keith Alexander).

We need to press forward with cloud computing, but be ever careful about protecting our critical infrastructure along the way.

One of the great things about our nation is our ability to share viewpoints, discuss and debate them, and use all information to improve decision-making along the way. We should never close our eyes to the the threats on the ground.

(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

July 24, 2011

How Do You Like Those Apples?

Apple

A new proposed method for determining Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) for people receiving Social Security and federal and military retiree pensions is called the Chained Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The Federal Times (18 July 2011) reports that "proposed COLA changes would mean smaller annuities for retirees."

Essentially, the Chained CPI doesn't just look at the change in prices for "market basket" of goods, but it "takes into account...the fact that most consumers change their buying habits when prices go up."

What this means in a simple example (exaggerated for effect) is that:

If the price of an Apple goes up from $1 to $2 instead of COLA being adjusted so that retirees get $2 for the apple, we give them instead maybe $1.25, since we ASSUME that because the price of apples went up "people are likely to buy fewer apples or switch to a cheaper fruit."

Does that sound right from your shopping experience?

Are you going to buy fewer apples or are they sort of a necessity? Further, if the price of apples goes up, is it not likely that the price of other common fruits will go up in an inflationary environment as well.

This proposal which is estimated "to save $300 billion in its first decade" sounds like quite the fuzzy economics indeed.

So how do you like those apples?

(Source Picture: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

May 8, 2010

Technology Cannot Save Us From Arrogance

This week we saw firsthand what uncontrolled deficit spending can do to a modern democratic nation, such as Greece.

For all intents and purposes, Greece is bankrupt except for the ~$150 billion bailout they are getting from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union that will keep them afloat.

In return for the funds, Greece has to adopt “austerity measures” that will limit jobs, programs, and social spending.

The result this week was social unrest, rioting in the streets, and civilians killed.

Other European nations with high deficits to GDP spending are at risk, such as Portugal, Spain, and Italy, as well as major Asian countries like Japan.

The uncertainty and fear of this chaotic situation struck the U.S. stock market hard—with the S&P falling almost 800 points this week, during a time of supposed economic recovery.

Last evening, I watched on the news as a professor from Columbia University debated with the newscaster about whether or not the U.S. was susceptible to the same type of debacle that we are witnessing overseas.

The newscaster took the position that our $13 trillion national deficit—much larger than Greece’s—certainly put us at similar risk, even though we have a much larger GDP.

The professor countered that we are not like Greece—we are different and that what is happening there cannot happen here in America.

Why?

The professor said that he thought that we are more innovative, more technologically savvy, and more able to grow our way—economically—out of this. He laughed at the prospect of America running into any sort of grave financial difficulty, because of “who we are.”

As someone who is focused on the importance of technological prowess, innovation, and progressive change to our economic health, competitiveness and national security, I fully appreciate the vital importance of these factors.

Yet at the same time, it seems to me to be stretching credulity to say that technology and innovation alone can save us from the consequences of fiscal unrestraint.

While I believe in our strong political, social, and economic foundation, I question whether we are truly so different from our neighbors overseas.

For IT leaders, the point is that just because we drive investments in new technology—“the art of the possible”—that does not make us invincible.

While technology can help us grow in amazing ways and potentially solve our most complex and challenging problems, it is not a mystical, magical elixir and cannot solve our deficit no matter how large it gets unchallenged.

It seems to me that our greatest challenge is arrogance.

As a nation, we can by proud of our ideology and many achievements, but we cannot rest on our laurels, thinking that we are immune to the consequences of our mistakes. We must accept that our spending will catch up with us, unless we course-correct.


Share/Save/Bookmark