Michael Maiello's picture

    When Will Our Leaders Ask Us To Sacrifice?

    By Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 12:44pm | Politics

    I didn't know that there were journalists out there who haven't read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where our hero, high on extract from the human adrenal gland, is confronted with the mocking visage of Richard Nixon on the television urging "Sacrifice.  Sacfrifce.  Sacrifice."  But, Frank Bruni seems to have missed it.  When, he wants to know, will our leaders come clean with the American people and demand of them the sacrifices necessary for us to move forward?

    As usual, Bruni only vaguely spells out what sacrifices we're supposed to make, and he only barely describes the problem, which he encapsulates as this warning from Dwight D. Eisenhower against, “plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.”

    My usual response to this kind of argument is that the American people have sacrificed by giving ever higher productivity to the owners of capital even as real wages have fallen over time.  A population that consistently gives more output for less reward shouldn't be lectured about sacrifice.  It should be thanked and something should be worked out to better reward its members.

    What are we plundering now for ease and convenience?  We paid for a couple of wars on credit.  I suppose that counts.  But those wars haven't improved my life at all, and have certainly granted me no easy and convenience.  I can plead guilty as to our use of natural resources.  Those have been plundered for my ease and convenience.  I'm willing to make some changes.  But the real sacrifices have to be made by the oil companies and their lobbyists who have successfully resisted real attempts at change.

    Other than that, it's hard to even see the problem Bruni is writing about.  Americans don't live in luxury because of Medicare and Social Security.  The average Social Security check is a mere $1,100 a month.  People who can afford to supplement their Medicare with private insurance, tend to do that because Medicare benefits are often inadequate for people's needs.

    Bruni and all of the "serious" columnists like Matt Miller, Thomas Friedman, Ruth Marcus and their ilk love to suggest that our current fiscal problems can only be solved through shared sacrifice, up and down the income ladder.  The more progressive of them will admit that the upper crust will need to sacrifice more, but there's still this ridiculous notion of taking something away from everybody.

    And it might be that you have to do that, if your goal is the preservation of our society basically as it is.  But, if your goal is a society that's better for more people than ours is, you don't want your leaders to inform you about sacrifices that must be made.  Our leaders should, instead, embark on the harder task of figuring out what people might want and where our society can go.

    There's a lot of really cool, non-sacrificial ideas out there.  Maybe we should be talking about those.  I'll start -- paid three month sabbaticals for every five years of work.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    If I could I would:  Invoke a ban on all media writers and pundits (print, television, internet, etc.) who enjoy six figure incomes and/or have a net worth of over a quarter million from opining about those who are in the low and low middle class as designated by acknowledged standards.

    Sacrifice?  Bruni and his cohorts arrogantly dash off this type of drivel as if they have any real awareness of the day to day sacrifices of lower income citizens.  His article only served to make me believe that he shares Romney's 47% judgments. 

    If indeed, a good writer pens what they know, then the vast majority of columnists, along with  other media pundits, should abandon their attempts to advise any on what the working poor, etc. 'need to do'.  But, I'd be happy to advise Bruni where I think he and his column should go......

    This is an excellent post destor.  That said, is your last sentence a serious statement?


    by Aunt Sam on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 3:41pm

    Serious statement.

    First, it's serious because it's the kind of thing we should be discussing, rather than, "How do we cut Medicare benefits?"

    Second, while maybe 3 months to five years of work isn't the right ratio, I'm pretty sure the answer to the question, "Do people who spend much of their waking hours working in the service of others deserve some time to be set aside for their own pursuits, aside from sporadic vacations and holidays?" is not "No."  Maybe the fair answer is 6 weeks per five years.  Maybe it's six months.  To my earlier point, we'd be better off debating that.

    I know rich people who have taken leaves from their professions ranging from three months to a year.  Other people should have that opportunity.

    It's also serious statement because it asks for something more out of life for most people.  This is kind of related to a Friedman column from recent times, where he argued that today's politicians have to take things away while politicians from earlier eras could give things to people.  The only way to really reject this argument is to encourage an alternate discussion about how much better society can and should be.  We have to nudge ourselves back towards a discussion of what more we can have an expect out of life.  I don't think extended sabbaticals is much to ask for, even. Cradle to grave health care and retirement security should also be requirements.

    The deficit and the debt can't control this discussion.  It has to be driven by what we need and want out of life.

     


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 6:44pm

    Having been both an employer and employee, I have a good (IMO) basis to respond.

    First, let me state that I was, in both positions, always an advocate for a healthy and positive employee workplace.  I'm proud that my former employees tell me they'd love to work for me again.  But, I cannot endorse this type of sabbatical (with or without compensation) because it would create many negatives for the business -especially for small to mid-size entities.  Rather I would promote 4 days a week - 9 1/2 hours a day and call it 40 hour work weeks (in essence 2.5 hours paid for not working!) plus a three day weekend.  This has proven to reduce stress and improve productivity.

    I endorse healthcare and pension plans, but do think the employee should contribute a minimum of fifty percent.  One reason is people tend to give greater value and interest in something they invest their money in and another reason, this would most likely mean they get better options for each. 

    I'm also a proponent of employee profit sharing.  It works on all levels.

    I did have an employee once who wanted three months off (for travel) and I told her if she could submit a plan to me on how her job would get done, how the other employees and business would not suffer any type of loss - then we could sit down and try to work it out. She did - but her decision, her time off was reduced to six weeks.

    (I had two messages for all employees - 1.)  I'll never fire you, you will let me know directly or indirectly if you don't want to work here - and 2.) My office is not the dump - so before you come in to dump your problems, better have some potential solutions too.)

    "How do we cut Medicare benefits?"

    There should never be a discussion on the above, better one on "How do we improve Medicare, both on the operational and benefit sides?"


    by Aunt Sam on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 7:21pm

    I did have an employee once who wanted three months off (for travel) and I told her if she could submit a plan to me on how her job would get done, how the other employees and business would not suffer any type of loss - then we could sit down and try to work it out. She did - but her decision, her time off was reduced to six weeks.

    Good on you, Aunt Sam.  Most working people will never get 6 continuous weeks for their own purposes and your employee will likely never see it again.  It's great that you were willing and able to put yourself out a bit to make it happen.  Most employers won't or can't.  But, in a system where such arrangements were universally available, it could be less of a hardship for everyone. Presumably, your employee had the means to fund at least 6 weeks of travel and what you offered was a promise to resume working and no interruption in benefits.  In ad hoc arrangements, that's as much as we could hope for.  In a universal system, we might be able to do much more.

    Apparently, Belgium has something of a workable system, though there is rampant abuse (not so much by employees but by employers).


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 6:30am

    I put the responsibility for figuring out how it could work where it was a win/win on her shoulders.  It actually was a terrific opportunity for her to learn more about the employer's responsibilities and burdens.  She had two weeks vacation coming and that helped. 

    She discovered that it really wasn't doable for the three months, but worked at creating a feasible plan for six weeks that was viable. Of course, we all did our part and agreed to take on a bit more for those six weeks, so the extra benefit was most got some cross-training and additional skill sets.

    If an employer invokes the 'team' theory, then it needs to be across the board - employees need to be able to understand the employers role and burdens, just as vice-versa.  The 'No Dumping' rule is the best, as employees have to at least attempt to come up with a viable solution - and the employer 'brainstorms' with them to tweak it if needed. 


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 12:16pm

    A value added tax on sales of all stocks including shorts and options--1/2%. No exceptions to begin with.

    A value added tax of ten percent on any transfers involving inside info; of course the purchaser must pay all costs attendant to the prosecution of this felony.

    An added tax of 15% on all 'bonuses' rendered to the management class in excess of $500,000 over the course of a calendar year.

    A social security tax of 3% on any income for any individual over $500,000 a year.

    An additional Medicare/Medicaid tax of 1% on any income over $300,000 a year.

    A tax on any funds held by an individual in off shore bank/stock accounts.

    I am not against hefty tax credits when corporations do the patriotic thing!

    Credit should be given when it is shown that a corporation has decreased its foreign workers BUT INCREASED DOMESTIC WORKERS.

    There shall be no, absolutely no tax deductions for contributions to PAC's or similar propaganda machines and there shall be a limit for deductions for any political contributions in excess of $500.00.

    Governmental entities shall be allowed to negotiate on drug prices as well as medical 'machinery'.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 4:07pm

    Yes, more sacrifice is better.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 4:44pm

    Shared sacrifice. What a crock. Of course, that's a personal opinion. What exactly is a person of little means supposed to give up? Food? Well, hey, Bruni can have my box of mac and cheese if he's that hungry.

    All bitching aside, what I suppose you are getting at is not so much the human necessities such as food and shelter but more the along the necessities of the soul? How can we be good citizens if we are unhappy, crappy people in our hearts? A personal sabbatical is a good idea. Some Unions work this kind of thing into their labor contracts, so it is not unheard of. It is less prominent now because of concessions, but not unheard of.

    Maybe a stronger profit sharing plan? Having a well fluffed nest egg really does encourage a feel of well-being. Or perhaps a guarantee of higher-education for offspring. Just a couple non-sacrificial ideas. Not great, but what the heck. It's Sunday night.


    by wabby on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 7:58pm

    Great refutation here.  http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-frank-bruni-now-worst-op-ed....


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 9:15pm

    I am pretty sure Obama has been reasonably direct in calling for the rich to pay higher taxes.  But I guess that kind of sacrifice isn't enough for the Manhattan crowd.

    This is one of the key reasons I don't feel like a liberal anymore why I've stopped paying attention to the old flagship opinion institutions of American liberalism - the NY Times, the networks, NPR, the Atlantic and most of the other mags and rags.   It's become abundantly clear since 2008 that those institutions are now dominated by people who speak for the wealthy.  They are elite, obtuse snobs who think the American middle class is too spoiled, too ugly, to uppity, too highly paid, and too craving of government benefits. And they think it is their job to inflict some tough love, punish people, and reinforce social discipline.

    These guys want to bestow the same disaster on the US that Merkel and Company are giving to Europe - even though US citizens don't enjoy nearly the level of competent government services that the Europeans do.

    It's not that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between rank and file Democrats and rank and file Republicans.  But there really isn't a dimes worth of difference between the elites of the two parties.  I'm so sick of Friedman, Zakaria, Rogoff. Geithner, Brooks, the elite think tanks and foundations and the other such-like privileged assholes who are telling the smart set what to do, and to whom Obama pays far too much attention.

    Most days I feel like just a good old-fashioned Scandinavia-style social Democrat.  But every time I hear the supercilious purring of NPR anchors, or read one of these typical NY Times pieces, I get a strong urge to throw a copy of Das Kapital through somebody's window and hit someone with a stick.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 9:24pm

    A Teddy Roosevelt / Karl Marx-type Democrat. "You deserve a brick today", I think was the old McDonald's ad...


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 10:45am

    Frank Bruni?

    The same Frank Bruni who has never pushed a free meal away in his assignment as the "food writer at large" at the Times?

    I have never in my lifetime worshiped self-indulgence and consumption, as Bruni used from Jimmy Carter's quote.

    This type of rhetoric is bull-crap and plays to the elitists. Something along the lines of, Gee, now that I have mine and I want it all, could you serfs please sacrifice some more?

    This guy should seriously consider returning to his days as chief restaurant critic there at the Times. Other than that, Frank can kiss my 66 year old tailfeathers and jam his head up his own asteroid-orifice!

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 10:23pm

    Yeah, I didn't go there, but it is ridiculous that a Manhattan-based food critic who has wined and dined with kings and queens is lecturing the rest of us about sucking up some sacrifice.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 6:34am

    I think part of the problem around the discourse on sacrifice is that it gets filtered through the mythology of the Greatest Generation during WWII.  Although we are currently fighting numerous wars, the sacrifices we are discussing are more about what could be considered peace time sacrifices.  In other words, we are not being asked to donate tires or buy war bonds in what is hoped to be a short-term sacrifice (after the victory, we will be able to return to "normal" and the particular sacrifice is no longer needed).  Instead, we are looking at what amounts to a permanent or long-term sacrifice, a sort of giving up something for good for all intents and purposes. 

    The other part of the discourse problem, and related to filtering it through a war time sacrifice prism, is that it is seen as requiring a singular national response.  Instead, for so many of the problems, experienced nationally, the solutions lie in local grassroots responses that are able to mobilize the local resources and expertise able to deal with the particular local dynamics.  The federal (and state) government can provide some resources (including money), but it is up to the people working in the trenches, from the business community to the schools to the nonprofits to the churches and social clubs, to find and implement the answers.

    This is true from improving early childhood education to senior care to access to health care. 

    The sacrifices for many have more to do with time and energy than they do with writing a check.  It is about getting and staying involved.  Unfortunately, the discourse on sacrifice becomes about how many dollars will be required of each person or what percentage of their take home income is it going to be take. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 11:34am

    You lost me at the "mythology of the Greatest Generation during WWII", and compounded it with the "we are not being asked to donate tires or buy war bonds in what is hoped to be a short-term sacrifice".

    One reason the Greatest Generation was 'great' was that the rich and powerful signed up for combat duty and served with everyone else.  Today the rich often don't even pay taxes, and some of the wealthy consider electioneering to be equivalent to service in uniform.

    In WW2, it was no 'myth' that a future President was in a boat that was rammed by an enemy destroyer, while a brother of his died in combat in Europe.  Another future President signed up at 18 and was shot down off a enemy held island where captive airmen were routinely executed and cooked for dinner. Similar risks were taken by the over 16.5 million Americans who served in uniform in WW2, which comprised about 1/3 of the entire US male population age 18-45 at the start of the war. Those who served also had families. Tire donations and war bonds didn't even come up on the WW2 'sacrifice' radar screen.


    by NCD on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 12:52pm

    A mythology can be understood, among other definitions, as a body of stories about a person, institution, or in this case generation.  In most cases, there is a lot of facts, a lot of conjecture, a lot of misinformation (esp over time), and a lot of nostalgia.

    Claiming there is a mythology around the "Greatest Generation" is not a claim they were not great.  It was not claiming that people did not make great sacrifices. 

    The claim is that this particular generation had a character that superior to those before or after.  The reality, in my opinion, is that the world provided an opportunity for this greatest to be expressed in a particular way.  It is the same greatest that one saw during the last big earthquake that hit San Francisco, or any other instance when a real threat is experienced and people put their lives on the line for their neighbor. 

    The tires and war bonds part was put in there because when people talk about the Greatest Generation, and relate it to our present day crises, they talk about how everyone pitched in, like the kids going out to collect tires, etc. 

    After 9/11 happened, had Bush turned to the nation and "we need you to do x or y," one would have seen people x or y.  Of course the only thing that was asked of them was to go shop.  Of course those who were already in the military and who have signed up since then have shown they are as brave and willing to sacrifice as any WWII pilot. 

    But now there is this whole mythology that surrounds that time in WWII and the Americans who found themselves having to respond to the country being under attack, as if it happened again, today's Americans would respond with yawns and apathy.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 1:33pm

    It's just ye olde JFK crap, done poorly (not Nixon, silly.)

    To all a youse bellyaching about NYT opinion columnists,  I do have something to say: stop clicking on the op-ed pages then.

    The op-ed columnists routinely make the # 1 most popular list. Remember back when the Times was trying out their first way to get some subscription fees off the internet? What did they try first? They tried charging for the op-ed columnists only, because they were their most popular features. They help pay for the news, and they demand and get high salaries because they help pay for the news coverage.

    I use them this way: if they are on the "most popular" list, I might look at them. Because that tells me something about our culture, what a lot of people want to read in opinion, the argumentsa lot of people find intriguing or want to email to others.  If they weren't, I probably wouldn't look at them much at all. I didn't before the internet, unless I knew the columnist might have inside info or sources on a big news item of the day.

    But I'd really do wish it was the case that some day I see more news and analysis on the most popular list rather than opinion. And people would feel comfortable making their own opinion on it and not wait to have some columnists or bloggers set the agenda, to react against them or agree with them. And then I would go back to not looking at their stuff much at all, unless, again, they were known to have sources or expertise on something going on in the news.

    I don't really care what Frank Bruni thinks about the budget and taxes, his resume doesn't strike me as him having much more to say about it than Joe Blogger or Josh Marshall or Joe Blogger could, and I don't want to waste my time reading them about it when I can go read the opinions of people with more experience on the matter. But if a whole bunch of you are going to argue with him about what he said, then I might take a look at it.

    It's like you are waiting for them to set the agenda about what to talk about at the metaphorical water cooler. Destor, if you hadn't pointed this piece out, I would have never considered reading it.

    And to be brutally honest, I see you trying out your hand at Reuters op-ed, and then I see you do blog posts arguing with NYT columnists, and what I end up thinking is that destor wants to prove he deserves their job, wants to compete on their level. It's not to say that I'm not interested in your argument, but to say that I really don't see you dissing what they are doing as others are here, but rather, supporting it. As are all other bloggers who hope someday to get paid somehow for their opinions. And all who constantly look to see what David Brooks just said so they can do a blog post disagreeing with it......

    (It's the same with cable TV news. If the opinion shows didn't prove the most popular,we'd have more straight news and analysis there, too.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 3:10pm

    Latest Comments