Editorials and Opinions

Georgetowner • November 30, 2011

“A house divided against itself cannot long endure,” Abraham Lincoln so eloquently said.
More than ever, since then, the country is again divided against itself, and again, it is about values and class warfare and, of course, money.

Historical themes repeat themselves.

In 1992, Ross Perot ran for president arguing that the Reagan and Bush budget deficits were leading the country into bankruptcy and that the U.S. should lock its borders and stop the flow of imported foreign goods.

Sound familiar?

During that 1992 presidential campaign, I was working in the U.S. Senate and had the opportunity to visit 20 high schools, meeting with thousands of students to talk about how Congress works.

To make government come alive, we created a mock Congress with students divided into two groups, half serving as a Senate and half as the House of Representatives. Their job was to pass a law based on whether seniors should be allowed to leave campus during lunch.

Both student chambers individually debated and passed a bill and then elected representatives to a conference committee who were charged with negotiating a compromise. That compromise was then taken back to their separate chambers to see if they would accept the compromise.

Some passed bills allowing seniors to leave campus during lunch, while others allowed both juniors and seniors to leave campus. Some passed bills allowing any student to leave campus, and some, especially when underclassmen were the majority, passed bills not permitting anyone to leave campus. Rarely were the bills the same.

Of these 20 schools, only one agreed to the same original bill. They probably wanted to go home early.

The other 19 schools elected representatives to meet in conference and negotiate a compromise. Two of those 19 agreed on a compromise. Seventeen could not reach an agreement. Some failed at the committee level, and others could not get both houses of their congresses to agree to the same bill.
Of course, the students faced strict time constraints, the process was new to them, and they lacked the ability to communicate with each other during the process.

However, they did learn that compromise is difficult — and had they more time, perhaps they would have figured out how to give a little and get a little to reach a compromise.

Today, Congress is teaching us that the lack of compromise hurts everyone. Its inability to reach a debt ceiling deal until the last minute cost the U.S. its stellar credit rating. Neither party seems willing to accept the fact that the middle is wide and where the majority of the public wants to be.
Last week, the Super Committee — specifically, The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, 12 members of Congress, six from the House and six from the Senate, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans — was scheduled to present a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan. It could not agree and failed, just like 85 percent of those students who could not find common ground. To make matters worse, that $1.2 trillion is peanuts. It is spread out over 10 years and equals only 10 percent of projected deficits over that time. Even if they could have reached a deal on that, the really heavy lifting – another $3-4 trillion – still lies ahead.

In addition, if the super committee finds a compromise, that compromise will look like every other deficit reduction proposal, the good ones and the bad ones, out there. All of them propose formulas based on an amount or percentage of something. The hard work of filling in those blanks is assigned to a future Congress.

Budgets matter. They define policy. Improving schools or not, fixing bridges or not, providing or reducing health care to the elderly, cutting or increasing taxes may or may not be good ideas. The common denominator is that nothing happens without compromise.

During the cold war, the threat of nuclear war was called MAD: mutually assured destruction. Today, MAD defines the political process. If everyone demands a full loaf and only a full loaf, we all starve.
A century and a half ago, a few weeks before he was killed, President Lincoln reached out to both victor and vanquished alike, a common “us,” stitching together a single nation among enemies who distrusted each other, and said, “Let us strive on to finish the work we are in.”

Today’s leaders need to hear the echoes of Lincoln’s lips. Will they listen?

the Georgetowner • November 28, 2011

During the holidays, it’s easy to get swept away by the minutia and the stress of the season: entertaining the in-laws; spending 24 hours preparing dinner; waiting in Black Friday lines to buy your kids expensive gadgets they’ll immediately break, or worse, that they won’t even like. For us working at The Georgetowner, we get caught up publishing stories about Thanksgiving, Christmas, the New Year and the myriad festivities that go with it. This Thanksgiving, in the midst of non-stop schedules and working lunch breaks, we would like to take a pause to celebrate the spirit of the season. We are thankful for our families. Both for each individual one and for The Georgetowner’s greater family, which is the community we live and work in. We are thankful for the small businesses that keep this community alive and thriving, for its citizens who make up its heart and soul, for the students who bring energy and vitality and for all those people who devote their time to keeping Georgetown a unique, vibrant and safe corner of D.C. You have our sincerest gratitude.

Georgetowner • November 16, 2011

Answer my history question and get a treat. Or miss it and get a treat. But learn a little along the way.

As Executive Director of a historic foundation, I was handing out treats in front of a 200-year-old building at a Halloween Fun Fest.

Hundreds of kids dressed like ghosts and Spider-mans and princesses stood in line a block long, holding out their pumpkins or bags saying, “Trick or Treat.” Like Santa Claus, I love talking to kids, so I’d ask, “How old are you?”

If younger than five or six, I’d say, “You’re right!” and give them a handful of treats.

But, at age eight or nine, the “trick” questions became more difficult. Mostly, I asked, “Who was the first President of the United States?” Behind me in the window of our shop was a life sized cut out of President Washington. And there I was, dressed like George Washington.

With my long blue coat, tan pants tucked into knee high black boots, a gold buttoned vest, a jabot – that white lace collar I’ll never wear again – and especially my snow white wig, I was the spitting image of our first president. Well, eight inches shorter and no wooden teeth. But close enough. It was Halloween.

When a child said, “I don’t know,” I’d say, “Oh, come on. Who do I look like?” or, “Who is that guy in the window?”

Some shrugged their shoulders, said “I don’t know,” and began to walk away. I chased them down and gave them some candy anyway.

Some kids said, “Lincoln?”

Lincoln? He was tall, slender, and had dark hair and a beard. I’m short with light grey hair and barely need to shave my blond whiskers daily.

Or “Ben Franklin?” OK, my coat looked a little like Ben’s. But I’m not bald.

Some turned to their parents with an expression begging, “Help me out.” Most parents whispered, “Washington,” but a few shocked me, “Don’t ask me. I don’t know.”

Occasionally when a child was excitedly right, I’d ask, “Who was the second President?” A few guessed “Lincoln?” but not one said “John Adams.”

The funniest answer was a nine-year old boy who proudly announced, “Garfield. I’m studying the Presidents.”

“Garfield was the first?” I asked. He corrected himself, “Oh, Washington.”

My daughter, dressed truly prehistorically as a dinosaur, was helping and estimated that 40% of the kids missed. She’s prone to exaggeration, but not much.
Occasionally, I asked, “Do you read every day?”
Some said they did, but too many said, “No,” looking at me with an expression that said, “Can I still have some candy?” They got their handful.

The answer that shook me out of my boots was a child who said, “I don’t need to. I’m home schooled.” That stumped me – surely that’s not indicative of home schooling – so I gave him a handful of candy and scooted him along.

I don’t know what’s wrong with our educational system, but something is. I wasn’t out to do a social experiment. Maybe the kids were just too excited to think. I expected everyone to indignantly blurt out “George Washington” without hesitating.

The canvas is larger than this Trick or Treat episode. It touches the core of what we are as a nation.

The country is agonizing over the loss of and the lack of jobs. One of the drumbeats out of Washington is that the “market” is the only engine of job growth. Markets are competitive. The US must have a smart economy to grow, and employers want smart employees. Twenty-five years ago, when I worked for a large consulting firm, we couldn’t find enough business students to fill our positions, so we decided to hire the smartest graduates from any field with the idea that we could train smart people to be good consultants.

Our national debate about immigration policy is missing the point. Immigrants are banging on the doors of our universities and most innovative companies. They want to live here and pay taxes, but we make it difficult for them to come here and difficult for companies to hire them. We invite foreign students to study here, provide them with our most valuable resource, and usher them out of the country. We, a country built on the work ethic of immigrants, limit legal immigration of the best and the smartest from other countries, people who start companies and create jobs. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have begged Congress for more immigrant permits. Congress said, “No,” so Microsoft and Apple built facilities in Asia.

We blame illegal immigrants for our national woes. Somehow, they seem to find work here while American can’t. Or won’t.

The cost of college educations is rising faster than inflation. Federal, state, and local governments are reducing spending on education. Performance is declining. The US education system, once the best in the world, is now far from it.

Something isn’t working.

Maybe knowing the first president or reading every day isn’t that important.

Call me old fashioned. I think it is.

Trick or Treat? These tricks are really bad.

Georgetowner •

In a political pissing contest with President Obama, who recently mistakenly referred to “E Pluribus Unum” as the slogan for America (changed to “In God We Trust” in 1956), the Republican-led House of Representatives voted 396-9 to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the nation’s motto.

This waste of time and resources to prove a point, combined with recent and ongoing misbehavior throughout the government, has led me to justify a hopeless goal full of hopeful desires for America. If the national motto is up for debate, then I propose changing it to the rally chant from the University of Alabama: ROLL TIDE!

If you want to learn about the true Christian values we claim this country was built upon, then you have to go to a place where time passes slower and change in culture lags 10 to 20 years behind the rest of society. Travel deep enough into the farmland and you will find dial up Internet and, believe it or not, original Christian values: treat others as you want to be treated and let the Lord work.

When you look at the message behind the ROLL TIDE chant you get a better understanding of what it used to mean to be an American. Fight for what is right, never give up, never surrender, take pride in yourself, take pride in those who stand among you, and give the respect you expect from others…ROLL TIDE!

At least once in your life, spend a day at a BAMA game. In the parking lot you will find diehard fans in high-end and low-end motor home game-mobiles. You will see hairspray loving women holding those plastic-but-looks-like-porcelain plates sitting in a camouflaged folding chair in front of a red tent with a plastic chandelier hanging from the apex. Inevitably she’ll be yelling at her underage daughter, “Hay! Why are you drankin’ out of that Styrofoam cup? Put it in plastic and stop actin’ like you ain’t got no class!”

Extreme analogy, yes. But the fact of the matter is that ROLL TIDE isn’t about the win or the loss, or even the game of football itself. ROLL TIDE is about recognizing that we are all members of the same community, and that we ultimately all want the best for one another. ROLL TIDE means pushing yourself to exceed what you’re capable of because it is possible and not settling for anything less simply because you can get away with it.

I am not a fan of football, or Alabama for that matter, but I have spent enough time in the southern farmland and river swamps to know how to survive off of the land, and enough time in the city to know that there are differences in cultures and communities throughout the world.

I will own my bias. I was raised in the south and brought up with “core southern values.” But I have also traveled the country enough to know that the same rules that apply in Alabama do not apply in New York. Some laws in Nebraska are pointless in Florida. There are times when we are fifty states and there are times when we are one country, but that does not mean that we have to be a huge collective of societies and communities that all believe and support the same ideas and theologies. That itself would be a little anti-American!

Being isolated as a country has further hindered our ability to develop into a better civilization. Geographically speaking, America is like Europe, except instead of independent countries, America is composed of interlaced states. However, while European countries like Germany, Italy, France and England competed to be better than one another, our American states began as equals. We Americans never had to compete against one another to improve our cultural philosophies or further technology and standards of living.

I am not suggesting that the United States should dissolve its union or start trying to be like Europe. Instead, I am proposing that we Americans start living up to our own potential. I propose we pledge to live our own teachings, to hold ourselves accountable for our actions equal to that of our neighbors. We should strive to take pride in all that we do, speak with conviction and stand up for what is right for all people regardless of their station in life.

We are at a cultural crossroads where the differences between what Christians claim the Bible says is right and wrong and what modern society claims is acceptable or unjustifiable intersect. It is unfortunate that neither side seems willing to work towards an agreement that would allow both sides to live harmoniously together, but more so that neither side seems to remember that we are all on the same team to begin with.

Our fights as Americans, between the left and right, Christians and Gays, blacks and whites and Hispanics….these fights we have with one another are pointless. We are all AMERICANS! We are on the same team. And we need to be capable and willing to stand toe-to-toe and shoulder-to-shoulder with one another as countrymen in whatever fight or battle we find ourselves in order to make our country—our collective—a better place for all Americans. ROLL TIDE!

Georgetowner •

On Nov. 9, the ANC2E Commissioners released a joint motion to reinstate two Circulator bus stops in Georgetown: the M St., NW stop between Wisconsin Ave. and 31st St., and the P St. stop on Wisconsin Ave., both northbound and southbound. District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has recently cut these stops to save time on its Circulator routes. To those of us in Georgetown, cutting a thirty-second bus stop does not amount to much time saved, and of greater concern is the tremendous benefits these stop afford local businesses and community members. The stop helps to draw shoppers to the area and encourages the use of public transportation in Georgetowners.

The P St. bus stop was a popular one for business along Wisconsin. As locals know and visitors quickly discover, the walk up and down Wisconsin can be a deterring one. Meanwhile, the P St. intersection is an oasis of small and local businesses, including The Phoenix clothing, The Lantern Bryn Mawr Bookstore, Marvelous Market, Thomas Sweet, Café Bonaparte and Wedding Creations & Anthony’s Tuxedo. A petition was signed at the beginning of the month by 30 small and local business owners around the area to reinstate the bus stops, as a noted decline in business has been noticed since their removals. It also poses an inconvenience to nearby residents that use public transportation, who have lost convenient access to the Circulator.

According to Ed Solomon, owner of Anthony’s Tuxedo’s, local residents have voiced their concerns to business owners in the area, and a few even spoke out in support of reinstating the bus stops at the Nov. 1 ANC meeting two weeks ago.

The M St. stop between Wisconsin Ave. and 31st St. is simply too much of a focal point to cut. It is the nucleus of Georgetown’s M Street territory and retail district, and its removal is confusing pedestrian traffic that much more by overcrowding the streets at the stops nearest by.

What DDOT and city officials really ought to focus on is evaluating alternate methods to expedite traffic in this area of town. We live in one of the most heavily trafficked areas in the country, and it houses the city’s most vibrant retail district. On an average day, it takes easily over 30 minutes to navigate the stretch of road between K St. and M St. Buses are a part of this congestion, but in an urban environment they are all but mundane inevitabilities, and decreasing the number of stops on a route by one cannot possibly have any significant impact on the efficiency of the bus route or the easing of surrounding traffic. Whether bus lanes at certain times of day should be in discussion, or alternate HOV restrictions applied to promote the use of public transportation, we are not here to say. What we are here to say is that the current solution is not the answer.

We greatly appreciate DDOT’s efforts in Georgetown, specifically their opening access to the harbor and movie theater on K St., and we hope they will reinstate these stops. At a previous ANC2E meeting this year, DDOT representatives said they would seriously consider input from the community since they changed the bus routes. If they want to address community concerns, now is their chance.

Gary Tischler •

When the virulent and high-ranking al-Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed in target drone strike in Yemen last week, most Americans applauded the action, figuring it was another top terrorist out of the picture and no longer plotting terrorist operations against the United States.

There seemed little opposition to the strike, approved by President Barack Obama, and planned by the CIA. Al-Awlaki was considered a key strategist, as well as motivator, for al-Qaeda, calling repeatedly for Jihad or holy war against the U.S. and for the killing of Americans.

He was a key figure in the U.S. war against terrorism, and as such almost as much a prime target for American military and intelligence efforts as Osama Bin Laden, who was killed earlier this year.

Yet Republican Congressman Ron Paul condemned the killing and charged that because Al-Awlaki was born in the United States and therefore was a U.S. citizen, he had been denied due process and a trial. Later, he hinted that President Barack Obama could and perhaps should be impeached for the decision to kill Al-Awlaki. Another GOP presidential wannabe, Herman Cain, suddenly hot after winning a couple of straw polls, also questioned the killing as did some legal scholars and politicians.

But in general, and especially in the ranks of the GOP, the strike was applauded as necessary and successful.

Speaking as someone who’s been opposed to the death penalty most of my life and who’s not too keen on previous attempts by the U.S. to topple governments (Chile comes to mind), or take out political leaders (Lumumba comes to mind), I can only say, due process for what? Al-Awlaki had inspired and worked with bombing suspects, three of the 9/11 terrorists, and helped plan numerous operations. He clearly believed in the holy war against the United States and was an active and prominent player in terrorist plots against the U.S.

Furthermore, while this organization has insisted that it is at war against the United States, sometimes presuming to speak and act for or work with the radical elements in the Middle East, it is not a state. It is a very dangerous, damaged, and violent terrorist organization. Eliminating Al-Awlaki when the opportunity arose—like killing Osama Bin Laden and other high-ranking members of al-Qaeda over the years, was necessary and in the interests of the United States. It would have been irresponsible not to act on the hopes that we could capture him at some time in the future, leaving him free to plot and implement more acts of terror.

It seems to me that Al-Awlaki, with his status as a high-ranking al-Qaeda member, has forfeited any rights given by U.S. Citizenship. He has forfeited his status as a citizen by acting against his country.
Was the killing cold-blooded, brutal and less than admirable? Sure. But let’s consider this: we were all dancing in the streets when Osama Bin Laden was killed, in less than glorious fashion. Should we have given Osama Bin Laden an opportunity at due process?

One might question the use of drones and missile strikes for this sort of thing. In war, all sorts of horrible things happen. Drone strikes, to me, seem to distance us from the seriousness of our actions, and the brutality of our acts. We all recall the use of blockbuster bombs—boom and more boom not to mention shock and awe—in our attempts to kill Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the Iraqi war. Missile strikes are rarely as clean as this one was—there’s always what we so euphemistically call collateral damage.

But this particular act probably saved the lives of American soldiers and may have prevented any number of future terrorist acts.

The less terror, the better. The fewer terrorists there are in the field, the better.

David Post •

Why is age 65 the retirement age?

Legend has it that when Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany in the 1880s, proposed the world’s first retirement insurance program, he asked his advisors, “How long do people usually live?” When told the average life span was 45 or 50 years, he said, “Then, let’s give a pension to everyone at age 65.”

Myths rarely line up with reality. Germany set that first retirement age at 70, certainly no budget buster.

By 1935, when Congress was considering Social Security, Germany had lowered its retirement age to 65. Many states and some large US companies had pension plans with retirement ages ranging from 65 to 70. By then, the average life expectancy was 60 years.

Congress adopted age 65, apparently anticipating that it would not cost much, especially since most people wouldn’t live long enough to receive it.

Thirty years later, Congress passed Medicare. By then, average life expectancy was 70 years.

To offset the cost of these programs, Congress created taxes to be shared equally by employers and employees. Social Security taxes were expected to cover the cost. In 1965, medical expenses didn’t consume 17 percent of the economy as it does today. So, when Congress enacted the Medicare tax, it only covered approximately 14 percent of costs. No tax was enacted to cover Medicaid costs.

After Medicare and Medicaid were passed, federal government spending on health care jumped to 5 percent of total spending.

Today, the average citizen lives to be almost 80. Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs consume more than 25 percent of all federal spending and with projected increases of 10 percent per year, health care will consume 30 percent of the federal budget within five years.

The average cost to insure a family now exceeds $15,000 per year, more than a minimum wage worker earns in a year.

Yes, some of that increase is related to the new health care law. It’s 1 percent of that increase, mostly from allowing children to remain on their parents’ policies until they are 26 years old. The other 9 percent is the inexorable, uncontrollable creep of costs.

The harsh reality is that taxes dedicated to covering health care cover less than 10 percent of the federal government’s costs.

As a nation, we have to ask ourselves: How much longer can we bring in a dime and spend a dollar?
With the average citizen living almost 20 years longer than in 1935 and with 80 million baby boomers over or approaching age 65, ignoring the cost of social security and health care is like following Thelma and Louise – right over a cliff.

The political irony is that both political parties want the same thing: something for nothing. Republicans refuse to consider any new revenue source. Democrats draw the line at changing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The need for compromise is painfully obvious, but the political cost is equally obvious. Compromise means facing the wrath of voters.

Are there any solutions? No easy ones.

Regulate profits in the medical sector the way utility company profits are regulated by the government. (That’s going to make some enemies.)

Universal health care contains costs in other countries. The U.S. spends double on health care what other countries spend, yet US life expectancy ranks about 40th in the world. Apparently, American citizens prefer to die sooner as long as the government stays out of health care.

Or, take a page from Bismarck’s playbook: Provide benefits for those who outlive the average person by, say, five years. That’s what Congress did when it started Social Security. In other words, with life expectancy approaching 80, begin providing benefits at age 85.

As ridiculous as that sounds, consider that It would be consistent with Social Security’s “original intent.” It would balance the budget. It might even lower life expectancy. And that would further reduce budget pressures.

Is it any more ridiculous than refusing to face the reality that retirement and health benefits for 80 million baby boomers can be provided without a revenue source, without any government regulation, and without a meaningful change in the retirement age?

And, most importantly, without compromise?