The dysfunctional US Senate

“Sit and watch us for seven days,” one senator says of the deadlocked chamber. “You know what you’ll see happening? Nothing.”

And if something does happen, it's bad:

Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, was secretly blocking the confirmation of seventy Obama appointees over a dispute involving defense earmarks for his state. (His tactics exposed, Shelby—whose office maintains that he was responsible for fewer than fifty holds—lifted all but three.) Later that month, [KY GOP Senator] Bunning spent several days and a late night on the Senate floor, filibustering to prevent benefits from being paid to millions of unemployed Americans. When [OR Dem Senator] Merkley tried to reason with him, Bunning responded, “Tough shit.” (Eventually, Republicans persuaded Bunning to stop.)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201008170931

Of course this story is an outsider's take on the modern Senate, and he leans left. Maybe the author can't or won't capture all the less publicized, complex good work that the Senate does for us every day, but the problems he describes are obvious to most Americans who aren't committed to a political agenda of making sure Obama accomplishes nothing.

Unlike previous generations, the Senate is not a debate forum among intellectuals for the good of the country. No one even discusses anymore; Senators just talk past each other, read canned statements written by their staffers (often inexperienced, ideological go-getters), and then go home without hearing other views. Maybe they would even prefer to stroke their egos and talk on the press rounds instead. Modern political pressures and 24-7 mass media have turned the Senate into a joke. Of course our founding fathers designed the Senate to be inefficient, unparliamentary, and act as a brake against populism and knee-jerk legislation. But it wasn't meant to be a brick wall, which is what the GOP minority has resembled since Obama took office. So what is the future of government? When a Dem is president, nothing gets done, except for urgent crises like wars and recessions? And when the GOP is in power, maybe the Dems would do the same, or they would blink and cowardly give a rubber stamp, as they did with Dubya? So basically the country can only hold course or swing right, which doesn't represent the interests of at least 40% of voters. Sometimes you hold the line and fight, and sometimes you have to make deals, but you can't be a brick wall all the time.

We already know that lobbying and special interest money contaminate the Congress, and the use of filibuster has changed in purpose and drastically increased since Reagan's time (especially when the GOP is in the minority). Pointless "secret holds" delay uncontroversial, qualified presidential nominees from doing their jobs for months (again, the GOP has taken this to another level with Obama). Many junior senators are pumped up to do good and get bills passed, so they hate the loopholes and philosophically would like to change some rules, but what if their party is in the minority next session? They don't want to lose out on that leverage, just in case (like the problematic super-majority to pass a budget in CA: everyone hates it but fears that they may need it one day). For the minority party, it's become like a degenerate game of curling (and just as exciting) rather than legislation. Don't worry about winning, just find sneaky ways to frustrate and block your opponent from scoring. Then eventually the public will get fed up and kick that party out, and you will get your chance. Who cares about the precious legislative calendar you've wasted? Your term is 6 years, you will most likely be re-elected even if you sucked on the job, and you enjoy fat compensation. And even if you lose your office, just wait the 2-year "cooling off period" and become a big time lobbyist on the Hill instead, which has even higher pay. But that job security and privileged status breeds an attitude of arrogance, apathy, and exclusivity I think.

Senators and their families used to live and socialize with each other (even with the other party) in Washington, so it's easier to talk and be cordial with friends. But now they mainly don't know each other, so it's easier to hate (especially when the rest of your caucus pressures you to). In order to save money, and due to the fact that they're only in DC half the week, some senators even eat and LIVE in their offices. So they're isolated from their peers (and the real world), even for lunch, since they're probably busy courting donors or hearing out special interest pitches downtown. The "old lions" of the Senate, who knew it when it was actually bipartisan and orderly under LBJ, are now dead or dying/retiring, and new senators came up in a more nasty, ideological climate. Unlike the past, more younger senators are coming from the House, which is an even more short-sighted, partisan institution. Also senators have to fly to their home states, maybe several times a week, in order to attend to local business or engage in the endless re-election campaign (Senator Harkin estimates that he and his colleagues spend 50% of their free time on fund-raising activities, instead of better serving the public interest). They are scheduled on the Senate floor literally for 15-minute blocks, and then they're whisked away by their staff punching away on their smart phones. In fact, most Senators aren't even on the floor, even during major business and votes.

[OR Senator] Merkley could remember witnessing only one moment of floor debate between a Republican and a Democrat. “The memory I took with me was: ‘Wow, that’s unusual—there’s a conversation occurring in which they’re making point and counterpoint and challenging each other.’ And yet nobody else was in the chamber.”

So if no one gives an honest effort at outreach or even basic participation, there can be no debate and compromise. Would we survive at our jobs by being absent most of the time and saying "no" to everything? And if Senators are too over-scheduled with other matters to really think about public policy and governance, how can they do their jobs and represent the people? But our government is a reflection of us and our culture, so we deserve our leaders and their broken system. It's just a shame that it's so difficult to change. But if things got this bad so quickly, they can also improve quickly with the right people, conditions, and motivation.

-----

Some highlights of a typically long New Yorker piece:

The Republicans had turned this old rule [requiring unanimous consent for debate to extend past 2PM] into a new means of obstruction. There would be no hearings that afternoon... Like investment bankers on Wall Street, senators these days direct much of their creative energy toward the manipulation of arcane rules and loopholes, scoring short-term successes while magnifying their institution’s broader dysfunction.

.........

The Republican goal in [blocking Obamacare with endless, pointless amendments] Vote-O-Rama was to embarrass the Democrats while appearing to suggest useful changes; the Democratic goal was to prevent any change to the bill, so that it wouldn’t have to return to the House, where it might be voted down. Several of the Republican amendments had been designed to make Democrats look hypocritical, by forcing them to vote against policies that the Party typically supports.

.........

Each senator sits on three or four committees and even more subcommittees, most of which meet during the same morning hours, which helps explain why committee tables are often nearly empty, and why senators drifting into a hearing can barely sustain a coherent line of questioning. All this activity is crammed into a three-day week, for it’s an unwritten rule of the modern Senate that votes are almost never scheduled for Mondays or Fridays, which allows senators to spend four days away from the capital. Senators now, unlike those of several decades ago, often keep their families in their home states, where they return most weekends, even if it’s to Alaska or Idaho—a concession to endless fund-raising, and to the populist anti-Washington mood of recent years. (When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, in 1995, he told new Republican members not to move their families to the capital.) Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader, said, “When we scheduled votes, the only day where we could be absolutely certain we had all one hundred senators there was Wednesday afternoon.”

......

[Former Dem leader] Daschle sketched a portrait of the contemporary senator who is too busy to think: “Sometimes, you’re dialling for dollars, you get the call, you’ve got to get over to vote, you’ve got fifteen minutes. You don’t have a clue what’s on the floor, your staff is whispering in your ears, you’re running onto the floor, then you check with your leader—you double check—but, just to make triple sure, there’s a little sheet of paper on the clerk’s table: The leader recommends an aye vote, or a no vote. So you’ve got all these checks just to make sure you don’t screw up, but even then you screw up sometimes. But, if you’re ever pressed, ‘Why did you vote that way?’—you just walk out thinking, Oh, my God, I hope nobody asks, because I don’t have a clue.”

........

For some Federalists, [the Senate] also had an aristocratic purpose: to collect knowledge and experience, and to guard against a levelling spirit that might overtake the majority. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate, in 1832, he was deeply impressed by the quality of its members: “They represent only the lofty thoughts [of the nation] and the generous instincts animating it, not the petty passions.” But he also recognized that “a minority of the nation dominating the Senate could completely paralyze the will of the majority represented in the other house, and that is contrary to the spirit of constitutional government.” As long as the Senate continued to be composed of America’s most talented statesmen, Tocqueville implied, it would restrain its own anti-democratic potential.

..........

But the Senate's history was not always intellectual and lofty:

After the Civil War the Senate was captured by wealthy and sectional interests, ending a more high-minded age when Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun engaged in brilliant debate. Aside from spasms of legislation at the start of the Presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, Caro writes, the Senate remained controlled by an alliance of Southern racists and Republican corporate shills, and was “the dam against which the waves of social reform dashed themselves in vain—the chief obstructive force in the federal government.” By the fifties, the Senate had become far more conservative than the public. And not just conservative: William S. White, in his 1956 book “Citadel,” called the Senate “to a most peculiar degree, a Southern Institution . . . growing at the heart of this ostensibly national assembly” and “the only place in the country where the South did not lose the war.”

.........

The Senate’s modern decline began in 1978, with the election of a new wave of anti-government conservatives, and accelerated as Republicans became the majority in 1981. “The Quayle generation came in, and there were a number of people just like Dan—same generation, same hair style, same beliefs,” Gary Hart, the Colorado Democrat, recalled. “They were harder-line. They weren’t there to get along with Democrats. But they look accommodationist compared to Republicans in the Senate today.”

.........

The weakened institution could no longer withstand pressures from outside its walls; as money and cameras rushed in, independent minds fell more and more in line with the partisans. Rough parity between the two parties meant that every election had the potential to make or break a majority, crushing the incentive to coöperate across the aisle. The Senate, no longer a fount of ideas, became a backwater of the U.S. government. During the Clinton years, the main action was between the White House and the Gingrich House of Representatives; during the Bush years, the Republican Senate majority abdicated the oversight role that could have placed a vital check on executive power.

.........

Between 1998 and 2004, half the senators who left office became lobbyists. In 2007, Trent Lott, a Republican leader in the Senate less than a year into his fourth term, abruptly resigned and formed a lobbying firm with former Senator John Breaux, just a few weeks before a new law took effect requiring a two-year waiting period between serving and lobbying.

.........

Under McConnell, Republicans have consistently consumed as much of the Senate’s calendar as possible with legislative maneuvering. The strategy is not to extend deliberation of the Senate’s agenda but to prevent it. Tom Harkin, who first proposed reform of the filibuster in 1995, called his Republican colleagues “nihilists,” who want to create chaos because it serves their ideology. “If there’s chaos, things will tend toward simple solutions,” Harkin said. “In chaos people don’t listen to reason.”

.........

“If you can engage public opinion in a way politicians can understand, public opinion can still blow away money and interest groups,” he said. “But over the past few decades the reflex has grown in the Senate that, all things considered, it’s better to avoid than to take on big issues. This is the kind of thing that drives [CO Dem Senator] Michael Bennet nutty: here you’ve arrived in the United States Senate and you can’t do fuck-all about the destruction of the planet.”

Quality of life, part 2

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this particular topic as well so I hesitate to respond without structuring a response; I suppose I could take a "devil's advocate" approach and attempt to offer hope by way of rejoinder but I think I'd fail to demonstrate an appropriately personal tone with such a choice; I'm therefore going to try to respond "Tim-style", i.e. personally and with some links to articles from well-respected publications which broach the subject in an even-handed fashion.


http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11792366&fsrc=RSS
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11791539&fsrc=RSS



(If nothing else check out the second link - there's a pretty cool drawing)


I can't speak to anyone else's expectations but I know I had high hopes when I was in high school: I had amassed an academic record which I thought to be "par excellence", I was beginning to come of age, and the future (from a economic/cultural/political standpoint) was bright. My assumption was that I would excel in college just as I had in high school and ultimately find my way to (what is, objectively, modest) prosperity.


Certainly things turned out differently. I never anticipated that at 27 years of age I'd be living with my parents and dealing with a terminal illness but, low and behold, that is now reality. I failed to get admission to any of the schools I applied to for college. I spent the first year after I graduated unemployed thanks to (a) a telecom industry implosion, (b) a dot-com bubble bursting, and (c) a bad undergraduate experience and spent the last 3 1/2 years working for IBM. Although IBM was a sought-after employer at our college career fairs the company has been a little less than fair: I saw my salary raised an entire 2.4% (which is less than inflation was during the same period), observed the company's practice of paying local new hires (from San Jose State and Santa Clara University) nearly $5K more than I make (even though I have five years of industry experience and an engineering degree from Cal), and watched a colleague get promoted before I did despite working 10 hour days (the rub was the colleague was promoted posthumously). I took a look at my college's salary survey from last year (http://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/EECS.stm) and my present salary is about 7% below the mean and average for *new* graduates (I would cautiously venture to say that that the mean and median salary for UCB EECS graduates with five years of working experience is ~$90,000). Needless to say that, as a result of my geographically-insensitive salary, I've been living at home, commuting approximately 130 miles a day, and saving every penny with the hope that I can (some day) afford a lifestyle which was more or less implicit when I decided to spend the prime of my life to study math, physics, and CS rather than the female student body. I've racked up more than $5K in medical bills (out-of-pocket cost, and I'm insured through Empire and Kaiser!) each of the last three years and still don't have much to show for it than a stalemate with respect to test results (i.e. tumor marker present but tumor-free imaging tests), to say nothing of the fact that my voice was damaged by surgery and may never be recovered.


From my vantage point the opportunities which are available to me (and, implicitly, to us) are limited: one can continue in a dead-end job, attempt to change employers (which, as I'm finding out, is just as difficult as finding a job in the first place), or return to school for an advanced degree which may ultimately prove to be as useful (towards the ends of employment) as the degree one already has. Changing employers might also mean moving (which is, for the most part, true of attending a graduate school as well) so there's a trade-off there as well (new surroundings & a displacement from the habit of comfort v/s cost of renting & loss of easy access to a healthy lifestyle at home).


I certainly have some of the same anxieties with regards to any one of a number of "securities" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/are-you-secure_b_160.html) but I suppose I'm more optimistic with respect to the future. Politics (like many other things) is a pendulum which invariably swings to-and-fro from extreme to extreme; if the last seven years have been the height of irresponsibility, recklessness, and hopelessness then there are only better things to come. I think the last decade has afforded a certain perspective, which is that none of us can count on the government or a paternal employer to ensure our future; as such, it definitely behooves us to learn as much as we can about managing our finances and investments in order to ensure a retirement for ourselves. Our country, although decadent, is renowned for innovation so I'm sure we'll find a way to overcome our challenges in the years to come.


The most important thing is not to give up; life, after all, is not about running from challenges. While being born in another time may have meant economic/cultural/political security wishing to have been born in another time does no good whatsoever. Consider that those best equipped to face the toughest challenges are not those who close their eyes and coast along; rather, those of us who are truly gifted (not just by nature but by nurture as well) must believe that we are the ones who are best-equipped to triumph and (accordingly) act decisively and with purpose, even if the scope of our responsibility appears to be small (i.e. raising a family, working a corporate job, living within the context of a consumption-based society, etc.) I think there's definitely a lot more to life than a rat race but definitely not if you've given up and decided that everything you've been taught and everything you've learned was a waste of effort; if nothing else it should be clear that such an attitude is a slap in the face to the parents, teachers, coaches who invested time and effort into your potential.


[An aside: I hate to make a religious reference but in the Bhagwad Gita (one of the holiest of texts for Hindus) the incarnation of God (Krishna) tells Arjun (the hero) that he must act - no abdication of responsibilities will change the timeless realities of a duty to selflessly act for collective betterment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita); the "tone" of the email really reminded me of the story so I felt like I should mention it.]


PS: I cut a bunch of stuff about college and work which was really just abysmal but I can send those things in another email; perhaps the tone would have been scattered and too depressing had I included those parts? They all make for great stories (like watching a dead guy get promoted before you do) but only if you go for that sort of thing... = /


--------

Thanks for writing and sharing your perspective, R. I am glad you are still optimistic despite some of the hardships you've had to face in the last few years. Yes those articles were quite interesting and echo a lot of what this email group and the nation as a whole have been feeling. It is strange how Americans are pessimistic about the federal government and economy in general, though closer to home they tend to be supportive of their local reps and satisfied with their life. Yes, maybe the media are dwelling too much on gloom and doom, and this recession is mostly psychological (but tell that to the people who just got foreclosed). Just because this recession isn't totally following traditional patterns (unemployment is still low, relatively, but what about under-employment?) doesn't mean it's any less severe. After recalculations, growth was negative in Q4 2007, and the GDP doesn't take into account inflation, a weak dollar, and the housing crisis. But I don't put much stock in such surveys that ask broad, qualitative questions, and it's always useful to determine their feelings relative to what. I am satisfied with my life compared to a day laborer, but of course there are many things that I wish could be easier. I disapprove of the job performance of our president and Congress, though our situation is still a lot better than say, China or Iraq. I do think that our economic health is not as good now compared to when many of us started college in 1998ish, due to inflation, resource shortages, the housing/finance situation, stagnating wages, and a widening wealth gap.

Unlike other Americans, I don't blame foreigners for our current economic funk. In fact, I commend the Asian nations for bringing millions of their people out of poverty (relatively), and the EU for working together and providing an alternative sociopolitical system to the American model (despite some similarities). As your article said, cheap Asian goods have given lower-income Americans access to previously-unaffordable products that potentially improve their quality of life (but also tempts them to over-spend on Wal-crap), and economic growth doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. But if other nations (China and the oil-producers in particular) are getting rich partially from scams and unfair trade practices, then that must be dealt with. Though that's not to say that the West doesn't employ its share of damaging protectionist policies and trade scams too, in order to profit at the expense of the poor.

Bottom line, we are to blame for the current mess, pure and simple. And the next president won't be able to fix it much, despite all the campaign rhetoric. There are natural boom and bust cycles, and it's funny how the Economist noted that some young people like us never even realized that downturns are normal, because we've been lucky to never live through bad times until now (we were a bit young to be directly affected by the last Bush recession of 1991-2). There are measures that the Fed and others can take to lessen the swings of the economic cycle, like in Europe. But no one seems to want to be a "party pooper" and plan for a rainy day during the boom times. We're too drunk on money to realize that the more we're growing, the harder we may fall later. Personally, I would much rather have a smoother economic cycle rather than huge booms followed by huge busts. Sometimes it's good to save a little and put the breaks on an economy that's too hot. Increased stability, security, and predictability are worth missing out on huge profits, and besides, the top 1% capitalize most on economic booms anyway. Plus the global War on Terror has cost Americans over a trillion dollars (including the higher cost of crude) that could have been used to shore up Social Security, improve public services, invest in green tech, or give tax/health care rebates. In his first term, Bush took our budget surplus and gave it away to the rich as tax breaks on capital gains and inheritance. And his recent economic stimulus package hasn't made much of a dent (many economists believe that such measures are just political gimmicks that don't fix anything), yet cost America more billions in future debt and less trust in the dollar.

To be honest, part of me wishes I was a baby boomer for how cheap and easy they had it in some areas. I know nostalgia is a rose-colored lens, but back then the family was truly the center of the world instead of the job. Happiness maybe took more precedence than ambition and accomplishment. Maybe they didn't have the BMW and big screen, but they could pay the rent, eat well, and go to Disneyland. We didn't have all the distractions of the "multitasking age" to take away from what is truly important, personal relationships. I feel more at home with '60s and '70s culture than the faster-paced and greedy '80s, '90s, and today. I'd gladly give up the Internet and HDTV! But as you said, it does no good to wish for the impossible. I do fault the baby boomers for getting rich by selling America's future down the river. We are struggling because of THEM, not globalization. They lived so decadently and irresponsibly, but did so in an era when sustainability was not really an urgent concern. So in a sense, I guess I shouldn't wish to be them, because they are the root of many of our current problems. So if those xenophobic politicians really want to find fault for our current recession, they should stop targeting Mexicans and Asians, and point the finger at themselves and their generation instead. The baby boomers pioneered comfortable but wasteful suburban living (to get away from all the colored people in the overcrowded cities), and the "soccer mom culture" added huge family vehicles to the already long American commute. Partly influenced by big auto, oil, and construction, the suburban living model is now dominant, more or less permanent, and basically incompatible with public transit, energy conservation, and other sustainability concerns.

Under baby boomer leadership, the Fortune 500 companies got filthy rich but engaged in all sorts of fraud and scams to make cheap bucks in the market (S&L scandal, Dot-Bomb, backdating stock options, creative accounting to hide losses, and now the subprime fiasco). Republican presidents gradually chipped away at many forms of economic regulation and oversight, increasing the chances of private sector abuse and excess (not to mention government corruption). The boomers also dismantled the paternal employer structure and made layoffs, mergers, union-busting, and other cost-cutting measures chic (fewer Americans are getting health coverage from their employers too). Gordon Gecko said "Greed is good", and efficiency is even better for Wall Street! But above all, the baby boomers left their stamp on American culture by making over-consumption not only acceptable, but attractive (dare I say necessary?). Buy more than you need, and buy it on credit! What are we going to do now that easy, cheap credit is drying up? Fashionable materialism is the new "baseball and apple pie", and there's more to buy than ever before - but does all that crap really make our lives any richer? It definitely makes our bank accounts poorer. But the problem is that our "robust economy" (and global trade) is almost dependent on Americans over-consuming to sustain growth. Actually cost-cutting measures by many American families are contributing to this recession, but thank goodness the weak dollar is making exports increase.

From the Economist: Between 2002 and 2006 the incomes of 99% rose by an average of 1% a year in real terms, while those of the top 1% rose by 11% a year; three-quarters of the economic gains during Mr Bush's presidency went to that top 1%. The baby boomers also disseminated the "me first" mentality that ironically leads to great innovation/accomplishment but also great injustice/greed. Who cares what happens to everyone else as long as I get mine! The rich robber barons of the Guilded Age used to be reviled for their greed (until they invested in philanthropy at the ends of their careers to rewrite their checkered legacies, like Carnegie and Rockefeller), but now CEOs and billionaire moguls are worshiped like deities. Devils have become role models (not that all of the mega-rich are devils, but you get my metaphor), and we would emulate them if we could. The Economist did reference that side study suggesting that our currently huge wealth gap (below) is inaccurate, because the things rich people buy have inflated much more than the things poor people buy. While this may be true, the rich don't HAVE to go to the day spa and country club. Of course luxury items inflate more than basic essentials (because of scarcity and fewer customers that can afford them), especially due to increased cheap imports from Asia. If the rich choose to continue to live decadently and waste more money on more expensive cars, clothes, furnishings, etc., no one should feel sorry for them. Actually that is a strong sign that the wealth gap is actually larger than the numbers suggest, because even in a bad economy the rich still feel comfortable to spend frivolously on overpriced goods/services, while the poor are cutting costs for basics like gasoline, rent, medicine, and food.



While I tend to agree with you that life is not about running from challenges, I am starting to question all the knee-jerk assumptions about Puritan work ethic, perseverence, and whatnot that we were indoctrinated with while growing up here. Preachers, nobles, and propagandists told the peasants, slaves, and proletariats all sorts of BS to keep them docile and productive. In some cases, life NEEDS to be about running from challenges. Many immigrant groups came to America precisely because they were running away from challenges, especially European Jews in the 1930s (running away actually improved their chances of survival). And it wasn't all sunshine and smiles when they arrived of course; they traded in a set of bad challenges for a new set that was fortunately more tolerable. Look at illegal immigrants and their situations. So yes, some people are leaving the mad-expensive Golden State and Eastern Seaboard for cheaper lifestyles elsewhere - maybe even overseas. Maybe they will need to change careers and it will be hard on their kids, but obviously they gave it a lot of thought and decided that this was best. Maybe they have "given up" and fled like cowards from adversity, or maybe they actually woke up, while the rest of us continue to stubbornly toil towards an early grave in the rat race. Each case is different, but bottom line, maybe it's not our place to judge people based on how they handle their challenges. Elvis said "walk a mile in my shoes" before you judge him. It is not "heroic" to force yourself and your loved ones to suffer through a losing situation. I am not saying that I am giving up and all is lost for people like us, but there has to be a line, and there's no shame in a carefully planned and rational retreat. Only an arrogant asshole like Hitler would keep sending poor young men to certain death at Stalingrad just because he refused to acknowledge the obvious.

I also don't approve of the guilt trip of "not wanting to let my parents/teachers/mentors down" with my life performance. I used to believe in that crap rather strongly when I was younger, and part of me still does (Asian brainwashing). But I really think if people love us (unconditionally), then they just want us to be happy. Of course if we're happy being a drug addict or some other self-destructive lifestyle, then maybe an intervention is warranted. I am sure they want us to realize or maximize our potential, but really - how can anyone know what that is? Even expert athlete scouts get it wrong on top college prospects. And the game of life is much more complicated than the game of football. How the hell would our parents or our teachers know what career or important life decisions will work out best for us? I know we should listen to them when we're young because we don't know shit and they can help us avoid mistakes. But I would hope that our mentors and loved ones don't have a set life path in mind for us to follow, and we will only disappoint them if we deviate (I do know many families like this though, and it strains their relationships a lot). They are not us; they don't understand us and don't know what we go through. Their lives were different, so really their advice may have little utility for us now. We can respect their viewpoints, but ultimately we have to make the call. And if that becomes a "slap in the face" to them, then so be it. We are their children, not an "investment" like a 30-year fixed T-bond. Yes they contributed a lot of resources and love to help give us a good start on life, but we have no obligation to provide them with a good rate of return (nice house, impressive job, lots of grandkids). We just do what makes sense and we do the best we can, and the rest is out of our hands. And it seems these days, more and more of our economic health is out of our hands.

So of course I don't know the magic formula for understanding life and one's role in it, but I think it is of utmost importance to think for oneself and make decisions accordingly, not beholden to other influences. Sure we can choose to take religion, family, work, teachers, media, etc. if they are trustworthy and important to us, but we shouldn't just blindly follow someone else's formula. The way I see it, with costs rising and wages/promotions not keeping up, the equation doesn't calculate in our favor. So either we need to make drastic changes to balance the equation, or we need to write a new equation. And many Americans have, by shedding this tired, cliched existence and trying something different. It's a risk to take the road less traveled, but sometimes it pays off.

The language that you use, like "best equipped to triumph" sounds Darwinistic, and that is probably deliberate. I would prefer a world where people are not "in it to win it". Life doesn't have to be a competition, and winning means different things to different people (and winning often means that many others "lost"). I don't want to win at another's expense, but I know I already have. I don't believe that everything I've accomplished and everything I've been taught has been a wasted effort; in fact we find out who we are through such experiences. And actually those lessons and experiences have partially shaped our views of the world and led us to write what we have in these emails. What I know for sure is that I don't want to let work or study define me. I want the people who love me to define me. The 10 most important experiences of my life have not occurred in an office, lab, or classroom. I do think that education is valuable and work is necessary, but they don't have to be the focus of one's existence. As Einstein said, don't let education get in the way of your learning. I fear that a lot of wealthy and upper-middle class baby boomer families do groom their kids to "win the game of life" at all costs. They win because they invest in the right places and follow the formula. They "learn the test", just like taking a SAT prep class makes you more able to ace that specific test, but not necessarily smarter or better equipped to succeed in college. I know most parents do love their kids and want them to have a good life, but some also want to live vicariously through them and bask in their accomplishments ("that's my boy!"). That is not what parenting should be about. They are actually doing a disservice to them in my view, and screwing the world over by adding another selfish, ambitious, take-no-prisoners prick to the already fragile mix. Really, why would anyone WANT to be an i-banker workaholic, corporate lawyer whore, or cosmetic surgeon sellout? Those jobs suck, have long hours, and drain the humanity from you. The only thing you get out of it are the huge ego trip and paycheck.

I know in this modern life, educated people have to learn to invest to survive. But I have been resistant for reasons that should be obvious from the tone of my economics-related emails. In "real jobs", you actually contribute labor, adding value to something or delivering some sort of discovery/service/product. Brokers and bankers just move numbers around on a screen to make money on the backs of others. They just transfer wealth from one place to another, buying and selling people (as Martin Sheen said in "Wall Street"), and not caring about the consequences (which may be severe and far-reaching). Of course profitable investing still takes skill and brains, so I acknowledge their talents. I'm being simplistic and I guess we all have IRAs/401(k)s so I'm a hypocrite too, but I do despise that kind of work. I guess it's necessary to capitalism, but we also get fraud and speculation, fueled by insane greed and traders trying to make more, more, more by taking shortcuts, breaking the law, or ignoring better judgment. I don't care if I'm not rich, but I want to make my money in an honest, dignified manner, and I want to EARN what I make, not by taking shortcuts or making an educated guess (a.k.a. gambling) on the market, which is what 70% of investing is, even for the pros. So yeah, I guess I'm risk-averse. I know I am being extremist here and not all of the investing world is evil, though I wish real labor could be rewarded better versus capital investment. But what am I smoking? :)

--------

Oh, forgot to mention that I am trying to be optimistic about the future though, even if the negative trend doesn't seem to be reversing any time soon. As you said, I try to believe in human goodness, common sense, and ingenuity to work our way out of problems. If we survived the Cold War and avoided nuclear holocaust, then maybe we can survive this economy. America is great because we are adaptable and resilient, and we do accomplish a lot of good and amazing feats when the chips are down. I just worry that the bad momentum will be hard to sway, because we really need to re-equilibrate this system that is too greedy, too inhumane, and too volatile. Like the Matrix, people are really indoctrinated in this unsustainable way of life, and may fight to preserve it (deceived by corporate and government propaganda and whatnot), even at great personal and global cost. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

So it will take a lot of dedication, discipline, moderation, and compromise from citizens and leaders alike. We are running out of time to get it right too, especially considering the growing resource wars, overpopulation, and climate change problems. Some of us believe that Obama is one of those "once in a century" leaders who may be able to accomplish the improbable, but time will tell. I know that he is expecting us to do our part. I am trying, but as you all know, it's damn hard at times.

-----------

Sorry for another addendum, but I am scatter-brained and this is such a huge topic we're tackling. Regarding "toughing it out" and keeping on trucking in the game, I am all for that if there was somehow a better guarantee of future success and security. But of course I know that nothing is certain but death and taxes. For college, you know that if you take the right classes and get passing grades, you will emerge with a degree. But college is far from the real world, as we know. In the working world, you have no idea if you best efforts will even pay off (and in fact, may hurt you in strange ways!). So much is out of our control that moronic butt-kissers get rewarded and dedicated, talented team players get ignored and burnt out, projects die or get reborn, and corporate goals change on a whim. And even if you cut back spending and save diligently, there's no guarantee that will be enough for a home down payment, college tuition for your kids, medical bills, and retirement. I guess life has always been this uncertain, but with our social safety net crumbling, costs of living rising, and the consequences of bad luck/mistakes growing, there is much less room for error and fewer people who will get your back.

So to me, toughing it out for the sake of toughness is limiting, if not stupid. I would like some reassurances that our efforts will not go to waste, but I know I'm dreaming. Only your loved ones will say at your funeral, "He worked hard and played by the rules. Even though he never got a break, we are still proud of him." The rest of the world will say, "He busted his ass for nothing and now he's dead". If effort is reward enough, then more power to you. But I don't want to waste my age 30-50 years chasing a rainbow that may never come. But if I don't have a choice or don't have any better options, then I might as well keep on keeping on as Mark said.