You're Worth Even More Than You Think You Are

December 14, 2009, 6:15 a.m.

Tying Pay to Social Value
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

"There should be a relationship between what we are paid and the value our work generates for society. We've found a way to calculate that."
-- Eilis Lawlor, New Economics Foundation

Not that you've ever doubted it, I suspect, but it really does turn out that the folks who clean our hospitals are making a greater economic contribution to our society than bankers. At least that's what the New Economics Foundation has asserted and documented in a report this morning.

For the past 75 years the non-profit, independent Consumers Union, with its subscriber-supported, advertising-free Consumer Reports publication and online service, has been putting the lie to the old adage "you get what you pay for." You don't. If you're interested in the quality of products, their life expectancy, repair bills, and number of consumer complaints, you're more likely to find the answer by looking at the Consumers Union laboratory results than by looking at the price tags on the products.

This morning the New Economics Foundation (NEF) documents what many of us have suspected all along. Susan Steed, Helen Kersley, Eilis Lawlor, "A Bit Rich: Calculating the real value to society of different professions," New Economics Foundation, December 14, 2009.

It turns out that it's also a lie that we get what we, as a society, are paying for labor. Some of those who are paid the least are actually creating more social and economic value than some of the administrators and professionals -- including the Wall Street bankers -- who are paid the most. Not only is it not true that "you get what you pay for," you may very well "give more than what you're paid for" as well.

"If You Can't Trust Your Banker . . ."

[Credit: "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," Maverick, 2nd Season, 1958. The popular early television series, Maverick, "starring James Garner and Jack Kelly, remains the most famous and widely discussed episode of the Western comedy television series Maverick. Written by Roy Huggins and Douglas Heyes and directed by Leslie H. Martinson, this 1958 second season episode depicts gambler Bret Maverick (James Garner) being swindled by a crooked banker (John Dehner) after depositing the proceeds from a late-night poker game, then recruiting his brother Bart Maverick (Jack Kelly) to mount an elaborate sting operation to recover the money." It's also the source of two oft-quoted lines: "If you can't trust your banker, whom can you trust?" and "I'm working on it." See, "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres," wikipedia.org.]

As the NEF reports, "Paid between £500,000 and £80m a year, leading bankers destroy £7 of value for every pound they generate." (This calculation looks back over 20 years and even credits the bankers with the taxes they paid over those years.)

Because the NEF is a British think tank all its numbers are in British pounds rather than dollars. I'm not going to convert all of them in this blog entry. If you want to do a rough conversion in your head as you read, assume a multiplier of 1.5 -- for example, 10 British pounds (£) would be the equivalent of 15 U.S. dollars ($). (The actual exchange rate has been bouncing around 1.4 to 1.7 for the past year.)

Here's how the NEF introduces its report:

This report takes a new approach to looking at the value of work. We go beyond how much different professions are paid to look at what they contribute to society. We use some of the principles and valuation techniques of Social Return on Investment analysis to quantify the social, environmental and economic value that these roles produce – or in some cases undermine. . . .

[T]o what extent does what we get paid confer ‘worth’? Beyond a narrow notion of productivity, what impact does our work have on the rest of society, and do the financial rewards we receive correspond to this? Do those that get more contribute more to society?

Our report tells the story of six different jobs. We have chosen jobs from across the private and public sectors and deliberately chosen ones that illustrate the problem. Three are low paid – a hospital cleaner, a recycling plant worker and a childcare worker. The others are highly paid – a City banker, an advertising executive and a tax accountant. We examined the contributions they make to society, and found that, in this case, it was the lower paid jobs which involved more valuable work.

The report goes on to challenge ten of the most enduring myths surrounding pay and work. People who earn more don't necessarily work harder than those who earn less. The private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the public sector. And high salaries don't necessarily reflect talent.

The report offers a series of policy recommendations that would reduce the inequality between different incomes and reconnect salaries with the value of work.

The full report is available as a printed document and also as a pdf file from the link, above -- though of course the NEF server is so overloaded this morning that you may need to wait to get it.

Here's some of what the BBC had to say about it this morning. Martin Shankleman, "Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study," BBC News, December 14, 2009.

The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.

It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn. Meanwhile, senior advertising executives are said to "create stress".

The study says they are responsible for campaigns which create dissatisfaction and misery, and encourage over-consumption.

And tax accountants damage the country by devising schemes to cut the amount of money available to the government, the research suggests.

By contrast, child minders and waste recyclers are also doing jobs that create net wealth to the country.

The Foundation has used a new form of job evaluation to calculate the total contribution various jobs make to society, including for the first time the impact on communities and environment.

Eilis Lawlor, spokeswoman for the New Economics Foundation, said: "Pay levels often don't reflect the true value that is being created. As a society, we need a pay structure which rewards those jobs that create most societal benefit rather than those that generate profits at the expense of society and the environment".

She said the aim of the research was not to target individuals in highly paid jobs, or suggest people in low paid jobs should earn more.

"The point we are making is more fundamental - that there should be a relationship between what we are paid and the value our work generates for society. We've found a way to calculate that," she said.

A total of six different jobs were analysed to assess their overall value. These are the study's main findings:

* The elite banker

"Rather than being wealth creators bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial system to the brink of collapse

Paid between £500,000 and £80m a year, leading bankers destroy £7 of value for every pound they generate".

* Childcare workers

"Both for families and society as a whole, looking after children could not be more important. As well as providing a valuable service for families, they release earnings potential by allowing parents to continue working. For every pound they are paid they generate up to £9.50 worth of benefits to society."

* Hospital cleaners

"Play a vital role in the workings of healthcare facilities. They not only clean hospitals and maintain hygiene standards but also contribute to wider health outcomes. For every pound paid, over £10 in social value is created."

* Advertising executives

The industry "encourages high spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12m top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate".

* Tax accountants

"Every pound that a tax accountant saves a client is a pound which otherwise would have gone to HM Revenue. For a salary of between £75,000 and £200,000, tax accountants destroy £47 in value, for every pound they generate."

* Waste recycling workers

"Do a range of different jobs that relate to processing and preventing waste and promoting recycling. Carbon emissions are significantly reduced. There is also a value in reusing goods. For every pound of value spent on wages, £12 of value is generated for society."

The research also makes a variety of policy recommendations to align pay more closely with the value of work.

These include establishing a high pay commission, building social and environmental value into prices, and introducing more progressive taxation.

I'm sure that before the sun sets this evening the bankers' economists, publicists and lobbyists will be doing their best to counter this awful truth. Meanwhile, there may be something here of use to Governor Culver and the Board of Regents.

Could it be that the greatest value to the State of Iowa might be to keep the cleaning crews on the payroll (and in fairness give them a raise) and get maximum savings from layoffs by getting rid of administrators?
_______________
For the recent blog entries you may be looking for, go to "There Is No War in Afghanistan," December 4, 2009, and look through the links at the bottom of that blog entry.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Deficits, Taxes, Culver and the Highway Lobby

December 13, 2009, 8:25 a.m.

Support the Troopers: A Rational Approach to Taxation
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Governor Chet Culver, looking down the well into a near-billion-dollar 2010 deficit, wants to take $46 million from Iowa's $1.144 billion Road Use Tax Fund to keep the State's Highway Patrol on the roads. Thomas Beaumont and William Petroski, "Culver takes on road industry," Des Moines Register, December 12, 2009.

Few if any industries have more power over states' legislatures than their highway lobbies. Iowa's no exception. They are an important sub-set of the industries that, together, have created America's global-warming-auto-dependent transportation system -- leaving us without the passenger rail networks other nations have. Think about it: the oil companies and their station owner-operators; the automobile manufacturers, unions, and dealers; the cement, steel, heavy equipment, and highway contractor companies; all the independent auto repair businesses; the auto scrap steel firms -- it goes on and on. We've paved some 61,000 square miles of America for roads and parking lots. That's an area that, if it were a state, would make it the 24th largest state in the country. It's roughly half the 76 million acres of soybeans, or 85 million acres of corn, farmers predicted they'd plant this year. "USDA Expects Corn, Soybean Acres on Par with Last Year," Newsroom USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, March 31, 2009.

As the Register reports, "'This will be a bloodbath if it goes forward. This will absolutely be one of the most controversial issues of the session,' said Scott Newhard, vice president of the Associated General Contractors of Iowa." On the other hand, "The State Police Officers Council, a bargaining unit for troopers, 'is very much in favor' of Culver's plan to divert road fund money for the State Patrol, said Sue Brown, the council's executive director."

So there you have the level of analysis of this proposal at the moment: "bloodbath" vs. "support the troopers."

Can we do better? I think so. But rather than take sides in this battle of the titans, here's an effort to bring some rational, neutral principles to the analysis.

1. "What do you mean?'and 'How do you know?'" For starters, to have a rational and civil discussion we need to agree to use a more precise language and support it with data. Railing against "taxes" or "government" isn't very productive.

2. Taxes as currency. Taxes are just another way we buy stuff. We may use cash, checks or credit cards to buy clothes at the mall. We may use loans from a credit union, or auto dealer, to get a car. We may have deductions from our paycheck for a retirement fund or health insurance. We use taxes to buy our kids' K-12 education, the roads and sidewalks they travel to get there, our police and fire protection.

3. No system's perfect. You may buy a toy for your kid at the mall that breaks shortly after you get it home. The auto dealer may sell you a lemon, and then refuse to do anything about it. Your health insurance company may refuse to pay for a procedure that you think is covered by the policy you have been faithfully paying for. And we've just seen what Wall Street banks can do to our entire economy. Is there ever "waste, fraud and abuse" in government programs? Of course. (See, e.g., "State of Iowa Agency Reports on Tax Credits," December 14, 2009 (a pdf file); Clark Kauffman, "Audit: State Jobs Office Failed to Track Money," Des Moines Register, December 12, 2009.) But that's more a human condition than something endemic to government enterprise.

4. Think programs, not taxes. "Cost," standing alone is almost meaningless. It needs to be related to "benefit;" that's why there's such a thing as "benefit-cost" analysis. It's the same in for-profit businesses and government programs; the question is not "what are we paying?" it is "what are we getting for what we are paying?" It's not "how much did we invest?" it is "what is our return on this investment?" We can and do argue about values and ideology, and the validity of the formulas and data we use to arrive at those representations of costs and benefits. But at least those arguments about the utility of government programs are much more productive than arguing about "taxes" qua taxes.

5. Consequences, fairness and alternative taxes. There are many ways of raising money through taxation. Among the more familiar are income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes (and the related "value added" or VAT taxes), "sin taxes" (e.g., cigarette and alcohol taxes), capital gains, estate taxes, and "user fees" (e.g., entrance fees for public parks, swimming pools or museums; as distinguished from the "free" use of K-12 schools, for which there may also be fees).

Even if there is agreement about the benefit-cost utility of a given government program there can still be disagreement about the most appropriate and fair type of tax, and way of assessing and collecting enough taxes to pay for it (e.g., the poor may pay a disproportionately higher percentage of their income in sales and FICA taxes than the rich; property taxes may drive the elderly on fixed Social Security or other income from homes being taxed on assessed values ten times or more what they originally paid for their house).

The principle of "progressive" income tax rates has been with us since 1862, "History of the Income Tax in the United States," Information Please -- that is the notion that it's only fair the rich should pay at a higher rate than the poor (Sweden's marginal rate in 1979 was 87%) as well as paying that rate on a larger pot of income. Given that the wealthy have been notoriously more generous with their campaign contributions than the poor, legislators have tended to reduce the difference between the rates paid by each of those groups of constituents. "Between 1983 and 2003 the average (top) corporate tax rate of advanced OECD countries fell from around 50 to around 32 percent, the average top personal rate from around 66 to 48 percent." Steffen Ganghof, "Progressive Income Taxation in Advanced OECD Countries. Revisiting the Structural Dependence of the State on Capital," Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 23, 2004. The U.S. top marginal rate of 35% is, of course, well below the OECD average. And see Alan Reynolds, "Marginal Tax Rates," The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (with a table of 47 countries' marginal tax rates that places the U.S. in the bottom half). Many Fortune 500 corporations pay nothing at all. Robert McIntyre and T.D. Coo Nguyen, "Freeloaders: Declining Corporate Tax Payments in the Bush Years," Multinational Monitor, vol. 25, no. 11 (November 2004).

(Speaking of progressive taxation, Sherman Johnson has emailed me his suggestion for applying the principle to fines. He's got a point: "Fixed fines are outrageously regressive and unfair. A typical ticket for a moving violation might be $150. Parking in a handicapped space is $250. That represents less than one hour of work for an attorney or accountant -- about one minute for a CEO making $20M per year. Not much of a deterrent. For someone working a minimum wage (or close to minimum wage) job -- say $8 per hour -- that $150 ticket is about half of a weekly paycheck. That's before taxes. After taxes, that $150 is the majority of their take-home pay for the week.")

6. "Tax breaks" as subsidies. Some critics question the validity of ever transferring taxpayers' money to the bottom line of for-profit corporations, regardless of the purpose. They'd prefer to let the "free market" work its will with entrepreneurs. (For one reason why, see "State of Iowa Agency Reports on Tax Credits," December 14, 2009 (a pdf file); Lee Rood, "Other Tax Credits Raised Red Flags," Des Moines Register, December 13, 2009; Lee Rood, "IDED Moves to Recover Funding from 4 Firms," Des Moines Register, December 13, 2009.) Advocates cite the benefit in job creation, and increased revenues for the state, from such programs. Regardless of the merits of such arguments, the fact remains that the only difference between an out-and-out subsidy and a "tax break" is transparency; which is why some critics say, if you're going to give my tax money to for-profit enterprises at least appropriate it, do it above the table where we can see the money and see who's getting it. Don't hide it in the tax code. Whether you give me $100, or tell me I don't have to pay $100 I thought I would, it's $100 in my pocket that wouldn't otherwise have been there.

7. Tying pay to benefit. A part of the rationale for "public" K-12 schools, paid for by everyone in the community, is that everyone benefits from living in a community where everyone else has at least a K-12 education: less crime, a more skilled workforce, more interesting conversations with neighbors, and better quality elected officials. (A similar rationale could be, but has not been successfully, used for "universal, single-payer" health care.) But there are also the "user fees," mentioned above, in which all, or most, of the cost of a public program is paid for by those who are its primary beneficiaries. For example, student tuition at the Regents' universities could be thought of as a partial "user fee," representing perhaps something on the order of one-half the actual cost per student of providing this "public university" education (as distinguished from the virtual free ride for those whose children attend K-12 public schools). It is not always clear which public programs should be paid for by users, and which by the general taxpaying public (because, presumably, there is a general public benefit, as with public K-12 schools) -- and if users should pay what proportion of the cost they should pay.

8. Highway funds and the Highway Patrol. Which brings us to the Governor's proposed use of highway funds for Highway Patrol payroll. The Register's sidebar indicates the sources of the highway fund include "Fuel taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, fees for new registration (formerly the use tax), underground tank fees, title fees, trailer fees, special plate fees, driver's license fees, Underground Storage Tank Fund, motorcycle education, other vehicle taxes and fees, other miscellaneous and interest." It is, in short, an almost perfect example of a "user-fee" based funding system for a government program, that is, road building and maintenance. If you don't own a road worthy vehicle you don't pay registration fees or gasoline taxes. If you do, you do -- and the more you drive, the more gasoline you buy, and the more gas taxes you pay. All drivers benefit from the roads, all contribute to their need for repair, and all pay their proportionate share (assuming the big trucks and heavy equipment, which cause more damage, are paying more than just the gas tax).

That being the case, it is not irrational to argue that the Highway Patrol, the job of which is, as the name suggests, to patrol the highways, should be paid for by the same users who are paying for the highways themselves.

[December 14 modification. Since writing this, "factsgetintheway" posted the following comment on the Register's online version of its story:

"The Iowa State Patrol is the state's law enforcement agency, and their functions extend way beyond traffic/motor vehicle enforcement. The Iowa Constitution clearly did not intend for functions outside of highways to be supported by the RUTF. At a minimum, those activities should be supported by the General Fund. Some of those duties & special ISP units include: assistance during prison riots & labor disputes; emergency assistance and law enforcement during disasters; an airwing used to fly emergency blood and tissue match relays, search for lost persons and other victims; Amber Alert program; canine unit for narcotics detection and criminal apprehension; Chaplains Program; executive protection for the governor and first family, Lt. Gov.; State Capitol security; safety education; and special enforcement team for intercepting illegal drugs.

"Many of these new duties have come about since 1975 when their name was changed from Iowa Highway Patrol to Iowa State Patrol.

12/13/2009 4:22:25 PM"

Assuming all of the content of this comment is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not), while it would not affect the analytical model I've laid out, it certainly would affect the result. I would agree that "at a minimum," as the commenter suggests, to the extent that the other-than-highway-related functions of the ISP can be separated out, there is not a "user fee" rationale for having them paid for out of the Highway Fund. There may, of course, be some other rationale for doing so, just not a "user fee" basis.]

That is not to say there are no contrary arguments, that anyone gives a darn about rational analysis, or that the ultimate decision will not be dictated by campaign contributions and raw political power at its worst.

But for what it is worth, this is at least a way to bring a little more rational analysis, and a little less emotion, to the resolution of a very tough budget debate.
_______________
For the recent blog entries you may be looking for, go to "There Is No War in Afghanistan," December 4, 2009, and go to the bottom of that blog entry.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

'Journalistic Ethics' No Oxymoron

December 7, 2009, 10:00 a.m.

Media Watch: "Woman allegedly drove into backyard"
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Is the concept of "journalistic ethics" an oxymoron?

Yesterday's Press-Citizen resolved the issue once and for all. Not only does the journalistic profession have ethics, they are sometimes applied to excess.

Consider the paper's headline from yesterday: "Woman Allegedly Drove Into Backyard." Here is the story in its entirety (with the "driver's" name deleted:

An Iowa City woman was arrested early Saturday after she allegedly drove her vehicle drunk into the yard behind a house on Hotz Avenue in Iowa City, according to police.

Iowa City police responded at 3:06 a.m. Saturday and found the car still running with [name], 23, passed out behind the wheel, police said.

Officers woke [her] and found she had vomit on her clothing, a strong odor of alcohol, poor balance and was disoriented, police said.

Officers administered two tests to determine [her] blood-alcohol content. The preliminary breath test showed a blood-alcohol content of .155 and the DataMaster test showed a .146 blood-alcohol content, both above the legal limit of .08 to operate a motor vehicle in Iowa, police said.

[She] faces the charge of drunken driving. A number for [her] could not be found, and she could not be reached for comment.

I couldn't resist putting the following comment on the Press-Citizen's Web site reproduction of this story:

Let us address for a moment the use of the word "allegedly." It is commendable that the media has -- for the most part, and for some time now -- used the qualifier "allegedly" to avoid charging (and possibly defaming) someone with a false assertion of having committed a crime when there are not yet any formal findings or convictions.

However, when a woman is found by the police behind the wheel in a car with vomit on her clothing, and the engine running, in the backyard of her own or someone else's home, what are the possibilities other than that she drove there?

She and the car fell out of the tree. She was brought in by a tow truck, and left as a prank. Someone else drove the car into the back yard, brought the woman from elsewhere, vomited on her clothing, and placed her inside the car. The car simply materialized (though not yet even allegedly) having been beamed down from an alien craft of some sort.

Let it never again be said that "journalistic ethics" is an oxymoron.

12/7/2009 9:39:52 AM

To assert in a headline that someone is guilty of drunk driving when they have not yet been convicted would be one thing. But all that this headline "alleged" was that she "drove" -- albeit into someone's back yard. It seems to me, given the rest of this story, that the paper could have legitimately and ethically asserted as fact that she "drove into backyard."

With this kind of display of ethical caution let no one ever suspect that journalistic ethics is an oxymoron.

_______________
For the recent blog entries you may be looking for, go to "There Is No War in Afghanistan," December 4, 2009, and go to the bottom of that blog entry.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

There is No War in Afghanistan

December 4, 2009, 9:00 a.m.

Why Are We There?
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
It turns out that President Obama's war plan for Afghanistan is even worse than I thought.

Yesterday I hunkered down by myself and tried to think it through. I ended up concluding that, although no one had really specified exactly what the metrics would be for ever deciding whether it had been "successful," it seemed to me doomed to "failure" by any rational standard I could imagine. "Obama's Afghanistan; He Can't Win, Can't Break Even, and Can't Get Out of the Game," December 3, 2009 (borrowing, and setting forth the lyrics from Michael Jackson's version of "The Wiz"). In an effort to be more than merely critical, that entry concludes with what our policy and anti-terrorist strategy ought to be to produce better results at much, much lower cost.

In the last 24 hours I have come upon a transcript of MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" from December 1, 2009, the evening of President Obama's West Point speech. The insights it provides into Obama's Afghanistan strategy, and the conclusions a reader is left with, are if anything even more troubling than mine from yesterday.

The entire transcript is well worth reading. It includes the text of video clips she used, and the discussions she had with, among others, Presidents Obama and George Bush, Secretary Clinton, and "from Afghanistan . . . NBC‘s Richard Engel [and] from Washington . . . Retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, who literally wrote the book on modern counterinsurgency theory."

Here are some especially relevant excerpts for our purposes, followed by my own take-away from them:

MADDOW: President Obama tonight spoke at the site where President Bush unveiled the Bush doctrine—the proclamation that the United States would no longer reserve the right just to wage war against countries or forces that threatened us, but that we would wage war to stop the emergence of threats in the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Before they emerge, before they emerge. We must confront threats that might happen someday.

And thus was born not only the justification for, in the name of 9/11, attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but also the maximalist Bush doctrine concept of America at war globally, indefinitely, against anyone at our own discretion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Our security will require transforming the military you [i.e., West Point cadets] will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment‘s notice in any dark corner of the world. We must uncover terrorist cells in 60 or more countries. All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: The Bush doctrine was probably the single most radical thing about the Bush presidency, because it dropped the requirement that the United States actually be threatened before we‘d start a war with someone, instead saying that if we just thought we might be threatened sometime in the future, that would be justification enough for us now to start a war. It is a really radical concept, if you think about it, not only about war, but about us, about America.

And it may have survived the Bush presidency. President Obama tonight is explaining his second escalation of the war in Afghanistan, announcing that the 32,000 Americans who were in Afghanistan when he took office will become 100,000 by next year. A war reborn in what the president is describing as his own image, his own strategic terms, but which is justified fundamentally by what sounds like the Bush doctrine.

The administration admitting that we are not actually threatened now as a nation by Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JAMES JONES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Obviously, the good news that Americans should feel at least good about in Afghanistan is that the al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: No ability to attack us or our allies.

Afghanistan poses no threat to us, and yet, our war there is being doubled and tripled in size. Why? It‘s because we think there might be a threat from Afghanistan in the future, if a safe haven for terrorism there re-emerges in the future. In other words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Is the massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan announced tonight President Obama‘s own implementation of the preventive war Bush doctrine that . . . no one has really been able to justify?

This war is not about threats to the United States from Afghanistan. To the extent that it is justified by preventing threats to us from emerging from Pakistan sometime in the future, that‘s preventive war. That‘s the Bush doctrine—in all its Orwellian extremism.

To the extent, though, that this war is not about some potential future threat but a real current one, like the president described tonight, a current one that—he didn‘t say it bluntly, but he meant it—one that exists in Pakistan. To the extent that our 100,000 troops in Afghanistan are there simply to backstop and contain the real war against the real threat next door in Pakistan, then tell me this—how are we fighting our war in Pakistan?

We‘re fighting it using the CIA, which effectively functions as a fifth secret branch of the U.S. military now. They even have their own Air Force. They‘re a fifth secret branch of the military now which our civilian leaders as a matter of policy do not answer for. They don‘t even bother explaining what they‘re doing.

Do you remember when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned about our secret CIA drone war when she was recently in Pakistan?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At the same time, the drone attacks are still going on in Waziristan. What does madam or America in general plans to do with that, because it‘s creating a lot of frustration among our people.

(APPLAUSE)

HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I will not talk about that specifically, but generally, let me say that there‘s a war going on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Pakistani parliament, of course, has also requested that these drone attacks be stopped yet they continue and the Pakistani people have begun to resent them and associate them with U.S. policy towards Pakistan as a whole.

CLINTON: You know, I think what‘s important here is that there—there is a war going on, as several of you have said. And I won‘t comment on that specific matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: I won‘t comment on that specific matter. I won‘t talk about that specific thing, but there is a war. That war, that secret one—because CIA actions, even when there‘s a war, are covert and deniable.

If the real war is Pakistan and we‘re fighting this war not to prevent some threat to us in the future, not as an extension of the Bush doctrine, but rather than to respond to a real threat now, why are we fighting it with our secret military that we don‘t admit to? Why are we fighting it with our CIA?

Maybe there will someday be an Obama doctrine to replace the Bush doctrine. If that‘s going to happen, then, first, the Bush doctrine needs to be ended. No more wars to prevent future threats that may or may not emerge.

But, secondly, at some point, this president will need to be able to explain and take the credit or the blame for his real wars that right now are still getting only a “no comment.”

My take-away:

1. Sources. Because I don't like it when useful source material on the Internet does not provide a full citation, I like to provide sources and links when making assertions in blog entries. Yesterday's blog entry provided no sources for the assertions that al Qaeda was probably in 60 countries, al Qaeda should be identified as the real enemy (not the Taliban), less than 100 al Qaeda are in Afghanistan, and that they and the Talaban pose no real threat to us. They were just my best estimates. The transcript, above, provides sources: President Bush: "We must uncover terrorist cells in 60 or more countries." President Obama's National Security Advisor, General James Jones: "The maximum estimate is less than 100 [al Qaeda] operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

2. True motive. The entire transcript, beyond that quoted above, creates the sense that this entire effort, with the 30,000-troop build up, may really be just a skillfully crafted, bizarre, political, public relations approach to an exit strategy. The White House, which apparently offered the President options including immediate withdrawal, may think that a build up, followed by announced little "victories" over the Taliban of one kind and another, will insure the appearance that no one "lost their life in this useless folly of a war," and that we did not "lose" the "war in Afghanistan." We can then "declare victory and come home" -- without impliedly criticizing the judgment of President Bush or his military, and with the acceptance of Congress, American veterans and their families (including the families of those who died there), the American people, and our NATO allies.

3. The Taliban are not "the enemy" of the Afghan people, the Taliban ARE the Afghan people. NBC's Richard Engel in Afghanistan: "Only about 6 percent of the people want the Taliban to come back. But they‘re not seen as occupiers, or they‘re not seen as outsiders. They‘re seen as part of the society here that should be brought back into the fold. . . . [T]he Taliban are not, by and large, attacking civilians in this country. [C]ompared to Iraq, [where] you had market bombings, al Qaeda militants that were killing civilians by the dozens every single day . . . [in Afghanistan] it‘s mostly a conflict between the Taliban and foreign forces in this country. People are hoping that there can be some sort of reconciliation between the two." There are many lessons for the U.S. in that observation.

4. Pakistan. As has been clear from the beginning, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Afghanistan just barely has IEDs. The shared border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is almost irrelevant. There may well be very few who even know precisely where it is, and fewer still who actually care. In a region dominated by tribal loyalties and the territories they control, it wouldn't even have to be a "porous" border. But it is that, too. So it seems the real story, the real war, is the "CIA Army and Air Force's" war in Pakistan -- the war that neither the Secretary of State nor the President are even willing to acknowledge, let alone talk about and explain to the American people.

More troops to the "war in Afghanistan"? What war in Afghanistan?
_______________
Here are links to earlier entries on some of the other hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, along with links to "updates" in the form of subsequent news articles, among which may be the entries you came here looking for:

UIHC, Regents and UI.

"UI's Basketball Fees Self-Defeating," November 23, 2009

I'll drink to that: "UI Has A Drinking Problem," November 18, 2009 [see "Updates," below];

If UI has become a for-profit corporation . . .: "Corporatizing the University of Iowa; If We're Going to Do It, Let's Do It Right," November 17, 2009

Strategic Communications VP position: "Strategic Communications a Failed Strategy; Actions Speak Louder," November 13, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

Executives trip to Disney World: "Mickey Mouse Patient Satisfaction; UIHC's Troubles: Is Orlando the Answer?" November 8, 2009

"Contributions from patients" proposal: "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?'; A Check-In and a Check," October 31, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with numerous updates through November 4, links to additional, related material -- and now with over 30 of the Press-Citizen readers' comments on B.A. Morelli's stories) [see "Updates," below]

Board of Regents and State universities' budget cutting: "Cutting Slack, Cutting Budgets; Regents, University Presidents, Deserve Some Thanks and Credit," October 30, 2009, 8:30 a.m. (with links to prior, related blog entries); Jason Clayworth, "Governments in Iowa now $11.6 billion in debt," Des Moines Register, December 6, 2009

Spence break-in grand jury proceedings: "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

School boundaries, school boards, and the ICCSD.
"School Board Election: Now Work Begins; It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper; Old Board 'Starting Off Backing Up' With Consultant and Tough Decisions," September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with its links to 11 prior and related blog entries including, for example, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," and "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?")

Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Has Work to Do," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 2, 2009 (and reproduced in blog)

"Boundaries: Only Board Can Do Board's Job; Drawing School Boundaries Made Easy," November 2, 2009

And Updates: UI VP Medical Jean Robillard says patient-donation-dunning plan "canceled a week ago"; spokesperson "clarifies," says "canceled" means "under review," B.A. Morelli, "Leaders Address Employee Concerns; UI Officials: No Decision on Job Issues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A3; Ashley Oerman, "UI Cancels Asking Patients for Money," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; UI's Funded Retirement Insurance Committee asks President Mason to "abolish rather than just delay" UIHC's "patient donation plan," B.A. Morelli, "Group Wants UIHC Patient Donation Plan Nixed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A1; B.A. Morelli, "New incentive upsets some UI employees; Change encourages employees to seek care at its hospital," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 3, 2009;

Gunnar Olson and B.A. Morelli, "Regents might rethink bonuses; 2 presidents say they are divisive," The Des Moines Register and Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 30, 2009; B.A. Morelli, "Regents delay tuition, Hancher decisions," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 1, 2009; Emily Busse, "Mason received bonus in 2008," The Daily Iowan, December 4, 2009; Gunnar Olson, "Departing University Staff Get Stimulus," Des Moines Register, December 14, 2009; Staci Hupp and Gunnar Olson, "Regents Add $100 Tuition Surcharge," Des Moines Register, December 11, 2009;

Emily Busse, "UI shuns advisers on budget," The Daily Iowan, November 30, 2009;

Two Spence break-in grand jury witnesses jailed for refusal to testify, one now indicted, "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009; Anonymous, "Davenport Grand Jury Subpoena for Scott DeMuth," Nov. 11, 2009; "Two jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 17, 2009; Carrie Feldman's Web site and the new "Support Carrie and Scott!"; "Activist indicted for alleged role in Spence Labs vandalism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009 [in hard copy as "Man Indicted for Animal Terrorism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A1]; Ann McGlynn, "Activist who refused grand jury testimony now charged with conspiracy," Quad City Times, November 19, 2009; Ann McGlynn and Diane Heldt, "Lab Break-in Charge Pleases UI Officials," The Gazette, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Regina Zilbermints, "Man Charged in Spence Action," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Ann McGlynn, "Animal rights activist pleads not guilty in University of Iowa vandalism," Quad City Times, November 20, 2009; Zack Kucharski, "Judge Orders Animal Rights Activist Held," Quad City Times, November 26, 2009; Kurt Allemeier, "Animal rights activist ordered released," Quad City Times, December 1, 2009; Regina Zilbermints, "Grad student cites protecting subjects as reason not to testify," The Daily Iowan, December 9, 2009, p. A1;

Press-Citizen editorial: Hold off on VP for Strategic Communications: Editorial, "Stakes Have Risen for UI's Strategic Communication," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A7 ("it's wrong when UI seems to care more about finding the right way to spin its decisions than about making the right decisions in the first place. The best strategy for UI communication is for officials to be more forthright and to show more common sense.");

Press-Citizen editorializes for 21-only, Editorial, "21-Only Still an Option for Bars with PAULAs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A7; "Number of UI alcohol crimes rise," The Daily Iowan, December 4, 2009; B.A. Morelli, "Report: Colleges try to cover up rapes; UI incident led to policy overhaul," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 5, 2009; Danny Valentine, "The Siren Song of Alcohol," The Daily Iowan, December 7, 2009, p. A1;

Hancher Relocation: Rachel Gallegos, "Property owner for Hancher site won't sell land," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 26, 2009, p. A1; Rachel Gallegos, "Property owner for Hancher site won't sell land," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 26, 2009; B.A. Morelli, "Biz leaders: Opposition to land sale for Hancher not an obstacle," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 30, 2009 (and see related five-part series, "Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009, with links to prior four);

School District/Board. Rob Daniel, "School district facing more budget cuts," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 4, 2009; Rob Daniel, "What will redistricting do? Little known on effect of altering boundaries," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 5, 2009.

_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Obama's Afghanistan

December 3, 2009, 6:00 a.m.

He Can't Win, Can't Break Even, and Can't Get Out of the Game
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

Afghanistan is extremely poor, landlocked, and highly dependent on foreign aid, agriculture, and trade with neighboring countries. Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government's inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. . . . Afghanistan's living standards [are] among the lowest in the world. . . . . Expanding poppy cultivation and a growing opium trade generate roughly $3 billion in illicit economic activity and looms as one of Kabul's most serious policy concerns. Other long-term challenges include: budget sustainability, job creation, corruption, government capacity, and rebuilding war torn infrastructure.

-- "Afghanistan," CIA World Factbook

Here are some additional, illustrative details from that publication.

Afghanistan is a country of 652,000 square miles and 28 million people speaking over 30 languages with primary loyalties to regions, tribes and war lords -- over six square miles and 280 people for each of 100,000 troops. It's ranked 222 out of 224 countries in infant mortality at 152 deaths per 1000 live births. (The U.S. is 44th at 6.26.) Life expectancy is 44 years. Among Afghan women, 87% are illiterate (57% of the men). It's 208th in the world in number of Internet hosts. It has 7500 miles of paved roads (compared to our 2.6 million miles). It ranks 219th in the world in GDP per capita ($800; the U.S. is 10th at $47,500). Its total GDP ($22 billion) is roughly half of what the Obama Administration generously gifted to a single corporation as a bailout (the Bank of America, which in fairness says it's now willing to return to taxpayers).

Bringing this country to the vision implicit in some of our politicians' rhetoric not only cannot be done in 18 months, it cannot be done in 18 years. It would take generations. (As Tom Friedman put it Tuesday, "The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the 'war on terrorists.' To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders . . .." Thomas L. Friedman, "This I Believe," New York Times, December 2, 2009, p. A35.)

However serious the problems created by the Taliban, and Afghanistan's associated lack of security, they are dwarfed by those set forth above -- problems that even General McCrystal recognized in his report as essential prerequisites to resolving anything militarily.

Given that the presence of American troops produces increased Taliban recruitment and terrorist acts, adding more Americans, and keeping them there longer, reduces rather than increases our national security.

As in Viet Nam and Iraq, we are sending American troops into a country where they will inevitably be perceived as invaders or occupiers (and not the first in Afghan history and memory), do not know any of the 30 languages, religions, tribal customs and relationships, culture, history, and terrain of the country they are to "save." If that is not by definition "mission impossible" it is very close to it.

Even if more troops had a positive rather than negative impact, the addition of 30,000 is too little, too late. Most put the necessary troop strength at closer to 350-500,000 troops -- eight years ago -- to "secure" the country.

Our plans call for training Afghan police and military to make up at least part of that slack. Given the recruits' poverty, illiteracy, conflicting loyalties, acceptance of corruption, lack of education and experience, this is a task in almost no respect similar to American military training. Moreover, once trained the recruits remain largely undisciplined, inclined to desert (25% of the force leaves each year), and willing to change sides with perceived shifts of power or better financial offers.

I would have to agree with Senator McCain, other Republicans, and others, that putting an 18-month "exit" on our strategy may be a mistake -- in terms of Afghan and Pakistan support among other things. Survival for their people requires thinking beyond 18 months in predicting who will hold the power under which they must live.

The deadline is also disingenuous and inconsistent with the proposal. Getting out in 18 months, while perhaps a recipe for some measurable short-term gains, holds no more promise for permanent change than leaving now. Whatever the rationale may be for sending more troops now will be equally applicable to staying, or sending even more troops, later.

The Taliban are not a national, uniformed, fighting force along front lines. They are constantly shifting, indigenous, loosely organized, and interwoven into the civilian population, countryside and mountains. "Securing" an urban area from them, when possible at all, is at best a temporary achievement -- an area to which they can and will return as soon as we move our troops elsewhere in the country or leave, in our endless and unproductive exercise that is so very costly in American and Afghan lives, wounded, and dollars with no permanent accomplishment to show for it over time.

Even if it were possible to drive them out of Afghanistan, which it is not, they would simply move into Pakistan.

We're like a procrastinator who continues to work on every item on his or her "to do" list -- except for the one that has the highest priority. Given the characteristics of the Afghanistan population, and the challenges they confront, it is highly unlikely that they would have the inclination or resources to come to America to do us harm (especially when it's so much easier and cheaper to kill us in their home country). Their primary goal is to get us out of their country.

Our enemy remains the one we're least focused upon, and least successful in tracking down: al Qaeda (and other loosely organized terrorists with the will and resources to do us serious harm inside our borders). From the best information I've seen there are no more than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They are in Pakistan -- and probably another 60 countries around the world. They are even more mobile than the Taliban. All they need to get organized is an apartment in Hamburg, Germany, or London, England, or any city in the U.S. To the extent they want to bother finding a training ground for terrorists there are plenty of countries available to them.

There are times when a president needs to select the best single approach to a problem, forget about consensus and pleasing disparate constituents, and just bull ahead. As I wrote last Monday, President Franklin Roosevelt put the Civilian Conservation Corps in place over the opposition of the U.S. Army (which had at least partial responsibility for administering it), and his Secretaries of the Interior and Labor. No telling what a "compromise" CCC might have looked like. As it was, he bulled ahead, had the legislation written, passed by Congress, and signed less than 30 days after taking office, with 25,000 employed by the end of the first week -- soon to be three million.

That's the kind of presidential leadership our Afghanistan adventure requires -- and didn't get. I admire President Obama, and concede it's likely he has access to a little more information than I have. But here's what I would have done:

1. Maintain a military anti-terrorism ability, yes. But one that is lean and mean, and available to rapid deployment to any spot on earth where needed for a single, brief operation -- not a conventional, uniformed, occupying force of tens of thousands, quasi-permanently stationed in a country to provide it "stability."

2. Spend most of the $40 billion a year it's going to cost us in Afghanistan on (1) intelligence gathering (personnel on the ground as well as electronic), (2) international cooperation and diplomacy, and (3) homeland security.

3. Focus our energies, personnel and resources on known terrorists, their evolving plans and operations.

Not only is it cheaper, it also works.

Staying in Afghanistan is self-defeating and counter productive.

You can't win
You can't break even
And you can't get out of the game
People keep sayin'
Things are gonna change
But they look just like they're staying the same
You get in
Way over your head
And you've only got yourself to blame
-- "You Can't Win"
Support the troops. Bring them home.
_______________
Here are links to earlier entries on some of the other hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, along with links to "updates" in the form of subsequent news articles, among which may be the entries you came here looking for:

UIHC, Regents and UI.

"UI's Basketball Fees Self-Defeating," November 23, 2009

I'll drink to that: "UI Has A Drinking Problem," November 18, 2009 [see "Updates," below];

If UI has become a for-profit corporation . . .: "Corporatizing the University of Iowa; If We're Going to Do It, Let's Do It Right," November 17, 2009

Strategic Communications VP position: "Strategic Communications a Failed Strategy; Actions Speak Louder," November 13, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

Executives trip to Disney World: "Mickey Mouse Patient Satisfaction; UIHC's Troubles: Is Orlando the Answer?" November 8, 2009

"Contributions from patients" proposal: "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?'; A Check-In and a Check," October 31, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with numerous updates through November 4, links to additional, related material -- and now with over 30 of the Press-Citizen readers' comments on B.A. Morelli's stories) [see "Updates," below]

Board of Regents and State universities' budget cutting: "Cutting Slack, Cutting Budgets; Regents, University Presidents, Deserve Some Thanks and Credit," October 30, 2009, 8:30 a.m. (with links to prior, related blog entries)

Spence break-in grand jury proceedings: "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

School boundaries, school boards, and the ICCSD.
"School Board Election: Now Work Begins; It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper; Old Board 'Starting Off Backing Up' With Consultant and Tough Decisions," September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with its links to 11 prior and related blog entries including, for example, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," and "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?")

Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Has Work to Do," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 2, 2009 (and reproduced in blog)

"Boundaries: Only Board Can Do Board's Job; Drawing School Boundaries Made Easy," November 2, 2009

And Updates: UI VP Medical Jean Robillard says patient-donation-dunning plan "canceled a week ago"; spokesperson "clarifies," says "canceled" means "under review," B.A. Morelli, "Leaders Address Employee Concerns; UI Officials: No Decision on Job Issues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A3; Ashley Oerman, "UI Cancels Asking Patients for Money," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; UI's Funded Retirement Insurance Committee asks President Mason to "abolish rather than just delay" UIHC's "patient donation plan," B.A. Morelli, "Group Wants UIHC Patient Donation Plan Nixed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A1;

Two Spence break-in grand jury witnesses jailed for refusal to testify, one now indicted, "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009; Anonymous, "Davenport Grand Jury Subpoena for Scott DeMuth," Nov. 11, 2009; "Two jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 17, 2009; Carrie Feldman's Web site and the new "Support Carrie and Scott!"; "Activist indicted for alleged role in Spence Labs vandalism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009 [in hard copy as "Man Indicted for Animal Terrorism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A1]; Ann McGlynn, "Activist who refused grand jury testimony now charged with conspiracy," Quad City Times, November 19, 2009; Ann McGlynn and Diane Heldt, "Lab Break-in Charge Pleases UI Officials," The Gazette, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Regina Zilbermints, "Man Charged in Spence Action," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Ann McGlynn, "Animal rights activist pleads not guilty in University of Iowa vandalism," Quad City Times, November 20, 2009; Zack Kucharski, "Judge Orders Animal Rights Activist Held," Quad City Times, November 26, 2009;

Press-Citizen editorial: Hold off on VP for Strategic Communications: Editorial, "Stakes Have Risen for UI's Strategic Communication," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A7 ("it's wrong when UI seems to care more about finding the right way to spin its decisions than about making the right decisions in the first place. The best strategy for UI communication is for officials to be more forthright and to show more common sense.");

Press-Citizen editorializes for 21-only, Editorial, "21-Only Still an Option for Bars with PAULAs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A7;

Hancher Relocation: Rachel Gallegos, "Property owner for Hancher site won't sell land," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 26, 2009, p. A1 (and see related five-part series, "Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009, with links to prior four).

_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

No Such Thing as 10.2% Unemployment

November 27, 2009, 11:00 a.m.

I Can CCC Our Way Out of Recession
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Today we transition from the poverty, and generosity, of Thanksgiving Day, e.g., Lee Hermiston, "Sharing food, lives; Church serves meal as a gift to community," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 27, 2009, p. A1, to the profligacy of the Black Friday Stampede -- America's equivalent to Pamplona, Spain's running of the bulls -- on our corporatized, computerized, commercialized way to many religions' winter holidays.

It's a time for those of us who are still employed, more or less, to reflect upon the impact of the recession on those who aren't . . .

[. . . but first, know that at the bottom of this blog entry there are links to earlier entries on some of the hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, along with links to "updates" in the form of subsequent news articles, among which may be the entries you came here looking for.]

Unemployment statistics are a classic example of the old definition of averages: A man with one hand in a pan of boiling water, and one foot in a bucket of ice water is, on average, comfortable.

During the past year no one has become 10.2% unemployed (unless you count "underemployment, of which more in a moment). It's binary; you're either employed or you're not.

The New York Times provides one of its "multimedia interactive graphics" that makes the point: "The Unemployment Rate for People Like You," New York Times, November 6, 2009. As it shows, the percentages of unemployment for various demographic groups that have been averaged into that 10.2% are widely disparate.

For example, the unemployment rate for white, college educated women, 45 and over is 3.7% -- a number well within the normal range for a fully functioning economy. (For white, college educated men over 45 it's an equally acceptable 4.1%.)

On the other hand, the unemployment rate for Black, high school dropouts, aged 15 to 24 is 48.5% -- equal to the worst numbers in third world countries with virtually no economy. For Hispanic men 25 to 44, with a high school diploma, it's 9.9%. For more of the combinations click on the link above and select the demographic characteristics that interest you.

Moreover, even that 10.2% increases to 17.5% if you include, along with the recently unemployed, those unemployed for over six months, part time workers who would rather be working full time, and those too discouraged to continue looking (and even that number does not include, so far as I know, those working full time but at jobs well below their skill, education, and experience level). Presumably that near doubling of the numbers would apply to the percentages within various demographic groups as well.

Since 1948 it has never reached this level except for a time in 1982 -- following which it took five years to return to pre-recession numbers. Kevin Quealy, "Behind the Jobless Rate; a multimedia interactive graphic," New York Times, November 6, 2009.

My point, for now, is that just as we have a growing gap between rich and poor in this country (including "information rich" and "information poor"), so we have enormous gaps in the impact of the recession on various demographic groups.

And from that truth come some serious questions about what we're doing about it.

So far we're applying the same "trickle down economics" that President Reagan taught us. In an economy 70% driven by consumer spending, the money and a sense of economic security are not reaching the middle-to-lower class consumers who make up the majority of Americans. When auto dealers lots are full of unsold cars, giving billions of dollars to General Motors (taxpayers' money that has little prospect of ever being repaid), does little to benefit either workers or consumers -- or to boost the economy. (And don't get me started on the trillions of dollars to Wall Street investment bankers and AIG.)

Providing up to $4500 "cash for clunkers" to clear out that inventory of new cars boosts the income of auto dealers (and provides a false sense of "jobless recovery" with a brief and insignificant blip in GDP as a result), but does little for those who are either too smart, or unable, to borrow more money for any purchase, let alone a new car. It's a gift to those 96.3% of white, college-educated women over 45 who are employed, and in a market for a new car -- but they would and could have made the purchase without the subsidy. Ditto for the $8500 subsidy for "new home buyers." That may help those of the relatively wealthy employed who are able to be in the market for a new home, but neither program does anything for the unemployed or the newly homeless who are unable to pay mortgages on their old homes.

The one program that Washington seems unwilling to try is the no-brainer solution that did work in the last Great Depression and would work now: federal employment.

One of those programs was called the "Civilian Conservation Corps." Opposed at the time by President Roosevelt's Department of Labor, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army (responsible for some of its administration), that President was willing to take the leadership, and the heat, to push it through to reality -- and great success.

Here is a description from "Scout Report" regarding an online PBS video documentary about the CCC:

American Experience: Civilian Conservation Corps

The excellent film from the WBGH website, The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), is offered in its entirety on this site. "Heal the man, heal the land," was the philosophy of the CCC, and they engaged in some of the first environmental conservation work in the country. Since many academics, politicians, and lay people compare the current troubled times with what was seen in the 1930s, this film is particularly pertinent and visitors can decide if it's an apt comparison or not. Regardless, the stories of the three million young men who benefited from the regular meals, healthcare, clothing, diversity and hard work are fascinating. The trailer for the film starts playing right upon entering the website, but can be stopped just by clicking on the screen. Visitors can scroll over the "The 1930s Collection" logo to the right hand side of the film's screen to see the playlist for the film, but watching the whole film is recommended, as it is truly a treat. [KMG]

As you can read from the "Timeline" on that site, the contrasts between the response of the Roosevelt and Obama Administrations is dramatic.

FDR was sworn in on March 4 of 1933. By March 31 the CCC legislation had been passed and signed. Five days later there were already 25,000 employed in the program -- soon to reach 250,000 and then 3 million. And not incidentally, the benefits to the participants in literacy training and health care paid national dividends for decades more.

"By mid-1933, sixteen CCC camps and thirty-two projects had been approved for Iowa. . . . By the time the CCC ended in 1942, the number of CCC enrollees in Iowa camps would total nearly 46,000. They would contribute to the development of more than eighty state parks, and leave a tangible legacy that still numbers more than seven hundred state park structures" -- including Johnson County's own Lake MacBride State Park. Rebecca Conard, "The Legacy of Hope from an Era of Despair: The CCC and Iowa State Parks," Books at Iowa 64 (April 1996). [Photo credit: the Iowa DNR CCC Web site.]

How far we have fallen from our once proud compassion for our fellow Americans in distress. Nor is that distress limited to homelessness and hunger. See Reid Forgrave, "Worry rises with suicide rate," Des Moines Register, November 28, 2009.

But hunger is still a very real problem. And yet some are even seemingly reluctant to provide the underemployed 17% with unemployment compensation and Food Stamps -- those who are suffering from an economic collapse brought on, through no fault of their own, by greedy, multi-million-dollar Wall Street bankers and those in Washington who've been blessed with their generous campaign contributions. See Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff, "Across U.S., Food Stamp Use Soars and Stigma Fades," New York Times, November 29, 2009, p. A1 (More than 36 million receive Food Stamps, a program that "now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children. . . . Under Secretary of Agriculture Kevin Concannon says 'there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.' . . . [T]he program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day. . . . In more than 750 counties, the program helps feed one in three blacks. In more than 800 counties, it helps feed one in three children. In the Mississippi River cities of St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, half of the children or more receive food stamps. [H]alf of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, the figure was 90 percent. . . . [During] the 1990s . . . some conservatives tried to abolish the program . . ..").

Notwithstanding the fact that many, if not most, of these recipients would prefer the self-esteem that comes from work, and the ability to support oneself financially, we have yet to see the first federal job created by the current Administration.

As a result, we all fail to receive the benefits -- for ourselves as well as the participants in a modern-day CCC -- if only we were willing to pay for their work rather than their unemployment.
_______________
Here are links to earlier entries on some of the other hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, along with links to "updates" in the form of subsequent news articles, among which may be the entries you came here looking for:

UIHC, Regents and UI.

"UI's Basketball Fees Self-Defeating," November 23, 2009

I'll drink to that: "UI Has A Drinking Problem," November 18, 2009 [see "Updates," below];

If UI has become a for-profit corporation . . .: "Corporatizing the University of Iowa; If We're Going to Do It, Let's Do It Right," November 17, 2009

Strategic Communications VP position: "Strategic Communications a Failed Strategy; Actions Speak Louder," November 13, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

Executives trip to Disney World: "Mickey Mouse Patient Satisfaction; UIHC's Troubles: Is Orlando the Answer?" November 8, 2009

"Contributions from patients" proposal: "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?'; A Check-In and a Check," October 31, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with numerous updates through November 4, links to additional, related material -- and now with over 30 of the Press-Citizen readers' comments on B.A. Morelli's stories) [see "Updates," below]

Board of Regents and State universities' budget cutting: "Cutting Slack, Cutting Budgets; Regents, University Presidents, Deserve Some Thanks and Credit," October 30, 2009, 8:30 a.m. (with links to prior, related blog entries)

Spence break-in grand jury proceedings: "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

School boundaries, school boards, and the ICCSD.
"School Board Election: Now Work Begins; It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper; Old Board 'Starting Off Backing Up' With Consultant and Tough Decisions," September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with its links to 11 prior and related blog entries including, for example, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," and "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?")

Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Has Work to Do," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 2, 2009 (and reproduced in blog)

"Boundaries: Only Board Can Do Board's Job; Drawing School Boundaries Made Easy," November 2, 2009

And Updates: UI VP Medical Jean Robillard says patient-donation-dunning plan "canceled a week ago"; spokesperson "clarifies," says "canceled" means "under review," B.A. Morelli, "Leaders Address Employee Concerns; UI Officials: No Decision on Job Issues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A3; Ashley Oerman, "UI Cancels Asking Patients for Money," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; UI's Funded Retirement Insurance Committee asks President Mason to "abolish rather than just delay" UIHC's "patient donation plan," B.A. Morelli, "Group Wants UIHC Patient Donation Plan Nixed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A1;

Two Spence break-in grand jury witnesses jailed for refusal to testify, one now indicted, "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009; Anonymous, "Davenport Grand Jury Subpoena for Scott DeMuth," Nov. 11, 2009; "Two jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 17, 2009; Carrie Feldman's Web site and the new "Support Carrie and Scott!"; "Activist indicted for alleged role in Spence Labs vandalism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009 [in hard copy as "Man Indicted for Animal Terrorism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A1]; Ann McGlynn, "Activist who refused grand jury testimony now charged with conspiracy," Quad City Times, November 19, 2009; Ann McGlynn and Diane Heldt, "Lab Break-in Charge Pleases UI Officials," The Gazette, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Regina Zilbermints, "Man Charged in Spence Action," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Ann McGlynn, "Animal rights activist pleads not guilty in University of Iowa vandalism," Quad City Times, November 20, 2009; Zack Kucharski, "Judge Orders Animal Rights Activist Held," Quad City Times, November 26, 2009;

Press-Citizen editorial: Hold off on VP for Strategic Communications: Editorial, "Stakes Have Risen for UI's Strategic Communication," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A7 ("it's wrong when UI seems to care more about finding the right way to spin its decisions than about making the right decisions in the first place. The best strategy for UI communication is for officials to be more forthright and to show more common sense.");

Press-Citizen editorializes for 21-only, Editorial, "21-Only Still an Option for Bars with PAULAs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A7;

Hancher Relocation: Rachel Gallegos, "Property owner for Hancher site won't sell land," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 26, 2009, p. A1 (and see related five-part series, "Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009, with links to prior four).

_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

UI's Basketball Fees Self-Defeating

November 23, 2009, 6:15 a.m.

Rational Rationing of Recreation
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
How much should pick-up basketball players have to pay to walk onto the floor of the UI Field House south gym?

Paul Donaldson not only thinks it should cost nothing, he documents why it's self-defeating to do otherwise. Paul Donaldson, "UI decision on Field House hurts city," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009.

I agree.

. . . but first, here are links to earlier entries on some of the other hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, among which may be the entries you are looking for:

UIHC, Regents and UI.
I'll drink to that: "UI Has A Drinking Problem," November 18, 2009 [see "Updates," below];

If UI has become a for-profit corporation . . .: "Corporatizing the University of Iowa; If We're Going to Do It, Let's Do It Right," November 17, 2009

Strategic Communications VP position: "Strategic Communications a Failed Strategy; Actions Speak Louder," November 13, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

Executives trip to Disney World: "Mickey Mouse Patient Satisfaction; UIHC's Troubles: Is Orlando the Answer?" November 8, 2009

"Contributions from patients" proposal: "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?'; A Check-In and a Check," October 31, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with numerous updates through November 4, links to additional, related material -- and now with over 30 of the Press-Citizen readers' comments on B.A. Morelli's stories) [see "Updates," below]

Board of Regents and State universities' budget cutting: "Cutting Slack, Cutting Budgets; Regents, University Presidents, Deserve Some Thanks and Credit," October 30, 2009, 8:30 a.m. (with links to prior, related blog entries)

Spence break-in grand jury proceedings: "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

School boundaries, school boards, and the ICCSD.
"School Board Election: Now Work Begins; It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper; Old Board 'Starting Off Backing Up' With Consultant and Tough Decisions," September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with its links to 11 prior and related blog entries including, for example, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," and "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?")

Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Has Work to Do," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 2, 2009 (and reproduced in blog)

"Boundaries: Only Board Can Do Board's Job; Drawing School Boundaries Made Easy," November 2, 2009

And Updates: UI VP Medical Jean Robillard says patient-donation-dunning plan "canceled a week ago"; spokesperson "clarifies," says "canceled" means "under review," B.A. Morelli, "Leaders Address Employee Concerns; UI Officials: No Decision on Job Issues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A3; Ashley Oerman, "UI Cancels Asking Patients for Money," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; UI's Funded Retirement Insurance Committee asks President Mason to "abolish rather than just delay" UIHC's "patient donation plan," B.A. Morelli, "Group Wants UIHC Patient Donation Plan Nixed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A1;

Two Spence break-in grand jury witnesses jailed for refusal to testify, one now indicted, "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009; Anonymous, "Davenport Grand Jury Subpoena for Scott DeMuth," Nov. 11, 2009; "Two jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 17, 2009; Carrie Feldman's Web site and the new "Support Carrie and Scott!"; "Activist indicted for alleged role in Spence Labs vandalism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009 [in hard copy as "Man Indicted for Animal Terrorism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A1]; Ann McGlynn, "Activist who refused grand jury testimony now charged with conspiracy," Quad City Times, November 19, 2009; Ann McGlynn and Diane Heldt, "Lab Break-in Charge Pleases UI Officials," The Gazette, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Regina Zilbermints, "Man Charged in Spence Action," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Ann McGlynn, "Animal rights activist pleads not guilty in University of Iowa vandalism," Quad City Times, November 20, 2009; Zack Kucharski, "Judge Orders Animal Rights Activist Held," Quad City Times, November 26, 2009;

Press-Citizen editorial: Hold off on VP for Strategic Communications: Editorial, "Stakes Have Risen for UI's Strategic Communication," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A7 ("it's wrong when UI seems to care more about finding the right way to spin its decisions than about making the right decisions in the first place. The best strategy for UI communication is for officials to be more forthright and to show more common sense.");

Press-Citizen editorializes for 21-only, Editorial, "21-Only Still an Option for Bars with PAULAs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A7.

Let me make clear at the outset what this argument is not about, and then itemize some of the issues it does present.

The UI's Division of Recreational Services is proposing to charge for use of the Field House -- including the south gym basketball courts. Whether it should charge for that use is the only question.

No one is proposing that everything in the Field House should be free to public and students alike -- leaving it to the University and Iowa's taxpayers to figure out how to pay for it.

There are literally 170 categories of recreational equipment, facilities and services for which UI charges fees. University of Iowa, Division of Recreational Services, Fees. The only one at issue is the proposal to charge players in pick-up basketball games for the use of the courts in the south gym.

While one might argue about the level of some of these 170 fees, presumably most would concede that there is a legitimate reason to charge for services provided by trainers, equipment that is loaned out and then lost or damaged, facilities such as weights rooms with expensive equipment that must be maintained, personal lockers, or use of a major swimming pool. These are, after all, things for which one would expect to pay when provided by for-profit businesses.

But free access to basketball courts, indoors and especially outdoors, are an American tradition that has been a part of the lives of millions of young American boys and girls -- up to and including the current President of the United States.

This is not to say that there are no expenses associated with the south gym. It must be heated, lit, the floors maintained, and occasionally cleaned. It is only to say that a gym does not require the maintenance costs of a swimming pool, the personnel costs of personal trainers, the loss or damage of equipment, the servicing of weights machines -- nor does it involve the direct, individual, personal benefit of a private locker.

The incremental costs associated with one additional basketball player are somewhere between so infinitesimal as to be immeasurable and zero.

Here are some of the issues I see in this controversy.

UI's Iowa culture and charm. A part of the UI's Iowa culture and charm has been an open campus and unspoken reluctance to impose charges, administrative paperwork, rules, regulations, and ID-passes until a problem requires response. Classroom and office buildings are open to the public. Anyone can wander into the Main Library (one of the nation's first to offer "open stacks") to read the books or use the computers. The UI's hospital is open to anyone who wants to eat in its public cafeteria, listen to the noontime piano, view the art or museum, or just admire the architecture and views from the top floors. When speakers are brought to Iowa City by the UI Lecture Committee their presentations are available to the public at no charge. Undergraduates who like to study in the law library are permitted to do so.

Of course, when 70,000 football fans would otherwise be looking for restrooms, the hospital across the street from the stadium has to lock down and screen patients and their visitors through a single entrance. And if the day ever came when there was no longer room for law faculty and students in the law library, that problem would be addressed. But when there's a campus practice that's not causing problems we tend to avoid regulation for the sake of regulation.

We take this openness and freedom for granted. See generally, Nicholas Johnson, "Corporatizing the University of Iowa; If We're Going to Do It, Let's Do It Right," November 17, 2009 (especially the paragraph beginning, "I can remember a different day.").

But as I've accepted visiting professorships and lecture invitations from dozens of colleges and universities around the country I've not found these precious Iowa values to be widely shared.

So the maintenance of this aspect of the UI's Iowa culture and values are one reason to preserve free access to the basketball courts.

Hawkeyes' Basketball. Not to dwell upon it, but based on the recent record of the Hawkeyes' basketball team, I'd say the more Iowans we have playing basketball for the fun of it the better it will be for our success in future recruiting (a recruiting effort that has produced precious few Iowans).

Nickel and diming. I've written before about the downside of small charges that produce more hostility, and less revenue, than the administrative hassle is worth. See generally, Nicholas Johnson, "Nickel and Diming Don't Make Sense; How is MidAmerican Like a Country Club? They Both Have Membership Fees," August 7, 2009 (e.g., expensive hotels' charges for breakfast and local calls (which cheap motels provide for free), or mechanics' extra charge for "rags").

The most recent UI example is the UIHC's decision to cancel free parking, pushing even this additional charge onto patients -- adding expensive insult to injury while they wait hours past their appointment times running up the parking charges -- and then simultaneously proposing to take patients' financial donations before taking their blood pressure.

Even if we were to charge, what's a reasonable fee to make someone pay who wants to bounce a ball on a floor for 15 minutes while trying to make it go through a little metal hoop? Surely not much.

My guess is that the administrative costs of monitoring who can, and cannot, play basketball on the south gym courts, coupled with the decline in use by those who can't, or won't, pay the fees, might well end up producing yet another example of counterproductive "nickel and diming."

Community values. And now, since it was Paul Donaldson's op ed column that brought this issue to my attention, I'll let excerpts from it tell what Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story":

The Field House South Gym community of pickup basketball players will be destroyed unless it is exempted from the fee proposal.

Currently these basketball courts are a place where people from widely diverse backgrounds connect. This is the only place I've personally seen a Palestinian (member of the public) and a Jew (UI student) working together. High school dropouts and medical graduate students, pros and amateurs, from junior high age kids to some 60-plus years old, guys and girls, all find a place in the South Gym where we can come together, and in many cases share much more than basketball. When opportunities for people to connect like this are lost, everyone stands to lose.

Who will be excluded? I'm certain a black 19-year-old I know from playing basketball in the South Gym will not be able to afford a new fee. He just finished high school and is on his own. He has a child and lives with the mother of his child. . . . Will it make a difference if he and others like him no longer have the Field House outlet?

I see so many kids turning to gangs or parties in free time -- and yet when he has a fleeting break from responsibilities, this young man chooses the Field House. Is it beneficial for my friend to meet and know UI undergrads/graduate students? Is it beneficial for UI students to know him?

The UI Field House is currently one of the greatest "non-bar" alternatives in the Iowa City area. You can find games as late as 11 p.m. on a Friday night! A public fee will ruin this "non-bar" community. [See the related, Nicholas Johnson, "UI Has a Drinking Problem," November 18, 2009.] We all share a high cost for losing it. . . .

Economic, cultural, religious and educational barriers break down in this place in ways seldom found elsewhere. Is money truly more important than community? If the distance between the haves and have-nots grows wider and the walls between people grow taller, don't we all pay a price? The current UI Field House is a model for other colleges and universities to follow; not one to abandon so that it's "like the others." . . .

To recap: The UI must somehow, somewhere, find the money to operate its programs. No one is suggesting otherwise. Moreover, this blog entry, and Paul Donaldson's column, do not challenge 169 of the 170 fees charged by UI Recreational Services. But we both believe there are enormous community benefits to continuing the ability of pick-up basketball players to spend time, at no personal cost, on the south gym basketball courts. The revenue that fees could create wouldn't amount to much anyway. The administrative cost of collecting it, and monitoring who is, and is not, permitted to enter the gym, will offset much of even that modest income. And it will be perceived -- fairly -- as an ill-considered, and somewhat mean spirited, "nickel and diming" of the community, one that will produce far more harm in terms of public relations than could possibly be offset with the revenue.

Don't do it. The UI has far more public relations disasters these days than it can handle as it is -- with or without a "Vice President for Strategic Communications."
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #