“New Year’s resolution: No more wars this year,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 30 – January 5, 2011, 13.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS

It’s customary to make New Year’s resolutions that last a few days at the most: lose weight, exercise more, be nice to rude people, park as far as possible and enjoy the walk to the store. But the year that passed requires a more serious approach to our wishes for 2012.

The Iraq war is over after eight years and about $1 trillion in costs, with a death toll of 4,484 American soldiers, about 50,000 wounded, and more than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The country is deadlocked in political squabbling, but a dictator is gone.

Instead of taking stock of this war, an undertaking that will take decades, perhaps we can resolve not to start any new wars in 2012, and withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan. At $2 billion per week, this war is crippling our domestic economy and doing little to stabilize that region of the world.

As a first resolution for 2012, let’s all agree to stand strong without aggression, use diplomacy without wavering on defending ourselves, and maintain the smartest military force in the world without bankrupting ourselves: small, agile units with multiple skills and weapons that can respond quickly to whatever threat without mobilizing the entire military.

Foreign policy and military involvement remain at the federal-level, but with congressional input, we can all participate in encouraging a thoughtful political debate that makes sense. For example, decrying the reduction in military spending as a job reduction (increased unemployment) is similar to the guy who killed his parents and asks the court’s mercy because he’s an orphan.

The second resolution should be about public civility: you can criticize without insulting. British tradition has it that critical debate is constructive rather than destructive, that a better outcome is meant to result from the exchange. Why bother to criticize something utterly silly? It’s not worth the energy. By contrast, if you care about an issue—it can be what shoes to wear for a Christmas party when it snows—then pay attention and engage and provide a useful suggestion.

Public civility is not reserved for politicians in Washington or our own city council in its relations with the mayor. Neither is it limited to journalists or media commentators who are prone to ridicule people in positions of power. Speaking truth to power isn’t about mocking others: it’s meant to bring attention to significant issues overshadowed by political deal-making or back-scratching.

As custodians of public trust, politicians and journalists alike should be careful in what they say, make sure their sources are reliable, and whenever they criticize, they should propose alternative solutions. How would the public know what is really worth arguing about? It’s called responsible journalism or politics with integrity. Obviously all politicians have inflated egos—they voluntarily put themselves in front of voters and cameras, asking for the adulation of others (and their financial support).

 As we think about foreign policy and political integrity, financial considerations remain paramount: how much does this idea cost? How much is this worth? Economists of all stripes agree that the best measure of our values or commitments are monetary. As President Obama prepares to spend $1 billion on his reelection effort in 2012, we should fear for the onslaught of wasted millions in the name of democratic elections.

Have we learned nothing from our democratic counterparts around the world? Is the UK any less democratic because it allows weeks of campaigning rather than months here? Is Germany undemocratic because of its election regulations? Excess spending on mud-slinging is absurd and counter-productive: only negative advertisements are remembered: “Where’s the beef?” (1984 Mondale referring to Hart) is a sad reminder that it’s at that level of discourse that political fortunes are made or lost.

So, the third and last resolution I propose for 2012 has to do with prudence. Let’s agree to be prudent with our money, not to waste it on silly ads or gadgets we’ll never use. It makes sense to recycle on economic grounds a much as on ecological ones. Why use plastic bags when canvas ones remain intact for years? Why replace our cars every two or three years when they function well for ten? Why buy a ten-pound bag of apples or potatoes when you need only one pound and the rest may rot before being used?

As we welcome another year, let’s promise ourselves and others to be kind and gentle, complimentary and generous, friendly and supportive without reservation or expectation of reciprocity. Next year will be better in every sense, as the worst of the Great Recession is over. Because it’s an election year, all the economic indicators will point upward: it’s an election-year dance. So, it’s a good time to invest in an improving economy!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS.  He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Consider Tebow, Newton and Christmas this season,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 23 - 29, 2011, 21

LEAP OF FAITH

As Christmas arrives this year, believers and non-believers alike participate in an all-consuming spending orgy. Perhaps they believe that once a year their generosity and good-will goes beyond the personal and affects the national wheels of commerce: about 20% of annual spending occurs between Black Friday and Christmas.

Perhaps we are fed up with bad news and the lingering effects of the Great Recession or with depriving ourselves of our national past-time of shopping. Advertisers haven’t stopped bombarding us with catchy tunes and gorgeous models to buy gadgets we deserve. So, finally we succumb to their pleas, whip out a credit card, and feel good. It’s Christmas, after all.

For those who cannot afford a spending spree as an expression of belief in a better economic future, there are other forms of engagement that can express belief just as effectively. Some, less-worldly Christians refrain from conspicuous consumption and remind us that the celebration is not about Santa Claus. Between the two extremes of immersion in the world and retreat from it, we find an American public fascinated by Tim Tebow, the infamous quarterback of the Denver Broncos.

Tebow, the avowed Christian, has become a man for all seasons: he’s a spiritual leader without a congregation, an athlete who believes in miracles, a quarterback who infuses faith in his teammates, a Christian who wants to do right by his mother, an unabashed believer who openly puts his faith in divine intervention, and a humble servant of the Lord who happens to be an extremely competitive, and at times, competent athlete. You name it, and he’ll satisfy your spiritual need. He’s bankable, too!

What makes Tebow and his signature move, “Tebowing”—now an officially accepted linguistic term which designates praying on one knee, fist on the chin—interesting is the fact that he is talked about more than anything else in sports, which in turns means more than anything else in American culture. For once, it’s not some scandal with dog fighting, gambling, rape, or murder. It’s clean and uplifting entertainment provided by a guy who seems above reproach. You needn’t watch a football game on Sunday to know that on Monday Tebow’s performance--his divine mission undertaken for the love of sports and God (maybe not in this order)—will be discussed.

In a post-secular age, an age that accepts religious belief alongside atheism, one need not choose between being religious or secular, but instead can be openly religious without thereby giving up one’s rational faculties. It’s not insane to believe in miracles, as the Broncos prove week after week of preposterous last-minute victories. And Tebow’s comebacks can lodge themselves comfortably in the rational mind, too—his late-game heroics can be explained by mistakes made by the other team and a great Broncos defense.  The “Tebow phenomenon” has a wide-ranging appeal.

So, can you believe in God and be rational? Does it make sense to believe in miracles? Isaac Newton, the seventeenth century mathematician and natural philosopher (as physicists were called then) believed in God and in miracles. He even wrote long tracts on miracles, to the embarrassment of some scientists and historians of science who’d like a clear distinction between science and religion. So, is Tim Tebow like Newton? Not in his ability to develop the calculus, for example, or formulate the fundamental laws of gravity and the color spectrum.

But perhaps what distinguishes Tebow is the ease with which he displays shuttling between the world of celebrities and the world of people of faith. It’s not that God guides his wins; it’s not that his faith moves the ball in the right direction or allows him to outrun his opponents. Tebow has admitted as much. Rather, it’s that he has faith in himself and his natural abilities, in his team and coaches, in the idea that hard work and concentration will yield results beyond scientific calculations of velocity and gravity, force and trajectories.

No, Tim Tebow is neither Newton nor a saintly reincarnation of some ancient Greek athlete or warrior. Instead, he is an all-American well-paid football player who has become an inspiration to a country bereft by an economic downturn, foreclosures, and persistent unemployment. It’s difficult to be inspired by the OWLS (Occupy Wall Street) just as it’s difficult to be inspired by the Arab Spring: in both cases we have to interpret data or think through socio-economic stratification embedded in a traditional political-legal framework (intellectual heavy-lifting).

But just look at Tebow when he “Tebows” after a touchdown: what’s complicated about this image? How can this image not be immediately compelling? Besides, it’s much closer to Auguste Rodin’s sculpture of the Thinker than an actual prayer pose. Is “Tebowing” a symbol of praying or thinking? Maybe Newton’s ghost does hover over Tebow; maybe he’s blessed across the scientific-religious divide.

When you go to Christmas mass or shop or reflect on the meaning of the holiday, just think how American this holiday has become and how religious American sports have always been. Tim Tebow will make it easy for you.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who was born in the Holy Land.  He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

        

“Eliminate the fire dept.?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 16 - 22, 2011, 21.

RED UNIFORMS?

It’s easy to conjure images of firefighters from movies, heroic efforts to put out a fire, save lives and property. The horrific memories of 9/11 include those of courageous firefighters that lost lives while saving others, selflessly doing what they do best. And those cute Dalmatians: who can resist them around the fire station?

What about our very own men in uniform? Is their efforts worth close to $60 million annually? Can’t we do without them altogether? Why not lose a few houses a year, let them burn to the ground? How much are firefighters worth? At least one politician made her career based on her support for these men in uniform. No politician dares cross their voting power, and therefore begs for their endorsement. The amicable Richard Brown was finally installed as the Fire Chief after Mayor Bach finally decided to keep Steve Cox in his administration (still a chief)—both good choices.

A new fire truck costs about $400,000 and a “ladder” close to $800,000 (we have six of those). Our CSFD buys refurbished trucks that cost less than half of new ones. It also plans to open two new stations without staff increases. Doing more with less is what they are thinking, especially with a business-minded mayor that expects them to be efficient, while remaining “business friendly.”

Full disclosure: when I had historic-preservation issues with Il Postino’s ceiling (now Springs Orleans), it was the fire chief who came to my “rescue” as Regional Building inspectors gave me a hard time. It was his letter of support that preserved the historical ceiling of a building with sprinklers two blocks away from a fire station. Mayor Bach: they are business friendly!

So, have I come to praise the CSFD rather than bury it? Perhaps praise isn’t the right term. It’s about realizing what they do. In fact, out of around 35,000 annual 911 calls to which they respond, only around 700 relate to fires. So, it should be renamed the Colorado Springs Emergency Department. Just as with my recommendation to change Thanksgiving to Thanks-eating, I doubt this one will happen. So, what kinds of calls are these?

As “first responders,” firefighters deal with more medical issues than anything else. This is not surprising when over a third of the local population lacks health insurance and is frightened to go to emergency rooms or call an ambulance. If that’s the case, why send a huge fire truck rather than a CSFD ambulance? Isn’t this wasteful? Why not just call the private ambulance service?

Unlike a fully–equipped ambulance, which arrives as well and which for a fee transports patients to hospitals, fire trucks have additional equipment that may be needed. The reason for this perceived waste is twofold: first to ensure extreme needs—emergency responses plan for the worst scenario and hope for the best (a cat stuck in a tree), and second to provide redundancies, which are required for safety (think of your gas needle and the odometer which can be zeroed when fueling). Those enormous trucks contain all that can be used if and when something goes really wrong: heart-attack of an obese patient stuck under a bed in a room whose door is too small to walk through.

If the CSFD dealt only with emergencies that are fire-related, the question would be: isn’t preventive work more important than actual firefighting? If yes, why are there only 15 inspectors out of a workforce of 465? One answer has been to certify another 97 captains and lieutenants to do inspections as well. In fact, in residential calls, the team also checks for fire/smoke-alarms and when they are missing, installs them free of charge. 

If all buildings were sprinkled, wouldn’t the need for CSFD be diminished? On one level, the answer is yes. On another, there is a difference between commercial buildings (required to have sprinklers) and residential (which are not), as well as between new construction (which are required) and old ones (which are grand-fathered without). With this in mind, we may have to wait for old building to be replaced over time before fires would claim no lives. Incidentally, the 700 fires in 2010 claimed 3 lives and $12 million in damage, while $270 million were saved.

Last year 23 new fire-fighters were hired from a pool of 1,757 applicants. What’s the attraction? Starting salary is around $41,000 (teachers start at $32,000). Average work-week is 56 hours (with day on, day off schedule). Union membership is optional (more than half are members), even in this conservative, anti-union city. So, is it the movies, accolades, adrenaline rush?

The best answer I heard is the sense of camaraderie, team-work, and collaboration that makes it all worth it. Sounds socialist, especially with red as the color of choice? Whatever their ideology, they do save lives!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who thankfully only dealt with fire inspectors over the years. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“A couple ideas about bases in foreign countries,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 9 - 15, 2011, 21

MILITARY COSTUMER SERVICE

When Republican presidential candidates agree with a fellow candidate, you can bet that he has no chance of winning the nomination. That’s where Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) finds himself, especially with some comments he makes about foreign military bases. If only 10% of what he says makes sense, it’s a much higher percentage compared to other politicians’ statements.

According to Dr. Paul, in his CBS’s “Face the Nation” interview, “This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases…is an old fashioned idea…It makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt - we can't afford it any longer." The libertarian republican can’t get even his own party to agree to this idea that troops should be withdrawn from around the globe.

Perhaps there is an ideological obstacle here: the meaning of patriotism. It used to be the slogan “Support Our Troops” with yellow ribbons. As William Deresiewicz tells us, it’s now the “cult of the uniform.” We respect soldiers in uniform for risking their lives within the only institution in America that hasn’t turned into a political football.

Focusing on soldiers without considering the wars themselves, whether they are just or unjust, affordable or not, yield our intended results, is like asking if wine is sacred. Of course the troops deserve respect and wine as a sacrament is sacred, but does this resolve the tough questions about involvement in foreign wars (or drunk driving)?

President Obama apparently ignores his own declarations about troop reduction overseas. While our presence in Iraq will “end” by 2012, he has announced establishing a new base in Darwin, Australia. Will we close all our bases in Iraq? What about support teams around other Arab nations?

The latest reports suggest we are spending about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. A month’s worth of expenditure, just to put things in perspective, amounts to the entire state of Colorado’s annual budget. Is this buying us any goodwill there? Or in Pakistan? Reports suggest that opium is at its lowest street price in Los Angeles. Forget about the Taliban; we can’t even stop the drug trade. Why do we believe that we can succeed where the Russians failed?

Since Republicans and Democrats alike are not interested in making any cuts to the military budget, and since the general public would rather increase defense budget than welfare benefits, perhaps we should rethink Dr. Paul’s suggestion in one of two ways.

The first is audacious and will go nowhere: for every base we have in a foreign country—presumably with that country’s consent—we should have a foreign military base in the US. This reciprocity would bring a financial bonanza with it, since those foreign bases on American soil would be paid for by the country of origin, the way we pay for our bases abroad. 

The second, and perhaps more reasonable, idea is to retain our bases abroad but have them paid for by the hosting country. Theoretically, Americans are on German or South Korean soil in order to protect the Germans or South Koreans, respectively. Why not pay for your own protection? These are wealthy countries that can afford to pay our bills to protect them against potential enemies. In fact, this is not an outlandish idea.

When Papa Bush declared war on Iraq, “Desert Storm”, in 1991, he gained the support of many allies around the globe. Thinking like a rich man who never likes to spend his own money when dining with others, he asked and received financial support from the 34 coalition partners, minimizing American financial exposure.

Some sources claim that the war cost over $60 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no combat forces due to their constitutions). Why didn’t his son do the same? Can Obama do the same in Afghanistan?

Once we get over the false dichotomy of being for or against military spending in general and become more responsible citizens, we don’t need to turn to Ron Paul for advice. His libertarian ideals make sense in a world of responsible individuals that need no government, or responsible nations that need no international forces. When these ideals are pragmatically applied, we can ask a simple question: who is the beneficiary of American defense spending?

Let the beneficiaries pay! And while we are at it, let them also pay veterans for PTSD, retrain them for integration into civilian life, and ensure that whatever physical or mental ailment they suffer can be treated well enough to maintain their dignity and honor.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who pays for his own meals. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Listening is a public duty,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 2 - 8, 2011, 21.

LISTENING IS A PUBLIC DUTY

Take any business course, and one of the first things you will learn is that you should listen to those you communicate or have a relationship with, especially if these are your customers. Without listening to them, how would you know what they want? Why is this simple lesson lost on politicians?

Perhaps those who are used to be heard, who mention a problem and it’s fixed right away, or whose frustration is attended to immediately have no reason to complain. But then there are those, babies and employees, who seem to be ignored unless they scream. Babies don’t scream for no reason at all, we agree, just as employees don’t strike when they are happy at their jobs.

Businesses spend millions to find out if their customers are “satisfied” or if their employees are “fulfilled” at their jobs, because it matters. When the responses are negative, millions more are spent to change the business environment or model, improve product quality, or ensure safe work conditions. So, why is it so difficult for us to comprehend the screams of the Owls (Occupy Wall Street)?

I was asked if I like them. Democrats like them the way Republicans like the Tea Party. And I like neither party. Is “liking” the same as “agree with” or “sympathize”? What is there to like about them, after all? They are disorganized, disheveled, sometimes unemployed, and without agenda. Does Warren Buffet, in his latest tax reform proposal, like the Owls? He hasn’t been as vocal when the Tea Party started demonstrating two years ago, but now responds regularly to tax inequality with his own ideas.

What I like about them is that they keep on demonstrating, with or without agenda, like the baby that cries without being able to express pain, thirst, or hunger, like Councilman Tim Leigh who keeps on screaming about this or that. (Full disclosure: I have known him for years, and played golf twice with him even though I prefer to play alone.) The latest is his suggestion to pay council-members handsome salaries. Do I like him like a baby or like the Owls?

What I appreciate about the Tea Party, the Owls, and Councilman Leigh alike is that they scream so as to wake us up from our comfortable slumber. They are a little off, but their effort to bring attention to issues is worthy of the noise they make. They express, in their respective ways, a deep frustration not only because this or that is unfair, but also because no one is listening to them, especially in Washington, D.C.

Government agencies are tone deaf, while politicians prefer to hear only themselves. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs proved, you listen to yourself first and then get customer feedback. It’s a stretch to compare Leigh to Jobs, but he can be compared to his fellow real-estate mavens, like the Jenkins, who paid for a salaried strong mayor. Maybe he can enlist their support; maybe they will listen to him.

If the logic that brought Steve Bach to be mayor holds, then the same kinds of arguments ought to be considered in the case of the nine council-members. You get what you pay for, businesspeople and customers agree: if you pay nothing, you get nothing. If you pay well, you deserve to have expectations. Even though this argument, actually a cliché, is easily debunked, the citizens of this city bought it, and happily pay the businessman-mayor $96,000 annually. He must be worth it!

Following this recent change in the city Charter, why not debate the merits of the Leigh proposal? Why simply dismiss him as a loud-mouth know-nothing? Is he annoying? Or is his proposal annoying? Unless you answer yes to both of these questions, then stop to think about the proposal rather than the person who makes it, as Aristotle taught us years ago. When you confuse the speaker for the speech, when you attack the speaker’s character rather than the strength or validity of the argument, you commit what is called an ad hominem (it’s a logical fallacy).

If local pundits are just having fun at Leigh’s expense, so be it. Anyone in public office deserves to be scrutinized and mocked, challenged and praised, being the custodian of public trust. But as we give him a hard time, as he seems to capture needlessly media headlines, it wouldn’t hurt us to listen as well, consider what he has to say. If only 10% of what he says resonates with us, it’s better than hearing absolutely nothing from other elected officials who prefer to conduct their business behind closed doors.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who listens to his students when they complain about their assignments. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Be mindful and grateful this Thanksgiving,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 25 – December 1, 2011, 17.

THANKS-EATING

Instead of belaboring the painful debates about pilgrims, natives, and Thanksgiving, let’s jump right into its reality: Thanksgiving is a feast accompanied by televised football games. The rituals associated with this feast bring together the best America offers: abundance without guilt. As we experience the bounty of the land or supermarket, we collectively over-indulge, sampling generously from every available dish. What thoughts cross our minds when we eat?

This semester I have had the good fortune of teaching a seminar on Food For Thought with fourteen students. Along the way we discovered the intimate, common sense, connection between the food we consume and our health. As the Supreme Court is about to hear arguments about the Obama Administration’s health care program next June, perhaps we should urge a public discussion about food and diets in relation to these health costs. Arguing about mandatory coverage for diabetes without talking about the causes and remedies for obesity makes no sense.

Here are some topics that should interest consumers and voters before June 2012. First, what about the scientific underpinnings of the food we eat? Are Genetically Modified Foods healthy? What are the side effects carried from corn to cow to the hamburger we find in fast-food chains? Has the turkey we are all admiring been “modified”? If yes, should we worry? It’s not that evolution hasn’t modified nature; it’s not that we haven’t bred certain animals; but is this the same as injecting mice genes into corn?

Second, when we sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, what family traditions are we preserving? Are all of them, such as white bread or mashed potatoes out of a boxed-mix, really that sacred? Can’t they be substituted without desecration with whole-wheat bread and locally grown potatoes? Are marshmallows really necessary? The recipes of WWII may find exciting updates, honoring grandma’s cooking, which was about love and not about food as an energy source. If Thanksgiving is the ultimate American holiday, then it can and should withstand minor revisions to reflect new realities.

Third, as we celebrate the gathering of family and friends, we should be mindful of the economic conditions under which food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Over $1 billion will be spent on food in one day (with some leftovers), including about 20% of turkeys eaten annually. This is less than $3 per citizen. The main reason for this is that home-cooked meals are much cheaper than those bought at fast-food chains. The New York Times reported that while a family of four spends on average $27.89 at McDonald’s, the same four could eat at home reasonably for $13.78 or as little as $9.26 with better nutritional values. Thanksgiving should be appreciated for its frugal bounty.

Fourth, as we prepare the meal, set the table, or make our first toast, let’s think of the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration: shouldn’t we be thankful that someone watches over food safety? Does it mandate useful labeling? Or is it caving to yet another powerful lobby regardless of the dangers to consumers? The recent Listeria outbreak from contaminated cantaloupes cost so far 29 lives, according the Center for Disease Control; some oversight is life-saving.

Fifth, as we learn about the intimate connection between health and diet, we need not only read or watch “Food Inc.” or “Fast Food Nation” or “Supersize Me” to realize that some oils are worse than others, that too much saturated fat will kill you, and that over-eating is bad for you because your body can metabolize only so much sugar (glucose) in one day. Malnutrition is about over- and under-eating; it’s about not maintaining a balance between your energy consumption and intake. You don’t need the USOC’s nutritional expert, Dr. Nanna Meyer, to tell you that; just remember your grandma making sure you don’t make yourself sick or encouraging you to play outside, no matter how cold it is.

Sixth, since food isn’t produced in factories but in nature, and since population growth has to be balanced with the growth of food production (a problem that plagued Thomas Malthus already in 1798), sustainability has become the watchword of concerned citizens: how much meat should we eat weekly, how “local” is our food source, and what food is seasonally grown? Pumpkins, as we know, are grown in the fall; so are many other roots vegetables, such as potatoes. Yes, the pilgrims observed sustainability the way Moliere observed prose: it comes naturally.

As Dr. Meyer reminds us: it’s all common sense: make explicit what you implicitly know to be true. Pay attention to your body and nature alike, they are the temples in which your soul and the community reside. When we transform Thanksgiving into Thanks-eating, let us be mindful and grateful.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Super committee is succeeding at failure,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 18 - 24, 2011, 21

SUPER COMMITTEE: SUCCESS IN FAILURE

As the November 23^rd deadline approaches, frantic politicians are worried that automatic budget cuts will go into effect because the so-called Super Committee has yet to make a serious effort at coming to a compromise on how to cut $1.5 trillion from the national budget over the next ten years.

Since compromise is a dirty word in Washington, DC, and since the 2012 presidential campaign is in full swing a year in advance, posturing and hand-waving have been ways of expressing views and disagreements. Perhaps a look at Greece and Italy would remind politicians that they remain public servants. Does the public really want another default crisis? Is the war of Republicans against Democrats worthy of the sacrifices it will bring about for the 99%?

The chairs of the committee are Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas (R) who opposes any tax increase and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington (D) who also chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They are joined by Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (D); Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona (R) who has threatened to quit if any cuts are proposed to the defense budget; Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts (D); Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania (R) and former president of the staunchly anti-tax Club for Growth; Sen. Max Baucus of Montana (D) who is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio (R) who was White House budget director in the Bush administration; Rep. Xavier Becerra of California (D); Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan (R) who is a tax expert; Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina (D); and Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan (R).

On some level it’s important to know who these politicians are because the future of the national budget rests in their hands. They have been empowered to find a solution, a compromised plan that will affect us all for the next ten years. If they fail to act, automatic reductions across the board will take place.

On another level, though, the committee of twelve simply represents the two political parties and their leaderships in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They do their parties’ bidding, and as such have no voice of their own. They were nominated to this committee because they are reliable pawns who won’t make decisions on their own.

What we have, then, is a powerful committee whose sole purpose is to fail the public. If the committee “succeeds” in fulfilling the expectations of the political leaderships of both parties, that is, maintains a hard line on rehearsed positions—no new taxes for the Republicans and no decreases in entitlements for the Democrats—then it fails the public. If it fails to fulfill these expectations, it will succeed in averting the kind of financial disasters we are seeing in Europe.

Despite common claims that Americans have short memories and that they don’t care about global matters except when it’s about wars, the Greek and Italian crises are too close to ignore. The financial markets are global markets, and as such, what happens in Europe affects us all, including the price of gas at the pump and the interest rates on mortgages and cars. The global nature of financial markets, regardless of national regulations, depends on national policies (as the EU is learning anew every month).

When Greek politicians spar and fail to reach consensus on austerity measures, for example, Wall Street feels the pain; when they finally find their way to a unity government, a sigh of relief is heard across the globe. The same was the case when the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi relinquished his position to a bureaucrat, and Wall Street remained confused. Whether feeling pain or confusion, when Wall Street reacts to European crises, Main Street feels the pain.

Even when we want to separate the political from the financial, so that legislation follows moral norms or social conventions to ensure peaceful coexistence among citizens, we know all too well that the political is the financial or that the financial is political. It’s not only the result of the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United. It’s deeper than that: the iconic Chicago School economist Milton Friedman always maintained that we vote with our wallets. For him, it was a benign but significant position: choices should remain with individual consumers who, through their spending, show what should be done (with parks, cars, or any other public service). It’s doubtful that he believed outright political bribing will be undertaken en mass by corporate titans and their lobbyists.

As the deadline for deficit reduction or budgetary changes approaches, let’s remind politicians that our economic well-being is in their hands, an important ingredient in preserving our political rights, not to mention our dignity as citizens who were promised in the Constitution—with all the compromises of the day—“domestic Tranquility…common defense…general Welfare…and…the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”  

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and teaches a course on Politics and the Law. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

. “Rethinking outsourcing,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 11-17, 2011, 21.

RETHINKING OUTSOURCING

If the Owls (Occupy Wall Street) taught us anything of late, it’s that when enough people participate long enough in a demonstration they might be heard. It is foolhardy to think that because of the Owls Bank of America dropped its panned $5 fee on the use of debit cards. Even if not a causal connection, there is something about the frustration of the many that eventually gets the attention of the few.

There is an old story about the king who sends his tax collector around his kingdom to collect taxes. Each time he returns, the king asks about the mood of the people. When the tax collector reports that the people are complaining, the king suggests another tax hike.  But the people are really upset, they are crying, he is told. Raise the taxes again, he shouts with gusto. And then the tax collector returns, reporting that the people are laughing. Oh, says the king, now we are in trouble. Lower the taxes immediately!

There is a lesson to be learned here for government officials and corporate heads alike. The people are frustrated, disempowered, disenfranchised, and unemployed. Be glad for the Owls in public or private squares, for they are still venting their anger and hardship, the unfairness of a system that was supposed to provide equal opportunities for all. Just think what would happen if they began to laugh at the authorities, defying ordinances, refusing to file their tax returns come next April.

The fact that the disorganized voices of the Owls are heard around the country, that their protest against economic injustice resonates with the public at large, should give all pause. Instead of trying to ridicule them or analyze their lack of coherent agenda or their poor public relations presentations, those of us who are employed should instead offer solutions, however outlandish or far-fetched. Here are some.

If you recall, before the great housing bubble, there was a job drainage that was broadly called outsourcing. The great Indian labor market became the Mecca for call centers. These jobs used to be right here, some even in virtual settings, where stay-at-home moms were able to log into their company’s website and answer standard customer-service questions. Can’t we bring these jobs back?

Why not extend college internship programs, offering undergraduates and graduate students alike the opportunities readily offered foreigners when outsourcing. Perhaps a bit of tweaking in regulations could make this more appealing to students and corporations alike, reducing costs (below market hourly wages), considering these costs in terms of scholarships or awards rather than standard wages that are subjected to additional costs.

Similarly, when we complain that we don’t produce enough engineers and scientists in this country, we can solve this problem as well. Every student who graduates with an engineering degree, for example, and who works for any engineering company in the US would receive a rebate on tuition and fees if working there for more than four years. Sounds familiar? Yes, it’s like the ROTC, where we, the taxpayers, are paying for officers’ tuition. Serving the scientific and engineering needs of the country is just as important and patriotic, contributing to our national security as officers in the armed forces.

Another innovation, one that would require government intervention, is proposed by Perry Sanders in his Fixtheusa.us Anyone can read through this one-page plan and then decide if it makes sense or requires some revisions to make it operational. No matter your reaction, at least someone took the time to write out a plan and have it be part of the public discourse. When was the last time you thought of a solution? We need more, not less of these ideas to float to the top. Apparently the top—politicians and economists alike—is short on ideas.

As we think through solutions to the systematic problems that affect us all, we should be reminded of the intricate relations between the political and economic domains, and between them and the cultural and moral domains. Are we, as Americans, that inconsiderate of each other? Aren’t we personally offended when injustice occurs around us? Has money, as the only denominator of exchange and valuation, robbed us of our sense of compassion and empathy?

Philosophers have taught us that Hobbes’ view of humanity at war against each other is politically untenable. We must find ways to get along so that living in a community promotes trust and a modicum of collaboration. Compromise, as our Founding Fathers admitted, is necessary at times to get a Constitution signed. Compromise isn’t a four-letter word, as it appears from the DC vortex. It’s what our hybrid capitalist republic is based on.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and is committed to offering solutions to his critiques. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Let’s celebrate the right to assemble with equality,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, October 28 – November 3, 2011, 25.

Transparency

The Owls (Occupy Wall Street) won’t fly away. While a judge in Nashville refuses to issue arrest warrants, police officers in Portland, Oregon as well as in Denver have arrested protesters. More than half of those polled by the Time Magazine support the protests. Perhaps the Owls are reflecting a much broader frustration than politicians are willing to admit.

Are politicians that removed from their constituents? Is it because the majority of them belong to the 1%?  Or is it that the political process is removed from economic realities, except when it gets to the lobbying largesse they enjoy. Thomas Friedman may be right to claim that “Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery.”

It’s true that Democrats are comfortable staying on the government dole for decades: Robert Bird (D-WV), 57 years, Carl Hayden (D-AZ), 57 years, John Dingell (D-MI), 55 years (still in office), Jamie Whitten (D-MS), 54 years, Carl Vinson (D-GA), 51 years; the only Republican on this list is Strom Thurmond (R-SC), 47 years.

But is it true that decrying Big Government means necessarily that Republicans are quick to leave politics? Our state sent Edward Taylor (D) 1909-1941 for 32 years to the US Congress, Byron Rogers (D) 1951-1971 for twenty, and Joel Hefley (R) 1987-2007 for twenty as well; so, are Republicans trying to become Democrats?  

According to opensecrets.org, Rep. Doud Lamborn (R) received $107,462 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry; he happens to be the Chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Paul Carestia, the group’s spokesman, cites $97 billion in tax dollars that will be given to fossil fuel and nuclear companies as subsidies from 2011-2015. That number was taken from Taxpayers for Common Sense’s 2010 “Green Scissors” report.

Perhaps Lamborn, and others like him, should volunteer to follow the blogosphere advice that members of Congress follow professional athletes who are contractually bound to wear the logo of their sponsors on their uniforms. At least we’d know who sponsors whom and whose legislative initiatives are represented.

Unlike Lamborn, our own Governor, John Hickenlooper (D), cannot be accused as being a paid representative of the oil and gas industry. Having had lunch with him a couple of weeks ago, I can report that his latest idea, in the spirit of public-private collaboration, is an expedited process for licensing gas drilling in Colorado under the caveat that if rules  are violated, fines will be high.

Pushing for energy independence, the Governor is also offering all counties and municipalities that are interested in conserving energy to pool resources and order gas trucks (cheaper when pre-ordered than converted) so as to save up to 30% of their own energy costs. Any other political entity in the state that wants to collaborate and find easy ways to save money should simply contact the Governor’s office. 

The frustrations expressed by the Owls are probably more akin to those expressed by the so-called “Bourgeois Revolutionaries” of India who are fed up with government corruption and a dysfunctional political process rather than to the Arab Spring. The Owls have civil rights, unlike their Arab counterparts, but, like their Indian counterparts, their own economic benefits have diminished over time, while those of the corporate elite have managed to increase.  

McDonald reported its 2011 third quarter’s net income rose by nine percent. Verizon Communication said its profits doubled in the last quarter. G.E.’s profits are in line with analysts’ expectations, and billionaire Rupert Murdoch and the rest of News Corporation’s board were reelected at the annual shareholders meeting as if no hacking scandal ever took place. In the meantime, unemployment won’t budge, foreclosures continue, and the Owls are feeling the pain.

Both economic and political realities depend to a great extent on the psychological disposition of the citizens. So, perhaps leaders in both communities can calm us all and put in place policies that clarify expectations.  After all, isn’t the middle-class the engine that propels the spending machine to ever greater heights? When frightened, people don’t spend.

Even when the Owls misdirect their complaints to Wall Street rather than to Washington, they still are expressing a prevalent public attitude. There is something American about this protest: seeking fairness so that when the rich get richer, it’s because they earned it, not because they rigged the system to ensure their winnings. No one has protested the wealth of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Michael Jackson. Their wealth was deservedly earned, no matter your personal opinions of them.

No one believes that we should abolish capitalism as such, only that it should reflect its own principles of equal opportunity and freedom of choice; that it should be based on Adam Smith’s insistence that a social fabric underlies marketplace exchanges. We are all in it together!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and believes in fairness and social cohesion. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

  

“Let’s celebrate the right to assemble with equality,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, October 28 – November 3, 2011, 25.

PUBLIC SPACES

Just as October 15^th was an international day of protest against banks, so was October 16^th the day the president dedicated the new Martin Luther King, Jr. statute in the national Mall in DC. They may seem unrelated, but these two dates should remind us of our financial commitments to public spaces as well as to the connection between religious institutions and public life. Justice isn’t reserved only for the afterlife; it must be pursued here and now.

Protests in public spaces remind us that on some level we are all in this together: what ails you may affect me as well. This is an economic as well as a moral insight, a way of looking at our community as a whole, as Adam Smith taught us centuries ago. A good banking system is useful for all of us, as borrowers and depositors, workers and investors, home-owners and car-owners, credit-card holders and businesspeople. Just as much as it needs legislative support from the public, it also needs public oversight.

It’s hypocritical to admire Arab Spring protests while looking down at a rag-tag group of sign-holders at the publicly owned Acacia Park or the privately-owned Zuccotti Park in New York City. Either we believe in our Constitutional right to assemble and protest in public, or we believe that protests should be limited to one’s living room or the Internet.

It’s fascinating that the Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London asked the police to leave, while letting protesters stay around his domain. He reminds us that religious leaders are in fact public figures who must care about their congregants and the whole community. As beneficiaries of the public largess (as non-profit organizations that collect donations and are exempt from some taxes) they owe the community something in return: perhaps lending their support, ministering to those protesting injustice, feeding the needy, or simply speaking truth to power.

Without diluting the differences between the protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo, the Tea Party, or Occupy Wall Street, all of them illustrate that it’s more effective to get together to vent frustrations and ask for remedies than to remain frustrated alone. Perhaps the media will take notice and spread the word. It’s the power in numbers; it’s the power of a group, whether as consumers or the disenfranchised (see how much unions helped stop child labor and dangerous working conditions in the past one hundred years).

Just as all protesters are not alike, so religious leaders or bankers. Some stand out because of their integrity and the causes they believe in and fight for; some simply don’t care; some copy what sounds good in one place to echo it in another; and still others simply seek the comfort of group affiliation, protesting, praying, or lending money. It’s the last group we should worry about: do they think critically about the community and the consequences of their actions?

Those of us who tried borrowing money from banks, like my dear friend and partner Perry Sanders, have suffered the humiliation of condescending officers whose attitudes weren’t in line with their chosen vocation of lending money to those who can revive a stalled economy. Was it institutional or personal? Is it ever justified? He finally succeeded in securing funding, but why didn’t banks compete for his business, one of the most successful lawyers in the country, as should be the case in a thriving capitalist system? He is, after all, a “job creator”! The success of banks depends on the public, the spending, consuming, borrowing public, the public whose representatives ensured the bailout of banks and their current low borrowing interest rates. Don’t we live together?

Before closing, my editor, Rob Larimer, reminded me of a story he tells his daughters: There once was an owl who loved to drink tea. One day, in the hollowed-out oak tree, he decided to make some tea to sip by the window. He readied his teapot and went to his cupboard to fetch a bag of his favorite tea. He took the teapot to the sink and placed it under the faucet. And that’s when something terrible happened. When he turned the faucet knob, no water came out. The owl had no water, and he knew he could not make tea without water.

The owl became very sad. He sat down by the window with his teapot still in his hand and began to cry. Tears streamed down his feathered cheeks. He cried and cried. Then, after a while, he looked down and noticed that his teapot was full of water. His tears had filled the teapot. The owl was very happy, and he made a pot of tea. The tea was delicious, but a little salty.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and believes in the abundance of our blessings. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

  

“Wall Street Occupiers vs. The Tea Party,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, October 21-27, 2011, 17.

OF OWLS AND TEA

Once again, the left doesn’t know how to market itself or express its views with the bravado of the right. While the right set in motion the Tea Party already in 2009 to respond to TARP, the left demonstrates under the label Occupy Wall Street. Really?

When we think of occupation, we think of Israel in the West Bank or America in Iraq, not exactly friendly images that motivate us to join…If we were to help, how about OWLS? Owls are thoughtful, we are told, but, as Hegel taught us: “The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only at the falling of the dusk.” Are they figuring things out after the fact, perhaps too late?

Some have claimed that though they come from the two ends of the political spectrum, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have some concerns in common: complaining about big and wasteful government that bails out large banks while common folks are suffering from over-taxation and low incomes. The Tea Party in its origins blamed Wall Street, too.

Others have reminded us that they have different goals in mind: while the left still believes that government programs can save the country, the right believes that “job creators” will do a much better without any government intervention. Both sides, though, can collaborate on decreasing regulations that affect us all and benefit banks more than other entrepreneurs.

Just as the right is misguided when wanting to eliminate a government they need for national security, the Owls miss an important point that makes their complaints against Wall Street misdirected. Remember the story of the scorpion and the frog (or turtle)? The scorpion asks the frog to carry it across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip, but the scorpion argues—logically—that if it stung the frog, both would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, and they sink. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature, it can’t help being a scorpion (regardless of the illogical action).

Guess what? Wall Street is about greed, it does what it does best when it makes billions of dollars in computerized trading, in hedging its bets, and cornering the markets. Owls can’t change the nature of Wall Street no matter how much they protest. Likewise, the Tea Party can’t change taxes as such, no matter how many pledges they make politicians sign: taxes are needed to run government agencies and provide public goods. Unless you intend on dismantling the US, the DC vortex needs cash.

So, the right and the left should join forces to reform the country, despite their ideological differences. Since neither side can ever expect to achieve its goals, the process of political transformation could transform the economy as well, and improve our lives in the meantime. Both ends of the spectrum should demand more accountability and personal integrity—most politicians are lawyers or millionaires by training, and as such must have cut corners to achieve successful careers, even if only to make promises they failed to keep. But unlike the scorpion or Wall Street, it’s not in their nature to be corrupt; it’s an acquired taste.

Moreover, both sides want to be heard by politicians. They need to bar lobbyists from financing all elections in America and determining the political agenda of the country. If election-funding reforms keep on failing, and if the Supreme Court’s decision of 2010 to let corporate America enjoy the right to make any contribution to candidates as a protection freedom of speech (like individual citizens), then perhaps eliminating lobbyists would do the trick. Politicians may have to listen to their constituents after all.

Finally, since the right loves the military budget no matter its size and rationale, and since the left wants jobs for the unemployed, let’s turn the military into a welfare agency, with a safety net to the unemployed. Raise the military budget not for tanks and drones, but for jobs for every American, no matter the qualifications. The military has already GED Plus Enlistment Program for those without high-school diploma or GED. Extend this and other programs like this to include jobs for veterans, retraining them for the health care industry, the fastest growing segment of the economy.

If owls drank tea or threw it into harbors, and if tea party goers had owls for pets, maybe we’d have a country that could find solutions to its problems. Protests are important so that politicians can hear the pain of citizens. When politicians are deaf, either supply hearing aids or don’t re-elect them.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and believes in the abundance of our blessings. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Look to our own backyard to see abundance,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, October 14-20, 2011, 23.

ABUNDANCE

Some economists have argued that American drive is based on the principle of “the sky is the limit.” This is what motivates us to strive to do our best so as to climb the corporate ladder all the way to the top. Break the glass ceiling, we urge our female counterparts, and you, too, can be the queen of your corporate domain.

But aren’t we mixing metaphors here? Are motivation and competition not based on a questionable assumption about scarcity and abundance? Are we fighting to get a bigger piece of the same pie or is the pie ever-increasing in size? How these questions are answered makes a big difference in how to view competition.

When I taught my first Business Ethics course, I asked the students to tell me how much money they dreamed of earning when they graduated. “The sky is the limit” came up, and most were unwilling to put an upper-limit on their earnings. We spent two hours listing all their spending fantasies so as to come to a figure that would satisfy them all.

I don’t recall the figure, but it was well within reason of high-end earners. Asked to pledge right then and there to give away to charity every dollar they earned beyond that figure, whatever it was, adjusted for inflation, they all looked puzzled and declined my invitation. Pledging wasn’t as popular then as it is today with Congressional representatives.

If there is no limit on how much one can spend? Does it mean that the pie is indeed ever-increasing in size? Does that also mean that there is abundance in the world? Put differently, should we simply abandon the presumption of scarcity—there isn’t enough to go around—as a limited and limiting idea?

Empirically speaking, is there abundance? Given what we read in the business news or hear on television networks, it seems that we hardly have enough resources to feed ourselves. Is this hype real or fabricated? If it’s not real, why would anyone want to fabricate anxiety-driven views of scarcity?

Instead of speculating on the motives of others, whatever benefits may be in store for them personally or institutionally, let’s focus on the supply and demand curves economists like to refer to. If demand increases, we are told, and supply remains the same, prices will go up (only so many houses right next to the Broadmoor). If supply increases while demand decreases, prices go down (too many apples that begin to rot). But what if supply remains unlimited, like the air in the sky (even though they sell air-rights in New York City)? What if everything is abundant?

There aren’t enough jobs, the unemployment rate keeps going up, and the economy cannot grow without more jobs being created. How does the idea of abundance work here? We have plenty of natural resources, energy and agriculture, that can be more fully exploited. What prevents a more abundant exploitation? Is it regulations?, then reduce them. Is it production technologies?, then invent more of them. Is it distribution channels?, then expand roads and rivers.

What about environmental concerns? What about other costs? Investments in our abundant natural resources, including human ingenuity (in the form of education and intellectual property), should be seen in the broadest context. When seen as such, we would realize that our defense costs, for example, could be converted to the development of domestic energy sources so that we wouldn’t have to protect the seas around the world to ensure safe oil transportation to our refineries.

Instead of worrying about scarcity, we should think about our abundance, the blessing of having enormous energy and food and intellectual resources. With this in mind, we can enact local and national policies that would make sense for the long run, that would improve the health of the economy.

So, when El Paso County is worried about “fracing” (hydraulic fracturing), it should not only look at the actual deaths from this process (none on record so far), its ongoing technological evolution (more time + more use = improved methods), but also look at the price in human lives we have already paid right here at Fort Carson, when soldiers who were sent to Iraq of Afghanistan didn’t make it back.

It may be a global economy, it may be a “flat world,” as Thomas Friedman reminds us, but it’s the local economy that pays the price for national policies. If we could supply our own energy needs right here, why should we import them from across the world? If we can eat the food farmers grow right here, why would we want to ship it across the continent? This is no xenophobia, just common sense.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and believes in the abundance of our blessings. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Partnerships bring best of times, worst of times,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, October 7-13, 2011, 19.

PARTNERSHIPS

As the Ten Days of Atonement are here, a time of reflection and stock-taking, a seasonal turning point that encourages revisiting ideas and habits alike, I want to share my sense of the value of business partnerships.

My late accountant, Sam Huff, who was generous with his time on many non-profit boards used to tell me: the problem with partnerships is that when they succeed, it’s because of me; when they fail, it’s because of you. Whichever way, responsibility is easily shifted around.

Yet, there are those who thrive in partnerships because the whole is stronger than its parts. Partners complement each other, and can trust that the benefits of each partner’s contribution outweigh any disadvantages associated with a difference in personality traits.  

Though partnerships are fundamentally social-contract associations, they need not be democratic (one person-one vote principle, majority rule). They can be hierarchical, where senior partners have more rights than junior ones who accept less responsibility with less rights. In some cases, senior partners may have veto-rights even when they don’t have a majority. There are partnerships that require unanimous consent for every decision, and as such may require certain finesse in how issues are presented to a vote.

So, if partnerships differ from other business arrangements where there are tensions, for example, between managers and workers, do partners really “feel” equal? In some partnerships, within a few years, it becomes apparent that some contribute more to the whole than others, tensions may rise, and they may fall apart.

What is the meaning of equality in partnerships? Regardless of unequal contributions to the partnership, are all partners equal in their voting rights, assuming majority rule? Should more senior partners have more rights or differentiated weight of their votes? Should there be a difference between partners, associate partners, and senior partners? Most Operating Agreements can take care of these questions, but in fact none of them spell out in enough detail how to ensure camaraderie.

Most professional partnerships (lawyers, accountants, doctors) account for different contributions (hours worked) by distributing funds at the end of the year proportionate to contributions (the more you work, the more you earn). Most distributions take into account shared overhead costs (equally or proportionately). Questions of fairness are always raised, since there is no “one-size fits all.” Founding partners may expect junior partners to buy their way into the partnership, while in other cases, they may be asked to pay senior partners an annuity when they choose to retire.

One problem with partnerships is the free rider syndrome, where some take advantage of the fruits of the partnership without contributing their fair share to the whole. Free rider issues are usually confronted through peer-pressure, penalties, or eventual dismissal from the group; they are tricky to “prove” and nasty to resolve.

Since partnerships are voluntary associations, everyone is free to leave, even when tenure is assumed to protect partners from being summarily eased out. Operating Agreements at times spell out the conditions under which any partner may leave (or be asked to leave) and what compensation is appropriate. Partnerships, like marriages, are complex relationships that require continued attention and fine-tuning.

As I look back at my own experiences, some have been exhilarating, some painful; some enlightening, some infuriating. The worst one was when a partner in one of my restaurants made demands that we stop serving gays because we were being known as a “gay bar.” Is a place a gay bar because it’s frequented by gays? How would you know, anyway? If Jews come in, is it a “Jewish bar,” if African-Americans, is it a “black bar”? I borrowed money from my mother and bought him out in three weeks.

But then I had partners who are smarter than I, who coached me and guided my decisions, who gave me realistic feedback, even when it was difficult to hear, who reminded me why I formed a partnership to begin with. Never be resentful towards your investors, a New York investment banker told me, they are indeed your partners; without them you would have nothing! So, remain grateful and repay with interest when they want out, or continue to pay dividends even when you are the only working partner.

I have met some fascinating people because of partnerships, people I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to meet otherwise. So, as I look backwards and forward, despite the heartaches that at time accompany partnerships, when the reasons are right, embrace and celebrate them; they add a dimension to your well-being you would otherwise be missing, including being accountable to someone other than yourself! Accountability is a good practice we are reminded to uphold at the dawn of yet another Jewish New Year. 

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and is still involved in eight partnerships. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com