“The new year brings a wake-up call,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 6 12, 2017, p. 18.

NEW YEAR WAKE UP CALL

As you travel back and forth to Denver, as you climb the mountains to the ski resorts, a nagging question doesn’t let go: is it true that some want to “keep CS lame”? Given the dominance of military retirees in the city (ranked second in the country by the Military Times), around 100,000 (20% of the population), so is the conservative ideology they embody. If this is true, what are the implications here and now?

There are two strains that characterize conservative ideology, an economic and a social. Economically this means neoliberal market-capitalism with competition as the engine that drives this train, without government constraints. This also means balanced budgets and the integrity of the business world, transparent and accountable, profit-maximizing with efficiencies that eliminate waste. 

Consistency along this conservative conviction would mean that government policies should not interfere with businesses, so locally this would mean no bloated government entities like the city-owned utilities or all the military bases that are government-funded. 

This also means absolute freedom to pursue one’s economic dreams of prosperity, no matter how they might affect the rest of the community. Forget about controlling pollution or regulating hazardous materials in the air or waterways; forget about telling people what to eat and drink, smoke or listen to. Residents are consumers whose tastes and preferences ought to be left alone by public servants.

When it gets to social matters, the conservative line observed in the 2016 election cycle means laws about abortion, the death-penalty, and reversing whatever social services have been available since the New Deal, privatizing Social Security, abolishing Obamacare, and finding Supreme Court justices that will undo liberal initiatives.

Since most of these concerns are federal, we are left with narrow windows of government intervention into our local social choices, from recreationally smoking pot to letting businesses serve their customers on Sundays (some are state laws, some city). 

So, as another year ends and new one is upon us, what direction will city leaders take? And, more importantly, who are our city leaders? Are they the elected officials, from the mayor to city council members, or more widely understood as those with large real-estate holdings and family wealth? Perhaps both groups should think about their roles not to “keep CS lame,” but turn it around into a vibrant metropolis.

To begin with, decide if CS is the Soviet Union or a modern capitalist city: if it’s the latter, sell the utilities enterprise the way you sold Memorial Hospital. There are experts out there who can run it better and not make us sick from pollution. Besides, with a hefty endowment, you can afford to take care of our infrastructure without raising taxes.

Second, as true conservatives, reduce local regulations, from building codes to recreational pot shops. Let businesses thrive because there is consumer demand, and don’t tell people what they should or should not do. 1984 was a dystopian novel, not a blue-print for CS. Big Brother is still dictating who prospers with the kind of secret “double-speak” Orwell would find amusing.

Third, when old oligarchs of yesteryear still call the shots, when retired military personnel and wealthy enough people run committees and the council, how can young entrepreneurs expect to succeed? Guess what, they move to Denver. Who takes care of training the future leaders of CS? Unfortunately, CS Chamber & Economic Development Corporation is more concerned with the low-hanging fruit of the military-industrial complex than nurturing small businesses.

Fourth, the military-industrial complex has been good to CS, perhaps too good. It’s time to realize that under a new federal conservative regime, military budgets may shrink and waste will be curtailed. What is CS’s contingency plan for decreased military funding? What have we done to cater to those in uniform who live here and are looking for an exciting environment beyond bars? We can’t even fund the Olympic Hall of Fame or a stadium downtown to demonstrate our commitment to athletes, soldiers, and the outdoors.

Finally, if we plan on getting out of the “lame” category with which young people mock our city, perhaps all we need to do is look northward to Denver, a dynamic metropolis with more diverse industries than here, with greater percentage of young people in its population, and with a greater sense of open-mindedness and youthful energy. What’s their secret? 

Two things stand out: first, leadership with a vision (beyond low taxes), and second, recreational pot that has less to do with smoking marijuana than with a mindset that is open and inviting, that lets all citizens, young and old, military and civilian, feel that the city supports their interests. Isn’t this what conservatism stands for?

Raphael Sassower is professor of Philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Local lessons taken from national politics,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 25-December 1, 2016, p. 25.

What can we learn locally from the national election?

Whatever your personal opinions, facts should have the last word. Donald Trump is the President-Elect because enough people supported him to pass the 270 Electoral College votes even if not the popular vote. What can we expect from a businessman taking over the toughest job in the world?

To begin with, he wouldn’t be the first. Since 1900, there are at least eight bona fide entrepreneurs who became presidents: Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, and the two Bushes. (Prior, Entrepreneur 2/15/16) 

If we go back further, we can find many others who were farmers and traders, in short, plantation (and slave) owners. Perhaps not a qualifying measure for political success, but the engagement in commerce should not be considered an impediment.

Second, our university system endorses the view that we can train leaders (to organize their companies and communicate well), and that once they climb high enough up the corporate ladder they can serve in political offices. We can think of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, our very own governor John Hickenlooper, and the two Romneys as governors of Michigan and Massachusetts.

Third, if we appreciate our political system as pragmatic rather than ideological, it makes sense to appreciate the skill-set of businesspeople when applied to the affairs of the state (or city). Governance, in short, is about finding out what people want, compromising on the means to accomplished these wants, and then proving one’s mettle with results.

To be sure, for all the greatness that business-leaders can bring to politics, there are many critical assessments over their success. David Davenport (Forbes 6/22/16) explains that context matters, that measuring short-term success is different from long-term policy consequences, and that after all ideology does inspire the popular imagination. 

We’ll have to wait and see whether President Trump will be successful or not. Only time will tell what he can accomplish in an environment where one’s whims don’t translate into law, and where the complexity of the decision-making process is a bit more overwhelming than when running your own casino or hotel.

It’s worth noting that when the economy is doing well, credit can be given to the business community, so in those times business leaders seem attractive as political leaders: if they can do it for their companies, they can do it for the rest of the country.

Likewise, when the economy is not doing well, as we have seen in the aftermath of the Great Recession and its steady but slow recovery, we look for billionaires, from the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet to Mark Cuban to offer solutions to our ailing economy. This mindset surely helped propel Trump to the presidency.

Whether the economy is booming or bust, salvation in the hands of entrepreneurs is believed to be the only way to heaven on earth. Does it work well in small cities, like Colorado Springs?

The first “strong mayor,” Steve Bach, was lauded as a businessman who would approach the city’s dormant economy as a marketing guru, bringing jobs from around the country and revving the economic engines of the city. 

After four years, Bach accomplished little on the economic horizon; he’ll be best remembered for the acrimony he fomented between the Mayor’s office and City Council. With this in mind, the wisdom of the day was to elect John Suthers as an experienced lawyer/politician who will bring harmony, if not economic progress.

Instead of economic stimulus, the current mayor’s personal views about the legalization of marijuana—a Constitutional Amendment that passed, no less—have overshadowed both our cherished democratic principle of majority rule and a pragmatic approach to the economic benefits of legalizing pot (as seen in booming Denver).

Regardless of how you feel about pot, isn’t it awkward that the highest-ranking official of the city travels outside the state (Arizona) to speak against the legalization of pot instead of traveling there and elsewhere to bring businesses to the city? 

Bach the commercial real-estate broker was unqualified to manage a large city operation like ours; Suthers the politician seems too beholden to an ideology to listen to the people and make the city less “lame,” as some millennia call it.

Perhaps what we need is people who are not military retirees who find politics a nice hobby, but entrepreneurs who run large companies and have the experience of solving complex problems. The only two in CS that come to mind are Philip Anschutz and Perry Sanders.

Between the two, Sanders seems to care more about the well-being of the city and should therefore be recruited to become the next mayor of his adopted home; he has a proven track-record!

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

“Could our city become the next Flint?”, The Colorado Springs Business Journal, February 12-18, 2016, p. 19.

Are we the next Flint?

What happened in Flint, Michigan was bound to happen somewhere, sometime. The origins of this disaster can be traced to the Reagan revolution that brought about the mantra that the government isn’t the solution, but the problem. This mantra embodies three important principles.

The first is that there is a direct correlation between how much services we receive and how much taxes we pay. The less taxes, the less services (small government).

The second is that government bureaucracies are less efficient than private ones, and therefore we should outsource to the private sector whatever we can.

The third is that all public goods—from roads to natural resources and defense—should be privatized in one way or another: either sold off or users should pay fees (Milton Friedman and the Chicago School).

The first principle is indisputable: CS comes in seventh among the 15 lowest-taxed cities in the US (Nick Wallace, SmartAsset). You might have noticed the unplowed streets with any snowfall, and the need for a tax increase to fix potholes.

The second principle is more problematic since it’s unclear if the issue is the inefficiency of bureaucracies, private of public, or that public are worse than private ones. But we should notice that at times inefficiencies relate to redundancies that save lives than to simple laziness.

The third one is the most interesting, as we have seen it play out in Flint. Should all decisions about and public goods themselves be privatized? We agreed during the Iraq War to hire Blackwater “mercenaries” to help fight the war; we also procured the private services of Cheney’s Halliburton (that eventually moved its headquarters to Dubai).

Were these moves the most “efficient” or merely the most expedient?

The lead-poisoning in Flint reminds us that the only way privatization works is if it’s accompanied by strict regulation—to ensure the health and safety of those affected.

But the age of deregulation that began with the Clinton Administration and has continued into the Bush and Obama Administrations has brought about not only the banking bubble and the Great Recession, but now the cruel effects of water poisoning in Flint.

What the headlines make clear is that perhaps the water problems in Flint were ignored because its population is poor and made up of minorities. Here is an example of how the outrage over income and wealth inequalities isn’t simply a philosophical query but instead relates to conditions that lead to health hazards.

As the facts are still being uncovered, it becomes clear that first, we cannot trust outsourced government performance—when cutting costs is achieved at the cost of people’s health—and second, that we shouldn’t wait till it’s a catastrophe to pay attention. Regulators and journalists, politicians and activists should heed complaints and investigate before it’s too late.

What about the health hazards perpetrated by our own Utilities? We finally got City Council (its board) to agree to close the Martin Drake power plant within 20 years. In the meantime, is our health at risk? Are we listening to Leslie Weise, an attorney with special expertise in environmental issues? Will she become a sainted crusader when the health issues associated with Drake become national news?

The community within a mile or two of Drake is more than 30% minority, more than 29% below the poverty level, and of such overall low income that one wonders if their health means less to CSU and its Board than the health of those living in more affluent sections of the city. Air quality around Drake doesn’t meet EPA standards; but CSU is reluctant to act.

Colorado Open Records Act has been used on numerous occasions by attorney Weise and others, but CSU’s attorneys redact most documents and refuse to share their findings about the level of toxins that plague the Drake area. Isn’t it their civil duty to be as transparent as possible? As we saw in Flint, time is not a luxury sick kids and their parents can afford.

Likewise, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment seems to be uninterested in shutting down the plant or holding CSU to the standards enjoyed by the rest of the state, granting extensions and more studies. The EPA is also slow to respond to mandates than one would expect of a regulatory body.

Is this similar to what happened at Flint? What will it take for more vigorous and timely regulation of our city-owned CSU? Councilman Leigh, if you recall, was politically blackballed and threatened with lawsuits.

Would CSU behave this way if Drake were in close proximity to the Broadmoor? We can avoid following in the footsteps of Flint.

  

Raphael Sassower is professor and chair of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

outsourcing, health hazards

“Comparing double standards with debt-ridden Greece,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 24-30, 2015, 25.

Double Standards

Just as banks are tested by standards different from those they apply to their customers, so are countries that owe a great deal of money, like Greece.

How “healthy” are the largest banks? If derivatives are not considered as part of banks’ assets (Fed), then they can withstand another financial crisis without bailouts (with 13% capital); accounting practices of the FDIC claim that they cannot (with only 5%).

While our political leaders and the moneyed elite espouse conservative ideals of small government, you can readily find them courting military contracts (of big government spending, if not waste) and prohibiting the laissez faire market forces of recreational marijuana sales, infusing government control.

What about endorsing the proliferation of houses of ill spirit (if not ill repute) in the center of downtown because of sales revenues, while responding to their dangerous prospects with the surveillance of street cameras (Big Brother).

Pointing out these kind of inconsistencies may seem like sound medicine, but as many scholars remind us, facts seldom change beliefs. So, what does? 

Perhaps a trauma or a crisis, the kind that shakes the very foundation on which such beliefs rest. The imminent threat of a Greek default on its Eurozone debt provides a good case study.

The so-called cradle of democracy, Greece, has a population of 11 million and an annual GDP of about $240 billion. By comparison, Colorado has a population of around 5 million and an annual GDP larger than $270 billion.

With over $300 billion in foreign debt, Greece is rumored to be on the verge of default. All the questions about the adverse repercussion of a default—from creditor-banks and their respective government guarantees to a potential exit from the Eurozone—may miss some moral issues related to this situation.

To begin with, as David Graeber (2014) reminds us, the very notion of debt is bound by two unrelated moral principles. One has to do with the obligation one ought to feel about repaying borrowed money, and the other is that lenders of money are considered inherently evil.

Those who fail to repay what they owe are then considered evil. How do we view individuals who take out mortgages and default on them, or those filing for personal bankruptcy to wipe clean their debts?

But by the same token, we also consider lenders to be evil, whether under the influence of Jesus’ condemnation of the money-changers in the Temple, or more recently the bailout of banks who gambled foolishly and received taxpayers’ help.

In local communities like ours, the very notion of public works of any sort, like the City of Champions, is considered problematic (evil?) because public debt may saddle the community with additional taxes. But what if debt is labeled investment? Will the next mayor go on record in support of such investments?

The Greek case study is much more complex than we are led to believe from sensational headlines that ensure the volatility of the stock-market (where brokerage firms enjoy the ride).

If we remain on the moral level for a minute, we should ask whether or not one country has a moral duty to help another? Though philosophical in nature, the answer is commonly couched in practical, utilitarian terms: yes, as long as it can afford it.

The Greek government, says Frank Jordans (AP), is reminding the German government—its largest creditor—that after WWII Greece was among 22 countries that agreed to halve Germany’s debt (1953).

More concretely, Greece has definite reparation claims against Germany from its WWII occupation of Greece: billions of euros worth of infrastructure destruction, millions of euros as compensation for massacres of resistance groups and Jews, about $7.7 billion of an interest-free loan made in 1942. This isn’t an exhaustive list.

So, who is the debtor and who is the creditor? On balance, who owes whom how much? Is there a moral injunction for aid among nations, even when it’s called debt?

The Germans, leading the Eurozone’s claims against Greece, insist that it’s the moral failings of the Greeks, as individuals and as a society, that have contributed to their current crisis: lazy tax evaders who expect the state to spend more than it can afford.

This systematic irresponsibility has raised the question every parent asks: should I enable bad behavior? If I punish, will I lose my child?

And punishment is expected in the Greek case, from austerity measures that hurt the poor to leaving the European Union, the kind of punishment our local leaders inflict on young entrepreneurs who haven’t made it yet to the top.

Can a small local startup expect the same royal treatment reserved for the military-technological complex? What will the next mayor do?

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