“Refinancing mortgages, solving foreclosures,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 9-15, 2011, 23.

REFINANCING MORTGAGES, SOLVING FORECLOSURES

Perhaps soon enough we’d be in a position promised to Jeremiah (and repeated in Ezekiel) that the proverb “Parents have eaten sour grapes and children’s teeth are blunted” shall be replaced by an appreciation that everyone shall pay for his or her own sins. Unfortunately, we are not there yet.

The housing bubble with its attendant financial crisis is still with us. A combination of lax regulation and heavy subsidies to large financial institutions orchestrated in the Bush Administration under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr. is still plaguing the Obama Administration’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and its newly appointed Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, Alan Kreuger.

Business cycles are not bound by or timed according to the changing of the political guard; they have a rhythm of their own. Intervention in these cycles is at most precarious or counter-productive, at worst disastrous. With a $14 trillion economy, the original $700 billion TARP infusion (some claim $1.2 trillion) represents 5%, just enough to have an impact on the margins, but not the heart of the economy.

 Bloomberg LP News, under the Freedom of Information Act, discovered some pearls of folly. Here is the lineup: Bank of America and Citigroup received $45 billion each, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo received $25 billion each, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley received $10 billion each, as well as others, like AIG, US Bancorp, and GM. Even foreign banks who have a branch in NYC enjoyed the bounty: The Royal Bank of Scotland received $84.5 billion and, the Belgian Dexia $58.5 billion.

While most banks have returned the bailout handout and in some cases the Treasury profited from the transaction, foreclosure rates in the heartland have increased overall and sky-rocketed in select markets. Over 3 million foreclosure notices were served in 2010 alone. Why hasn’t the financial health of banks affected the housing industry? How is it that with 0% interest paid to the Federal Reserve banks can’t lend money with 1% interest—it is after all a 100% gross profit margin?

Local landlords know that tenants are their most precious commodity. If taken care of, tenants will pay rent on time and renew their leases even in bad times. Given the current situation, the rental market has adjusted, despite fixed-rate mortgages and escalating costs. This means, for example, that we’d rather give a tenant a break, reduce the rent by 10%, rather than lose the steady income that helps pay the mortgage or have a vacant space till a new tenant is found. Sounds reasonable, does it not?

Why can’t financial institutions lead the way out of the Great Recession? They can change their policies and shore up the housing industry. Let’s do the math. Assume you bought a $500,000 property. Assume you put 20% down, and took a mortgage of $400,000 with 6% for 30 years. Your monthly payment would be $2,398.

Given the housing bubble, the value of your property has been reduced in two years by 30%, from $500,000 to $350,000. Your down-payment of $100,000 is wiped out, and you owe more than your property is worth. Assume you want to retain your property and that you are still employed: can your bank help?

The bank can write off the $50,000 difference between your principal and the current value (you now owe $350,000), lower your interest rate to 2%, and have your monthly payment be $1,293, almost half of your original payment. You might feel more inclined to stay in your property, pay the mortgage, believing that an upturn in the economy will restore some of your original $100,000 equity. Default risk has decreased substantially.

In addition to profit optimization, banks are interested in risk mitigation and cash-flow. In the present case, the bank will be losing $50,000. Writing off this loss against profits from other operations, the nest loss may be cut in half. Comparing a loss of around $25,000 to the loss of the entire $400,000 is simple; even when comparing it to a loss from a short-sale of $250,000 it makes sense for the bank to refinance.

What about the loss of interest income, from 6% to 2%? Two mitigating factors come into play: first, the interest charged by the Fed has decreased to 0%, and second, wouldn’t the bank rather steady its income stream than lose all of it? It’s the same logic that motivates landlords to reduce rent rates.

If greed is squared off with common-sense maybe its devastating impact can be moderated; if sort-term considerations is compared with long-term prospects, maybe the effects of business cycles can be somewhat mitigated. When banks realize that their partners are indeed its customers rather than federal regulators, they can lower their risks, retain a steady cash-flow, and improve the health of the economy!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS, pays mortgages and is a landlord. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“They just don’t make sense,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 2-8, 2011, 19.

REALLY?

All too often we come across something that just doesn’t make sense. We look at something and wonder, really? Is it inconsistency, blindness, or hypocrisy? My observations are random

without any priority to one phenomenon over another.

We have compassion for homeless people, trying our best not to judge their choice to live under a bridge. But, what’s with the dogs? You hardly can take care of yourself, so how can you afford to care for a dog?

With a national commitment to health and wellness, numerous gyms and personal trainers are available at all hours. But have you noticed how close to the entrance clients must park? They plan to run on a treadmill, lift weights, or spin; are the extra few steps from across the street a physical hardship?

Hikers and bikers, runners and nature-loving casual walkers need to get to their destination by car. They don’t start from home because no good trail is nearby. But must they drive in the biggest SUV possible, the one that consumes the most gas?

What about so-called conservatives who want the government off their backs, but invite them to their bedrooms? If the point is less rules, regulations, and laws, why insist on having the government check what we do in the privacy of our homes? Why do we even have law about marriage, sex-workers, or marijuana dispensaries? Why not get the government out of the morality/sin business and leave it to religious organizations?

It’s odd to hear teachers or professors complain about the burden of grading students’ papers. After all, isn’t this part of the job description? Next thing they’ll complain about preparing lectures and having class discussion. Do teachers not like students? If not, why to they collect salaries from educational institutions?

When citizens make the decision to seek public office and become politicians, they are supposedly there to serve the public. The public puts its trust in them and the character they have portrayed in their campaigns. Is it unreasonable for them to be scrutinized by the press? Didn’t they volunteer to be in the public eye to begin with?

Restaurants offer customers a meeting place to eat and drink with their friends or colleagues. Though private by legal definition, restaurants are public spaces as well. Why do customers complain about the noise? Do they expect to dine all alone the way they do at home?

So-called liberals believe in the efficacy of taxation to provide public goods and services, like military defense and social welfare safety nets for the entire population. Progressive taxation as a means to redistribute wealth and income has been their motto. So, why do they hire expensive tax advisers and accountants to find loopholes and extra deductions?

Though we rarely find obese people in Colorado, the healthiest state in America, when they drink from large receptacles of Diet Coke or Pepsi they buy at Seven-Eleven at all hours of the day, we wonder: does the “Diet” designation make such a big difference? Are any sodas devoid of sugar or sugar-additives? It may seem a small amount, but what if they are drinking a gallon at a time?

Speaking of food, what about the black-tie events, where five courses are offered in opulent settings—hotel ballrooms, private country clubs—as fund-raisers for the homeless? The most hilarious breakfast I attended as a guest of cardiologists (for Peak Vista, if I recall correctly) served steak and eggs, ham and sausages, white rolls with butter, and basically everything one can think of as unhealthy nutrition. Wouldn’t granola and fresh fruit have been appropriate?

The right to own guns, as the Second Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted in terms of individual rights and not a group right (militias), is exercised in the West and South much more than in other parts of the country. With the proliferation of gun ownership and lax licensing regulation, is anyone surprised at crazy cases of random (or some claim deliberate) shooting of innocent people, as was seen in Rep. Giffords of Arizona?

Is it more cost-effective to build basketball or baseball fields, indoor sports arenas, music halls, and video-game arcades than prisons for juveniles? Have you ever seen a sweaty youngster after two hours running on a soccer field climb a fence to burglarize a home?

And finally, when you hear bad things about the “government,” how we should get rid of it, remember that they are talking about you! Our Constitution considers citizens as the sovereign—the ultimate seat of power and authority—while the government represents and serves, and is replaced at regular intervals. Congress as such isn’t the problem, it’s the millionaire, career politicians who are!  

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and likes reading students’ papers, paying taxes, and isn’t interested in his friends’ sexual habits. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“It’s a global, but political, economy,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 28-September 1, 2011, 19.

IT’S POLITICAL-ECONOMY, AFTER ALL

It made sense two centuries ago to describe the theories and practices of the world of finance political economy. Politics, as we have just seen in the past couple of months, play just as important a role in the economy as economic factors, such as employment and interest rates. When discord dominates the halls of Congress, the economy is bound to suffer; sound-bite declarations replace thoughtful solutions.

Whatever ails the world affects our country, and whatever ails our country affect every little village or city, since we rely on banks and mortgages that are internationally invested, federally controlled, even when locally serviced. As such, as disgusted as we are with our leaders, we needs to speak out and give them advice before electing others.

Though we teach in philosophy that every argument has a counter-argument, that every position can be opposed by an equally strong or valid one, there are times when this is not true. Some arguments are invalid, because their premises are false or their structure is fault. Some arguments are irrelevant when lives are at stake.

To say, then, that the Bush and Obama administrations’ TARP was a failure because it bailed out banks to stabilize and stimulate the economy in a way that didn’t filter downward is telling only part of the story. The other part was the “cash for clunkers” program that had an immediate ripple effect on the reduction of pollution, conservation of energy, and retaining manufacturing jobs. The smallest of investments produced the biggest bang for the bucks! Who knew?

Negotiation is commonly understood as a zero-sum game, where opponents find a middle-ground on which they agree. Of course there is posturing and grand-standing, bravado and chest-pounding, but at the end of the day, a compromise is achieved.

If the President intends to lead the country before the next election rather than become irrelevant, he must find ways to lead with informed compromises, to lead as if the fate of the country is at stake, not simply his own re-election.

Since the economy is influenced by politics (we didn’t need S &P’s downgrading to remind us of this fact), let’s be politically careful, ideologically honorable, and above all, prudent. Prudence, after all, ensures survival, not principled stubbornness, even when principles are compromised.

As some military historians remind us, if Hitler wasn’t as insistent on continuing his march eastward to beat the Soviet Union, he may not have lost World War II. Likewise, all the so-called socialist policies of the former Soviet Union or China have proven disastrous in their infatuation with heavy investments on armaments and heavy industries. Ideological narrow-mindedness leads to economic ruin.

Economic solutions to economic problems are not that complicated if there is political will to look at the big picture for long-term solutions. We know how to reduce burdensome regulations, close tax loopholes, increase exports, build infrastructure, create jobs. Legalizing immigration at $100,000 per entry, for example, would raise billions over time; likewise, legalizing marijuana would decrease legal costs and raise millions in tax revenue. How about combining most counties in the state and in some cases consolidating them within existing city governance? Any other ideas, anyone? Desperate times call for desperate measures. No idea is too silly to be aired.

Some theories are politically or ideologically informed, and as such are unscientific (untestable): they prove what they assume rather than find out the outcome after facts are examined. Let’s not repeat the folly of Arthur Laffer of the Reagan era who served an ideology, but come up instead with creative solutions, regardless of political affiliation.

Instead of asking: why can’t we all get along?, as some pundits seems to suggest, we should ask: what is the right course of action for the nation? If we don’t know the answer, let’s adopt a trial-and-error methodology, piecemeal engineering, as Karl Popper suggested. This would add humility to our public discourse and replace the arrogance of millionaire politicians. If President Obama or any other member of Congress ends up not being re-elected, it’s a cheap price to pay to improve our economy.

As the latest political squabbles illustrated, our democracy does work. It’s a messy process that brings out ugliness, discord, and deep seated emotions. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it’s constructive. Unless we want a dictatorship, this is the price we must pay: listening to extreme views we abhor. Who knows, perhaps among the cacophony of economic advice, a sweet note of brilliance will emerge to set us straight. Bill Cosby is reputed to have said: “I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody”; he might be right!

 Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and is the author of Postcapitalism (2009). He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“What is fair tax-burden?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 19-24, 2011, 23

TAX GRIEF

When I purchased in 1986 an old Victorian house in the historic North End, the county assessor—or his agent—showed up. He looked around and then announced that my annual real-estate taxes will be increased to around $700. That’s all?, I asked in amazement. Perhaps it should be more, I offered, having just moved from Boston. He chuckled and left, thinking I was deranged. I thought it was the bow tie I was flaunting as a freshly minted professor...

And then I learned a simple lesson: you get what you pay for: less taxes, less services. Garbage wasn’t collected by the city, and when we had a big snowfall, Tejon Street wasn’t plowed for days. So, why do taxpayers believe that they can demand city or federal services and pay no taxes?

Perhaps Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (On Death and Dying 1969) was right, after all. We first deny that any taxes are needed, comparing ourselves to the Founders. The more taxes, the more waste can be expected. There is nothing that government does right. Denying it taxes, it’ll learn to live within limited means. The road to small government is strewn with denial that government is needed at all. Can’t we just all get along? We all own guns anyway, so peace is bound to be maintained...

But when taxes keep being collected, when paystubs show that take-home pay is much less than expected, people begin to get angry. I don’t mean being frustrated or upset, I mean angry enough to demonstrate and march (The Tea Party). But anger is an exhausting emotion, especially when worrying about daycare and mortgages. It’s a lot of work, and for what?

Then bargaining sets in place: cut taxes for the rich, change the tax rate, retain the Bush’s Administration tax cuts, declare a tax holiday for the weekend. For bargaining to be effective at least two willing parties must engage in the process. Who are you bargaining with, the government, the IRS, your local mayor? And what is your trump card? Unless self-employed and willing to go underground, you can’t avoid paying taxes because they are deducted by your employer. So, you are in no position to bargain, after all, except when the city turns off street lights...

When there is no one to bargain with, when no one is listening or cares, we become depressed. Helplessness sets in. Why keep on fighting a losing battle? Alcohol or pot looks enticing, just like watching mindless TV. Should I even bother going to work? Once taxes are deducted and bills are paid, what is left? Our Great Recession is about to become the Sad Depression.

Just as we learn to accept the death of a loved one or a pet, we accept the reality of taxes. Only taxes and death are definite, it is said. We realize at some point that public goods must be paid for somehow. Unfortunately we cannot ask the Canadians to pay for our roads or the Mexicans for our bridges. The French will refuse to pay our defense bills, and the British won’t pay for our parks. Only New York is lucky enough to have Mayor Bloomberg pay for social programs from his own philanthropic foundation. CS must collect taxes to provide government services; Mayor Bach isn’t rich enough...

The question, then, isn’t whether we should or shouldn’t pay taxes, but what is a fair tax burden. Currently we have a progressive tax system—the rich pay incrementally more than the poor. Some think it’s a fair way to redistribute wealth and income. Some think that a flat tax, say 5% across the board, is fair. There are others who think that we can do away with taxes as we know them and have Value Added Tax (VAT) on consumption, like some European countries.  As for effective tax spending, there are enough MBAs on the government payroll and millionaire members of Congress to ensure that...

Since Washington seems like a rudderless ship adrift on an ocean of confusion, perhaps we should grant all Americans a federal tax holiday till the end of year. In an era where no economist has a handle on the future, why not experiment for a while. A complete personal tax relief is no crazier than what we see coming out of Washington.

And while we are at it, let’s ask the entire Congress to resign. Democrats and Republicans alike decry taxes, deficits, and spending while garnering pork for their districts. They display a level of hypocrisy unmatched by any other profession. Is being a politician a profession at all? Outside of money and an inflated ego, what qualifications are required?

 Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and has low esteem for all politicians, especially those who vie for reelection. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Setbacks and strides in Springs’ diversity appreciation,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 12-18, 2011, 20.

INTERFAITH INITIATIVES

Obviously our Representative, Doug Lamborn (R), missed the sensitivity class when he was in college, calling President Obama “tar baby.” Whether or not you should still like President Obama after the latest debacle remains open for discussion, but the office of the President should be respected. And the use of an inflammatory slur in 2011 is really out of line, no matter your party affiliation.

When I travel out of the city, strangers gasp at the mention of Colorado Springs. I’ve been asked about the intolerance of Focus on the Family in regards to gays and Jews, as well as about the tone of conservative evangelical zeal. I recall the outcry against the late Ted Eastburn when he dared suggest that city employees who are gay deserved to have their partners covered by health insurance. He lost the election when Focus mobilized against his heresy and chose a religiously-appropriate candidate.

But I thought we have left all of this behind us. Business-like thinking isn’t ideological, but economical: your dollar is just as good as anyone else’s, no matter who you privately worship (if at all). But for some, like Lamborn, the only way to define themselves and their ideas is through a negative portrayal of others. Like characters in western films, they need cowboys with white hats to win against those with black hats.

One way to overcome this kind of intolerance, especially when multiculturalism has given way to religious pluralism, is through education. And UCCS, now a towering force in the city’s economy with more than 9,000 students and a growing staff to meet their needs, has risen to the occasion.

A newcomer to UCCS, Dr. Jeffrey Scholes, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and the University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology, has spearheaded an interfaith initiative on campus that has been awarded “The President’s Interfaith and Community Service Campus Challenge.” Yes, it’s an initiative undertaken by the same president Lamborn mocks. Yes, it’s the same president accused of not being Christian or American-born. And yes, it’s an initiative that is supposed to bring students together so as to overcome misguided conceptions of fear and hatred.   

The initiative includes this part:

Many municipalities are reducing services in a response to tighter city budgets.  In Colorado Springs this has had a huge impact on public parks with funding reduced from 20 million dollars to 3 million dollars since 2008.  As such, minimal park maintenance is being carried out and new park development (including enhanced planting) has almost ceased.  To help with this pressing environmental need, a key activity of the UCCS Interfaith Service Initiative is to establish the UCCS Park Corps of interested interfaith students. 

After an initial training period with the assistance of local landscaping experts, the UCCS Park Corps will be involved in organizing park care days consisting of trash removal, basic tree care (pruning and mulching), turf maintenance and bed care.  A tree will be planted at the end of each park care day as a further contributory gesture. 

The UCCS Park Corps will work in close collaboration with the City of Colorado Spring’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service to identify priority neighborhood and community parks requiring care.

Not only will interfaith activity be integrated into the city’s needs, performing tasks the city is unable to perform because of budgetary cuts, this public service will be undertaken by all the groups represented on campus: Hillel Student Group, Campus Crusade for Christ, Latter Day Saints Students Association, Secular Student Alliance, Habitat for Humanity, Navigators, Catholic Student Community, Students for Environmental Awareness and Sustainability, and Student Military Outreach.

Instead of fanning the fires of discontent and rivalry, we can bring together diverse groups. Under the auspices of educational or religious institutions, we can teach tolerance and acceptance, respect for others and ourselves. When an economic crisis strikes, it doesn’t discriminate according to religious affiliations, race, or gender. Nor does a natural disaster, like Katrina, make such discriminations. On some fundamental level, we are all in it together.

Interfaith efforts, more common in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Chicago’s Rainbow Coalition comes to mind), should be revived. UCCS’ recognition by the President of the United States is a clear indication that Colorado Springs is finally on board, changing its image of religious intolerance to a city where diversity is celebrated and harnessed for public good.

If politicians paid just a little attention to such efforts, they, too, could usher inter-political initiatives, where conservatives and liberals, anarchists and libertarians, socialists and capitalist could all join forces to benefit the job market and stimulate the economy. Just as interfaith students will take care of the parks, inter-political citizens can take care of Sharrows, libraries, and trails.    

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and breaks bread with people of all faiths, including atheists. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Let’s look outside the military for brand,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 5-11, 2011, 25.

WHAT’S OUR BRAND?

We all have strengths and weaknesses. Despite Ray Dalio’s special knack for humiliating his employees by pointing out their weakness and mistakes so they can improve next time around—perhaps because he’s the owner of Bridgewater, the wealthiest hedge fund in the world, we may want to consider working with our strengths.

City officials and economic development gurus in our town have for years clamored to attract and promote military installations and their subcontractors, after realizing that religious organizations, like Focus on the Family, spend their money outside the city.  They claim that twenty percent of the economy depends on defense-related expenditures at the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, NORAD, and the Combined Services Space Center. It sounded like a good old-fashioned military town, but should it be?

Our very own Chamber of Commerce here renamed the Chamber of Defense doesn’t seem to have an education liaison. Does it have a sports liaison or a hospitality liaison? It has attracted less than fifteen percent of the businesses in town out of more than 10,000 businesses because it prices its membership rates beyond their means. Clue: give out free membership for the first year; after a year begin charging gradual dues; then assess your marketing strategy to attract more members and give a voice to a wider clientele.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and International Trade Administration, small businesses “have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.” So, if creating new jobs is our concern, as it should be, why not focus on niche and boutique small businesses, rather than focus on big military contractors?

Besides, what happens once we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? What happens when budget concessions, as we see them unfold, reduce the defense budget? Our defense spending as a percentage of our federal budget is disproportionately larger than any other advanced economy in the world. Is defense spending sustainable?

If we plan for the future, let’s look into health, education, and new technologies. Having been a tourist and heath attraction from its very beginning, why doesn’t the city refocus its efforts in this direction?

Perhaps the focal point should be the Convention and Visitor Bureau that claims we had 5.5 million visitors in 2010 with an economic impact of $1.35 billion. Now this is a large number. I tried to compare this to local defense spending but websites weren’t helpful nor were city officials (including the Mayor’s office). Instead of the Chamber of Defense leading the economic charge, it will be left to the newly appointed CEO and President of the Bureau, Doug Price to create new jobs.

According to him, there are more than fifty local attractions with more than half being completely free of charge. There are more than thirteen thousand employees in the hospitality industry, as compared to about fifteen thousand in Fort Carson. So, if we add hospitality, high-tech (unrelated to defense), hospital, university, and athletic employees (including physical therapists and personal trainers), I bet the number overshadows that of the defense industry. And if our share of the state’s tourism industry is only ten percent—being the second largest city in the state—we have room to grow!

So, what’s the issue that keeps a military focus on the CS community? Is it our retired military personnel (who don’t like taxes because their kids are no longer of school age)? If it’s nostalgia, why not go back to attracting tourists and patients of tuberculosis? Forget tuberculosis patients, and instead focus on athletes who appreciate altitude training. Though no a ski resort, we are still closer than any other front-range city to the Rockies! The Hill Climb reminds us of Pikes Peak, just as all the other athletes coming to train at the USOC remind us of how special we are. Maybe we should start believing in ourselves again!

So-called liberal states like Massachusetts, New York, and California have many more military and air bases than we do; their economies rely on defense contractors even more than we do; but this is not what they are known for. This is not how they brand themselves. With new city leaders, let’s hope that after attracting defense contractors and religious organizations, they may pay attention to health, wellness, and tourism.

The city wisely chose to brand itself “Proud Home of the U. S. Olympic Committee” and not the “Proud Home of Military Bases.” Pikes Peak isn’t moving away; neither is it dependent on the largess of Washington. Let us make the most of it!

Raphael Sassower if professor of philosophy at UCCS and was formerly involved in the hospitality business in town. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com

      

“Running the city like a business is odd,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 29-August 4, 2011, 24.

THE PRICE OF TRANSPARENCY

Not only did the citizens of Colorado Springs want a “strong mayor” with commensurate strong salary, they wanted the city to run like a business, which is code-word for efficiency. They found a perfect match in Steve Bach, a former commercial real-estate broker whose regal appearance bespeaks of a successful CEO and hopefully a Mayor. Beware of what you ask for!

So, Mayor Bach is running the city the way he ran his private business—all communication with the media, for example, is streamlined and must be approved by his office. It’s one thing to tell your secretary that all inquiries about a particular building should be answered only by agent X, and quite another to tell city officials/managers that they cannot answer directly questions by journalists (and a freelance ”rogue”—as I have been affectionately labeled). Really? Last I recall, he and his fellow-council members ran on platforms of transparency and accountability, so why tight controls?

As I was looking through the Police Department annual budget of around $92 million, I reached out to its Chief, the affable and eloquent Richard Myers, only to find out that only if city manager Steve Cox, also an affable and friendly former Fire Chief, is present, he could meet with me. Really? Let’s waste two officials’ time…Is this how efficient businesses are run? To save money and time, I rescinded my request to meet. The reports can speak for themselves.

So far two myths are being examined: first, public entities (like a city), if run like a business, will necessarily be more efficient, and second, that transparency can be simply declared to make it so.

When I reviewed Memorial’s budget for public benefit—limited, of course, to the public that reads the CSBJ—and suggested that there was no hurry to conclude an agreement in principle between the City and Memorial, a council member chided me for being “uninformed” because all the documentation is on the City’s website. Were salary increases for 25% of city employees during the official wage freeze (as discovered only recently by a new council member) also on the website? So, transparency can be accomplished by referencing a website! This is probably a third myth.

It is true that websites in general are open to the public in the sense that anyone with a personal computer or library card can have access to them. But is the mere fact that a website is part of the wide world of the Internet in itself a sufficient condition for public access? No, it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Without the website no public access is possible, but with it there is no guarantee that the public will know about it, find it, navigate the data in it that is in question, and be able to analyze its nuances.

For example, having poured over some 200 pages of Police Department reports (courtesy of Chief Myers who provided the links), I was thoroughly impressed by the detail of the reports and their commentaries, especially as the city has grown and the budget has shrunk. As in most budget reports, we get large numbers and not the details from which these numbers are composed. This makes sense, because otherwise I’d have to read probably more than two thousand pages, which is too much for an average citizen (or even for a rogue who is on summer break from university duties). Here and there one wonders if “each Emergency Technician answers nearly 5,700 9-1-1 calls a year” is impressive workload or not. Assuming that person works 250 days a year, this means 22.8 calls a day... Should I have wasted the Chief’s and City Manager’s time to find out if this is what their businessman-boss finds efficient use of resources?

In another report Chief Myers speaks my language: “Enforcement activity for the sole purpose of generating revenue is contrary to the social contract, and outside the ethics of modern policing.” Right on! Social Contract theory goes back to Socrates and his trial in Athens in 399 BCE, and espoused by most political philosophers who recognize that citizens have in fact an implicit “contract” with their representative government to ensure that they receive more benefits from the state while relinquishing some of their rights. Chief Myers knows this, acknowledging the consent of the citizens to be taxed and policed, get traffic tickets, be monitored by cameras. He wants to dispel the impression that ticketing motorists is the only way the department pays its officers (which is true in Colorado’s mountain towns where around 70% of the budget is generated this way). I wish he did more with the “three Es” of “enforcement, engineering, and education,” to emphasize education above all. Are all officers and civilians in the department proud to be “civil servants” constrained by a social contract or are any of them on a power trip? I hereby volunteer free lectures to the department on social contract or any other related topic.

As for enforcement, I have three suggestions: first, given that we are the healthiest city in the country, why not have officers ride bikes rather than cruise-cars or motorcycles? It’s cheaper, more flexible, ever-present (they go slower), and healthy for the officers. This would be like the British Bobby who walks around the pubs with only a club in hand.

Second, if there are dangerous intersections, cruisers should have their lights on (rather than hide behind bushes), so that motorists are warned; likewise on highways and around schools—let the public see where you are! Incidentally, this is true in Israel and France where cruisers have their lights on at all times for easy recognition, immediate warning, and a measure of safety. DC is considering adopting this method of patrolling.

And third, some ideas cost no money to implement: several years ago I suggested that cruisers leaving from or returning to the Nevada station should take different routes (rather than just use Cimarron and Nevada) and thereby cover more terrain—it has been done to the effect that the mixed-neighborhood around the station is safer than when I moved there in 1996.

Running a city like a business is an odd proposition: profit maximization isn’t the goal, but rather public service; tight communication controls don’t bespeak of public access. Transparency is a tough goal to achieve—open forums and websites help, but they must be critically navigated by experts or interested groups (and not the public at large). The media can help, as long as its work is done with grace and respect, humor and goodwill. And finally, officers, please don’t hunt me down and ticket me; despite the rogue label, I pay my taxes on time and stop at red lights!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He regularly teaches a course on “Politics and the Law.” He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com

“Higher education is one of our precious resources,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 22-28, 2011, 21.

PRECIOUS RESOURCE: HIGHER EDUCATION

There are two precious sets of resources that account for our national wealth: natural and human-made. The natural include precious metals, like gold and silver, energy, from gas and oil to sun, wind, and water, and rich soil for agricultural. The human-made set includes entertainment, communication, hardware/software, knowledge, ideas, and patents.

If we are so concerned to get “our money’s worth” out of most of these resources—fair  market prices—why are we willing to give away one resource way below its value? Gold mined in Cripple Creek is worth the same $1,500 per ounce as anywhere else in the world, while we export specialized knowledge for less than it’s worth foreigners.

There are about 18 million students in higher-education institutions (including 2-year community colleges and other degree granting for-profit universities); around 670,000 of those are foreign students (all numbers are website-related approximations). They pay “out of state” tuition in most cases, unless they arrange residency despite their special status with a student visa and pay “in state tuition” rates.

There are around 4,400 colleges and universities in the US, and 4 significant ones in Colorado Springs: Air Force Academy (est. 1955, enrollment 5,000), Colorado College (est. 1874, enrollment 1,900), Pikes Peak Community College (est. 1968, enrollment 12,000), and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (est. 1965, enrollment 9,000). The significance of each of these institutions for our local economy differs, but their overall impact rivals the defense contribution to our economy. Though the numbers generated by the Chamber of Commerce or city economists about jobs and consumer expenditures are relevant, they fail to address a qualitative question difficult to measure: do they attract businesses and produce knowledge?

Excluding the Air Force Academy (with a national mission to train cadets to become pilots and support staff), the other three are knowledge laboratories and training centers for those planning to relocate as well as those already here looking to either re-tool their skill sets or educate their dependents. When a military sub-contractor or sports organization decides to open an office here, the only consideration isn’t proximity to the Homeland Security base or the USOC—remote services work well in the digital age. Housing costs, open-space and outdoor activities, entertainment, clean air and water, and education all come into play.

The cost of living in Colorado Springs isn’t what it used to be when I moved into town 25 years ago and could buy a 4,200 sq. ft. house in the historic North End for the same cost as a one-bedroom condo in Boston. At the time UCCS had about 3,000 “commuters,” no athletic facilities or dorms. As costs go up, so must the quality of living. Though we are too dependent on clubs and bars for entertainment, in addition to extensive bike-trails we can boast local colleges/universities that compete nationally with their respective peer-institutions.

State support for the University of Colorado, for example, is around 5% of its budget. The rest of the budget comes from tuition, fees (faculty/staff pay $500 for parking), and indirect recovery costs of research funding. Tuition hikes have been substantial in the past few years to make up for decreases in state support. Out-of-state tuition is about three times higher than in-state tuition to help fund the university. Foreign students pay out-of-state tuition; why not pay “out-of-country” tuition?

Assume that foreign students with student visas come to study here and then return to their country of origin, a fair assumption during our Great Recession with high employment rate. They acquire general and expert knowledge here and in fact export it when they return to their home countries. Federal grants and state subsidies help finance institutions of higher education in multiple ways, presumably to benefit the future of our country, not to benefit foreign countries that will then compete with us. In fact, we are indirectly subsidizing our competitors!

However federal and state subsidies underwrite academic institutions, the justification has been that these are investments in our future: turning out informed citizens, creative artists, ingenious scientists, innovative engineers, and so on. Educated citizens in turn contribute to making our economy more advanced and competitive, productive and innovative, with Venture Capital funding most of the ideas and patents that they come up with. Should we give this away cheaply?

Just as out-of-state students pay three times what in-state students pay (with the rationale that the state subsidizes the university), foreign students should pay three times what out-of-state students pay (with the rationale that the federal government subsidizes the university).

Will this be a disincentive for foreign students? I doubt it’ll have any effect on enrollment—American universities are still the best in the world (especially at the graduate and professional level). Emerging markets will take another generation to catch up with our academic infrastructure (which includes democratic institutions).

Is this a xenophobic proposal? Not at all. Diversity will remain robust, since America itself is the most diverse society in the world. Foreign tuition will subsidize domestic recruitment of under-represented domestic populations.

Will it upset our foreign allies? American foreign aid overshadows that of any other country (close to $50 billion in 2011). Having designated ourselves the police force of the world (paid for exclusively by us), wouldn’t it be nice to designate ourselves instead as the knowledge resource of the world and get paid for it?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS, and the author of A Sanctuary of Their Own: Intellectual Refugees in the Academy (2000). He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com.

 

“Weighing the importance of sales and ethics,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 15-21, 2011, 21. Reprinted in Idaho Business Review.

The Ethics of Sales

When I first came to Colorado Springs in the summer of 1986, with a freshly minted doctorate from an university on the east coast, I thought I knew it all, especially when it got to ethics. I was teaching ethics seminars at Boston University’s medical school, drafted the Informed Consent form for one of the first hospital Institutional Review Boards in the country, and published on business ethics.

But when I volunteered to give a breakfast talk to a group of local real estate brokers, I realized how little I knew. As my presentation ended and some questions were posed by audience members, one guy at the very back—it’s always that one guy at the very back—who said: “nothing happens in America until a sale is made.” With this statement, he summarized American capitalism and the uselessness of my presentation of economic frameworks and ethical principles. It was friendlier than the request not to ever come back I got that same year from the dean of Beth-El School of Nursing for almost inciting a riot among the students after my presentation. I told them they were overworked and underpaid, and should stand up to doctors who treat them poorly.

So, sales determine the economy or at the very least make the wheels of commerce turn. Does that mean that a sale must be consummated no matter what? Does that mean that the completion of a sale trumps ethical considerations? According to Professor Shlomo Benartzi of UCLA, a specialist in behavioral finance (an offshoot field of Behavioral Economics), his stock-broker clients should come clean when the stock-portfolio of a client is down, tell them the truth about their own bad picks, and thereby gain the trust of their clients over time. In the long-run, it pays to be honest with your clients. Really? John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist who inspired the New Deal and the current stimulus packages, is reputed as having said instead that in the long-run we are all dead. Ethical behavior is deemed economically prudent; that’s good news! Does that mean that sales at any cost, no matter what, will be curtailed?

In the popular Freakonomics (2005), Steven Levitt and Stephen Dunbar retell the case of Sonoma Williams being unable to sell a bread maker (it was too expensive at $199.99). The counter-intuitive solution was to introduce a more expensive bread maker, so that the current one would seem cheap enough. Sure enough, sales soured! Why? Because we are comparative shoppers who don’t have an absolute value attached to whatever we buy, bread-makers or houses.

Benartzi and his colleagues have done studies that prove that the framing of sales (just like comparing) is most important: labeled cold cuts “90% fat-free” sell more than “containing 10% fat,” even though they say the same. It’s not what you say, but how you say it. Happy hour at restaurants are popular because of this psychological effect: we are attracted to what we get for free (or discounted) than to what the actual cost is going to be at the end of the evening. Is this cheating? Is this ethical? Since nothing takes place in a restaurant, as the real-estate broker told me 25 years ago, until something is sold, what criteria of ethics should be adhered to?

 There are some simple ethical principles that relate to food purchase and liquor service. First, the balance between cost and quality must be renegotiated daily, especially as it relates to perishable products, from eggs and dairy products to fish and meats. Even if guests refuse to pay the extra cost for wild as opposed to farmed salmon, will the owner be willing to increase his food cost and reduce profits? This in itself is a moral dilemma; it balloons quickly if the wait-staff misinforms guests about what they are served. Second, free-pour may pose ethical quandaries to either the owner (if the pour is heavy), to the liquor board (if it’s really heavy) or to the customers (if it’s light). Should the bartender adhere to the letter or to the spirit of the law? Each drinker is unique, and no two drunks ever display identical behavior. What is the right thing to do? Can your training ever be full-proof?

Then there are broader ethical questions that come about from owning a restaurant: who should get credit for the success or failure of a restaurant—owner, chef, servers, bartenders, dish-washers? How much should be shared with guests—gossip about the internal workings of the restaurant, information about the food and liquor sources, whether or not the restaurant is profitable? Should the restaurant operate as a cooperative where decisions, policies, and profits are equally shared? Should it be competitive where servers who sell more get bonuses and those selling less are fired? Should owners cut corners to keep costs down? Should employees steal as much as possible without being caught? 

If nothing happens in America without a sale, then nothing good happens in America without an ethical sale, a sale where integrity is maintained every step of the way. But the sale is only a first step, not a final step in the relationship that develops among the parties. If a real-estate transaction, just like a meal at a restaurant, is treated as a cherished moment where something special is happening, then there is a greater chance for repeat performance: clients return, your customer base grows over time. When a restaurant does it right—as many in fact do!—the guests leave feeling great and happy to pay the bill and tip the staff well. If all they want is food, they should go to the grocery store; if they want alcohol, they should stop by a liquor store. Great meals or real-estate transactions provide experiences that you couldn’t have had on your own: you are establishing relationships with the hope that they will last for the rest of your life.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at the UCCS and has fourteen-year experience as a restaurateur.

“Memorial is our very own golden goose,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 8-14, 2011, 18.

Our Very Own Golden Goose

If we allow common sense rather than rhetoric to govern our decisions, Memorial Hospital should stay a city entity, with the minimal governance it has endured for years. It’s not simply that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” or that conservatives like the status-quo, or that the older we get we fear change, but rather that its original charter has been faithfully and successfully fulfilled of late by its CEO, Dr. Larry McEvoy.

Let’s start with the facts: originally conceived in 1904, then constructed 1907-1911 on land donated by General Palmer and renamed Beth-El, what we know today as Memorial Hospital was a brainchild of community needs and local generosity. In 1943 the City Council of Colorado Springs purchased Beth-El Hospital for $76,500 and renamed it Memorial Hospital. Between 1946 and 1949 voters approved the operation of the hospital by the city with a citizens’ board of trustees. In 1956 the city approved $600,000 in revenue bonds for expansion and improvements; in 1973 the city approved $15,000,000 in bonds for expansions. Since then—38 years in all!—no additional bonds were issued.

Let’s continue with even more interesting facts (all in round numbers): in 2010 the net income of Memorial Hospital was $32 million (with around $642 million in total revenue); during that year it provided around $32 million for “charity care” and another $61 million for “provision for uncollectable accounts.”

The hospital’s mission was historically and remains today to serve the health needs of the local population. The numbers alone reflect a great success in doing so: if we include “uncollectable accounts” with the “charity” ones, we get about $93 million in services made available for our indigent population—patients with no insurance at all or those unable to pay their full medical bills. This is incredible; especially when you consider that the hospital was still profitable! It had $125 million surplus (profits plus uncollectable accounts) out of $642 million in total revenue (19.47%). I’m sure many of my business colleagues would love to own this hospital: be charitable and profitable. Oh, yes, it has some debts and liabilities, but they are all within reason and are serviceable with the current asset and revenue structure.

So, if a decision is made today what to do with the hospital, I’d say, keep going, Dr. McEvoy, you are performing a great service to our community! You and your staff are true custodians of the spirit that originally established this fine institution. You are all important and integral parts of what makes Colorado Springs so special, a model for the rest of the country: efficiently-run city hospital.

Yet, the successful Dr. McEvoy cries wolf to anyone who’d listen: it’s going to be horrible; we are at great peril from “Obamacare”; we are in danger of becoming a total failure; let’s change our status today. Not quite the message you’d expect from a successful CEO. This is odd behavior when compared to the rest of the corporate world, where CEOs of companies that are losing money still manage to trump their virtues and accomplishments. So, what’s going on here?

A charitable interpretation is that the successful doctor has not let his success get to his head and is trying to warn against the terrible onslaught of increased health-care costs. But he has had such success so far with increasing costs, why does he think he’ll fail in the future? Do doctors go into every surgery fearing disaster rather than build on their previous successful surgeries? Perhaps it’s because he knows something definite about the future the rest of us don’t, namely, that medical costs will rise indefinitely? Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. We really don’t know. What if the expenditure on two wars will cease and funds will be available for health care? What if employment increases and contributions to Medicare increase? What if the greed of pharmaceutical companies is curtailed and they will reduce the price of their drugs? What if government bureaucracies become more efficient? Let’s be honest, Democrats and Republicans alike don’t know what policies they themselves have enacted, and may one day focus on fixing this industry and the well-being of all citizens. Call me naïve, but I doubt any politician viewing the 2012 election will be as oblivious to health-care realities so as to ignore their rising costs and the need for reform.

A less charitable interpretation is that the successful CEO, like so many other CEOs, doesn’t like to be accountable to anyone. This is true for most corporate America that has basically installed boards of directors that rubber-stamp their decisions, renewing their contracts with amazing regularity and high pay-raises (23% average in 2010 for the top 200 publicly-held US companies). But this is a red-herring argument (there are no red herrings…): no one is really overseeing the CEO; he has a free hand to run the hospital as he wishes, with marginal blessing from the rest of us. Does he worry that a Strong Mayor and new City Council will pose an onerous oversight? I doubt it. Given that none of our elected officials are hospital experts, I doubt they’ll give any guidance at all. They probably will leave the esteemed CEO alone. In fact, from what I hear, it is he who is lobbying them to move the hospital into the new territory of a non-profit organization (as if being a city-owned institution isn’t non-profit).

Regardless of your ideological bent, what’s wrong with being accountable to someone? If you are doing something wrong, you should be stopped; if you are doing something right, you should be praised and get a raise. It looks straightforward to me: we have a great asset we should be proud to own, an asset that performs exceedingly well under perilous conditions. We haven’t been asked to contribute to the hospital in 38 years and we gave away $93 million in free health care in 2010 alone. Looks like a textbook win-win strategy!

Another interpretation of Dr. McEvoy’s concern may be personal: we have not praised him enough; we have failed to show gratitude to his incredible accomplishments at the helm of Memorial Hospital. May mine be a small contribution to an outpour of support and admiration for a job well done! Keep it up, Dr. McEvoy, doctor and businessman, humanitarian and visionary! Keep treating for free, while making millions. You are the man!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and author (with Mary Ann Cutter) of Ethical Choices in Contemporary Medicine (2007). He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com .