I am going to make some end-of-the-year observations about the way I see the political system, the economy, and our society evolving.

Many elected officials do not have the political will to address fundamental structural economic and political issues.  We built an economy after World War II promising middle class wages for all Americans, but without the foundation of skills and educational capabilities to make such promises sustainable.  Public sector labor unions and unions in heavily politicized private sector industries like the automobile industry, successfully negotiated collective bargaining agreements allowing people with very low skills and educational attainment to secure middle class wages and benefits, and protections against downsizings, even as our economy has had to become more globally competitive.

(more…)

Periodically, my lifelong decision to be an independent voter, rather than a registered Democrat or Republican gets reinforced. My independence stems from a deep distrust of a concentration of power or financial reward anywhere in our governmental, business, or non-profit sectors.

Recently, I have seen evidence of what happens when there is the following lethal combination of circumstances we have today:

• highly-concentrated government or business power,
• inattentiveness of the majority of the population,
• exceptionally high rewards from the exercise of concentrated power, and
• more power concentrated in ideologically-driven people.

The vast majority of Americans are unhappy and insecure with respect to the political and business environment in which they find themselves. 

Fiscal Irresponsibility at all Levels of Government

Without most of us noticing it, state and local governments, which are required to balance their budgets every year, have engaged in a massive transfer of wealth from the vast majority of their citizens to a relatively small, but exceptionally militant and well-organized group of state and local government employees.  I am not angry at the demands made by these employees in their collective bargaining negotiations, but am disappointed that elected officials have not only supported and caved in to those demands, but have also hidden the true costs of these actions from voters.

In Connecticut, for example, the present value of retirement benefits for state employees, including elected members of the executive and legislative branches of state government, is $40 billion as of the end of the 2007 fiscal year, and it is probably higher today.  For roughly 80,000 full-time employees, that averages $500,000 per employee at the time of retirement.  Although this money is paid over time, it is part of the long-term indebtedness of the state that crowds out the ability of the state to invest in roads, bridges, public transit, education, public health, environmental sustainability, public safety, and rebuilding of our cities, among the much worthier uses to which the money could have been put.

Connecticut is not unique in this regard.  Virtually every state has some astronomical retirement benefit obligation, as amply demonstrated by a report of the U.S. Government Accounting Office, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08317.pdf

How did this happen?  Our elected officials are generally well-intentioned individuals with a desire to serve the broad public interest.  However, when confronted with well-organized public employees’ unions who want increases in pay and benefits, it has been far easier to concede on long-term benefits than on short-term pay increases, since the long-term benefits are not required to be reflected in annual state government  income statements.  I do not blame the unions for demanding these benefits, or even the elected officials for agreeing to them, but I believe that the public has been relatively disengaged for too long in monitoring issues like this.

On Monday, July 20, both Houses of the Connecticut General Assembly voted on straight party lines to override Governor Rell’s veto of a well-intended, but flawed, health care bill called the SustiNet bill.  Although the bill had many great features and was supported by many great leaders, one of its fatal flaws was the creation of a health policy board specifically designed to exclude many critical stakeholders, including large employers, insurance companies, hospital leaders, and pharmaceutical companies, all of whom should have been part of the board. 

In effect, the General Assembly, through amendments to the original legislation, set out to create a highly unrepresentative policy board on one of the state’s most critical competitiveness issues.  Until after this bill passed both houses of the General Assembly the first time, few business leaders were even aware of its existence, much less its damaging terms and conditions.  I wrote an Op-Ed piece in the July 19, 2009, Hartford Courant expressing my opposition to this legislation as enacted, specifically, in part because of whom it excluded from the health policy board, and called some of our elected representatives.  While I obviously did not succeed, I did my best to make sure that elected legislators knew how I felt.

Too many business leaders believe that they can escape fiscal crises and problems in their headquarters states by leaving those states, but we are increasingly coming to realize that there is no place to which to escape.  The federal government will end up bailing out state and local governments, as it has done with significant chunks of the stimulus legislation, and all of us will pick up the tab.

The answer is not to replace the incumbents, whether they be Democrats or Republicans with other incumbents, nor is it to have term limits (which I support for other reasons.)  The answer is a more continuously engaged and active citizenry, particularly in the business community.  Too many major CEOs and other senior executives think of themselves as world citizens who have little connection to the communities in which their companies have major operations.  Too often they delegate management of government affairs to specialized legal and government affairs professionals.

If we are to constrain the absolute power of government officials and the special interests to which they cater, we need the check and balance of continuous engagement by a much larger part of our citizenry.  As travel writer Rick Steves stated in his book Travel as a Political Act,

“Whether you’re a mom, a schoolteacher, a celebrity, a realtor, or a travel writer, it’s wrong to stop paying attention and let others (generally with a vested interest in the situation) make political decisions for us.  Our founding fathers didn’t envision career politicians and professional talking heads doing our political thinking for us.”

Although I do not plan to go as far as folk singer Arlo Guthrie and become a member of either party, I agree with his comment in the interview entitled “Just Folk” in the Sunday, July 26, 2009, New York Times:

“I became a registered Republican about five or six years ago because, to have a successful democracy, you have to have at least two parties, and one of them was failing miserably…We needed a loyal opposition.”

To put it simply, if we are to avoid the corrupting effects of concentrated power, we must take back that power from those who have it.  I do not believe those with power today are bad people.  In fact, I have much in common with their goals, and believe them to be decent people who want to do the right thing.  However, without checks and balances, everyone, including me, is highly likely to make significant and bad decisions.  We cannot let that happen.

In the Sunday, November 23, 2008, New York Times, in the Connecticut and The Region section,  I was struck by the inadvertent juxtaposition of two articles.  The first, in the Town Green column by Larry Bloom, was entitled “On the Local Level, A Bid to Pool Resources.”  The second, alongside it, was an article by Jan Ellen Spiegel, entitled “Charities Struggling with Their Own Needs.”

In Bloom’s column, the major point made is that Connecticut is the “national champion of governmental redundancy.”  We have 169 towns, with 169 separate governmental systems.  In Spiegel’s article, she talks about the fact that charities are “just starting to sort out how to deal with the as-yet uncalculated effects from potential cuts to state funds in the wake of Connecticut’s projected two-year $6 billion deficit, and the impact of the stock market’s vicissitudes on donors, corporate giving, and investment portfolios of foundations.” (more…)

As a person who studied Communications, Political Science, and Law during college and law school, I am acutely aware of the power of language to shape how we think about and act on problems.

The main example that comes to mind is the way we characterize how government positions are filled.

When I was growing up, like most American history students, I read about the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield, who was killed by a “disappointed office seeker.” I learned that this tragedy gave rise to “civil service reform”, which, if I remember the history books, characterized the change as being one which replaced an appointment system based on “patronage” or “spoils” with one based on “merit”. Like most Americans, I came to believe that the civil service system was an unqualified positive development for American government, and the old system was corrupt, to the point of being “un-American.” In fact, on the radio this past week, I also heard a radio commentator refer to “patronage” appointments in a very disparaging way. (more…)

Recently, I attended a conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State. My main interest was in voting processes because Pitney Bowes has a secure, reliable voting-by-mail solution called Relia-Vote™, and because we are conducting a pilot test with the U.S. Postal Service® and the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana to insert voter registration kits into the Move Update and Welcome Kits we prepare for the U.S. Postal Service®.

Several things struck me as I reflected on the conference:

• After the Florida debacle in 2000, and the issues associated with the exceptionally tight Washington state gubernatorial race in 2004 that resulted in the election of Governor Christine Gregoire by about 100 votes out of 3 million cast, election officials and the federal government are more focused than ever on getting the election process right. They want accuracy, security, reliability, and, above all, they want every vote to count in the manner intended by the voter.

• Given the substantial increase in participation in voting as a result of the hotly-contested Democratic and Republican presidential primaries, they have a high degree of interest in securing long-term increases in voter participation. We will have a much healthier democracy if everyone participates not only in voting, but in other ways that result in greater civic engagement. (more…)

One of my passions ever since I was a teenager has been government. As a teenager, I actually wrote an op-ed piece for the Rochester, New York, daily newspapers advocating reduction of the minimum voting age from 21 to 18, which happened years later.

Today, I believe strongly that we are best served as a society to the degree that all of our citizens participate in some way in helping government function better.

The first and most important way to help government function better is to vote. I believe strongly in making voting secure and having complete integrity and trust in the voting process, but, at the same time, we need to make it easier for eligible voters to register and vote. That’s why we have provided secure voting-by-mail solutions through our Relia-Vote system. That’s why I have believed that states should allow “no-excuses” voting by mail as an alternative, very much the way California offers voters the choice of either voting in person or registering to vote by mail. The states that have complete voting-by-mail systems, Washington and Oregon, have higher participation rates, on average, than other states. One could argue whether voting by mail is the cause of that or whether an already engaged citizenry in those states demands voting by mail, but I believe it has to help voter participation to add choices on how voters can exercise their right to vote. (more…)

I just attended the annual conference of the National Urban League in St. Louis. I have been on the NUL Board for 10 years, and just completed a nearly five-year stint as its Chairman. The National Urban League has an outstanding CEO, Marc Morial, and I have an equally outstanding successor as Board Chair, John Hofmeister, Country President for Shell.

Marc Morial’s keynote speech eloquently and meticulously described an Opportunity Compact that the Urban League has committed to as a mission for the people it serves, and that it wants government officials and partners to support as well. This compact, which can be accessed on the NUL website, NUL.org, consists of four cornerstone values: (1) The Opportunity to Thrive; (2) The Opportunity to Earn; (3) The Opportunity to Own; and (4) The Opportunity to Prosper. These cornerstones are supported by policy priorities described in the Compact.

The Urban League has been offering social services for 97 years and has over 100 affiliates around the country. Historically, it has been most known for its workforce readiness programs, and for supporting educational initiatives. More recently, it has focused on increasing homeownership among African-Americans.

What Marc has brought to the NUL in his four-year tenure as CEO has been a substantially increased focus on entrepreneurship to increase the pool of available jobs, and an even more significant focus on driving civic engagement through voting for African-Americans, and in having the Urban League play a more pivotal educational role in public policy debates.

The conference inspired me because four Democratic candidates, Senators Clinton and Obama, former Senator Edwards, and Congressman Kucinic, thoughtfully and positively presented their agendas to the attendees, and Senators Clinton and Obama specifically endorsed the Opportunity Compact.

I was particularly pleased that, through ground-breaking research led by Drs. Silas Lee and Bernard Anderson, we were able to validate that, at a minimum, the Urban League service network has delivered over $2.5 billion of economic value to America over the last three years.

I also had one-on-one meetings with members of the Urban League movement. Bonnie Boswell, a Los Angeles-based newscaster and the niece of Whitney M. Young, the NUL CEO in the 1960’s and a civil rights leader whose contribution to civil rights has been underestimated because of the low-key way in which he influenced events, is raising money to do a documentary on Whitney Young’s life. His leadership skills are noteworthy because they go far beyond what he accomplished as a civil rights activist. He united white and black Americans, civil rights activists, corporate leaders and governments, and other diverse stakeholders in ways that enabled them to work together far beyond the specific tasks that initially brought them together. I will be helping Bonnie get this project completed because I believe strongly in it.

I also met with Melinda Emerson, a former NUL trustee and now a successful entrepreneur with her company, Open for Business with Melinda Emerson at www.melindaemerson.com. She is both passionate and extremely thoughtful about the key levers for success for any small business, not just female and minority-owned businesses. She is focused on the specific needs of “Mompreneurs,” businesses formed and operated by working mothers, particularly first-time working mothers, but her insights on how to succeed are more broadly applicable: the focus on targeting the right customers and getting to know their specific needs, networking, delegating effectively well before women have less time to spend on the business because of child-care needs, and finding ways to build continuous, long-term relationships with the best customers of a business.

Marc, Bonnie, and Melinda are just a few examples of the kind of people that keep me excited about the NUL. Their focuses on driving thoughtful policy positions and measurable success in implementing them, driving and educating people about effective leadership, and role-modeling excellence in entrepreneurial small business leadership respectively are just a few of the reasons I continue to support this great movement.