188. There are limits to 'suggestions'

With the election only a few weeks away, we are starting to hear the same sort of stories that we heard in 2008. We are hearing stories of employees who are receiving the unsolicited recommendation from their employer as to who they should be voting for in both the national and local elections. In some cases, it is just a suggestion as to which candidate might best represent the company's interest; in others, it is an employer threat that if the wrong candidate wins there might be employee layoffs.

There are some rules, but generally the employer is free to communicate its opinion on how its employees should vote. I have seen emails from a local company where the employer has sent out a notice to employees with voting recommendations stating that "employees have asked which candidate we should vote for." Many other companies have formed political action committees--with the sole purpose to get their candidates elected.

It has also been reported that Koch Industries President Dave Robertson wrote to employees, "At the request of many employees, we have also provided a list of candidates in your state that have been supported by Koch companies or by KOCHPAC, our employee political action committee." While it may be true that some employees inquired, the company-wide communication is certainly mostly unsolicited (of course, if you work for Koch Industries, need you really ask?).

Wealthy Republican Westgate Resorts CEO David Siegel made similar news and took that to a new level when he wrote a threatening to employees that if they voted for Obama they may lose their job, "What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for . . . ." Later though, he makes the significance crystal clear, "If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company."

With the availability of jobs still quite tenuous, it is natural that employee would want to do what is best for their company and family. Few are willing to risk their job and will be inclined to protect their own financial interest.

To be fair, at times it does matter and one's organization should indeed be considered when voting. For example, the healthcare law affects many organizations and whether it remains or is repealed can have a real impact on their viability. Medicaid eligibility will be expanded, and organizations that provide Medicaid services certainly have an interest in keeping President Obama. Conversely, financial institutions impacted by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act may want Romney elected to minimized the increased regulation on Wall Street.

So the question the employee must consider is whether a CEO who communicates his or her voting recommendation is considering the company's interest, the employee's interest, or his or her personal interest?

Each organization is different, but CEOs usually make a lot of money, and it is no secret that Romney and the Republicans want to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans also usually favor deregulation and free trade and this might mean more opportunity to outsource jobs and factories--employing the cheapest labor available, capitalizing on weak environmental regulations and moving profits overseas.

Conversely, from the employee's perspective, Obama and the Democrats have supported healthcare reform and labor unions. They want to let the Bush tax cuts expire and use that money to pay down the debt and lower the taxes on the middle class. It also wants to stop the outsourcing of American jobs by lowering corporate taxes and closing the corporate loopholes that incentivize it.

While I think the employer is in a position to unduly influence its employees with its voting recommendations, and that the tactic is usually disingenuous and should be avoided, the employee has a responsibility to learn the issues and decide which candidates represent his or her social, moral and financial interests. The employer's opinion should be one of many--taken with a grain of salt and with the understanding that the employer has its own interests at stake. Employees ought to consider the big picture and all interests involved-and then make his or her decision.

187. Candidates: Please, at least be consistent

Ralph Nader, while not shying away from his criticisms of President Obama, called the current Republican Party the worst in history. I am not sure how Nader defines "worst," but I would suggest that, from the national races down to the local level, there is indeed a disconnect and a lack of a consistent message within the Republican Party.

It is certainly a time of turmoil as the party searches for an identity, a political philosophy that integrates both social and fiscal conservatism. While I had noted the paradox a few years ago, the party continues to digress into a montage of unprincipled ideas and convictions. There is an attempt not to alienate social conservatives and their agenda, while at the same time fighting for fiscal conservatives who despise spending and taxes of any sort. Where the middles class fits in this is anyone's guess.

The infamous 47 percent comment aside, there seems to be some serious disconnect at the national level and the Republican choice for president. Romney who was born wealthy and Ryan who married into wealth do not seem to understand, or respect, the working class. They vigorously maintain their support of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class under the guise of fiscal conservatism. Romney was a moderate before he was a conservative. Ryan vacated his economic principles for Romney's. Conservatives hate Romneycare, but so does Romney, sometimes. Romney was against the bailout but now takes credit for it. It's so confusing to figure out where they stand.

Even locally we see the sacrifice of principle in the chase for votes. To the extent that I know him, I really like Republican candidate for County Commissioner, Phil Van Treuren. However, even he spends his time courting Democrats--with partisan parties and campaign flyers detailing his union heritage. So I wonder how he voted on Senate Bill 5 last year--did he support his union roots or his Republican governor? His five point plan was less than engaging--not hiring family members is not an economic or political principle; it is a feel good distraction absent of Republican or Democratic ideology. It's too much boots, mirrors and nebulousness.

Here are some other examples of party conflict:


• Republicans, and particularly the Tea Party, want government accountability and transparency, but Romney draws the line in the sand with his tax returns. It is an act of arrogance and if he is willing to hide information before he is elected, what happens after he is elected?

• Many Republicans were repulsed at Todd Akin's comments about "legitimate rape," but not all. Rick Santorum recently said this on offering support of Akin in his Senate race in Missouri, "The entire Republican Party should stand up and say, 'You know what? He's our candidate, it's too important for the future of our country not to have a majority of the Senate in this upcoming election."

• Many conservatives find that money spent on foreign wars and national defense is warranted, even if the amount spent on our military budget far exceeds that spent by most other countries. The debt incurred, which should offend fiscal conservatives, in case we need to attack another country is acceptable; providing food stamps to the poor and people who had their jobs outsourced, which is foundation of social conservatism, is not.

• Elected fiscal conservatives, such as Tea Party Republicans, are placed in a quandary when federal funds are available for their community--do they stick with their principles or accept the funds for their community?

• Republican teachers and firefighters also faced a dilemma over Senate Bill 5 last election--did they support their union and their personal interest or their Republican governor?

• In support of corporations, Nader noted the irony when Romney attacked the 47 percent he said do not pay taxes. Nader wrote, "'Hey, Mitt, why start with the 47 percent? Fully 100 percent of the nation's 500 biggest corporations are dependent on various kinds of corporate welfare -- subsidies, giveaways, bailouts, waivers, and other dazzling preferences -- while many pay no tax at all on very substantial profits." Nader, continued, "Mr. Romney doesn't understand the double standard where government checks, whether already paid for or not, to people are called "entitlements" while far bigger checks to corporations are called ‘incentives.'"

• Most seniors have worked hard all of their lives, but now due to the cost of healthcare and evaporating pensions they are forced to live on a fixed income and on the benefits of Medicare. Although many seniors are socially conservative, they also make up a significant part of Romney's 47 percent.

The Republican Party needs to take a stand and adopt a consistent political message or split up into two or more political parties. Candidates, whether Democratic or Republican, are to present to the country, or their community, their ideas, values and beliefs. Constituents base their votes on those principles--no fair if we cannot identify them.

There is a spectrum of political ideology in this country, but when there are only two political parties, we are forced to fit into one of them-and they are forced to chase voters that they do not fairly represent. We need more ideology, more integrity and less campaigning.

186. Let's not repeat years 2000-2008

Sometimes I wish we could experience parallel universes. For tough decisions, it would be insightful and interesting to witness the consequences of each possibility as they are played out in front of us. One of the unsettling and intricate parts of our lives is never knowing what "could have happened."

We have all probably done this from time to time. We wonder what if I would have done things differently--would I have gone to a different college, for example. Would I have met different people, leading to a different career, a different job, maybe even a different spouse and family?

A simple example in sports is the decision by a manager to give a player "a day off." One could easily wonder, what would have happened if he or she would have played? Would it have affected the outcome of the game, would the player have had the best game of his or her career--or the worst game, or maybe suffered a career ending injury. We just never know.

In analyzing the performance of President Obama and his quest for reelection, I find myself asking similar questions. Thus, if we could go back to 2008 and change the way everything happened--I wonder how things would have turned out. What if we had elected John McCain, or if Hillary Clinton would have won the Democratic primary? Moving forward, what about the decisions President Obama made--the stimulus package, passing healthcare reform and the bailouts? How has that affected where we are today?

To be fair, and I know Republicans are tired of hearing this, by 2009 the economy had been completely obliterated. We were losing more than 600,000 jobs per month, the auto industry and financial industry had failed, the housing market collapsed, manufacturing was in dire straits, and we were running up an incredible national debt with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personal finances were equally devastated-in addition to job losses, people found themselves with credit card and student loan debt they could not repay, upside down on their houses (which until then had been for many their only real form of savings), and they could not afford healthcare, or worse they had accumulated a significant amount of healthcare debt. Many had no choice but to choose bankruptcy.

We were, in the opinion of many, on the brink of financial collapse and potentially another major depression.

President Obama and Congress enacted a number of financial programs in an attempt to improve the economy. While the economy is ridiculously complex and there is only so much any one entity can do, programs such as the stimulus package, Obama care and downsizing government were embraced and ratified.

While no one can suggest that the economy is not better than it was four years ago, many feel that it has not improved quickly enough-particularly in consideration of President Obama's election. (Of course, for many, no matter what the president did, it would not be enough). Unemployment, though it has leveled off, is still too high, the housing market is only recovering slowly as the inventory of foreclosed houses dries up, and we still maintain considerable national debt. Interestingly, despite the effort to limit the influence of corporations and initiating financial reform, Wall Street and the stock markets are doing just fine.

What we do not have are parallel universes to judge the president's performance in comparison to what John McCain would have done, or even Hillary Clinton. Things might be much better, worse--or, about the same. Maybe President Obama saved the country from a devastating depression; maybe he missed an economic opportunity to improve the country. Nor do we have a crystal ball to see what will happen over the next four years if President Obama is reelected, or if Mitt Romney wins the election.

And this is a big decision; we must decide who we want to lead the next four years. It is not a referendum on President Obama; we cannot simply elect the "other guy" simply because we are not completely satisfied where the economy is today. We have to choose the candidate who we believe will make things better over the next four years. And of course, we must also consider the social values of both candidates-we do not live in silos.

We know where we are going with President Obama, and I expect that if reelected the economy will continue to improve--maybe even significantly as many are waiting on the election to move forward. Romney is an uncertainty. His policies are similar to those of the Bush era--most notably continued tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation. More concerning, he seems to lack social values and his opinion on major issues changes as necessary. Unprincipled people cause me anxiety because they often end up being subservient to the influence of others-such as the interest of major corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy.

Regardless of how anyone decides, I hope that it is an informed decision. We cannot forget to ask which candidate and which party represents our financial and social interest. I hope people do not vote "anyone but Obama," without considering just who that anyone really is. We do not live in parallel universes, we do not get a "do over." And we definitely do not want to do 2000 to 2008 over again.

185. Sports: Faithful Begets Violence

I recently found an "autobiography" that I had written when I was in fifth grade. As part of the assignment, we had to prepare a collage, in which the thing most important to us was placed in the middle.

In the center of my collage was a Super Bowl ring. In the explanation, I offered with complete seriousness, that if I did not win a Super Bowl ring, my life would be a failure. If that was not ambitious enough, I also planned on becoming a world class boxer, and winning a gold medal in the Olympics.

But the dream was not just a grade school whim, made after watching a Browns game or a Sugar Ray Leonard boxing match. It carried into high school and college, where my desire for greatness switched to baseball.

I watched "The Natural" probably over two dozen times, and the Roy Hobbs exchange with Iris Gaines about being the "best there ever was," was forever engrained in my head.

Roy Hobbs: I coulda been better. I coulda broke every record in the book.

Iris Gaines: And then?

Roy Hobbs: And then? And then when I walked down the street people would've looked and they would've said there goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was in this game.

Already indoctrinated into the sports world, I was obsessed, like LeBron James, with winning a championship--and being the best. And then? What do you mean "and then" . . . what else is there?

As I have reluctantly given up my dreams of being the best there ever was in sports, I have followed a number of sports as a fan. Unfortunately, the only way I am getting a Super Bowl ring now is to buy an NFL team--and who has a billion dollars laying around for that?

But even my desire to be a fan is waning. As a country, and throughout the world, we have lost all perspective when it comes to sports. We want championships--and we do not care how they are obtained. We do not care what a championship might cost or who the players are.

We will pay twenty dollars for a beer or eight dollars for a hot dog. It is almost offensive in these economic times that fans would be willing to pay those prices so that billion dollar owners can afford million dollar players.

We will root for athletes who have committed deplorable and nearly unconsciousable acts, like Tiger Woods and Michael Vick. The city had its heart torn apart when LeBron James left Cleveland to assure himself of a championship (for how could he be "the best there ever was" without a championship?) But most would welcome him back in an instant.

When teams win (or lose) cities are vandalized by their fans. Fans even attack opposing fans-how dare they express passion for their team in our stadium? Somehow destruction and violence has become synonymous with faithfulness and celebration. It is not just in the United States either; soccer fans around the world are pretty serious about their "football" as well. Fans sometimes simply lose their minds.

I still like sports-there is something about the dedication and sacrifice of an athlete that appeals to me. I enjoy the competitive fire, the heart of persevering in the heat of battle or against the odds. As fans, we can still follow and root for our teams. Sports talk is fun, watching sports can be an engaging social event-there is nothing wrong with tailgating or family outings. But at some point, it needs to be just a game again. I am not a "loser" just because I am from Cleveland and Cleveland cannot win a major championship. While sports may be an escape from our daily life challenges, it might be better balanced with other important social issues and needs.

And the fans need to realize that they control everything about sports. It is a market economy and they are the customer. They control whether there is a salary cap in baseball, an NCAA football playoff system or how much money the players make. If it is unreasonable, or unjust, fans should stop supporting it. At some point, one would think that the growth of sports, and the unconditional support of its fans, is unsustainable.

I remember when Ohio State won the national football championship in 2002. I remember the elation, and celebration with my family and friends. It was one of the best games I had ever watched. But about an hour after the game, I had an "and then" moment. But for me, there was no "and then," I was just a fan. My life did not stop and I had to get up and go to work the next day-just like any other day. Well . . . almost like any other day.