Meals From The Marketplace

            So those millionaires and billionaires finally resolved their differences?  Now, don’t we all feel better?

            I’m referring, of course, to the new collective bargaining agreement struck last week between the owners of the teams that comprise the National Basketball Association (the NBA) and the players who are paid handsomely by those owners to play the games many of us attend and watch and follow.

            The owners had declared a lockout at the end of the last season, claiming that they could not begin a new season without a significant restructuring of the compensation system the old collective bargaining agreement (CBA) had provided.  In the end, they pretty much got what they claimed they had to have, as the players gave up in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars in salaries in the new CBA.

            The new agreement won’t exactly require any of the players to reduce their standards of living appreciably.  Average salaries last year were around $3 million per player.  They’ll still be right around that figure (if not higher) with the new deal.

            The owners had claimed that some of their teams were close to bankruptcy, which is true only if you ignore the enormous wealth that all of them bring to the table just to become owners.  None of them are anything close to “mom and pop” businesses, if by that term we mean businesses that barely get by from year to year and do so only because of the sweat of the owners themselves.

            The owners of NBA teams are either exceedingly wealthy individuals (Mark Cuban, for example, owner of the champion Dallas Mavericks, is a multi-billionaire), or they are mega-corporations (Comcast Spectacor, for example, owns the Philadelphia 76ers, a sports cable network, a professional hockey team and the arena where both teams play their home games) for which the NBA team is just a single asset of their total holdings.

            So the dispute over the new collective bargaining agreement was literally a fight between the exceedingly rich and the obscenely rich.  Or, in terms that will resonate with the Occupy Wall Street movement, it was a fight between the one percent and the one-tenth of one percent.

            And, as is often the case when this kind of thing occurs, it affected many of the 99 percent.  From the standpoint of entertainment value, the NBA is a big deal in the United States.  Millions of sports fans follow the game closely.  If it isn’t the nation’s unofficial national pastime (that honor now belongs to professional football), it at least fills the gap from the end of the NFL season to the start of the baseball season.

            But whatever its entertainment value, the NBA season has an even greater impact on the nation’s economy.  To be specific, in the 30 cities where the teams play, thousands of individuals will be employed to work in the arenas where the games are played, or in the bars where fans congregate after the games, or in the hotels where the players and their entourages stay when they are on the road, or in the restaurants where fans will go before the games, or in the merchandise and sporting goods shops where fans will buy the memorabilia of the sports stars and teams, or in the grocery stores, gas stations, hardware stores, department stores and other retail outlets where everyone with a little more money that is generated because the games are played will go to spend that money. 

            If you catch my drift, you appreciate that the games create an economy, an economy that doesn’t exist if there are no games.  That economy isn’t going to reduce the national unemployment numbers immediately, but it is the kind of economy that the country needs to recover from its current malaise.

            I have long been an advocate of government control of professional sports, so let me take this opportunity to press my radical position on the subject yet again.  Professional sports leagues (we’re talking the NBA, the NFL, hockey NHL, and, of course major league baseball) are de facto, if not de jure, monopolies.  Simply stated, they exist in a competitive-free environment.  New teams cannot form on their own and compete with the existing franchises in these sports.  They aren’t legally forbidden from doing so, but they have no practical ability to exist.

            Nor are rival leagues a plausible option.  The current leagues control the marketplace completely and absolutely.  They are to their games what Microsoft once hoped it might be in the computer business.  And, lest anyone argue to the contrary, consider what the country experienced in the last six months.  First the NFL threatened a cancelled season.  Had it occurred, thousands would have been without jobs and millions of fans would have been left with nothing to do on Sunday afternoons.

            Then the NBA came even closer to creating economic and psychic havoc for its workers and fans, only to avert complete disaster with the deal struck last week.  That major league baseball was able to reach an early agreement (also last week) without the threat of a cancellation of any games must rank as a near miracle, but, of course, that sport has hardly been without its history of catastrophic labor strife (most notably the loss of the 1994 World Series when a dispute wiped out the last two months of the season and the first month of the following one).

            These professional sports should be government-controlled.  Private ownership should be sanctioned by the federal government with tight controls on all profits, to include the cost of televising the games.  Ownership should be undertaken first and foremost as a public trust, much as ownership of television networks is supposed to be sanctioned.  Players’ salaries should also be regulated and controlled.

            The games are a national treasure.  They belong to the people.  Private ownership of them should be a privilege, not a right.  And playing in them should be an honor that provides its own reward.

                Don’t look now, but the presidential election of 2012 is less than a year away.  Of course, if you follow politics at all, you know that the campaign has been fully engaged since last summer.  In fact, it probably took off with the creation in August of the Congressional Super-Committee, which just this week ended its failed attempt to find a way to cut $1.2 trillion from the nation’s debt.

                That fiasco is another story of course, but it didn’t take long for both parties to play politics with the inability of twelve elected representatives to strike a deal that everyone agreed just had to be struck.

                In the end, any possible deal was doomed as long as the Democrats insisted on an increase in the taxes paid by the nation’s wealthiest individuals.  The current Republican Party will absolutely not go there, and whether it’s because of past pledges made to Grover Norquist, commitments to big campaign contributors, or just because they can’t accept it ideologically, the Republican mantra is “no tax increases,” and they are going to live or die with that stance.

                And they very well might die of it in terms of presidential politics, especially if their ultimate nominee buys into the position. 

                The presidency is certainly within their grasp, but a campaign that insists on protecting the very highest income earners from any increase in taxes is not likely to appeal greatly to those who fall considerably short of that lofty measure of success.

                For his part, the incumbent made clear this week that he isn’t going to let the issue go away.  By promising to veto any bill that attempts to reverse the automatic cuts that are to take effect in 2013, President Obama gave notice that he thinks the issue is a winner for his team.  And he’s probably right.

                The Republicans will play heavily on the idea that his has been a failed presidency (buoyed in that argument by unemployment rates around 9 percent, as they still figure to be next fall), but Obama can make a case for himself that isn’t quite as terrible as his critics might want it to make it appear.

                No, he hasn’t done enough, hasn’t been strong or decisive enough, and hasn’t been adept enough at playing the legislative or the political games the way Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton did in earlier times.   But he can make a pretty strong case (a la Harry Truman in 1948) that the Republicans have obstructed his efforts at every turn.  And in that claim, he’ll have recent history on his side.

                In fact, from the moment Obama took office, the Republicans in the Senate, essentially in lockstep, used the filibuster to thwart anything they didn’t like, and for all but two months in 2009, they had the votes to do it.  To be specific, the Minnesota race (ultimately won by Al Franken) wasn’t decided until July of ’09.  Only then did the Democrats get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster by the Republicans.  And they lost that 60th vote two months later when Ted Kennedy died (ultimately to be replaced by Republican Scott Brown).

                So, for all of two months, Obama theoretically had total control of Congress.  But even then he had to deal with the conservative wing of his party (e.g., Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman), which meant he had to keep any measure sufficiently palatable to those folks to get their votes.

                Notwithstanding that permanent legislative roadblock, Obama has some impressive achievements that he can and most assuredly will point to as the campaign heats up.

                Among those accomplishments are these legislative victories:

                o He pushed through the 2009 stimulus bill.  It wasn’t big or strong enough to create a robust recovery, but it did help keep the recession from continuing, and, despite fears of a double dip recession, the country has had modest economic growth ever since. 

                o He prevailed on the auto industry bailout, which saved General Motors and Chrysler from complete dissolution.  The likes of Mitt Romney may disagree with the policy of saving failing industrial giants, but Obama fought for and got the bailout, and those companies (and the thousands of jobs they are responsible for) are now thriving as opposed to being defunct. 

                o He got his health-care reform bill enacted into law (with absolutely no Republican support).  It isn’t the kind of reform many on the left wanted, but it will (assuming it survives the Supreme Court’s review of its constitutionality) completely change the way health care is delivered in the country and will probably pave the way for a more socialized approach to health care in coming generations.

                o He got Dodd-Frank passed.  Many on the left aren’t big fans of it, but it is a major legislative achievement in terms of shaking up the financial industry, and, again, it received almost zero Republican support.

                And his foreign affairs report card is even stronger.  In particular, he has kept the country free from terrorist attack and got bin Laden and several other top al Qaeda leaders.  In fact, his decision to give the “go” order on bin Laden alone was an act of courage that might well be a hallmark of his tenure in office. 

                He also made the right call on Libya.  Many on the right and left (for differing reasons) opposed the initial effort and his commitment not to let it become America’s war, but he was right in his handling of it.

                Other achievements, both foreign and domestic can and will certainly be portrayed favorably in the coming campaign, and for many, they will resonate when compared with the alternative the Republicans are likely to offer.

                Still, stripped of campaign glitz and hype, Obama’s presidency has been mediocre.  He took office with great popular support, and he has lost that support through ineffective leadership and inept handling of the bully pulpit.  But his tenure has not been without successes and it also hasn’t featured anything that could be considered disastrously negative (e.g., Buchanan’s failure to confront the pending Civil War, Hoover’s failure to tackle the Great Depression, Johnson’s war in Viet Nam, Bush’s in Iraq).

                It isn’t a record that will get him a spot on Mount Rushmore, but if he runs an aggressive campaign against the intransigent Republican “no tax on the rich” mantra, it just might get him a second term.

            Three months ago, I predicted that Barack Obama would be defeated in his bid for re-election.  In making that call, I wasn’t exactly going out on a limb.  No president since World War II has secured a second term with an economy as bad as the one the country is dealing with now. 

            Most assuredly, Obama’s predecessor bears much of the blame for the current mess, but Obama has had his share of missteps in trying to right the ship.  His initial stimulus package was too small and too diffuse.  His battle to get a health care reform bill enacted into law was too protracted and has been poorly explained.  He hasn’t prevailed in his fights with the Republican-dominated Congress that resulted from his inept control of the “message-war” during the first two years of his presidency. 

            And, most importantly, he didn’t prepare the country for the extended economic misery it is suffering through, very possibly because neither he nor his economic team thought it would be this bad.

            Put it all together and you have a failed presidency by any reasonable measure of that term. 

            I don’t discount the positives on the Obama scorecard.  He did save the economy from complete ruin; he did “get” Osama bin Laden and otherwise keep the country free from terrorist attack; and he did get the financial and health care reforms enacted into law, albeit the odds are now no better than 50-50 that the latter will survive Supreme Court review next spring.

            And I’m not denying the outrageous obstructionism of the “loyal opposition,” which is probably unmatched in U.S. history in terms of its unwillingness to compromise on any of its “principles” and in terms of its single-minded goal of denying this president a second term.

            But when push comes to shove, “It’s the economy, stupid.”  And just as Obama was elected because of a disastrous economy, so could he be defeated for re-election because of a struggling one.  Simple stated, no sitting president should expect to get re-elected with nine percent unemployment, especially when he came into office proclaiming that it wouldn’t get higher than eight. 

            Unless, of course, the opposing party has the dearth of qualified candidates the Republicans have.  And it is that fact that is making Obama’s prospects look considerably better than they otherwise would.

            To be blunt, the Republican field is the political version of Walt Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”  Only one of the eight candidates would be clearly electable in a general election; the other seven are truly political dwarfs for one reason or another.

            Let’s consider them one by one.

            Mitt Romney has to be Doc.  He’s the leader of the pack, even if no one wants to admit it.  Romney would be presidential material if he could just show the slightest bit of integrity.  He’d never be a guy the base of his party could accept, because he’d then actually reveal himself to be a bona fide old-fashioned Eisenhower Republican, but he’d be qualified to be the nation’s leader if he had a track record that showed any degree of philosophical consistency and political courage.  But Romney has shown time and again that he will say whatever suits his immediate goals, and that is why he has been unable to get his poll numbers above 25% with the Republican rank and file.

            Newt Gingrich is Grumpy.  Newt is still fighting the ideological wars of the 1990s.  He still hates everything that sounds like big government and would still repeal Social Security and Medicare if he could.  About the only thing new about Newt are his constant harangues against the media, which gets him cheers from the Republican faithful, but hardly makes him a serious presidential candidate.

            Michelle Bachmann is Happy.  She loves her God-fearing Christian country.  While she attended the Christian school (Oral Roberts University) where she got her law degree, she worked as a research assistant for the author of “Christianity and the Constitution,” which argues that the country was founded as a Christian theocracy and should again become one.  Bachmann has done nothing in her candidacy to suggest that she disagrees with that proposition.

            Ron Paul is Bashful.  It isn’t so much that Paul is shy.  He’ll speak his mind when asked.  But he just doesn’t get much attention, almost as if no one really cares to acknowledge his presence.  Paul does engender some excitement when he talks about America’s excessively militaristic foreign policy, but he is just as likely to put people to sleep with his rants about the Federal Reserve and the need to return to the gold standard.  He is a lone voice in the wilderness, and a quiet one at that.

            Herman Cain is Sneezy.  He’d be loveable if he weren’t always saying things that make people cringe: things like, “Black folks are brainwashed,” “If you don’t have a job and you aren’t rich, blame yourself,” and “I will not appoint a Muslim to my administration or the courts.”  Cain is just a bundle of laughs, except when he gets serious, and then he’s just a joke.

            Rick Santorum is Sleepy.  I still haven’t figured out if Santorum really is running for president.  The only evidence of that fact is that he keeps showing up on the debate stages, where, in the space of 90 minutes he might get five minutes of airtime.  The rest of his campaign seems to be non-existent.  He must be doing something, but the real Sleepy would probably get about the same amount of interest as he’s getting.

            And, of course, Rick Perry is Dopey.  What else can you say about this guy?  He’s adorable, for sure, but presidential?  “Oops.”

            Oh, and the Snow White in the field?  That would be Jon Huntsman, who actually would be a legitimate threat to Obama if he could only secure his party’s nomination.  But, since he’s a true moderate, his chances are absolutely nil, which may be the Republicans’ odds if they continue their weekly auditions for Saturday Night Live.

            Some dates are remembered because of what happened on them.  December 7, 1941 and June 6, 1944 are remembered for their significance in the last World War.  (The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that got America into the war occurred on 12/7/41; the allied invasion of Europe began on 6/6/44.)

            Other dates are special for personal reasons.  My wife and I celebrate February 3 and June 17 every year, the first date being the day we met (in 1976), the second being the day we married (in ’78: we had a long courtship).

            And then there are dates that are interesting for numerologists and number-worshippers.  I’m kind of one of those (the latter, not the former).  I have found numbers fascinating since the first time I learned how batting averages were computed.  I must have been six or seven, and I was studying my collection of baseball cards one night when it occurred to me to try to determine if any player had gotten base hits half the time he batted.

            I looked at the back of Ted Williams’ card, figuring he would have been the most likely to have accomplished that feat, since everyone said he was the best hitter in the game (he was).  I checked his “at bat” column.  He had around 450 of those.  Then I checked his “hits” column.  He had about 170 of those.  I was pretty sure that wasn’t half.  And then I looked at his batting average, and it was something like .375, and in that moment I realized that batting average related to the question I’d been pondering.

            The next day at school some older kid (probably a third grader) scoffed at me when I shared my thoughts on Ted Williams with him.

            “Of course, he didn’t get a hit half the times he batted, dummy,” he said.  “No one can bat .500.  Nobody other than Williams can even bat .400.”

            That night I checked the back of Williams card again, and sure enough, he only had one season where he’d batted as high as .400 (.406 in 1941), and none of the other cards had anything as high as .380.

            Anyway, that’s how I learned about batting averages, and I’ve been in love with numbers ever since.

            So, in case you haven’t noticed, we are experiencing a number lover’s calendar day this week.  Friday will be November 11, 2011, or 11/11/11, which is one of those very rare dates that folks like me like to think about.  Actually, we only get three of these a century. 

            There’s 10/10/10, which we’ve already had, and there will be 12/12/12 next year.  You could also count the aughts (01/01/01, et al.) but I don’t because they are really just 1/1/01, which isn’t the same, if you’re still with me.

            Of course, if you’re really serious about this stuff, you don’t even count the three I count, because you have to use all four numbers for the year, as in 10/10/2010, which kind of messes the whole thing up, if you catch my drift.

            And so, the ultimate purists only allow these dates to have cosmic significance: October 10, 1010, November 11, 1111, and December 12, 1212.  And since the current calendar came into existence well after those dates had already come and gone, they weren’t even missed by whoever was fascinated by numbers way back then.

            But the one coming up this week, Friday, November 11, is also special because it is Veterans’ Day in America.  Of course, we have one of those every year, but this one, probably because it coincidentally falls on 11/11/11, seems to be garnering just a tad more attention.

            And since I’m a veteran (commissioned Air Force officer from 1968 to 1972), I’m paying a little more attention to it as well.

            But my take is a little different from that of the VFW legionnaires and the politicians who salute their service.  I am proud that I wore my country’s uniform for those four years, but I don’t need anyone paying respect to me for having done so.  I signed up when I began college (through my school’s Air Force ROTC program), because I thought it was the right thing to do.  At the time (1964), the country was starting to engage militarily in Viet Nam, and I thought we needed to be there.

            I wasn’t rabidly gung-ho to stop the spread of communism, but I wasn’t particularly opposed to the idea either.  I just thought young men had a duty to their country, and I wasn’t about to shirk mine.

            Of course, by the time I graduated, got my commission, and entered active service, my views on the war, which by then was claiming as many as 300 American lives a week, had changed considerably.  And when I was chosen by my peers to be the president of my wing’s junior officer council, I found myself advocating for peace talks in meetings with the likes of a three-star general.

            So let me tell you a little about military service.  It’s a job.  Really.  It’s as simple as that.  They train you to do what you need to do in a variety of circumstances, and you go out and do it.  The rest, all the glory and heroism and brotherhood and patriotism, is for historians and film-makers.

            The guys (and now gals) who wear military uniforms are just like the rest of us.  They have jobs that they sometimes love and sometimes hate.  They do things that are often tedious and only occasionally exciting. 

            Yes, they do get sent to far off places and are sometimes placed in harm’s way (more often in the last decade), but when they aren’t dodging bullets or avoiding land mines (which is most of the time), they just trudge along like the rest of us, wondering if they are ever going to live the life they’d really like to live.

            I served my country while I wore the uniform.  I like to think I’m serving it still.  Not in any grand fashion to be sure.  But we all do our part, don’t we?  Because we’re all patriots, aren’t we?