Volunteerism as a Substitute for Government

Over the past 25 years, the Federal government has been systematically pushing service provision to the state level, funding less and less of the services we demand.  The states, in turn, have increasingly pushed the responsibility of government provision to the local level.  Basic services are funded increasingly by local revenues alone.

Conversely, residents in many states, including Texas, have pushed hard against tax increases.  Most recently the Texas Legislature cut school property taxes by one-third in response to growing pressure from constituents across the state complaining about their tax bills.

These opposing realities are putting the squeeze on local government resources.  While arguably creating a leaner, more efficient government entity, the fact is that services demanded are quickly outpacing revenues.  Local governments have a responsibility to provide the most basic necessities for commerce and social welfare.  Roads.  Bridges.  Drainage and flood control.  Public schools.  Public safety and fire fighters.  But more and more, local governments are being asked to provide other services such as affordable housing, and purchase open space for preservation.  They are expected to provide indigent care and shelter for the abjectly poor.  In essence, the people expect the government to provide all sorts of services, but are unwilling to pay for them.  There has to be another solution.

There are armies of people who would gladly volunteer a small portion of their time for the comforts they actively enjoy.  For example, consider if the City of Austin decided to redirect resources to fully fund road maintenance (instead of pushing off the maintenance for future taxpayers to pay 4-10 times the cost to reconstruct the failing road system), and stopped maintaining the beautiful park system along Lady Bird Lake known as the Hike and Bike Trail.  Legions of faithful users of the trail would gladly sign up to maintain it themselves rather than watch it dwindle in disarray.  With only 120 faithful volunteers, each willing to donate 3 days per year, the trail could have maintenance every day of the year. 

There are other examples of services people would gladly volunteer to deliver if possible.  We have doctors and nurses that take two weeks away from their practices to fly around the world and practice medicine, why couldn’t they volunteer one afternoon a month to serve for free in local clinics?  We have retired government social workers with great pensions and plenty of time on their hands; why couldn’t they volunteer a day a month to help the poor register for available services?  And with the growing retired population of baby boomers, why can’t more volunteers help keep public libraries open?

With all these services provided by volunteer labor, the local government would spend less on personnel and be able to dedicate more of their resources to the actual provision of services.  In essence, they could make each dollar go further.  It is just an idea, but one I think has some value.  There was a time when we as a people relied less on Government and more on each other.  Because, in the end, the American system imagines that the people are the government.  Maybe we should start taking responsibility for each other.  Just a thought.

The Evolution of US Cities

Wow, time flies.  I apologize for going so long without posting.  Now to the topic at hand.

In the past 50 or 60 years urban expansion (sprawl) in the United States has been unprecedented.  Writers attribute this growth to the convergence of a rising population, increasing incomes, and falling commuting costs.  Because of the impressive highway system and corridor development in the US, the more affluent continue to move further out of the city centers and the poor remain in the older housing stock contained within.  Many Americans view this urban sprawl as a bad thing that contributes to alienation, air pollution, obesity, segregation, the concentration of poverty, and any number of other negative aspects of American life.  I personally tend to agree that this pattern of growth is unhealthy for the system, primarily based on the notion that extending infrastructure costs more than the revenues it can generate for local governments, straining their ability to provide necessary and demanded services.  But I think this pattern of growth is changing, and we are in the midst of an evolutionary shift that will bring about its own unique problems.

European cities, in contrast to American cities, principally concentrate affluence and wealth in the city centers and have poor suburbs.  This may be because of the relative age of European cities compared to the US, among any number of other aesthetic reasons.  I believe that many US cities are moving the same direction, however.  The filtering theory of urban systems posits that rings of housing development around the urban core “filter” from higher socio-economic populations down as the housing stock grows old and deteriorates.  I believe that this latest wave of housing growth will leave us with vast neighborhoods of mediocre housing stock that will run down in 10 to 20 years, leaving whole suburban developments undesirable to the affluent home buyers and becoming available to lower socio-economic cohorts.  These wealthier purchasers are going to be looking for well-built (or rebuilt) homes - and the solid neighborhoods built in earlier periods closer in to the city centers are going to become more attractive.  This is already happening in Austin.

In addition, as a good friend pointed out to me recently, with gas prices continuing to rise we will no longer be thinking about the miles-per-gallon we get with our automobiles, but instead about the dollars-per-trip we make.  For example, it costs me nearly $2 a day to drive to school.  As that commuting cost increases (not to mention congestion), the trade-off for the house in the suburbs with the big yard and white picket fence is going to becoming increasingly unattractive.  This will also drive the more affluent families further into town, displacing the poor and pushing them out.

Finally, the new urban living trend of small condos downtown will also drive some of this evolution.  And this trend is not only occurring in the “hip” young cities.  In towns as different as Spokane, Washington, Waco, Texas, and New Orleans, Louisiana, buildings are being converted into lofts faster than the for sale signs can be printed.  I can’t go anywhere without seeing advertisements for this rebirth living in walkable communities close to both work and play.  I am a big fan of this movement, but believe it will carry with it social costs that few are considering when they move in to their new condos.

What does all this add up to?  I think we are in the midst of a vast shift in the urban nature of America.  Mimicking many European cities, our urban centers are becoming the centers of wealth and affluence and the poor are being scattered and pushed outward.  With this shift comes both positive and negative externalities that need to be considered (perhaps in a follow-up blog post), but we need to start thinking about this paradigm shift right now if we are to both capitalize on and accommodate this change.

Presidential Passion: But is it Real?

I don’t know what it was like on college campuses in the 1960s, but I do know what it has been like in the 90s and since.  In my limited experience, students on campus have cared about as much about presidential politics as the trade embargo against Cuba.  Sure, the extreme partisans of either side start small skirmishes in the fall once every four years, and maybe there will be a sparsely attended rally or two, but nothing like the mania that has hit the UT campus this spring.  I would like to think we are entering a time similar to the marches of the sixties that our parents may have encountered.

Earlier this week we had a heated debate about whether students should be able to express themselves freely and post campaign material in our hallways regardless of the University’s policy forbidding it.  Walking across campus today I was accosted by a Ron Paul advocate, standing alone with giant signs and chanting loudly about the savior-like attributes of the doctor from east Texas.  My class this evening was interrupted by hundreds, maybe thousands or students marching by with Obama signs and calling for change.  There is an electricity that seems to be emanating from this campus that is infecting this politically charged city in ways that are almost scary.  The tension mounts as the March 4th primary approaches.

This new-found passion may be derived from the personalities involved, particularly on the Democratic side of the ticket.  There are people convinced Senator Obama is the answer to all that is wrong with this country, and others that believe Senator Clinton is the personification of evil.  Of course there are Clinton fans that vehemently defend her credentials and abilities and believe Obama is nothing but a snake oil salesman with pretty ideas and no substance.  Both groups are convinced that the victor of this Texas and Ohio primary are destined for the White House, as the Republicans have made such a mess of things thus far.  Energy, excitement, feeling part of something bigger than themselves - yep, this is a lot like how the sixties sounded.

But the sixties were really a response to a social order that was outmoded, outdated, and needed fresh eyes.  America was becoming an urban nation with ever-increasing minority populations and powerful lead characters who were courageous enough to describe the changes ahead.  Are we, now, in similar times?  Or is this just a facsimile of a time when passion fed our spirits for real concerns - but like the faded copy of a copy this time our passion feeds on the excitement of the passion itself?  I hope not.

I hope that this is a sign of the social upheaval this country needs to experience.  There are too many problems that have gone unanswered for too long, and if we don’t start making hard decisions and expecting hard accountability of our government, then more serious rioting in the streets may be in store.  Let us hope that the “Fad” of political passion turns into something that actually makes a difference.  “Yes We Can” start addressing our problems, but it starts with doing and not just talking about it.

Top 5 Reasons the Country is Falling Apart

I don’t know about you, but sometimes (especially on cold, rainy days) I get the distinct feeling that this country is crumbling around us.  I know it is an inevitability that all empires come to an end eventually, but personally, I would rather not have to live through it (or make my children do so).  People say that every generation has their doomsayers and things will be fine, but I would like to give my list of the top five factors that I think contribute to the approaching demise of our great country.   

5. Apathetic voting participation - Sure, there are experts that say it is fine to have only 20 to 30 percent of Americans voting in local elections; this is just an indication that most people are happy with the way things are going.  However, with such small minorities making such important decisions it is easier for interest groups to have their way to the detriment of the public good.  This is a public bad.  And I know people are “just too busy” to educate themselves on the issues and vote, but they don’t seem too busy to discuss at work or vote for the next American Idol…

4. “Politics as Usual” - Our political system is broken, most people would acknowledge that the power is no longer in the hands of the people but instead held by powerful interest groups and lobbyists.  Too many politicians are bought and paid for, and too few people vote in elections to get an independent, populist candidate elected.  This may change someday, however.  One positive in my mind is the traction Ron Paul is getting across the political spectrum.  Perhaps it is not yet time for a candidate that doesn’t do the typical money dance to win, but his success may be a harbinger of change to come. 

3. The Media - Of course at least half the reason “politics as usual” continues to reign despite its ineffectiveness is the way the media play their games.  And for those of you who insist the media is unbiased, take a closer look.  One simple example, the American-Statesman ran an article on the front page of their metro section a few weeks ago about a new coalition of progressive, environmental, anti-development groups to put pressure on City Hall.  This is fine, something that should certainly be covered, but the headline for the continuation of the article inside the section read “JOIN: Interest Group to Fight for Change at City Hall”.  Nowhere in the article was there a discussion of joining the effort, only a description of the group’s interests.  There were any number of other “connection” words the headline writer could have chosen, but “JOIN” neither made any sense nor seemed unbiased in the least.  What is wrong with our media today?  Do they not realize they are driving us into the ground?

2. Public education system - On either side of the argument over our public schools you find the wrong problems being addressed.  Some people insist that if we paid teachers better, and threw more money at schools, we could have the high-achieving marks we desire.  Others say we spend too much money on schools already and no studies link improvement with dollars spent.  But everyone is missing the point - kids just don’t want to learn anymore.  No “pie in the sky” talk about someday, if you work hard enough and study, you too can be a middle manager of some company earning enough to pay the interest on your bills but never get ahead will get these kids to pick up a book.  As long as it isn’t “cool” to do well in school, and peer pressure is so ridiculously powerful that kids feel like walking around shooting their classmates, then we aren’t going to have high-achieving classes.  I don’t care how much we pay our teachers, unless Snoop Dog or Jay-Z tells kids to quit being stupid and start studying, very little is going to get better.

1. Low interest rates -  Sure, the Fed lowering interest rates is good for the economy because it encourages businesses to invest and create jobs and whatnot.  That’s good.  But low interest rates also encourages consumers to spend, and borrow, and spend what they borrow.  Using low interest rates to avoid a recession is really only borrowing against time; all that debt people rack up, even low interest debt, comes due someday.  Meanwhile someone (he or she that has money) gets richer and those that borrow diminish their net worth.  Also, this cheap borrowing power encourages consumerism as religion, and it is really no surprise that we as a population are so deep in debt.  Go to the mall on a Sunday - people look like they are in their church worshipping what truly makes them happiest - the almighty cash register.  But this purchase of things cannot and will not ever completely fill that void inside these people, so they are compelled to continue to want, and spend, and bury themselves deeper into debt.  So many lost souls to this dangerous trap, and it is ruining our country, rotting it from the inside out.

Well, this has been a fun-filled time, hasn’t it?  Tune in next time when we discuss the best ways to end it all, or perhaps the worst moments of my life, something as uplifting as this topic.  But in all seriousness, if we don’t think about these problems and consider ways to address them, then we are complicit in the destruction of our country.  And I love this place too much to let that happen without a fight.  Join me, lets start doing something about this right now.  Let me know if you have any thoughts, I am always open to criticism (and praise!).  Until next time…

The Irony of Peacekeepers

Ah, the irony of peacekeepers - why do we send troops with guns to keep the peace?  Of course I understand the logistics; when entering a hostile environment where people want to kill you and/or the people you are trying to protect it only makes sense to be armed with retaliatory force should it be necessary.  However, what if, under certain circumstances, a true “peacekeeping” force, without weapons and with the intention of creating peace and not just safety, were unleashed on a hostile environment? 

There are people in this world, plenty of them, that see our presence in Iraq as an occupation, not as an effort to spread democracy and peace to an oppressed region.  Our military driving through the streets in armored humvees with automatic rifles does not help this image at all.  In fact, those who believe us to be the oppressors see these images and nod along with the insurgents that fire at our troops.  They say to themselves, “If an army occupied my country, my city, I would fight them off as best I could.”  This PR war cannot be won with artillery; we cannot convince the world that we are peace keepers when we carry weapons on a foreign land.

There seems to be two resolutions to this problem through conventional tactics.  Either we destroy the insurgency or beat the people into submission (or bribe them into submission), or we pack up and leave.  To beat down everyone that resists our presence would require incredible resources and time, if it is possible at all.  To pull out and leave would be a demoralizing defeat for our country and most likely leave the region in a more powerful and threatening position than it was to begin with.  There must be another solution.

What if, instead of meeting the insurgent resistence with power, we met it with compassion and tolerance?  Don’t get me wrong, I believe our troops serving in Iraq are working as compassionately as they can under their present orders, and I admire them for their efforts to help those in need regardless of the bullets being fired in their direction.  I can’t imagine the courage and compassion it must take for our troops to work every day for the betterment of a country and a people that sometimes don’t seem to want their help.  However, as long as the media focuses on the guns, and ignores for the most part the humanitarian aid, the war is lost.  So what if we bend and expose ourselves to the insurgency, we allow ourselves to be the vulnerable bringers of aid and comfort, we make ourselves the victims at the hands of the savage insurgents?  Then the paradigm is shifted, and the world will become our ally in our efforts to help Iraq.

This is my proposal: we train and prepare 20,000 or more people, volunteers for the US Army of Peace, in the languages and the skills necessary to help redevelop ravaged areas and mend ethnic conflicts in Iraq.  Of all the anti-war people in the US there has to be at least 20,000 of them willing to enlist in a military program that trains them to rebuild instead of destroy.  It can be similar to a Peace Corp, only trained with the specific skills necessary to address Iraqi tensions and reconstruction issues.  These fighters will not carry weapons, though they should probably be equipped with armor and all the tools they will need for their particular objective.  But in addition, they will all be outfitted with cameras linked directly to the internet, broadcast in real time to a website available to the entire planet, unedited. 

Can you imagine the outcomes now?  Either these ambassadors of peace, unarmed peaceniks with nothing but promised aid on their agendas, will be unleashed on a populace that truly needs all the help they can get, and this will communicate more than soldiers that we truly mean to help.  Or these brave and valiant souls will become martyrs for the cause and the insurgents will suffer horrible PR consequences.  These unarmed men and women, working to resolve conflicts and rebuild schools, being fired upon by insurgents, will not sit well with anyone in the world, and retribution will be swift and from everywhere.  The media could not avoid covering such immediate news, it would be available to everyone and undeniable.  Of course if any bloodshed occurred it would be tragic, but it would not take many instances for world opinion to sway and snuff out the killers.  Either way, the end result would be true peace keeping; insurgents would find they have no one to fight and the US would be able to bring the aid promised to a ravaged country that needs our help.  The game would shift, and we could not lose.  Its just a thought - Peace Bringing instead of Insisting on Peace at Gunpoint.

Choosing Our Next President

One reason modern presidents seem to fail is that they are expected to do too much.  Presidential powers are extremely limited, particularly on the domestic front.  According to my government textbook America’s New Democracy, over 80% of the time presidents either fail to secure passage of their major legislative agendas or must make important compromises to win congressional approval.  “If a president seems less capable in domestic policy, it is not due to disregard for public desires, but rather the limits imposed primarily by legislators closely tied to diverse voter preferences.”  We as a voting public tend to give the president too much credit - positive or negative.  The simple fact is that he or she has limited means to affect change.

However, when considering for whom you plan to vote this coming primary and general election season, consider the things of which our next president will have some control.  First, there are foreign affairs; I don’t mean just the war in Iraq, which is of course part of it, but also, the way the US is represented and understood by the rest of the world.  How will our relations with China, India and Russia evolve, as these economies continue to outpace ours?  What will Iran and other potential and current nuclear powers do in relation to the West?  Will the US use its military might to secure primary resources and attempt to democratize the world, or extend itself for more humanitarian efforts with no hope of return on investment?  These questions will be answered by the next president, more or less independent of Congress. 

In addition, the president holds great power in the appointment of judges.  Of course the Senate generally has the final say, but nominations come from the White House.  Our next president will likely appoint not only another Supreme Court Justice, but lower federal court judges with nearly as much power.  The interpretation of the Constitution is a critical tipping point of our society, and therefore the people with that charge are of critical importance.  Consider well who we might want in those positions of power, and remember the president will be very influential in this arena.

The jury is still out in the Thronson household, but I think beginning with the right questions can ultimately lead to better answers.  Don’t base your vote on a “gut connection,” as Matthew Dowd describes our last two elections in Applebee America.  Consider well the limited powers of the president, and who you might want to represent you in the world as well as in the future of law interpretation.

Kick the Flamers Out

Many people claim that increased use of the internet has contributed to heightened partisanship in national politics. The theory goes that an online visitor can seek out voices that agree with her own opinion, and quickly find herself in an “echo chamber” where her point of view is only reinforced and hardened into an extreme version of itself. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. And not only that, but the absurdity of these extreme chambers of thought successfully drive away any centrist, moderate, or compromising individuals, leaving only the insanity to escalate unchecked. But can it be that bad?

I know of bloggers that embrace other points of view, and will even recognize and acknowledge the validity of an opposing argument. Sure, if there are places to go online that turn into “echo chambers” of like thought there are places to go that open debate is allowed. But unfortunately what tends to happen is that these open forums are invaded by people with obstinate opinions, and attacks shift from the issues to the personalities, and that open forum is burned down by the “flamers” that can’t carry a reasonable conversation. Once the flamers take over, they drive rational individuals out, and the forum has been lost.

A perfect example of this on a micro level is our neighborhood association listserve. Through a controversial issue (Walmart moving nearby) passions have been whipped up, bizarre and inappropriate actions have been taken by both sides of the issue, and the listserve has deteriorated to nothing but a name-calling playground. It has driven away the reasonable voices for fear of retaliation, and we are now at a stalemate.

We as a wired world cannot let this happen. We cannot relinquish the greatest communication tool ever invented to the hotheads and tantrum-throwers and walk away. There are ways to keep this from happening, if we rational, reasonable souls can unite. One example of a moderated solution is to have a forum with peer reviewers - where before I can post two random members of the group review my thoughts and filter them for inappropriate content and then give the ok. It may require a little more work, but isn’t civility worth it?

I bring this to everyone’s attention only because I care. I want a reasonable, compromising voice to help us make the world a better place, not just a place that either agrees with more or is the enemy. Why can’t we all just get along? Help me with this.

Who is this Ron Paul guy and why is he so popular in Austin?

So Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman, is running for president.  This isn’t news, he’s been doing it for months.  What is interesting is how popular he has become, particularly in the liberal bastion that is the People’s Republic of Austin.  Why does there seem to be more bumper stickers in our great city for this Republican with an odd libertarian slant than the Democratic frontrunners?

Ron Paul is a man who has made a political career as the anti-”politics as usual” politician.  A gentle-looking old man with a goofy smile, Paul is not afraid of anyone and will speak his mind right in the face of popular opinion if he thinks the popular opinion is wrong.  He doesn’t use candidate-speak to answer tough questions, he answers you like your grandfather would at Thanksgiving dinner, “yes sonny boy, I did sleep with that hooker in Korea while I was over there fighting for this country.  So what?”  He doesn’t confom his beliefs and platform to the latest polling numbers which show that voters really want someone that can cook a mean turkey.  He says what he really thinks and has been doing so for decades, so we know his genuine nature is not a front for the campaign.  And this is what attracts people to him in rabid droves, it seems.

People are growing increasingly tired of politics as usual, and here in Austin we get a larger share than most with the circus that comes to town every biennium and meets in the pink palace.  I think that is why Ron Paul is growing in popularity here, and I think that popularity is very good news for the system.  Whether or not you agree with Paul’s agenda, you have to like his tenacity and ability to tell Washington to shove it.  He won’t win the nomination, and he claims he will not run as a third-party candidate, so he is pretty harmless overall, but his rebelliousness and the support it has won is a harbinger for things to come.  Maybe not this cycle, and maybe not on the level of presidential politics yet, but soon the people are going to join Paul in telling off the career politicians and we will have a revolution at the polls at which candidates that are more interested in solving problems than getting reelected will win.  When that happens we will hopefully turn around this crazy ship and start addressing real issues.  This is very good news for all of us.