Pensions and Social Security

According to the Denver Post, officials for PERA (Colorado's public employee's retirement fund) are discovering conditions are worse than imagined and "face steep legal, political and financial hurdles in climbing out of the $12 billion funding hole that chaotic markets dug for the state's largest public pension plan." Because I taught abroad for five years after college, as well as five years in Illinois and a year in parochial schools, I will be unable to take full retirement from PERA until I'm sixty-two, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I have long been shocked, or at least unnerved, by public employees retiring with full benefits in their early fifties. Clearly, there are components of the system that few outside of the system understand, such as the fact that teachers and public employees don't pay into Social Security, so they will never draw it.  Additionally, many are paid below free market value.  However, none of these conditions counters the reality of the insolvency of the system.  To be perfectly honest, I find the situation to be ridiculous, and the criticism the criticism the system receives is entirely justified.

The answer to budget shortfalls has always been obvious - increase the age minimum and decrease benefits. Social Security has and should operate on the same principle - especially since the initial retirement age of 62 was set when the average American lived until 66, and health care costs were incredibly low. Social Security was never meant to fully fund a middle class retirement, certainly not for twenty-plus years. It was supposed to supplement retirement savings and simply keep seniors above the poverty line. PERA and all pensions should operate on the same principle, making people aware they should fund their own retirement with the knowledge that PERA/SS will keep them out of poverty.

A little self-reliance, backed by a reasonable safety net, is the most American of ideals, and public workers and politicians need to acknowledge that immediately for the sake of the entire system

Take My GM Stock, Please

While I hate to take the loss, I'm coming to the conclusion that GM might need to to fail. The right thing might be for me, and all of us, to watch the company go down, as it has seemed determined to do for many years now. The financial planning side of me, of course, would love to see the government continue to support, and even bailout, this company. That's the part that has been buying the stock and waiting patiently for the Chevy Volt to hit the stores and revitalize the industry in a way the Prius only dreams of doing. Alas, that's the fool in me. There are too many other variables, from pension and health care costs, to poor administration and design systems, as well as an inclination in buyers that this just isn't a good product. I've never owned anything but an American car (and that doesn't include Toyotas made in Texas or Missouri), and I've always lamented the choices by so many Americans to do the opposite. Yet, I understand.

When I learn that the average UAW worker is earning $70 an hour, compared with$40 for auto workers at other manufacturers, I truly begin to doubt it's possible to fix this problem. If the government decided to bail this company out, a complete redesign of their labor contract would have to be part of the deal. That's a shame, considering the expectations of people who might have bought a house or enrolled their kid in college expecting a higher wage. But that's the reality. It's truly too bad, considering the news of health costs for the company, that GM didn't lead the charge fifteen years ago to back the Clinton health care plan which would have alleviated much of their problems. Now, many companies are getting on board, and it might be too late for these dinosaurs of American industry. Even the UAW tried to get the company to back a national pension and health care system fifty years ago, and when the company balked (out of absurd fears of "socialism"), the workers had no choice but to push for the best deals they could get. I don't blame them for inadvertently shooting themselves in the foot.

Then again, even if the company had been smart enough to foresee its health care and pension problems, the management would have still driven the company to its knees by making Tahoes and F150s when the world wanted Camrys and Priuses. So, I'll swallow the medicine and take the loss. It's the right thing to do. How sad.

Retirement Funds and Government

Well, it appears that TRS, the teachers retirement system in Illinois, is in rough water with the recent economic downturn. That news comes on top of the revelation that TRS is only 56% funded. Of course, when I moved to Colorado, I heard from advisers out here to "leave your money in Illinois," and that made sense considering the projected payouts. Now, I might be wishing I'd taken the money and run. Of course, Colorado's PERA system is facing funding shortfalls as well. Perhaps I'd be better off if teachers paid into Social Security. Hmmm. All
these developments tend to bring criticism of the government and cries about the evils of socialism. However, I'm not complaining. It is what it is.

My thoughts on leaving my money in Illinois, rather than switching it PERA or investing it myself are simple. I made the decision to do so based on a fair amount of market research. Subsequently, the money could have been in worse shape if I'd pulled it and invested it myself (or better shape depending on my savvy). Ultimately, the money I left in Illinois is one source of my retirement, the money I put in PERA is another, and the money I invest myself is a third. There is also the small sum I will get from Social Security from non-teaching work. Thus, I feel pretty good about all my prospects precisely because I am so well-informed (and diversified), and I am not lamenting my decision to leave the money in Illinois. It was an investment decision, and like all, it had its risks and rewards.

There is a point to be made about the misuse of funds, as well as underfunding, and I'm no fan of what has happened to Illinois government under Blagoivich. However, it's truly no worse than if I'd invested it in AIG, Merril Lynch, IndyBank, Ford, WorldCom, Enron, etc. Governments aren't more likely to mis-invest the money than the private sector. Of course, once Enron folded, investors were left with no one to sue. The government funds, on the other hand, still have to answer to voters and taxpayers. When my Ford stock goes bust, or when the railroads abdicated their pension responsibilities, the free market leaves investors with nothing. Those pensions were eventually picked up by the government. And, Social Security will always be honored - Enron stock is worthless. Additionally, I should note that Social Security was never meant to be the sole retirement income for people. It has certainly gotten off track.

If I won the lottery these days, I'm inclined to take the payouts over twenty years because I know I will see the full amount. If I took a lump sum and invested it, I could lose half my value. The government (as noted by President Bush to be the only entity that can solve the mortgage problem precisely because its stability) offers consistency and a responsible party that can't walk away. Voters know where to find them.

I am fiscally conservative and a free market proponent, but I'm not naive about it. I believe the free market is the best answer to most questions, and free trade will do more than protectionism. I am heavily invested in, knowledgeable about, and supportive of free market capitalism. However, like both Adam Smith and Teddy Roosevelt, I acknowledge the pimples on the system, and accept the need to occasionally regulate what TR called its "more unsavory elements."

Tough Choices, Tough Times

New Hampshire hit the front lines in the education reform battle this week with a plan that allows the potential for high school graduation at sixteen. That's not the ability to drop out at sixteen, but graduate. Before you react, however, you may want to check out the caveats. The plan which apparently passed the legislature on October 30th allows students to take a test at sixteen, or the conclusion of sophomore year, and if they pass, they are admitted to community colleges or trade schools. Students who remain in school will take a more rigorous college-prep curriculum based on the AP or IB model, and they will subsequently take a test for admittance into a four-year university. There is much more to the plan, but I am intrigued by the premise. It bears resemblance to a school reform model that premiered earlier this year called Tough Choices, Tough Times, and it resembles the philosophy of European- and Asian-based school systems, many of which are often envied and mentioned by critics of American public schools.

Over the years, I have gone back and forth on the idea of college-prep for all, and having taught in Taiwan, I am familiar with the philosophy that not all are meant for college. It's a valid assertion, though the problem has always been determining who is and who isn't. Can one test determine that? Does that put too much pressure on thirteen and fourteen-year-olds to know who they are? Or, have the early teens been too free from responsibility for too long, as noted recently by Newt Gingrich in an interview about adolescence and college readiness. As Gingrich notes, adolescence is pretty much an invention of the twentieth century, and people like Benjamin Franklin graduated high school at thirteen; I believe he finished Harvard by sixteen. Ultimately, I have long felt that we need a little more of the rigor from Europe and Asia while maintaining the belief that all students can go to college if they want, and our system should always afford the opportunity for that.

After Tough Choices, Tough Times, some Colorado legislators mentioned they'd like Colorado to be the lab for this experiment in school models. I was hoping they might. It looks like New Hampshire will be the place to watch now.

The Joy of Learning

My son is currently working on his first research project, which could be a bit intimidating, as he is only in first grade. Yet, it is going quite well, and I just had to record some thoughts. The days of Show-and-Tell have passed at my son's school (it is a magnet school for G/T students), and we've moved into the world of Teach-and-Tell. So, rather than grab a toy or a picture and talk about it, my son is developing a seven-minute presentation on Cherry Creek State Park, which is about one minute from our house and a favorite playground for the two of us. Originally, he came home and asked to go over to the park to "look for something to talk about." As we rode our bikes through encountering, among other things, a huge glossy snake crossing the path, a hawk swooping in to take a rabbit or squirrel, a mother deer and her fawn, and several birds we'd never seen before from the watcher's perch, we concluded that the entire park should become his subject. He decided to share his personal playground with his classmates.

Because the project is in a couple weeks and we are home on fall break, I thought it would be a good time to begin. As my son sat on the couch looking through his Insects of North America book, and I started a few housecleaning projects, I suggested he begin looking through some of the books we checked out of the library, as he needs three sources for the presentation. Initially, he was a little frustrated, claiming he didn't know what to say or what to write. So, I asked him to just look at the books and if he saw anything interesting he'd like to tell his friends, he could write it down. By the time I got a load of laundry in, his sister bathed, and the floor mopped, he was engaged, calling out different facts as he wrote them down. We've now started "post-it noting" the books and making lists of favorite facts and activities. These are research skills that I teach my juniors in high school, and I can introduce the skills with no problem to a six-year-old who is having fun making a list of "neat things" about the park.

This has been quite fascinating, as I help my son become engaged in the formality of research, he remains focused on the joy of discovery. There is much to learn from this, and that is what my job as both a teacher and a parent is all about.

Progressive Conservative

In one of my posts about pragmatic, effective government, I referred to myself as a "fiscal conservative," and a reader posted a criticism implying that I couldn't possibly understand what conservatism means if I talked about "effective use of government." Yet, this week one of my favorite conservative op-ed columnists David Brooks argued exactly the same position as he pointed out the sadness of a lost campaign by John McCain. I couldn't agree more with Brooks' notion of "Burkean conservatism," a description I have used numerous times recently in discussions with conservatives on blogs. Burke insightfully noted, "the revenue of the state is the state," clearly accepting that government has certain responsibilities which must be funded effectively. A conservatism in the vein of Hamilton or Lincoln or TR is precisely what has made the United States the great nation it is. Obviously, Ronald Reagan was a man of conservative principles, but he also oversaw one of the government's largest expansions, and he raised taxes numerous times when it was the rational approach.

However, John McCain's rigid adherence to a conservatism that was failing to meet the needs of electorate has, instead, driven the moderate, unaffiliated voters to a man whose philosophy and voting record appears to be truly liberal. I will note, however, that I believe Obama to be a far more pragmatic politician than a "government-agenda-driven liberal." There is much in his demeanor and his record that implies he will govern in the Reagan mode of negotiating
and conceding the opposing view while making decisions he truly believes to be in the best interest of all Americans. One of these will be a health care system that is overseen, but not administered, by the government. Another is a economic policy driven by Volcker- and Rubin-esque practicality, not simple ideology.

As an unaffiliated voter who regularly splits his votes between the two parties, I'm firmly in support of Brooks' "progressive conservatism," and I truly hope it becomes the New Deal of the 21st century. When asked about my philosophy, I often note I am fiscally conservative but socially conscious. Ultimately, I simply feel I am pragmatic, and I hope the next Congress and the next President are as well.

Obama and McCain

Well, the way I see the situation (and sadness of it) is this:

A few months ago, I had an email conversation with a conservative columnist from the Claremont Institute. I argued that regardless of who is elected, the country will be OK. As I asserted that Obama isn’t going to ruin the country, and he’s not a terrible or risky choice, I also explained how I often disagreed with Democrats who claimed Bush, both in 2000 and 2004, was going to be a disaster. While I have many disagreements with policies of the past eight years, and I think the country is in worse shape, I refused to buy into the “Bush is a simple-minded fascist who will destroy America” rant. The same should be said for Obama.

Surprisingly, he agreed with me. He noted, quite honestly, that while he thought Obama was too young and had the wrong ideas about taxes and health care, he agreed Obama was a good person who had great potential as a leader, and that, yes, the country would be fine. Sadly, he recently published a rather snide column about how Obama is a “dangerous choice” who will be a “disaster” for the country. Clearly, he thinks it’s his job to be disingenuous, but I think his public pronunciations are indicative of much that is wrong with the political process.

When it comes down to it, both John McCain and Barack Obama are great men who will serve proudly and honorably as President of the United States. To believe anything less is a sad commentary on America. Had John McCain been the nominee in 2000 or 2004, I would have voted for him. At this point, however, I think he’s wrong on taxes, spending (or not spending), debt and deficit reduction, Iran, and, most especially, health care. I also disagree with the campaign he’s run, though that alone wouldn’t cost him my vote.

In terms of Obama, issues of character and experience are certainly important. I completely agree that the Wright and Ayers stories should have been raised, as they were. Most Americans now acknowledge them, and a majority is considering them, but most are likely dismissing them as inconsequential. That’s fine, and America is not weaker because of this. Sadly, however, charges of “terrorist,” anti-American, Muslim, Arab, black nationalist, socialist/Marxist, continue to surface, and I think that represents the ugly side of America. Many voters have been reduced to the lowest common denominator by this side of the campaign.

McCain and Obama have clear distinctions on domestic, economic, and foreign policy. Those issues should be analyzed in depth. However, neither of these men is “dangerous” for America. Both are fine Americans with many years of service to this country, though to two different ideologies. Both are patriotic men who love their country, and both will serve with always the country’s best interest at heart. McCain and Obama are good men. The country will be fine.

Game Night

"Mr. Mazenko, do you have game night at your house?"

That question has been asked numerous times over the years in my classroom, and the answer is always the same. "Game night? Every night is game night at my house." In the past three nights, my family - my wife, my three-year-old daughter, my six-year-old son, and me - has played Uno, Zingo, and Monopoly Jr. after dinner and before bed. We always play after dinner - all summer long, if it's nice, the neighborhood kids are out on the driveway playing ball tag, kickball, four square, hide-and-seek, wall ball, or other games. When it's rainy or cold, which is coming with winter, our kids are inside playing board games, or hide-and-seek, or any variation of indoor ball games. Thus, the concept of "game night" is rather odd, and it's sad but indicative of contemporary culture that we think that way. Even as I write this, my kids and three neighbors (ages 8, 10, and 12) are in our house on a rainy day playing Monopoly, Jr. (If I can I'm joining the next game, which I'm hoping is Trouble).

Whenever my students ask me about game night, I posit that the world would be a far better place if they asked the question, "Mr. Mazenko, do you have "TV night" at your house?" What if TV weren't the norm, but something families did occasionally on the few nights they weren't playing together? Granted, it's easy for me now, with such young children, to spend a lot of time playing. We don't have many extracurricular activities and homework, and my kids are in bed by 8:00 every night. However, it's not just easy; it's so important to developing skills and relationships and cognitive functions. My son learned his numbers very early - and we spent a lot of time playing the game sorry. My children's verbal skills are often complimented by friends, teachers, and complete strangers - and we spend a lot of time talking to our kids.

Game playing and interpersonal relationship development are integral to raising healthy, confident, productive kids. Perhaps, someday it will be the norm in contemporary families.

O'Reilly Goes Ballistic

In case you haven't seen it, on Jay Greene's blog, I watched six minutes off Bill O'Reilly going completely crazy while interviewing Barney Frank. As disturbing as it was, I’m glad I watched the painful six minutes of this clip because it is indicative of much that is wrong with American culture in terms of political discourse. Years ago, I ran across the Bill O’Reilly show and was amused for a while, and I thought, “Hey, this is interesting. This guy is like Morton Downey, Jr., but with a brain.” Sadly, I overestimated the “brain” part.

Certainly, Barney Frank and the Democrats need to answer for the status of FNM/FRE, but this display was, quite simply, a disgusting display of ranting “info-tainment.” Nothing good can come from people tuning in to this show seeking information. I can’t imagine why anyone, including Bill O’Reilly, thinks this is productive. Sadly, 10-14 million people get their news from shows like this each week.

Years ago, in his work “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Neil Postman noted that all the information contained in an hour-long television news show could be found on one page of a newspaper. That is a disturbing statistic, especially when the amount is probably lessened by a “Factor” of ten when Bill O’Reilly is screaming “that’s Bull!”

Being an educator, I weep for the days before this kind of drivel, and I hold out hope that someday shows like this will again become the realm of only cheap, late-night, local cable access like Morton Downey, Jr.

The Shrek Factor

“Mr. Mazenko, has your son seen …” That question, followed by the title of the latest offering from Disney, Pixar, or Dreamworks, has opened up endless discussion in my classes about choices parents make in raising their children.

My students, as well as colleagues and other parents, are often shocked to know that my four-year-old son has never seen any of the movies they mention. It gets worse when people learn my son has never seen any movies. Inevitably, my answer comes, creating groans as countless hands shoot in the air to offer a comment. “No,” I say, “my son hasn’t seen Shrek. He’s only four years old.”

Though it may seem snide, I tend to qualify my answer by giving my son’s age, implying to my audience that it’s obvious why he hasn’t seen it. He’s too young. However, knowing my belief is not the norm, I’m certain this will extend the conversation, rather than bring it to a conclusion. I’m under no illusion that my audience will hear my son’s age and think, “Oh, of course he hasn’t seen it. Shrek isn’t appropriate for young children.” Instead, I know they believe that the movie is entirely acceptable for him.

They often know, or at least anticipate my objections, but they have an answer. The movie, they believe, offers the best of both worlds. It’s a movie that has qualities both young children and adults will enjoy. “But he won’t even get the adult humor,” they tell me. “It goes right over kids’ heads.” Here is where we part ways in the discussion. They believe this blend of adult material into children’s films doesn’t matter. I fundamentally disagree.

I think the essence of the argument comes down to a common belief that what we don’t know won’t hurt us. If my son doesn’t understand the sexual innuendoes uttered by the donkey in Shrek or the genie in Alladin, then it shouldn’t matter that he hears them. As a parent, however, I don’t want to make decisions that way. For me, it’s not about whether or not it will hurt my children. It’s about whether it will help them. Parenting decisions should be made on what is best for the child. Will he suffer psychological scarring if he sees the movie? Maybe not. Probably not. But neither will he suffer if he doesn’t see it. His life will not be lessened for lack of a movie. “But it’s so funny,” they say. “You’re depriving your son of one the great joys in life. Movies like Shrek and Aladdin and The Lion King are part of childhood.” That perspective saddens me.

Childhood is not about any one movie or story or toy or food or activity. Childhood is not about commodities at all. I truly believe my son will benefit more and will deprive more pleasure from digging for worms and chasing butterflies and riding his bike. I will see more joy on his face when he is tickling and being tickled by his younger sister than I will when he is staring at a movie or TV screen and giggling every once in a while.

In books such as The Disappearance of Childhood and Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, social critic Neil Postman explains that childhood is really an invention of the contemporary world. Prior to that time, children were predominantly dressed the same, viewed the same, and treated the same as adults. It wasn’t until people like Rousseau in his seminal work Emille that society began to look at the different cognitive and emotional development of children. Children should have different thoughts than adults. They should use different language, they should wear different clothes, and, in terms of Shrek, they should have different forms of entertainment.

According to Postman, the fundamental difference between childhood and adulthood is access to information. Adults quite simply know things that children don’t. There are adult words and adult conversations. There are adult situations and adult activities. If you think about it, in all coming-of-age literature, the loss of innocence comes when the children become aware of the adult world. The original loss of innocence came when man ate from the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve discovered shame. They were no longer innocent because they had gained more information.

If information is different for adults and children, then it’s not a stretch for entertainment to be different as well. I can watch a half-hour of Clifford with my son and not be bored simply because there is no adult humor. Media corporations, however, have figured out that they can double their revenues by creating animated films that will draw audiences both young and old. Thus, based on the idea of access to information, if we develop entertainment, such as Shrek, which is marketed to kids and adults, we have effectively eliminated childhood.

Interestingly, contemporary television, notably sitcoms, adds to this societal dilemma by blurring the lines between children’s and adult’s roles. Watching shows such as According to Jim and Two and a Half Men, I am struck by the fact that the adult and child characters are predominantly the same. They use the same language. There is no discernable difference between the words and patterns they use, nor the topics they discuss. Contemporary fashion is important, too, as both the adults and children wear the same styles of clothing. At times, the kids are portrayed as more mature than their parents. Obviously, it is the irony and sarcasm of these situations that makes them humorous. I will concede that that is precisely the writers’ point. But a line is blurred if this becomes entertainment for all ages. When a five-year-old tells me that American Idol is her favorite show, I cringe, knowing the harshness of Simon’s language is inappropriate for her once-innocent ears.

People say you can’t shelter your children from the harsh realities of the world forever, and I most certainly agree. As an educator who teaches countless examples of coming-of-age literature, I couldn’t agree more. Teaching high school, it is my job to be with children as they grow into adults. I can’t protect my son forever, but I can certainly shelter him at the age of four. That is a far cry from shielding him from the teachings of Darwin when he is in high school. Though many critics of my choices make that comparison.

“No,” I tell them. “My son hasn’t seen Shrek.” This always shocks and disappoints them. Imagine what they’ll think when they learn he doesn’t eat candy.

A Crisis in Boys' Education?

Is there a crisis in the academic achievement of boys? Are boys in trouble? Does gender matter? There has been much written of this in the past few years, and Newsweek adds to the discussion this week with an article entitled "Struggling School-Age Boys." I have no clear answer to my first two questions, but the third is undoubtedly "yes." Each year I begin my freshman English classes with a study of The Lord of the Flies, and the class discusses the issue of gender. Because the book begins with the line, "The boy with the fair hair lowered himself down ..." I ask my students to ponder why it's about boys. William Golding once opined that when you get right down to it, the fourteen-year-old boy is the closest manifestation of true evil you'll find anywhere in the world. This always draws smiles from the girls, shrugs from the boys. However, it's a serious question. We discuss the reality that girls sometimes outnumber boys 3 to 1 in honors classes, whereas boys outnumber girls 10 to 1 in disciplinary referrals and suspensions. Clearly, there is a problem, and clearly gender matters.

Dr. Leonard Sax has written extensively about this issue in the book Why Gender Matters, and it is a book that I recommend each year to teachers and parents. Interestingly, Sax notes such issues as the research that shows boys don't hear as well as girls. Now, consider that reality when 90% of kindergarten and primary teachers are female with soft voices. Is it that Johnny is being bad in the back of the class, or does he just not hear what is going on? Could this influence disciplinary situations? Could this be a rationale behind the skyrocketing diagnoses of ADD/ADHD in children, predominantly boys, as young as three? What about the research on psycho-motor skills development that puts girls as much as 14 months out in front? Should we consider this when we put pencils in the hands of kindergarteners and expect them to write? How does Johnny feel when Suzie's penmanship is praised, but he's asked to try a little harder.

These are all issues that society needs to spend much more time discussing.

Immigrants and English

As if they read my blog last night, the Denver Post published a story today entitled "Americanizing New Arrivals," which addressed the issue of English acquisition among immigrants. According to the story, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Citizenship (so much for Republicans reducing bureaucracy) will offer new programs designed to help immigrants assimilate. No word on whether they'll be checking papers at the door, but the implication is that various offices will be opened and businesses enlisted to aid in the study of English and tutoring for the citizenship test. In all honesty, this seems like a great idea, though I am wondering how it will play among the English-only/deport-the-illegals wing of the Republicans. The plan is certainly a practical approach, though its impetus smacks of naivete in terms of immigrants and the history of assimilation in this country.

The story begins by noting "Foreign-language signs touting Spanish-language preschool, Vietnamese groceries, Ethiopian church services, Korean car repair and Russian money-exchange hint at Denver's fast-growing immigrant cocoons that nurture ties to the old country." Clearly, there are many people in the country who are quite unnerved that immigrants don't immediately abandon their native culture, not to mention the language (because acquiring a new language is just so easy, especially for populations not necessarily well-educated in their first language). However, there have always been Little Italys, Greektowns, Chinatowns, etc. In my small hometown of Alton, Illinois, I grew up with three Catholic churches within blocks of each other - each had historically different ethnicities. I've also heard of many people whose great-grandparents never really picked up English, though their grandparents and parents were fluent English speakers.

That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be. Critics tend to be naive about the history of the United States, and that ignorance often leads people to be afraid of the wrong things.