No, it’s not free … and that misses the point

Editor’s note: This piece was penned in response to an opinion column published in the Sealy News.

Let’s talk about free stuff for a minute. As in, “no one has an absolute right to free health care or higher education.”

As a communications professional who focuses on the interface of public policy and public relations, it’s apparent that the debate over how we, as a society, pay for healthcare and college has gone off the rails.

On one side are libertarians, and fiscal and social conservatives who see this talk of free services as another step to full-on socialism. On the other are progressives who see health and education as vital to a sane, civilized society. There’s a lot of stuff in between, of course, and an incredible amount of misconception on all sides but let’s keep it as simple as we can.

As the late Robert Heinlein put it, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. It’s as true today as it was in the early 1960s when he coined that phrase. Not even the most fervent dreams of a died-in-the-wool socialist can side-step that basic fact of economics.

But what the political right seems to miss in this debate is that this applies to everything society touches. Everything costs something. Nothing is free.

For instance, it takes money to build and maintain city streets and provide clean water. Professional police and fire departments are expensive efforts. Somebody pays for all of that, too. If you think your local property taxes and municipal utility bill pays the full freight for those services, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, when was the last time a police officer handed you a bill for investigating a crime on your property? Or for stopping a speeder before he drove recklessly through your neighborhood? Did the fire chief bill the owner of that house up the street that burned down last night … or the neighbors for protecting them from that fire?

No. Because police and fire protection are vital public goods. In Texas, we pay for them, in part, through our property and sales taxes. Whether or not you agree with with the way we pay for public services, it’s an economic fact that the more broadly we can spread the burden, the lower the burden is on individuals.

It seems to me that progressives are trying very hard (though not especially effectively) to redefine health care and education as public goods instead of elective activities. If those are successfully redefined, they become supported by society at large instead of as individual endeavors.

Right now, those two systems are among the most expensive in the industrial world. Health care sucks out one-sixth of our GDP — more than twice that of any other first-world country — and our citizens are burdened with $1.5 trillion in student loan debt. Yet, for all that money, we have the worst health outcomes of any other first-world country (largely because our for-profit system has the worst health care delivery system in the world) and college students begin their career with crushing debt that many will never be able to fully repay.

A tax supported health care system would see health care premiums virtually evaporate in favor of a higher tax bill. There are other reforms necessary (runaway drug costs, absolute transparency in pricing) but most studies show that individuals — and businesses — will pay far less in additional taxes for a single-payer system than we currently pay for premiums and co-pays under our bloated for-profit health care scheme.

Education would be similar. While I can’t imagine that places like Harvard or Rice would be on the list of tax-supported education providers, I can easily imagine that taxes could subsidize tuition to community colleges and trade schools.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. But, if we pool our resources, no one goes hungry, or misses out on education beyond high school, or goes bankrupt after a cancer diagnosis.

Are we gonna do this again?

Some thoughts on tinfoil hats, mowing contracts, conflicts of interest and city hall corruption

Yeah. It looks like we’re gonna do this again … and I’m probably gonna get in trouble as a result.

*Sigh*

Area social media pages blew up Saturday when one of the leading lights of Taylor’s tinfoil hat brigade penned an incendiary post then shared it around. He’s done it before and, in most cases, folks roll their eyes and mutter something about about considering the source. I do, too … I’ve tangled with this fella before and found that Shaw’s comment about wrestling with pigs in the mud to be apt, so I tend to avoid engagement.

But, here’s the thing. His blogs carry a nugget of the truth and he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. So … people believe him. And, since his constant focus is on how corrupt our local officials are, his posts appeal to a lot of people, especially those prone to believe that folks in City Hall are lining their pockets with water revenues,  insider information and taxpayer money.

As I noted, normally I’d let it go but, that post was shared a bunch and, as demonstrated in the comment sections, people believe him. His slanted take on the conflict of interest issue alone is misguided and poorly understood, at best, and feeds the false narrative that everyone at City Hall is on the take.

It makes it hard to govern credibly.

I’ll allow that a recent city council meeting got a little childish and Robert Garcia took the brunt of the negative comments. Dwayne Ariola’s not a great communicator and can be a bit ham-fisted at times … but, he means well, mostly. His greater point is worth pursuing. Here’s a link to the pertinent portion of the meeting. Decide for yourself if any of this was justified.

I reported on (reporter-speak for “investigated”) every one of the claims that blogger made. What I learned contradicted many of his firmly held beliefs — obviously, because it made him mad and he continues to repeat the same talking points he used three years ago.

I don’t know if it’s his intention to be Taylor’s own Alex Jones or if it’s that he’s so afflicted with confirmation bias he is incapable of processing new information, especially if it contradicts his preconceived world view.

In aid of clarification, I’ve posted a half-dozen links to that reporting, and included one editorial, to give you some actual, responsible, non-alternative facts. The links are at the end of this post.

Beware, those links take you to the Taylor Press’s paywall so if you don’t subscribe (and you soooo should) and you’ve already copped your three free articles this month, you’ll have to buy a one-day subscription.

Suck it up. It’s less than a buck.

Once you are there, a word search for “mowing contract” turns up a coupla dozen stories. You get about the same number of entries with a search of “conflict of interest.” Many of them are the same (oh, and this search also showed that we lead with some form of “in the weeds” waaay too many times).

I did not include a link to that aforementioned blog. You know who he is. You know how to Google.

 

 

Oh, and just for grins, here’s a column I wrote a year ago about actual City Hall corruption.

When communications fail

Those who communicate with the general public really should keep a few things in mind.

Presenters must use clear language with words that leave no room for ambiguity. They must lay out the value proposition of their ideas. They must be transparent. They must respect their audience. These are the minimum requirements but, they must be met if the presentation has any hope of success.

When that audience is known to be a bit hostile to the message, these tenants are crucial and the presenter should probably spend more time building the value proposition. Oh, and bend over backwards on that transparency part.

Tuesday’s meeting of the WilCo citizens road bond committee was supposed to be an opportunity for members of the committee to hear about proposed projects for Precinct 4. A brief question and answer period was to follow.

The meeting went off the rails long before the presenters got through all of the proposals.

There was very little in the way building a value proposition (explaining why the roads will be needed) or why the specific corridors were proposed. Until late in the meeting, the presenters failed to outline how competing projects would be chosen or even that what would be presented represented Tuesday was a “wish list” rather than a solid plan.

When a similar meeting was held last week in Cedar Park, only eight people showed up. About 100 people were at Tuesday’s meeting — most of them outwardly hostile to what they knew of the proposals.

They would be. They were mostly farmers who stand to see large chunks of their farmland sucked up by the kinds of roads (described as “transportation corridors” — please see rule number one) the coordinators envisioned. Some of these plans have been kicking around for years and these voters feel betrayed by the lack of available information and allowance for the changes they will wreak.

The development these new roads make possible will also significantly alter — perhaps even destroy — a way of life many of them have enjoyed for generations.

And to top it off, any successful bond election would see these people paying higher county property taxes for the pleasure of dealing with unwanted development.

Little wonder the proposals were often greeted with loud jeers and hoots of derision.

It was a fine example of pure frustration boiling out.

Now, in addition to helping weed through all the proposals, one purpose of a citizens committee is to serve as political cover for the elected officials. To his credit, Russ Boles, Pct. 4’s squeaky-new county commissioner, stood up and tried to re-direct the crowd’s raw anger and frustration.

His efforts weren’t entirely successful but they did deflect the meeting’s trajectory. Instead of descending into a near riot, it was merely hotly contentious.

The team responsible for that meeting were wholly unprepared for what they surely knew would be a hostile audience dubious of the central message.  Just off the top of my head, here’s a few ways they failed.

  • The committee sat with their backs to the audience. This showed disrespect.
  • Someone on the presentation team should have begun the meeting with stories about the dangers of unbridled development — those stories exist; Boles even told one about an hour into the event. This is part of the value proposition.
  • The team needed to outline the limits of county government. And of city government. And that, in Texas, the belief that no one can tell us what we can and cannot do with our private property extends to everyone — even neighbors who are ready to sell their land.
  • Someone should have mentioned that a great deal of the property in the area is already on the market; commercial and residential development is coming and designating roadways is one of the few tools available to the county to control that growth.
  • Someone on the team should have discussed the bond election process, where the go/no go points are along the way and mention that nothing presented Tuesday was etched in stone — even if some of it is.

All of that — at least — needed to be conveyed before even one project was presented. If nothing else, it would have helped set expectations.

As it was, it took a herculean effort on Boles’ part to salvage anything out of that meeting. But, sadly, the county made very little headway in getting rural voters on board with the potential road projects.

 

The pernicious power of procrastination

“So, how’s that retirement going?”

That question invariably comes up when I run into someone I haven’t seen in a while.

Tolerably well, tolerably well. That’s my usual reply.

We’ve laid the foundation for the Next Chapter (no, I’m not writing a book), have the resources necessary and a variety of prospects in the pipeline.

In the mean time, I’ve been volunteered to help out with some Chamber projects (go figure) and I sometimes run a Meals on Wheels delivery route. Oh, and the city council put me on the brand new Public Arts Advisory Board — for my sins, the members of said board made me the chair. The more I investigate that project, the more I realize it will probably be pretty intense and intensive.

Plus, unless I’m meeting someone for coffee, I rarely put on real pants until noon. Or 5 pm (that’s a particularly satisfying win). So, I’ve got that going for me.

Yeah. So far, this retirement gig is going tolerably well … except for this one thing.

The other day, whilst wandering aimlessly in HEB (and there’s a whole blog I’ll write about THAT some day), I was accosted by a good friend who asked, innocently, if he’d been deleted from the watch list for this blog.

“I haven’t seen one in a long time,” he said. “Maybe I’m not getting the notices?”

That’s when I realized the danger, the fatal flaw of retirement.

Most of my professional career was driven by deadlines. Daily and weekly reports. Ad deadlines. Copy deadlines. More reports. Press deadlines. Suddenly, all of those deadlines evaporated.

I don’t have to worry about payroll or explaining my messy P&L during the monthly Ops Call. Creative isn’t hammering me about late ads and the copy desk isn’t waiting on my column.

So, while lifting the low-grade but constant deadline pressure that comes with running a small newspaper brought an unexpected sense of relief, it also allowed one of my more annoying character traits to burble to the fore. I wasn’t prepared for it.

The lack of a hard deadline has enabled my natural proclivity for procrastination.

Andy, that’s why you haven’t received a notice about this blog. Except for the one photo-driven post, I haven’t published a column in, oh, weeks.

In my defense, much of March and early April was consumed by a pair of short term projects. I wrote a great deal, just not for this space. Then there was the wedding in Washington state. Another wedding is bearing down like an 18-wheeler run amok.

Did I mention the volunteer work?

While I can blame my publication paucity on all of that, they are not reasons, they are excuses … because well, it’s not like that there hasn’t been stuff in the news upon which to comment (are you following the antics of the Texas Legislature? There’s some bat-shit crazy stuff going on!). Or things to write about (see the HEB note above). And, while it’s true that the Next Chapter refers to our embryonic consulting business rather than a book, there’s some sort of something like that rocketing around my noggin begging for release.

No. Procrastination is not my friend. *sigh*

I guess I need to get up from this desk and put on some real pants. And, I’ll do that. Right after I finish this cup of coffee.