$4.8 Billion Budget Deficit for the State of Minnesota.
$700 billion bank bailout that may now cost $4 Trillion!
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/bigger.bailout.fortune/
Proposed $825 billion economic Stimulus Package.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_economy
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to get a little worried. Can we actually print that much money?
Right now, most policy makers are pouring through the 258 page Federal economic stimulus bill to identify the line-item that applies to them. President Obama is driving his ice-cream truck around Capital Hill looking to pass a MASSIVE bill that has no remote relation to the "Pay-go" pledge of just 3 years ago. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/04/nation/na-taxes4
The size of these dollars and the long-term implications are too large for most of us to comprehend. It is way too easy to be infatuated by the size of the cut to each of our pet programs and focus on how to preserve our turf. We probably should be talking about what is going to happen after the ice-cream sugar high wears off.
I realized the magnitude of this issue tonight when a well respected business owner explained his gold investment strategy. As he explained it, gold is the fall back when a currency collapses. In fact, recommendations now are to invest in gold coins, not bullion -- to avoid a great-depression like repeat of government confiscation.
http://www.blanchardonline.com/beru/beru.php?article=255&title=Gold_Confiscation_-_What_Do_We_Really_Think?
This business owner justified his move by citing age and paranoia. I wonder whether it may be age and wisdom?
I am certainly not an alarmist and continue to keep my money in the stock market. Yet, the fact that I cannot get my arms around the magnitude of this problem concerns me. My instincts tell me that spending large amounts of money that we do not have is a bad thing.
At some point, something has got to give. When it does, our infatuation with individual turf issues will likely feel embarrassing. I fear reality may not win the day.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Farmers Feeding the Hungry!
With all the bad news, it is nice to focus on some good news.
The bad news? According to the United Nation's Food & Agriculture Organization, another 40 million people were pushed into the "hunger" category in 2008. The total number of undernourished people worldwide is now estimated at 907 million.
There is, however, a silver lining that is rarely talked about: U.S. Agriculture's role in helping to feed the hungry. American agriculture continues to tap increased technology, better animal care, better genetics and overall increased efficiency.
In America, we take for granted this sustainable model of producing more food per acre with less inputs per bushel. Our friends on the farm continue to push the envelope of efficiency every day -- better business models, better financing techniques, better seeds, better conservation of the soil, better control of weather-related factors, better weed control and more efficient use of fuel and inputs.
Starting in the 1940's, Norman Borlaug initiated the first "green revolution" and proved that historic steps in technology could feed the hungry. He developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease resistant wheat varieties that drastically increased yields around the world. His work earned him the Nobel Peace Prize and is credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.
Efforts to grow more with less continue: from the Albert Lea Seed House's creation of greater yields through organic production to the global commitment of Monsanto to double crop yields by 2030.
As a socially conscious world, we need to push and expect our agriculture sector to continue to get better at what they do. I recently received a pamphlet from America's Second Harvest, the "Nation's Food Bank Network." They challenge us, "How to make sure the land of plenty has plenty for everyone." Well said!
Too often, the trend for greater efficiency is misconstrued as "bigger" and therefore bad. American farmers have access to amazing opportunities to fill the stomachs of the hungry. We should do our part to help farmers to promote their crucial role in "Feeding the Hungry."
The bad news? According to the United Nation's Food & Agriculture Organization, another 40 million people were pushed into the "hunger" category in 2008. The total number of undernourished people worldwide is now estimated at 907 million.
There is, however, a silver lining that is rarely talked about: U.S. Agriculture's role in helping to feed the hungry. American agriculture continues to tap increased technology, better animal care, better genetics and overall increased efficiency.
In America, we take for granted this sustainable model of producing more food per acre with less inputs per bushel. Our friends on the farm continue to push the envelope of efficiency every day -- better business models, better financing techniques, better seeds, better conservation of the soil, better control of weather-related factors, better weed control and more efficient use of fuel and inputs.
Starting in the 1940's, Norman Borlaug initiated the first "green revolution" and proved that historic steps in technology could feed the hungry. He developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease resistant wheat varieties that drastically increased yields around the world. His work earned him the Nobel Peace Prize and is credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.
Efforts to grow more with less continue: from the Albert Lea Seed House's creation of greater yields through organic production to the global commitment of Monsanto to double crop yields by 2030.
As a socially conscious world, we need to push and expect our agriculture sector to continue to get better at what they do. I recently received a pamphlet from America's Second Harvest, the "Nation's Food Bank Network." They challenge us, "How to make sure the land of plenty has plenty for everyone." Well said!
Too often, the trend for greater efficiency is misconstrued as "bigger" and therefore bad. American farmers have access to amazing opportunities to fill the stomachs of the hungry. We should do our part to help farmers to promote their crucial role in "Feeding the Hungry."
Friday, January 02, 2009
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: SETTING EXPECTATIONS
When an election is on the immediate horizon everyone has an opinion on what they expect from their candidates or ballot item. Letters flourish – tempers flare: and our local media is happy. After their vote hits the bottom of the ballot box, however, most citizens feel that they have fulfilled their civic obligation until the next election.
This past election, we were again bombarded with terms such as “historic election” and it became popular to have a short term interest in politics. On Election Day, numerous people commented to me, “big day today.” I responded that I thought every day was a big day for politics!
There is much more to civic engagement than a letter and a vote every other year. As a community, we need to constantly communicate our wishes and desires. Our public institutions and elected officials need to have expectations communicated to them with constant reinforcement. Upon the success or failure of the community expectation, praise or criticism may then properly be dispensed. The concept of “speaking at the ballot box” is too reactionary and quite frankly too slow. Thomas Jefferson warned us to not let our rulers keep us so busy that we didn’t have time to think and hold mismanagement to account.
The concept of “government accountability” only works if goals are established. Without proper expectations set, accountability is often morphed into a constant “gotcha” game of cat and mouse. Taking pot shots at elected officials does little to accomplish any actual results.
As an example, voters should expect that our local units of government will not repeat prior overly optimistic budget forecasts. In today’s economic climate, they should expect drastic cuts in the short-term and only minimal state funding increases in the long-term. Likewise, we should expect our city and county government to carefully leverage our tax base for more government good, not just more government.
On the flipside, good government communicates with the public what they hope to accomplish. The public should take seriously activities such as the bridge avenue corridor study, the cities’ capital improvements plan and the project list created by the Shell Rock River Watershed District. These planning activities are their attempts to establish community expectations.
Our community should set expectations of our government and not let the government tell us what our expectations should be. I sincerely believe that community driven expectations will be less, in terms of scope and costs, than if we let the government tell us what to expect.
Upon setting our expectations, we should constantly reinforce and reward them for fulfilling these goals. Officials should likewise expect and invite “feedback” (positive and negative) upon their failure to reasonably meet those expectations.
This past election, we were again bombarded with terms such as “historic election” and it became popular to have a short term interest in politics. On Election Day, numerous people commented to me, “big day today.” I responded that I thought every day was a big day for politics!
There is much more to civic engagement than a letter and a vote every other year. As a community, we need to constantly communicate our wishes and desires. Our public institutions and elected officials need to have expectations communicated to them with constant reinforcement. Upon the success or failure of the community expectation, praise or criticism may then properly be dispensed. The concept of “speaking at the ballot box” is too reactionary and quite frankly too slow. Thomas Jefferson warned us to not let our rulers keep us so busy that we didn’t have time to think and hold mismanagement to account.
The concept of “government accountability” only works if goals are established. Without proper expectations set, accountability is often morphed into a constant “gotcha” game of cat and mouse. Taking pot shots at elected officials does little to accomplish any actual results.
As an example, voters should expect that our local units of government will not repeat prior overly optimistic budget forecasts. In today’s economic climate, they should expect drastic cuts in the short-term and only minimal state funding increases in the long-term. Likewise, we should expect our city and county government to carefully leverage our tax base for more government good, not just more government.
On the flipside, good government communicates with the public what they hope to accomplish. The public should take seriously activities such as the bridge avenue corridor study, the cities’ capital improvements plan and the project list created by the Shell Rock River Watershed District. These planning activities are their attempts to establish community expectations.
Our community should set expectations of our government and not let the government tell us what our expectations should be. I sincerely believe that community driven expectations will be less, in terms of scope and costs, than if we let the government tell us what to expect.
Upon setting our expectations, we should constantly reinforce and reward them for fulfilling these goals. Officials should likewise expect and invite “feedback” (positive and negative) upon their failure to reasonably meet those expectations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
