El diálogo con la dictadura castrista

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Francisco

Se reportó recientemente en la prensa que la organización norteamericana Brookings Institution envió hace días un comité a Cuba para estudiar un acercamiento con el régimen. Entre las personas que acompañó al grupo figura uno de los más reconocidos industriales del exilio cubano, el señor Alfy Fanjul y Gómez Mena. Indica el artículo que este augusto caballero apoya el diálogo con la dictadura castrista y nos invita a todos a asumir la misma postura.

Compartiré mi punto de vista sobre este asunto como lo hice anoche en un correo electrónico a un grupo de amigos que exponían el suyo tomándome la libertad de ampliar y editar aquí partes de mi escrito original. En el intercambio de correos algunos se mantenían callados ante la noticia porque afortunadamente no todos somos iguales y muchos prefieren obrar en silencio. Como a mí me gusta escribir, aprovecho la ocasión para publicarme en este Blog que utilizo para que mis nietos, pequeños hoy, en un futuro tengan alguna idea de quien era su abuelo, como pensaba y cuáles temas le interesaban mientras ellos crecían. 

Reconociendo que soy dueño de lo que callo y esclavo de lo que digo, prefiero compartir francamente aquí con los que tengan tiempo. Cierto es que al salir de Cuba no perdí ningún bien material porque si había algo de la familia en ese momento, no era mío y tal vez nunca lo hubiera llegado a ser si en el transcurso de la vida de mis abuelos y de mis padres se hubieran utilizado cualesquiera que fueran dichos bienes para vivir, como ha sido el caso de los bienes míos propios, ganados con el sudor de mi frente y empleados todos en este paso por la vida que viene llegando ya a su inevitable fin con más velocidad de lo anticipado cuando joven. No conozco ni puedo imaginarme siquiera lo que significaría para un Alfy Fanjul y Gómez Mena el recobrar las colonias y los ingenios que su abuelo materno le hubiera pasado de herencia al fallecer. Por no haber conocido al caballero progenitor, asumo que era hombre honrado y por eso pienso que de conocer el viejo Gómez Mena la postura actual de su nieto ante el régimen que esclaviza, tortura, asesina, y viola los derechos de todos los ciudadanos en la isla, es razonable asumir que lo hubiera dejado fuera del testamento.

Asevero que cumplí mis catorce años de edad en el exilio en el año 61 y fui uno de los más de catorce mil jóvenes y niños que salimos de Cuba por los vuelos Peter Pan. Como pocos otros, tuve la suerte de reunirme a mi llegada con un tío materno que había salido de Cuba con su familia a principios del año 60 después que Che Guevara interviniera la fábrica que con un socio en Camagüey había construido y puesto a funcionar. Me acogieron enseguida aquí en Miami y me educaron como uno más de los otros cuatro suyos, con amor, bondad y mucho trabajo.

Tal vez ya por mi edad, con frecuencia revivo estampas de una Cuba que todavía encierro en mis recuerdos. Me invade la morriña del suelo patrio más veces de lo que quisiera aún después de tantos años. Pero lo que me entristece más de estos recuerdos es el haber crecido y haber cursado una vida entera lejos de mi país, del seno familiar entre abuelos, tíos y familiares cuyas vidas dejé atrás y nunca más volví a compartir. Me ahoga la pena de no haber estudiado el idioma de mis abuelos españoles y cubanos con mis compañeros de toda una vida—por breve que parezca desde esta orilla–, con mis maestros, dentro de nuestra tradición familiar y cultural.

Me causa una pena inexplicable no poder manejar mi lengua como lo hicieron tantísimas generaciones antes que yo. No conocí la Universidad de La Habana, ni el bachillerato ni el trabajo logrado en mi propio suelo. Siempre eché de menos conocer la gran mayoría de los monumentos nacionales, las provincias una a una, sus valles y sus playas, los bohíos y los guateques, los bateyes y las zafras, los ingenios y el olor de la manigua, el color de la tierra y el sonido de la lluvia en el suelo cubano.

El amor a Cuba lo absorbí de niño en el patio central de los colegios a los que asistí, con las juras de la bandera, pero ese amor patrio se amplió y se afianzó aún más desde aquí, en el exilio, cuando me parecían pocas las oportunidades para conocer y hacerme de las obras publicadas por escritores cubanos ilustres, Varela, Arango y Parreño, de la Luz y Caballero, Saco, Heredia, Avellaneda, Martí, Mañach, Lezama, Cabrera Infante, hasta las de Mirta Aguirre y Alejo Carpentier; admiré la pluma de Medrano, la de Rivero y la de tantos otros que en su mayoría sufrieron el mismo destino, el mismo destierro, la misma enajenación a la que nos vimos forzados por saciar la sed de libertad que nos lanzó fuera de nuestro entorno y nos depositó aquí o allí o más allá, pero lejos de nuestra patria a millones que conllevamos tantas vivencias sin compartir con los que más contaban en nuestra niñez que no pudieron acompañarnos en nuestra juventud truncada y maltrecha aunque en su mayoría fue llevadera y más o menos feliz y próspera pero siempre libre.  

Todos hemos sobrellevado nuestro duelo interno y sobrevivido los embates del enemigo. Hemos formado y criado familias propias que ya hoy nos hacen abuelos. Hemos triunfado profesionalmente todos, cada uno a su medida pero en tierra libre. Todos formamos parte de la historia común del exilio, en sí fuente de orgullo patrio también, que desde tierras lejanas espera, soporta, y mayormente en silencio se mantiene al tanto de los horrores que abaten nuestra patria. Sin duda, siempre mantuvimos y aún sostenemos como meta inconfundible la libertad de Cuba; el regreso a una Cuba libre; la restauración de la justicia en Cuba y añoramos contribuir al fomento de la economía y de la prosperidad en el suelo cubano.

Sólo que en lo que a mí y otros muchos como yo respecta, nada a expensas del honor. No si hay que perturbar más nuestra existencia sentándonos en una mesa a dialogar con el monstruo que destruyó nuestra cultura, nuestra sociedad, nuestro patrimonio nacional, nuestro suelo, y nos lanzó al exilio. No si a cambio de una promesa falsa de bienestar financiero tenemos que traicionar a todos los demás exiliados, colegas legionarios en una lucha que abarca ya más de cinco décadas.

Posiblemente estuviéramos dispuestos a tratar con figuras que ni vivían cuando salimos de la isla ni se burlaron de nuestras penas cuando fusilaron a nuestros compañeros de la escuela, a nuestros vecinos, a los hijos de los amigos de nuestros padres y a los nietos de los amigos de nuestros abuelos, a cualquiera de los hijos de nuestra patria que dio su vida por la causa de la libertad en Cuba. No hay dinero que compre nuestro silencio ni nuestra tácita aceptación de los años perdidos. No hay capital que retribuya nuestra pena. Nuestro honor no tiene precio. García Lorca explica que “el honor se lava con sangre,” y Martí enseña que “la patria es ara, no pedestal.”

 A la Brookings Institution, cuya mediación envuelve actos y acciones estrictamente para el beneficio de este gran país, le tolero con agravio su visita pero no me convence su acercamiento al déspota porque ninguno de los integrantes del comité visitador hoy sufrió en carne propia lo que venimos sufriendo los cubanos desde hace más de 53 años; los considero “fellow travelers.” Al señor Alfy Fanjul y Gómez Mena no se lo perdono; es más, levanto la mano para que me reconozca y sepa que lo considero desde hoy aliado de la dictadura. Quiero que sepa que prefiero morir paupérrimo que traicionar la memoria de mis abuelos, de mis tíos, y de mi padre que padecieron honrosamente esta devastadora experiencia familiar pero fallecieron con la esperanza de un futuro libre en una Cuba honrada y próspera.

Posted in General, Politics, Something Else | Leave a comment

On Government Intervention in the Capital Markets

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Francisco

Yesterday morning, I wrote about the nefarious consequences the government’s intervention in the capital markets foster. It was in reply to another reader’s comments after reading a news report titled “HSBC puts to heat map form the terms ‘risk on’ and ‘risk off,’ showing the sharp increase in correlation across asset classes since the Lehman collapse.” You can find it on Seeking Alpha, an Internet investment site.

Today, I read in The New York Times that Richard Parsons, former Chairman of Citigroup and for 16 years a director of Citicorp, expresses a similar observation. While Mr. Parsons was in a position to dissuade the Clinton Administration before the power of the White House pushed for legislation and remained silent, it’s clear now that he had a change of heart. The points raised are worth reprinting here if only to bring awareness among present and future investors. 

“Actually, investors would have a better chance of making the right call if the government stopped manipulating the markets and if the hedge funds faced the uptick rule and Glass Steagall were brought back. For sixty years we never saw manipulation as flagrant as we see since the repeal of the Banking Act of 1933. For sixty years, companies succeeded or paid the price by going bust.

No one was “bailed out.” Bubbles did not exist. Disparities were the product of wrongful personal decisions, not created by government intervention and manipulation.

In all candor, anything else explained beyond this point would only seem to trumpet Ron Paul’s platform. It would serve everyone well to read through it. The understanding of the many points raised underscores why liberty is not a negotiable commodity. Personal freedoms and free markets go hand in hand.

It’s dismaying to watch how we’re all capitalists when we make money and want to keep it all to ourselves, but when things go wrong, we immediately welcome socialist bailouts at the people’s expense and accept them as our unconstitutional right to prevent greater social and economic chaos. There are only two letters to explain this phenomenon, BS.

Government intervention in the market is preposterous on all levels, socially, financially, and as an economic philosophy; it detracts from the people as a whole and from each individual in specific terms. We can’t support freedom and liberty while we support government bailouts or handouts. In either case, only the recipients are different. They’re both abusive and defy the principles of law and order.

Tolerance for government intervention and acceptance of too big to fail are abuses of power no matter how they’re rationalized and sold to the public. In all of life, there are consequences to making wrong decisions. Why should commercial enterprises or personal choices be any different?”

Posted in Education, Finances, General, Politics | Leave a comment

Insurance Revisited

Posted on April 1, 2012 by Francisco

If you customarily read my blogs, you’ll remember I already wrote about my dad in another posting, but I have to acknowledge once again his positive influence. I began to learn about insurance as a child. Although his formal education was in accounting, during my childhood my father worked as an insurance agent until he arrived in the US as a political exile.

Dad took great pains to explain to me in age appropriate terms what insurance is about and, while at the time I may have dismissed perhaps too much of what he taught me, life brought me around. It’s clear that his efforts were not wasted. The distribution of insurance has been my life’s work and and as far as I’m concerned, it’s been a fair and noble enterprise.

Even during the years I was formally teaching in an academic setting, I worked with insurance. I make this distinction because when today I sit down with prospects and clients to discuss financial matters, no longer in front of the classroom, I still impart knowledge and skills outside the traditional learning environment.

From my father I learned how insurance products provide a valuable service to society, to the government, to business concerns, and to individuals in general. In our conversations I sensed his faith in the product and he passed on to me the same conviction. Not casually am I stating here that everyone is better off with the products insurance companies make available. I speak with first hand experience of families after a loss staying in their home, of widows receiving monthly checks, of education dreams realized despite the untimely death of a bread-winner, and of old age benefits to supplement Social Security payments, relieving the anxiety of smaller income flows after retirement.

Dad wanted me to understand early the ins and outs of insurance so later, as the needs came up, I’d feel comfortable with the products. If everyone learned about insurance while growing up, our society would function better. We wouldn’t have so many misconceptions about the insurance industry and the myriad products we rely on for financial freedom.

I also wrote specifically about insurance a couple years ago but, as at present the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of issues brought up in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act–PPACA–or Obamacare for some, a revisit of the subject at this time is opportune and warranted. This law carries the imposition on all Americans to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. The commentary from pundits and the public in general makes it clear that a good number of people ignore why insurance companies exist and how they operate; particularly, people short on financial knowledge think insurance companies are out to get them.

As a licensed agent, I find disparaging comments on insurance published in the media alarming. Many postings ignorantly distort products conceived to provide peace of mind and guarantees of financial security if used properly. Insurance contracts and the benefits they provide reduce, if not outright eliminate, the possibility of losing large sums of money–catastrophic losses even the ultra-rich would be loath to sustain. The potential for losses is referred to as a liability in financial terms.

In exchange for removing the potential for a catastrophic financial loss insurance products allow us to sustain a smaller loss, something everyone with a liability should be willing to trade for. This smaller amount of money that we willingly give up in trade, in insurance terms is called a premium. Allow me to emphasize here that an insurance contract is not meant to eliminate all losses. Actually, the subject of insurance is the reduction of losses we would not be able to afford in exchange for surrendering to the insurance company an amount of money we can better afford, the premium.

It may be redundant–and I apologize–but let me restate this in different terms.  If I have the possibility of losing my property to a fire, that fire would be called a peril in insurance terms. In order to eliminate the risk of losing the full value of my property in a fire, logically, I’d rather lose anything less than the full value, right? Once again, in insurance terms, the anything less I’d lose is called the premium.

To eliminate the possibility of a catastrophic loss if my property caught fire–if the peril struck–I would look to pay a premium to an entity obligated under contract to step in and absorb my potential catastrophe if one occurred. The entity is the insurance company. To negotiate the terms of our agreement, the insurance company figuratively would sit down and draw up a contract. This contract explains the terms of coverage and in insurance terms we call this contract an insurance policy.

In essence, the insurance policy explains the terms under which the insurance company will absorb my risk provided I also assume specific responsibilities. However, primarily the specific terms of coverage inform me what is covered under the policy and what is excluded from coverage; it forbids me from creating a bigger loss if one takes place, indicates what I must do after a loss, and excludes perils brought on by my own actions or omissions, including fraud. The terms of coverage also specifically state that the peril is covered as it applies only to accidents, events that come up suddenly and unexpectedly causing losses; it excludes gradual occurrences–things that happens over time–and inherent vice–things that are going to occur no matter what–as well as maintenance that is neglected, and normal wear and tear, which are also not covered by most insurance contracts.

The company would come up with a specific and carefully worded list. It would be a list showing what I must do to pass the risk onto them. In simple terms, the list stipulates that the company would do x if I do y. The list would show clearly the type of risk the company assumes and also the part of the risk that I still retain. Recall I wrote before that insurance companies don’t assume all the risk of loss connected with a peril. They mostly share the risk with me, the insured.

The first few items on that list would deal with protection measures I must implement to prevent a covered peril from striking my property. The next group of items on the list would name things I am obligated to do to prevent more losses after a peril strikes. The next group of listings would indicate additional or supplemental sums of money the insurance company would pay me if I suffer a loss–such as the financial support to rent another place, how the company will reimburse me for actions taken after a peril strikes to prevent additional damages, how the company would pay for the extra expenses that come up when I am obligated to remain outside my home, and other similar accomodations to make my life easier while my property is out of commission after a covered loss.

Further, the company would stipulate at what level of loss it would step in to pay for the covered loss. During the premium determination process, the company gives me options to determine the level of premium I will pay. Maybe I decide to retain a flat amount of money or perhaps 1% of the loss or 2% of the loss or higher percentages partly because by assuming some portion of the potential and actual losses my premiums comes down. Beyond the reduction in premium, the insurance company wants to ensure that I remain vigilant, preventing losses and reducing further losses when a peril strikes; it’s logical, having skin in the game keeps me honest.

This retention of risk on my part is called a deductible. A deductible is the amount of money an insured person is willing to absorb before the insurance company steps in to pay the rest of the covered losses. Before issuing checks to cover losses, insurance companies subtract the deductible from their final payment. To reiterate, the scope of the coverage would place an exact dollar amount for the premium I must pay–my immediate and certain loss. In exchange for the company’s acceptance of the risk, I accept the deductible amount and how it would be applied.

Remember, the premium’s the amount of money I would immediately have to pay. It’s the money I lose without question. In exchange, I also immediately get the peace of mind that comes with the knowledge that the insurance company assumes the rest of my financial liability if a loss were to occur. From that moment on–the moment of inception of the policy, when the contract becomes valid, the date and time when the coverage begins, when coverage is in force–the insurance company would become liable for any actual losses to my insured property. But remember, the losses I would be relieved from sustaining are losses that have not yet occurred and losses that I must prevent from occurring for the policy to be valid.

The subject of insurance contracts is never a loss that already took place. Insurance coverage is never for a loss that is unquestionably going to occur. Insurance policies cover perils that potentially could occur in the future, but they do not cover losses that will definitely occur or that occurred in the past. There is an important element of potentiality of loss, not certainty of loss, in all insurance contracts–except in life insurance contracts where everyone eventually dies, but contracts of different scopes of coverage mitigate this certainty of loss.

This brings us back to the PPACA. Aside from the issues of constitutionality and personal freedom, the law places certain obligations on a private enterprise that in practice would cause it to fail. If you’ve understood my explanation of insurance thus far, you’ve learned that insurance contracts never cover events that are definitely going to take place or events that took place already. The subject of insurance is clearly only for events that potentially could take place in the future–without certainty.

The obligation placed on an insurance company to provide coverage to applicants with health conditions that already exist is a violation of the insurance principle. Individuals who choose to avoid paying premiums for health insurance are individuals who run a calculated risk–by ignorance or conviction. At some point, they may become uninsurable and no one gets prior warning of this tragic event. Consequently, in our system of laws and in our capitalist society, it’s a risk that no one is forced to bear and frankly, no one should assume with a sober mind.

It’s akin to my owning the same property we were discussing before and resolving to run the risk myself that the property will not burn down only to find out the morning after that a fire struck, engulfed my house, and caused me a serious financial loss. If such an accident occurred, I would not expect my neighbors or the community to pay me for my loss nor would any law obligate an insurance company to pay for this personal miscalculation. The extension of this is to question why anyone would expect reimbursement for illnesses or accidents striking them when they made the conscious decision to assume all onto themselves all future consequences of their conscious decision.

For the insurance company, the assumption of a risk that is certain–as it would be if a new client arrives with pre-existing conditions they will be forced to pay–is a mandate to become insolvent. Insurance companies work on the principle of greater numbers. It means that when a large group of insureds pays premiums and the company absorbs liabilities, the law of greater numbers demonstrates that only a reduced number among those insured will actually sustain losses. The overwhelming majority will pay a premium and not suffer a loss during the time the policy is in force.

The company will collect premiums and after paying the outstanding claims, place the rest of the premiums collected in what is called reserve–pools of money to offset potential claims that may be incurred but not reported during the policy period or that may arise the following year or the year after that from written business. The excess premiums always go to the reserve pool. The reserves help offset the adverse experience–meaning the losses that exceed the actuarial predictions.

Actually, actuaries study risks and the incidence of risk or the proportion of premiums received to claims incurred, anticipating a loss ratio. If more payments are made than premiums are received, the company eventually would file for bankruptcy. Logically, when more money goes out than comes in, the disproportionate unbalance causes any enterprise to fail.

The obligation placed on insurance companies by this PPACA legislation discounts the need to have sufficient money in reserves to pay for claims. Such imposition will cause one of two things to occur. Either the insurance company will surcharge everyone to offset the arrival of sick individuals seeking insurance after they learn of conditions that will cause  them to spend their own money for health care or the insurance companies will be forced to fail for not planning to absorb these contingencies.

In either case, We The People–you and me–pay for everyone else’s irresponsible behavior, be it in higher premiums now or by losing benefits later. It will actually seem better for all to wait until serious conditions plague us before paying any insurance premiums for health care. In the end, this law encourages irresponsibile behavior.

The best solution would be an actuarial study that determines the cost of health care for all individuals in the nation, from cradle to grave. Take this figure and divide it by the number of years everyone expects to live–according to actuarial tables and their subsequent revisions–and have each and everyone pay that fixed amount of money as premium for health care insurance year after year. All insurance companies would charge everyone the exact same premium throughout a lifetime. The choice of insurance companies would then depend on the individual and the companies with the best service would see their reserves swell while those providing the worst service would see their reserves diminish, all according to public perception. The idea that the money flows where the people find better service would prevail.

Everyone would be required to provide proof of insurance at every stage of life–pre-schooling, elementary grades, middle school, high school, college, and career employment. No proof of insurance, no acceptance; something similar to what some nations demand before tourists or new immigrants are allowed in the country. All would be easily monitored.

This would remove the burden of communities paying the debt public hospitals incur when they treat patients without resources and without insurance. A flat, single premium structure for all would figure in all personal budgets, a manageable amount for being constant, resulting in no surprises to anyone. It would make everyone responsible for him/herself. Yet, the conception of a single premim structure would not become a heartless measure; the system could be loaded to account for a percentage of individuals who face financial difficulty for a period of time and for many who will never be able to carry their own weight over mental or other painful, extraordinary conditions.

As in all my postings, I welcome everyone’s contribution. If you agree or not, share your thoughts. Healthy discussion is what our Congressional representatives currently lack. It’s the best way to air differences and formulate a consensus that moves us forward.

Posted in Education, Finances, General, Insurance, Politics | Leave a comment

On Nokia

Posted on March 1, 2012 by Francisco

Sacha May wrote about Nokia, the communications company, on Seeking Alpha, an Internet website. It’s a space providing free access to everyone with something to say. It’s an open forum. 

“Kah-ching! kah-ching! kah-ching! The sound of those cash registers sucking up those dollars out of the pockets of a billion plus Chinese buying Nokia phones soon is indeed sweet and alluring, I must admit. Couple that with Europeans and in a couple more weeks AT&T customers in the US buying up every single colorful Lumia 900 in all their splendor, and speculative investors could get a spectacular return on a $5+ investment.
iCultists need not reply. We know how fabulous those iGadgets work in sync and all about the vision that made the fabulous company climb to reach the hyperbolic value of recent days. But all that rises must fall. Nokia is a perfect example. Concurrently, all that falls tends to rise again if clarity of vision and solid determination to create new products and services work in unison.
To prove my point, the AAPL stock sold for $7 and rose to heights above Mt. Everest. Why would this be the only successful story when we already witnessed AMZN rise, fall, and return to former glory, all within a decade? Yep, NOK is definitely poised to prove some right.
Steal a little market-share from here and a little from there, build the best product available and promote it everywhere with a better pricing structure to reach all budgets, including the lowly poor whose needs remain identical to those of the richer groups, and what’ve we got? We have a successful investment, that’s what.
Risks? Myriad risks. Potential for losses? As with all investments too many lurk behind every door. However, for patient investors seeking long-term results, a very viable alternative if the risk tolerance is right, their money could be lost without their lifestyle suffering, and if liquidity in the near-term is not an issue. It’s a speculative move, of course, but one some are willing to take in their pursuit of happiness.”

Posted in Finances, General | Leave a comment

At The Crossroad

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Francisco

For almost a year, I felt tugged in many directions and despite my resolve to share my thoughts regularly on this blog, it was easier to relegate my task to later. It wasn’t fun feeling pulled away. I wanted to stay loyal to my writing, but carelessly didn’t find the right moment to broach the topics that seemed important at the time.

A good number of my impressions still found their way to scrutiny and dissent. I posted comments on a social network website where mostly friends bore the brunt of my opinionated outlooks. In hindsight, it would’ve been better to post them on this site.

Today, as the year turns, it’s politics and the economy that occupy the nation as a whole. The two seem to encroach on everyone’s peace of mind, if my friends fit the typical profile of people making time to post their own concerns on the Internet. Truly, both issues also stir me, but the health and welfare of the dwindling few remaining elderly members of my family claim a larger share of my present unrest. 

It’s clear now from this perspective that as I witness the frailty of those I love, I begin to weigh in, way more heavily than before–when time seemed eternal–on higher order issues: the meaning of life, my purpose on Earth, the cryptic designs of a Supreme Being whose existence I feel deep in my soul, but I cannot see. Crossing the indelible line reserved for the old unobtrusively changes an individual’s focus of attention. It’s curious how the brain begins to search for pivotal events from our past to question them, to relive them, and to try to make better sense of them.

I begin to look for meaning in the difficulties I faced, those I couldn’t conquer, the many I overcame, the multiple lessons learned. I recall intensely painful events, ecstatically joyful ones, a good number of heart-breaks, and numberless meaningful moments where love reigned. I analyze all from a distance, coldly now, and I marvel at how each contributed to shape me into who I am and to define the personal milestones I achieved.

In the fullness of my life as I reflect on its entirety, I find peace. But significantly, many of these souvenirs serve me to underscore how the hardships of yesteryear pale in comparison to the ghosts I face today. With time slowly fading away, I scramble to find the last few pieces of my puzzle and struggle to fit them together, to complete the painted canvas that sheds a positive light on the self-image of my existence. I endeavor to leave an imprint, anything of value to mark my path, but I also question where I am along this endless road.     

The big earthquake in Japan, the tsunami that ensued, and the subsequent meltdown of the atomic energy plant at Fukushima alarmed me in early 2011. I mourned the victims and felt deeply for that distant country’s toll. I lost sleep over a nuclear disaster that could devastate my family too, but more, over my grandchildren’s potential plight. They’ll have to deal with the cataclysm long after I’m gone. 

I realize now how simple my life unfolded when the safety of my water and the quality of my food was never in question. All I needed to sleep soundly in my youth was the fair opportunity to raise my family. As John Wayne proposed on film, all I wanted and found was an honest day’s work for an honest day’s wage. 

My work bought me a roof over our head and a home for my children, food on our table, and the opportunity to enable open and effective–if often loud for outsiders–communication among us in the weaving of the fiber that makes up our family today. With my brood I shared the dinner-table nightly. I managed to clothe them and to find the energy after work to talk and laugh, to educate them, and to straighten them up when the need arose–perhaps not too long on temper and rather short on tolerance for repeated misdemeanors, but always with the best of intentions at heart. I fostered principles and lasting values in them. I strived to empower them for living healthy and fit, honest and prepared; ultimately to become productive members of society and to carry on as I fade behind. 

Today, I find myself wondering about tomorrow and how many tomorrows still remain. I question the relevance of arguments over matters I cannot change. I learned to accept instead of defend against other points of view. And in this newly found acceptance, I feel wiser. Undoubtedly, my new patterns of thought are a by-product of the calendar; a reflection of the complete awareness of my presence.

Posted in Finances, General, Parenting | 2 Comments

A Reply to Mr. Leon Cooperman’s Open Letter

Posted on December 6, 2011 by Francisco

While Mr. Cooperman’s letter in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago speaks loudly, it leaves out some of the fundamental issues separating our country today. The most essential seems to be re-defining for this century “The American Way,” the “Land of Opportunity,” and arriving at a complete and unbiased understanding of what it means to be and to live free in this great land. Until the current generations adopt as their cultural compass the meaning of these three philosophically-rooted concepts and everything each embodies, we will remain divided along ideological class-warfaring lines. Allow me to elaborate with my own personal experience.

In the USA where I grew up, “The American Way” was to move forward making the best of myself with the opportunities before me. It did not mean that I expected others to give me anything or that others would be forced to give me anything. To recall a line delivered by John Wayne in one of his more famous cowboy movies, it meant that I received an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work; no one gave me anything beyond the opportunity to do a job in exchange for a fair wage. 

In the USA where I grew up, the “Land of Opportunity” meant that the responsibility for making headway in life rested solely on my shoulders, on my education, on my ability to work hard within our legal system, to build a better mouse trap and bring it to the market, the ultimate judge of valuable ideas. It did not mean that I would twist the laws and disparage my competitors to walk over their carcasses as the way to succeed. It meant that my ingenuity and my creativity worked together to carry me to the goals I envisioned for myself.

In the USA where I grew up, the meaning of freedom was never argued; never questioned. We were blessed by living in a country where everyone was equal and no one received government funding for projects that would otherwise fail in the marketplace simply because politicians fostered enough power to sway things the way of their minions. It meant that every day, as we awoke, we were presented with the priceless opportunity to re-invent ourselves, re-direct our steps, choose our path, and move forward in the direction of our dreams. It did not mean that the government would take away from others to give us anything. It meant that we worked hard and fairly to earn what we made and that we worked equally as hard and fought to the death those who tried to take away from us what we gained throughout our working years, often, if not mostly, after much spent blood, sweat, and tears.

It is clear to me that we live in a different USA. Today’s America needs to find its way out of the shifting sands of selfishness, ignorance, government corruption and abuse. Beyond an open debate on values, we need a miracle.

Posted in Education, Family, Politics | Leave a comment

On the Erosion of the Middle Class in the United States

Posted on October 2, 2010 by Francisco

Passion on any subject generally brings out excellent discussions. Many of my former students who befriended me on Facebook at times post comments or raise concerns that for being very pertinent to our era are well-deserving of reflection and exposition. They often–not always–motivate me to throw in my two cents candidly. One such instance took place a couple of days ago.  I find the discussion worthy of posting here to share with everyone and raise everyone’s level of awareness, ultimately promoting a change for the better. The late, great Michael Jackson said it best when he sang that positive change starts with “the man in the mirror.” 

As a society, somewhere over the last forty years, we stopped holding dear the notion that the creation of wealth should be the crowning glory of our hard work. We changed our work ethic along the way, moving away from the protestant ethic and into a belief that wealth should be amassed quickly and at any price. We lost our desire to excel by displaying real skills and became a service society that benefits from being the middle man in a transaction, adding nothing to the equation, but taking a chunk of money in the process. We call it being clever and commercially savvy.

Statistics show that over the last forty years, the country’s middle class has been slowly eroding. It’s actually becoming extinct, but it’s not anyone’s fault in particular. We must blame each other, We the people, who refused along the years to own up to our responsibility as free citizens of a great nation founded in liberty.

We failed to elect representative government by remaining apathetic in a system that engulfs everyone not conscious enough of the ramifications of inertia and apathy. We allowed the corporations to flee to foreign lands where their taxes and operational costs are lower. We discovered and encouraged the advances in technology that caused men (and women!) to be replaced by machinery without stressing the need for new sources of employment as we shifted away from the industrial society and into a modern technologically based one. We allowed our foreign competition to thrive by selling our secrets to them.

Today, the middle class, as the books describe it and some of us old enough knew it, is a thing of the past. The Henry Ford who paid higher wages to his workers in his factories is not our story. It’s the story of our grandparents’ generation, the Generation X and Y generation’s great-grandparents’.

The erosion of our work force by the excesses union bosses extracted from business owners, the lack of accountability from teachers, as demanded by union contracts, the failed parental oversight due to an excess of consumption that often required double work shifts and a minimum of two incomes to feed our endless desire for a better standard of living at seriously high costs to our society, all, are not the cause of the government. They are the cause of our desire to surround ourselves with possessions and our short-sighted focus on superficial values as a nation. The American way defined the meaning of conspicuous consumption.

Even today, it’s not the government’s fault. Governments are there to perpetuate themselves, expand themselves, and encroach on the civil liberties of the governed who are otherwise too busy and too careless to watch them, fight them, and restrict them. We are the culprits. The buck stops at our front door.

Our economic future lies in the hands of the people. It’s always lain there. It’s time to become vigilant, active, and ingenious lest we lose our historic way of life forever.

We must re-invent ourselves as a society to bring us forward to a better moment in our history, reminiscent of the time where the world measured its advances by how it compared to the American lifestyle. We need to bring back the sources of labor that left our land by devising creative ways of motivating large businesses to return. It’s time to limit the waste of large government institutions.

It’s time to roll back the benefits that the politicians gave themselves at the expense of the working individuals, the working middle class. We cannot create a middle class made up of government bureaucrats because the government does not create wealth. It extracts wealth from the citizens.

Government payrolls and benefits must be rolled back to reflect the working place of the free enterprise, the mom and pop shops that are the source of real employment and true wealth creation in our economy. We must stop this ridiculous claim that the redistribution of wealth is the way in which everyone benefits. That’s baloney. The redistribution of wealth is code phrase for socialism and in socialist systems everyone is poor and the government is a dictatorship filled with mediocrity and bureaucratic red tape, inhibiting liberty in all its manifestations.

And I have not yet touched upon the nefarious Federal Reserve and the phony security it provides in its fractional banking system. Fractional banking allows the levering of small equity, little capital, and is based on the assumption that debt must be paid back with interest. Capital is multiplied thirty and forty times to encourage borrowing and lending at the expense of an individual’s freedom when improperly used, often resulting in indented servitude to a banking system that is protected by the government and in collusion against the individual. The last few years have proved the fallacy of these assumptions.

Arguably, the largest share of blame is reserved for our educational system. If we had educated people properly across the land, we would not have the problems we face today. In the past, the middle class was made up of skilled laborers. Today our labor force is filled with unskilled workers.

Commercial enterprises need bodies to deliver their goods to the consumers, but how many times do we get served anywhere by individuals who take pride in what they do and own up to the situation, trying to resolve it expeditiously and in a professional manner? The instances where we leave an establishment satisfied with the level of service received are fewer and fewer every day. Until we have a well-educated group of citizens who think, reason, and reflect on their quality of life and constantly strive to improve it, we will live and relive the same abominations that caused the middle class to fade into oblivion.

We need to turn out at the polls in every election and select the best candidates, not the least bad candidate. We need to motivate young thinkers to run for office. We need to emulate a return to the work ethic as the foundation of our society, not wealth at any cost. It’s not about the money. It’s about the process of making it that is important and how everyone benefits.  

As with every posting, your comments and thoughts are encouraged and truly appreciated.

Posted in Education, Family, Finances, General, Parenting, Politics | Leave a comment

Religion and Ignorance

Posted on September 11, 2010 by Francisco

As a citizen of this country, not of Muslim faith, I object to the persecution of Muslims as I object to the persecution of any religious faith. In our country, every religious faith is equal in every respect. Our duty as good Americans is to defend the right of every religious faith to worship in freedom.

We should no more consider Muslims unworthy of our freedoms than we should find all men of the cloth unfit to lead a congregation over the transgressions and horrors of a few. Ignorance is prevalent but not excusable. The current today demonizes Muslims without remorse, for it’s done out of a visceral reaction, stirred by individuals with a vested interest in promoting this immoral outcome. If we practiced what is preached in our Christian churches, we would need to follow the commandment that Christ called his most important: To love others as we love ourselves.

Just as the masses do not paint Christianity with a single brush, they should also be prevented from blaming every Muslim for the actions of a few; a few who simply label themselves Muslim and followers of Islam for their own vested interest in inflaming a group of people against everything our country stands for, as these wicked groups pursue their own nefarious interests. If we fail to live up to who we are and within the spirit of our Constitution, we would allow hateful groups to diminish us as a nation by engaging in their same hateful message, in absence of love and by extension, in absence of God.

Posted in Education, Family, General, Parenting, Pet peeves, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Practical Solution To The Marriage Turf Debate

Posted on August 9, 2010 by Francisco

In the current arguments pro and con, most who opine seem to look at the marriage issue from within the box where those wanting to regulate it placed it hundreds of years ago. It would be more logical to review the concept of marriage and understand that, when individuals feel obligated to remain in a union, the union is not free. When we are not free, we are unable to make the right decisions about anything in life. Freedom is essential to our human existence.

For this observer, California’s Proposition 8 and all other “defense of marriage acts” across the country are equally as intrusive as having the church and the government identifying those with the privilege to enter into indented servitude. Let’s face it: Marriage is an enslaving institution into which most people enter blindly assuming a piece of paper will ensure their eternal bliss together. Quite the contrary, it is eternally doomed to fail as soon as one of the parties realizes it forces them to remain together after the love, the lust, the attraction, the peace, and the romance vanished into thin air, which according to current statistics, takes place over 60% of the time.

There is a much better solution. If the church and the government in their collusion would think outside the box, they would instead regulate divorce with the same zeal they are using today to dictate who is able to enter into a marriage contract. The threat of not being able to divorce–or live apart after the desire to break up shows its ugly face–would be a better way to raise the level of analysis and presence of mind required by those considering the august decision of entering into an endless marriage–even if it did not make a faithful husband out of Henry VIII; but his Majesty enjoyed the right to write his own laws and form his own church, joyful actions that the rest of us do not possess. 

Let’s face it. Today’s no-fault divorce makes breakup and separation a viable alternative to a concentrated effort on identifying whether a union is the right choice in the first place. It eliminates the serious analysis required of every individual before deciding to marry. This observer’s hunch is that very few, if any, would execute a contract that forces everyone to remain in the hellish existence of a bad union for the rest of their life.

If all intrusive institutions currently fighting over the regulatory turf were determined to end the desire to foolishly enter into a marriage without much thought, if they truly were concerned over the health of families and children in a divorce, if the values of the family were truly the concern here, they would instead collude to make divorce equally as difficult as they want to make marriage an impossibility for some. Any individuals willing to remain together for the rest of their life–happy or unhappy–should be able to do so;  just like everyone willing to work as a slave should be able to do so uninhibited. 

The pursuit of happiness was written into our Declaration of Independence. No one should be turned back from making a choice for themselves. Free people make choices that they have to live with for the rest of their life. Make marriage one of these transcendental choices.

The argument is embellished by all the talk about tax breaks and privileges, which as currently applied, tend to carve out a lower class made up of individuals who are single, with less equality before the law; but this too is easily corrected and could become empty chatter. There is an egalitarian solution at hand. Let the government’s taxing arm tax everyone equally across the country, regardless of whether they sleep with someone else with a signed piece of paper filled with empty promises or not. Under this well-thought out system, everyone would be free to marry but no one can live apart or get divorced after they enter into the holy state once the license is duly executed.  

Clearly, the concept of a flat tax would do away with thousands of pages in the IRS Code and in a single swoop with all the corruption from lobbies and vested interests vying for a tax break. Unlike marriage, a gradual flat tax that provides smaller brackets for lower incomes and rises to 15% for higher incomes is good for the government and great for the individual. Eliminate all deductions and simply levy a gradually increasing tax scale that starts at 0% below the poverty line and increases slowly as incomes rise, to a maximum of 15% for the highest income earners.

Both measures are fair. They are just. They are very desirable.  

They would also resolve the problem of corruption in government. The open objections would come from CPAs and tax attorneys. The underhanded opposition would come from politicians. No loopholes eliminate the need for advice. The elimination of ambiguity and tax-favored measures would eliminate political contributions from lobbyists which until today, they dole out to ensure political favors. Everyone would be equal under the tax codes and all income would be taxed according to a fixed scale.

These measures would cut everyone’s desire to join in marriage carelessly any idiot that walks their way. They would efficiently fix the world of politics and the levity in which most individuals enter married life. It would be a fix all.

Why couldn’t someone else see these fixes so clearly before?  

As with all posts, comments are encouraged. Thanks for reading my blog.

Posted in Education, Family, Finances, General, Pet peeves, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cost Of Driving In Miami-Dade County Is Now Abusive

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Francisco

As if the cost of pursuing happiness in the Magic City were not already excessively high, we now have to watch where we drive. It used to be that roads were built with taxes paid by the people. There weren’t any additional taxes levied for using them. The maintenance of the roads was also paid with tax revenues from the general treasury. A built road would ensure our ability to cross it without paying anything extra. Things have changed for the worse in Dade County.  

Together with the increased cost for parking tickets, moving violations, court costs, other rising municipal services, stratospheric insurance premiums, and burdensome real estate taxes, now we have toll roads where we used to drive unfettered, as the cost of living here continues to rise in geometrical proportions. While in the past there were a couple of ten-cent tolls that turned to a quarter, later to fifty-cents, to become seventy-five cents, only to be changed a short while later to a buck, and ultimately, a buck twenty-five due when crossing very few expressways, the demand for payment only took place after ten or twenty miles of usage. Mind you, they were levied with the promise of eliminating them “after the roads were paid for,” which clearly never happened. Now, during the worst economic downturn in history since the Great Depression, we have to pay new tolls to further undermine the purchasing power of any citizen commuting to work every day. They are placed every couple of miles on SR 878 and SR 874.  Anyone coming from SR 874 will pay a toll before leaving and three between 874 and US 1.

At what point did we all miss the opportunity to knock these plans down? Were there opportunities or neighborhood meetings to discuss them? Who determined that it was fine to charge $5 every day to people who must use those roads or decay in log-jammed traffic congestion? These tolls amount to an additional $1,200 annually of automobile expenses only to commute to work. The weekend costs are not added up in this projection.  

The roads are all and all were built with our taxes. We already paid for them with our hard-earned dollars. These government clowns now allege that the tolls are for the maintenance of the roads and for improvements on their service. Is the county trying to chase everyone out of here?

At a time when everyone is short of cash and attempting to make ends meet, the county commissioners in all their stupidity impose an additional heavy burden on every family that must commute to work using these roads. This new tax is an attack on our way of life and it is preposterous. We must rise in opposition to it and cram thousands of citizens in, out, and around the next County Commission meeting to make sure that the commissioners hear us, fear for their cushy jobs with tens if not hundreds of staff members, and feel the heat arising from their despotic ordinances that only serve to unite us all with the solid determination to throw them all out of office at the next election.

This assault on our freedom to move without additional taxes must not be dismissed. It must not be swept under the table as we acquiesce and remain victims of these abuses of power. We must not stand for it and we must unite in boycotting the roads until the tolls are removed.

As with all posts, your contribution is more than welcome. It is encouraged and appreciated. Thanks for reading my blog.

Posted in Something Else | Leave a comment