My brother is an independent with conservative leanings. I think he tends to think that both parties are worthy of distrust. However, he works at Koch Industries -- an organization ran by (and in a state full of) right-wing zealots. I was always taught that politics and work don't mix, and assumed most companies ran that way. Well, at least, until I got this email from my brother today:
"Federal Spending in perspective:
I saw this video while attending a two day personal development business class for Koch Industries called MBM (Market-Based Management). There were a lot of examples shown on a wide range of topics, but this video really put in perspective, at least for me, on how much money our federal government has spent in the last couple of years.
I am sharing this video not because I want to point a finger at any one political party, but to show how much we will ALL be affected by this massive federal takeover and spending.
Hope you enjoy, and pass on to others. It's only about a 3 min video.
http://www.youtube.com/... "
My response to him below the fold . . .
Jeff:
- Why would they show this at work? I find it more problematic that your company would use a corporate training function as an opportunity to infuse partisan politics into the discussion. And, make no mistake, this is partisan. Facts aren't partisan, but conclusions can be, and these definitely are.
This link (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_G.KochCharitable_Foundation) illustrates where a lot of your ownership money goes. I think it's great that Koch Industries is committed to training, but I have to ask what showing this video accomplished from a business perspective? I didn't hear Koch industries mentioned, or how these numbers might affect Koch Industries going forward. The budget deficit doesn't really have much to do with Koch Industries in the short term, and except for probable higher taxes (both corporate, and personally for them and the other execs) in the future, can't see how it will impact them long-term much either. How long has this class existed? Did they show this same (or similar) propaganda under Bush II?
- You yourself claim to not be injecting partisan politics into the mix. Then why use weasel words like "Massive takeover?". That isn't even what the video implied, let alone what the lesson of the video should have been. I tend to agree with the idea that bailing out these firms was, at best, a good idea with bad implementation, and quite possibly a bad idea altogether. History will tell. But bailouts are not takeovers. And, even if they were, who says that's bad? Clearly they can't run themselves effectively. I'd prefer to let firms not doing well die, and pay the consequences. But, given the choice between 1) bailing them out but letting them operate as they did before the failure or 2) bailing them out but imposing regulations and constraints to change behavior at the firm to prevent future failures, which makes more sense? Not forcing changes at a bailed out firm is the worse of the two options.
- Did you fact check those numbers? Is there even any truth to any, some, or all of the conclusions, numbers, or comparisons drawn? Just in a very brief, cursory comparison . . . . I was able to figure out that, while the amount of debt in WWII (when adjusted for inflation) as well as currently is mostly true, it doesn't paint the whole picture. Sure, it's more spent money now than before (even with inflation) -- but what does that mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/... gives a decent intro. I agree debt is a problem -- but during WWII that same amount of debt was 120% of our GDP! That means that every dollar in production made by every company in the US, if applied to the deficit for a year, wouldn't pay it off. That isn't the case now. Sure, it's a HUGE problem. But right now public debt isn't even 1/2 of what it was during WWII.
So, what does all THAT gobbldygook mean? It means that the Koch Brothers are primarily concerned that, if the debt keeps rising, taxes will have to go up to pay for it (like they did in the years after WWII). They're right. But not for the reasons they think. Fact is, debt is going UP at least somewhat because of tax cuts, so it stands to reason that with tax increases, deficits would go down (or at least rise less fast).
You don't want to point the finger at any party, so I will. Check the graph -- after Carter, we had Reagan/Bush in the 80's/early 90s (and debt went up). Clinton went up for a bit, peaked, and but was lower after he ended office (as a percentage of gdp) than when he started (92-2000). We all know what happened after Bush. Why? Primarily tax cuts. Lower revenues = less money to pay for stuff we want/need. Republicans can't have it both ways -- lower taxes AND lower debt. It's impossible, and they're largely to blame for this.
Make no mistake -- we need government. And I have complaints with Democrats too. Reagan used to say "The scariest words in the english language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."" However, I'd argue that, even scarier, is the alternative that Republicans offer: "Government is evil, so hire me to run it."
Do you think this was a good response? What did I leave out? Am I correct that this is inappropriate to show at work? What are your thoughts on the video?
I'll be hanging out in the comments....