Blog Archives

The Club PUBlication 07/29/2024

7/29/2024

Biden bows out,
putting country first

Voters can now focus on the significant policy differences between the two political parties, not just the presidential candidates’ personal capacities.

A critical though unsung test of leadership comes when it's time to exit the public stage, with the ideal leave-taking done at the right time, accompanied by grace and selflessness.

While President Joe Biden's troubling debate performance strongly suggested that he should have stepped aside sooner, his decision to do so now nevertheless exemplifies the latter two qualities. On Sunday, Biden, 81, announced that he will not run for re-election. It's a decision that certainly couldn't have come easily but one that prioritizes the nation's needs over his own.

Biden has ably served his country, with the strong economy in particular reflecting well on his stewardship. Among other accomplishments: the bipartisan infrastructure deal; passage of the CHIPS and Science Act, which will strengthen U.S. leadership in technology research and manufacturing, and the protections his administration has put in place for Minnesota's beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. He also merits praise for his commitment to reproductive health freedom after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

The wisdom that comes with Biden's age was sorely needed after the COVID-19 pandemic and the exhausting chaos of former President Donald Trump's time in the White House. But the challenges ahead mean there can be no doubts about the stamina of the nation's next CEO.

Biden assuaged some of these concerns in follow-up interviews and speeches after the disastrous debate in late June. But he couldn't erase all of them. Another four years of the world's toughest job just didn't seem realistic. Voters should apply that same hardheaded assessment to Trump, who is 78, and is known to fall asleep in the courtroom, forget names, mangle words in speeches and expound at length on head-scratching topics like sharks and electrocution.

With just three and a half months before Election Day, Biden regrettably leaves his party with scant time to designate a successor and re-engineer a campaign for the White House. It's a daunting undertaking, and the party should be given room to determine its best course of action. A challenge like this can be the crucible in which the next generation of Democratic Party leaders is forged. Hopefully, they'll rise to the occasion at the party's national convention in Chicago on Aug. 19-22.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz increasingly has had a high-profile role, becoming one of Biden's leading defenders in recent media appearances. The Star Tribune Editorial Board hopes that party leadership role continues after Biden's exit. Walz is an energetic voice not just for Minnesota, but for the Midwest, a region where Democrats have lost precipitous amounts of political ground in the past decade.

Biden's decision is also an important opportunity for voters during the 2024 campaign. With capacity concerns about him now moot, Americans can and should focus more deeply on the policy differences between the two political parties. They're significant.

The Republican National Convention, which was held in Milwaukee and concluded July 18, put a disturbing spotlight on immigration. Signs displayed there called for "Mass Deportation Now!" While there are valid border security concerns, this supposed solution ignores this reality: that immigrants are a crucial part of the workforce in agriculture, meatpacking, construction and other industries. We're already in the midst of a historic labor shortage, and mass deportations would only exacerbate it. Basic humanity should also have a role in the nation's immigration policy, with this quality not readily apparent in Republicans' deportation sloganeering.

Other key policy differences:

Ukraine.
Trump's new running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, is among the leading congressional opponents of Ukrainian aid. Biden's foreign policy, one his successor likely would continue, has forged international support for Ukraine and kept munitions flowing to it. While Trump's allies have recently touted his ability to broker a peace deal in the conflict, voters should question whether that "peace" involves rewarding Russia's aggression with Ukrainian territory, something that will only embolden Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and other empire-minded autocrats.

Climate.
When oil executives complained about Biden's renewable energy and electric vehicle policies, Trump told the industry to raise $1 billion for his campaign, then vowed to reverse those Biden initiatives, according to the Washington Post. The overt suggestion of policy changes for the highest bidder is alarming, as is the lack of commitment to fighting climate change.

Reproductive health care.
Trump has taken credit for striking down abortion protections, saying in a 2023 speech that "I was able to kill Roe v. Wade." While he now appears to understand his party's vulnerability on this issue, he also chose a running mate in Vance who has supported a federal abortion ban and has opposed exceptions to rape and incest, though his views may have evolved. In contrast, Biden has wielded executive action to safeguard reproductive health care. His successor must continue to make reproductive health care freedom a top priority.

Protecting the Boundary Waters from mining.
The Biden administration put in place a 20-year moratorium on risky copper mining near the BWCAW. Trump during his first administration installed industry lobbyists intent on allowing a Chilean mining conglomerate to open a mine in this sensitive watershed. The apparent pay-to-play offer for Big Oil also raises deep concerns about Trump kowtowing to the Chilean firm for the right sum.

Time may be short between now and Nov. 5, but there's still time for a healthy and informed campaign that focuses on these stark policy differences rather than age. Biden's selfless step has made that possible.
His exit also stands in welcome contrast to Trump's graceless, selfish handling of his 2020 defeat. Biden deserves his nation's thanks for his time in White House and his decision to serve one term.

The Club PUBlication 07/22/2024

7/22/2024

Project 2025 will guide Trump’s dismantling of democracy

Everyone should familiarize themselves with this road map to autocracy.
FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

The necessary if alarming national debate over President Joe Biden's cognitive fitness shouldn't obscure the reason the stakes in that debate are so high: Former President Donald Trump has been fundamentally, dangerously unfit for office since before he took the oath the first time, in ways far worse than the ravages of age that are central to Biden's situation. That's why it's so urgent that Democrats field a candidate strong enough to prevent Trump's return.

A second Trump term would almost certainly be even more disruptive to the norms of democracy than his first term was. The institutional guardrails on presidential power that restrained his worst instincts last time — that prevented him from using the military against civilians, from weaponizing government against his critics, from shattering NATO, from overturning a national election — won't necessarily hold now that he understands where they are and how they work.

Instructions for disassembling those guardrails are contained in a roughly 900-page document titled Project 2025. Compiled by more than 100 conservative organizations and backed by more than 200 officials from Trump's first administration, it is nothing less than a blueprint for systematically consolidating power around the presidency to a degree that approaches autocracy.

No one should buy Trump's recent, implausible disavowal of that blueprint. And everyone should familiarize themselves with it — especially those considering voting for Trump in November, or just not voting, in light of Biden's struggling campaign.

Project 2025 is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, the far-right think tank behind some of Trump's most radical policies in his first term. The organization's president, Kevin Roberts, said in a recent interview that the current project, implicitly premised on Trump's return to office, will drive "a second American revolution" — one that "will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, consider some of the project's specific recommendations and goals for a second Trump term:

It would place much of the federal bureaucracy, currently made up primarily of nonpolitical civil servants, under direct control of the president by stripping their civil-service protection.

That would give the president an army of potentially tens of thousands of ground-level political foot soldiers, interacting with countless regular Americans on issues from tax enforcement to law enforcement to Social Security and Medicare and countless other areas of everyday life. No longer would expertise in a given area determine who fills those functions; political fealty to the president would become the only criterion.

It would greatly expand the role of the U.S. military on domestic soil, using armed forces to capture undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and deploying soldiers for other domestic law enforcement purposes.

That possibility must be pondered in combination with Trump's reported interest in invoking the archaic Insurrection Act to use the military against Inauguration Day protesters on his theoretical first day back in office.

It would set the stage for even more draconian restriction on abortion rights, starting with banning the abortion drug mifepristone, even in states where abortion remains legal.

In a truly Orwellian turn, it would even scrub a long list of offending phrases from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists," including: "sexual orientation and gender identity ... gender equality ... abortion, reproductive health, [and] reproductive rights."

It would turn the civil-rights function of the Department of Justice on its head: Instead of taking legal action to protect minorities, women and others from discrimination, its mission would become persecuting local governments, universities, corporations and other entities that dare to institute DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies that are designed to counter discrimination.

• It would turn the FBI into little more than the personal police force for the president, diminishing the agency's staffing and eliminating the director's 10-year term — thus making that person a purely political appointee who can be hired or fired at will based on literally nothing but loyalty to the president.

• It would aggressively turn back the clock on environmental and climate progress, repealing regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions, gutting the EPA and downsizing agencies, including the National Weather Service, which it labels "drivers of the climate change alarm industry."

There's much more of this dystopian fantasy, all of it easily available online at project2025.org.

This radical-right manifesto has been out there awhile but has come under renewed scrutiny lately.

Trump responded to recent public outrage over the plan by claiming on social media last week: "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

None of that is believable or even coherent. Some of Trump's closest allies are publicly behind the project, including likely officials in a second Trump administration. And if he knows "nothing" about it, how does he declare in the same sentence that it's "ridiculous and abysmal"? Does that include the plan to strip civil service protections, which Trump himself tried to do in his first term? Lies and incoherence are nothing new from this ex-president — and these policy goals should look familiar as well, reflecting as they do so much of Trump's disdain for constraints on the power of the presidency. This document should serve as a warning that there are actually worse possibilities in the White House than potential infirmity.

The Club PUBlication 07/15/2024

7/15/2024

Homeowners insurance erodes

Storms and wildfires are getting worse. Property insurance companies can’t keep up. Homeowners are paying the price.

Climate change is coming for Americans' homes and wallets. And in a pretty spectacular fashion: In Iowa, insurers lost $1.3 billion in 2023 alone due to an unprecedented series of storms that devastated the state.

The Midwest, normally considered a safe haven from homeowner nightmares such as hurricanes and wildfires, is now getting wracked by increasingly destructive weather, as warmer temperatures are heightening the severity and frequency of storms.

In June alone, record floods overwhelmed communities in southern Minnesota, leading to major infrastructure and property damage and costing millions in repairs. Hail is the most expensive weather event, even more than tornadoes. Damages from hail now total in the billions annually and are steadily increasing with warming temperatures.

Unfortunately, this is a nationwide trend, and the insurance companies responsible for covering homes damaged by severe storms simply cannot keep up. In six out of the past seven years, in Minnesota alone, home insurance companies have lost money, and the losses are rapidly increasing. This is positioning Minnesota insurance companies to drop high-risk homeowners from insurance plans en masse, something already happening in high-risk states such as Iowa, Florida and California. The remaining insurance companies subject desperate homeowners to explosively expensive premiums, which, in Iowa, have increased by over 40% for some high-risk homeowners.

This phenomenon continues to worsen in the storm-ravaged Midwestern states bordering Minnesota, as well as flooded Florida and fiery California, as they struggle to contend with their new realities. High-risk, governmentrun insurance providers such as FAIR and the Citizens Property Insurance Corp. have stepped up to insure the properties most insurance companies now refuse to cover, though the expense is unsustainable for homeowners.

These government programs are meant to be a temporary fix, not a realistic long-term solution. However, they've become a critical lifeline for millions: In Florida, Citizens Property is now the largest insurer for property in the state. Bad news for Minnesotan snowbirds and Floridians alike.

Part of the reason for this issue is construction quality of houses in the United States. Minnesota has taken small steps to encourage sturdier houses — it now requires insurance companies to offer discounts to homeowners who reinforce their homes against natural disasters, promoting measures such as strengthening roofs against high wind and hail. It's not enough. The macro forces creating this problem are greater than Band-Aid-level measures can effectively counter.

The insurance companies will be fine. They will narrow and adjust their markets and policies as needed to be profitable. Homeowners are the ones paying the price, literally. They have no choice but to pay.

What can be done? Climate change isn't going to reverse itself overnight.

Storms, fires and floods aren't going anywhere. American contractors aren't going to suddenly start embodying the brick-house style from the "Three Little Pigs." But there is a silver lining to this hardship, and a potential remedy within it.

Many of the states devastated by these storms are predominantly red states, run by governments that historically have denied climate change and have pushed against sustainable developments. Perhaps lawmakers will pursue policies with the new hardships their constituents are battling in mind.

Storms are getting worse. Property insurance companies can't keep up. Homeowners are paying the price.

The Club PUBlication 07/08/2024

7/8/2024

Know how to give, and take, criticism
OUTSWIMMING THE SHARKS
HARVEY MACKAY

A prominent New York critic was leaving the theater after a Broadway opening and met the producer in the lobby. The latter took one look at the critic's suit, which was rumpled as usual, and said with some annoyance, "That's a fine way to dress for my opening. Your suit looks as if you slept in it."

"It's no wonder," the critic replied, "I just woke up."

Touche! Criticism gets a double whammy.

Ask any manager what the least favorite part of their job is. Nine times out of 10, the answer will be when it becomes necessary to criticize an employee's work. This is a tough situation to be in anywhere, but especially at the office, where people can decide not to accept your advice and quit.

Offering criticism to employees is a delicate task, but when done correctly, it can lead to growth and improvement.

One of my favorite sayings is, "No one ever kicks a dead dog," which means you have to be doing something to get criticized. My point is not to take criticism personally. When a coach or a friend or a boss is criticizing you, that usually means they really care, and even though it may not feel like it, they want to help you.

Pro basketball great LeBron James said: "I like criticism. It makes you strong."

As a boss, remember first and foremost the goal of criticism is to improve performance, not belittle or demoralize. Keep the focus on the behavior or the outcome, not the person. Prepare your feedback by being specific, timely and objective. Vague comments can be confusing.

Be clear about what behavior needs to change and why. Offer feedback as soon as possible after the event. Waiting too long can make it seem less relevant or important.

Also pick an appropriate setting. A private, comfortable space is best for offering criticism. Never criticize in public. Give the employee a chance to respond. There may be factors you are unaware of that are affecting their performance.

Remember, the way you offer criticism can either inspire improvement or cause resentment. It is not just what you say, but how you say it that matters.

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said: "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
In the comic strip "Peanuts," Lucy, who constantly criticizes Charlie Brown, is one of my favorite characters because she always says exactly what is on her mind.

Peeved at Charlie, she once told him, "You, Charlie Brown, are a foul ball in the line drive of life."

She is just as tough on her little brother, Linus, who always has his security blanket clutched in one hand and his thumb resting safely in his mouth.

"Why are you always anxious to criticize me?" Linus asks Lucy.
"I just think I have a knack for seeing other people's faults," Lucy says.
"What about your own faults?" replies Linus.

Without hesitation, Lucy answers right back, "I have a knack for overlooking them."

Mackay's Moral: Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a person's growth without destroying the roots.

Harvey Mackay is a Minneapolis businessman. Contact him at 612-378- 6202 or email [email protected].