Evan Bayh versus Dick Cheney for president in 2008? Political scientist Larry Sabato speculated along those lines in an entertaining look at politics he delivered on April 29 in Lincoln, Neb. Sabato is often quoted in the national media; learn more about him at www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/.
Bayh, a moderate Democrat, is the Indiana senator with a “squeaky clean” background. Sabato notes that Indiana’s electoral votes went to Bush in 2004. With Bayh as the candidate, those 11 votes would likely switch to the Democrat tally. Ohio, the neighboring state that determined the outcome of the 2004 election, would be dramatically influenced to go with Bayh, Sabato speculated.
Bayh is a better candidate than New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who Sabato said carries too much baggage and is too liberal for much of the country. Sabato predicted, however, that the primaries in 2008 leading up to the Democratic national convention will feature a contest between Clinton and Bayh.
Vice President Cheney has said he won’t run for president, but Sabato described a scenario in which Cheney declares his candidacy based on a request from President Bush who says ‘there is still work to be done.’ “If he does that, he clears the Republican field. It’s over,” said Sabato. “Cheney’s the nominee. Doesn’t matter that he now is saying he doesn’t want to run.”
Sabato said all presidential elections are decided according to four factors: war, the economy, scandal, and hot-button social issues. In 2004, the war, the economy and the social issues all worked in favor of President Bush.
Although he won by nearly 3 million votes, Sabato pointed out that it was an extremely close election. “If 58,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way, John Kerry would be our president today,” he said. “Only Woodrow Wilson in 1916 had a closer re-election in the electoral college. On the popular vote, no president who ever has been re-elected has been re-elected by this narrow of a margin.”
Sabato offered the following list for 2008 presidential candidates:
Republicans:
George Allen, Senator from Virginia
Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska
Sam Brownback, Senator from Kansas
Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York
Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas
New Gingrich, former Congressman from Georgia
John McCain, Senator from Arizona
Bill Frist, Senator from Tennessee
George Pataki, Governor of New York
Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico
Evan Bayh, Senator from Indiana
Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia
Al Gore, former vice president
Gen. Wesley Clark
Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware
John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts
Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa
Phil Bredesen, Governor of Tennessee
Russ Feingold, Senator from Wisconsin
Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont
John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina
Sabato predicted that mid-term elections in 2006 will be hard on the Republicans. The administration usually suffers during the election conducted in the sixth year of an eight-year two-term administration, he said. Sabato said Harry Truman in 1950, Dwight Eisenhower in 1958, Lyndon Johnson of the Kennedy-Johnson presidency in 1966, Gerald Ford of the Nixon-Ford administration in 1974, and Ronald Reagan in 1986 all suffered party losses in Congress. Sabato noted Bill Clinton as the exception in 1998, but attributed that to a voter backlash against Republican impeachment tactics.
Sabato also predicted Democrats will make gains in governorships across the country in 2006.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Economist points toward link between interest rates and employment
The Federal Reserve raised its Federal Funds interest rate to 3.00 percent on Tuesday, May 3, and three days later the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the U.S. economy created 274,000 jobs during April. Mitchell J. Held, an economist and market analyst for Citigroup, encouraged the business group he addressed in Minneapolis on May 3 to pay attention to those two numbers. The Fed will increase the rate of interest rate hikes if it senses the labor market heating up, Held said.
“The most important factor in looking at the Fed Funds rate over the next three or four months will be the unemployment rate,” Held said. “If the unemployment rate drops below 5 percent and stays there, I would not be surprised to see before the end of the year, the pace of rate hikes pick up.”
Despite the healthy growth in job numbers, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.2 percent for April. That’s compared to 5.5 percent in April 2004, and 6.3 percent in June of 2003. After gains of 300,000 jobs in February and 146,000 jobs in March, total employment stands at 133.3 million jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the April gains came from new hires in construction, mining and service businesses.
Held said that two-thirds of the cost of any product is labor, so if labor costs go up, the Fed begins to worry about inflation. “When you start to get below 5 percent unemployment, that’s when wages start to get bid up,” he said.
Held said he expects the Fed Funds rate to be between 3.5 percent and 4.0 percent at year end, and trend as high as 4.75 percent in 2006. “At that point, we think the Fed will become more neutral in nature." (The neutral rate is the rate at which it neither stimulates nor deters economic growth.)
Held is generally optimistic about the condition of the economy. Although many observers have said the economy is “going through a soft patch,” Held said the country’s foreign exchange policy and fiscal policy, in addition to the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy, are all encouraging economic growth.
The widening trade deficit, coupled with a perception that European economic growth will be greater than U.S. growth, has put the dollar “under some downward pressure,” Held said. “Downward pressure tends to promote economic growth. Foreign exchange policy is not particularly restrictive at this point.”
Tax collection for the month of April was higher than expected, Held said. Budget deficit estimates are going to be reduced sharply, he said, estimating the 2005 deficit “somewhere south of $350 billion.” Spending, he said, remains a problem. “Unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle have not forgotten how to spend,” he cautioned. “Nobody is serious about any spending restraint. Fiscal policy itself is not particularly restrictive at this point.”
The core inflation rate is 2.3 percent, creating a real Fed Funds rate of 0.70 percent, Held said. “People would say that is still accommodative. Anything north of a real Fed Funds rate of 2 percent is restrictive.” The Fed has a lot of room to raise rates, given the current inflation situation.
“The three policies are clearly not restrictive and may be even accommodative,” Held summarized. “Until one of those policies becomes restrictive I don’t know how this economy grinds to a halt. There are no policies standing in the way.”
“The most important factor in looking at the Fed Funds rate over the next three or four months will be the unemployment rate,” Held said. “If the unemployment rate drops below 5 percent and stays there, I would not be surprised to see before the end of the year, the pace of rate hikes pick up.”
Despite the healthy growth in job numbers, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.2 percent for April. That’s compared to 5.5 percent in April 2004, and 6.3 percent in June of 2003. After gains of 300,000 jobs in February and 146,000 jobs in March, total employment stands at 133.3 million jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the April gains came from new hires in construction, mining and service businesses.
Held said that two-thirds of the cost of any product is labor, so if labor costs go up, the Fed begins to worry about inflation. “When you start to get below 5 percent unemployment, that’s when wages start to get bid up,” he said.
Held said he expects the Fed Funds rate to be between 3.5 percent and 4.0 percent at year end, and trend as high as 4.75 percent in 2006. “At that point, we think the Fed will become more neutral in nature." (The neutral rate is the rate at which it neither stimulates nor deters economic growth.)
Held is generally optimistic about the condition of the economy. Although many observers have said the economy is “going through a soft patch,” Held said the country’s foreign exchange policy and fiscal policy, in addition to the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy, are all encouraging economic growth.
The widening trade deficit, coupled with a perception that European economic growth will be greater than U.S. growth, has put the dollar “under some downward pressure,” Held said. “Downward pressure tends to promote economic growth. Foreign exchange policy is not particularly restrictive at this point.”
Tax collection for the month of April was higher than expected, Held said. Budget deficit estimates are going to be reduced sharply, he said, estimating the 2005 deficit “somewhere south of $350 billion.” Spending, he said, remains a problem. “Unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle have not forgotten how to spend,” he cautioned. “Nobody is serious about any spending restraint. Fiscal policy itself is not particularly restrictive at this point.”
The core inflation rate is 2.3 percent, creating a real Fed Funds rate of 0.70 percent, Held said. “People would say that is still accommodative. Anything north of a real Fed Funds rate of 2 percent is restrictive.” The Fed has a lot of room to raise rates, given the current inflation situation.
“The three policies are clearly not restrictive and may be even accommodative,” Held summarized. “Until one of those policies becomes restrictive I don’t know how this economy grinds to a halt. There are no policies standing in the way.”
Friday, May 06, 2005
Governor’s Chief of Staff outlines Minnesota’s budget situation
Dan McElroy is one of the most articulate political staffers I have ever met. The chief of staff to Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty addressed a business group in Bloomington on May 3. He talked about the Governor’s priorities for the state budget, which is currently being debated in the legislature.
McElroy said the Governor wants a budget that enhances the state’s competitiveness with other states for attracting and retaining good jobs, which make a high quality of living possible.
“This is not our grandfather’s economy,” McElroy said. “Fifty years ago, most of the jobs were anchored here; there were ties to here that were difficult to break. They were anchored to the soil in agriculture; they were anchored to the timber industry, or to minerals extraction, or to huge investments in manufacturing. Those anchors are no longer in place…
“Every job we compete for in Minnesota is a job that is essentially portable. The fast-growing industries are not anchored to soil or timber or minerals. They are anchored to a highly-trained workforce, to good communications and transportation, and to a competitive business environment.”
McElroy summarized the administration’s budget proposal. It increases government spending in the next two years by 6 percent so the budget goes from $28.3 billion in the last biennium, to $29.6 billion in the next biennium.
McElroy noted that in 1970, Gov. Harold LeVander proposed a biennial budget that for the first time hit $1 billion. It had doubled in 14 years, since 1955, when Gov. Orville Freeman presented a $500 million budget.
“We had 3.5 million people in 1970,” McElroy said. “That was spending of $123 per capita. If the budget had grown from 1970 to 2000 by inflation, it would have been $8.8 billion, and it was, in fact, $26 billion, or at that point, about $2,500 per capita. It is now about $3,000 per capita…
“If government were to grow as fast between now and 2030 as it did between 1970 and today, the budget in 2030 would be $1.3 trillion or $54,000 per capita. In order for it to be the same percentage of personal income that it is today -- about 10 percent -- every man, woman and child in Minnesota would have to make $540,000 per year from cradle to grave. That might happen, but I think it would be a mistake to bet the ranch on that.”
McElroy gave the following reasons for Gov. Pawlenty’s reluctance to raise taxes.
First, he said: “It is illogical in this competitive environment for government to grow faster than the economy. The debate is that some elements of our spending, such as education and health care, are growing faster than the balance of the economy. Can we make the tough decisions to hold the total growth in state government to about 6 percent? Can government grow faster than the economy, responsibly in the long term? We do not believe that it can.”
Second, he explained that surrounding states are not raising taxes. He said Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan are unlikely to raise taxes this year. North and South Dakota already have adjourned their 2005 legislative sessions and did not raise their taxes.
Third, McElroy said the state’s demographics are working against us. He described something called the “dependency ratio,” which is the number of people under 16 and over 65 compared to the number of people between 16 and 65. Most government services, he said, are consumed by the young and the old, and funded by working people between 16 and 65.
“Today there are 55 people under 16 or over 65 for every 100 people between those ages,” he said. “By 2030, that number will be 65, and by 2040 it will be 80. Can we continue to grow services as fast in a condition where we have about 55 dependents for every 100 wage earners as we can in a circumstance where we have 80 dependent people for every 100 people who are in their prime working years? We argue that is not very smart.”
Fourth, McElroy said Minnesota already is a very high tax state. “The latest data from the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, based on 2002 numbers, shows Minnesota spends 20 percent more than the national average on state and local spending combined,” McElroy said. “We spend 11 percent more than Wisconsin, 18 percent more than Iowa, 47 percent more than South Dakota. 113 percent more than Mississippi. That spending drives taxes.
“Minnesota ranks fifth in the nation for taxes on a per capita basis, and eighth in the nation on taxes as a percentage of personal income. We rank first by far in the Upper Midwest on those measures.
"Do we get enough competitive advantage from the education investment we make, the transportation investment that we make, the environmental investment we make, to justify those high prices? Over the last 30 years, we have. Can we sustain that competitive advantage with health care growing at 18 percent per biennium? That challenge in this whole equation is not education, transportation or the environment; it’s the rapid growth in the cost of health care.
“We are proposing health care spending to grow by 15 percent in the next biennium, compared to 18 percent under current law,” he said. “We are proposing to go from first in the nation for the generosity of our state-subsidized health care programs to first in the nation. And we will go from the lowest number of uninsured persons in a state, to the lowest number of uninsured people in a state, in the country. We are proposing to slow the growth in Minnesota Care by 23,000 people over the next two years…
“One problem we are having is dumping, where employers who used to offer health care no longer do. Another is the changing demographics of the health care market. Is it an easy decision to slow the growth of Minnesota Care? It is not. None of our surrounding states have programs like Minnesota Care, except Wisconsin. But Wisconsin does not provide coverage at all -– it never has –- for single adults without children. And they stop family coverage at 185 percent of the federal poverty level. Minnesota has been at 275 percent of that level and is proposing to go to 190. If we do not get health care expenditures under some level of control, it will literally eat the budget for all other things that are important to our ability to be competitive.”
Fifth, he said, “The people of Minnesota would like us to not raise taxes. Gov. Pawlenty and staff have traveled to more than 500 cities, listening to people about this issue. The number of people who think government should live within its means ranges from 60 to 70 percent.”
McElroy addressed two other issues: education and casino gambling.
He noted that the administration in proposing an 8 percent increase in education funding over the next two years. The administration advocates a pay-for-performance system, while critics oppose that system.
“We ignored the fact that in some schools 70 percent of the students don’t finish high school in four years, or 40 percent of the students can’t read at an eighth grade level in time to graduate in four years. On average, we graduate about 90 percent of our students in four years, compared to a national average of 74 percent, but we can’t be content with educating averages,” he said. “We have to educate every child. And so we have to be willing to change some things, like paying teachers based on their performance rather than their seniority, re-inventing the junior and senior year in high school so it is more effective. And we have to look more at school principals as CEOs, rather than bureaucrats and thoughtless disciplinarians. That is, someone who is running a business whose product is satisfied parents and educated children. We cannot have a competitive economy in the 21st century without effective schools.”
On gambling, he said the debate is about who should benefit from its expansion.
“It is a fact that Minnesotans love to gamble,” he said. “We are among the top states in the country in terms of gambling per capita. We have 18 successful casinos in Minnesota. We have the third-largest casino gaming industry in the country after Connecticut and California. Our competitors get revenue from casino gaming. Connecticut, California, New York and others states get about 25 percent of the revenue from their tribal casinos in exchange for exclusivity. States around us get revenue from gaming. In Wisconsin’s case, they have an agreement with their tribes. In Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois and Michigan, they have private gaming.
“The governor’s preference would be not to expand gambling. But it would be delusional to say that gambling isn’t expanding of its own initiative. We’ve gone from 15,000 slot machines in Minnesota five years ago to 21,000 machines today. There are more sales of lottery tickets, pull tabs, and online gaming than ever before. It’s a $1.4 billion industry. The question is not should gambling expand, but who should benefit?
“In a presentation before the Minnesota Senate the executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association testified that fewer than 1,000 Minnesota Indians have benefited significantly from casino gaming. Fifty-four thousand people are still waiting.
“The governor has partnered with the White Earth tribe, which has 24,000 members, about 44 percent of Minnesota’s Indians, to propose working with Canterbury Park, to have two facilities which we are calling the Casinos at Canterbury. It would not provide a geographic expansion of gaming. It would provide revenue to the state, revenue to some of the poorest Indians of Minnesota.
“Would you rather get revenue from Minnesota gaming, or raise taxes on Minnesota families? We think it makes more sense to get revenue from gaming.”
The constitutional deadline for the legislature to adjourn in 2005 is Monday, May 23. The lawmakers will have to make a lot of progress to meet that deadline.
McElroy said the Governor wants a budget that enhances the state’s competitiveness with other states for attracting and retaining good jobs, which make a high quality of living possible.
“This is not our grandfather’s economy,” McElroy said. “Fifty years ago, most of the jobs were anchored here; there were ties to here that were difficult to break. They were anchored to the soil in agriculture; they were anchored to the timber industry, or to minerals extraction, or to huge investments in manufacturing. Those anchors are no longer in place…
“Every job we compete for in Minnesota is a job that is essentially portable. The fast-growing industries are not anchored to soil or timber or minerals. They are anchored to a highly-trained workforce, to good communications and transportation, and to a competitive business environment.”
McElroy summarized the administration’s budget proposal. It increases government spending in the next two years by 6 percent so the budget goes from $28.3 billion in the last biennium, to $29.6 billion in the next biennium.
McElroy noted that in 1970, Gov. Harold LeVander proposed a biennial budget that for the first time hit $1 billion. It had doubled in 14 years, since 1955, when Gov. Orville Freeman presented a $500 million budget.
“We had 3.5 million people in 1970,” McElroy said. “That was spending of $123 per capita. If the budget had grown from 1970 to 2000 by inflation, it would have been $8.8 billion, and it was, in fact, $26 billion, or at that point, about $2,500 per capita. It is now about $3,000 per capita…
“If government were to grow as fast between now and 2030 as it did between 1970 and today, the budget in 2030 would be $1.3 trillion or $54,000 per capita. In order for it to be the same percentage of personal income that it is today -- about 10 percent -- every man, woman and child in Minnesota would have to make $540,000 per year from cradle to grave. That might happen, but I think it would be a mistake to bet the ranch on that.”
McElroy gave the following reasons for Gov. Pawlenty’s reluctance to raise taxes.
First, he said: “It is illogical in this competitive environment for government to grow faster than the economy. The debate is that some elements of our spending, such as education and health care, are growing faster than the balance of the economy. Can we make the tough decisions to hold the total growth in state government to about 6 percent? Can government grow faster than the economy, responsibly in the long term? We do not believe that it can.”
Second, he explained that surrounding states are not raising taxes. He said Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan are unlikely to raise taxes this year. North and South Dakota already have adjourned their 2005 legislative sessions and did not raise their taxes.
Third, McElroy said the state’s demographics are working against us. He described something called the “dependency ratio,” which is the number of people under 16 and over 65 compared to the number of people between 16 and 65. Most government services, he said, are consumed by the young and the old, and funded by working people between 16 and 65.
“Today there are 55 people under 16 or over 65 for every 100 people between those ages,” he said. “By 2030, that number will be 65, and by 2040 it will be 80. Can we continue to grow services as fast in a condition where we have about 55 dependents for every 100 wage earners as we can in a circumstance where we have 80 dependent people for every 100 people who are in their prime working years? We argue that is not very smart.”
Fourth, McElroy said Minnesota already is a very high tax state. “The latest data from the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, based on 2002 numbers, shows Minnesota spends 20 percent more than the national average on state and local spending combined,” McElroy said. “We spend 11 percent more than Wisconsin, 18 percent more than Iowa, 47 percent more than South Dakota. 113 percent more than Mississippi. That spending drives taxes.
“Minnesota ranks fifth in the nation for taxes on a per capita basis, and eighth in the nation on taxes as a percentage of personal income. We rank first by far in the Upper Midwest on those measures.
"Do we get enough competitive advantage from the education investment we make, the transportation investment that we make, the environmental investment we make, to justify those high prices? Over the last 30 years, we have. Can we sustain that competitive advantage with health care growing at 18 percent per biennium? That challenge in this whole equation is not education, transportation or the environment; it’s the rapid growth in the cost of health care.
“We are proposing health care spending to grow by 15 percent in the next biennium, compared to 18 percent under current law,” he said. “We are proposing to go from first in the nation for the generosity of our state-subsidized health care programs to first in the nation. And we will go from the lowest number of uninsured persons in a state, to the lowest number of uninsured people in a state, in the country. We are proposing to slow the growth in Minnesota Care by 23,000 people over the next two years…
“One problem we are having is dumping, where employers who used to offer health care no longer do. Another is the changing demographics of the health care market. Is it an easy decision to slow the growth of Minnesota Care? It is not. None of our surrounding states have programs like Minnesota Care, except Wisconsin. But Wisconsin does not provide coverage at all -– it never has –- for single adults without children. And they stop family coverage at 185 percent of the federal poverty level. Minnesota has been at 275 percent of that level and is proposing to go to 190. If we do not get health care expenditures under some level of control, it will literally eat the budget for all other things that are important to our ability to be competitive.”
Fifth, he said, “The people of Minnesota would like us to not raise taxes. Gov. Pawlenty and staff have traveled to more than 500 cities, listening to people about this issue. The number of people who think government should live within its means ranges from 60 to 70 percent.”
McElroy addressed two other issues: education and casino gambling.
He noted that the administration in proposing an 8 percent increase in education funding over the next two years. The administration advocates a pay-for-performance system, while critics oppose that system.
“We ignored the fact that in some schools 70 percent of the students don’t finish high school in four years, or 40 percent of the students can’t read at an eighth grade level in time to graduate in four years. On average, we graduate about 90 percent of our students in four years, compared to a national average of 74 percent, but we can’t be content with educating averages,” he said. “We have to educate every child. And so we have to be willing to change some things, like paying teachers based on their performance rather than their seniority, re-inventing the junior and senior year in high school so it is more effective. And we have to look more at school principals as CEOs, rather than bureaucrats and thoughtless disciplinarians. That is, someone who is running a business whose product is satisfied parents and educated children. We cannot have a competitive economy in the 21st century without effective schools.”
On gambling, he said the debate is about who should benefit from its expansion.
“It is a fact that Minnesotans love to gamble,” he said. “We are among the top states in the country in terms of gambling per capita. We have 18 successful casinos in Minnesota. We have the third-largest casino gaming industry in the country after Connecticut and California. Our competitors get revenue from casino gaming. Connecticut, California, New York and others states get about 25 percent of the revenue from their tribal casinos in exchange for exclusivity. States around us get revenue from gaming. In Wisconsin’s case, they have an agreement with their tribes. In Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois and Michigan, they have private gaming.
“The governor’s preference would be not to expand gambling. But it would be delusional to say that gambling isn’t expanding of its own initiative. We’ve gone from 15,000 slot machines in Minnesota five years ago to 21,000 machines today. There are more sales of lottery tickets, pull tabs, and online gaming than ever before. It’s a $1.4 billion industry. The question is not should gambling expand, but who should benefit?
“In a presentation before the Minnesota Senate the executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association testified that fewer than 1,000 Minnesota Indians have benefited significantly from casino gaming. Fifty-four thousand people are still waiting.
“The governor has partnered with the White Earth tribe, which has 24,000 members, about 44 percent of Minnesota’s Indians, to propose working with Canterbury Park, to have two facilities which we are calling the Casinos at Canterbury. It would not provide a geographic expansion of gaming. It would provide revenue to the state, revenue to some of the poorest Indians of Minnesota.
“Would you rather get revenue from Minnesota gaming, or raise taxes on Minnesota families? We think it makes more sense to get revenue from gaming.”
The constitutional deadline for the legislature to adjourn in 2005 is Monday, May 23. The lawmakers will have to make a lot of progress to meet that deadline.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Bankruptcy: reform versus education
After an eight-year battle, bankruptcy reform finally became law when President Bush signed it on April 20. The bill was passed on the strength of the belief that too many people who wipe out their debts with the bankruptcy process could, in fact, repay at least a portion of their debt. The new law will force more people into the repayment plan version of bankruptcy (Chapter 13), rather than allow them to file Chapter 7, which essentially allows them to wipe out their debts.
It will be interesting to assess the effects of this law after it has been in place for a few years. The American Bankruptcy Institute commissioned a study that says under the current system less than 4 percent of Chapter 7 filers would be candidates for any repayment plan at all. The new law subjects bankruptcy filers to a “means” test, which attempts to determine their ability to repay their debt. If the new test forces more than 4 percent of those Chapter 7 filers into Chapter 13, the law will simply prolong their period of financial hardship until they fail under the repayment plan.
In the best of circumstances, when a person files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, he or she gets a court-appointed trustee to establish a repayment plan to fit their situation. In most cases, however, there are too few trustees available to give every filer a customized plan. Most filers get forced into template plans designed for everyone but suitable for no one. If it turns out that the number of people failing to meet the requirements of their Chapter 13 repayment plans increases dramatically, something is going to need to be done about improving those plans.
My hunch is that after a few years, we will discover that we don’t have a bankruptcy problem in this country, we have a debt problem. It isn’t that too many people game the bankruptcy system, it is that too many people run up unsustainable levels of debt. Although credit card companies pushed for this legislation, I am skeptical that it will do much to change the amount of money collected from over-extended borrowers.
Much more important is financial education to help people understand what is realistic in terms of managing debt. This is a matter of working with schools, colleges and community education programs to get people into basic budgeting courses. Community-oriented lawmakers should consider taking the lead on this effort; if they were successful, I suspect the lasting impact of those efforts would be far more substantial than the effects of bankruptcy reform will ever be.
It will be interesting to assess the effects of this law after it has been in place for a few years. The American Bankruptcy Institute commissioned a study that says under the current system less than 4 percent of Chapter 7 filers would be candidates for any repayment plan at all. The new law subjects bankruptcy filers to a “means” test, which attempts to determine their ability to repay their debt. If the new test forces more than 4 percent of those Chapter 7 filers into Chapter 13, the law will simply prolong their period of financial hardship until they fail under the repayment plan.
In the best of circumstances, when a person files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, he or she gets a court-appointed trustee to establish a repayment plan to fit their situation. In most cases, however, there are too few trustees available to give every filer a customized plan. Most filers get forced into template plans designed for everyone but suitable for no one. If it turns out that the number of people failing to meet the requirements of their Chapter 13 repayment plans increases dramatically, something is going to need to be done about improving those plans.
My hunch is that after a few years, we will discover that we don’t have a bankruptcy problem in this country, we have a debt problem. It isn’t that too many people game the bankruptcy system, it is that too many people run up unsustainable levels of debt. Although credit card companies pushed for this legislation, I am skeptical that it will do much to change the amount of money collected from over-extended borrowers.
Much more important is financial education to help people understand what is realistic in terms of managing debt. This is a matter of working with schools, colleges and community education programs to get people into basic budgeting courses. Community-oriented lawmakers should consider taking the lead on this effort; if they were successful, I suspect the lasting impact of those efforts would be far more substantial than the effects of bankruptcy reform will ever be.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Mitch – How could you do that?!
The Mitch Albom situation has the journalism world abuzz. Albom is the Detroit Free Press sports columnist who wrote that two NBA players were in the audience of a Michigan State basketball game when, in fact, they weren’t. Albom turned the story in April 1, the game took place April 2, and the Free Press ran the story on April 3. Albom wrote the story based on interviews conducted days before the game. The guys said they planned to attend the game and Albom wrote about it as if they were actually there. Problem was, plans changed and they never made it.
Albom, of course, is not just any sportswriter. He is a multi-million dollar talent, the author of several books including the best sellers “Tuesdays with Morrie” and “The Five People You Meet in Heaven.” He’s also a musician and a playwright. He has a radio program and is a frequent contributor to ESPN. I have had the opportunity to hear Albom speak on two occasions and I have to say he is the best speaker I have ever heard.
Albom has intrigued me for years, maybe because I have often toyed with the idea that I could be him. We are the same age and we both started out as sportswriters. We both have a wide range of interests, including theater and music. And we have both written books. We both have radio and TV experience. And, like me, I get the sense that Albom has a certain level of eschatological interest. Of course, Albom has juggled all these interests with much more success than I have; he is a superstar while almost no one has heard of me. But that’s okay; I’m glad I am me, and right now anyway, I’m glad I’m not him.
People wonder why he did it. Why did he say Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson were in the stands when they weren’t? Sure, Albom thought they were going to be there, but that’s not the same as actually being there. Was Albom so busy with everything he’s got going on that he made a sloppy mistake, or does he simply not care about the details? Speculation is rampant and I am not sure we will ever know the answer. It does seem like an experienced newspaper reporter should be able to handle his workload and deadlines sufficiently to get the basic facts right.
I am not saying that I have never made a mistake; of course, I have. Maybe the reason Albom’s situation has ruffled so many feathers is because he doesn’t really seem all that sorry; he doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of what he is doing. His April 7 apology tries to minimize what he did. He says the basketball players in question were “hardly the thrust of the column” and that getting it right “would have required some weird writing.” I know this much. If anyone is going to accept your apology, you have to really mean it. Albom doesn’t really seem as if he means it.
Ironically, the two times I heard Albom speak, he talked about forgiveness. “Don’t let a grudge come between you and someone else,” Albom said in an October 2002 speech I covered. “Even if you know you are 100 percent right and the other person is 100 percent wrong, just say you are wrong if that is what it takes to mend things up between you.” I think that is pretty good advice and maybe that is what Albom is going to have to do if he wants to mend things with his editors, readers and critics.
Maybe Albom’s editors need to do some soul searching as well. Where were they? Nothing appears in a big-time newspaper like the Detroit Free Press without editors scrutinizing the copy ahead of time. Why didn’t anyone say anything? Why didn’t any editor ask Albom what he was doing?
God bless Nikki Overfelt, the young copy editor at the Duluth News Tribune who caught the mistake and edited the copy to make it accurate in her newspaper. Internet lore has it that she was the only editor at the many newspapers that run Albom’s syndicated column, who caught the error. Every writer, no matter how accomplished, can benefit from a diligent editor.
The Free Press has suspended Albom while it reviews everything Albom has ever written to determine whether he has a pattern of fabrication in his work. I would be surprised if they discover that this is anything other than a one-time incident. Personally, I like Albom’s work and I suspect he will continue to turn out meaningful work most of the time for years to come.
Albom, of course, is not just any sportswriter. He is a multi-million dollar talent, the author of several books including the best sellers “Tuesdays with Morrie” and “The Five People You Meet in Heaven.” He’s also a musician and a playwright. He has a radio program and is a frequent contributor to ESPN. I have had the opportunity to hear Albom speak on two occasions and I have to say he is the best speaker I have ever heard.
Albom has intrigued me for years, maybe because I have often toyed with the idea that I could be him. We are the same age and we both started out as sportswriters. We both have a wide range of interests, including theater and music. And we have both written books. We both have radio and TV experience. And, like me, I get the sense that Albom has a certain level of eschatological interest. Of course, Albom has juggled all these interests with much more success than I have; he is a superstar while almost no one has heard of me. But that’s okay; I’m glad I am me, and right now anyway, I’m glad I’m not him.
People wonder why he did it. Why did he say Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson were in the stands when they weren’t? Sure, Albom thought they were going to be there, but that’s not the same as actually being there. Was Albom so busy with everything he’s got going on that he made a sloppy mistake, or does he simply not care about the details? Speculation is rampant and I am not sure we will ever know the answer. It does seem like an experienced newspaper reporter should be able to handle his workload and deadlines sufficiently to get the basic facts right.
I am not saying that I have never made a mistake; of course, I have. Maybe the reason Albom’s situation has ruffled so many feathers is because he doesn’t really seem all that sorry; he doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of what he is doing. His April 7 apology tries to minimize what he did. He says the basketball players in question were “hardly the thrust of the column” and that getting it right “would have required some weird writing.” I know this much. If anyone is going to accept your apology, you have to really mean it. Albom doesn’t really seem as if he means it.
Ironically, the two times I heard Albom speak, he talked about forgiveness. “Don’t let a grudge come between you and someone else,” Albom said in an October 2002 speech I covered. “Even if you know you are 100 percent right and the other person is 100 percent wrong, just say you are wrong if that is what it takes to mend things up between you.” I think that is pretty good advice and maybe that is what Albom is going to have to do if he wants to mend things with his editors, readers and critics.
Maybe Albom’s editors need to do some soul searching as well. Where were they? Nothing appears in a big-time newspaper like the Detroit Free Press without editors scrutinizing the copy ahead of time. Why didn’t anyone say anything? Why didn’t any editor ask Albom what he was doing?
God bless Nikki Overfelt, the young copy editor at the Duluth News Tribune who caught the mistake and edited the copy to make it accurate in her newspaper. Internet lore has it that she was the only editor at the many newspapers that run Albom’s syndicated column, who caught the error. Every writer, no matter how accomplished, can benefit from a diligent editor.
The Free Press has suspended Albom while it reviews everything Albom has ever written to determine whether he has a pattern of fabrication in his work. I would be surprised if they discover that this is anything other than a one-time incident. Personally, I like Albom’s work and I suspect he will continue to turn out meaningful work most of the time for years to come.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Woody Allen: the master of comedy and tragedy, if you can tell the difference
A good friend of mine laughs when she considers the fact that she only knows two people who really love Woody Allen movies: one is the most politically and socially liberal friend she has, and the other is me, one of the most conservative people she knows. “How is it that two people so completely different can be attracted to the same film maker?” she asks.
I have spent some time pondering that question and I think Allen himself answers it with his latest film, “Melinda and Melinda.” This film gives us one story presented in two different ways –- one is tragic and the other is comic. As a writer, I love this film because it deals with a question that I wrestle with all the time: how do I present the story?
In “Melinda and Melinda,” a group of creative adults is talking around a table in a New York restaurant. They are discussing a story that is tragic in the eyes of one person at the table, but obviously comic to someone else. Australian actress Radha Mitchell plays Melinda (in both versions of the story). She is a dramatic woman who shows up unexpectedly at a dinner party and turns everyone’s life upside down. The story (again, both versions) involves emotion, romance, infidelity, and searches for happiness. The story is both tragic and funny, which says something about the mystery of the human experience.
I laughed at the film because the characters were so incredibly shallow. For example, when one of the characters finds his wife in bed with another man, he is elated because it frees him to pursue a relationship with the woman he has recently fallen in love with. Selfishness is tragic, but depicted in such an extreme fashion, it struck me as funny.
While I watch the film and laugh at its absurdity, perhaps others watch the film and relate to it. Maybe they see real life. Maybe they like this film because it is so accurate. Woody Allen does that, film after film. He tells stories that are absurd, but real. They are funny for their absurdity but tragic for their accuracy.
Allen has made somewhere around 50 films and I have seen probably half of them. His films range from the ridiculous (“Sleeper” and “Bananas”) to spiritual (“Alice”). Perhaps my favorite Woody Allen film is “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a film which brings together a wide range of human experiences: a genuinely good man goes blind while a parallel story depicts a man who commits murder going unpunished. The murderer is a doctor who is lauded by society, while the good man is a rabbi, largely ignored. Allen captures the irony of life so succinctly that I can see where it would attract an audience made up of people from all over the social and political spectrum.
Woody Allen movies, of course, are not for everyone. It you are looking for action and police chases, Allen is not your movie maker. But if you are looking for character studies, films that bring to life human emotion and insecurities, Allen is you guy.
I have spent some time pondering that question and I think Allen himself answers it with his latest film, “Melinda and Melinda.” This film gives us one story presented in two different ways –- one is tragic and the other is comic. As a writer, I love this film because it deals with a question that I wrestle with all the time: how do I present the story?
In “Melinda and Melinda,” a group of creative adults is talking around a table in a New York restaurant. They are discussing a story that is tragic in the eyes of one person at the table, but obviously comic to someone else. Australian actress Radha Mitchell plays Melinda (in both versions of the story). She is a dramatic woman who shows up unexpectedly at a dinner party and turns everyone’s life upside down. The story (again, both versions) involves emotion, romance, infidelity, and searches for happiness. The story is both tragic and funny, which says something about the mystery of the human experience.
I laughed at the film because the characters were so incredibly shallow. For example, when one of the characters finds his wife in bed with another man, he is elated because it frees him to pursue a relationship with the woman he has recently fallen in love with. Selfishness is tragic, but depicted in such an extreme fashion, it struck me as funny.
While I watch the film and laugh at its absurdity, perhaps others watch the film and relate to it. Maybe they see real life. Maybe they like this film because it is so accurate. Woody Allen does that, film after film. He tells stories that are absurd, but real. They are funny for their absurdity but tragic for their accuracy.
Allen has made somewhere around 50 films and I have seen probably half of them. His films range from the ridiculous (“Sleeper” and “Bananas”) to spiritual (“Alice”). Perhaps my favorite Woody Allen film is “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a film which brings together a wide range of human experiences: a genuinely good man goes blind while a parallel story depicts a man who commits murder going unpunished. The murderer is a doctor who is lauded by society, while the good man is a rabbi, largely ignored. Allen captures the irony of life so succinctly that I can see where it would attract an audience made up of people from all over the social and political spectrum.
Woody Allen movies, of course, are not for everyone. It you are looking for action and police chases, Allen is not your movie maker. But if you are looking for character studies, films that bring to life human emotion and insecurities, Allen is you guy.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Why Pope John Paul II will be called ‘The Great’
As the world’s Cardinals gather in Rome today to begin the process of naming the next successor to Peter, I can’t help but continue to think of Pope John Paul II. I am convinced that the work he completed during his 26-year pontificate will influence faith-seeking people for decades -– perhaps centuries -– to come. Many people are already calling him “John Paul the Great” and I think it is likely that at some point, that title will be formalized.
One of the main reasons he should be considered great is because of his philosophical approach to revelation. The first theologian to be pope in centuries, John Paul II set the stage for the entire Christian world to look at truth through a new lens. He introduced the use of phenomenology as a way for people to understand their relationship with God.
Since the time of Christ, there have been two great philosophers who have guided Christian thought about its understanding of revelation. The first was Augustine, who died in the year 430. He gave the world a framework for Christian thought based on the Greek philosopher Plato. That approach served the Christian world until the 13th century, when Thomas Aquinas gave us a philosophical approach based on another Greek philosopher, Aristotle. It was an objective, deductive and principled approach to understanding morality.
Seven hundred years after Aquinas, the culture, for the most part, does not think in objective, deductive and principled ways. Having been influenced by 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes and 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, people today are much more likely to think in terms that are subjective, inductive and experiential. So the Church desperately needed a new way to approach moral theology. Karol Wojtyla recognized this early in his life, and saw the value of using phenomenology for understanding morality.
His idea is that because we are created as images of God, we should be able to learn something about God by studying the image -- in other words, people -- just like you can learn about something by studying its image in a mirror. Our actions, as long as they are not sinful, Wojtyla notes, can teach us something about God, because they reflect God. This provides an experiential methodology for studying morality that is consistent with the way most people in the Western world think and speak.
This philosophy is most evident in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which he articulated in a serious of lectures delivered between 1979 and 1984. It is a teaching that deals with marriage and sexuality in a way that no Church teaching has ever addressed those subjects.
In the past, the teaching generally said that God created men and women for lifelong monogamy and people are therefore obligated to live as such. That remains a true description of marriage in the faith, but John Paul II presented that truth in a phenomenological way that is new. He said that we all know what it is like to be used, and none of us like it. We humans -- created in the image of God -- have dignity. We are hurt when our dignity is ignored and we are reduced to being an object.
Because none of us likes to be used, it is obvious that we should never use another human being, particularly our spouse. If we don’t respect our spouse -- using them for our own pleasure or discarding them like a toaster that no longer works -- then we reduce that person to being an object. All people yearn to give and experience true love; as people learn to do that by reflecting on their own experience of what it means to be used, I think more people will embrace God’s plan for marriage and sexuality.
Over the next several years, other writers and philosophers will study and extrapolate from the work of John Paul II. I have no doubt that John Paul II’s approach will make the faith much more understandable and accessible. This is why the title “the Great” can rightly be applied to his name.
One of the main reasons he should be considered great is because of his philosophical approach to revelation. The first theologian to be pope in centuries, John Paul II set the stage for the entire Christian world to look at truth through a new lens. He introduced the use of phenomenology as a way for people to understand their relationship with God.
Since the time of Christ, there have been two great philosophers who have guided Christian thought about its understanding of revelation. The first was Augustine, who died in the year 430. He gave the world a framework for Christian thought based on the Greek philosopher Plato. That approach served the Christian world until the 13th century, when Thomas Aquinas gave us a philosophical approach based on another Greek philosopher, Aristotle. It was an objective, deductive and principled approach to understanding morality.
Seven hundred years after Aquinas, the culture, for the most part, does not think in objective, deductive and principled ways. Having been influenced by 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes and 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, people today are much more likely to think in terms that are subjective, inductive and experiential. So the Church desperately needed a new way to approach moral theology. Karol Wojtyla recognized this early in his life, and saw the value of using phenomenology for understanding morality.
His idea is that because we are created as images of God, we should be able to learn something about God by studying the image -- in other words, people -- just like you can learn about something by studying its image in a mirror. Our actions, as long as they are not sinful, Wojtyla notes, can teach us something about God, because they reflect God. This provides an experiential methodology for studying morality that is consistent with the way most people in the Western world think and speak.
This philosophy is most evident in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which he articulated in a serious of lectures delivered between 1979 and 1984. It is a teaching that deals with marriage and sexuality in a way that no Church teaching has ever addressed those subjects.
In the past, the teaching generally said that God created men and women for lifelong monogamy and people are therefore obligated to live as such. That remains a true description of marriage in the faith, but John Paul II presented that truth in a phenomenological way that is new. He said that we all know what it is like to be used, and none of us like it. We humans -- created in the image of God -- have dignity. We are hurt when our dignity is ignored and we are reduced to being an object.
Because none of us likes to be used, it is obvious that we should never use another human being, particularly our spouse. If we don’t respect our spouse -- using them for our own pleasure or discarding them like a toaster that no longer works -- then we reduce that person to being an object. All people yearn to give and experience true love; as people learn to do that by reflecting on their own experience of what it means to be used, I think more people will embrace God’s plan for marriage and sexuality.
Over the next several years, other writers and philosophers will study and extrapolate from the work of John Paul II. I have no doubt that John Paul II’s approach will make the faith much more understandable and accessible. This is why the title “the Great” can rightly be applied to his name.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Losing a little weight can make a big difference
I have lost 28 pounds since the last day of January. That’s about two and a half pounds a week. When I lose two more pounds, I will have achieved my goal and I hope to keep that weight off for the rest of my life.
In mid January, I was visiting my parents. When my dad opened the front door to let me in his house, his first comment was, “Tom, man you’re big!” I ignored the comment at the time, but it bugged me for days. I could accept the fact that I was a little over-weight but I didn’t think it was so noticeable that it should be the first thing a person thinks of when they see me.
At 5 feet 10 inches, I was 206 pounds. That was about 40 pounds more than I weighed when I graduated from high school –- and my height has not changed since then. I spent a lot of time thinking about that. You always hear about guys suffering heart attacks and dying in their 40s and 50s. Plus, I had had some back problems that I am sure related to excess weight.
I’ve got so much to live for, I thought. My wife and I have four small children; I want to see them all grow up, and perhaps marry. I want to be around to see my grandkids grow up. Maybe I should do something about this extra weight, I thought.
Finally, driving home from church on Sunday morning, January 30, I declared to my wife, in front of all the kids, “Tomorrow I’m joining Weight Watchers.”
So the next day I signed up. There’s a Weight Watchers office less than a mile from my house. They weighed me and gave me a computerized scorecard where I could track my progress. A perky, skinning woman led a half-hour meeting for me and about 30 women suffering from various degrees of excess weight. She explained the program to me, and I stuck to it. I lost 16 pounds in the first 26 days. I have continued to lose weight, although at not so dramatic a pace.
I give Weight Watchers a lot of credit. They have a system where food is assigned a points value based on its combination of calories, dietary fiber, and fat grams. You want dietary fiber, and you don’t want calories and fat. So food that is high in fat and calories generally has a high points value, and food with a lot of fiber generally has a low points value. Initially, I was allowed to eat 26 points per day, plus 35 “flex” points per week divided any way I wanted. I could take all 35 points in one day, so I would theoretically be able to eat 61 points in one day, or I could spread those 35 points out to 5 per day.
As I ate, I recorded my food on a little note pad they gave me. It became obvious to me fairly quickly that I needed to change my eating habits. I used to eat a couple of Pop Tarts in the morning. One Pop Tart is 5 points, and it still leaves you hungry after you eat it. Two Pop Tarts is about a third of the food I would be allowed to eat all day. So I dropped the Pop Tarts. Instead, I switched to one bowl of Wheaties with a cup of skim milk – a filling breakfast for 4 points. Lunches became peanut butter on toast, which is about 6 points. This left me plenty of points for a descent dinner. Sticking with this formula, the pounds melted off.
There are a few things I did to accelerate the process. I committed to the program without the flex points. That means I limited myself to 26 points a day and didn’t bother with the additional 35 points per week. Next, I basically stopped eating between meals. I found that if I paid attention to what I was eating during meals, I was less hungry between meals. And third, I simply eliminated most desert-type sugar –- cookies, cake, brownies, M&Ms, you get the idea.
Perhaps the most important thing Weight Watchers taught me was to pay attention to what I’m eating. It sounds so obvious, but I have to say that my first response to stress or boredom for years has been to eat something. If you actually take time to think about what you are eating, what’s in the food you prepare, anyone can eat smarter. At a result, you feel better and you are less often hungry. They also taught me to think a little about portion size. Most restaurants serve portions that are way too big for the average person. Once I started limiting myself to eating only standard portions, I was well on my way to losing weight.
Weight Watchers also taught me that I don’t have to take a little of everything when I eat at a buffet or at someone else’s house. I used to take a little of everything, almost automatically, but now I limit myself to no more than three things – usually meat, bread and vegetables.
Weight Watchers offers a number of good tips that anyone can benefit from, such as:
Always eat breakfast. Too many people who skip breakfast get hungry mid-morning and end up eating more than they would have had they eaten soon after they got out of bed.
Drink lots of water. Often, people mistaken thirst for hunger and eat when a glass of water was all they needed.
Don’t ever drink regular pop. A can of pop is just 150 empty calories. Get the same thirst-quenching benefit from a can of diet pop, or better yet, drink water.
Never eat after dinner. While you sleep, your body should be burning fat, not your late-night snack.
Don’t put butter on anything. It is amazing how many useless calories you add to your diet by buttering your sandwiches, rolls, waffles, pancakes, etc. Most of the time, the food tastes just as good without the butter.
I learned all of these things while attending Weight Watcher’s weekly meeting. I am always the only man at the meetings, and I don’t really like that, but I live with it. Where are all the guys? Maybe they are at a different meeting, but I suspect they have a harder time acknowledging the need for help with weight loss.
At the meetings, people talk about the past week -– what worked for losing weight and what didn’t. Often, I am struck by how lame some people sound in the face of temptation. “I didn’t lose any weight this week because I couldn’t walk past the candy dish at work,” or, “I went on a cruise where the food was all-you-can-eat,” or “It was Valentine’s Day and there were a lot of chocolates around.” People in the meeting always nod in understanding, but I am always thinking “Do you want to lose the weight or don’t you?” These meetings are teaching me what a big temptation food is for some people.
One time the meeting leader asked people to share suggestions for resisting temptation. People talked about going to bed early instead of staying up late and eating, or bringing your lunch to work instead of going to McDonalds. I know for me the answer is making the goal part of a larger goal. Losing weight, by itself, isn’t much of a goal. Sacrifice, after all, is giving up something good for something better. For me, the goal is to live a healthy life so I can be there for my children and wife into old age. Weight loss is one way I plan to work toward that goal. I am giving up something good (brownies and M&Ms) for something better (a chance to see my grandkids). I would be a hypocrite if I said I wanted to be there for my kids but ate 4,000 calories in junk food every day.
God willing, I have a lot of life ahead of me; the least I can do is get in shape to make the most of it.
In mid January, I was visiting my parents. When my dad opened the front door to let me in his house, his first comment was, “Tom, man you’re big!” I ignored the comment at the time, but it bugged me for days. I could accept the fact that I was a little over-weight but I didn’t think it was so noticeable that it should be the first thing a person thinks of when they see me.
At 5 feet 10 inches, I was 206 pounds. That was about 40 pounds more than I weighed when I graduated from high school –- and my height has not changed since then. I spent a lot of time thinking about that. You always hear about guys suffering heart attacks and dying in their 40s and 50s. Plus, I had had some back problems that I am sure related to excess weight.
I’ve got so much to live for, I thought. My wife and I have four small children; I want to see them all grow up, and perhaps marry. I want to be around to see my grandkids grow up. Maybe I should do something about this extra weight, I thought.
Finally, driving home from church on Sunday morning, January 30, I declared to my wife, in front of all the kids, “Tomorrow I’m joining Weight Watchers.”
So the next day I signed up. There’s a Weight Watchers office less than a mile from my house. They weighed me and gave me a computerized scorecard where I could track my progress. A perky, skinning woman led a half-hour meeting for me and about 30 women suffering from various degrees of excess weight. She explained the program to me, and I stuck to it. I lost 16 pounds in the first 26 days. I have continued to lose weight, although at not so dramatic a pace.
I give Weight Watchers a lot of credit. They have a system where food is assigned a points value based on its combination of calories, dietary fiber, and fat grams. You want dietary fiber, and you don’t want calories and fat. So food that is high in fat and calories generally has a high points value, and food with a lot of fiber generally has a low points value. Initially, I was allowed to eat 26 points per day, plus 35 “flex” points per week divided any way I wanted. I could take all 35 points in one day, so I would theoretically be able to eat 61 points in one day, or I could spread those 35 points out to 5 per day.
As I ate, I recorded my food on a little note pad they gave me. It became obvious to me fairly quickly that I needed to change my eating habits. I used to eat a couple of Pop Tarts in the morning. One Pop Tart is 5 points, and it still leaves you hungry after you eat it. Two Pop Tarts is about a third of the food I would be allowed to eat all day. So I dropped the Pop Tarts. Instead, I switched to one bowl of Wheaties with a cup of skim milk – a filling breakfast for 4 points. Lunches became peanut butter on toast, which is about 6 points. This left me plenty of points for a descent dinner. Sticking with this formula, the pounds melted off.
There are a few things I did to accelerate the process. I committed to the program without the flex points. That means I limited myself to 26 points a day and didn’t bother with the additional 35 points per week. Next, I basically stopped eating between meals. I found that if I paid attention to what I was eating during meals, I was less hungry between meals. And third, I simply eliminated most desert-type sugar –- cookies, cake, brownies, M&Ms, you get the idea.
Perhaps the most important thing Weight Watchers taught me was to pay attention to what I’m eating. It sounds so obvious, but I have to say that my first response to stress or boredom for years has been to eat something. If you actually take time to think about what you are eating, what’s in the food you prepare, anyone can eat smarter. At a result, you feel better and you are less often hungry. They also taught me to think a little about portion size. Most restaurants serve portions that are way too big for the average person. Once I started limiting myself to eating only standard portions, I was well on my way to losing weight.
Weight Watchers also taught me that I don’t have to take a little of everything when I eat at a buffet or at someone else’s house. I used to take a little of everything, almost automatically, but now I limit myself to no more than three things – usually meat, bread and vegetables.
Weight Watchers offers a number of good tips that anyone can benefit from, such as:
Always eat breakfast. Too many people who skip breakfast get hungry mid-morning and end up eating more than they would have had they eaten soon after they got out of bed.
Drink lots of water. Often, people mistaken thirst for hunger and eat when a glass of water was all they needed.
Don’t ever drink regular pop. A can of pop is just 150 empty calories. Get the same thirst-quenching benefit from a can of diet pop, or better yet, drink water.
Never eat after dinner. While you sleep, your body should be burning fat, not your late-night snack.
Don’t put butter on anything. It is amazing how many useless calories you add to your diet by buttering your sandwiches, rolls, waffles, pancakes, etc. Most of the time, the food tastes just as good without the butter.
I learned all of these things while attending Weight Watcher’s weekly meeting. I am always the only man at the meetings, and I don’t really like that, but I live with it. Where are all the guys? Maybe they are at a different meeting, but I suspect they have a harder time acknowledging the need for help with weight loss.
At the meetings, people talk about the past week -– what worked for losing weight and what didn’t. Often, I am struck by how lame some people sound in the face of temptation. “I didn’t lose any weight this week because I couldn’t walk past the candy dish at work,” or, “I went on a cruise where the food was all-you-can-eat,” or “It was Valentine’s Day and there were a lot of chocolates around.” People in the meeting always nod in understanding, but I am always thinking “Do you want to lose the weight or don’t you?” These meetings are teaching me what a big temptation food is for some people.
One time the meeting leader asked people to share suggestions for resisting temptation. People talked about going to bed early instead of staying up late and eating, or bringing your lunch to work instead of going to McDonalds. I know for me the answer is making the goal part of a larger goal. Losing weight, by itself, isn’t much of a goal. Sacrifice, after all, is giving up something good for something better. For me, the goal is to live a healthy life so I can be there for my children and wife into old age. Weight loss is one way I plan to work toward that goal. I am giving up something good (brownies and M&Ms) for something better (a chance to see my grandkids). I would be a hypocrite if I said I wanted to be there for my kids but ate 4,000 calories in junk food every day.
God willing, I have a lot of life ahead of me; the least I can do is get in shape to make the most of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)