The Weight of Gold.

In an editorial in Friday's Dallas Morning News, Barbara B. Johnson lays out the sometimes unhappy plight of rich children by noting how affluence can "cheat" children. She cites Madeline Levine's book, The Price of Privilege which chronicles the difficulties rich children sometimes face in growing up. At the top of the list is the "toxic brew" of pressure parents of rich kids often place on their children to to succeed academically and socially and earn admission to prestigious universities. The success and competitive nature of wealthy parents is cited next as a cause of many of the problems besetting rich children. Successful parents expect to have successful children and so they set high goals for them and urge ambition and pressure them to excel. Johnson argues that the high expectations of wealthy parents lead them to put pressure on their children to also achieve success, both inside and outside the classroom. That pressure in turn is a cause for stress because the children feel compelled to succeed. The stress can be even more burdensome when the child's definition of success is not the one being urged by their parents. If high expectations are a cause of stress, our public schools should be filled with content and relaxed children since little pressure is put on them to succeed. The pressure to succeed is most acutely felt by those who are urged or expected to succeed.

The pressure to become a doctor is only a burden to the child who expects, or is expected to become a doctor. The stress felt by wealthy children can also be the result of a conflict between their ambitions and that of their parents. The child whose ambition is to be an artist will be frustrated by parents who insist she become a corporate attorney. There is also the pressure of competing against one's peers. But this is self inflicted pressure borne of competitiveness and ego: two traits seen as admirable by many. It is self inflicted when the desire to succeed in achieving one's goal is eclipsed by the desire to match or exceed the accomplishments of others. When the desire to be a successful architect becomes exceeded by the desire to be the best architect, or at least better than others, pressure and stress to succeed grow significantly. That is why stress can be a self inflicted phenomenon. Where there is little or no desire or expectation to succeed or achieve, there is little disappointment. No doubt this is why the poor are so content.

Johnson next criticises ambition and wealth as inhibiting the satisfaction in the "internal success" that comes from trying one's best. There is something to this. Napoleon probably took no satisfaction in his many victories after he was finally defeated. Given Napoleon's ambition and vanity, giving his best was likely of little satisfaction or solace. His ultimate defeat likely was more keenly felt than all his victories. The greater the ambition and expectation to succeed, the more bitter the failure. Since wealthy children tend to have higher expectations of success and greater ambition, failure to achieve their goal can be more painful and sharply felt, even if their failures are by degree. Having lofty goals is not all it is cracked up to be.

Taking satisfaction in an earnest attempt in the face of failure is a rare and difficult thing to achieve, particularly in a culture which emphasizes victory and success. To many, "at least you gave it your best shot" is simply a phrase used to console those who do not win. The disappointment that comes with failure is no less common among the poor than it is with the wealthy, and, if it is, it is more likely due to the tendency of poor children to set low goals for themselves and have low expectations of achieving them. When the goals and expectations are high, the failure of the poor child who fails in her ambition to get into law school is likely just as disappointing as that of the rich child who fails to get in. The low expectations placed on poor children and, not uncommonly, working and middle class children, to succeed is a significant factor in the reduced stress felt by them. If less fortunate children do not suffer the stress and feel the pressure that rich children do, it is because they are not as expected to succeed or urged to excel, and so their failure to succeed or excel is less likely to be viewed as a failure, than circumstance.

Contentment in a simple, austere, and humble life has long been a staple in fiction and in Hollywood. But, when it does occur in real life, it only occurs among the simple, the austere and the humble. In a culture as preoccupied with vanity, success, and acquisition as ours, simplicity, austerity, and humility, are things more spoken of than pursued. And, when they are spoken of, they are almost always spoken of nostalgically or in the context of "society" and very rarely a sincere goal of whomever is advocating it. When Mother Teresa or Gandhi spoke of simplicity and austerity, they were speaking from experience and wisdom. When an editorialist writes of it, it should be read with skepticism.

When Henry V spoke wistfully about the simple, uncluttered life of the peasant, he was speaking romantically with no intention of ever living such a life or any experience of ever truly having to live one. His fond memories of his youthful experiences living among the common man were borne more from nostalgia than longing. The burden of wealth and power, though heavy, was a burden he felt he had to bear. Along with the castles, privileges, and perks of his position, King Henry was willing to bear the heavy burden and stress of being powerful and rich. Indeed, he was even nobler for his resignation to live the life of a king. Shakespeare no doubt wrote this with an eye towards his patrons as well as to dampen envy and encourage sympathy for the powerful and positioned by pointing out that a life of wealth and position was not all play and no work. It was a heavy burden to be borne nobly. The powerful and the rich are to be pitied, not envied.

The wealthy and powerful sometimes sigh at the difficulties and complexities they face and the burdens they have to bear. But if the stress of success and wealth and the pressure to achieve and maintain them ever become unbearable to the wealthy, they can always quit their jobs, get rid of their wealth, and lower their expectations. And if wealthy kids ever get overwhelmed by the pressure put on them to succeed, they can always quit school or drop out of college and get a job at Walmart and live lives free of stress. And, if their parents really loved them, they would not put pressure them to reconsider, but encourage them in their new career. Nothing is keeping Johnson from pruning her responsibilities or jettisoning her possessions to take up a simpler, less stressful life.

Having grown up with kids and families in poverty, and kids and families that were affluent, I find it difficult to share Johnson's sympathy for wealthy kids and their troubles. If some people think that growing up wealthy can be difficult, they should try poverty. It may be hard to run with the weight of gold but it is just as hard to run with the weight of lead. All things considered, most people would prefer the weight of gold to the weight of lead.

Sound Fiscal Advice

Obama's proposed $3.5 trillion budget is claimed will cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. However, the budget proposed by the administration for 2010 is projected by some to come up $1.7 trillion short. The national debt is predicted to rise to just over $14 trillion by the end of the year. Adding another trillion plus dollars in red ink is a peculiar way to go about cutting the deficit. The projected deficit is an amount just slightly over the nearly $1.7 trillion spent last year to "stabilize" and "stimulate" the economy.

The numbers estimated to be saved by Obama's "scouring" so far barely register in budget calculations. Perhaps Obama is counting on an economic recovery of historic proportions as well as the savings from not having to bail out the financial industry or the stabilize the economy again. I would hope this is the case. Obama's stated goal to scour $2 trillion in six years from a $3 trillion annual budget is something easier promised than delivered, particularly from an administration as ambitious and idealistic as his. Despite the administration's forecast of deficit reductions, the federal government is on course to add at least $8.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years according to CNNMoney.com. Whatever the case, even in the unlikely event Obama delivers on his promise, you can bet that $2 trillion in budget savings will be spent, not put in the bank, and so not really saved at all.

Naturally, Obama blames the Republicans for the budget woes. The economy is a mess because of the poor management, excessive spending, and lack of oversight by the Bush administration as well as its wars in the Middle East: two wars that Obama, despite his rhetoric, is pursuing with vigor. The mess must have been considerable since two years into his administration, Obama has yet to make any significant headway into cleaning it up. Indeed, the mess has gotten worse. Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's reckless spending, Obama plans to go even deeper into debt and unleash a blizzard of still more spending and regulation. He will try to keep a veneer of fiscal responsibility by proposing tax increases on the wealthy (the usual suspects), and imposing "financial responsibility fees" on the banks. Meanwhile, he wrestles with the economy, proposing multifarious incentives and "fees" and promising new regulations and restraints. He seems willing to try anything. Anything that is but significantly cutting the budget or limiting his plans and ambitions to increase the size and role of government to accommodate reality.

It is estimated that the national debt will increase 31.6% by the end of the Obama administration, dwarfing the %12.2 rise under the Bush administration. Some figures indicate that at the rate Obama is spending, by the end of his first term the national debt will be 100.8 percent of the U.S.'s GDP. Even if that figure turns out to be exaggerated, the percentage of increase should mortify us. Still, even amidst all the financial woes and alarming predictions and statistics, Obama has still not given up on his plan for national health care or expanded government. He wants his place in history, no matter how much it costs or who has to pay for it.

Determined to keep himself and his party afloat in the eyes of the public, Obama continues to flail away at the economy, spending vast amounts of money and making bold promises. Recently, Obama gave a speech at a high school in Nashua, N.H. In it, he lectured his audience on the need for fiscal responsibility in difficult economic times. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage" he told them. Sound advice. Now if only Obama would only heed it.

Show Trial

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the accused terrorist mastermind behind the September 11th attack, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death yesterday by the President of the United States. President Obama declared that Mohammed will "likely be executed for the crimes he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans." Actually, Obama added with gravity that Mohammed's execution is more than just likely. It is certain. "That you can be sure of" we were promised. Among the details that remain to be worked out are where Mohammed's trial will be held and the length of the trial before his conviction and death sentence are formally pronounced. Other details concerning the date, site, and method of Mohammed's execution are still being discussed. The process should not be a long one. While safety and costs are factors in deciding where to hold the trial, New York is the preferred site because it is locus of the crime and a trial there is assured to have the greatest political significance. Wherever it is ultimately held, the trial to formalize the verdict and document the crime will begin later this year.

Once the trial begins, "justice will be swift" the president said. Not too swift though. The trial must be long enough to ensure maximum political effect. To this end, it was decided to forgo military trials for the "accused." With the verdict assured, a civilian trial can be risked. The benefit of holding a civilian trail is it will bestow a veneer of objectivity to the conviction and ultimate execution of the criminals and allow a public record of the atrocities committed by Mohammed. As importantly, it will also permit the participation of the public in the catharsis of convicting, sentencing, and executing him. To increase the political drama, the trial will commence on the anniversary of the attack. With Obama's declaration of Mohammed's guilt, and the sentence already in place, everything has been prepared for Mohammed's show trial to begin. It is expected other trials will soon follow.

I have not met Mohamed nor have I seen or heard all the evidence against him, or for that matter, any the other convicted "terrorists" in custody. But I do have the government's assertion that they are all guilty. I suppose that should be good enough. Any possible doubt or trepidation I, or any others might have regarding the guilt of Khalid or the others in custody should be erased by the spectacle of their trial and the indignation of the prosecution. By the end of the trial, it is likely I too will be thirsting for Khalid's blood and professing renewed admiration, gratitude, and loyalty to the state as well as a reinvigorated hatred for its enemies. That is the real motivation behind holding a show trial after all.