by P.G. Behr
Vermont’s entitlement binge, which I wrote about last week in connection with the Legislature’s refusal to face the reality of our economic downturn, is not unique, although more advanced than in most of America. David Brooks, in the New York Times last week, wrote that “The American economy will have to transition from an economy based on consumption and imports to an economy with a greater balance of business investment and production.” He cites the scary fact that credit market debt – including corporate, financial and other borrowing – has surged from 143 percent of G.D.P. in 1951 to 350 percent of G.D.P. last year.
The political class will have to face up to the problem. Brooks says, “First, they have to persuade a country to postpone gratification for the sake of rebuilding the country. This country hasn’t accepted sacrifice in 50 years.” Vermont is an example, of course. Our Democrats and Progressives love giving money away but are ill-prepared to trim expenses – maybe because most of them have never run a business. When times are good, it’s fun to spend money – why worry about tomorrow? Not like the Vermonters of yore, who were thrifty, and knew the virtues of saving.
Another article in the New York Times is illustrative. It concerns the passengers of the US Airways jet that ditched in the Hudson a few months ago. As readers will recall, no passengers were seriously injured, and the skill and heroism of the pilot and flight crew were celebrated – a real feel-good story. Not only did the pilot bring the aircraft down safely, but the armada of ferries, tugboats and other water craft that converged on the scene participated in the happy ending, rescuing all on board.
But of course, we forgot about the armada of lawyers who have encouraged passengers to claim various losses - some, if not most of which seem petty – perhaps more indicative of America’s entitlement addiction than real loss. New Yorkers seem particularly addicted, being taught from an early age to ask “What’s in it for me?” Thus, it is rumored, lawyers were already at the ready on some of the rescue watercraft, signing up potential clients. Others were no doubt standing by onshore, as victims were transported to hospitals for examination and treatment for hypothermia. The Times says passengers “suffered real losses and injuries.” Yeah, sure.
Other than quoting lawyers who specialize in aviation litigation, the Times offered little evidence of suffering by passengers. US Airways issued each passenger a check for $5,000 shortly after the accident to cover their immediate needs; it had no legal obligation to do so. One passenger, Tess Sosa, from New York (where else?), claims her four-year old daughter needs extensive therapy to overcome the trauma she suffered. In my opinion, the mother needs therapy for failing to appreciate her good fortune to have had such a skilled crew manning the aircraft in which she was a passenger.
The only other passenger cited in the article was a “software executive” who had no unpaid medical bills, but had missing possessions. He sells specialized software to hedge funds and other financial clients, and must wear expensive clothing for his sales pitches. He recently got his clothes back, but says his shoes were ruined, one suit was missing and his cufflinks and sunglasses are still gone. Apparently, the $5,000 didn’t cover his losses; but since he could document them, the airline’s insurer sent him five grand more. I would have sent him a gift certificate at WalMart, although I doubt that he could have replaced his Gucci shoes there.
It is significant that the only complaining passengers the reporter could find were Ms. Sosa and the software executive, so maybe there is hope. If most passengers came through the ordeal safe and sound, which seems to be the case, we (and they) should all be thankful, and move on. With the daily carnage on New York’s streets, the ambulance-chasing lawyers will still make a living.
* * *
A number of Vermonters wrote to compliment me on last week’s column which criticized the mind-set of our Legislature, and quoted ex-Vermonter Glen Wright saying that the majority of our population has become “takers,” with the “givers” in the minority, and decreasing all the time. Cliff Aikens, of Barnard, writes “There are so few people left that remember the old Vermont that it is almost inane to draw a comparison. Instead of hard work, resourcefulness and practicality, we have entered the “new Vermont” of Socialistic Utopia.”
Mr. Aikens has arranged for Tom Debevoise to speak at the Barnard Historical Society’s June meeting. Tom chairs the COUNCIL ON THE FUTURE OF VERMONT. Meeting time at the June 30th meeting is 7 p.m. at the Village School Museum on Route 12, just past the Barnard General Store.
Mr. Aikens says the Public is invited and a discussion will follow on this issue of concern to all Vermonters. Let’s hope for a great turnout!
(P.G. "Pete" Behr is a regular columnist for the Vermont Standard where this essay first appeared.)
Comments