National Grange Session is over and my local Grange had officer elections this week. I've had a little time to reflect on what being elected Master/President really means to most people.
Being elected to the highest ranking position in your Grange should be considered an honor as it means your fellow members believe you can do the job of leading. Leading doesn't mean doing it all, it means building a team to accomplish the Grange goals.
I have found that running the meeting is one of the easier parts of the job. If you commit to learning the basics of parliamentary procedure and our opening and closing ceremonies, you will have no problem with this part of leading.
A harder part is building teams and then educating those teams in how to function together successfully. When you understand that the success of your Grange depends upon teamwork, you have achieved a great beginning.
The hardest part of being elected "the leader" is that you must lead. Most leaders are not chosen for their good looks, their superior intellect, or their charismatic personality. Ask yourself why you were chosen to lead your Grange.
Leading is a balance of listening and guiding. It is not remaking or substantially changing the organization, it is building within the framework that exists. It is about showing your members the path that they want to go down. Leading is showing the members that it is fine to try something new or different.
Politicians tend to be poor examples of leadership as they often get caught up in believing their own press. Listen and learn from those you lead and you will achieve great things during your term as leader.
When your time is up, then be a leader and step back and support those who take the reins of leadership in your Grange. The satisfaction of a job well done and the appreciation of your peers is a wonderful reward for your gift of time and effort as a leader.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Paying For Tax Cuts
It has always irritated me when a news reporter or politician talks about paying for tax cuts and today I read an article where once again they were talking about the taxpayer paying for a federal tax cut.
Last time I checked, when you balance a budget, you adjust your spending to fit the income you have. From my point of view, the same principle would seem to apply to the government. If they raise your taxes they don’t credit anything in the budget, so why if they were to lower, or in this case not raise, your taxes where would anyone be paying for them?
For most of us, we don’t set our wages and we do not set the amount that will be taken in taxes, but we do choose how, and on what, we will spend our money. When income goes down, we stop spending on certain items or reduce spending on several. When income goes up, we choose to either spend a bit more or maybe even save a little for the future.
However, the Federal Government sets the tax rates on income and they set the deductions and credits, which means they choose how much to collect from each of us for earning each of our respective livings. They control the income side provided that they keep a balance between people being able to invest and make a dollar and trying to keep it safe from taxes by not investing it. So the income side of this equation is that it is our money that the government uses.
Yet the Federal Government is also in charge of spending all of our tax dollars. A balanced budget would be one that didn’t spend more than it took in, and think about that last time that happened in Washington, D.C. The answer to that question will date you if you remember being there.
The current situation where we are spending far more than we take in (deficit), means that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back sometime in the future the money we’ve borrowed and spent (debt).
I remember when President Bush proposed tax cuts and after Congress passed them and the President signed it into law, I had a decrease in the taxes I paid. And just for the record, I’ve never been rich in my life, at least as far as money goes. Now some of these reporters and politicians are saying if they don’t take more of my money we’ll have to pay for it. Did I miss something or are we trying to spin math now?
Now I do believe that all Americans should help contribute financially to support our country. An open debate on how much we should pay through our taxes is proper. From my perspective our government has a spending problem and the only way it is an income problem is if we are determined to spend freely and then try to raise taxes to match.
It is time to call things what they are and quit trying to spin words and facts to confuse people or to further muddy the issue. It is our money that our government takes through taxes and it is our money that they spend to operate our nation. At the moment it is also the money that is being spent that our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are going to be earning in the future.
Regardless of whether the politicians want to raise, lower, or keep taxes at the current level, at least don’t tell us that we have to pay for a tax cut.
Last time I checked, when you balance a budget, you adjust your spending to fit the income you have. From my point of view, the same principle would seem to apply to the government. If they raise your taxes they don’t credit anything in the budget, so why if they were to lower, or in this case not raise, your taxes where would anyone be paying for them?
For most of us, we don’t set our wages and we do not set the amount that will be taken in taxes, but we do choose how, and on what, we will spend our money. When income goes down, we stop spending on certain items or reduce spending on several. When income goes up, we choose to either spend a bit more or maybe even save a little for the future.
However, the Federal Government sets the tax rates on income and they set the deductions and credits, which means they choose how much to collect from each of us for earning each of our respective livings. They control the income side provided that they keep a balance between people being able to invest and make a dollar and trying to keep it safe from taxes by not investing it. So the income side of this equation is that it is our money that the government uses.
Yet the Federal Government is also in charge of spending all of our tax dollars. A balanced budget would be one that didn’t spend more than it took in, and think about that last time that happened in Washington, D.C. The answer to that question will date you if you remember being there.
The current situation where we are spending far more than we take in (deficit), means that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back sometime in the future the money we’ve borrowed and spent (debt).
I remember when President Bush proposed tax cuts and after Congress passed them and the President signed it into law, I had a decrease in the taxes I paid. And just for the record, I’ve never been rich in my life, at least as far as money goes. Now some of these reporters and politicians are saying if they don’t take more of my money we’ll have to pay for it. Did I miss something or are we trying to spin math now?
Now I do believe that all Americans should help contribute financially to support our country. An open debate on how much we should pay through our taxes is proper. From my perspective our government has a spending problem and the only way it is an income problem is if we are determined to spend freely and then try to raise taxes to match.
It is time to call things what they are and quit trying to spin words and facts to confuse people or to further muddy the issue. It is our money that our government takes through taxes and it is our money that they spend to operate our nation. At the moment it is also the money that is being spent that our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are going to be earning in the future.
Regardless of whether the politicians want to raise, lower, or keep taxes at the current level, at least don’t tell us that we have to pay for a tax cut.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Alaska and New Frontiers
I spent the past Weekend in Alaska and it was memorable for a number of reasons.
The next to last "conversation with Grange members" meeting was held in Palmer and eleven members were present. As normal, there were many questions and comments from the members as they participated in the meeting. The duties of the officers, state of the National Grange, and the update on our name protection efforts were all new information to many of the Alaska members. They were pleased to see how National Grange has worked to help them and keep them informed about issues that affect all Granges.
The sixth degree was then conferred that evening to eleven Alaska members following the Fifth Degree obligation ceremony. It was truly a positive and inspiring way to conclude the day's activities.
We had 17 individuals on the team from 9 different states. The team did an outstanding job, with all team members having memorized their parts and they appeared to have worked together for years rather than just having had one practice that afternoon.
Errol Briggs, Master of the team, presented a gavel to the Alaska State Grange as a remembrance to the event. John Porrier, State Master, accepted the gavel and spoke how it was the first piece of history that the State Grange owns. It will now travel through the state until it has visited each of the seven Granges.
Brother Lester Gibbs, Chaplain of the team, presented each new sixth degree member with a pin from the Vermont State Grange. Also I presented brother Porrier with a set of sixth degree manuals so that in the future the Alaska State Grange could properly open and confer the degree themselves.
I am so proud of the fact that our members chose to come to Alaska to be a part of this first ever conferral. The team consisted of M-Errol Briggs, VT; O-Bob White, OH; L-Celia Luttrell, OR; S-Don Johnson, ID; AS-Mark Noah, OR; LAS-Susan Noah, OR; Ch-Lester Gibbs, VT; T-Gaye Hunt, AK; Sec-Mary Reinke, WI; GK-Norm Keller, IL; C-Joan While, OH; P-Betsy Huber, PA; F-Henrietta Keller, IL; Executive Committee-Alan Arner, WI; Barbara Chambers, VT; Clara Scott, MT; and Pianist-Mary Johnson, ID. If you want to get a detailed report as one of these members for their opinion of the day's activities.
Alaska is still viewed by some as a frontier and as far as our organization goes they will not be the last frontier. We are working to start Granges in Missouri, Nevada, and Arkansas at this time. Each new Grange, both Community and State, creates a new frontier for our members. New projects, new activities, and most importantly, new members are created with each new Grange.
The benefit of a new frontier is that they bring new energy and ideas into the existing Granges many of which are over a hundred years old. This blend of new and old invigorates our organization and ensures our continued growth.
I hope your memories of this past weekend are as good as those who went to Alaska and experienced a new frontier.
The next to last "conversation with Grange members" meeting was held in Palmer and eleven members were present. As normal, there were many questions and comments from the members as they participated in the meeting. The duties of the officers, state of the National Grange, and the update on our name protection efforts were all new information to many of the Alaska members. They were pleased to see how National Grange has worked to help them and keep them informed about issues that affect all Granges.
The sixth degree was then conferred that evening to eleven Alaska members following the Fifth Degree obligation ceremony. It was truly a positive and inspiring way to conclude the day's activities.
We had 17 individuals on the team from 9 different states. The team did an outstanding job, with all team members having memorized their parts and they appeared to have worked together for years rather than just having had one practice that afternoon.
Errol Briggs, Master of the team, presented a gavel to the Alaska State Grange as a remembrance to the event. John Porrier, State Master, accepted the gavel and spoke how it was the first piece of history that the State Grange owns. It will now travel through the state until it has visited each of the seven Granges.
Brother Lester Gibbs, Chaplain of the team, presented each new sixth degree member with a pin from the Vermont State Grange. Also I presented brother Porrier with a set of sixth degree manuals so that in the future the Alaska State Grange could properly open and confer the degree themselves.
I am so proud of the fact that our members chose to come to Alaska to be a part of this first ever conferral. The team consisted of M-Errol Briggs, VT; O-Bob White, OH; L-Celia Luttrell, OR; S-Don Johnson, ID; AS-Mark Noah, OR; LAS-Susan Noah, OR; Ch-Lester Gibbs, VT; T-Gaye Hunt, AK; Sec-Mary Reinke, WI; GK-Norm Keller, IL; C-Joan While, OH; P-Betsy Huber, PA; F-Henrietta Keller, IL; Executive Committee-Alan Arner, WI; Barbara Chambers, VT; Clara Scott, MT; and Pianist-Mary Johnson, ID. If you want to get a detailed report as one of these members for their opinion of the day's activities.
Alaska is still viewed by some as a frontier and as far as our organization goes they will not be the last frontier. We are working to start Granges in Missouri, Nevada, and Arkansas at this time. Each new Grange, both Community and State, creates a new frontier for our members. New projects, new activities, and most importantly, new members are created with each new Grange.
The benefit of a new frontier is that they bring new energy and ideas into the existing Granges many of which are over a hundred years old. This blend of new and old invigorates our organization and ensures our continued growth.
I hope your memories of this past weekend are as good as those who went to Alaska and experienced a new frontier.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Talking
This has been an interesting month. It seems that I've been dealing with a number of problems that originate with people not talking to each other.
It is crucial that people talk to each other, especially when one party has some authority. It is never healthy for people or for organizations not to communicate.
It appears that when many people decide that when they are not going to talk to someone else, they also stop listening to them. At that point how do we think we are going to solve the problem?
The next step often is that one or both start complaining or even making accusations to others without talking to the person they need to be talking to. Fairly quickly it becomes a "whose side are you on" situation.
I've seen Granges, churches, and even entire communities divided over issues that started because someone quit talking to someone else. Who wins in these cases? Usually no one wins. Someone may drop a membership or even choose to move out of the area, but did anyone actually win? The sad thing is in these extreme cases, often both feuding parties actually want similar things and they just let things get carried away by not communicating.
People in the Grange have an obligation to help each other. If two people quit talking to each other, others should counsel them to clear the air and find a solution. Those who care about the cause or organization need to show their leadership or they risk losing the things they care about because others are not talking.
It is my experience that as long as people are willing to talk, there is a chance of finding solutions to whatever challenge is facing us. It is when we stop talking and listening that we start to lose.
Let each of us remind ourselves now and again, that we need to talk to others and listen to what they have to say.
It is crucial that people talk to each other, especially when one party has some authority. It is never healthy for people or for organizations not to communicate.
It appears that when many people decide that when they are not going to talk to someone else, they also stop listening to them. At that point how do we think we are going to solve the problem?
The next step often is that one or both start complaining or even making accusations to others without talking to the person they need to be talking to. Fairly quickly it becomes a "whose side are you on" situation.
I've seen Granges, churches, and even entire communities divided over issues that started because someone quit talking to someone else. Who wins in these cases? Usually no one wins. Someone may drop a membership or even choose to move out of the area, but did anyone actually win? The sad thing is in these extreme cases, often both feuding parties actually want similar things and they just let things get carried away by not communicating.
People in the Grange have an obligation to help each other. If two people quit talking to each other, others should counsel them to clear the air and find a solution. Those who care about the cause or organization need to show their leadership or they risk losing the things they care about because others are not talking.
It is my experience that as long as people are willing to talk, there is a chance of finding solutions to whatever challenge is facing us. It is when we stop talking and listening that we start to lose.
Let each of us remind ourselves now and again, that we need to talk to others and listen to what they have to say.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
This Past Week
What a week I've had. Interviews for a new Legislative Director, staff meetings, problems in a couple of states, issues that included what we are going to do about the Postal Service proposal to reduce service, and an interesting idea to help farmers and rural people in another part of our world.
The one thing most people don't realize is that I spend at least half my time team building. Working with, training, encouraging, and supporting the members of all the different teams the National Grange has, is one of the chief duties of the Master of the National Grange. Success or failure is often based on how well that single portion of this job is done.
While I am not a "city" person, the time I spend with the staff is not only valuable, but enjoyable. I have trust and faith that your staff is not only dedicated to our organization, but committed to being a part of growing it.
Leroy Watson is going to be leaving his post in a week and a half and I will miss him greatly. He brought a keen mind and 11 years of experience as the Director to the staff and it has benefited every Master he worked under and the organization as a whole. I am also sure that he will continue to contribute in many ways to the future of our Grange, now just as an active member.
The team of staff will change this month and we have already begun to fit new people into the team. The process is the same for new employees as for new members in your own Grange. We need to make them feel welcome, make sure that they understand what we do and why, and listen to their questions and comments. We have the opportunity to learn about ourselves by listening to a new set of eyes.
Sitting at the airport, reflecting on this past week, is a pleasant moment this week. We have strengthened our staff team, we are seeking solutions to some problems challenging some of our State Master team members, and we accomplished a great deal.
Success or failure is the result of team building efforts. This week was another success for the National Grange and our organization as a whole. Hope your week was as wonderful!
The one thing most people don't realize is that I spend at least half my time team building. Working with, training, encouraging, and supporting the members of all the different teams the National Grange has, is one of the chief duties of the Master of the National Grange. Success or failure is often based on how well that single portion of this job is done.
While I am not a "city" person, the time I spend with the staff is not only valuable, but enjoyable. I have trust and faith that your staff is not only dedicated to our organization, but committed to being a part of growing it.
Leroy Watson is going to be leaving his post in a week and a half and I will miss him greatly. He brought a keen mind and 11 years of experience as the Director to the staff and it has benefited every Master he worked under and the organization as a whole. I am also sure that he will continue to contribute in many ways to the future of our Grange, now just as an active member.
The team of staff will change this month and we have already begun to fit new people into the team. The process is the same for new employees as for new members in your own Grange. We need to make them feel welcome, make sure that they understand what we do and why, and listen to their questions and comments. We have the opportunity to learn about ourselves by listening to a new set of eyes.
Sitting at the airport, reflecting on this past week, is a pleasant moment this week. We have strengthened our staff team, we are seeking solutions to some problems challenging some of our State Master team members, and we accomplished a great deal.
Success or failure is the result of team building efforts. This week was another success for the National Grange and our organization as a whole. Hope your week was as wonderful!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Basic Economics
I just don’t quite get why so many politicians seem to be missing the common sense boat when we talk about the economy. It would be truly discouraging if it required a degree in economics to see some of the solutions.
I’ve had a checking account since I was about 16 and at an early point in life, I knew that if a person writes a check or charges a debit for more money than they have in the account, the check bounces, the debit is declined and the bank punishes you with a hefty overdraft fee. When you don’t pay a bill, someone is going to ask some tough questions. If you constantly spend more than you make, you will go bankrupt.
It is seems obvious to me that when you increase taxes, there is less money being spent to hire people by businesses. Undoubtedly there is a tax rate that will generate the maximum revenue for the government with the least negative impact on the economy and while I am not sure what it is exactly, I just have a hunch it is somewhat lower than the total bill we have today.
The bottom line is that the government as a whole doesn’t create wealth and wealth is what increases our standard of living. Without wealth generation, the ideas, services, food, fiber, and widgets that are produced, the economy just can’t grow.
It is also painfully obvious that when you increase taxes on the rich, that many people find themselves being classed as rich who really are not. Most importantly, if the amount of taxes I pay as a percentage of my income goes up, it is a tax increase. The more of my money that the government takes, the less that I can use for the things I think are important. Now don’t think that I oppose paying taxes, I just want a civil discussion on how much I should pay.
It would seem to me that there are some simple solutions to help stimulate the economy.
First stop spending more than is received in revenue. I realize that means making choices, but that is what people normally do when they run out of money.
Second stop raising taxes, especially the ones aimed at business. All they seem to do is discourage hiring. While we’re on this subject, maybe just following a bit of Grange policy and make the tax system simpler would aid the economy. If farmers, businesspeople, and the rest of the taxpayers knew the tax system was consistent and predictable it would be a lot easier to make investments that would lead to new jobs.
Third quit using taxes as a partisan position and as a wedge between voters and start talking about our nation’s financial health. After all, we are all citizens of this great nation.
I have a hunch that just these three basic ideas would keep Congress busy for a couple of years while the rest of us keep working and building the secure financial future we want for our families.
I’ve had a checking account since I was about 16 and at an early point in life, I knew that if a person writes a check or charges a debit for more money than they have in the account, the check bounces, the debit is declined and the bank punishes you with a hefty overdraft fee. When you don’t pay a bill, someone is going to ask some tough questions. If you constantly spend more than you make, you will go bankrupt.
It is seems obvious to me that when you increase taxes, there is less money being spent to hire people by businesses. Undoubtedly there is a tax rate that will generate the maximum revenue for the government with the least negative impact on the economy and while I am not sure what it is exactly, I just have a hunch it is somewhat lower than the total bill we have today.
The bottom line is that the government as a whole doesn’t create wealth and wealth is what increases our standard of living. Without wealth generation, the ideas, services, food, fiber, and widgets that are produced, the economy just can’t grow.
It is also painfully obvious that when you increase taxes on the rich, that many people find themselves being classed as rich who really are not. Most importantly, if the amount of taxes I pay as a percentage of my income goes up, it is a tax increase. The more of my money that the government takes, the less that I can use for the things I think are important. Now don’t think that I oppose paying taxes, I just want a civil discussion on how much I should pay.
It would seem to me that there are some simple solutions to help stimulate the economy.
First stop spending more than is received in revenue. I realize that means making choices, but that is what people normally do when they run out of money.
Second stop raising taxes, especially the ones aimed at business. All they seem to do is discourage hiring. While we’re on this subject, maybe just following a bit of Grange policy and make the tax system simpler would aid the economy. If farmers, businesspeople, and the rest of the taxpayers knew the tax system was consistent and predictable it would be a lot easier to make investments that would lead to new jobs.
Third quit using taxes as a partisan position and as a wedge between voters and start talking about our nation’s financial health. After all, we are all citizens of this great nation.
I have a hunch that just these three basic ideas would keep Congress busy for a couple of years while the rest of us keep working and building the secure financial future we want for our families.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Defining Who We Are
Just two weeks ago I was in Washington, D.C. with my wife, son, and about 500 of my friends. While I was working, my wife and son Jacob visited many of the monuments and memorials and took in the sights around Washington. One of their stops was Mt. Vernon where they spent a good share of one day.
Jacob has always been interested in history and the world in general and is a well informed young man. He commented that he learned that George Washington defined himself as a farmer and he observed that histories don't mention his love of agriculture.
Washington may have been the general that kept alive the dream of independence and he may have been the first President and in the process created a working nation. But when he defined who he was, he said a farmer.
How do you define a farmer? Is he or she a person who takes risks, but is educated and experienced enough to find success? Is it a person who is willing and tough enough to work long hours when necessary.
I believe that we should embrace the picture of Washington as the proto-type of the American farmer. Someone who puts his heart, mind, and soul into growing crops, raising livestock, and today also growing fuel. Highly educated and willing to get dirty, committed to a lifestyle, their family and the community they are blessed to live in. Someone who answers the call to duty when their country needs them, and seldom is far from God.
While Washington thought of himself as a farmer, history often ignores that central part of his life in favor of the more attractive general or President. But why is his own definition of himself so often overlooked? Why are farmers in general overlooked or even ignored so often?
It is possible that American farmers are so good at their chosen occupation and so quiet about it that their silence is taken by the public as proof it isn't so tough. Maybe it is just that they are not vocal about it.
Agriculture faces many challenges today, from government regulation to attacks from anti-agriculture groups. One small things we can do is to take time to look at the initiation ceremonies of the Grange and how we use these powerful lessons to teach the critical role of agriculture and the importance of farmers.
All of us who do not make our livings via farming need to join with that small segment of our nation's population who are farmers. Together we must make sure that we define what a farmer is, not others who have no idea of what is involved in being a farmer.
The Grange is an agricultural organization and as such, continues to educate and teach what it means to be a farmer in today's America. Our membership is not made up of just farmers, but those with an interest in agriculture.
George Washington would be happy to see organizations that remember the high position that agriculture occupies and the importance of the American farmer. Would he be as happy about how many Americans define farmers?
Let's all continue working together to ensure that the we define what a farmer is!
Jacob has always been interested in history and the world in general and is a well informed young man. He commented that he learned that George Washington defined himself as a farmer and he observed that histories don't mention his love of agriculture.
Washington may have been the general that kept alive the dream of independence and he may have been the first President and in the process created a working nation. But when he defined who he was, he said a farmer.
How do you define a farmer? Is he or she a person who takes risks, but is educated and experienced enough to find success? Is it a person who is willing and tough enough to work long hours when necessary.
I believe that we should embrace the picture of Washington as the proto-type of the American farmer. Someone who puts his heart, mind, and soul into growing crops, raising livestock, and today also growing fuel. Highly educated and willing to get dirty, committed to a lifestyle, their family and the community they are blessed to live in. Someone who answers the call to duty when their country needs them, and seldom is far from God.
While Washington thought of himself as a farmer, history often ignores that central part of his life in favor of the more attractive general or President. But why is his own definition of himself so often overlooked? Why are farmers in general overlooked or even ignored so often?
It is possible that American farmers are so good at their chosen occupation and so quiet about it that their silence is taken by the public as proof it isn't so tough. Maybe it is just that they are not vocal about it.
Agriculture faces many challenges today, from government regulation to attacks from anti-agriculture groups. One small things we can do is to take time to look at the initiation ceremonies of the Grange and how we use these powerful lessons to teach the critical role of agriculture and the importance of farmers.
All of us who do not make our livings via farming need to join with that small segment of our nation's population who are farmers. Together we must make sure that we define what a farmer is, not others who have no idea of what is involved in being a farmer.
The Grange is an agricultural organization and as such, continues to educate and teach what it means to be a farmer in today's America. Our membership is not made up of just farmers, but those with an interest in agriculture.
George Washington would be happy to see organizations that remember the high position that agriculture occupies and the importance of the American farmer. Would he be as happy about how many Americans define farmers?
Let's all continue working together to ensure that the we define what a farmer is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
