Spokane7
55°
July 3, 2011 in Opinion
Smart Bombs: Floyd was suited to the task
On Election Day, you’ll find Doug Floyd trudging up to St. Mark’s Lutheran Church (or wherever) to drop off his ballot. If you wonder why, he’ll be glad to tell you – just make sure you aren’t needed elsewhere in the next hour or so. It’s something about communal practices of democratic rituals strengthening the bonds of our republic. In short, he despises mail-in voting.
Probably hates the designated hitter rule, too.
Doug’s last day on the job was Thursday, capping an illustrious 42-year newspaper career. No, he wasn’t one of Gutenberg’s interns, but his journalism arc did cover “hot type,” Teletypes and typewriters. He had the great fortune of working when ink-on-paper journalism ruled the day. His younger colleagues, which is to say all of us, are envious as we grapple with the uncertainty that lies ahead.
Doug ended his career as my boss. Don’t read too much into that. The best way I can describe what he was like at work is to tell a story about somebody else.
My first exposure to an editorial page editor was in Arizona, when I was temporarily assigned to edit copy for that section. The editor was a jolly soul who chortled and guffawed for hours to whoever was on the other end of his phone. He had a large staff for writing and editing, so he didn’t do a lot of that. He did wear nice suits. About that, he was quite diligent.
One day, I heard a rattling in the halls and looked up from my computer. The editor was heading for his office with a slight fellow pushing a rack of suits. From the tape measure around his neck, I deduced that this visitor was a tailor. They went into the editor’s office, closed the door and drew the blinds. Nobody else found this odd.
This is so not Doug.
While he did wear suits, the jacket didn’t stay on long and his shirt sleeves were usually rolled up. He wrote, edited, researched, reported, debated, negotiated with letter writers, organized and ran meetings, listened to public complaints and generally made his fellow board members’ lives easier by shielding us from the less appealing aspects of the job. Oh, and he produced an editorial page each day.
Typically, he ate lunch at his desk.
He did all of this with humility, humor and hardly any food stuck between his teeth. On his final day, he wrote two editorials and wrapped up that in-depth interview on the opposite page. Nobody found this odd.
On a personal level, Doug is a great guy. When I was struck with family tragedy, he was steadfast in his support and flexible upon my return to work. I will never forget that compassion, or the everyday examples on how to be a better journalist and a better man.
All the best, my friend, and enjoy those symbolic strolls to the ballot box. Just be sure to read our endorsements first.
Addition by subtraction. My favorite oxymoron of the moment is “job-killing government spending.” It stems from the penchant for placing “job-killing” in front of anything related to the Obama administration. So it’s job-killing health reform, job-killing stimulus, job-killing job training, job killing … whatever.
That’s smart politics, I suppose, since all polls find that job creation ought to be the nation’s No. 1 priority. So just note that something kills jobs, even if you can’t identify the victim. If you and I spend money, that’s good for the businesses we frequent. But if government officials write the checks, this somehow kills jobs.
“Look, boss, sales are way up this quarter!”
“Yeah, but that’s because the government bought a lot of the stuff. I’m afraid I’ll have to lay you off.”
Once you buy this theory, then “job-creating spending cuts” are an easy sale. But good luck with that in practice.
“Hey, the government stopped buying stuff. Can I have my job back?”
“Er, what?!”
Look, I understand spending cuts as part of a deficit reduction strategy, but to suggest they would spur job creation is absurd. I understand tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but to suggest they would lower the deficit is also absurd.
If budget-cutting did spark hiring, we could expect a drastic drop in the unemployment rate as state and local governments impose austerity budgets and lay off workers. But that isn’t even suggested by governors, legislators, mayors and council members. They don’t call for tax cuts either.
After all, they have budgets to balance.
Smart Bombs is written by Associate Editor Gary Crooks and appears Sundays on the Opinion page. Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or at (509) 459-5026.
Smart Bombs: Greatest generation? Not us 
DickAdams on July 03 at 9:23 a.m.
Floyd was suited to the task of rigging letters to the editor. Floyd was great at looking the other way when he was given documented evidence of stuff that should have been covered in the SR. Lackey comes to mind. Just because he`s retired, does not change my opinion about the guy. Covered up stuff is a disservice to readers and the public at large.
Gary D Rhodes on July 04 at 9:56 a.m.
On this Independence Day, it would be nice if the SR Editors understood our republic just a little better.
When the Constitution was ratified by the states, they wanted to make absolutely sure that their sovereignty would not be encroached upon.
The states decided to form a federal government to do certain needed functions, such as courts, military, money, and a very few other things.
These functions were enumerated, as the last thing the Founders wanted was a federal government with unlimited ability to expand their power. The notion that the feds would create jobs was unthinkable.
Sure the government can borrow or print up a bunch of money and give it out in make-work programs. But the bill for these jobs is then tacked onto our already insurmountable debt.
One thing Mr. Crooks will never understand; these cuts will not be painless or popular.
Getting off heroine isn’t easy, but sometimes the right thing is hard, and takes real courage.
richard on July 04 at 11:48 a.m.
You are correct Rhodes; Crooks fails to tell the real story of government “creating” jobs. In the instance of the “stimulus” program, we now know it was simply another form of “free lunches” handed out in the hopes of gaining supporters and votes down the road in 2012.
Here is what a new government report has to say about the “job creation” of the stimulus … it costs us all a whole lot of money and it virtually did nothing for the economy . . .
“When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. ”
Gary’s comments on “job-creation-by-government” reveas the extent media will go to give support to failed policies … .it is all about ideology and politics.
It cost the taxpayers $666 billion for 2.4 million jobs. But the more important story here is that our president has possibly made hundreds of thousands of “new friends” who will be willing to vote for him in the hopes that there will be more free lunches down the road.
MatthewRoot on July 04 at 5:16 p.m.
Interesting numbers given that the total stimulus package contained $275 billion in contracts, grants, and loans (and not all of that has been paid out yet). Much of that money was spent to build infrastructure, not just to create jobs.
There is $244 billion in entitlements (e.g., unemployment benefits).
That is a total of $519 billion in spending.
The remaining $288 billion were tax breaks, like those $800 tax credits that most families received in the last two years ($400 for individuals). You can give the $1,600 back to the feds if you don’t like the program.