The Age of Competitive Suffering

Voters ponder "Will you still love me tomorrow?"

2010-10-26T23:45:00.002-05:00

Voters are drawn to candidates that like them. The inability to communicate that affection and fashion such bonds derailed the ultimate political ambitions of Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Stevenson and Goldwater (probably Dole to a lesser extent). Cold indifference to the people short-circuited the legacy oriented aspirations of Johnson and Nixon.

President Obama succeeded in forging such bonds with the voters during the campaign. Like Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton he sold an appealing message. He encouraged voters to be part of something historic, to validate their desire to contribute through politics and to make a difference. Kennedy and Reagan thought highly of America and Americans and valued and encouraged the contributions of the electorate. Clinton probably viewed electoral politics largely as a referendum on his person, but he clearly viewed government as a vehicle for good.

What happened between Obama and the voters? His supporters seem more handcuffed to Obama than hand-holding. The phenomenon is hard to explain, like the Hollywood marriages that last seven months. How much can go wrong in seven months or in twenty-one months? Not that much really. Obamacare, the stimulus, the deficit and the tax policy proposals are problems, but hardly insurmountable for liberals to reconcile. The erosion of support for the president is more personal than political. Like the seven month marriages, the cracks trace back to the courtship.

Obama's America is country of villains that needs a sheriff to police it. America is Tombstone and he is Wyatt Earp. The Obama supporters have come to see their contribution was limited to putting the sheriff in office. During the courtship, it was nice that you all hated the same folks. But now it seems, that he never really liked your sister either. He doesn't find much appealing about the neighbors or your boss and as it turns out, he is not being well-served by some of his supporters either. It just might turn out that your most appealing virtue was your admiration for him.

We have only tried to divorce presidents twice mid-term. We almost always take our differences up with their colleagues. That is what is occurring now. The policy discussions that were so unceremoniously side-stepped in the past two years are taking place there.

But the problem for Obama and for us doesn't abate with a Republican sweep. Chances are the partisan divide opens like the Grand Canyon. The last two years of the Obama presidency will be an endless series of vetoes. The president's recent comment that "the Republicans are welcome to ride the bus but they will have to sit in the back" is not too encouraging. Next year, Republicans may be driving the bus. All the president will be able to do is issue a rhetorical ticket.

I wrote in "America's assistant principal" that president doesn't seem to like many of us; his job would be easier if he did. There is no denying the president's political skill. If this election is going to produce more than an uncomfortable two year impasse, the president will have to put those skills to good use.

President Obama should smooth things over with the ruffled in his own party first. But he needs to reach out to the business community, the Tea Party types, the pro-life folks, Fox News, those with illegal immigration concerns and the apolitical. America is not a problem to be solved. Barack Obama has the skills to be a leader and leadership is needed now. The jury is still out on whether he will.

John Boehner leaves me cold

2010-10-15T13:27:00.001-05:00

John Boehner gave us an unfortunate look into the Republican revolution when he said it was "too early" to talk specifics regarding spending cuts. Sounds a bit like "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." In a year when Republican are running against Executive arrogance and 'Chicago-style politics,' Boehner's remarks constitute seriously competitive arrogance.

The hostility toward Washington evidenced in the polls, in the reluctance to invest or hire and in the Tea Party movement will no doubt sweep Republicans into the House majority. The Tea Party phenomenon will benefit the Republican electoral effort. Boehner is making a mistake if he reads the Tea Party folks as either patient or loyal. Their short term bet is on the Republican horse. But they won't ride that horse twice if he doesn't dial that attitude back a piece.

Voters have been angry before. The Perot movement in 1992 garnered 19 million votes in the general election. Perot received over 20 percent of the vote in 25 states, over 25 percent in 10 states.

In 1968 George Wallace carried five Southern states and garnered some 46 electoral votes. In states that he didn't win, he received 28.5 percent of the total in Florida,31.3 percent in North Carolina and 34 percent in Tennessee. Neither effort was really a serious pursuit of the office.

In the end, the Wallace voters were merely afforded a chance to vote against Humphrey without voting for Nixon. The Perot voters were able to vote against Bush without voting for Clinton.

People no longer remember that Eugene McCarthy was the leading vote-getter in the Democratic primaries in 1968 although he did not come close to getting the nomination.

What did we learn from history? We learned that 20 percent of the voters are prepared to go outside the Democrat and Republican parties to vote for president. We learned that demographic appeals can potentially unearth electoral votes and most importantly, in McCarthy’s case, that a party can be dragged reluctantly toward the sentiments of the grassroots.

Frankly, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were hardly charismatic or visionary individuals. They were one-trick ponies and not exactly models of ethics or towers of emotional stability. What happens if the anger attaches itself to a more solid person, a Mike Pence or a Condi Rice or a Bill Bennett. What happens if a Paul Tsongas-type Democrat doesn't want to wait until 2016?

The most interesting distinction between the Tea Party movement and the followers of the aforementioned is that this attention is directed at the Congress, especially at the House where the spending originates. That tells me that the disenchanted may be in it for the long haul.

Will the Tea Party be around as a third party alternative in four years? Probably not. If it survives as an ideological movement, it may enable the birth of a credible third party or support the election prospects of Libertarian-leaning and Independent candidates both in and outside the main parties. It can continue to cull the ranks of Democrat and Republican candidates who disdain the voter's wishes. They will remain a potent force in national politics if they remain ‘beholden to no one.

This much is certain. The blinding loyalty of the Tea Party supporters to Republicans in this election cycle is simply a 'no other card to play' phenomenon. The Democrats clearly don't want to be contaminated by associating with the Tea Party types. If Boehner and his ilk cannot talk the details of entitlement reform and real spending cuts now, the day is never coming.

Just trust me and we’ll get into the details after the election. This is a bad play for Republicans. If you can’t be brave campaigning, why should voters expect you to be brave governing. For all their many flaws, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were brave campaigners. In another lifetime, we called that honesty.

The buck stops nowhere

2010-08-07T01:00:00.003-05:00

For as long as I can remember, politicians have portrayed economic distress as the predictable consequence of intentional acts inflicted on the unsuspecting public by their opponents. Setting aside the malevolent motives ascribed to their counterparts, I find it remarkable how powerful they find them. Not only do they see them as capable of conspiracies, crimes and selfish motives, they see them as good at conspiracies and crimes and malevolence.

The Obama Democrats are almost awed by the magical powers of the Republican minority. By the same token, while Republicans can seemingly impose their evil will on the economy, Democrats with overwhelming control of both houses still feel pretty impotent. And more importantly, not responsible for the outcomes of their own making.

Let's examine the case for the stimulus package. The focal justification for the stimulus was to prevent the unemployment rate from rising to 9 or 9.5 percent. Passing this legislation would keep the unemployment rate under eight percent. When the unemployment rate ballooned to 9.7 percent, the explanation was pretty unconvincing. The Democrats didn't grasp how bad the economy really was. The Republicans had made even a bigger mess than we thought. That is certainly one explanation, Another would be the stimulus didn't work. Needless to say, that school of thought wasn't given much credence.

Americans can find at least two things to be depressed about here First, we have one party government for the time being. Worse, we have unaccountable one-party government. We have have placed the Congress in the hands of a party that can do anything-they-want, yet doesn;t want to account for the result of anything-they-want. It is also troubling that politicians, who failed to grasp the fragility of the economy, could advocate so adamantly for a remedy that is so fiscally reckless.

The second and even more distressing outcome is that the buck stops nowhere. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. If the buck doesn't stop at the Democratic doorstep today, it won't stop at the Republican doorstep if the voter have a similar temper tantrum in November.

Once again the media is missing in action. The politics dominate the daily news cycles. The politics,though, are just Entertainment tonight from Washington D.C. As we come to expect less and less from politicians, we get less and less. As we accept less from the media, we get ? We would be lucky if political decisions affected only politics.

The decisions being made in Washington affect your employment opportunities, your retirement security, the quality and availability of medical care and your ability to secure credit. They impact your security and your liberty. These issues are a damned side more important than who wins the political sideshow.

Midterms "Feel the breeze"

2010-08-03T19:02:00.001-05:00

I so look forward to the midterm elections. Politicians are on their best behavior, rising above the senseless antipathy and character assassination that poisons politics during the governing phase.

Politicians assume a respectful demeanor grounded in a recognition that they are public servants, not public overseers. See what hope and change has wrought.

Seriously, with Congress polling at an 11 percent approval rating, a little less animosity and a bit more humility might be a good play, tactically speaking. So, why aren't we seeing it. There has been a seismic shift away from party affiliation and incumbent infatuation. The disenchanted fringes, the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republican and Perot voters now people much of the eclectic middle. With the wisdom that only career politicians can muster, the Democrats strategy is to intimidate their recalcitrant charges back into the fold.

By associating the Tea party types with racism, substandard intelligence and angry rural sentiments, Democrats hope that the Obama deserters will dissassociate themselves from the radical center and hop back aboard the Obama train. The Republican response has been equally mystifying. While the criticism of the Sharron Angle types has been cautious, their message is directed at emphasizing the impotence of Tea Party independents. Without us, you are no one. Republicans should recognize impotent. They are desperately in need of a legislative blue pill.

The Republicans usually own the tone deafness issue but not this time. Their Democrats have established an oily sort of comfort with attacking the undecideds. They don't dispute the dissatisfactions of the undecideds as much as they dispute their right to be dissatisfied. It is an arrogant whim to think only Democratic grievances are valid grievances.

The Republicans are at least entertaining the idea that the party has to address the collective disenchantments of the 'beholden to no one crowd.' The Democrats seem content to wait and forgive them when they finally come to their senses. If I was truly undecided, I'd remember who treated me better when I was adrift.

America's assistant principal

2010-05-16T13:47:00.022-05:00

It is difficult to believe that President Obama rose from the ranks of the non-judgmental left. Like a high school assistant principal, he is constantly reminding America that there is only one adult here and we won't see him or her in our bathroom mirror. Like selfish, inconsiderate and undisciplined children, we are screwing up the school, er, the country.

In remarks about the oil disaster in the Gulf, the President made yet an another unnecessary foray into condescension. There were three CEO' s testifying in front of the latest congressional dog and pony show. Why these individuals were busy being flayed by Congress instead of guiding their companies at this critical moment is beyond me. Is the country somehow better served if they are all busy in Washington acting contrite.

To play devil's advocate for these CEO's, who are, in fact engineers; they may have a significant role to play in the repair effort going on in the Gulf. If the buck stops at their door, they may be needed somewhere other than the hot seat. Regarding their individual culpability, we don't actually yet know if anyone is guilty of negligence or recklessness. We don't know if we are dealing with human error, design flaw, criminal mischief, inept regulatory oversight or reckless disregard. If one or two or all of the parties are less than causally responsible, why should they not defend themselves.

Without evidence to the contrary, I think we can assume this much. None of the parties intentionally endangered the lives of their own employees or put the financial health of their companies, the livelihoods of their customers and the environment at risk by design. Bad decisions are a part of life. Even negligence can be benign or malicious.

The condescending tone President Obama adopts in his public statements occur too often to be anything other than calculated. A brief review of presidential highlights reminds us that no one has a lower opinion of the American people than their president. He finds the Tea party participants amusing and ungrateful. He admonished a Fox anchor twice in a single interview for interrupting him. He was tactless and arrogant during the health care summit.

He will not "abide" those who seek to misinform the public about health care. He thinks there is a point "when you have made enough money." His tendency to generalize has questioned the motives of mortgage lenders, Wall Street bankers, Arizona voters, Republicans and the Bush administration. And then there are those who "get bitter, cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Mind you, I am not defending anyone in particular. I do believe that much of the harm that is visited on our country occurs without design or intent. Much occurs because the citizens are no more skilled or compassionate or far-sighted than their counterparts in government. Private institutions recklessly carry inadequate capital reserves, much like Social Security, Medicare and federal housing lenders.

The president said in his first appearance before Congress that he was humbled by the responsibility. I believe that he meant it then. In the succeeding months, it seems that the president has overcome his humility and reached the limits of his patience with many of us. It would serve him well to remember that while he occupies a position of great responsibility, his stock in the country is the same as every other American.

I went to a Jesuit High School, a good training ground for living in Obama's America. Deep down inside, I knew that our crabby and taciturn assistant principal really liked us. I don't get the sense that the president likes many of us. It would make his job easier if he did.

In his leadership seminars and books, John Wooden notes that leaders say "Lets go" not "Get going" The point merits some presidential pondering.

Washington needs literacy initiative

2010-05-13T15:14:00.036-05:00

Eric Holder made what should have been a remarkable admission on Thursday. He has not yet read the Arizona law that he has already publicly denounced. In addition, he had speculated on the record about a forthcoming legal challenge. Both actions could be construed as premature. Maybe he read the Cliffnotes.

Last year, several representatives acknowledged that they hadn't read the stimulus bill, then under consideration. Similar inferences can reasonably be drawn regarding congressional familiarity with the recent health care bill.

At recent hearings about financial reform, it was apparent that some legislators knew less about credit default swaps and synthetic CDO's than I know. It was equally clear that one member did not really understand elements of the very transaction that had provoked his outrage.

In the aftermath of last year's stimulus bill, Sen. Christopher Dodd had to publicly acknowledge that he, himself, inserted 'grandfather clause' language concerning bonuses. (The language was subsequently used to guarantee bonuses at AIG after the company's financial collapse and government rescue) Unlike officials who are unaware of detail because they haven't read the relevant material, Dodd had previously denied to CNN, knowledge of his involvement with material that he personally authored. In a curious aside, he was later able to remember precisely why he inserted the specific language that he denied authorship of.

How is it that that the Attorney General can take issue with and threaten legal action in response to legislation that he has not read? How does a legislator choose whether to vote for or against a bill that he or she has not read? Is it possible for a congressman to make a meaningful contribution to financial regulatory reform without being conversant in the most basic vocabulary attached to the issue? If an elected representative is going to contribute language to legislation, should he not demonstrate a clear understanding of the precipitating events.

These questions require either that the parties read, research and understand the issues or explain how their Edgar Cayce-like intuition steers them unerringly to to right conclusion without even a hint of study. At least Cayce justified his intuition. He acquired it in a trance. Where did Holder develop his strongly held convictions? Did his concern come to him in a dream or was it just issued to him?

Now, if I were a cynical person, I might think the explanation transcended the paranormal. I might think it was about politics.

Students, routinely, are assigned homework. Read pages 122-146 in the textbook. Their knowledge is subsequently measured with a test. The test measures familiarity with the content. Students do not just vote aye or nay on the assignment.

Here's a test that you might like to try on your legislator. All the questions can be answered yes or no. Did you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act?, or the Restoring American Financial Stability Act? If your legislator answers yes, feel free to ask followup questions.

Washington desperately needs a literacy initiative for elected officials and political appointees. Your assignment is to read the bill you are voting on this Wednesday or discussing on Meet the Press next Sunday. The mainstream media would have you believe that most citizens are typically uninformed and disinterested. I attended two of the health care townhalls. It was evident that many of the attendees had more than a passing familiarity with the current versions of the legislation. At one of those meetings, it was equally clear that the elected official did not.

I'm sure that Eric Holder is a busy guy. At the same time, it is clear that the anchors and legal analysts at CNN and Fox had tainted themselves with actual knowledge of the Arizona law's content. Public officials take advantage of the media forums afforded to them by virtue of their position. They should come armed with more than just a feeling.

Conversation about Arizona Senate bill 1070

2010-04-25T21:37:00.017-05:00

There is general agreement that illegal aliens in Arizona number around 500,000. The total population of Arizona is approximately 6.5 million (census data), 30 percent of whom are Hispanics. For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that none of the illegal alien population is reflected in that 30 percent. If true, the estimated Hispanic population would total almost 2.45 million out of a population of 7 million, approximately 35 percent Hispanic, about 20 percent of those, illegal aliens.

Some of those illegal aliens are surely reflected in the census data, so the 20 percent number is somewhat lower than the actual percentage. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the percentage falls in 24 to 28 percent range. Recent passage of Senate bill 1070 in Arizona can't be fairly analyzed without that context. In reality, upwards of 20 percent and perhaps as much as 30 percent of the Hispanic residents of Arizona are illegal aliens.

Having said that, I agree with commentators running the gamut from Fred Barnes to Kirsten Powers who fear that it raises the potential for racial profiling.

The bill is sixteen pages long and much of it deals with employer responsibilities. The controversy is mostly focused on article 8, section B. To paraphrase; in lawful contacts between law enforcement and residents, where a reasonable suspicion exists that the subject of the contact is an illegal, unlawfully present in the United States, some reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the person's immigration status.

This bill isn't the answer, but the feds who usually see no bounds to their responsibilities and authority are notably absent here.

The potential for abuse is real but the likelihood is overstated. One out of every four Arizona Hispanics is an illegal alien. The percentage of those who are encountered via lawful police contacts is surely higher than 25 percent.

This bill isn't the death of civil liberties but ongoing scrutiny is warranted. The scope of 'lawful contact' requires some legal clarity as well as serious policy discussion. No one believes that mere police presence at emergency medical service runs should be considered a pretext for investigating the immigration status of principals or bystanders.

Horrific violence is occurring on the southern border every day. In Phoenix, criminal illegals are often the victims of drug-related kidnappings. And over seven percent of the state population is Hispanic illegals. Conscientious policing and measured responses from native-born and naturalized Hispanic communities will help in the short term. It has become vogue for politicians to justify every unconstitutional misadventure with "we had to do something." Well Arizona had to do something.

Arizona will survive this legislation in the short term. The virtue of the citizens will offset the law's shortcomings. In the long term, the feds need to do their job.

Tea party terror

2010-04-21T22:27:00.012-05:00

President Truman was in office when I was born. He was the target of gunshots fired by two Puerto Rican independence activists. President Kennedy was assassinated. Gerald Ford was the intended target of a shooting and Ronald Reagan suffered life-threatening wounds. Gunshots were directed at individuals thought to be Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. Assassination attempts against Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were foiled during or in close proximity to the attempts.

Every president since Hoover has been the victim of an attempt on his life, except Eisenhower (the attempt against President George H. W. Bush occurred after he left office). President Bush 43 was also the target of a serious attempt on his life in the Soviet Republic of Georgia in 2005. The president of the United States is always in harm's way. All of the would be assassins had political leanings, although only the attempts on foreign soil can credibly be linked to political movements.

Even the lunatic fringes have their own lunatics. This brings me to recent speculation about the extremist underbelly of the Tea party movement. The speculation is fueled by a twisted form of inductive reasoning. Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government terrorist. Some Tea party participants express anti-government sentiments. Ergo, Tea party supporters are terrorists.

Someday, a mentally disturbed person will once again set off a bomb or shoot at a president. If this action comes sooner rather than later, the action will likely be laid at the feet of the Tea party movement.

Any movement can potentially spawn maniacal violence. It's happened before. But the violence usually erupts from movements that both rationalize violence in advance and are inclined to defend it later.

Tea party protesters may disapprove of the government and they express their disapproval in a sometimes raucous and inarticulate fashion. But so far, the whole of the movement has set four fewer bombs than Bill Ayres alone and criticized the government in a generally constructive, albeit somewhat angry manner.

This pre-emptive strike against dissent is a dangerous game played by self-centered people, They are not alerting us to a new danger. History informs us that violence is always somewhere in the mix and grandstanding makes no one safer.

Electoral sweeps, questionable judgments?

2010-04-19T17:25:00.002-05:00

President Obama made a troubling and tactless remark when he publicly characterized the activities of the Tea party participants as a source of amusement. But, to be fair, Mr. Obama is hardly the first leader to have a low opinion of the disapproving masses. In other times, we might be discussing his lack of grace or debating the validity of his perceptions. But unlike his recent predecessors, this president can afford to find us amusing. He can, for a short time, afford to ignore us.

We have temporarily put governance out of the people's reach. The Democrats have a significant majority in the House and 59 votes in the Senate. No poll result can discourage the President. Republican opposition cannot derail his legislative agenda. Grassroots protests can be treated as a minor annoyance, for now. As long as the president retains the reflexive loyalty of his Democratic colleagues, the only opinion that counts is his.

The country's frustration with the Bush administration was broad-based. Much of it focused on military action (where the president's opinion actually does count more than that of the voters). But it is the scope of the reaction that concerns me. The extent of the congressional turnover turned this president into the dreaded ‘transformational figure’. This president doesn't have to persuade Congress. He transforms more by dictation than negotiation.

Anger-generated electoral sweeps are usually untimely overreactions acted out without serious consideration of the consequences. Every clean sweep is a potential disaster-in the making.. It sweeps away the opposition.

The voters don’t like to be ignored or mocked. The voters may be tempted to clean house again soon.. Honestly, the Democrats could benefit from a dose of humility. But the country will not benefit from making the Democrats politically impotent in 2010 and 2012.

In 2008, we voted for president and elected, for a short time, a king. Neither party has earned the blinding confidence shown the Democrats in 2008. Today, the country is full of disgruntled Republicans, Libertarians, Independents and some fiscally conservative and pro-life Democrats complaining that their voice isn’t being heard. Absolutely true, but we did this.

If we want politicians to be accountable, voters have to be continually interested, not periodically. Citizenship is an everyday responsibility, not an every-so-often one.

Amusing citizen annoyed

2010-04-17T03:37:00.011-05:00

Very little in politics surprises me. It doesn't surprise me that President Obama finds the concerns of many of his fellow citizens entertaining. It doesn't shock me that he finds them lacking in gratitude. But it really surprises me that he would cruelly and publicly ridicule them for a laugh.

Chris Wallace, at best a member of the vast Blue Dog conspiracy, called it the height of condescension. We are now lead by a man whose respect for his fellow citizens is conditioned on their gratitude. When voters have to purchase respect with silent assent or with a dollar or a vote, you can be pretty sure the respect that they are being shown is transient and insincere.

President Obama mocked, a not insignificant, sliver of the electorate. In so doing, he crossed a line that politicians occasionally stumble over but almost never step across intentionally. Some weave across the line with the assistance of alcohol or the encouragement of flattery, but only rarely do they cross the line simply to prove that they can.

Mr. Obama has traveled to the political black hole that traps politicians who come to regard their self-preoccupation as a virtue. In the recent past, the president has treated Representative Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain dismissively and was pointlessly rude to Brent Baier in a White House interview. Now, he has needlessly insulted voters for his own amusement. In politics, confrontational can sometimes be a virtue, but rude trumps confrontational.

It was clear early in the 2008 campaign that I wasn't going to vote for Barack Obama on policy grounds. However, I did perceive in him a sense of civility, a respectful and sincere demeanor. I've seen it in other politicians, Paul Tsongas, Ronald Reagan, Donald Dellums and John Kasich. Sadly, I saw something that either wasn't there or later disappeared. I would prefer to think it was the latter.

Years ago, I read an article about astronomical black holes. It said that if you were to travel to a black hole and return, when you got back you would be younger than you were when you left.
(Wrap your head around that idea.) Should the president return from this political black hole, let's hope he returns as the 2007 campaign version of the man we see today.

I don't know which Barack Obama is the real Obama. The 2007 candidate looked like a class act. The 2010 president is a testy, insecure and unkind chess master. The first guy would be a more effective leader today and would be more kindly remembered in the legacy years.

Infiltrating the tea parties

2010-04-14T11:35:00.012-05:00

News reports this week exposed an effort to sabotage the upcoming tea parties by infiltrating the assembled crowds of protesters, raising signs with misspellings and making racist or homophobic representations. These actions would serve to discredit the movement.

Fox anchor Megan Kelly commented to Bernard Goldberg that if the tea parties were actually peopled by racists and homophobes, why would it be necessary to import fake racists and fake homophobes to discredit them? This is a really good question and deserves some further exploration.

Contrary to the revised history of the United States so popular today, racism actually pre-dated the Nixon campaign of 1968. Institutional racism and loyal Democrats gave us famous civil rights pioneers such as Ross Barnett, Lester Maddox, and Orville Faubus. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond cut their political teeth as Democrats.

Even today some Democratic politicians struggle with racial sensitivity. Senator Reid noted that candidate Obama had conquered his Negro dialect and could employ it selectively to his political advantage. Senator Biden observed that candidate Obama was clean and articulate. Senator Boxer gave us one of the more racially tone-deaf moments in YouTube history. Chris Dodd praised Robert Byrd, characterizing him as the right man at any time in history, including the Civil war. Republicans can compete in racial insensitivity, but by no means, do they own it.

So, now I am forced to wonder; if all these racists and homophobes really did reside in the Republican party and have now set their allegiance aside, why are these activists so consumed? A Republican party that was already reeling is now further hampered as elements of the party splinter off. The racists and homophobes are now ensconced in a still politically impotent third party movement that further marginalizes them. And best of all, the bad element is not tainting the Democratic party by endorsing their candidates or voting for them.

I think I have the answer. None of this has to do with racists or homophobes or bad spellers. It has to do with the potentially credible force represented by the Tea Party movement. It has to do with the death of reliable voting constituencies, chronically indebted to either the Republican or Democratic parties.

In the same way that it is effective to paint your wife as an alcoholic, or your husband as an abuser during a divorce action, it is effective to denigrate innocent parties in a political movement. While the Republicans have kept a low profile about criticizing the Tea Party protesters, the election is coming. I expect to see them playing political paintball in the fall.

If the two parties cling to the same ideologies and policies that have sustained them, the third party movement will remain in the cross-hairs. The political mud fight won't be pretty. It never is.

Paying their fair share

2010-04-07T01:56:00.017-05:00

We can all breathe a sigh of relief. Those individuals making over $250,000 will finally be required to pay their fair share. Let's examine a partial list of the upcoming changes.

The tax rate in the 35 percent bracket will adjust upward to 39.6 percent. The Medicare tax will increase for all taxpayers from 2.9 to 3.8 percent. The tax is now expanded to include unearned income (previously exempt) such as interest and dividends. The president may believe that unearned income produces itself but most invested money was once earned income and was subject to Medicare taxes at that time. Government certainly benefits from taxing in perpetuity but it precludes any alternative uses of the money. More on those alternative uses later.

The capital gains rate will increase from 15 to 20 percent. While it is a sensible adjustment when considered against the 29 percent Mr. Obama proposed during the campaign, it will hardly spur new and aggressive investments.

In a truly misguided effort to increase revenues, the deductibility of charitable contributions by the wealthy will be limited. All such contributions that qualify as itemized deductions will be exempted from taxation at the rate not exceeding 28 percent.

It works like this. Under the old rule, a taxpayer earns $290,000. He contributes $40,000 to the Red Cross and cancer research. If he contributed nothing to charity, he would owe $15, 840 in federal taxes on that $40,000. To promote charitable giving, the tax is essentially waived and the taxpayer is now voluntarily $40,000 out of pocket. Under the new policy, the same taxpayer would be exempted from $11,200 of the tax and would owe 11.6 percent or $4640. The benefactor would be paying a fee of $4640 in taxes for the privilege of giving away $40,000. In other words, it now costs $46,400 to give away $40,000. Will this promote public charity?

A little noted change in the health reform bill will increase the threshold for deductions of out-of-pocket medical expenses from 7.5 to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. Should the taxpayer have $100,000 in adjusted gross income and $17,000 in qualifying physician, hospital, nursing and drug charges, only those expenses exceeding $10,000 (10 percent) are deductible. So income is reduced by $7000 and the $10,000 excluded from the deduction is taxable.

This change is manifestly counterproductive. The people who pay their own medical expenses are not the problem. Why would you punish them further by taxing them on their expenses?

Back to the alternative uses of the money. The wealthy spend their money not so differently than the poor or the government. It goes for medical care, education, investment, charity and consumption. When the government spends money, there is no guarantee that they will put it to more productive uses than private citizens or spend it more judiciously.

The justifications for targeted tax increases usually center on relative wealth inequalities. But this is hardly the only consideration. The creation of wealth entails hard work and exposure to risk. There is less incentive to work hard and suffer risk when we don't own the financial reward. Simply put, incentives matter and they are hard to locate in the administration's strategy.

You may feel little common bond with those nameless wealthy individuals and their disparate tax treatment. Or, they may be the people who don't hire you in 2011.

Rethinking third parties

2010-03-30T18:59:00.006-05:00

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking

Everybody knows the captain lied

Everybody got this broken feeling

Like their father or their dog just died

Everybody’s talking to their pockets

Everybody wants a box of chocolates

And a long-stemmed rose

Everybody knows

--Leonard Cohen

We now bask in the victory of health care reform and everybody knows that in the long term it is unsustainable. While some people will be immeasurably helped, others will be irreparably harmed. Trade-offs will occur, health insurance for jobs, immediate tax revenue for sustained economic growth. In the end, we will evaluate this reform based on how it affects us personally. Ironically, that is the appropriate criteria for assessing personal economic decisions, the very ones being limited here.

Americans feel guilty about our cynicism and we seek to suppress the impulse, however justified it may be. Thomas Sowell noted (column 3/24) that the FHA is ‘guaranteeing’ mortgages with woefully insufficient reserves in a market that is currently 14 percent in default. He furthered noted that the FDIC with similarly inadequate reserves is guaranteeing our bank deposits. In fact, they temporarily raised their guarantee (but not their reserves) from $100,000 to $250,000 in the immediate aftermath of the banking crisis.

Everybody knows that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds do not exist anywhere outside the minds of politicians. The trust funds are simply a promise to tax or print money at future dates to meet obligations for which no reserves exist. The cynicism about government is warranted. Faith is government in harder to explain.

Today, our political parties compete to control the machinery of government, the economic army for imposing a social vision. I have always viewed third parties as a social exercise, a harmless venue for expressing discontent. We should rethink that.

It can only work if the third party is about an idea, i.e. government must obey the law, fiscal responsibility that starts when legislation is conceived. We don’t need a third party president in the White House, but we do need a third party presence in Congress. We need a third party committed to governing by law and economic reality, a party that Republicans and Democrats cannot end run. A third party positioned squarely between the incumbent parties and their ambitions. It will have to occupy a space, say, 10 to 13 percent of the Congress.

There comes a point when the patterns are so ingrained that the future is revealed by looking at the past; a point when ‘everybody knows.’ The fix no longer lies inside the Democrat or Republican parties. The remedy? A big voice in America is not represented by anyone currently residing in our Congress. Cull some from the herd.

History is not always so discouraging. The American Revolution was grounded in ‘everybody knows.’ Fortunately, the founders left us a system designed to remedy the current malaise. The rest is up to us.

President Obama: "Preaching to the persuaded"

2010-03-16T04:52:00.028-05:00

One appealing element of speechmaking is the long interval between the applause and the analysis. The unchallenged argument is so much less painful than the debated one. It's not surprising that politicians prefer giving speeches to press conferences or television interviews. Sarah Palin and Al Gore shine brightly when preaching in the protected environs of the true believers.

President Obama's delivered a quality speech at Strongsville, Ohio on Monday, but further scrutiny is warranted. Yesterday's speech, while compelling, raises more questions than it answers.

The president said his reform will change three things about the current system. He said "thousands of Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase insurance for the first time in their lives." If that is true, it will be because the ensuing mandate will fix the price charged to the insured, not because it will control the cost of producing the care. I suspect that insurance is not as unavailable as it is portrayed to be. Insurance companies find it very difficult to market some policies at a price commensurate with their financial risk.

How expensive would your homeowners insurance be if your garage was already on fire? But, the unfortunate woman that President Obama spoke so eloquently about, did not have an access problem, she had a money problem. We can certainly address her problem by assigning the purchase of her coverage in whole or in part to the taxpayers; at the same time, it is disingenous to suggest that you have somehow reduced the cost of providing her medical care.

Mr. Obama cited a second change, free diagnostic care that will catch preventable illnesses on the front end; coupled with the termination of lifetime or annual limits that apply to current policies and allowing uninsured adults to remain on their parent's policy until age 26.

Has government now discovered a way to produce free care? Unlikely. If free checkups prevent illness and thus reduce expenses for the insurance companies, would they not offer these 'free' services of their own volition? The unlimited risk provision will have one predictable result. Fewer companies will offer the coverage.

Permitting adults to remain on their parent's coverage until age 26 is a further example of cost shifting represented as cost control. The beneficiaries will be partially exempted from the requirement to purchase their own coverage as coverage will cost less as an additional insured than as an individual purchaser. On group insurance policies, the number of those covered will expand. Does the president think this mandate will not provoke a corresponding increase in premiums?

The final promised change is that premiums will fall 14 to 20 percent. This claim would be difficult to swallow even in the absence of the changes noted above. In addition, we will 1) add millions to the pool of insured persons 2) enact prohibitions against rescissions of coverage (these are almost always rescissions of the opportunity to renew, not the termination of existing coverage. Those terminations, when they occur, are usually triggered by missed or late premiums. We can debate the morality of canceling coverage during the policy period, but both the insurer and the insured have mutually binding contractual obligations) 3) The Medicaid eligibility limits will be raised from 100 to 133 percent of the poverty level with taxpayer subsidies available to families up to 300 percent of the new eligibility threshold.

The speech concluded with assurances that the bill would guarantee the future solvency of Medicare. To suggest that anything, so far proposed, will help secure the solvency of Medicare is disingenuous, if not dishonest.

Studies have consistently revealed that these rapacious insurance companies operate at fairly modest profit margins (2.5 to 6.0 percent), considering the potential downside.

The president focused his outrage on the unfairness of Natoma's outcome. Last year, she paid over $6000 in insurance premiums and $4000 in out-of-pocket expense. The insurer's obligation was limited to $900. Her premium was subsequently raised to over $8000. You get the feeling that the audience felt that if the insurer's outlay had been, say $300,000, it would have been a more equitable outcome.

Consider what actually did happen. Natoma is now in the hospital requiring a month long course of chemotherapy in addition to her inpatient and emergency room care. Her insurance for 2010 would have been a bargain at over $8000 and it is only March. Natoma's problem is more a money problem than a systemic one.

One way to deal with this would be to allow her to deduct all her out-of-pocket medical expenditures directly from her gross income, reducing her tax burden even if she takes the standard deduction. This would return tax dollars to her that could be applied toward the purchase of insurance. If she were in the 25 percent bracket, it would offset her total premium increase. I would also extend the right to deduct medical expenses to include those paid on anyone's behalf, whether or not, the recipient was a dependent. This would encourage private charity and ease the burden on family members who financially assist their loved ones.

This current reform is well-intentioned but poorly conceived. I wouldn't want to take questions either.

Addendum to the last revision of post-summit insurance reform

2010-03-03T01:26:00.004-06:00

President Obama's team has a one point lead with time running out. Unfortunately, they committed a foul at the buzzer. The Republicans get to shoot their foul shots on Wednesday. If they miss both free throws, the game is over and the Democrats win. If they make one, the game goes to overtime. If they make two, the Republicans triumph and will, at minimum, have a voice in the next reform effort.

The Republicans will shoot these metaphorical free throws when they respond to President Obama's revised health care initiative. Now, there is nothing scarier than an unscripted Republican in proximity to a microphone (not even Jim Bunning in an elevator or Joe Biden wandering unsupervised among the press).

In the scenario described in the first paragraph, one player totally controls the outcome. Ten players are out on the court, but time has run out and nine players can only watch helplessly while one player determines the outcome. Some time on Wednesday, a Republican spokesperson, most likely Boehner, McConnell or Pence will step to the foul line. It will either be a brick or "nothing but net."

The president will make the case that he has reached out by tacking Republican initiatives on to the current Senate bill. In so doing, he will suggest that he did reach out to the minority and they rejected his overture. Now, he will regrettably be forced to do the people's work via the reconciliation process. It is a good political play in the hands of a star player.

With the game on the line, the Republican statement should read as follows: "We are pleased that President Obama acknowledges some important proposals that need to be considered as we fashion health insurance reform. But the president was listening very selectively. Republicans have consistently and uniformly asserted that the bill before us is a bad bill. It cannot be fixed by adding a little here or subtracting a little there.

No revision or amendment can fix this bill. No Republican promised support for this bill conditioned on the inclusion of any such changes. It is precisely that kind of negotiation that gave us the custom-built fixes that worked their way into the final version of the Senate bill.

Republicans cannot support this bill because it is wildly expansive, financially reckless and constitutionally infirm. It has been our position all along. Further, the voters have called on us, in no uncertain terms , to oppose it.

We will continue to oppose it. It is our responsibility to do so.

Insurance reform is coming. If the effort is to be truly bipartisan, Republicans will have to be invited to the table for more than dessert.

Free speech enthusiasts; Rebels without a cure

2010-03-01T14:11:00.007-06:00

The tea party phenomenon has aroused considerable anxiety among the fourth estate. Writers and commentators have weighed in, some questioning the motives of the protestors, some, their intelligence or their sanity and others, their integrity. It seems that free speech has reached the problematic stage.

Dissent is a flame in a society of aggrieved moths. It should come as no surprise, that the aggrieved number among them some with malicious motives, others not so bright and a few who are unprincipled or just obnoxious. That said, how should the disenchanted voice their concern? Should they speak at all? Is it time to contemplate restrictions on free speech?

We somehow survive without any guarantee of free speech rights in the workplace. Our speech is routinely suppressed in private organizations. Only the Congress of the United States is precluded from abridging free speech.

Yes, I find some speech troubling. Scattered tea party participants endorse something bordering on anarchy. Hatemongers, if afforded a forum, will probably use it to promote hate. Politicians abuse the privilege of free speech by lying to us. Bad ideas, poor taste and lies disturb me. But the idea that someone needs to sort through speech and and decide what is permissible truly frightens me.

The fairness doctrine, campaign finance restrictions and hate speech laws all have a common genesis. Some beneficiaries of free speech rights want Congress to limit the exercise of free speech by individuals they perceive as distasteful, uninformed, irritating, influential or wealthy.

There are politicians that believe someone has to play God, to insure that free speech be whittled into fair speech. There are days when I feel particularly well-suited to the task. Despite my unerring moral compass, I do know America is a better and safer place when no one, not even the wise, are allowed to play God. It is not the role of Congress to give weight to anyone's speech. Influence is the province of the consumers of speech, the readers and the listeners.

Appoint me the Secretary of Hate speech supression and I promise that hate speech will be redefined to closely resemble speech that I find offensive. Speech would remain mostly unrestricted except for derogatory remarks directed at the mentally impaired, insults directed at Peggy Noonan and probably the evening programming at MSNBC.

Rush Limbaugh, Alec Baldwin and Rachel Maddow all have a bigger microphone than I have, but we each have but a single vote. I dearly wish that Joy Behar would shut up, but I don't want the law to provide her a megaphone or saddle her with a muzzle.

The founders disdained the idea that wisdom and virtue were concentrated in individuals of a certain station. They dedicated considerable energy to incorporating that belief into the founding documents. The American idea is rooted in "Congress shall make no law." You don't trim a tree at its roots.

Stalemate on C-span 3

2010-02-28T16:10:00.013-06:00

In the aftermath of the recent Greg Norman/Chris Evert marital separation, an article quoted a 'friend' of the couple. The friend commented that both Greg and Chris are narcissists and there is really only room for one in a marriage. Where would we be without our friends?

After watching six hours of health care hell on Thursday, I realized that the 'friend' may have some special insight into doomed relationships. The health care summit meeting was a rehearsal dinner for a bipartisan wedding that the republican and democratic narcissists were hell-bent to sabotage.

President Obama is not one to shoot himself in the foot. Yet, he chose to unveil his own health care proposal just three days prior to this meeting and a year into the debate. Facing a potential impasse with Democrats in the House, the Presidents alternative expensed out at 950 billion dollars, exceeding the current House bill by 150 billion dollars. This package is the antithesis of compromise and a bad strategy for appealing to Republicans. The president seemed intent on taunting the opposition, not romancing them.

On Thursday, his performance was calculated and his demeanor condescending. His opening remarks were reminiscent of his State of the Union speech, when he adopted the tone of a father expressing profound disappointment with his children. His impatience was palpable and his chiding of John McCain was especially awkward given the difference in their ages. The president came off as thin-skinned and disrespectful.

Whe Mr. Obama reminded Senator McConnell that he was the president (accounting for the disparity in minutes allotted to each side), he degraded the the advantage that is inherently his. It's the president's show and he makes the rules. Everyone knows it and no one disputes it. But no one talks about the elephant in the room, especially the elephant. Tactically, the president should have left the moderating to someone else.

The president also surrounded himself with Team Narcissus, Senator Reid whose arrogance is really grating. Speaker Pelosi, whose arrogance is unwarranted and Vice-President Biden, whose self-reverence is incomprehensible. Some Democrats like Secretary Sebelius acquitted themselves well but the damage was already done.

Given all the social missteps by the Democrats, you would think the Republicans would just shut up and collect a moral victory. Guess again. Boehner, McConnell and McCain all had mildly petulant moments. One could argue that the Republicans won the spin cycle, but only if you think that whiny trumps snarky.

Surprisingly, both the President and the Republicans demonstrated a command of the issues that far exceeded the public's expectations. The president was prepared and articulate, especially when addressing insurance purchases across state lines. Dr. Tom Coburn was good and Paul Ryan was informed, cogent and prepared. Unfortunately, their good moments were dwarfed by the self-absorption and pettiness that permeate political events.

Politicians are quick to cite poll results to enlist support for everything from insurance reform to capital punishment. The voters want to see some adults in the room. I don't need a poll to know that.

More priciple, less strategy

2010-02-15T17:58:00.001-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:58:18 PM

Sixty years ago Eric Hoffer observed that the frustrated individual desires freedom from responsibility more than freedom from restraint. He further noted "the freedom the masses crave is not the freedom of self-expression and self -realization but freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence."

Some of us fail by dint of our own efforts. Politicians comfort us by preaching that the playing field is tilted against us and government needs to level it. Hence, change. The Democrat's message suggests the field is severely tilted, handicapping many of us. This message is hard to carry from election to election, but it certainly worked in the last one.

The Republicans have increasingly committed to the courageous strategy of riding both horses. They ride the 'freedom from restraint' horse during campaigns and the 'freedom from responsibility' horse while governing. It is time for the Republicans to place a bet; a principled wager, not a calculated one. You can bet both black and red on each and every spin of the roulette wheel. You never win but occasionally green comes up and you lose both bets. This is how Republicans achieved the electoral hat trick in 2008.

Republicans can continue the strategy of seeking a soft landing for many economic hardships but there are political consequences attached. No matter what direction Republicans take, Democrats will always be riding to their left. They will always endorse an even softer landing and they will always appear more empathetic in the process.

The 'freedom from restraint' philosophy takes some stomach. It is necessary to endorse success without promoting or enabling larceny. It is both appropriate and advisable to address systemic financial hardships, but you must do so without supporting a massive income redistribution that portrays 80 percent of the voters as the helpless victims of the other 20 percent. Most importantly, it recognizes that power is a responsibility, not a campaign tool for upcoming elections. Are Republicans here yet? I doubt it.

The Democrats don't vacillate much. They have chosen a path and they stick to it. However, they would do better to focus more attention on wealth creation and less on how the creators spend it. The Democrats run the risk of judging all the voters to be either selfish or childlike and incapable. This type of paternalism gets tiresome and change might once again be in the offing.

Media style impartiality

2010-02-15T17:48:00.002-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:33:17 AM

A recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial surmised that Senator Reid's comments regarding President Obama's electoral prospects were no more than a clumsy statement made in support of Mr. Obama. That statement is probably accurate as I'm sure most Americans thought, both then and now, that the president has broader appeal than, say, Jesse Jackson. This is true despite the minimal differences in their policy preferences.

The editorial goes on to differentiate this situation from a remark Senator Lott made in praise of Strom Thurmond. The editorial suggests that the Lott remark was more offensive than the aforementioned because it was widely interpreted as an endorsement of the segregationist inclinations that inspired Thurmond's 1948 presidential election campaign.

The Lott remarks were made at a birthday celebration for Senator Thurmond in 2002. No one seriously thought that Lott was making public, praise for racial segregation, nor do I think that either the public or the media believed Lott to be that stupid. The remarks were not widely interpreted by the public as offensive, they were widely portrayed by the media as offensive. Neither Reid nor Lott should stray far from a Teleprompter, but the shame here belongs to the media.

This brings us to a recent editorial by David Brooks. David Brooks strikes me as a genuinely nice man and an interesting analyst. That said, his column from January 4, 2010 is a masterpiece of media self-indulgence. The singular biases of the columnist are repeatedly cast as the opinions of a movement or society.

Among Brook's observations is a that the Tea party phenomenon reflects a growing anti-intellectual bias. The educated classes believe in global warming, so the public is skeptical.. The educated classes support abortion, internationalism and gun control so the public opposes them. He doesn't say that the educated classes believe in global warming and the public holds a different view. He infers that the opposition is not a failure of evidence or persuasion, but a reflexive and emotional tantrum on the part of the protesters.

He further notes that the tea party movement is famous mostly for its flamboyant fringe. A true statement, but why is that? The idea that government has broken free from constitutional limits could foster a serious debate but the media interest is focused on the flamboyant, inarticulate fringe. Why? Who created the interest in the fringe element?

Later on, Brooks states "The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to solve the nation's problems." Opposition is credited to a lack of faith in centralized expertise and the political class generally. There is so much wrong with this statement, it is hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say, the public would be less antagonistic to the Obama administration if it paid more attention to the powers it does have and less to the powers it assumes. The lack of faith in centralized expertise is not a societal character flaw; it is a product of the public's ongoing experience with government.

The demonstrated skepticism toward centralized expertise reflects the voters doubts about the pragmatism of federal leaders, the quality of 'professional' expertise and their willingness to be constrained by the law.

Brooks concludes by noting that American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force their way into the spotlight of American life. On this point, we agree, although I doubt that Brooks includes himself and his colleagues among them.

An overabundance of certainty

2010-02-15T17:39:00.002-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:08:50 AM

John Kerry never overcame the ‘ponderous and arrogant’ persona he projected in the 2004 campaign. When a politician is handicapped by his own personality traits, good moments often get clouded over and their impact diminished.

During a presidential debate in 2004, Kerry commented that Bush’s commitment to his Iraq policy should be assessed differently. It is “possible” he noted, “to be certain, but still wrong.” Presidents don't do “I was wrong.” Presidents will deny a mistake and defend the ensuing policy. The heart of damage control is rationaization and presidents are hostage to damage control.

Kerry understood that incumbents reluctantly revisit their thinking after the money has been spent or the lives have been lost. But they never acknowledge the mistake. It is both politically untenable and ego-crushing. At these times, the responsibility shifts to the opposition and the voters.

Even by political standards, Barack Obama possesses an overabundance of certainty. We should consider that carefully as we approach the mid-term elections. If the evidence reveals that the effect of the stimulus package was negligible or detrimental, what is the incumbent's next move? If global warming consensus breaks under the weight of future evidence, will Cap and Trade go away? No. We live in an age of irrevocable mistakes, the age of certain, still wrong, yet undeterred.

In politics, circumspection and humility play like weakness. The back-up plan is never re-assess. It is always double down.

We are sometimes free to indulge the psychological insecurities of politicians. Sometimes the price is too high. Our solvency and security should not be left captive to those who neither can, nor will change direction.

The pendulum is swinging to the political right for now. As we send Republicans back to Washington, listen for that ring of certainty. Ask the indelicate question. Sounds great, but what if you’re wrong?

Scientific point-shaving scandal

2010-02-15T17:17:00.001-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:43:45 AM
“But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe that which he does not believe”. Thomas Paine

Paine highlighted a failing of human nature in the “Age of Reason.” He narrowly ascribed that weakness as somehow endemic to religious belief. 'Professing to believe in what one does not' is a calculated, intentional act. (Think Al Gore) It may occur sometimes, in the context of religious belief, but is far more prevalent in other pursuits. Consider the recent revelations about climate researchers and their email correspondence.

Any scientist, when confronted with inconsistent or contradictory data has several avenues of response available. He or she can re-examine his previous conclusions. He might scrutinize the new data to assess its validity; perhaps, design a new study to resolve the conflicts. He could acknowledge the new findings while disputing the conclusions drawn from them. Or he could discredit and distort the new information, suppress its publication and impugn the integrity of the other researchers. Simply put, he could behave like a scientist or a politician.

A scientist can only legitimately seek the correct answer. He can’t conspire to produce a particular result.. The global warming proponents are interested in a single conclusion and it is not,simply, the ego-driven investment of people who don’t like to be contradicted. The financial weight and academic opportunities are dense on the global warming side of the debate. It is more difficult to see what’s in it for the skeptics. Aside from professional vindication, what benefit attaches to being right? Cyclical changes in the makeup of the sun’ is hardly a career-enhancing position to take.

“When a man has so far prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to something he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.” With persuasive objective evidence in hand, most professionals would embrace the opportunity to debate, The global warming proponents don’t want to debate the evidence. They are content to preach to the converted. The behaviors reported this past week are childish by political standards, unimaginable by scientific standards. It is becoming increasingly clear how the global warming ‘consensus’ was achieved. The referees bet on the game. This is scientific point-shaving.

No one wants to be wrong but scientists are bred to confront the possibility. The universe is expanding, not contracting. We swung 180 degrees on that. We once believed that Wonder bread was integral to good health. Wrong again. Far from crippling science, mistakes are part of the process. They reflect reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available at the time.

This debate has real world consequences. An expensive remedy, Cap and Trade, was fashioned in response to the warming scenario. It will be paid for with real money. The money allocated will not be available for other purposes.

It will probably result in additional unemployment.If the remedy of Cap and Trade were to be pursued based on my conclusions, I would need to hear the other voices and answer their arguments. This isn’t just insufficient curiosity. We are making policy, based on the judgments of men “prepared for the commission of every other crime.”

Politics,self-esteem and social policy

2010-02-15T17:14:00.001-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:54:04 PM

We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their
private ails. Eric Hoffer

Years ago, politicians worked through their self esteem issues just like every one else. They got drunk, fought with their spouses, broke up with their girlfriends, embarrassed themselves publicly and made intemperate remarks around a reporter. Shortly thereafter, they sobered up, took four aspirins, apologized to their loved ones and prepared clarifications of their thoughtless remarks. Humility was, ironically, the cure for low self esteem. The politician kept a low profile and the passing of time restored their self respect.

Today, politicians suffer from a more virulent strain of low self-esteem. They still drink and they still act out. They have exotic mistresses in Argentina or they father children with their videographer. But the troubling moment of humility has been sidestepped. Humility is so inefficient without the “sorry” part. Self esteem issues are now a lifelong affliction, not a passing moment of weakness. It requires daily doses of Prozac or Zoloft, not occasional aspirin.

Nothing pains a politician more than insecurity, the looming thought that they are not essential, perhaps not even relevant. Serious medicine is called for and it comes out in the form of social policy. The environmental catastrophe of global warming will be addressed with the economic catastrophe of Cap and Trade. The federal government takes ownership of private companies and the health care bill is a train without a track. How else can you explain 2,014 pages to stat? The Republicans don’t have enough votes to address their self esteem issues. Their wound will fester until they are once again the majority. Then, watch out.

Low self esteem is a mental health crisis for politicians. It goes into a brief remission following elections, but it haunts them. They undertake big initiatives to quiet the demons, but the urge is never sated.

As of 12/31/08, for the first time, the combined present value of the national debt coupled with the unfunded future obligations accruing to Social Security and Medicare (53 trillion) exceeded household net worth (51.5 trillion). Since that time, the first number has increased and the second number remains well below 2006 levels. Think about that. And we are still talking about more spending.

Grandiose ambition is now therapy and the country can't afford it. Politics is reality television with meaningful consequences. We can’t afford to indulge the actors because of the money involved. Voters need to restore the missing element of humility. When your elected representatives are arrogant and surly, withhold your applause. When financially reckless, withhold your vote.

Thatchers, question, Republicans dilemma?

2010-02-15T16:49:00.001-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Friday, October 09, 2009 4:09:41 PM

The Wall Street Journal ran the following excerpt from a speech that Margaret Thatcher gave in 1981.

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something, in which, no one believes but to which no one objects - the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great issue would have been fought and won under the banner of “I stand for consensus.” October 6, 2009 Notables and quotables

This statement lays out the dilemma facing Republicans on healthcare. On the very same day the preceding appeared, Bob Dole counseled Republicans to seek consensus, to get on board with the inevitable passage of some bill. In short, to be on the right side of the politics.

I have considerable respect for Bob Dole, but he has it completely wrong. The President needs a bill, any bill. It provides a platform from which further expansion can be fashioned. Given Mr. Obama’s extra-constitutional proclivities, the reform will then be implemented off the books, so to speak. Czars, regulators and an overly generous reading of executive power will limit the congressional role to appropriations from this point forward.

This bill will provide the president his “Lincoln logs.” He will build the house later on, away from the scrutiny and troublesome oversight.

This reform is a hodgepodge of ill-conceived strategies thrown together almost randomly. As Thatcher pointed out, there are issues that need to “solved.” A small sample of those follows.

** Guaranteeing affordable coverage without exceptions for past and pre-existing conditions can only be paid for by raising the premiums of those with better medical histories and lower foreseeable risks. There is no money in the pantry to finance this.

** The inclusion of a public option at a cost of 8 to 9 percent of gross payroll is an inducement for employers to dump their current coverages.

** A proposal to reduce reimbursements to the top ten percent (measured by the total dollars on care authorized) of physicians who treat Medicare clients is a nice idea that can’t work in the real world. No one wants less money for treating more patients, specifically more very ill patients. You cannot expand access by providing doctors disincentives to see patients.

This bill is not a carefully developed strategy based on a thoughtful analysis of trends, needs and capabilities. The Democrats are correct. Reforms are needed, but they are not ready.

No Republican should vote for this bill. This reform is a catastrophe in the making, combined with some short term political benefits for Democrats. Republicans should do their homework and promise to be there if and when a realistic bill can be presented. If the Democrats insist on passing this bill without any Republican support, Republicans should defer and let them own it.

Words have a pretty short half-life in politics. When the Senate prepares their companion to this bill, be prepared to hear a lot of brave talk from Democrats. "I will not vote for this bill unless" there is a) a public option b) pay as you go provisions c) guaranteed access or d) anything else. Every one will fold as they trade their vote for some custom designed, state-specific provision inserted to solicit their loyalty. The log-rolling is built in, but Republicans can't play this time.

A constituent recently asked a Wisconsin House member if she had read any of the proposed legislation. She told her constituent that she has read the table of contents of one of the bills. This legislation is not ready. The elected representatives are not ready. Again.

Republicans, "After the loving"

2010-02-15T16:46:00.001-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:30:30 PM

" I knew it was time to quit, when it didn't hurt to play bad anymore." A former PGA tour player explained his transition from competitor to private citizen this way. It is poignant and sad, the moment when what was everything, becomes nothing. It is the moment when your expectations die.

Some Republican lawmakers may face these transition-to-private-citizen moments before the next election cycle. It is time to quit when, it doesn't hurt to be a hypocrite anymore.

Republican hearts are all aflutter now that disenchantment with hope and change is spreading. It's time to dust off the 'small government, fiscal discipline' mantras that live in republican hearts from the primary to general election every couple years. This is the valentine that Republicans send to voters. Then, off to Washington, where 'small government, fiscal discipline' is so yesterday.

Washington is San Padre island for Republicans. The Democrats don't have a curfew, they have a credit card, a platinum card actually and a printing press. All Republicans have is 'small government, fiscal discipline'. They want to go on spring break, too. When given the opportunity, they do. That is precisely the problem.

Republicans delude themselves if they think that voters regret sending them home in 2008. They went to Washington. They didn't study. The didn't go to church on Sunday and they lied to the folks back home. They spent recklessly.

Obama will have a hard sell to the voters come 2012. But the voters will not reflexively turn back to Republicans. Only a few of us remember Eisenhower. The voters don't trust Republicans and only a select few, Ryan, Bachmann, Dreier.... have any stomach for being Republicans after the electoral loving.

A lot of people would like to vote for a Republican. They are reluctant to do so because they have voted for Republicans. "Relative" fiscal sanity is not going to cut it with voters this time.

Open letter to Michael Steele

2010-02-15T15:10:00.001-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:55:10 PM

Michael Steele spoke recently to the National press club. He made a thoughtful, if somewhat pedestrian, case against the current health care reform package. The usually passionate Mr. Steele had a hard time articulating what voters most want to know “Who are these Republicans and given the chance, what will they do?”

Mr. Steele:

Republicans have presented their opposition to the administration’s health care reform as a choice between government control and the free market. Many voters believe that the “government control” ship has long since sailed and that Republicans helped to launch it.

Republicans have come to be seen as the proponents of a more modest socialism, a less intrusive nanny-state. If elected, they will still intrude in the marketplace, but in a more principled and efficient manner than the Democrats. The Republican alternative will be the party of the 500 billion dollar stimulus package, mini bailouts and reluctant takeovers.

Politics has devolved into talking points, key words and purposeful ambiguity. It really is less complicated than that. What do you believe and what will you do if elected? I’ve taken the liberty of preparing some remarks for you. Try them out. I think people could vote for this kind of Republican.

Republicans believe every individual has differing medical and insurance needs. They differ from age-to-age, by occupation, financial circumstance, ethnic and genetic susceptibility and geographic location. Those needs differ not only from person to person but also change throughout one’s own lifetime.

No political body possesses sufficient knowledge or authority to make those personal decisions. Do you need medical insurance more than graduate school, more than a new house or a truck? The Republican proposal will make all physician and hospital services, medications and insurance costs dollar-for-dollar deductible from gross income whether you itemize deductions or not. All medical expenditures will be paid with pre-tax income. Individuals will choose how much risk to take, how much insurance to buy and what services to contract for directly. This is as it should be. Choice, without the trillions.

The special circumstances relating to the chronically ill and the indigent will be debated separately from this reform and will be implemented incrementally. We welcome the President’s embrace of efficiencies and will test them by incorporating them into the Medicare program.

If the voters are kind enough to return us to the majority, we promise to confine our activities to the responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution. The constitution requires change from time to time, but that responsibility falls to the voters, not the politicians. We promise not to use the vast resources of government to retaliate or to reward. The ninth and tenth amendments will guide our thinking and restrain our ambitions. The Republican party will be humble and serve the citizens, not parent or police them.

Call me. I’d love to talk.

Obama: A generation "unburdened"

2010-02-15T14:59:00.003-06:00

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:24:43 PM

Press coverage often summarizes political remarks in a single sentence or phrase, It fits nicely into a headline. It provides a device for provoking conversation in the tightly scheduled formats of talk radio or cable news. The utility of these key words is clear. But now and then, it is helpful to review the full text of the speech or response that contained those remarks. The most interesting stuff often has less journalistic utility.

President Obama made headlines back in April at Strasbourg with his remarks characterizing America as arrogant. This became the ‘apology tour’ remark or the start of restoring America’s credibility in the world, depending on your viewpoint.

In another section of that speech, the president reveals the genesis of much of his vision. He said, in part, “Each time we find ourselves at a crossroads, paralyzed by worn debates and stale thinking, the old ways of doing things, a new generation rises up and shows the way forward. Because young people are unburdened by the biases or prejudices of the past. This is a great privilege of youth.”

The biases that burden others typically contain an element of experience that colored the thinking of the individuals involved. Naturally, that experience is not always processed fairly and the conclusions drawn from it are not always correct. On the other hand, discounting the experience of previous generations does not make the present generation better informed.

Those, who are privileged to be unburdened by the biases of the past, are hardly without biases of the present. Those biases may be purer, not so muddied by the experiences of their predecessors, but they are hardly absent. The argument Mr. Obama makes, is not that the new generation is without bias, but that it is equipped with superior biases and is more receptive to change, albeit change of their own making.

It is not the development of social conscience that is the problem. It is the persuasion that one has acquired something new, that one is in possession of something that no one ever had before.

The biases and prejudices of the past are sometimes impediments to embracing new thinking. But, new thinking is a bit overrated. Most of it is not that new, much of it having been considered and rightfully discarded by a previous ‘new generation’.

Obama proposes piano moving reforms

2010-02-15T14:48:00.001-06:00

There is rumor afloat that the administration is contemplating a comprehensive reform of the piano moving industry. I spent 36 years in this special niche as both an employee and employer. I thought we were sufficiently regulated and this news came as a surprise.

A well-connected political friend has clued me in on some of the details. The government will mandate that movers visually inspect the instrument and the pickup and delivery sites prior to the move and provide the customer with a binding written estimate of the charges. I told my friend that would be silly and wasteful since sufficient information can be gleaned from a phone conversation to accurately quote all but 3-4 percent of all moves. Only those require on-site estimates and usually only at the delivery location.

My friend explained that there will be a net savings from all the information collected and the improved customer relations resulting from the binding estimates. Despite the additional time demands of the regulation and higher short term costs, the reform will generate profit over time.

The piano moving czar has further determined that since a tuning is necessary following every move, it will be included as part of the service. I said “A tuning is not always necessary and why should I be responsible for providing it?” My friend replied that Speaker Pelosi had met with some lobbyists for the piano tuners guild, who assured her that it was necessary and it was simply more efficient to include it as part of the moving service.

“What’s next, Medicaid for indigent piano owners?” I groused. “There is some growing concern that separating owners from their instruments at a time of such economic uncertainty could be detrimental to the pianist’s psyche. If we subsidize the owners during the economic downturn, we could sidestep the consequences of the ensuing, widespread depression." my friend advised me. "A small tax on the surtax on the tax on the top 1 percent of wage earners will assure that no musician loses his piano during the recession. Combined with a small contibution from the medical marjuana people, the crisis can be averted."

“What about my reimbursement?” I inquired. My friend comforted me that while some sacrifices need to be made, I should be grateful that mine were only financial. “Besides, every detail will be addressed in the piano owner bill-of-rights that Congress is hard at work on.”

“Do we need all these regulations, the mandates, the subsidies and a customer’s bill-of-rights, – all this oversight to produce what used to be negotiated by the buyers and sellers of services. I’m skeptical.” My friend sighed knowingly “Relax, it worked for health care, didn’t it?”

The burden of omniscience

2009-08-03T19:07:00.000-05:00

We expect our presidents to be know-it-alls. That personality type seems drawn to the job. This malady is usually moderated in the aftermath of elections. Faced with a skeptical opposition, surrounded by loyal, but practical supporters and a dispassionate, inquiring press, the president is constrained. The message is always the same. You are a leader, not a king.

Until now. The "thrill down my leg" and "Obama, above it all, like God" moments could undermine any man's humility and seem to have scrambled President Obama's. We saw early evidence at the convention when he spoke the words "This is the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed and the planet started to heal.”

Unfortunately, the only lasting remedy for the omniscience phenomenon is voter sanity. Control of both houses and a filibuster-proof majority in the hands of a sitting president, any president, is a bad idea. It reinforces the delusion, rather than disarming it. Worse, it fuels the impulse to act without caution rather than suppressing it.

The press, having campaigned for this president, is caught in a trap of their own making. They defend his initiatives today, more in their own defense than the policy's. The principled opposition is toothless because they campaigned and governed as nanny-state lite for the past twenty years. The only plausible opposition comes from conservative Democrats, but they want to get elected too. Opposing the stimulus and health-care reform probably doesn't help many of them.

The country has survived the omniscience phenomenon in the past because it was a politician's disease. It is potentially more problematic this time because the president's delusion is shared by many voters and the press. If the country believes this president to be omniscient, we had better hope that he really is.

Black, white and grey in Boston

2009-08-02T19:24:00.002-05:00

here is a certain preordained futility in writing about race in America. If you hope to persuade, you are usually just wasting computer memory.

That said, the sergeant’s account of the events rings true. He didn’t know if Dr. Gates was the victim of a home invasion or just a homeowner who had lost his keys. Might an intruder be in the house unbeknown to Dr. Gates or perhaps threatening him? The police officer is there to ascertain the facts. I’m sure that this officer has been confronted with race-tinged hostility on other occasions. What happened here? We don’t know.

While I suspect that Professor Gates jumped to the wrong conclusion concerning this event, his response was drawn from a lifetime of experience, not a moment’s. Gate’s journey started in West Virginia in the fifties and encompasses twenty years in Boston. When the definitive history of race relations in America is finally written, Boston will not be one of the happy chapters. It would be naive to think that either man can or should leave their baggage (personal experience) at home.

Dr. Gates isn’t a professional race baiter. His views, while hardly conservative, are characterized by thoughtfulness and he has publicly taken positions that conservatives have wholeheartedly endorsed.

Sergeant Conway defended himself (against all advice I’m sure) and I have to admire that. Back during the Reagan era, Iran-Contra hearings, George Schultz alone testified without counsel at his side, monitoring every word. I was pretty sure that I was detecting honesty then and I think it is probably true here. If the facts support you, no lawyer’s advice should silence you.

Dr. Gates probably misread some of the interaction and then Sgt. Conway personalized it. I find both reactions regrettable and understandable. Sometimes we just get it wrong. There are events that truly have larger implications. This is not one of them.

"In the weeds" on health reform

2009-08-02T19:24:00.001-05:00

In the restaurant business, waitresses, bartenders and line cooks sometimes get hopelessly behind. We are doing our best but we are irretrievably lost, "in the weeds". Extra effort just makes it worse and only tomorrow's coming will set things right again.

President Obama made some brief remarks in the Rose garden yesterday promoting the health care package that is currently being debated in Congress. He is trying really hard, but it is slipping away. He is 'in the weeds' and only a new day saves him.

The president said “They (opponents) would maintain a system that works for the insurance and drug companies while becoming increasingly unaffordable for families and businesses.” How is it working for them, if, as the president acknowledges, their customers are less able to afford their products?

The president later said “Let me repeat that. If you like your plan, you will be able to keep it.” It would have been more accurate to say….If your plan survives the coming reform, you will be allowed to keep it.

Mr. Obama further assured the public that “Each bill provides a public option that will keep insurance companies honest, ensuring the competition necessary to make coverage affordable.” Read that statement carefully. It is breathtaking in its arrogance. The government’s remedy, aka the public option, will prevent companies from following their dishonest predilections. This government-generated honesty will then produce the competition that evidently is lacking now

Health care or more accurately, medical care could use some attention. The White House plan gets less focused every time someone speaks about it. It is hard to make a coherent argument for it because no one knows what is in it. The president is reduced to saying that it is comprehensive, fair and urgently needed but it doesn't ring true. The public wants to know why it is necessary, why right now, what it entails and how it is going to work.

The public option is not new. The government has provided us with three public options to date, Medicaid, Medicare and VA health care. Are we confident that the strategies and bureaucratic structures that have made these three a model of service delivery and financial viability will work for the rest of the health care market?

The president is very focused on leadership. He needs to lead this to a halt and wait for tomorrow to come.

Line item veto for Catholics

2009-08-02T19:22:00.000-05:00

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend observed in a Newsweek editorial on July 9, 2009 that President Obama’s agenda better represented the views of American Catholics than the Pope’s. The political analysis may be correct and if the Pope were the chief lobbyist for the America Catholic laity, relevant. But in the context of religious belief, her observations are more an indictment of Catholics than the Pope.

People, in and outside the Catholic church, debate the right or wrongfulness of war, euthanasia, stem-cell research, abortion and capital punishment. The conclusions drawn are influenced by reason, ethics, politics and yes, faith. Only in recent years, would it be considered acceptable to co-opt the mantle of one’s faith to deride it.

The faith she references is an ocean wide and an inch deep. Faith has political currency today and both the left and the right are in the market for a prominent Catholic to carry their water. Kennedy Townsend fits the bill for the left. Townsend notes that “polls bear out the fact that Catholics do not want the Vatican to tell them what to think.”

She thinks that the Pontiff “could learn from Obama’s style of respectful disagreement,” yet she wants more. She sees the Pope’s respectful disagreements less charitably. Rather than being the voice of Church teaching, she envisions the Pope’s proper role as a celebrity endorser for progressive Catholicism.

The modern faithful worship a more “user friendly” God than the one introduced to us in the Baltimore catechism. This God isn’t pushy, knows his/her place and doesn’t much interfere. A God more “invented” than revealed, endorsing our decisions but not influencing them. He appears all over the political map. The Almighty has strong pro-gun and anti-immigration leanings in the South and holds an equally passionate (and divine) position in support of assisted suicide farther west.

We could successfully transform the Pope into a mere conduit for the current leanings of the faithful. In so doing, we make the Pope into the Press Secretary for Catholicism. There is no going back from that point. The credibility of the Papacy derives largely from its willingness to be pro-actively tone deaf to the politics.

An American Catholic politician who proposes that the shepherd should follow the flock is akin to an anti-civil rights Democrat or pro tax increase Republican.

Townsend can legitimately borrow the Kennedy aura to wax on things political and frankly, she should be commended for her passion. If she correctly portrays the state of Catholic political thought, it should be so acknowledged. As a political citizen, she is on solid ground. As a person of faith, she is way out on a limb.

"Civil Disobedience" Revisited

2009-07-15T18:32:00.000-05:00

Thoreau’s “Civil disobedience” was assigned reading back in high school, circa 1966 or 1967. The essay inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, among others, to resist injustice. Thoreau preached a duty to resist moral wrong rather than merely vote in disapproval of it.

The most often quoted passage from the essay is “Any man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one, already.” Thoughtfully exercised by individuals like Gandhi and King, it was a powerful tool for good. But, there is a difference between “more right than his neighbors” and any man who thinks he is more right than his neighbors. If you combine that thought with some unchecked executive authority or overwhelming control of both houses of Congress, the results are potentially less positive.

This flawed thinking might embolden a leader to take his country to war or impose wage and price controls. It might also provoke a leader to nationalize banks or to take controlling common stock (voting) positions in large companies. Is it sufficient justification for displacing secured creditors in favor of union members? Would he consider oppressive cap and trade policies, given the differing scientific and economic evidence, if he were not feeling some moral imperative to act decisively? Would the leader’s congressional colleagues call for a vote on a bill, portions of which were yet to be written?

There were two less-remembered passages from “Civil disobedience.” Thoreau noted that progress from absolute to limited monarchy to democracy was progress toward true respect for the individual. “Is democracy such as we know it, the last possible improvement in government? Is it not possible to take a step further?” Yes, it is possible, but the next step can just as easily be a step back. Democracy is not perfect. People mess it up. When we find democracy inadequate, leaders can and do co-opt it for their own, less democratic inclinations.

Republicans should note the second, less-remembered statement: “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then.” The next time they are called to vote on an 1100-page, $800-billion appropriation bill with less than 70 hours notice, they should decline to vote yea or nay. A bit of civil disobedience (“Sorry, still reading”) could serve to highlight the arrogance.

The enemy of incentive

2009-07-04T23:02:00.009-05:00

It is clear that taxes are going up for those who succeed in making $250,000 in the upcoming tax years. The proposed top rate will be 39.6 percent.

The are a number of ways to produce $250,000. Bill Clinton, for example has made some speeches that commanded fees of over $200,000. Some former cabinet members garner impressive consulting fees and book advances. For some accomplished people, skill, celebrity and charisma conspire to produce substantial rewards . Some of these same individuals currently have a hand in the bank rescue, the auto industry intervention and formulation of upcoming tax reform.

There is another more typical way of producing $250,000. The $250,000 was the result of a year's effort, not a day or a week or a month. The wealthy individual had to produce revenue 0f perhaps $600,000 or 3 million or 7 million dollars in that tax year. He or she almost certainly had employees. The entrepreneur paid wages, social security, state unemployment tax and worker's compensation on their behalf. The business was subject to personal property tax. There was probably state mandated coverages for general liability and commercial automobiles. and sales tax if applicable.

Revenue is not guaranteed from year to year and has no value in and of itself. General Motors has billions of dollars in revenue but no earnings. The taxpayer has no guarantee of earnings in future years. He could very well lose money.

If he does succeed in generating profit, it will be taxed at 39.6 percent, subject to state tax (Oregon is considering an increase to 11 percent) and perhaps municipal taxes. The owner, if he is drawing wages, is paying both the employee and employer contribution to Social Security amounting to $15.30 for every $100.00 in compensation. In some states, he may be subject to state unemployment tax even though he is virtually precluded from drawing a benefit. He may also be paying in to Worker's Compensation although owners are often allowed to opt out.

Unless the owner is a genius or a cheat, those earnings are reduced by more than 50 and maybe as much as 65 cents on the dollar before he gets to spend it.

The adminstration should understand that you can mandate anything on an ongoing enterprise but you cannot mandate anyone into business. You can require me to pay an employee a designated wage but you can't require me to hire said employee.

Simply put, all businesses do the same thing. They collect money and they pay it out. What distinguishes one from another is how much you keep. When the reward doesn't justify the risk
the tent folds. When that happens, the employer is the one least likely to be out of work going forward. Like it or not, Mr Obama, the only policy that rescues this economy is one that encourages investment and risk-taking. You can't do that by limiting the potential reward.

The same person who make $300,000 probably pays an equal amount in wages and takes on an open-ended financial risk. It is an admirable trait. Don't discourage them.

Speaking in absolutes

2009-07-01T17:41:00.002-05:00

President Obama made some remarks from the Rose garden on June 25, 2009 supporting the proposed Cap and trade legislation. In part, he said “There is no longer a debate whether dangerous carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening.” The tendency to speak in absolutes is very pronounced in some demographic groups. It occurs disproportionately among politicians and married men.

The implication to be drawn from “There is no longer….” suggests that a debate has occurred and evidence has determined an outcome. Contrary to the President’s assertion, even a casual trip around the Internet can find serious credentialed people debating his basic assumption. There are others who accept the warming scenario but propose that it is both cyclical and predictable or that changes in the sun are responsible and have far greater effect than carbon emissions. There is serious disagreement about what effect, if any, the proposed legislation would have in mitigating the problem.

“There is no longer….” is decidedly different than there is no debate necessary or there is a debate but we choose not to participate. When politicians start speaking in absolutes, ask yourself “What do they really know? Why should we believe them?”

The appeal of absolute certainty is so intoxicating that politicians rarely express doubt, even on the record. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters were sure about the financial stability of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It’s instructive to look back. Politicians are often wrong in their certainty but they never get over speaking in absolutes. Watch Inconvenient truth and then view The great global warming swindle. Is the debate over? Did it ever happen?

The politics of personality

2009-06-28T14:54:00.002-05:00

June 22, 2009

The politics of personality

“Senator” Boxer - Only one scenario could justify the upbraiding directed at the General. If the General been addressing all of the male members of the committee as Senator and then responding to Senator Boxer as ma’am, some comment may have been appropriate. Is that the unreported part of the story?

I think it more likely reflects the utter disdain that politicians have for the rest of us. Her remarks did not occur in a combative, emotional exchange. She wasn’t fighting for respect denied her, a temporary casualty of mutual anger. She was expressing her lack of respect by dressing it up as indignation..

Governor Sanford - How difficult is it for the truly arrogant to act humble? Even in situations where humility is clearly the path to take, politicians try to sidestep or finesse.. Is there any other explanation for President Clinton’s apology/lecture reminding us that his indiscretions pale in comparison to our appalling interest in them? How does one explain Mr. Guiliani announcing the end of his second marriage (to everyone including his wife) at a press conference? Or Governor Spitzer parading his wife in front of the cameras for his big moment. After all, what’s humiliation without pictures? John Edwards? Considering the backstory, his withdrawal statement was almost too creepy for words. Remember “don’t worry about me.”

People fall out of love. It happens. But political infidelities often lack that element. Bill Clinton does love Hillary. John Edwards loves Elizabeth.. Their spouses love them. But mere love is no longer sufficient. It is hard to settle for love when adoration is so readily available.

Governor Sanford sounded more sincere than most and his pain was evident. But like most political apologies, there was an awful lot of me talk. This press conference will play less well with each revisiting. The governor acknowledged that he let down his wife, children, staffers and friends. I can’t help but think that his biggest regret is losing life on the pedestal, a claim to respect, deference and admiration that we all crave but seldom feel that we deserve. We are usually right.

David Letterman and Sara Palin – David Letterman looked absolutely perplexed when the reliable groundswell of support for liberal bad taste didn’t occur. Others have made equally distasteful attempts at humor without repercussions but children are off limits.

Circling the wagons around Sara Palin is a mistake about to be made (again). Conservatives should grasp that the criticisms of Sara Palin were all valid ones. Yes, she was great on the stump, personable and her decision-making as governor could be defended, even applauded.

But……..Sara Palin was not disciplined or intellectually curious. She was weak in interviews and even worse didn’t seem interested in getting better. Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers could have articulated the conservative position better than Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann, who struggles against some of the same media bias would have embarrassed her in a debate. Like Palin, Bachmann has had some self-inflicted troubles but she is both a student and architect of policy. Palin is more of a cheerleader.

Sara Palin is no dummy but as a VP candidate, she was a mistake. Republicans were right to defend her, but shouldn’t try to resurrect or reinvent her.

There is a much to admire at Fox News, primarily in the daytime programming. The twenty-four hour Michael Jackson coverage was simply an embarrassment. MacNeil Lehrer News report covered the O. J. Simpson arrest, the opening day of the trial and the verdict because it was a news decision not a business decision. Fox should be ashamed and of course, so should everyone else.

Washington and the real world

2009-06-19T01:13:00.003-05:00

Most of us acquire our limited spheres of influence through our own efforts. We work hard in our industry or for our company. We earn credibility. We hold some influence with co-workers, customers and competitors based on skills we have developed and tasks that we have accomplished. The respect our opinions command is based largely on real world experience, ours and the people we interact with.

There are select places where real world experience is less important. In some places across the globe, an accident of birth destines a person to a life of privilege or slavery unrelated to any knowledge or skill that he or she may possess. In the United States, two such places exist. Although we have neither monarchs or a permanent underclass, in Washington D.C. and Hollywood, the rules are somewhat different. credibility and moral authority are ordained, not earned.

In Hollywood, celebrity entitles almost anyone to advise us on how to lose weight, maintain healthy relationships and conduct the country's foreign policy (usually from the front cover of a magazine). But Hollywood is a fantasyland after all and most of us discount the advice of celebrities to a degree. We instinctively grasp that an actor who is four times married at twenty-nine may not be a good resource for relationship advice. Our radar informs us that Larry King's fascination with a celebrity is not evidence of a serious person. We still recognize that while celebrity does not make one smart, there are well-informed celebrities.

Clint Eastwood is a smart guy. Angela Jolie, while diminished by the cult of celebrity, is almost always better informed on any subject than the person interviewing her. We haven't completely lost our perspective on Hollywood. We have lost our minds about the celebrities in Washington D.C.

We treat politicians far too deferentially. During an earlier dust-up concerning the financial health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters disdainfully dismissed the concerns of critics through the power of rhetorical assertion. Why do we have faith in these people? What qualifies Frank to speak authoritatively on this issue? Does he have those credentials? If so, he is a knowledgeable person who made a mistake. If he lacks the credentials, what does it say about the media or about us? Remember, this is a man who was unaware that a prostitution ring was being operated out if his own apartment. It is at least possible that something could have slipped past him concerning the mortgage giants.

We seldom question whether the actions of the Executive or the Congress reflect constitutional intent. Refer to the "czars" of the current administration. As policy is implemented to deal with the current economic crisis, two questions should be asked and answered. Are the rescuers constitutionally empowered to act as they have? Do they have expertise to deal with this situation at hand or just power?

My sense is that we fight harder with our alderman than our Congressman. My question is why?

Unkind tax talk

2009-06-06T13:21:00.002-05:00

Eventually, the talk will come back to taxes. Reading through pages of campaign speeches from both the primary and general election season of 2008, I find recurring themes, articulated and implied, that will be employed to support proposed tax increases. I would encourage everyone to question whether these assertions are true.

**** Politicians demonize the rich by suggesting that the rich don’t work for their money. You constantly hear the “rich” and the “working people” in speeches as if the former just has money while the latter works to acquire it. In the past, it was usually working class, but it has morphed into working people. My life experience suggests that the wealthy work just as hard, if not harder,than anyone else. Many take significant risks with their own funds in the pursuit of their success.

There seems to be a widespread belief that the rich don’t work for their money. But almost all of the wealthy people I know started working at the minimum wage, had some post high school education, are literate, have reasonably good social skills and a sound work ethic. Most all of them entered the working world and some into their marriages at earnings levels in the poverty range. They acquired their wealth over time and they built their fortunes over their own working life. There is some wealth that seems to travel from generation to generation but no one is more adept at that than politicians.

**** The rich don’t need their money. This suggestion is made surprisingly very overtly.

Democrats are always saying that Republicans want to give tax cuts to people who don’t need them. While need is a legitimate calculation in the dispersion of revenue (for the recipient), it is hardly relevant in determining the contributor’s tax rate . Who can possibly determine when, if and how much of any persons money is needed by its owner. That would be impossible in real time, much less looking into the future. And how does that translate into a justification for taking it from them. This is a calculus employed by those who steal from their employers and insurers as well as those that rob banks. ( This scenario does not even entertain a more interesting question, whether those individuals who don’t need their money would put it toward more productive uses than the government).

Isn’t it a bit arrogant? - deciding how much of people’s earnings they should be allowed to keep based on the beneficiaries perception of the providers need.

**** The private accumulation of wealth is somehow bad for the economy. I am not threatened by accumulated wealth and neither are you. Would society be better served by transferring Bill Gate’s wealth in large part to the government? I don’t know anyone who has less wealth because Mr. Gates has much.

There are very few things that I am absolutely sure about, but one is – Those of us who pay federal taxes in the ten or fifteen percent bracket or pay no tax at all are not the helpless victims of those who pay 25 or 28 or 35 percent (or those who will likely pay 39.6 percent soon). We could all stand to be a little less angry and perhaps a bit more grateful.

Blind squirrel finds acorn

2009-05-31T00:37:00.006-05:00

I rarely find myself agreeing with Media Matters. But in a recent piece MM took the position that two of nominee Sotomayor's controversial statements had been presented out of context. Imagine such a thing. Well, it is usually out of context because you can't make hay with statements presented in context. Second, context is inherently subjective. What makes "in context", a phrase, a sentence, a paragragh, an answer, an answer accompanied by the question preceding it?

Judge Sotomayor's remark about appellate courts making policy would be alarming, had she actually said that. Her remark was buried in a response to a student's question about the differences between clerking in appellate courts as opposed to trial courts. If a non-lawyer such as myself were to read her full response, how would one summarize her answer. She said that the issues are narrower in trial courts, limited primarily to the facts of the case and that appellate decisions by their nature have potential repercussions for future cases aside from the case in appeal. However decided, precedents have policy implications in a de facto sense and that clerks should be aware of that.

That said, it is hard to imagine what context could possibly justify her other controversial remark, other than an attempt at humor. If judges are called to make legal judgments, how does one persons' ethnic background make her better qualified? Did the lower court properly apply the law? Is the law constitutional? The answers are knowledge-based not empathy-based.

Hearings for Supreme court nominees typically bring out the worst in elected officials. Refer back to the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings. This one is a potential loser for Republicans. Hopefully, they will challenge Judge Sotomayor on issues of legal philosophy rather than clumsy statements or misrepresentations of her views. If Republicans stay on target, she is not a lock for confirmation albeit a long shot for defeat. If they play for the cameras, the Republicans will look small. The first issue is a loser and should be left alone. The second statement, oft repeated is fair game. There are a number of legitimate ways to challenge Judge Sotomayor and Republicans should remember that under glare of television lights.

War of words

2009-05-22T00:25:00.002-05:00

My reactions to the Obama/Chaney speeches of May 21, 2009 and the hours of press coverage in the aftermath.

** The left seems to emphasize that enhanced interrogation is both immoral and ineffective. If it is immoral, why qualify it? If you are going to be guided exclusively by your moral compass, then isn't the quality of the results produced immaterial?

** The point was raised more than once today that there are other, more efficient ways of getting the information. The question is not really if, it is when. Information concerning the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been very useful on December 5th in 1941, a historical footnote on December 9th.

** Vice-President Chaney made a compelling case for the release of information relating to the information elicited from these interrogations. Should that occur, he should be prepared to defend comments about the saving of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

** Lanny Davis made the comment that waterboarding is torture citing a 1994 law. Legal opinions from the Bush Justice department clearly differed. This would be an interesting subject for some "journalist" to report on.

** The most interesting note in the Chaney speech was to a recent editorial referring to terrorists as abducted, saying " a major editorial page makes them sound like kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies". There was a time when no editorial page would have used such language without feeling compelled to support it in the text of the editorial.

My take - Should there be some debate over the limits of interrogation? Absolutely. But consider what actually happened here. We didn't behead anyone, hang any combatants from bridges, nor did we shoot prisoner A to encourage prisoner B to talk. We frightened them. Maybe terrified them, a concept that terrorists could probably process, maybe even admire. If you ever been in a fight with someone who has an advantage (such as being bigger and meaner than you) you might understand than one equalizer is making the opponent think that you are crazier than they are, less likely to be constrained by the rules, more likely to hit them with a chair or bite them or perhaps willing to drown them.

I hate hypotheticals but let's consider this scenario. The Twin Towers attack and the Pentagon attack occur on September 11th. The White House/Capitol attack is planned for September 16th. We pick up a planner of the attacks on September 12th and the only information we can obtain via the allowed protocol is that a spectacular attack is going to occur on the 16th. Every member of Congress is assembled and told that we have evidence an attack is imminent and are convinced that the prisoner knows the details. It is our opinion that the only hope we have of preventing an attack is to scare the shit out of Khalid. What would you have us do?

How would your representative have answered this question? It is easy to look back in history and surmise that we would have oppsed slavery in 1790 or the excesses in the aftermath of the French Revolution. We can be sure that we would have risen up against the Nazis during World War Two. We can be sure because we have the luxury of coming to our convictions far removed from the moment.

Last comment. There was precious little to admire in the analysis. That said, Dana Perino was articulate, thoughtful and forthright. I have always admired both of the Chaney girls. Liz Chaney's commentary was as well-articulated as you will hear this side of George Will. I am pretty sure that Mara Liiason is comfortably liberal but I never detect that in her analysis. I find both her and Charles Krauthammer a welcome relief from the water carriers posing as dispassionate analysts.

2009-05-15T22:44:00.005-05:00

5/15 A deplorable lack of curiousity

I am always fascinated by the questions that politicians are not asked. When President Obama promised to save or create 3.5 million jobs, no one asked the most obvious followup.

Brave reporter: Mr. President, respectfully, that statement can be adapted to validate any result. A net gain of 1.5 million jobs (create 1.5 million, save 2 million), a loss of 4.5 million jobs (but for our efforts, 8 million jobs would have been lost, a catastrophe has been averted) What outcome are you actually predicting? The President's statement is a batting practice fastball but the press is not swinging.

Speaker Pelosi's press conference on Thursday highlighted a similar lack of curiousity. Her prepared statement about the CIA briefing expressly contradicted other published accounts and her own previous statement. Shouldn't someone have asked: Ms. Pelosi, can anyone who participated in the briefing, either from the Congress or the CIA support your recollection?

Her performance was weak and incoherent. She has two distinct recollections of the briefing. Both are diametrically opposed to the recollections of the other participants, notably the agency that gave the briefing. The press matched her step for step. The press today functions like a boxer's sparring partner. They give the champ a nice workout but under no circumstances do they hurt him or her. The sparring partner, however, works for the champ. Who does the press work for?

The point of Bernard Goldberg's book Bias was that viewers are capable of drawing their own conclusions. The role of the press is to provide us with information, not guidance. I am not suggesting that the press should set out to bloody the nose of a candidate, a congressman or a president. In a fair fight, sometimes a little blood gets spilled and that should not trouble the press. To have a fair fight, there must first be an adversary, not a sparring partner.

2009-05-13T22:43:00.000-05:00

February 23, 2009

Republicans, rhetorical or real?

Republicans occasionally get the politics right as they did this week. They will never receive credit for benefits that might derive from the coming stimulus package. If it is a success they will be portrayed as unwilling participants, dragged kicking and screaming into politically expedient capitulation. If the stimulus underperforms, Republicans will be portrayed as the cause of its failure, having dug an economic hole so deep that even the wise and compassionate congressional Democrats couldn’t rescue us.

At rare moments, politics and principles coincide. This is one such moment for the Republicans. They can be principled without trepidation because there is no cost attached to their courage. Republicans cannot win regardless of the outcome so there is no penalty for being, well, Republicans.

This would be the opportune time for political self-analysis. Do Republicans oppose massive spending increases or only massive Democratic spending increases? Are they repulsed by the continued expansion of government or only the expansion of liberal government?

As a conservative, I want to believe that our guys think that capitalism, over time, can rescue the poor while liberalism can only sustain them at some tolerable level of misery. I want to believe in Republicans who trust that the creation and market diffusion of wealth builds a stronger America. I want to believe in a Republican congress that wants to solve the entitlement crisis rather than own it. But I don’t.

Republicans always promise to safeguard the congressional henhouse, but history tells us that they really just want to fornicate with the other hens. It’s a shame because we are not in danger just from the ideological left. If the only thing Republicans advocate is a more modest socialism, a less powerful nanny state, pardon the electorate’s indifference.

There are a few promising seeds growing in the republican fields like Paul Ryan in Wisconsin. Will Republicans continue to embrace him when the political winds shift back to the right or will he be marginalized to preserve an inclusive bipartisan façade?

Plausible arguments can be made against much liberal economic policy. The advocates run as Democrats and govern like Democrats on growth hormone. No voter feels deceived because it is not dishonest. The opponents of those economic policies run as Republicans by rhetorical assertion and then govern like Democrats, in love with the power and feeling absolutely indispensable. The voters feel hoodwinked.

I heard a Republican strategist recently blame the McCain defeat on his inability to capture the undecideds. He no doubt thought that the undecideds in question were debating whether to vote for Obama or McCain. Clearly, some Reagan Democrats went home again. But most of the uncommitted voters still in play were debating the choice between voting for McCain and not voting. More directly, voting for a candidate who is perceived by many as a “Republican-in theory” or not voting. This debate will continue on into the next election cycle unless Republicans can persuade voters that their principles are more than a campaign tool selectively exercised in pursuit of power.