If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

I spent a part of my Thanksgiving in a conversation with my daughter discussing the steps involved with repairing a leaky toilet in their home.  (What, this isn't the normal holiday conversation you have with your kids?  Really?)  Now that you're riveted to your seats by what's about to come next .... 

 (12/5/13:  An updated version of this effort was just posted to the TFP Website.)

I could do this because I was fortunate enough to have a father who while I was growing up (OK, growing older) was able to instruct me in the basic 'Harry the handyman' skills involved with maintaining a home.  In fact, he went on to instruct me in an apprenticeship program that he had taught at R R Donnelley and Sons that included basic mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic / pneumatic principles when I began my career in the printing industry.  One of the first things he stressed in those lessons was that since maintaining any complex system would be difficult enough for even the most conscientious maintenance staff: 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.  This is apparently something that the Congress and the President either never learned, or forgot about when creating the 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' or 'ACA'.  

Oh I know that politicians often like to simplify subjects that they either don't understand themselves or don't think that 'the voters' will, in order to sell us something (usually a bill of goods); but the simple truth of the matter is that when all of this began, the US had a level of health care that was the envy of the world. That's why other world leaders and that pesky '1%' with the cash often came to this country for treatment of their ailments. This is not to say that there weren't things that needed improvement, but most of that seemed to be greater "access" to this wonderful system through minor modifications of health insurance coverage.

While even those who had no insurance or couldn't pay had access to some level of medical care, they needed more. Those with pre-existing medical conditions also needed the ability to obtain or retain insurance (especially when changing jobs). Doctors needed tort reform to reduce the amount of defensive (and expensive) medical procedures being performed for no better reason than to protect themselves from frivolous malpractice lawsuits, without removing the patient's right to seek redress from poor practitioners. Patients and doctors alike needed protection from the crony-capitalism in an insurance industry riddled with restrictive choices mandated by individual state insurance regulators.

In its normal ham-fisted approach to almost every issue however, our federal legislators chose a 'throw the baby out with the bath water' approach, without considering the ramifications of another 'never-ending gobstopper omnibus' effort, as well as the laws of unintended consequences. Far too concerned about winning points for their respective parties that they could store up like nuts for the next election (like there aren't enough nuts around in every election), our legislators allowed themselves to be caught up in the momentum of a 'sweeping reform' which only seem to clean out sound judgment, and good law. Sadly now, the nation is left with a result that even many of those who originally voted for it are less than pleased with.

This is not to say that the ACA doesn't positively address some of the issues that it intended to. Those with pre-existing conditions now have the access to insurance that they deserve. Unfortunately, this came with the cost that far too many of those who had pre-existing insurance plans lost them. Many who needed access to health insurance will finally get it, but in spite of all the back-slapping after its passage, 30 million will remain without it. Instead of freeing up the insurance market between states to make it cheaper, the ACA instead further restricted it to four 'government-approved' plans that make it even more expensive (and, contrary to the law's title, less affordable). Perhaps worst of all is that politicians who touted the necessity of this sweeping change and the fairness of their effort granted themselves their staffs an exemption from the rules that they insist the rest of us follow.

Not surprisingly, those seeking electoral credit for their legislative efforts are instead contracting incurable levels displeasure, disapproval, and disrepute that may cost them the privilege of the jobs they sought to protect with its passage. Curiously, it's only the distraction of the temporary collapse of the HealthCare.gov website used for enrolling in this monstrosity that's offering any protection to these wayward legislators from the greater ruin and future recrimination that awaits them. Tragically (if not perhaps fatally), the CYA and CYP (Cover Your Party) nature of the entrenched politics involved precludes even the most honorable of members of either party from doing what they know in their hearts probably now needs to be done.

So it's time for many to learn a hard lesson that apparently their fathers couldn't or didn't pass on to them. You don't fix a simple leaky toilet by ripping out the entire bathroom. You don't remodel a house by demolishing it and rezoning the neighborhood for commercial. In fact, with anything that needs repair, the first rule must always be: 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"    

       

Celebrate Sequestration Day!

For those of you who haven't been paying much attention to the news for the last couple of weeks (you lucky bastards), this Friday is Sequestration Day.  Now for those of you who have additionally failed in your obligations to have read the previous posting on this subject in JBS (go ahead, I'll wait here), the Sequestration of 2013 is a series of government spending reductions suggested by the White House, passed in a bi-partisan effort by both Houses of Congress, and mandated to occur by virtue of the 'Budget Control Act of 2011'.  If Congress couldn't come to an agreement on some form of budget reform between August of 2011 when it was signed into law and March 1st of 2013 (after a 'kick the can' extension that moved it from January 1, 2013) Sequestration automatically happened.

In typical recent government fashion, the law was passed to trade spending now for savings later; in this case getting a debt ceiling increase of $400 billion back then (with an option for $500 more that was used) for $1.2 trillion in spending reductions over ten years.  If an agreement on those reductions wasn't reached, a form of them would kick in automatically instead; and since Congress seldom has the courage to cut money from any program, these cuts would be made based on the difference between the annual portion of the $1.2 trillion and whatever across the board cuts Congress could come up with.  (Hell, the Senate hasn't even had the testicular fortitude to pass a budget in four years and the President has been late in delivering budgets four out of the last five years. )  They would affect almost everything except entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  

Hidden in the fine print of all such government language however, is that any such action would be  based on the 'Base Line Budget' process that Congress uses where the national checkbook is concerned.  Now for those who don't understand this concept of accounting, practices that would be considered illegal if practiced by anyone other than the government; it means that every budget program funded by the government is assumed to get bigger each year.  This means that programs will normally see the equivalent of cost of living increases of between 4% and 6%, assuming that their prior year's budget is spent.  In this year's case, because the date of Sequestration was moved back to March 1st, the $120 billion of projected reductions that was originally required would now in fact consist ofof a mere $84 billion ... approximately 2.4% of the projected $3.8 trillion 2013 federal budget.  (I say projected, because without both Houses passing a budget that's signed into law for the last four years, actual budget numbers get rather fuzzy.)  What that in turn means is that the amount of spending that Sequestration will reduce is smaller than the budget increases already built-in under the 'Baseline Budget' principle.  In other words, in spite of the process of Sequestration, the government will still spend more this year than it did last year.

All of the Doom and Gloom coming out of the national bully pulpit that we've been hearing about the last week or so about how these cuts will undoubtedly bring about a fiscal Armeggedon in this country are really nothing more than someone from our government telling us that these agencies must 'suffer' with only slightly more than their funding for 2012.  Their threats of dire consequences are in fact only being made in order to scare us into paying even more taxes than Congress agreed to just a month ago.  So what are we going to do about it?

Well I don't know about you, but I'm going to celebrate Sequestration!  Sequestration may be the only government 'reductions' in spending that we are likely to see this year from the bi-partisan efforts the White House and Congressional behavior that has become far more like that of a crack addict than of a responsible national government.  It appears that we can no longer count on either major political party to do the right thing, but only instead to produce lies and excuses about their own failures.  This is not because they don't know what the right thing is, but because the haven't the backbone to offend any of those special interest groups feeding at the public trough.  After all, with today's endless election cycle, if they aren't looking for campaign contributions for a re-election bid, they're looking for at least the vote of benefiting members of a parasitic constituency.  

Just this once, it appears that they may have done the right thing (probably by mistake) and they don't know how to dig out of the hole that they've created.  While the Sequestration cuts are barely a token, they still represent more than either party has done to change the horrible path that this nation is on in the last couple of decades.
 
In fact, I recommend that we all go out and celebrate; and that we do so as publicly as possible!  Those currently out there on the stump have consistently lied to us not only about the budget, but about the dreaded process of Sequestration that they themselves visited upon us; and for no better reason than to keep us frightened and as they see it, easier to control.  Countering their fear mongering with enthusiasm for what they've tried to make a see as disaster might put them back on their heels.  Celebrating what they think we should be terrified of could make us seem less predictable in their minds.  Acting in a way that passes their understanding might shake recent assumptions by those in Washington that their skills in steering the herd that they believe us to be are anything but complete.  If nothing else, we may get a chance to enjoy their temporary discomfiture and give them pause before trying to create their next faux panic in yet another attempt to manipulate us in the next budget debate.

Yes, I know that it's possible that there might actually be negative consequences to Sequestration; though I suspect that if there are, they will be at our leaders' purposeful doing.  Even if some hard lessons come out of these manipulations however, we should take it as our just deserts for allowing the bi-partisan fiscal impropriety that's been committed.  Times are tough out there financially, and and it's far past time that everyone (including our fearless leaders in Washington) recognized that it's time to learn to do with less in order to survive.  

So while it might be a couple of days early in doing so, I would like to wish each and every one of you:

Happy Sequestration Day!

A Big (and Maybe Bad) Week for SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced its immigration decision on Monday, pretty much gutting the Arizona law of the ability of charging those that they discover to be in country illegally and enforcing 'their' and the nation's border with Mexico.  Incongruously, it did so while simultaneously allowing State and Local law officials to check for proper immigration status while arresting people on other non-related charges.  The federal government immediately followed that announcement with one of its own, basically telling AZ that they (or anyone else) catching someone who's in the country illegally and not a wanted felon is not going find the Feds coming to get them or do anything about it.  

Now bank robbery is a federal and not a state crime, so one cannot but wonder if under SCOTUS legal logic, local police shouldn't bother much about it either.  (Besides, with the true value of money continuing to decline, the line between felony and misdemeanor bank theft is increasingly fuzzy.)  Kidnapping is also mostly escalated to a federal crime, so this may provide another rather gray area for local law enforcement's relationship with its federal brethren.  For those of you who capitalize both United and States when writing it, this can be read as nothing less than casting aside the Tenth Amendment, which should probably now read:

"Those powers not delegated to the United States (and of no real interest to them) nor prohibited by it to the States (or by Executive order, federal regulation, or the whim of the resident in the White House or his minions in Homeland Security or the DOJ) , are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (until such time as the federal government shall take notice of them and decide otherwise)."

It's been a long time since State sovereignty has been dealt such a crushing blow, with the courts telling States in effect not to attempt to enforce federal laws created for their protection which were passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (even if the Federal law enforcement  doesn't) and those Feds thumbing their noses and telling States "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah".  

Now I know that the President is in full campaign mode these days, and that perhaps making up percentage points in Hispanic districts might bolster the support that he's apparently lost from other groups in recent months.  I find it difficult to understand however that such a savvy campaigner as the President doesn't remember that Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have about 104 electoral votes and might not be happy to see their States remain open battlegrounds (and not just for votes). 

Now coming from Chicago, it's possible that the President has likewise forgotten that dead people (which the DOJ is simultaneously attempting to block being removed from voter rolls in Florida) and those here illegally are not allowed to vote (at least in theory); and so cannot help him, except perhaps with improperly documented campaign contributions. (Anybody checked lately to see what La Raza has kicked into the coffers?)

______________

SCOTUS will likewise be releasing its decision on the Patients Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act on Thursday this week, with those on both sides of the issue salivating over the potential of demonizing a 'political court' and their political opposition.  While this may be a harder case to make for the federal government after getting their way in Arizona and regardless of the decision; the repercussions of this yet-to-be-released decision will begin and not end the process of what will come later.   No matter which way the decision falls, the fight will go on.  Few if any are talking about the fact that what has become known as Obamacare has a couple of provisions worth keeping if it's struck down, or a few that demand dismantling if it's retained.

That's the damn problem with these omnibus bills like PPAHA however.  Political parties get so wrapped up in having scored 'the big win' that they too forget the impact of their actions.  Bills with thousands of pages will never be fully read or understood until long after they've been signed into law.  By the time SCOTUS gets around to them (if they ever do), they have become like a diagnosed but untreated cancer, and have infected so much around them that their damage can never truly be reversed. 

Unfortunately, many of the same positive results of this unfortunate law could have been achieved if they had been sought through reform legislation specifically designed to address the most egregious issues only; and it's likely that they might have been accomplished with bi-partisan support.  That wouldn't have achieved the 'in your face' political victory for whichever political party is in power over their opponents however.  Besides, as they tell themselves by way of disingenuous apology, it's OK to throw all this shit onto the wall and see what eventually sticks.  After all, there's always SCOTUS to sort it all out. 

I don't know about you, but that kind of thinking is not only cowardly and a disgrace to the oath of office that each legislator took upon election, but is a shirking of their responsibilities on a scale that can only be responded to by chasing them out of office at the first available opportunity.

While we're at it ....  

Call me cynical, but it also seems almost cowardly of the nine Justices, all of whom sit with a lifetime appointment, to release such monumental decisions (decisions whose legal precedent will impact generations to come) only days before skulking out of town for their summer break.  I'm not saying that these decisions would likely have been more palatable if they had not come out until August or September, but I might have felt better about the Supreme Robes if I knew that they were sweating them out (literally and figuratively) in the heat and humidity of a Washington DC summer.  Considering the pain that's being handed out by this court of last resorts, I for one would feel better if I knew that they had suffered over the conclusions that they've come to.

Yes it's a big week indeed for the Supreme Court of the United States.  How bad a one it is for the citizens of this nation, we have yet to understand.

Half or Twice As Much?

While I'm working on something of a more serious nature, I wanted to share a brief thought with you that struck me as I watched the President kick off his official 2012 campaign at the Schottenstein Center on the Ohio State University campus.  Since Columbus, OH is one of my former hometowns (and the one where I lived the longest ... and the most number of times). 

There has been a great deal of discussion over the venue of kickoff of the campaign, in spite of the fact that it's only four days ago.  Now politics is as much about perception as it is about reality (and some would say far more), so the picture that many saw of the president speaking before the OSU banner carries a message, both up front and subliminal.  We see smiling faces and people applauding (as such events are want to bring out).     

The banner in the background likewise lends an air of almost endorsement, though I'm sure that somewhere on the last page of a press release in typeface normally reserved for the last 5 seconds of a car commercial, it states that the University is not endorsing, nor can it endorse, the candidacy of any elected official.   

The second picture has been much ballyhooed by those of the Republican persuasion, showing that the packed houses that once likened the President to a Rock Star, have dwindled.  Not only are the upper decks largely empty, but unless the the Secret Service or OSU officials prevented it, the arena floor is likewise mostly empty.  The question Republican pundits posed was that of whether the venue was "half-full or half-empty".   

These pictures reminded me of this clever phrase as well, but with a different interpretation; one explained to me many years ago:

The Optimist looks and says that the glass is half-full.

The Pessimist looks and says that the glass is half-empty.

The Realist looks as says that we have twice as much glass as we need.

So while these pictures remain in the public eye late me state that:

The Cynic looks and says Mr. President, that we're trying to tell you that we have twice as much (and more) government than we need.  Are you getting the message?

TFP Column: Presidential Debates

There's another debate of Republican candidates for President today, which leaves me looking forward to the evening's festivities with much the same feeling that I would have if I had an appointment tonight to get a root canal ... without anesthetic.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Republicans should do everything that they can to learn about those seeking the highest office in the land in the hopes that Obama can continue channeling Jimmy Carter and become a one-term President.  That being said, someone ought to smack the news networks for turning such important opportunities to discover what nominees are made of into a sick parody of the Jerry Springer show.  

While they're at it, someone ought to smack the candidates for allowing the media to treat them with such disrespect in venues largely reminiscent of a circus.  Before it's all done, someone ought to smack the electorate around a bit for either not paying attention to what's going on, or encouraging this People magazine version of politics.

Before all of this corporal punishment is properly administered (Damn, where are the Jesuits when you need them?),  what everyone ought to do is read my take on the current debate process on the TFP rather curiously titled, "Presidential Debates".

And when you're done catching up on the political world, you might even want to find out what's going on in Toledo and NW Ohio in the mid-week Star edition before reading Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper this weekend, the Toledo Free Press.

Redefining Leadership

"Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost" 
- Thomas J Watson 


Reading this quote, I was struck on how it captured the very essence of leadership; something that seems in rather short supply these days. Of course many of you finding yourselves agreeing with this sentiment are now asking who Mr Watson was, not having heard the name before. He was not in fact Sherlock Holmes trusted associate and housemate at 221B Baker Street, that was Dr John Watson. 


Thomas John Watson was the president of a company of no small import to the US and the world from 1914 to 1956, International Business Machines. When the president of IBM during its heyday says something on the subject of leadership, you might well want to listen. Certainly some of those in Washington DC could stand a bit of tutelage on the subject. How else would you describe most of what has been going on in recent days, except of as a lack of this rather critical attribute in any elected official? 


Certainly no one would say that the Democrats who controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House showed leadership for failing to pass a budget in 2010 for the first time in this country's history. Neither would many say that the President showed leadership in brokering what has become the budget compromise that brought this particular drama to a close. That is unless of course, you would call it leadership to accuse both sides in the discussion of being little more than petulant children rather than putting forward a legitimate plan of your own. 


The nation's chief executive likewise showed no signs of primacy in dealing with the situations in Egypt and in Libya, instead allowing events to unfold before attempting to take any role at all. (A role he seems content to play as the rest of the Middle East and Africa continue in turmoil.) Having finally assumed that role in Libya however, he then abdicated such responsibility almost immediately, taking a second chair position to NATO while US soldiers were (and are) put in harm's way. 


Even now as 2011's budget will set aside in favor of the beginning of discussion over raising the debt limit and trying to come up with a budget for 2012, the nation's leader appears only now ready to unveil a plan of his own for the period. While one could say that he enters the fray before Congress begins its debates on the subject, others would point out that he does so a full week after Republicans in Congress (in the person of Paul Ryan) unveiled their own vision of the future. 


Lest Republicans decide to take pride for having now assumed the mantle of leadership in the nation, let us remind them that at no time during the last Congress did any member of the GOP in either House step up and put themselves forward with a budgetary blueprint; even as the jumping off point for discussion. And while I applaud the principles put forward by Rep. Ryan's effort, many with a knowledge of what goes on in DC have said that the timing of the 2012 budget announcement was little more than political expediency to divert attention from the compromise that was eventually reached over the 2011 budget. 


Neither have Republicans, while in the majority in the House, brought any legislative pressure to bear on the ongoing military madness masquerading as the current foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East. Nor have they chastised the president for unilaterally creating the Libyan no-fly zone without consulting or even informing Congress; or pressed the president, as their counterparts did in Iraq and Afghanistan, on defining the mission goal or devising an exit strategy for this affair before entering it.


It appears that leadership as Mr Watson defined it is in rather short supply in today's politicians in Washington. Rather than accepting the mantle of leadership granted to them by gaining elected office, they instead seem (paraphrasing Mr Watson's words) always ready to accept the stigma of conformity for fear of being called a crackpot. 


In fact, those on both sides of the aisle seem far more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing them. Unwilling to throw the first punch in the ring of public debate, they seem instead content to circle their opponent, endlessly dancing. Instead of wading into fight that they chose by running for office, they appear instead to be waiting for an opening, ready with a counter-punch when and if the opportunity presents itself. And while this may make for good political strategy, it makes for bad government. 


Truthfully, it seems more like a football game where both sides are trying to play a 'prevent defense' in the hopes of keeping the other team from embarrassing them by executing the big play. Not only has history shown that such attempts regularly fail, but ultimately it makes we spectators the real losers, regardless of which side wins the game. 


The resulting nonsense takes on little more importance than Olympic competition of rhythmic gymnastics. While it shows skill and may be mildly entertaining at times, throwing out the high and low scores in this event normally results in an average score of little more than '0'. 


But perhaps this is how leadership shall be defined as in the 21st Century (and more's the pity). It's a sad commentary of the quality of the leadership (and of the politicians) that we are presented with these days. It seems in fact, more in keeping with the words of French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin:


"There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."

Health Care Compromise Meeting

Updated 
(after rest and additional coherent thought) I did not watch the coverage of the health care compromise meeting held yesterday between the President and member of both house of Congress (one should never watch the sausage being made). I did read a number of the summaries of this meeting however, as well as watching some clips pulled from the sessions and the roundtable discussions of political pundits attempting to spin the meeting one way or the other. 


I have come to my own conclusion on these sessions after digesting all of this information and thought that it might be worth sharing. The version of compromise that the President and Democrats are proposing to Republicans seems to boil down to this, "You must compromise your legitimately held principles, or we will compromise your virtue." 


This is the essence of the reconciliation process in Congress, and the Republicans have used it more in the past than the Democrats. The process of the Thursday meeting however was additionally marred by the Democrats leaking the fact that they were looking at the reconciliation process days before the meeting was held, seeming to indicate that it was far from their intent. The gathering was likewise held up as little more than poor theater and sham politics as both sides postured before the cameras (somehow it seems impossible to keep politicians from overacting when cameras are running). 


The president managed to solidify his position as "Abuser In Chief" by monopolizing the conversation that he had called in order to listen, and by slapping down opponents during a meeting designed to foster bi-partisan support. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, author of the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word Compromise that I wasn't previously aware of."

Clueless (and Gutless) In Washington

Enough time has passed after the dramatic events of the Massachusetts Senate race to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy that things are able to return to normal in Washington. Republicans have recovered their ignorance and Democrats have regained their arrogance after the election slap down that almost came a a surprise to both. Both also remain largely clueless as to either the reasons for their defeat or the meaning of their victory; but the message was clear. 

Stop the out of control spending! 

The response by the Senate was to propose a commission to deal with the growing gap in the budget. Proposed by Sen Kent Conrad (D) and Sen Judd Gregg (R) along with twenty-five other sponsors, this commission would consist of eighteen serving legislators and administration officials to look at both taxation and spending as the deficit continues to grow at an alarming rate. The recommendations of this group would then be brought to the floor for a straight up or down vote. The Senate, in a bi-partisan vote, rejected the proposal. 


 The President responded in the State of the Union Address by telling the Congress that he was going to set up just such a commission anyway, only under an executive order saying, "I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans". (Though apparently debt and bankrupt entitlement programs are of less concern in the 'passing on' department.)


The concept is not a new one. Similar commissions have been created in the past to look at the financial crisis of the Social Security System in the early 80's (the Greenspan Commission) and to deal with the necessity of military base closings at the end of the Cold War (Base Realignment and Closure Commission) in four rounds in the 80's and 90's. 


Their history is one of limited success at best and poor theater at worst. Their creation has over the years however, provided excellent cover for legislators and national leaders unwilling to realistically address critical or politically sensitive issues, especially in regards to the out of control taxation and expansion of the budget. In one of the few truly bi-partisan efforts in government, neither party seems willing to make the tough choices that the country needs. Republicans, once the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, choose instead to be the party that grows government more slowly. Democrats, who have a history of profligate spending, believe that they are in control of a runaway train that's careening down the tracks these days at an incredible speed. And while both parties will admit that the bridge ahead is out, neither will admit to knowing where the brakes on the train are. 


We don't need the commission proposed by the Senate and now forced upon us by the President. Neither do we need the President's proposed spending freeze, a plan which will barely impact the amount of money flowing from Washington (and which surprisingly enough if passed, will not have any real effect until after the mid-term election). What we need is for the people who have chosen "public service" to perform that function. We need for the members of Congress to look beyond the giant checks that they can bring back to their constituents, the fancy fact-finding trips sponsored by lobbying groups, and the inordinate amount of time that they spend raising money and running for re-election and get a clue as to what is going on in this country. What we need in fact is for these politicians to stop finding ways to keep their jobs and to start doing them instead. Of course all this is merely a pipe dream, for most politicians today are consummate pros.  


They know that doing any of the things that I suggest might have an adverse effect on the careers that they seem to place far above the duties of their office and the public trust that we have given them. I can admire their professional acumen, but I will say that with rare exceptions (and you know who you are Ron Paul) that I consider them both clueless and gutless.

The American President II?

I was thinking about a quote from the movie, "The American President". This 1995 film directed by Rob Reiner and starring Michael Douglas in the title role has a memorable speech near the end that I have quoted in this blog before. I would to share another portion of that wisdom with you here now:  

"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." 

 I was struck by this because it what we were talking about here was a liberal actor, starring in a movie by a liberal director, and playing a liberal president decrying the attack made on him by a conservative candidate for the office. In real life, it turned out to be the exactly opposite however. The strength of the speech and the message of the movie was not lost on the liberals who made it and the party which they support. 

The Democratic Party ran an exceptionally adroit campaign not against candidate John McCain, who was his own worst enemy; but against the last eight years of George Bush and the Republicans. They did a very effective job of making us afraid of what was happening in the stock market, the banking industry, and the overall economy in the US. They also had us terrified of the international situation, whether we were looking at the ongoing military situation in the Middle East or the ever present potential of flare ups in places like North Korea. They followed the format of the speech quoted above as well in telling you who to blame for it, George Bush and the Republicans. 

The banking crisis was not caused by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and the committees that they were in charge of that were supposed to do oversight on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the rest of the banking industry. The seemingly endless battle against Al Qaeda is not because Bill Clinton and a weak-willed Congress let the man slip through their fingers. No, the fault for everything wrong in world today was George Bush and the Republicans.  

Don't get me wrong here, I am not the former president's biggest fan, nor am I much of a fan of the Republicans, who I believe have betrayed their conservative ideals some years back. I do not believe however that either the former president or the Republican party is the bane of peace in the world, the destroyer of the US economy, or the anti-Christ.  

Unfortunately for the current administration however, the movie ended soon after the speech. What the movie never had a chance to talk about or lay out a plan for was what happens after this strategy works. Having used the "American President Strategy" to win elected office, what do you do next? Having spent the last two years making people afraid of what's going on in the world, how do you calm them down from the panic that you've created? Having blamed the policies of the opposition for everything wrong in the world, how do you seek bi-partisan support for your own policies? Having successfully executed this strategy to gain office, how do you now govern?  

Perhaps Rob Reiner can make "The American President II" and help the Obama Administration out.

 

TFP Column: Hail to the Chief ... that was

As I previously mentioned, I have been honored with not one, but two pieces in this week's Toledo Free Press (one in print, and both available on the website). 

The second of these efforts, "Hail to the Chief ... that was", is a tribute to the man who had to lead the country during some difficult times, and left office on January 20th with little in the way of fanfare from the media on Inauguration Day. 

As always, there is far more of value to be found both in the pages and on the website of the Toledo Free Press.

Presidential Legacy

We are very near the election of a new president and the end of yet another presidency in the United States. I am sure that thoughts have turned already in the White House to funding for a presidential library, arranging secret service details for the outgoing chief, and of course the presidential retirement. 

Not that George W Bush appears to need the $161,200 that he will receive annually, or the funding that he will receive for an office and staff to assemble his papers and help to document his “presidential legacy”. He was doing fairly well before he took office, as is the rest of his family, and I expect that this retirement funding will not affect his lifestyle. 

Perhaps in spite of this, Mr. Bush will choose the Clinton path, and a future of speaking engagements around the world that earn him millions of dollars; making any retirement fund superfluous. These post-presidential corporate engagements have so placed the Clintons that they need probably never worry about their future income. (Besides, there is always Hilary’s senatorial retirement to factor in.)  

I find this interesting when compared to another former president, who earned $13,507.72 per year upon leaving office, his army pension. When Congress realized that he was writing his own letters, and buying and licking his own stamps, they granted him an allowance for office expenses and a retroactive $25,000 per year pension. This president, when offered positions on corporate boards, spoke plainly and declined saying, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.” 

Later still in his life, when Congress was preparing to award him the Congressional Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused further honor writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any reward, Congressional or otherwise.” 

We should bless the memory of the man who once said, “My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference.” We should thank providence that we were lucky enough to be led by a man of keen insight, excellent judgment, and rapier wit; and hope that our current leaders learn something from his example. We should honor the memory of … Harry S Truman.