No Excuses Acceptable

Legend has it that a talented band of Scottish musicians, looking to distinguish themselves from other British groups, picked their name by throwing a dart at a map of the United States, the dart landing near Bay City, Michigan. The Bay City Rollers were the teen idol group of the mid-70's, and my favorite hit of theirs was "The Way I Feel Tonight" (to interested readers, one or more relevant song videos are available on Youtube).

Unfortunately, Bay City has a different claim to fame these days, one of infamy. Marvin Schur, a 93-year-old World War II veteran and widower of two years, passed away in what medical examiner Dr. Kanu Virani termed "a slow, painful death", finding frostbite on his foot. The city utility had installed a limiter on his power meter 4 days before his death because the retiree was behind on his payments; the limiter is outside and must be reset after a certain limit is reached. It is unlikely that Schur was aware of what happened, probably figuring his power had been shut off for nonpayment. (The city did not personally contact Schur, simply leaving a note on the door, but according to neighbors, the man rarely went outside during cold weather.) In a sad, ironic twist, the man had clipped money to his 4 unpaid power bills for their payment, which investigators discovered.

I do understand that utilities are not charities, and they have costs to cover. I do not know the specifics of the situation--why Schur, who had paid his power bills for years before the limiter, didn't pay during the weeks before the limiter was put on his line. Was it a matter of a tight budget, like many people struggling to make ends meet during this tough recession? Or, perhaps, as some suggest, he was suffering a type of dementia?

Here's what we do know: this good man risked everything--his life and his health--to serve the cause of freedom, his country during WWII. Like all who serve in the military, he had his buddies, a bond of brotherhood determined to have each other's back in the face of a fierce, determined enemy.

But Marvin Schur fought and lost to a different enemy that January day--a heartless bureaucracy hiding behind its impersonal procedures, insisting they were fair in treating all their customers with the same lack of due professional diligence and common courtesy, installing equipment without their customers' explicit knowledge, consent or training, in the dead of winter, knowing that a service shutdown would be life-threatening.

Yes, Marvin Schur, without buddies to cover his back, faced a far more difficult enemy, one cowardly and unwilling to face him man-to-man. Childless and living alone, the widower died without someone, anyone looking out for him, his dying pleas for help, his final words unheard, no medic, nurse or loved one to comfort him as he died in pain. Some consider solitary confinement a harsh treatment; what more brutal death than one whom dies alone? A nation he had valiantly saved failed him. A neighbor discovered his body too late.

I'm not placated by politicians paying lip service to the tragedy or utility companies promising to review their procedures. How would you feel if your own grandfather,  father or uncle had died this way? Is his life any less worthy because he had no survivors? This man was not a deadbeat, not looking for a handout; he died with honor, wanting to pay his bills. If the utility company had just gone the extra step, if the neighbors had checked on him just a little sooner... 

We are America. We are better than this. We need to accept personal responsibility. We need to go the extra mile. We need to look out for each other, just as our valiant soldier-warriors do. We need to rediscover respect for our elders, whom have sacrificed much to prepare our way; we must not forget, as Sir Isaac Newton noted, we have stood on the shoulder of giants. We must be patient and listen for wisdom, or we will repeat the mistakes of the past anew.

Mr. Schur, I never knew you, but the world is a better place because of you and your fellow soldiers. I wish in the end your community had done right by you. I pray that your death has not been in vain, that our business, political and community leaders will learn from your tragedy, that no one will ever again have to go through what you went through. God bless you, and may you rest in peace.

Welcome to new RNC Chair, Michael Steele!

I am so stoked! The Republican Party just named Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland and the 2006 GOP US Senate nominee (whom ran a respectable race against Congressman Cardin in a blue state and in a big Democratic change election year; I particularly liked the tongue-in-cheek campaign ads with his teenage sons). Michael, a one-time Catholic seminarian whom seriously considered the priesthood, is remarkably articulate.

Most people in this age of Obama will probably notice the fact that Michael Steele is African-American, but not the son of an African immigrant. Steele is the son of an abusive alcoholic father, whom passed away early in his son's life, and a sharecropper's daughter, whom on multiple occasions was pulled out of class in South Carolina to work the tobacco fields and as a single mother moved to DC and supported her family on minimum wage for decades as a laundress. Anyone thinking that Michael Steele needs to be lectured on what it's like growing up in a family struggling to make ends meet is sadly mistaken. He knows firsthand and through his parents' experiences and racial heritage the brutal and subtle prejudices people of color have experienced and continue to experience.

In 2006, Michael Steele was stuck having to answer for things beyond his control, an increasingly unpopular Bush administration which incompetently botched Hurricane Katrina and seemed mired and clueless in the Iraq occupation. As RNC head, Michael Steele is going to focus on what went wrong after the breakthrough 1994 election: upon gaining power, instead of holding down spending and new entitlement initiatives, the GOP members became complacent and corrupted with power. I trust Michael Steele to be a constructive adversary to President Obama, to work hard at expanding the party's reach and insisting on a respectful tolerance of differing opinions; lawmakers should abide by a higher standard of conduct, and the party should focus on its roots, in particular, limited but effective government, individual responsibility and traditional values.

Final Score: Illinois Won, Blagojevich Total Zero

After two impeachments (to resolve any issues by impeachment under the old house and trial under the new senate), Blagojevich was unanimously removed from office and permanently barred from seeking elective office again from Illinois. His sole vote was cast by his sister-in-law, the first openly lesbian member of the Illinois House. Of course, being the first governor removed from office in about 20 years is probably the least of his worries, with the upcoming federal trial.

It has been an interesting note in a career curiously linked to Dan Rostenkowski, the once powerful chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, charged and and later convicted of mail fraud. An unlikely Republican, Michael Flanagan, beat Rostenkowski in 1994. Rod Blagojevich won the seat back next election in the heavily Democratic district. Son-in-law to a powerful Chicago alderman, Blagojevich set his sights on the governor's chair, which had been held continuously by the GOP since the early 70's. Blagojevich won his party's gubernatorial nod in 2002, when Republicans were soundly thrashed in the aftermath of the George Ryan license for bribes scandal, with his ambitious sights set on the White House.

No doubt that Blagojevich was dismayed at the turn of events that led to an obscure state senator propel himself to the White House with almost no federal or administrative experience. But in the meanwhile he was playing hardball politics, aggressively pursuing campaign funds with no ostensive goal besides clinging to power.

As Bill O'Reilly noted, Rod Blagojevich got treated over the past week more kindly on shows like The View  than John McCain, an American hero. The double standards of the liberal mass media are not exactly newsworthy. I have to admit that Blagojevich has certainly been a colorful character and one never knew what he was going to do or say next. But the people of Illinois deserve better. Illinois tonight has a new governor, Pat Quinn. I wish the new governor the best; hopefully now the Illinois legislature can focus on tough issues like resolving budget problems and fixing the pension system.

Illinois Presents: The Obama and Blago Follies

Obama's Push of Geithner

The Senate confirmed Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary 60-34. I have discussed Geithner in prior posts; I believe that he is qualified, but there is a basic issue of integrity. For 4 years he went without paying self-employment taxes (social security/Medicare) on his earnings at the IMF. The IMF made him sign a statement on his employment that it was his responsibility to pay for self-employment taxes and partially reimbursed him for the amount (money Geithner kept for himself). Geithner claims that he basically didn't read what he signed, he had used a popular PC tax preparation product (Intuit's TurboTax) which failed to alert him of the fact he hadn't paid self-employment tax, an accountant he hired during 2003 and 2004 also failed to catch it, and he's not the only one to forget to pay self-employment taxes under similar circumstances. OH, PLEASE! I taught classes at the university level for 8 years, and I've heard all sorts of student excuses.  But saying on one hand he accepts responsibility for his error (personally, I think what he's mostly sorry about is the fact that the IRS caught up with him), and then coming out with a list of pathetic excuses is disingenuous. 

What bothers me about President Obama's involvement in the process is his failure to ensure proper vetting of his own cabinet, a point all the more glaring the way the Democrats went after John McCain for an alleged failure to properly vet Sarah Palin last summer. What part of knowing that Geithner's responsibilities includes oversight over the IRS and the fact that the IRS dinged Geithner on his 2003-2004 taxes failed to register with the transition team?

In addition, there were these dubious arguments by the White House, saying any delay in Geithner's confirmation would put the nation's economy that much more at risk and Geithner was uniquely qualified and impossible to replace. There are other people with Federal Reserve or IMF experience, not to mention state treasurers, corporate turnaround specialists, investment banking executives, federal budget directors, etc.  The White House is saying that Geithner is more equal than others and not  subject to the same scrutiny as other cabinet nominees as per our Constitution? Given the sheer policy chaos and swerves in the post managing the TARP funds by Paulson, perhaps a rush to judgment is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid. Isn't it more important that we get the right person in than have to replace an unsuitable candidate down the line?

Obama on Letting States Deploy Tougher Emissions Standards

Isn't it ironic that weeks after pushing for the American automakers from filing for bankruptcy, Obama is going to let states (i.e., California) deploy tougher emissions standards, unfavorable to current domestic automaker product mixes. (Hmmm. Let's see if Obama is more philosophically consistent with his newfound appreciation for states' rights and will let states deploy weaker standards as well.) This is not to say I'm not sympathetic to the fact that the percentage of gas-thirsty trucks being sold rising during a recession-based dip in gasoline prices rising to an almost 50% mix is indicative of short-sighted consumers. 

This is just part of Barack Obama's environmental initiative, which is counterproductive in so many ways, in particular the economy. Let me be specific; Obama is pursuing an energy policy openly dismissive of our most cost-effective energy sources (carbon-based), PRECISELY AT THE TIME THAT THE GLOBAL RECESSION HAS CUT ENERGY DEMAND (including fossil fuels). Who do you think does better in the current environment--the Middle East oil producers, whose marginal cost of producing a barrel of oil is probably under $1, or those sources requiring significant technological processes, such as oil sands? This is precisely the time to push for our domestic producion, not when oil returns, as it almost certainly will, in the years ahead back over $100/barrel. 

The Wall Street Journal on  January 24 wrote an interesting editorial called "Blowhards", which takes an amused look at the fight between environmentalists and green power proponents on the Cape Wind project, where Massachusetts liberals oppose wind turbines in federal waters spoiling their scenic view off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. The amusement comes from the liberals suddenly discovering that boutique energy solutions are very expensive. One economic estimate is that the federal government spents over $23 a megawatt hour in benefits for wind power versus less than 50 cents for coal; nearly two-thirds of what wind power producers spend comes from the government. Why, in an environment where we have bloated deficits that our descendants one day must pay off, is Barack Obama throwing money at environmental issues which have been mitigated by the recession? He can speak of growing green jobs, but the federal government should not be taking on green business risk, particularly during a recession.

There is a lot to be said about doing something on environmental problems before we have even worse ones, and certain projects, e.g., solar-paneling of government buildings, which have reasonable payback periods with current technology, make sense. But one must have realistic expectations; it's going to take years to convert millions of gas-powered cars that run on alternative fuel or power, and each day we don't work towards improving domestic production, our declining domestic sources must be balanced out by expensive energy imports. I know Obama desperately hopes that alternative energy sources will not only make up the difference of declining domestic energy production but grow in relative terms; he's in a state of denial, and we can't afford to put off accelerating our own domestic production. Foreign oil is still cheaper than subsidizing green energy, and Obama does not have a clue about what happens if and when foreigners stop buying American debt. HINT: Inflation and triggering or extending recessionary job losses.

Blagojevich's Bizarre Tour

It is bizarre while the Illinois state senate is holding impeachment hearings to see Blago on his publicity tour, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he has almost no chance of surviving a vote, even in a Democratic-controlling senate. He is politically radioactive, and no senator wants to face reelection having to explain how he or she supported sustaining a former governor, whom by then may be in the process of being prosecuted, if not convicted. Right now the senators have to put forth an impartial face, but it's difficult to see how he gets more than at most a handful of votes. Even Blago seems to anticipate conviction, claiming it's not fair, while he goes on a public relations tour vs. being at the trial itself. His pattern of pretentious quotes and bizarre behavior and talk (e.g., that Oprah Winfrey was seriously considered as a possible replacement for Obama's former seat) seems indicative of some sort of mental illness. Even President Nixon, who was reelected by one of the largest landslides in American history, could read the writing on the wall.

The Obama Presidency: Week 1

Redoing the Oath of Office

I still remember my first public speaking occasion, my high school valedictory. I knew every word (although I brought a typed copy with me) and basically delivered the speech from memory. About three-quarters of the way through the speech, my mind suddenly went blank. After several awkward seconds of silence (which seemed to be an eternity) and trying to search through my hardcopy under dim lighting, I suddenly remembered and delivered the remainder of the speech. I got a fair share of teasing from my family after the graduation, but the fact is I was my own harshest critic. The biggest thing I remember about that occasion is that this man I didn't know recognized me, rushed up to me and pumped my hand vigorously, telling me what a wonderful speech I just gave; God bless small acts of kindness.

The news media has focused on Chief Justice John Roberts flubbing the initial part of the Presidential oath of office; I am not going to excuse the fact that he initially stumbled on the oath, in particular getting the term "faithfully" out of sequence. (To be fair to Roberts, the flub occurred after Obama prematurely interrupted Roberts leading the oath.) Roberts initially recited the word "faithfully" (which should be "I will faithfully execute") at the end of the clause. Obama starts and stops "I will execute..." and seems to realize something is wrong. Roberts realizes the mistake and helpfully prompts "faithfully" (actually, the word order required Obama not simply to pick up after "execute" but to correct himself, repeating "faithfully execute...") But Obama, curiously enough, disregards Roberts' interjection and goes on to repeat Roberts' original mistaken phrasing.

No doubt the liberals are making much ado over Roberts' mistake leading the oath, but you have to wonder how a trained lawyer like Obama, whom spent 2 years pursuing the office of President and should have memorized the oath, not only prematurely started the oath, which probably threw off Roberts,  but should have intentionally repeated Roberts' original flubbed phrasing rather than request a do-over, then and there.

Now of course, only a group of lawyers (and possibly some English teachers) would get worked up over the repositioning of the word "faithfully" in the Presidential Oath. It's as if the oath was some sort of an incantation, and if the words are not spoken just so, the magic turning Barack Obama from just another senator into a President won't work. 

If there's one thing Obama understands, it's symbolism. So Cinderfella, afraid that the Presidential spell might wear off and turn him back into an empty suit senator by the stroke of midnight, decided that he needed a do-over. Of course, not in front of the nation that elected him, but in private; it's part of his nuanced transparency in government policy.

Freezing Pay Raises for Salaries Over $100K

Now whereas the Dems are speaking of spending trillions, as if resurrecting Palin's infamous Bridge to Nowhere project would revitalize that state's economy, President Obama wants the nation to know he's worried about the taxpayer buck by holding down raises for those salaried workers making over $100K. 

A number of points to make. First, apparently Obama has continued to lower the bar as McCain noted during the general election campaign of just what Obama considers "rich". Second, Obama seems to be sending a rather curious message regarding just what constitutes "shared sacrifice". His concept of sacrifice seems to be giving tax cuts (rebates) to people whom pay no income tax while increasing the tax burden on those whom already pay a disproportionate share of the nation's taxes, create or invest in businesses and jobs and purchase bonds at all levels of government. Third, Obama continues to hype rather misleading statistics regarding a growing gap between the have's and the have not's, a traditional class warfare argument. It is fairly easy to take cheap shots at executive salaries, when those executives make hard decisions that can make or break a company and are responsible for making payroll for thousands of employees. After all, they sometimes make almost as much as Tiger Woods or some basketball players. Tiger Woods, of course, has a payroll to meet--his caddy. 

This is not meant to be an attack on Tiger Woods. He draws paying crowds and the higher television audience advertisers crave, and he deserves the $30M or so a year he commands. But Dems target CEO's because the politics of envy is seductive and some CEO compensation packages are difficult to defend on any objective ground of performance. 

I seriously doubt that the amount of money saved by freezing higher-income government professionals and managers is going to make a dent in the government payroll. What about the federal government emulating what state and local governments having to meet a balanced budget have to do? Where is its sense of sacrifice? What about Obama doing what a CEO has to do under tough times--lay off workers, put projects on a freeze, eliminate redundancy, consolidate operations, etc.? 

It is fairly simplistic to believe that worthiness of a pay raise depends simply on his or her relative salary, not performance. Obama is not setting a good example. It is well-known that some managers and professionals in government make far less than their counterparts in industry. A lot of these workers have college kids to support, higher bills to pay. How does it help knowing however well you do your job and how much money you save the government in your good faith efforts, Obama is going to deny you a cost-of-living raise simply on ideological grounds, writing his check on your back?

Will this promote an exodus of the best and brightest from government? I don't know. What I'm sure is that Obama is trying to model a politics of envy in the public sector as an example to the private sector. Personally I think some of these corporate pay packages are undeserved, and I believe it's very bad form to be giving yourself lucrative bonuses at the same time you're laying off workers and cutting other expenses to the bone. But so long as they are paying top bracket federal taxes on those packages, I don't think it's any of Obama's business to micromanage the private sector.

Gitmo and Suspension of Military Trials

Announcing the target closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year seems to be yet another primarily symbolic act that seems to create more substantive problems (namely, the "not-in-my-backyard" syndrome of American communities not eager to be terrorist targets) than it solves (i.e., Obama's attempt to distance himself from the more controversial past of the facility). Rather than reforming the existing facility or military trial system, Obama decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater, all for the purpose of placating his leftist allies. He should have addressed the tough questions first (what to do with the prisoners and/or the trials) before addressing his surface-level goals. I'm not interested in the Dems trying to treat terrorists as nothing more than domestic criminals, complete with citizen rights, in our legal system. I'm particularly disturbed by the news reports of released Gitmo prisoners showing up on the battlefield against Americans or in the Al Qaeda leadership. What I do empathize with is releasing those prisoners whom have been arrested on the basis of mistaken identity, and I do believe that, at minimum, there should be a high-level summary of why a detainee has been arrested (without compromising intelligence sources). 

Torture Policy

Obama basically slandered Bush Administration policies on interrogation methods, and I have to rebuke John McCain for giving the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism elbow room on this issue, particularly on the topic of waterboarding. First of all, there is no Geneva Convention between civilized nations and stateless terrorists. These terrorists notoriously attack soft targets (e.g., innocent civilians) as what happened on 9/11. There may be a time-critical element in interrogating certain high-level terrorists (e.g., Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), and there is some evidence that  advance information yielded from terrorists in the know have been proven useful in preempting soft target attacks.

I've already heard all of the rationalizations against enhanced communication methods--e.g., you don't get usable information, that prisoners only tell you what they think you want to hear, whatever it takes to stop the uncomfortable interrogation, etc. I suspect this may be true if you apply these techniques to detainees whom never had access to upcoming operations or critical contacts; there is no evidence that these techniques were systematically applied, regardless of the status of the detainee, and the US does not authorize the use of advanced techniques for sadistic purposes (unlike, say, the techniques used against McCain and his fellow POW's or what Saddam Hussein authorized in Iraq's prisons). I also doubt that these techniques would be used, knowing they would be ineffective. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the US has obtained usable information via a variety of interrogation methods that terrorists did not voluntarily yield on their own initiative.

Bob Schieffer, in his Sunday Face the Nation commentary this morning, gave a shallow, surface-level analysis fully buying into the Obama/leftist smear against the Bush administration, implying the US had a policy sanctioning the use of sadistic torture, morally indistinguishable from those used by sadistic regimes, and Obama's surface-level ban on so-called torture is a first step towards rehabilitating the international reputation of America in the civilized world. Let me make myself perfectly clear: America has no need for someone to rescue her reputation. If Mr. Schieffer and President Obama believe that the good opinion of condescending European socialists is more important than preventing the reoccurrence of a 9/11-style event, I suggest that they move to Europe so they can brownnose the self-superior elitists in person and leave the defense of America to true patriots.

My understanding is that enhanced interrogation techniques are used on an as-needed basis. There is a qualitative difference between stateless terrorists and foot soldiers from countries with an economy and territory to defend. Less than two dozen terrorists killed nearly 3000 Americans and others; what is the response? Blowing up a cave in Afghanistan? I think we need to use every tool in our arsenal, including new, improved methods of interrogation and intelligence, to get usable, reliable information. We need flexibility, not a government or international bureaucracy stonewalling innovation in obtaining intelligence while there is still time on act on it. We already know that new technology sometimes outstrips the ability of our laws to cope, and our adversaries can exploit them without some moralizing bureaucracy vetoing them. Tell me, what due process was afforded to nearly 3000 victims of 9/11? 

Let us give the Bush administration justifiable credit for keeping America safe after 9/11. There's no way Obama can improve on that record. Obama, if he is intelligent, should build on what has worked from the Bush administration, not reinvent the wheel; as Isaac Newton noted, he has stood on the shoulder of giants. 

GOP: Beware of the Trojan Horse Stimulus Package

The Congressional Republicans should know that the Democrats will continue to try to continue to expand entitlements the way that they tried to do with SCHPS last term, which was to increase the cutoff for federal funding of child healthcare several times the poverty level and significantly over the median household income level. In particular, look with skepticism on bogus "temporary" expansions and upward tax bracket creep for government program eligibility, such as healthcare plans for those receiving unemployment. Does anyone want to bet whether there will be a followup efforts to allow those workers to retain their government-provided health care and to make the benefit permanent?

At a time that Obama should be providing leadership, encouraging consumers to spend reponsibly and for businesses and investors to plow money back into the economy (e.g., by slashing investment and business taxes), Obama is playing the irresponsible role of Chicken Little, claiming "The economy is falling! The economy is falling!", all to drive up the pricetag of a massive federal government boondoggle and expansion of federal social spending. Never the mind of picking the pockets of our nation's grandchildren to give those 40% of American workers whom pay no income taxes "tax cuts", because they have sacrificed just what exactly?

CBO Director Orszag's analysis this past week shows that only about $26B of the $358B in the infrastructure proposal will be spent by the end of the fiscal year (the government fiscal year ends at the end of September). I have already argued in past posts that the 2008 stimulus package resulted in most people saving, not spending their checks, and recall a longstanding macroeconomic observation that it takes several months after federal stimuli are introduced before we see a "big-picture" effect. 

Harvard economist Robert Barro wrote an interesting column in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal, calling the multiplier argument Dems are advancing to justify their massive infrastructure boondoggle a new version of "voodoo economics". I won't regurgitate his article here; he does have an interesting reductio ad absurdem argument, saying in effect if the Democrats' argument was legitimate, it could be used to justify things like the government hiring workers to perform meaningless tasks, like digging holes and filling them up again (or socialist regimes producing steel, regardless of whether there were customers ready to buy the steel). [He disproves the general multiplier hypothesis of government spending, using the massive US defense spending during WWII.]  But there is no such thing as a free lunch, and it's extremely unlikely that government bureaucrats are more competent at assessing, utilizing and timing the consumer, labor and capital markets than those in the private sector, whom base their decisions on intrinsic factors, not political approval ratings. Barro concludes by noting the Obamaians are principally relying on classic Keynesian theory, and much has changed in economics since 1936. He feels that on the supply side we can focus on things like revising business and investment taxes and on the spending side, funding only those public infrastructure projects which meet rigorous cost-benefit criteria (amen!)

On a more promising front, Obama has given up on his nonsensical proposal to bribe employers with tax credits to hire new workers or to stave off layoffs. Employers respond to growth opportunities, not to tax gimmicks. Globally competitive business and investment tax rates would go further in spurring domestic economic growth, just like the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts in the mid-60's.

GOP: Beware of Obama/Pelosi "Good Cop-Bad Cop" Tactics

It seems that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is so intent on increasing tax rates on the job creator tax brackets, she can't wait until the end of 2010 for the Bush cuts to expire. Never mind that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. have overestimated the tax revenues accruing from the tax hike, and they have already spent them multiple times over.

Obama, of course, has not changed his core political principle, which is, as Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher so ingeniously exposed during last fall's campaign, "to spread the wealth around".  It could be a reluctance on Obama's part to engage in a high-profile politically divisive battle with the GOP early in his first term or some intuitive recognition that tax increases, regardless of the target, in the middle of a severe recession could be counterproductive. But you need to pay attention to what Obama does, not what he says. 

What the GOP needs to anticipate is that Obama intends to coopt them by seductively luring them into, on the surface, bipartisan proposals. That makes it harder for the GOP to run against the Dems in the 2010 and subsequent elections. (On the other hand, if the GOP refuses to deal, they could be blamed as obstructivist. The GOP needs to forge an alliance with the Blue Dogs against the House liberal leadership.)

Second, Speaker Pelosi comes from a safe liberal district and can afford to take a hard line, whereas Obama is all too aware that much of his support from moderates and independents was based on a hope that he would bridge political gridlock in Washington. So expect that Pelosi will play bad cop, driving a hard bargain to carry out Obama's de facto liberal agenda while Obama appears above the fray.

Finally, the GOP must realize that Obama and the Dems are going to "Hooverize" George W. Bush and play for time, realizing that most recessions are short-lived. The GOP must focus like a laser beam on the fact that this is a center-right nation, taking a constructive tone in dealing with the clueless liberal leadership and offering substantive alternatives to liberal tax-and-spend policies.

On a Brighter Note

The drone attacks on terrorist targets across the Afghan/Pakistani border served notice that President Obama is not a paper tiger in dealing with hostile forces. However, the key things to look for is how Obama will react when casualties rise in the Afghan theater of action and the anti-war activists sense a betrayal; also, let us hope that Obama does not emulate Clinton's pattern of inconsistent responses and an overreliance on launching cruise missiles and USAF bombing runs.

An Open Letter to British "Bishop" Richard Williamson

Pope Benedict XVI recently restored excommunicated conservative French Archbishop Lefebvre and his illegally ordained bishops, one being Richard Williamson. Lefebvre never accepted the legitimacy of the Vatican II liturgical reforms (among other things). As an American who believes in liturgical diversity and one whom found great meaning and beauty in the traditional Latin Mass, Gregorian chants and the like (and resented paternalistic bishops shoving an aesthically inferior liturgy down my throat with no voice in the matter or choice), I was somewhat empathetic to Lefebvre. Pope Benedict has signaled a more tolerant attitude towards traditional expressions of worship and in the name of Christian unity welcomed the four men back into the bosom of the Church.

However, Mr. Williamson saw fit several weeks back in a taped interview recently played on Swedish television to identify his sympathy with the viewpoint of revisionist historians, whom deny the existence of gas chambers, the numbers of Jews murdered during the Holocaust, and whether the Nazi regime had established policies identifying, arresting and murdering Jews and other persecuted groups.

Before going further, let me make a couple of comments regarding the reactions to Mr. Williamson and his fellow revisionists. As an American who believes in freedom of thought, in particular, disagreeable positions, however ignorant or erroneous they may be, I don't particularly care for the policies of other countries like Germany and Canada criminalizing politically incorrect points of view. Second, to hypersensitive Jews who don't like Christians praying for their conversion or seem to think they have the right to judge and dictate the terms for ecumenical efforts, they are entitled to their point of view, but I would remind them that most of mankind would find their claim to be God's Chosen People rather presumptuous and arrogant. Pope Benedict, as a German, has attested to the reality of the Holocaust several times during his career and can't be held personally responsible for the ignorant rant of some self-important cleric.

Now, as for you, "Bishop" Williamson. May God have forgiveness on your soul, because I find it hard to forgive you. You cannot blame your ignorance on your parents and your upbringing; you clearly have a mind, free will, and know the difference between right and wrong. You knew your words would add to the already unbearable pain, burden and memories of survivors and descendants. How can you do this to our brothers and sisters whose ancestors Jesus Himself loved so much, taught and served? How can you so dishonor the memory of the Lord, Whom Himself forgave all and taught us to love our brothers and sisters?

There is no greater slander to the memory of those whom were murdered than to deny the fact of their suffering and sacrifice. These things happened before I was born; I am haunted by the knowledge that whatever was done to protect the innocent was not enough. One should never lose his possessions, his family, his very life for the act of praying to God in a most beautiful way, of honoring and worshipping Him with wondrous prayers and songs that echo through the centuries, in many cases known and spoken by our Lord.

Even one victim of hateful rhetoric is one too many, and it is a horrible thing knowing that many claiming to be a follower of Christ through the centuries have persecuted the children of the people He so loved. I will not abide by your disingenuous attempts to sanitize the memories of war criminals, whom knowingly did or aided and abetted unspeakable things to elders, wives and children, despite having elders, wives and children of their own. They did a ghastly thing, and history has convicted them. My tears are for the children whom died before they could blossom, for the parents whom died a harder death, knowing at the end they were unable to save their children; I have no tears left for the perpetrators or those whom defend the indefensible.

Mr. Williamson, you may say that there is no wall, but the wall stands fast, despite your denial. I call on you to publicly repent, to beg forgiveness from those whom you have dishonorably denied, and to implore God for His forgiveness of your sin against His children. God heard the prayers of millions of dying people whom had done no wrong, and He will be just.

Welcome to President Barack Hussein Obama

A Historic, Political Milestone

I have a strong aversion to politically correct first's. But if you study the history of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States and Canada, you will learn that in addition to black Americans, the Klan targeted other people as well. My bilingual parents were part of the Franco-American community in the Fall River, MA area, and their grandparents immigrated from French Canada. To provide more context, I quote here from Charleen Touchette:

In 1892, we French Canadians were considered such a threat to the character of Protestant New England that a June 6th New York Times editorial...accused us of migrating to the United States as part of a "priestly scheme now fervently fostered in Canada for the purpose of bringing New England under the control of the Roman Catholic faith."

My people were described as vermin invading New England. Racists called us "dumb frogs" and the "Niggers of the North" or the "White Niggers of America". In 1881, a United States Government Report by the Bureau of Statistics of Labor dubbed us the "Chinese of the East".

Bigots lobbied to institute a nationwide English only law in the 1920s to prevent our families from sustaining the three tenets of French Canadian culture, "Foi, Langue, et Famille"...

Who will remember to tell how the KKK Night Riders blazed through New England towns heavily promoting anti-Franco propaganda and burning a cross or two on the Canucks' farms, front lawns and the streets amid the tenements of Little Canada?

Charlotte movingly writes about how the Anglophones have largely succeeded in crushing Franco-American culture. As the first-born, I was the only sibling to be brought up speaking French. [I ran into initial issues attending an English-only kindergarten, and my folks overreacted by permanently refusing to speak French in front of their children.] My mom told me how the Anglophonic classmates in her parochial school used to mock her French accented English. 

[One of my favorite stories about my mom is from the brief period we lived in France while my dad (in the USAF) was stationed there, and because of limited housing on base, we had to live in a small nearby French town, Mars-la-Tour. This French woman was trying to guess where in France my mom had been raised based on her French accent (I think she guessed Paris). My mom insisted she is American, which the French woman immediately disputed, claiming that "Americans don't know how to speak French!"]

The interesting thing is that whereas the 3 Guillemette brothers have always been fascinated by our Franco heritage, perhaps triggered by the 1970's iconic series Roots [in fact, I was required while at OLLU to attend a campus lecture being given by a then unknown author named Alex Haley, whom described his journey to the Eureka moment of hearing the name "Kunte Kinte" from an African oral historian], my mom and maternal uncle, a priest who did not want to be typecast and assigned to saying masses in French to dwindling numbers of elderly parishioners, have distanced themselves from their heritage, preferring to identify with the dominant culture. My mom still forwards to me on a regular basis emails promoting English-only legislation by conservatives such as Newt Gingrich. I personally treasure cultural and linguistic diversity, a defining characteristic of American liberty and our national heritage, and I heartily welcome law-abiding visitors, guest workers and immigrants from other countries. I do not want to be associated with any thinly-veiled majoritarian agenda serving the interests of paranoid Anglophones.

I recall the pride I felt as a young Catholic boy, having the first (and only) Catholic President as a role model. I can only imagine how a parent of color tonight feels, telling his or her children that the boyhood dream of Barack Obama to be President was not just words, an idle promise for any person of color, but today became reality, and that for them, too, all things are really possible. Two generations ago, a man of the cloth, one whom had a dream and preached nonviolence, was violently killed. But violence cannot silence ideas, cannot kill a dream. Today his dream came true.

To quote my favorite Linda Ronstadt song:

Dreams to dream in the dark of the night 

When the world goes wrong, I can still make it right 

I can see so far in my dreams 

I'll follow my dreams 

Until they come true.

My interpretation of today's event is somewhat different than those whom focus on Obama's race. I saw the first-born son of a Kenyan immigrant and his wife, a white woman, take the oath of office today. To me, this is the quintessential American story.

Mr. President, you and I differ on a number of issues, and I'll leave those for another day. Today I acknowledge the mandate that my fellow Americans have given you, I respect your ability to inspire them, and I honor the civility of your tone and your words. God bless you and your family in the years ahead, and God bless our country, which we both love passionately.

Miscellany: 1/19/09

The Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean Commutations

These former Border Patrol agents have been a cause celebre for media conservatives;  they were convicted of assault (shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler) and lied to their supervisors. They were convicted and sentenced to mandatory terms of over 10 years. President Bush, in one of the last acts of his Presidency, essentially commuted the sentences while retaining the convictions. I believe that the original sentences were disproportionate, and I believe that the President's position, not to pardon but to limit the sentence to the 2.5 years or so served, is a reasonable, compassionate response. The media conservatives wanted nothing short of a full pardon, but you cannot give any law enforcement officer a blank check not to follow procedure and to obstruct justice, even when the target, an alleged drug smuggler, is in this country illegally.

Geithner's Troubling Problems

The New York Fed Reserve President and Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner has run into a problem for failure to pay payroll/self-employment taxes while working for the IMF from 2001-2004 and for hiring a housekeeper whose work authorization was expired. What's particularly troubling is the fact that even after the IRS dinged him for failing to pay for 2003-2004  in 2006, it wasn't until after he was nominated over the last few weeks that he did the same for 2001-2002. A nominee for a position with authority over the IRS who didn't realize his paycheck did not show deductions for social security and Medicare taxes? And after the IRS catches him for his last 2 years of work for the IMF, he doesn't do the right thing and voluntarily pay up his first 2 years then and there?

Maybe it's because I view my annual social security statement, check my paystubs, have occasionally worked on an independent basis and had to pay estimated taxes,  and have to consider the amount of payroll taxes paid in the preparation of my own tax returns, but I'm expecting a guy to run Treasury (and the financial bailout) whom can't even handle his own taxes?

On the whole, I believe that his professional experience with the IMF and the Fed makes him a strong choice, but I have to question the lame excuses and Geithner's personal ethics and judgment. I can understand if some Republican senators protest-vote against him.

Unseemly Inauguration Expenses?

Whereas I understand the historical significance of the swearing-in of the nation's first black President, the fact that the Obama inauguration will cost up to $150M, even if financed by donations, seems uncharacteristically out of touch with the most significant recession in decades. This is all the worse because of the fact that Obama, if anything, understands the power of symbolism. But even President Bush has resorted to gimmicks to free up DC money to service the inaugural, calling a state of "emergency".  I understand that the Dems have waited 8 years to regain the White House and want an inauguration commensurate with their political victory, but try explaining it to the average joe on the streets whose grandkids' pockets are being picked to throw the domestic auto industry an undeserved lifeline and who is worried whether his job or neighborhood bank are going to be there next week. One would be remiss in not pointing out the double standard of Democrats whom had criticized Bush for his own inaugurals (which were less expensive). For shame!

Blog Name Change

I decided to retitle my blog (which had been titled "American Conservative Fusion") because I thought others might confuse it with Frank Meyer's fusionist conservatism; my own use of the term 'fusion' was coincidental and unintentional. Fusionist conservativism is a modern melding of traditionalist ends and libertarian means and found its culmination in the Reagan Presidency.

My own synthesis of conservatism will be explicated in future posts, but I'll give some hints. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I do accept the concept of legally-privileged civil unions. Whereas I consider myself as more a pro-business conservative, I do not agree with the mercantilism of paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan. If you read my farewell post to President Bush, you know that I'm extremely critical of the explosion of government spending and the nature and extent of Bush's economic intervention in the aftermath of the financial tsunami. 

Whereas I did support the surge strategy in Iraq (which I regarded as a moral imperative given the fact of our occupation), I am not an isolationist, and I am willing to trust that the President made a good faith decision based on information I did not have available, I am more of a skeptic than neo-conservatives when it comes to the use of military force and foreign entanglements. I am also concerned about a disproportionate emphasis of our national defense efforts on two non-nuclear countries in the Middle East, while Russia and China seem to be upgrading their military and we have intelligence warnings that our southern neighbor, Mexico, is becoming politically unstable. In short, we need to be a lot smarter about setting our priorities internationally.

Farewell to President George W. Bush

Bush made a number of points in last Thursday's televised farewell address to the nation: 

• the singular defining moment of his Presidency: 9/11 and his success in keeping the nation free from a reoccurrence of the terrorist attacks during the remainder of his 2 terms
• the peaceful transition of power, a distinctive characteristic of American democracy, to the nation's first black President, a remarkable accomplishment given America's problematic past with slavery and civil rights struggles
• his domestic policy accomplishments, in particular, No Child Left Behind and Medicare drug prescription benefit
• his successful judicial nominations, especially Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito
• his efforts to support the growth of democracy, notably the deposition of rogue governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and their replacement with a Middle East model of democracy

Bush also recognized that he had made some unpopular decisions (implying the increasingly unpopular Iraq occupation and his 2007 surge decision) but asked for the understanding he had acted in good faith in making hard choices he felt to be in the interests of the United States.

In yesterday's farewell radio broadcast, Bush started by thanking the American people for his opportunity to serve as President. He does warn, however, against a sense of complacency given no attacks over the past 7 years since the horrific events of 9/11.

Analysis

First of all, I think Bush is too modest to say this himself, but after Bill Clinton's narcissistic behavior and  immoral, illegal abuse of power in violating and covering up serial sexual harassment incidents (even those involving mutual consent, such as Monica Lewinsky), the country was eager for a President to restore honor and dignity to the Executive Office. Above all, Bush occupied the office honorably with due reverence, dignity, and respect, truly his father's son. 

What makes this all the more remarkable was his very difficult start, starting with Gore's unprecedented attempt to overturn the 2000 Florida vote results and thus the election itself by violating the due protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision. (Subsequent independent media recounts under the Freedom of Information Act verified the Florida machine recount confirmation of Bush's victory.) In addition, the Senate Democrats further roiled the partisan atmosphere by flipping then Republican Senator Jim Jeffords to their caucus, which in turn flipped control of the Senate back to the Democrats. President Bush had run in part on his bipartisan success with the Texas legislature, hoping to emulate the same in Washington; I don't think that Bush ever really had a shot, in part, because there's a world of difference between Austin and Washington D.C. 

 

My analysis wants to go beyond the common talking points and stress certain nuances:

• Bush wasn't a Democrat. In listing this as a positive point, I am not engaging in mere partisan rhetoric but more of a conservative perspective. I think Bush and the Republicans had to fight to implement the Petraeus surge strategy in 2007 over the dead weight of the Democrats, whom could cynically exploit for political purposes the unpopularity of our Iraq occupation without having to be held responsible for the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal, in particular the high probability of a regional war. Would the Democrats have been more constructive if they had been in the White House instead? I'm sure that the memories of Chicago in 1968 haven't gone away. But I want to go beyond that in revisiting the fact that the Democrats had lobbied for pressure on lenders to open up the promise of homeownership for lower-income people without savings for a conventional down payment; the result was a housing bubble, and the inevitable bursting of the bubble resulted in the current down cycle.  I think inaction on taxes following the 2000-2002 Nasdaq crash (including a tax cut for the job creator class), large energy tax hikes (e.g., carbon-based) and ideological rejections of nuclear power plants and our own oil and gas development efforts, reopening the health insurance debate for another attempt of a government takeover, aggressive government program expansion, and even more micromanagement of the economy (rules, regulations, taxes)  just as our private sector is girding itself against tough global competition would have resulted in a much bleaker economic picture than we're facing today.
• Bush has enjoyed certain key successes on international/ trade efforts. There was a quantum leap forward in aid to Africa, especially in terms of medicines for HIV and other infections/diseases, which has made a real impact on the lives of Africans. Libya renounced its nuclear arms program. Bush worked with other nations in isolating North Korea and Iran over their pursuit or production of nuclear weapon technology. Bush also negotiated to open up new markets for American goods and services (including treaties awaiting Congressional approval with South Korea and Colombia).
• Bush did not exercise the veto or the bully pulpit. Bush never jawboned the Republican-controlled Congress (2003-2006) into holding down spending (at least beyond measures such as SCHIP); in addition, he never really honestly confront the costs associated with the liberation of Iraq and its aftermath or, for that matter, the spending associated with a new entitlement he himself pushed through, the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
• Bush did not take full advantage of a GOP-controlled Congress. There were a number of missed opportunities, including more comprehensive border security in the aftermath of 9/11, streamlining and instituting best practices in government operations, an earlier end to a moratorium on offshore drilling (instead of a reactive response, when oil prices reached $140/barrel), more globally competitive business tax brackets, expeding approvals on nuclear power plants, breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had become a de facto duopoly with an unfair business advantage over the private sector, and easing the costly small business burden associated onerous government rules, regulations, and reporting requirements (in particular, Sarbanes-Oxley).
• Bush was not fully engaged with Congress, in particular the Republicans. It's very difficult to understand, in particular, on two key issues, immigration in 2007 and the financial bailout in 2008, how Bush did not anticipate resistance from his own party (the Senate Republicans on the first issue, the House Republicans on the second). In addition, Bush started off in 2005 tackling social security with a limited mandate; when one tackles a sacred cow like social security, you need a mutual buy-in, such as what Reagan did in his first term with the Democrats. I think that early in a term, a President needs to build up his credibility to deliver before tackling politically risky issues like entitlement reform. I do philosophically sympathize with the concept of allowing taxpayers more control over their own contributions; however, I think a more achievable goal would have been raising the internal rate of return of the reserves by allowing managed diversification into other asset classes, such as dividend-paying stocks; I think this would have been more politically acceptable given the fact of diversified state and local government pension funds. But Bush had largely tied his hands taking tax increases off the table; at this point, Democrats simply equated investing with gambling (not bothering to explain why they supported tax-advantaged "gambling" in 401K's and other popular retirement vehicles), misleadingly attacked that senior citizen benefits were at risk (what the Bush proposal did was to change the nature and timing of younger worker benefits, since their investments in alternative benefits would be offset with lower standard benefit payouts in the future), and let the politically powerful status quo interests (e.g., AARP) derail the proposal. Bush's high-profile failure early in his second term, with a GOP-controlled Congress, put into question Bush's own ability to deliver as party leader and started the inevitable talk of a lame-duck status.
• Bush's public relations efforts went AWOL. Abu Ghiraib, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, and torture policy were so ineptly handled, one has to question the so-called political genius of Karl Rove and other advisors. The argument of media conservatives (e.g., Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and others) that the end (no terrorist attacks) justifies the means simply defers the issue of where you draw the line. Of course, the liberals are being hypocritical by not focusing on the more substantive human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein. But even a conservative like myself whom believes in the Bill of Rights and inherently distrusts the encroachment of Big Government recoils from the fact that the White House was pushing back. Add to that the mystifying "heck of a job, Brownie" praise in the aftermath of the botched total government (local, state and federal) response to the Hurricane Katrina tragedy, and Bush was seen as out of touch by any television viewer over the previous 4 days. But in part, I feel the President's approval ratings took as big a hit as they did because the White House did not seem to stand up to the polemical rhetoric from Capitol Hill.
• Bush failed to address the big issues. Name it--the escalating twin deficits (federal and trade); a crumbling infrastructure; out-of-control federal spending; a broken worker visa and immigration program; the increased dependence on foreign energy producers; international purchasers of US Treasury debt, and foreign-produced goods and services; entitlement funding crises (Medicare and social security); an overextended, unaffordable global footprint; exploding number of family bankruptcies forced by catastrophic healthcare costs; a failing inner city public education system, etc.
• Bush relied too much on his Texas connections. The high-profile appointments/ failures of Harriet Miers (Supreme Court) and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales come immediately to mind. Whereas loyalty is always a quality to be admired, these nominees were clearly unsuitable and called into question Bush's judgment and credibility.
• Bush did not exercise timely management review and decisionmaking. Despite the fact John McCain and others were arguing as early as 2003 that the military footprint in Iraq was inadequate to stabilize Iraq, Bush seemed to muddle along, reluctant to challenge the advice of the military command in Iraq, simply imploring the Congress and the American public to "stay the course".  The decision to dismiss the Iraq Army (among others) seemed to be indicative of a lack of planning for the occupation and well-known differences among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Bush's belated response (after the 2006 election, flipping control of the Congress to the Democrats) to fire Rumsfeld and announce a change in Iraq occupation strategy is hard to explain. A second key example is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I recall that the President was imploring Democratic Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco to evacuate New Orleans, and yet we are left with the memories of Nagin's decision to leave unoccupied buses in a low-lying area to be flooded out and Blanco's blocking the infusion of relief supplies into New Orleans. Still, Bush was reluctant to pressure the dysfunctional local and state leadership. Whereas the Coast Guard's performance during the disaster was exemplary, Bush himself seemed out of touch on what was playing out in the national media, in sharp contrast, say, to Mayor Rudy Giuliani's sure-footed leadership in New York City in those crucial hours and days following the 9/11 tragedies.
• Bush did not communicate in a clear, consistent way. We need only to recall VP candidate Governor Sarah Palin's inability to respond to ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson's question regarding the Bush doctrine. Many conservative commentators sought to excuse Palin's bluffed response, noting that the Bush doctrine had shifted over time (including a rationale to promote democracy as a region-stabilizing alternative to rogue autocratic nations).  Similarly, Bush ran on a platform which sharply questioned Clinton's nation-building efforts in eastern Europe, but found himself in his own nation-building exercise, one in fact which his father attempted to avoid by not ousting Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War; it's insufficient to simply say "9/11 changed everything". Bush also never really explained the decision to liberate Iraq versus other rogue nations (e.g., North Korea and Iran) actively seeking a nuclear program. In particular, Iraq was largely contained by no-fly zones and economic sanctions. I do understand that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, invaded two neighboring countries without provocation, and did not comply with Gulf War ceasefire terms and some 17 UN resolutions; I do not doubt the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power, but Bush needed to do a better job explaining the timing and the nature of the intervention (vs., say, our approach in supporting the Afghanistan resistance).
• Bush violated some key conservative positions. In particular, Bush's lack of fiscal conservatism, his key advocacy for a new entitlement (Medicare prescription drug coverage), his subsidies for the ethanol industry, and his massive federal intervention in the wake of last year's financial tsunami, including the recent auto industry bailout, are difficult to explain.

On balance, I think that President Bush has been a consequential leader and a good President. I believe that this former Texas governor instinctively provided just the right leadership we needed after one of the most traumatic days in American history; he faced other difficult issues as well: the aftermath of the Nasdaq crash, the Enron and related corporate scandals, an uphill battle to push forward a change of strategy in Iraq (which turned out to be a prescient move), and, of course, the financial tsunami. Despite an unprecented virulent political opposition because of a disputed Florida election, Bush treated members of both parties with dignity and respect and provided an extraordinary transition for President-elect Obama, despite his own chilly reception from the Clinton White House (deferred until after the Supreme Court decision) and marked by unprofessional staff behavior, such as a missing 'W' on keyboards.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President.

Morning Commute to Alexandria on the Blue Line

"Familiarity breeds contempt." I remember as a kid when ice cream and soda pop were occasional luxuries given a limited family budget; a trip to McDonald's was for a special occasion, like a First Communion or Confirmation. Things changed after my Dad retired from the military and eventually got a job with the Post Office and my Mom also joined the workforce. I remember visiting home one weekend from Houston, watching in amazement as my youngest siblings, now in high school, just grabbed ice cream from the freezer or a cold can of soda without even asking. [While in high school, I could only find work as a paperboy, throwing about 80 papers a day on base and netting roughly a buck a day; occasionally after deliverying papers to my few subscribers at the bachelors' quarters in the hot Laredo sun, I would stop at the vending machines to treat myself to a can of Sprite.] I think my youngest brother and sister missed out on the early family experience, despite having all the ice cream and soda they wanted.

I have a reverence for the American flag, even though, unlike many conservatives, I oppose a flag burning ban amendment. It might sound obvious, given the fact I was a military brat and sought an officer's commission following my first Master's degree. But I don't wear it on my sleeve or on my shirt lapel, as Obama famously did and didn't do during the Democratic nomination campaign. I am not impressed by merchants whom try to use it as a marketing device; many Democrats also seem to think patriotism is a mere political gimmick and are determined not to be outgimmicked by the Republicans. Patriotism is not the opiate of the masses. To me, America is not represented by politicians telling the public what they think the public wants to hear, trumpeting spending the nation's money frivolously, promising tax cuts and increased goods and services, and doing whatever it takes to get elected. America is represented by those brave men whom have lost their lives defending freedoms others take for granted. America is represented by men and women whom are unafraid of making the hard decisions, telling the public things that they don't want to hear, including the fact that we have to live within our means, and doing whatever it takes to ensure subsequent generations inherit a usable infrastructure, manageable programs and debt, sufficient resources, and a robust economy. Just as Moses led the Israelites out of slavery but did not live to see the Promised Land, we need leaders whom fit a political profile of courage and will make the tough long-term choices, even if it costs their political careers. If young American men can be asked to possibly sacrifice their lives or limbs, how can politicians fail to put their careers on the line? What is the purpose of a political career--to simply hear oneself talk or to serve the American people? And if solving problems requires a little give and take, which is more important--the vanity of one's opinions or political livelihood,  or the very sake of America herself? As John McCain said during his noble campaign last year: "Country first!"

Ask John McCain what he thinks about the flag, and he may tell you the story of Mike Christian:

As you may know, I spent 5½ years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. In the early years of our imprisonment, the NVA kept us in solitary confinement or two or three to a cell. In 1971 the NVA moved us from these conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room. This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change and was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans on behalf of a few hundred POWs 10,000 miles from home.

One of the men who moved into my room was a young man named Mike Christian. Mike came from a small town near Selma, Alabama. He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old.

At 17, he enlisted in the US Navy. He later earned a commission by going to Officer Training School. Then he became a Naval Flight Officer and was shot down and captured in 1967.

Mike had a keen and deep appreciation of the opportunities this country, and our military, provide for people who want to work and want to succeed. As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves and other items of clothing. Mike got himself a bamboo needle.

Over a period of a couple of months, he created an American flag and sewed it on the inside of his shirt. Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall of the cell and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I know the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important part of our day now, but I can assure you that in that stark cell, it was indeed the most important and meaningful event.

One day the Vietnamese searched our cell, as they did periodically, and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours.

Then, they opened the door of the cell and threw him in. We cleaned him up as well as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs hung in each corner of the room. As I said, we tried to clean up Mike as well as we could. After the excitement died down, I looked in the corner of the room, and sitting there beneath that dim light bulb with a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. He was sitting there with his eyes almost shut from the beating he had received, making another American flag.

He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because he knew how important it was to us to be able to pledge our allegiance to our flag and country.

Each morning on my way to the Greenbelt train station my car passes under two overpasses where someone has stuck an American flag on a fence. I think of a lot of things. Mike Christian. John-John saluting his daddy's casket. 9/11. The first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong. The return of Vietnam-era P.O.W.'s, including John McCain. The space shuttle Challenger and Columbia tragedies. The Berlin Wall collapse. Mark McGwire breaking Maris' home run record. The toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein. D-Day and the liberation of Nazi concentration camps. But most of all, a deep, abiding love for America, her principles, and her people. God has blessed me in so many way; in particular, I was born into a country for which many yearn to live but only a few are chosen.

On the Metro Blue Line, I try to make sure I'm seated on the right side of the train as it leaves the Rosslyn station. You can briefly make out hundreds, if not thousands of gravestones in the distance as the train approaches the Arlington Cemetery stop. Recently I watched a glum-faced young woman getting off the train. Who did she come to see--a father, brother, husband, fiance or friend? I said a silent prayer for her and for whom she came to visit.

I feel proud and sad at the same time. How many men gave their lives? How many parents lost a son, how many wives and fiancees lost their soulmates, how many children grew up without their hero daddy? How many dreams and the promise of these men went unfulfilled? I pray that not even one life was lost in vain, that every casualty served a greater purpose.  I pray that America has been worthy of their sacrifice. I pray we don't take for granted those precious liberties paid for by so much sweat and blood. I hope that what I do and have done with my freedom is worthy of what generations of Americans have done to guarantee I have it.

Once or twice a year, it becomes politically fashionable to pay lip service to those brave men whom have served and given the ultimate sacrifice for our benefit. Politicians will pose for photo-ops, and millions of Americans who have never worn the uniform of their country will enjoy a holiday. Others will relive a painful memory and struggle to remember fading memories of happier times, but for them it happens every day, not just once or twice a year.

As for me, when the train pulls away from Rosslyn, you will find me putting away my newspaper, in the window seat on the right side of the train, looking out the window and remembering.

Need for Educational Choice for Inner City Schools

My own scholastic performance turned around in sixth grade primarily because of two incidents.

First, I found myself at the bottom of the posted top 10 list in my homeroom. I was intrigued and of course immediately set up an obvious goal--to reach the top of the list by the end of the school year. Easier said than done, because the perennial top student, a guy named Carson, was very bright and took pride in his leadership position. But with all the brashness that is youth, I told Carson I was gunning for the top spot. I was absolutely convinced I could do it, and by the end of school I achieved my goal. Carson gamely tried to save face by focusing on his consistently high performance, but he knew I had called my shot. It's not so much the question of competition per se. It had more to my own goalsetting, confidence and self-discipline.

Second, I had an English class taught by Mrs. Montgomery; she taught an unusually rigorous and challenging course on grammar and other subjects, beyond the typical material presented to junior high kids. I was inspired by the fact that she didn't spoon-feed the class but had confidence in our ability to learn more advanced material. I have always thought that it's better to expect more from a student, which conveys respect, than to underestimate a student's ability to learn.

I do realize that setting up a student for failure by setting unrealistic behavioral objectives is counterproductive. I once had to deal with a project lead named by my boss for a critical self-service expenses software implementation under an aggressive short-term deadline.  The project lead had no previous exposure to Oracle's ERP software. In effect, I was the de facto project lead having to mentor his protege he had recruited from his former employer. Steve responded to my complaint, saying that he believed in developing people by pushing them into the deep end of the pool (i.e., over their heads). My response was that it's easier to push someone into the pool knowing that a lifeguard is standing by to save her. Under different circumstances--a basic exposure to the Oracle Apps, a longer project timeline, and a less politically sensitive project (employees and managers expect prompt reimbursement of personal money used to cover travel and other business expenses)--I would have been more empathetic to his point of view.

In hindsight, I had been bored in school until that point in time. The potential for scholastic excellence had always been there, but my teachers failed to recognize and cultivate it. Of course, that's easier said than done when you have dozens of students. And even when teachers recognized your abilities, they often felt helpless. I'll never forget my high school biology teacher pulling me aside one day and saying something like this: "Ron, you don't have to come to class anymore. You have your A. I wish there was more I could do for you, but if I taught to your level, I would lose the rest of the class."

But then my high school did a rather remarkable thing: the high school guidance counselor asked to meet with me and presented me with the option and gameplan for completing high school in 3 years. I thus decided to take an English IV class at Laredo Martin that summer under Ruth Fierros. A poetess herself, Mrs. Fierros sparked my passion for creative writing; I loved everything about going to that class, including listening to the Shakespeare LP's, the wooden smell of the classroom, etc. Taking a class under an inspiring teacher is sheer intellectual bliss. 

[As an aside to Mrs. Fierros: One day while I was walking through the halls at OLLU, the headline of a newspaper clipping caught my eye: "OLL Poet Published". Curious, I read the small blurb--and was astonished to find out I was the poet in question; I wasn't even aware that the college knew I wrote poetry. Here's some advice to college publicists: When you write a positive piece about a student, you might want to let the student himself or herself know about it. Oh, by the way, if you're still wondering who stole that bulletin board clipping...]

I am not attempting to suggest here that all students will respond to the same stimuli or achieve similar scholastic success. There are individual differences at play. But there are some common elements. For example, I remember when one of my nephews, Jon, was pre-school age, he was happily coloring a picture. I remember telling him in glowing terms just what I thought about of his talented work. Within the next two hours, he must have gifted me with a dozen or so newly minted masterpieces. [I still have them somewhere.] I'm not speaking here of gratuitous or egalitarian notions that "everyone is special" or that slapping a gold star or scrawling "good work" on top of the paper.

Let me give an example. In my UH marketing management course under George Zinkhan, I wrote an analysis of a software application a former employer had marketed called CASHFAST. He had given me a good grade on the paper. Several months later I was a PhD student sharing an office on the same floor. Dr. Zinkhan and I crossed paths by coincidence, and he stopped me. Dr. Zinkhan said, "I had pulled together the top 28 [or so] best papers from the classes I taught, and they were evaluated by [some prestigous person(s) in the field]. Your paper was judged best overall."  Dr. Zinkhan hestitated and then hastened to add, "I think so, too." God bless him for saying that; it meant more to me than monetary rewards. Dr. Zinkhan's decision to select my paper for the competition in the first place was an extraordinary compliment; the decision of other authorities to pick my paper from among a strong pool of quality submissions was a powerful validation of my work. There are key elements at work: I wasn't aware of the competition, and so it was unexpected praise; the recognition went beyond my own professor and came independently from others whom did not know me.

In an earlier post, I provided an example from my own teaching experience. I distributed graded assignments back to students, and one student in particular went beyond simply looking at the grade and read my comments. My style is to provide a balanced approach of trying to say objective things I liked about a student's work and suggestions on how to improve the paper. The student was stunned; he approached me saying, "You [i.e., not some grader] really read my paper." He couldn't get over the fact that he had put all this work into the paper, and I had seriously thought about what he had to say, treated his ideas respectfully, accurately, and thoroughly. Someone, a professor, was really interested in what he thought, and to him, it was a gift.

To me, I was passing along the gifts my own professors had given me. And it was very gratifying to know at least one student was interested in what I had to say about his work, even though each member of the class got similar consideration. And I pray that one day he will be in a position to pass it on.

The Education Equality Project

One of my favorite cartoons shows a man coming upon a young boy diligently looking under a street lamp for his lost coin. The man asks, "Did you lose it here?" The boy shakes his head, "No, over there!", pointing to a darker area away from the street lamp. "Why are you looking here?" "Because the light is better here."

The point I'm making here is that exceptional, talented American students also exist outside the areas of plush, well-financed suburban high schools. How many of these students go undiagnosed, fail to be mentored and encouraged, and have no realistic alternative to the monopoly of failing inner city public schools? Public schools with dropout rates reaching up to 90% and where high school seniors test out no better than suburban junior high school students?

In some cases, students will succeed on their own, regardless of the challenges. My dad had to make his enlisted pay stretch to cover a family with 7 kids, so I had to make it on my own at college with a scholarship, work-study, and a small loan. I recall having to be at the dining hall at 6AM to mop floors and my boss demanding I work overtime on the dishwashing shift the night before I had 3 final exams scheduled. When I was back in sixth grade, I was really waiting for an opportunity to be challenged; the general aptitude and the self-discipline had always been there.

However, how many talented young people, facing seemingly impossible odds, give up on themselves? How many of them are satisfied with living in a comfort zone which does not push and challenge them to do their best? How many of them are taught by well-meaning, but struggling teachers, with limited subject matter backgrounds, unable to recognize exceptional talent or how to cultivate it? How many of them muddle through the system, never stumbling across a master teacher to fire their imaginations, to reset their objectives and goals, to dream of a better future for themselves? It reminds me of the memorable slogan of the United Negro College Fund: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

The Wall Street Journal recently published a January 12 op-ed by Joel Klein, the New York City education chancellor, and civil rights activist Al Sharpton, an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama, whom in the past has cautiously expressed some support to the notion of charter schools. They openly note that the EEP has run into opposition from natural allies in the Democratic Party establishment. For instance, many Democrats oppose achievement tests and related benchmarks stemming from No Child Left Behind. Some disingenuously deride the process of using benchmarks as "teaching to the test"; others are in a state of denial regarding gaps in educational quality across America, arguing that the tests themselves are "culturally biased".

Klein and Sharpton note that the main opposition comes from the educational establishment itself, stubbornly resisting change, in particular, teacher unions which oppose market-based payscales (e.g., paying more for in-demand quality math/science teachers), protect incompetent or insipid teachers from termination through counterproductive, obsolete tenure policies (as if quality teachers need job protection or the rights of mediocre teachers to make a living in a profession not right for them or their students supersede the rights of student access to better instructors!), or enforce obstructive, antiquated work rules, tying the hands of administrators from flexibly staffing teacher activities.

Furthermore, they argue that Obama needs to use the bully pulpit to provide a consistent, unifying alternative to disparate, fragmentary state-based initiatives and to concentrate federal funding activities, not in perpetuating the unresponsive status quo, simply throwing good money after bad, but in direct measures to hire or fund access to the quality educators whom have a direct impact on student lives. Each day we delay action on providing the quality education these students need is a failure of America to provide true equality of opportunity; we give up on another generation of leadership. Instead of leaving a person with the ability to provide for his or her own family, we reinforce dependence of people on the goodwill of government, churches and charities to eke out a living.

But a key point of the editorial was to hold Obama's feet to the fire on his promise to providing a realistic public policy alternative to the local government monopoly power of failing inner city schools. [I will also point out private school vouchers provide a competitive congruent response to an unresponsive public monopoly.] Newt Gingrich in his book Real Change made an example of the Detroit public schools, showing how the protectionist luddites shackled attempts to provide even modest attempts to expand charter schools.

In addition to the moral issue of failing to provide true equality of opportunity to our public school students nationally, I argue that it's also a critical economic issue. We can expect at least 4 decades of tax-yielding worker or business owner earnings from an educated student in payback for a modest short-term public investment in his or her future. It's not just the higher standard of living afforded to qualified professionals responding to in-demand knowledges and skills; it has a multiplier effect on collected tax revenues.

Klein and Sharpton note that the EEP attracts supporters from key administrators such as DC's Michelle Rhee and New Orleans' Paul Vallas and across the political spectrum, including prominent conservatives Newt Gingrich and John McCain. I strongly support their efforts aimed at attaining educational justice and standing up to those whom put their parochial interests above the primacy of quality education for all students.

Obama's Stealth Expansion of Government Spending

We need to recall the SHPS controversy from a few months back, which attracted a rare Bush veto. The Democrats attempted to portray the veto as a heartless one by an alleged compassionate conservative against healthcare for poor children. The real story was that a number of states were looking to extend SHPS coverage far above the median household income (up to $70K or more), which essentially would make it a no-brainer for eligible households to dump child healthcare costs on the taxpayer. The reality was Bush's argument that a number of intended target poor households were not yet enrolled in the program and that the original intended recipients should be the focus of the program, not expanding the mandate so that states could increase their take from the federal government.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, an economist, wrote an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this past week, where he points out studies showing that the quality of care and sources of doctors and hospitals for Medicaid relative to higher acceptance of Medicare and private insurance show up demonstrably in treatment for heart disease and cancer, including coverage for certain prescription drugs and followup care. He notes the anemic reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals, never mind the bewildering amount of paperwork, rules, and regulations that tie up the Medicaid system and significant exposure to fraud. The Obamaian solution is to offset some of the cost share required of the states to qualify for federal funds--without requiring enforcement of necessary standards to ensure effective, efficient disbursement of taxpayer money--and furthermore to expand Medicaid to include certain unemployed workers. [This is precisely the sort of federal entitlement scope creep that Democrats specialize in; they promise a temporary application, but it almost invariably sticks and then gets extended.] Furthermore, Gottlief points out that money is fungible; that is to say, instead of states having to live within their means, a federal contribution offset to the states for Medicaid expenses simply allows the states to spend the same money elsewhere, without making necessary cuts and, say, improved standards to ensure state (and federal) Medicaid money is deployed more efficiently (less waste and fraud).

Let me make the point more explicit: Perhaps instead of expanding the scope of Medicaid, we should focus more on fixing the leaky bucket, and making sure that the water is used more efficiently. Instead of expanding the target population, we should focus more on improving reimbursement and prescription drug coverage, simplify reporting requirements for doctors and hospitals, and impose strict, effective cost controls. Maintaining an inferior (separate but equal) government healthcare system is the worst kind of segregation one can imagine.

Another good WSJ column was written by Berkeley/Google economist Hal Varian. His point of view largely echoes my own in terms of focusing primarily on the investment side vs. the other three sources of demand: the consumer, the government and exports.  The consumer and export sides are highly questionable; part of what has spurred consumer spending is living beyond one's means. A tax credit or cut, which will largely be saved vs. spent, is probably not going to be very stimulating. I would also argue that infrastructure spending, which sounds good from a multiplier effect, is unlikely to make a large-scale short-term impact, it's likely we'll have scalability issues in infrastructure investment (i.e., finding enough engineers and skilled workers to staff projects), the selection of projects will be subject to political manipulation, and we don't want the state governments exporting their infrastructure support financing problems to the national government. I'm a strong supporter of infrastructure projects, including the power grid, but I think that has to be a long-term response, not dressed up unrealistically as a short-term stimulus fix. 

The best single thing Obama can do is to reassure the capital markets. He can do that in a series of ways: take investment tax increases off the table and in fact push for business tax cuts and investment credits; stop threatening punitive tax hikes to higher-income individuals whom are key job creators in the private sector; stop talking about tax credits/rebates for people whom do not pay federal taxes; stop raising unrealistic expectations about the short-term job gains related to green technology products and services; say 'no' to state/county/local governments looking for Uncle Sam to bail them out of responsibility for politically unpopular budget cuts; stop expanding the target enrollment of federal-sponsored programs until we have sufficient management planning and control, benchmarks and quality metrics in place and are properly funding the existing envrollments we have. This blending of short-term with long-term priorities Obama is talking about simply confounds analysis. A "Christmas tree" stimulus package, such as the one Obama is proposing, is the product of muddled thinking and judgment and shows an inability to set priorities.