Hope and Opportunity

Yesterday, the country celebrated the peaceful transition of power, from one president to another. Although I reside in the Washington Metropolitan Area, I chose not to attend the Inauguration of the 44^th President, Barack Obama. This had nothing to do with the fact that I did not vote for him, and more to do with the crowds and the cold. I have found that as I get older, my tolerance for crowds decreases annually.

I did, however, watch the event on CNN, from the warmth and comfort of my own home. Despite my misgivings regarding President Obama, I could not help but feel pride and admiration at being a citizen of a country that celebrates this peaceful transition of power. I am very proud to live in a country than can elect a man President, regardless of his race (even though I fear many people voted for Obama simply because of his race).

Amid these feeling of patriotism, I am also troubled by the very real possibilities of failure facing this new administration. President Obama enters his first term with more than a 70% approval rating of his transition (although I find it amusing that a man has an approval rating without having actually done anything yet). With this widespread popularity, domestically and internationally, President Obama was an unprecedented opportunity with his first term. He faces very troubled times, but history always remembers those who thrive despite such tribulations.

If Obama can preside over a government that sees an end to the current recession, an effective transfer of authority and withdrawal of troops from current war zones, and lower the national debt significantly, he could be considered one of the greatest presidents in our nation’s history. Sadly, the practical realist inside of me does not see this happening anytime soon.

The market is a living organisms in its own right. Left to its own devices, it will find an equilibrium that benefits the majority of society. However, our government has a history of meddling with the market, trying to help those who do not help themselves. As such, our involvement may lead to an immediate result, but furthers market instability in the long run. If the Obama administration works to undo much of the deregulation that is demonized by the leftists and pseudo-Marxists, the market will be too constrained, unable to rectify itself.

The debate over the effectiveness of a truly free market still rages on amongst economists, so Obama has taken a middle of the road approach (which, on some levels, should be commended). In his Inauguration speech yesterday, Obama mentioned that the market has an unparalleled propensity to do good, so long as the government keeps a watchful eye. This kind of talk worries free market economists, who feat that a watchful eye will lead to overbearing actions on the part of a government that does not truly comprehend the forces that are at work in the market.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama would like to see a true transfer of responsibility from U.S. forces to Iraqi control. I commend this distinction. The United States has shoveled billions into Iraq, and while there have been remarkable improvements since the surge last year, our rising national debt will not allow us to keep this kind of pace for much longer. If Obama is truly able to broker a deal that the Iraqi government fully supports, then I am in favor of such a withdrawal of U.S. troops. Those troops, it seems, will then be headed to Afghanistan, to secure the situation that has deteriorated over the last five years.

I am, again, in full support of bringing stability to the area, and hopefully locating and apprehending Osama bin Laden. If Obama’s planned surge in Afghanistan accomplishes these goals, then he will likely have my support for a second term. However, he needs to pull off both troop movements in a way that does not leave Iraqi forces in an unwinnable situation. We gave them their own government, it is our responsibility to make sure we leave them with the stability that is required to maintain the freedom our soldiers fought and died for.

Finally, the one concern that will ultimately affect all other aspects of government action, Obama and the 111^th Congress must work on bring down the national debt. According to TreasuryDirect.com, the national debt, as of Monday, is roughly $10.6 trillion. This is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, rather than tackle the problem right away, President Obama has warned the public that the government is going to operate under nearly $1 trillion deficits over the next couple of fiscal years. He claims this to be a necessary evil in order to bring the economy out of the current recession. Having already dismissed that as a falsehood in the above paragraph, I am forced to move on to the wasteful government spending.

President Obama has promised to study the current programs operating out of the many executive agencies, eliminating funding for those that are deemed ineffective. Rather than relying on the disputed Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), that the Bush Administration championed, Obama is appointing a Chief Performance Officer (CPO) to assess the various government programs. The precise formula that the CPO will apply remains unclear, but I am less than enthusiastic about her chances at making any real headway in the matter, especially in light of all of the new spending that Congress is working to authorize under the economic stimulus package.

So, as I have pointed out, President Obama was an amazing opportunity to prove himself as the leader that at least 70% of the country believes him to be. I, for one, hope he lives up to the hype. Even though I did not vote for the man, he is my President, and I wish him nothing but success, as much for my sake as for his. The country is looking to him for answers and for relief, now we will see what he does with the faith the majority of the country has placed in him.

Obama Shows His Convictions...Or Lack There Of

The Obama Trasition team announced that Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay minister ordained by a major church, will deliver the invocation at the kickoff event of inauguration week. gay rights activists were overjoyed to hear that President-elect Obama chose an openly gay minister to deliver the opening invocation, especially in light of who he chose to deliver the invocation at the actual inauguration. Rick Warren, the pastor of the evangelical megachurch, Saddleback Church.

Rev. Warren angered gay rights groups when he came out in support of California's Prop. 8, which would overturn California's law allowing same sex marriage. The fact that Obama would choose such a pastor to preside over his swearing in ceremony shocked and angered gay rights groups all over the United States. After 8 years of George Bush, the gay and lesbian community thought they were finally going to have a friend in the White House, only to have the man ask a man who opposed gay marriage to preside over his inaugural ceremony.

To be honest, this was the first decision Obama made that I thought should his individuality and willingness to follow hos own convictions rather than play to the crowd. Rev. Warren holds true to his faith, which does not condone same sex marriage. I love how people champion diversity, and freedom of expression, until someone expresses and idea or belief that they don't like. Well, enough of the left-wing activists made enough noise about the matter to convince the Obama team to balance Warren's invitation by selecting someone more palpable to that constituency to kick off the whole week's festivities.

Gene Robinson's 2003 election as a Bishop in the Episcopal church caused a rift in the denomination, provoking several dioceses and dozens of parishes to secede in protest. So while gay rights activists may still be angry with Warren's involvement with the inauguration, Robinson's selection is meant to placate them and give them an excuse to celebrate Obama's ascendancy, along with everyone else. All this did was prove to me that Obama is exactly what I thought he was: a politician, just like everyone else in Washington (including Bush).

Obama only chose Warren because his campaign actively worked to attract evangelical voters, and he wants to continue that effort in preparation for the 2012 election. Then, as damage control over the Warren fallout, his team chose Robinson in order to make sure he had appeased all groups involved. I applaud his effort as admirer of astute political maneuvering, but I am saddened as a man who was hoping for a new kind of leader, who governed by principle (much like I had hoped Bush would be). Even if I do not agree with your principles, I am usually impressed with any man who holds true to whatever principle he claims to hold. However, as is the case with most politicians, principles are not the commodity they once were. It appears that the ever dwindling optimist in me will continue to fade away due to continual disappointment.

Senate Republicans Dropping Like Flies

Senate Republicans watched as yet another of their colleagues announced his intention not to run for reelection in 2010. At a time where public support continues to sway towards Democrats (largely as a reaction to the Bush Administration), the thought of losing 4 more incumbents in the next elections cycle is very disheartening for the minority party. While I have tended to support the Republican party in the last few elections, my concern here is not what party is in control, but how much power that party is going to have at their disposal.

As an advocate for smaller government, by favorite term regarding Congress is logjam. This is when legislation cannot move through because the majority party in Congress cannot get enough support amongst their fellow lawmakers and/or the White House. This keeps legislators from passing potentially burdensome bills, at least not without additional consensus which will water down the legislation. If I ever find myself unfortunate enough to work for a member of Congress, especially if they are in the majority, I am sure I will find this concept incredibly aggravating. As a private citizen that does not trust the judgment of those in power, I continue to support logjam.

That is why I was happy to see Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) win his bid for reelection in Georgia. His victory guaranteed the minority party would retain 41 seats in the Senate, giving them enough votes to sustain a filibuster attempt. The filibuster is the only tool that allows the minority party to kill a bill that they feel is against the public interest. As it stands now, the Senate consists of 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats) and 2 Vacancies. These vacancies, however, should both be filled shortly, giving Democrats 57 seats. The thought of a 63-37 majority scares me, regardless of which party is in power.

The fact is, I don't like veto-proof majorities, filibuster-proof majorities, or unified government (when one party controls Congress and the White House). As such, the ability of the House and Senate minorities to force the majority to work in a bipartisan manner is key to making sure one party does not run the country into the ground (the way critics claim the Republicans did firm 200-2006). So, I can only hope that Republicans are able to get their game plan together and keep all 4 seats. However, now that Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) announced his intent to retire in a swing state that has drifted Democrats over the last couple of years, the GOP certainly has an uphill climb to 2010.

Bush Legacy?

With only 8 days left until president-elect Obama takes office, President George Bush held his final press conference today, attempting to defend his record, and ultimately his legacy. With abysmal approval ratings, it is difficult to think of the Bush Legacy in a positive light. The only two issues most people will recall of the Bush Years are the Iraq War and the current recession. In the end, when I look on the Bush Administration, I see potential that never came to fruition.

The firs thing to mention, even if people are tired of the references, is that President Bush did bring this country through the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. While he failed to catch the man behind the attacks, he did not fail to act against those that were protecting him. It is only a matter of time before bin Laden is found and brought to justice, because the Bush Administration made it evident what will happen to any government that harbors terrorists like him. However, I mean to look at Bush's entire Presidency, not just his first two years.

The first major push by the Bush Administration were the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Americans were able to keep more of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, the tax cuts were not accompanied by significant spending cuts, as is necessary to avoid excessive deficit spending. In addition, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required billions each year, further increasing the deficit. Tax cuts are a sound economic policy, giving consumers more money to circulate back into the market. Unfortunately, there were too many external factors to allow this to show positive returns in a short time frame. In a few more years, we may see the true effect of these tax cuts, much the way the effects of Reagan's economic policies did not return benefits until the Clinton years.

After the tax cuts, the biggest domestic priority of the Bush Administration was getting all public students to proficient levels in reading and math by 2014. To accomplish that goal, we saw the creation of No Child Left Behind. The idea was noble, albeit incomplete. NCLB was the first real push to hold schools all across the county accountable for the performance of their students. Unfortunately, the program focused too much on federal micro-managing of assessment standards. In stead of simply requiring states to meet certain benchmarks, NCLB was too prescriptive, attempting to force states to reach the benchmarks through specific courses of action. Between 2010-2011, the program will receive a major overhaul, but it was the Bush Administration that laid the groundwork for school accountability.

The first official failure of the Bush Administration came in the form of entitlements. President Bush pushed for Social Security reform in 2005, and was met with unparalleled resistance in Congress and a very scared senior generation. Groups like the AARP engaged in scare tactics to ignite a fire under the retired class of citizens who were afraid of any changes that might affect their Social Security payments. Despite the fact that the Bush proposal would have had no adverse effect on current recipients, the push back was enough to get Congress to shut down this attempt at meaningful reform. Instead, they chose to leave the problem for future generations, who will not see a dime from the doomed program.

Finally, it is not practical to ignore the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these wars have cost the United States thousands of American lives, and billions of dollars. The fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq certainly work against the President, who assured the nation, and the international community that they were there. While I do not support the amount of money that has been thrown into Iraq, I do believe the world is better place with Saddam Hussein out of power. However, now that we have given Iraq the opportunity to make a new nation, based on new principles, I do believe it is time (or close to it) to allow them to take the reigns, and provide for their own destiny. If the Iraqi government truly wants to transition authority from the U.S. to local forces, I believe we should oblige them, in a practical manner.

As for the economy, as I stated above, the tax cuts were a sound idea, but did not produce an immediate effect that many Americans desired. The fact is, the economy moves in cycles, and while President Clinton was able to ride a wave of success for a number of years, Bush was left to fight against the current of a downward trend. Many people blame him for the rising gas prices over the last 8 years. However, if they have a grievance on the price of fuel, I suggest they take it up with the Chinese, whose excessive consumption had more to do with the price increases than any one else. My only grievance with President Bush is his failure to force Congress to significantly cut domestic spending. With increasing war costs, and a decrease in tax revenue, domestic spending needed to be reduced exponentially. The President, through the use of his Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), attempted to increase government efficiency by proposing the elimination of wasteful and inefficient government programs, but was ignored by Congress.

In my humble opinion, President Bush is not the monster that most Americans make him out to be, though he did fail to live up to his potential. Most of his true failures can be traced back to his divergence from true conservative principles. His failure to reign in federal spending and his push for greater federal involvement in education are just two examples of his departure from core conservative values. The rest of his failures come from an inability to control/convince/cajole Congress into passing his initiatives. However, the man did preside over the most powerful nation in the world for 8 years (meaning we elected him twice), and that is no simple task. He deserves our thanks and our respect, for the time and effort he put into the task, whether you liked the results or not. There are many things we may wish he did differently, just as I am sure there are things he truly wishes he had handled differently. In the end, he did the best he could with the time that was given to him.

Performance Officer: A Rough Road Ahead

Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Nancy Killefer as the federal government's first Chief Performance Officer. Just as I disagreed with President Bush creating an entirely new executive agency (DHS) to do what other agencies were already doing, I have some reservations about this new position. Each executive agency is held responsible for their own effectiveness. As such, the Secretary, Commissioner, or other chief operating officer of that agency is held accountable to their department's performance. Now, assuming Ms. Killefer is confirmed by the Senate, we will have one watch dog to police all of the other political appointees.

While I agree with the underlying desire to increase government efficiency, I am not convinced that creating yet another bureaucratic position is the best approach. Each Department, theoretically, policies itself for effectiveness. Under the Bush Administration, this has been done (theoretically) by using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Based on PART assessments, the Bush Administration has repeatedly suggested the termination of numerous government programs. Unfortunately, the PART has been largely ignored by Congress, and most of these programs are still in existence. Legislators have questioned the criteria that the PART uses to determine a programs effectiveness.

I am not here to defend the PART, but to use its failure as a warning for Ms. Killefer. The main reason that ineffective programs remain operational is because of the people that the program employs. No one wants to lose their job, so as soon as any talk of cutting funding occurs, those whose employment is in danger tries to scare constituents into believing that losing this program would be the worst thing that could happen. If their constituents do not want to see the program eliminated, then members of Congress will not vote to eliminate them. The Chief Performance Officer will run into this same blockade.

As an advocate for cutting federal spending, I hope she is wildly successful in her quest to root out programs that have outlived their usefulness. However, the realist in me is not very optimistic about her chances of success. If her efforts prove fruitless, then we will be paying yet another bureaucrat for a job that they cannot carry out in a satisfactory manner. That, in and of itself, is more wasteful government spending. I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.