Presidential Address to Students

After taking most of the summer off, and now that I am a couple of weeks into my 5th semester of law school, I decided it might be time to start blogging again. Specifically, I simply cannot stay quiet any longer on this "controversy" regarding the President's upcoming speech before public school children. Seriously, there is the President's failed economic policy, his ill-advised health care plan, and any other number of policy issue for which the President should be criticized. An yet, people are focusing on this speech. Really?

I was drawn into a long discussion yesterday, on Facebook, regarding the President's right to give this address. I must admit, I was a little shocked by the question. In my mind, he is the President, he can talk to whomever he wishes. However, to a certain extent, I can understand some parent's reluctance. However, it becomes an issue of censorship, as far as I am concerned. I completely understand if you do not agree with the President or his policies. I have never made any attempt to disguise my own contempt for this Administration. However, he is the President, and he deserves all the respect the office entitles him to. If a man was able to come from somewhat meager beginnings, succeed academically, and eventually become President, why shouldn't he be able to encourage today's students to proceed with the same focus?

Obviously, the issue is not over him speaking to students, but the content of his speech. So long as he confines his address to encouraging young people to succeed in school, I really do not see the harm. Even if he does put a little bit of policy into his speech, what is the harm? At this point, it becomes an issue of effective parenting. If you don;t want your child to be taken in by the eloquent President, it is YOUR job to discuss the issues with your young one. They are going to spend a lifetime being bombarded with different ideas, perspectives, faiths, beliefs, etc..., so why try to shelter them from a few words from the leader of our nation?

It's nothing but pure laziness and fear. Rather than step up as a parent and discuss real issue with your children, you would rather just keep them from hearing something that one of our elected leaders has to say. I would rather encourage my child to explore all possible ideas then try and keep him locked in a bubble. When did parenting become more about sheltering children rather than teaching them?

Now, on the other hand, I am willing to accept arguments that deal specifically with the U.S. Department of Education's letter to schools, encouraging certain "lesson plans" in conjunction with the speech. Education is a local issue, and the federal government has no Constitutional authority to mandate curriculum. However, encouraging teachers to have student think about how the President "inspires" them is a far, far cry from mandating curriculum. In the end, my biggest concern is that people need to pick their battles. When you waste so much effort opposing something as insignificant as this, it takes away from your credibility on the issues that really matter. Or at least that's my two cents.

GOP Morals?

South Carolina GOP Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday to an affair, and resigned his position as chair of the Republican Governor's Association following a strange week in which the governor dropped off the grid and could not be located.

Politico

First Ensign, now Sanford. If Republicans really want to be considered the moral party, they have to start acting like it. An no, I don;t think is a symptom of a corrupt political party. I think it is a symptom of a broken political system, where those in power cannot retain the same morals and values they once held. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

People Need to Learn...Anything!

Polls show that the GOP is wise to focus most of its attacks on spending, government intervention and job losses. (Those same polls show the public has low regard for Republicans on these issues, but it's a significant development that President Barack Obama's numbers are slipping in these areas, too.)

Politico

No, I don't think the GOP will see much of a resurgence in a year, and no, I don't think Obama's numbers will plummet. However, I find the whole thing amusing, in a sad way. It shows that there really were people out there who thought Obama would magically fix the economy. The ignorance of a majority of this nation on issues such as economics and politics will never cease to amaze me.

Fleckenstein Says It Right!

The actual offending cancerous legislation that kicked off the move toward extra reckless lending did involve then-Rep. Fernand St. Germain, a Rhode Island Democrat. But the problem legislation was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of March 31, 1980. It's important to note that the law was enacted nearly a year before Reagan took office.

MSN Money

Wow, a journalist who has enough intelligence not to blame Reagan for the current culture that led to our economic downturn. That's right, the law that some economists believe helped create out current situation was introduced by a Democrat and signed by a Democrat. But God forbid the mainstream media ever report something so damaging to their beloved party. The article goes one to say...

Deregulation didn't cause this disaster. Incompetence and greed did. The implication from Krugman's article, that regulation or re-regulation would solve the problem, is nonsense. What must happen is for people in positions of regulatory authority to do their jobs.

Wow, I think Bill Fleckenstein might be my new favorite journalist in the financial sector.

45-46% of the COuntry With Their Heads in the Sand

Only 45% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of federal spending, and 46% of his handling of the federal budget deficit.

Gallup Poll

This begs one important question: What they hell are those 45% and 46% of the country thinking?!?! Trillion dollar deficits run up to bailout failing industries? How is it possible that almost half of the country doesn't recognize how bad of an idea this is?

They Can't Learn Because You Won't Let Them!

Today, I watched the House Education & Labor Committee hold a hearing to discuss charter school education, discussing best practices and what more can be done. The hearing was progressing very nicely, with the various panelists describing the programs they support and the charter schools they work with. Eventually, some Democratic members began barraging the panelists with accusatory questions.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and others began questioning the panelists as to why they have chosen to implement these innovative practices in institutions that serve 2%-6% of the student population, rather than implementing the same policies in the public school system. Many panelists did what they could to try and explain the situations, noting that they have more freedom and more room to move free of the bureaucratic nonsense that accompanies the public education system here in the United States. Finally, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) made it clear that these members of the Committee were simply not interested in anything the witnesses had to say.

Tierney called out every member of the panel by acknowledging the good they have done, but accusing them of abandoning public school children by limiting their work to charter schools. Tierney claimed that these witnesses were taking the easy way out by refusing to work in public schools. My general outrage of the hypocrisy involved in his statements began to boil. He kept asking that if these policies worked in charter schools, why weren't the panelists working to implement them in the public schools? Finally, logic and reason entered into the equation from the least likely source.

Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) finally stood up for the panel, telling Tierney and the others that to assume that individuals could cut through the bureaucratic red tape that plagues public school systems, and implement these practices in a timely manner only went to show the members' lack of understanding about our public education system. Any attempt to implement these policies would take years of debate and nonsense, with no guarantee of success. If the U.S. Congress wants to see these kinds of practices in public schools, they have to give those schools the freedom to embrace innovative tendencies. With the rigid guidelines and requirements of federal education law, such as No Child Left Behind, public schools cannot afford to take risks and try new ideas, for fear of failing to meet the arbitrary benchmarks set by Congress.

Congress needs to pull itself out of the classroom, and give teachers and administrators the freedom to decide what works best for their students. It is the teacher in the classroom that can best decide what works when it comes to teaching her students, not a politician in Washington. So, Rep. Tierney and his colleagues in Congress will have to get out of the way before public schools can even hope to move forward. Just another example of how Politicians in Washington spend too much time pointing fingers, and not enough time helping to solve the problem.

Who Cares About Balancing the Budget?

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Wednesday urged lawmakers to commit to reducing the nearly $2 trillion budget deficit, warning that the government can't borrow "indefinitely" to meet the growing demand on its resources. Mr. Bernanke also reiterated that the pace of economic contraction appears to be slowing, setting the stage for a return to growth later this year. But that growth won't be robust, he said.

WSJ

Great idea Ben! Too bad no one in power gives a damn about logic or responsibility. The final blame falls with the American people. Until we start making fiscal responsibility a high priority, and vote out those who spend money we don;t have, lawmakers are not going to have an reason to stop.

Abandon Abstinence?

President Obama's new budget would eliminate most money for abstinence-only sex education and shift it to teen pregnancy prevention — a U-turn in what has been more than a decade of sex education policy in the USA. Obama's budget proposes almost $178 million for teen pregnancy prevention, including $110 million for community-based programs. About 75% of that is for programs proven to have delayed sex and increased contraceptive use or reduced teen pregnancy. The other 25% could be for "innovative" programs.

USA Today

While I don't believe we should abandon abstinence education, I also don't believe we should focus only on abstinence. The way I see it, it's like military training. You don't just train a solider on the most effective weapon in his arsenal, you train him on all of them, in case he ever finds himself without that first weapon. Same logic applies here. We should keep pushing abstinence education, but we should also push contraceptives and other preventative measures, to make sure our kids have as much information as possible. We can;t control what they are going to do, but we can try and guide them down the right path, and give them some defenses in case they stray from that path.

Sotomayor Boosts Gun Sales?

While most investors have been rightly focused on the crisis in the markets and economy lately, some Americans have been focusing on other political issues, namely the Second Amendment. They wonder, will the Obama Administration and new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor put the right to bear arms in jeopardy? Clearly, many think so, as evidenced by an increase in gun sales and an associated rally in gun stocks.

MSN

Ok...I honestly did not see that one coming.

Challenges to California's Ban on Gay Marriage Doomed to Fail

The decision, the court said, “carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.”

San Fransisco Business Times

The suit that is being brought to federal court is based on a claim of violating gay citizens rights of due process and equal protection. The due process claim is utter nonsense, since a voter ballot is much more respective of due process than a legislative action or court decision. So, the focus is going to be on equal protection under the laws. As noted above, this court decision only allows for a ban on marriage, not on any other recognition under the law, such as civil unions. Therefore, homosexual relationships in California will be protected under the law. As such, there is not equal protection violation. Gay rights activists may not like it, but this was a legal amendment voted on by Californians. This does not mean that the ban will not be overturned, but any such ruling will be based purely on politics, not the law.

Specter is Making Quite a Spectacle

I know I said I would be gone for a couple weeks, but this was just too good to ignore. Also, I apologize for the title, but I couldn't help myself. Various media sources reported today that Arlen Specter, a Senator from Pennsylvania, has decided to leave the Republican party after 43 years. His decision is purely political, due to the fact that he is considered unlikely to survive the Pennsylvania Senate primary in 2010. He admitted that public opinion polls showed that he could not win that primary nomination. Therefore, as a matter of pure political preservation, Specter has decided to join the Democratic party and seek their nomination in 2010.

Needless to say, this is going to have quite an impact, politically, in the power dynamic in the U.S. Senate. Currently, the Democrats hold 56 seats, with one seat left open while legal issues are decided in Minnesota. Comedian Al Franken is expected to win the final decision and take that seat, giving Democrats 57 seats. Adding the two Independents who tend to vote with the Democratic Party (except on matters dealing with Iraq, in Sen. Lieberman's case), this would leave the majority party one vote short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and block a filibuster attempt by the minority. With Sen. Specter walking across the aisle, this will give the Democratic Caucus the 60 votes, assuming complete unity between the majority and the two Independents.

Now, considering the fact that Specter, along with Maine Republicans Sue Collins and Olympia Snowe, had voted with the majority on numerous occasions, Specter's defection is unlikely to have a serious practical impact. His voting is unlikely to change significantly, since he voted with the majority fairly frequently. However, the political implications for the GOP are not so insignificant. Love him or hate him, Specter was seen as a moderate voice in the GOP, often finding himself at odds with the more conservative leadership. Losing him as a party member will only drive the view of the GOP as an extreme right-wing party. This could turn into a public relations nightmare for the GOP.

The fact is, Specter may have been more of a Democrats than a Republican, but that could have more to do with the fact that the Republican party is losing its moderate constituency, and is being driven further to the right, alienating many independent voters. With key "old guard" members like Trent Lott and John Warner retiring, the GOP has a unique opportunity to redefine itself, along more modern criteria. How the party decides to move forward in the coming years will impact its success in the future. Regardless, many Republicans are left wondeing if Specter is just the first in a line of possible abandonment. Time will tell.

Two Week Hiatus

Not that I am completely consistent with my postings here, I will likely be on a two week hiatus as I take my exams for the semester. My last exam is May 7, but my firm's national forum will not be over until May 8. I would not expect anything new on here until May 11 or later. Enjoy the Spring weather.

Optimistic, But Largely Irrelevant

Stocks bounced Thursday as investors overlooked some troubling economic data to focus on the possibility that a recovery is in sight.

WSJ

I, like everyone else, am encouraged to see stocks rise, but let's face it, we have not likely hit bottom yet. I hope I am wrong, but I expect I am right.

Cuba's Turn to Compromise

President Barack Obama said the U.S. had gone about as far as it would go for now in easing relations with Cuba, and that he would wait for new gestures from Havana before taking further action.

WSJ

Wow, twice in one day. Obama is on a roll.

End of Chechnya Conflict?

Russia on Thursday ordered an end to its counterterrorism operation in Chechnya, a move that could lead to the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from the southern republic battered by two separatist wars in the past 15 years.

WSJ

Wow. I honestly did not see that one coming. I thought that would go on for at least another few decades.

Immunity for "Harsh" Tactics

The Obama administration granted legal immunity to Central Intelligence Agency officials who carried out harsh interrogations of terror suspects following the 9/11 attacks, giving the agency the protection it has sought for years.

WSJ

Finally, Obama does something I agree with. Better late than never.

When Will Some People Finally Let Go of Barbaric Principles?

Hundreds of Afghans swarmed a demonstration of more than 100 people protesting a conservative marriage law in Afghanistan on Wednesday. The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse. Critics say it legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.

WSJ

In understand that we now have a duty to these people, but I often wonder why we waste our time and money on people who refuse to help themselves. Say what you want about diversity and tolerance, some people are simply backwards, and always will be. I feel for those who have the courage to stand up for change, only to be met with severe backlash. They are the only ones I am concerned with anymore.

What is he planning?

Iran's president said Wednesday he is willing to forget the past and build a new relationship with the U.S., adding that he is preparing a new package of proposals aimed at breaking the impasse with the West over his country's nuclear program. The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to thousands in the southeastern city of Kerman took a conciliatory tone not usually heard in his speeches.

WSJ

Forgive my paranoia, but either he has been privately threatened, or he wants something that he feels he can bargain with us for. Either way, I still don;t trust the crafty SOB.

Don't Forget the Stick

When the operating theory in Washington is that deficit spending on every possible priority is conducive to economic growth, there's no justification for slamming the brakes on the defense budget. The world hasn't gotten any less dangerous, a fact to which Capt. Phillips can attest. If we ever tip below the level of capability necessary to enforce a rough global order, we -- and the world -- will regret it.

Real Clear Politics

I could not have said it better myself, which is why, I suppose, Rich Lowry gets paid for this and I do not. The fact is, we have invested billion into future combat systems and other DoD programs. And while I agree we need to take a closer look at what we are paying for, we need to be careful about gutting R&D that will help us stay ahead of the curve in military technology. I am all for this new Obama policy of taking a less aggressive position in foreign affairs, so long as he holds to Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy: Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

Castro Might Be Coming for Dinner

As the Obama administration considers a shift in the half-century policy of isolating Cuba, members of the Congressional Black Caucus returned from Havana saying the Castro brothers are eager to see a new day in U.S.-Cuban relations.

WSJ

Forgive me for seeming skeptical of of our foreign adversaries, but I question the motives of both the CBC and the Castro Brothers. I will not deny the economic opportunities that could result from better U.S.-Cuban relations, but we should not dive into this blindly. The Castro Brothers see new opportunity with the Obama Administration, and I am not sure I like what that says about Obama. Finally, the CBC is simply making a political move, trying to assert its own importance by being the first voting bloc within the Democratic party to hold open talks with Cuban leaders. But while they are getting their names in the papers, we might want to take another look at both Castro brothers and their ultimate motives and desires. Just my opinion.

Talk May Not Be Cheap

In a dramatic break from previous policy, the United States will join direct talks between U.N. and European powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, the State Department announced Wednesday.

CNN

I certainly do not oppose diplomatic solutions to problems. The danger here is that Iran, based on their President's public statement, is unlikely to take any talks seriously. They know that they want and feel we have no business in interfering. What are we going to have give up in order to get what we want? I am skeptical of the success of this shift in foreign policy.

Marriage Becoming Obsolete

Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.

CNN

Do you think it is a coincidence that the problem is that marriage is not taken as seriously as it once was. With all the changes, legal and otherwise, that are being made to the definition of marriage, no wonder most Americans don't take the concept as serious as they should.

Trouble in Paradise?

The lessons from the week: Members of the working group — like any small collection of Democrats — can make a difference whenever they’re ready to side with the Republicans. But the group seems to lack either the appetite or the ability to work in solidarity and undermine the agenda of a popular Democratic president.

Politico

I think what they should have said is that this group of Democrats lack the backbone to go against the President with any real force. I would still recommend reading the article, as it points out the political implications of a small voting bloc within the majority can have on the dynamic in the Senate.

We Should Hold Off on Repairing Certain Relationsips

On Tuesday the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is accused of orchestrating a string of attacks in Pakistan, warned that Washington may be attacked for offering $5 million for information leading to his location or arrest.

Reuters

I understand that one Taliban leader may not actually be an accurate example of all Taliban leaders, but we may want to investigate further before Clinton continues offering this extremist regime an olive branch in Afghanistan.

Sure, Let's Listen to the French

Group of 20 leaders need to give regulators oversight of unregulated markets and products, such as credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, to prevent future systemic crises, according to Jean-Pierre Jouyet, head of the French market watchdog AMF and head of an international task force on unregulated markets.

WSJ

Since the French economy has done so well over the last decade, lets take their advice (please note the sarcasm).

Right Idea, Wrong Application

America is relearning an old lesson: Failure and bankruptcy are essential to capitalism.

WSJ

I am just glad somebody said it. I suggest reading the full article. I began reading it with high hopes, but this gentleman, despite having sound financial knowledge, still makes inconsistent conclusions. He has the right idea, but is using it to advocate for the wrong course of action.

Despite Funding, nature to Take its Course

The Obama's administration's leading plan to fix General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would use bankruptcy filings to purge the ailing companies of their biggest problems, including bondholder debt and retiree health-care costs, according to people familiar with the matter.

WSJ

Without a federal bailout, the auto industry may have been forced to deal with various bankruptcy filings. Thank God we decided to put billions into the auto industry, so they can declare bankruptcy. Wait, WTF!?!?! Once again, that is money well spent right there.

Doing a Bang-Up Job!

Stocks fell sharply as turmoil in the auto industry and depleted hope for financial and economic stability eroded much of the market's March gains.

WSJ

Despite all the talk about more government involvement being the key to quick recovery, all of the meddling in private industries led to yet another dive in stocks, led by the banking and auto industries. With the Administration talking about expanded authority to take over banks and non-banking financial institutions, and then forcing the current GM chief exec out on his ass, stock holders are showing little or no confidence in the government's ability to micro manage private industries...and so am I. So, we should all thank the Obama Administration for having the exact opposite effect they intended. Job Well Done!

No Real Change

Notably, Democratic leaders in both houses are pushing packages that call for narrower deficits and less spending than proposed by the White House. And those levels could go lower, especially in the Senate, where moderate Democrats from conservative states will be an important factor in the debate on the floor next week.

WSJ

Even OMB Director Peter Orzag is quoted as saying that the House and Senate proposals are 98% similar to the White House proposal. So much for Congress establishing its own independence. Our only hope now is for the 51 Blue Dogs in the House to jump ship and act reasonably. I am not holding my breath.

Still Slipping

Mr. Geithner's proposal, which could be modified amid congressional debate, would allow the Treasury and FDIC to jointly determine—after consulting with the Federal Reserve—if a company needed to be seized.

WSJ

I really cannot believe we are even considering this. We may not be a pure capitalist society, but we are a country with capitalist roots, and a free market core. The fact that we have an administration that is actually suggesting giving giving the government the power to take over private firms scares the crap out of me. If we keep going down this path, "socialism" is going to be an all too common term.

Budget Brings Out the Hypocrites

Stan Collender, in his most recent column in Roll Call, calls out many of those Democrats who are complaining about the way Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), and other lawmakers are handling the President's Budget Proposal for fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The every same Democrats who accused the Republican-controlled Congress of merely rubber-stamping President Bush's fiscal and legislative initiatives are now criticizing Conrad for establishing Congressional independence in regards to the budget.

As with most political pundits and so-called advocates, principles only factor into decision-making when it is convenient. Now, I don't support Conrad's budget either (which should be released on Thursday), but at least it is a step in the right direction when compared to the Obama proposal.

Slippery Slope

The U.S. government needs to be able to take over and wind down a broad range of economically important non-bank financial institutions, top economic officials told Congress Tuesday, though who will get that authority was left as an open question. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told House lawmakers the government's experience with American International Group Inc. highlights the need to deal with increasingly complex and systemically important institutions.

WSJ Online

The way to deal with the institutions is to let them succeed or fail on their own mertis, and not bail out failing industries with taxpayer dollars. But instead, this slope keeps getting even more slippery.

Dodd Double Talk

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

CNN

I am not going to comment on whatever reason Dodd claims to have included the language, or even if the language should have been in the bailout. Instead, I want to focus on how just one day after telling CNN that he had nothing to do with inserting the bonus language, Dodd admits to be the main architect of the provision. Did he really lie to CNN yesterday, or is he lying today? Did he refuse to admit to his stupidity only after getting caught, or is he protecting someone in the Administration? Either way, I hope this adds to his political troubles so he will lose his Senate seat in 2010.

Not in My House

Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

WSJ

There had better be some damn strict, rigid levels of proof required to release any of these bastards. I, for one, am not comfortable with this at all.

Socialist Administration

President Barack Obama said he will seek legal authority over the financial system that will give the federal government power to step into contract issues, such as the one that has allowed American International Group Inc. to pay out $165 million in retention bonuses to employees of the tottering insurance giant's financial products group. The president said he spoke with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank this morning about granting him "resolution authority" similar to the power the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has over the thrifts it regulates. That would allow his administration to potentially abrogate contracts that it can show does not serve the good of newly regulated entities like AIG.

WSJ

This is exactly why I was against the bailout plan from the start. Not only did the government give taxpayer's money to companies that already proved they cannot be trusted to use capital in an intelligent manner, it gives the government a foothold in private companies. This type of government involvement goes against the fabric of the free, capitalist ideologies that our country was founded upon. Once Obama beings involving himself in the operations of "newly-regulated" companies, what is to stop him from applying this authority to even more private entities. The term "slippery slope" was coined for precisely these kind of situations.

Update:

Obama is taking responsibility for the bonuses, not because he was invovled, but because he believes a leader should keep things like this from happeneing. This false sense of humility is simply another ploy to lend credibility to his efforts to place private businesses under governmental control.

Bipartisan?

"I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy," Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, said during his daily briefing to journalists at the White House. "So they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal."
Washington Post

I understand why Gibbs was trying to downplay Cheney's credibility and relevance, but his wording did little to help the Administration's facade of bipartisanship. If Obama want sto pass himself off as a unifying force in Washington, his spokesman should not be making comments about the "Republican cabal." Partisan shots like that should be left to liberal pundits or members of Congress.

That being said, the GOP needs to start putting muzzles and leashes on "members" like Limbaugh and Cheney. Most of America looks on both of these men in a negative way, so as long as they are associated with the party, the party is not going to rebound from the last 3 years. They really need to start making better decisions.

Jindal's Response Was Lacking Credibility

It was billed as a "coming out party" for one of the GOP's most promising young stars. But after nearly universal criticism was heaped on Gov. Bobby Jindal's high-profile response to President Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night, the Louisiana Republican may be wishing he had stayed home.

CNN

The delivery was too reminiscent of a Saturday morning PSA. He seemed like he was auditioning to do books on tape, or to be the voice over on a History Channel programs on geographical phenomenon. Some if the substance of his speech was on point, but the overly corney delivery took away from his argument and soured his national debut.

Obama's First Address to Congress

I have very mixed feelings regarding Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress last night. However, when you factor in the realities we face with his political rhetoric, I am left with no real positive outlook on his Presidency. While I, like most of those present at the speech, agreed with certain priorities that the President listed, I am afraid we do not see eye to eye on how to get there.

A few points that the President brought up that I agree with in principle: lowering the deficit, cutting wasteful government spending, tax cuts, and education, health care, and energy reform. Above all else, the federal government's top priority should be paying down the national debt. The Republicans showed a complete lack of fiscal restraint when they held the majority. As the supposed party of "change," the Democrats should reign in government spending, and work at bringing down the national debt. If President Obama can pull that off without raising taxes, then I can almost promise that he will get my vote in 2012.

One way to help bring down spending is to eliminate inefficient, wasteful government programs. The President has appointed a federal official to oversee the investigation into program effectiveness. I wish her the greatest possible success. However, President Bush tried for 8 consecutive years to cut dozens of wasteful programs. His proposals would have increased federal funding for programs that were proven successes, without raising the overall bottom line, by redirecting funds from inefficient and unsuccessful programs. He could not get the Republican Congress to agree to eliminate these programs, and he could not get the Democratic Congress on board either. Hopefully, Obama can trade on his currently un-earned popularity and maybe get Congress to fall in line.

Finally, Obama mentioned a strong deisre to reform our nation's education, health care, and energy systems. I am all for reform, I just don;t believe the President and I agree on what kind of reform is necessary. I believe the only government involvement in these areas is to deregulate. That's right, I said the very unpopular phrase "deregulate." I think local educators have a much better idea of what their students need than a bureaucrat in Washington. I think that companies should be encouraged (though tax breaks) to provide health care plans for employees that are affordable and effective. I believe that the government should promote new research and production of alternative fuel sources, mainly through R&D grants and additional tax incentives. The key to success is getting government out of the way, not giving them more chains to tie down those in the field.

On other issues, such as pulling troops out of Iraq, I still have mixed feelings. Americans have been fighting and dying in an area of the country that seems less and less to appreciate what we have done. The cost of the ongoing conflict has brought out deficit up to unbelievable levels. The cost, both fiscal and human, is too high. However, we are over there, we have been involved, and therefore, we cannot just bailout and leave the region in a war-torn mess. We have to find a way to transfer authority gradually, helping to give the ungrateful bastards the best chance at a lasting peace.

In regards to taxes, I applaud an effort to give 95% of American tax breaks. However, that number is based on some very "fuzzy" math. The fact is, the so called wealthiest 1% of Americans are the ones paying the majority of our taxes. They are already shouldering the largest portion of taxes, and should not be subject to additional burden. Rather than taking more money from those who have it, lets focus on more efficient ways to spend the money they are already giving us. Besides, any increased costs are almost always passed down to the average consumer. that mean taxes on corporation eventually gets passed on to those consumers, who end up paying higher prices.

Speaking of corporate taxes, the President mentioned ending tax breaks for businesses that "ship jobs overseas." I agree, in general, with the premise that companies that outsource jobs should not be rewarded for doing so. however, increased taxes means those companies are more likely to ship all of their operations overseas. Rather than focusing on how to punish those companies, we need to work on ways to encourage domestic businesses to keep jobs in the country, as well as ways to entice foreign companies to bring their operations into the U.S.

In the end, I believe his speech was well written and delivered very well. however, it lacked in substance, and it points in a direction that will only further complicate things. We need reform, and we need change, but it needs to be the right kind of change. Instead of "Change We Can Believe In," how about "Change We Can Depend On," or "Change We Can Follow to Prosperity." I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the President does turn around the country. I am simply not convinces. My advice to the President and his supporters is to be very careful in how you chose to proceed, because the fate of the nation depends on the choices you make now.

Ulterior Motive

Jindal's party is putting him on a national platform, awarding the once little-known congressman the political plum of delivering the Republican's televised response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress on February 24.

CNN

I can't help but wonder if there is an ulterior motive here. I believe Jindal is qualified to give the response, and he is a very intelligent man. However, I can't help but feel that the GOP only picked him to deliver a response to Obama's speech because he is a minority member of the party. Moves like this are always a risk. It may have the desired effect of portraying the party as a new agent for change, or it can backfire if the normally oblivious voters recognize the move as a cheap attempt at picking up a few minority voters. Interesting move.

Why Reward Failure?

Reading the news that General Motors and Chrysler are now lining up for another $20 billion or so in government aid — on top of the billions they’ve already received or requested — leaves me with the sick feeling that we are subsidizing the losers and for only one reason: because they claim that their funerals would cost more than keeping them on life support. Sorry, friends, but this is not the American way. Bailing out the losers is not how we got rich as a country, and it is not how we’ll get out of this crisis.

NYT Article

While I am not in 100% agreement with the rest of his analysis, Friedman makes a very good point. If you absolutely have to use taxpayer money to try and jump start the economy, which I am not sure you do, then why waste it on propping up failed companies? Rather than throwing away money on those who have already showed their propensity for failure, lets give new industries, with fresh new ideas, a chance to shine. If I HAVE to give my hard-earned money away, I would rather use it give an upcoming business a shot at making it, than hand it over to someone who has already flushed millions down the economic toilet. Just a thought.

Obama Pledges More Troops to Afghanistan

President Barack Obama has approved a significant troop increase for Afghanistan, Pentagon officials told CNN Tuesday.

Aside from a few of his cabinet picks, this is the first decision that Obama has made that I agree with. While I might have a few concerns regarding the troop withdrawal from Iraq, I have said many times that I would support troop reduction in Iraq if it is done properly. I will withhold judgment until I see more details to this plan.

Still a Manufacturing Competitor

Manufacturing in the United States isn't dead or even dying. It's moving upscale, following the biggest profits, and becoming more efficient, just like Henry Ford did when he created the assembly line to make the Model T. The U.S. by far remains the world's leading manufacturer by value of goods produced. It hit a record $1.6 trillion in 2007 — nearly double the $811 billion in 1987. For every $1 of value produced in China's factories, America generates $2.50.

MSN

Despite some pretty alarming drops in manufacturing, we still are doing well, depending on how you look at it. We are producing more in areas in which we excel, while other industries are losing to foreign competitors. Its all about specialization. Good for some, not so good for others. That's the market for you.

Wall Street Crystal Ball

The stock market doesn't have much to hang its hat on. With the stream of corporate earnings reports waning and President Barack Obama preparing to sign the $787 billion stimulus package, investors this week will be looking for fresh clues about the economy. Wall Street has been busy focusing on companies' quarterly numbers and the developments in Washington. Now, investors are faced with finding less obvious answers to the question "What's next?"

MSN

Put simply: no one knows what to expect, so prepare for a bumpy road.

Is There a Correct Mix?

Does the stimulus bill include the right combination of spending cuts and tax increases? The answer is actually very simple:

1. There is no generally agreed-upon formula for combining tax cuts and spending increases in a stimulus bill.
2. Economic policymaking is at least as much an art as it is a science.
3. The right ratio of tax cuts to spending increases is whatever it takes to get the bill enacted.
4. It looks like this bill is going to be enacted.
5. Therefore, by definition, the mix in this bill is correct.

Capital Gains and Games

Stan wrote another interesting post last week, dealing with the gap between economic theory and political reality. However, Stan's entire argument depends on the assumption that a stimulus bill is necessary. I personally believe the right combination is tax cuts along with spending cuts, not increases. However, I am not in Congress, though even I understand cutting spending in the middle of a recession, regardless of the economic benefits, has too many political consequences. It is important to always remember every elected officials first job: to get reelected.

Only When it is Convenient

In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard." A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."

MSN Article

I am always amazed at how people claim to subscribe to certain ideologies and beliefs, and yet turn against their own tenets when it become less convenient. So called "liberal" academics claim to be all for diversity and open-mindedness, but as soon as someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own, that person no longer has the right to express anything. Now, I know that this is an extreme case, not necessarily representative of all liberal academics, but it just goes to show that no social, political, religious, or academic group is immune to hypocrisy. People need to learn that principles only mean something when you stand by them at all times, especially when it is inconvenient.

Gregg Withdraws His Nomination

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, the third Cabinet-level pick scuttled. The move left President Barack Obama without a full team to lead the government. He cited "irresolvable conflicts" with Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

This is definitely a big loss for the Obama Administration. Gregg is long time budget hawk and would have brought a voice of fiscal responsibility to the White House. The President is not doing too well with his cabinet picks.


MSNB Article.

Hypocritical Nature on Capitol Hill

During yesterday's conference on H.R. 1, I was forced to sit and listen to conferees from both parties spew out more hypocritical rhetoric than I could handle. Rep. Camp (R-MI), Rep. Lewis (R-CA) and Sen. Grassley (R-IA) all complained about not having the opportunity to participate in the "real" negotiations on the stimulus conference report. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) responded by claiming to be much more open to bipartisan participation that the Republican majority.

I know that I chose to enter into a field dealing with Congressional politics, but sometimes all the double-talk and finger-pointing gets to me. The fact is, the Republicans never cared about giving the minority a voice in negotiations on important pieces of legislation. And the Democrats are currently carrying on that proud tradition of excluding the lesser party. Of the more than 200 Republicans in Congress, only three have been involved in negotiations, because Democratic leaders know those three will vote with them. This "bipartisan" culture is nothing but a sham. The majority always controls the conversation (As it should be). But neither side will admit it publicly, because it is more important to them to simply bash the other side. It can be very aggravating at times.

This Ball Will Keep Rolling

Stan Collender, a federal budget guru and blogger, recently wrote an article for Roll Call in which he tries to point out that the economy needs steady recovery, not an ER style infusion. While I tend to agree with his assessment, I do not condone his acquiescence to the fact that Congress will (and seeming should, according to his tone in the article) pass additional "stimulus" measures. I cannot get on board with this point of view.

Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector. In effect, they approved an unreal amount of money to give to companies that drove themselves into ruin. Rather than allowing the market to weed out the unsuccessful, irresponsible market navigators, the government is giving money to companies that proved they don;t know how to properly use it. Now, Congress is in the final stages of approving an $800 billion "stimulus" bill, aimed at helping so-called "main street" recover. Despite the fact that CBO estimates do not show these "stimulus" programs as actually helping the economy in the immediate future (as Congress claims), Congress is already considering moving on with additional legislative measures.

Rather than waiting to see if their course of action is the correct one, and if their programs will have the desired effect, they go full speed ahead to the next disaster. Democrats went on and on during their time in the minority regarding wasteful spending, and sticking future generations with the bill for our mistakes. Now that they have control of he government, they are continuing the failed policies of the Republican majority. Rather than waiting to see if the $1.5 trillion that was approved over a 5 month period actually helps, they are setting to dig even deeper into the debt to thrown more money away. Unbelievable.

Administration Can't Stop Market Plunge

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner failed Tuesday to persuade Wall Street that he will succeed where his predecessor Henry Paulson failed. Geithner outlined the administration's plan to restart frozen credit markets and bolster the health of troubled banks. He said the economy will recover from its swoon only with the help of healthy financial institutions.

I agree that the economy will only recover with the felp of healthy financial institutions. I just don't believe there is anything Geithner, or anyone else in Washington, can (or should) do to speed up the recovery of those institutions.

Not Prepared for the Long Haul

Senators prepared for a vote Tuesday on the huge White House-backed economic stimulus bill, following a prime-time appeal from President Barack Obama Monday night to quickly approve the legislation and bolster the suffering U.S. economy.

What happens when the economy does not immediately bounce back in the miraculous manner that the President and Congressional Leaders claim it will? It took more than a year for us to realize how bad it would get, it will take just as long, if not longer, to realize that things are getting better. For those who are expecting a quick turn around, you should begin preparing yourself for disappointment.

To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?

I am continually amazed at the way the federal government, the press, and the American public react to economic issues in this country. The entire cycle perpetuates itself. The press paints drastic pictures, designed to scare the public and keep the tuned in to the news networks. As the people get more worried, the polls show that they want action, which spurs Congress into action. But rather than put serious through into a measured response, lawmakers throw together over $800 billion dollars in unnecessary spending, just so they can be seen on TV as trying to solve the problem. The constant debating and bickering in Congress gives the media more to discuss, and more opportunity to spin the truth in a way that keeps the public scared...and the cycle continues.

It should come as no surprise that am firmly in the camp that believes the government does not NEED to do anything to pull the economy out of a recession. The market moves in cycles, and will eventually correct itself. Impatience and panic won't allow the more reasonable minds to prevail, and so Congress is working furiously to pass an "economic stimulus" package, aimed at helping speed up the recovery time. Despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report that shows that most of the discretionary spending offered in Congress will not have the desired effect until 2011 (when many economists believe the recession would end naturally anyway), Congress is pushing on with a bill of a base cost of $838 billion (according to CBO estimates). Once you factor in estimated interest costs, the package comes in at over $1 trillion, despite the fact that the U.S. has debts totaling over $11 trillion.

If Congress absolutely has to get involved, they should limit themselves to creating tax incentives for businesses and individuals, the only proven way to truly stimulate the economy. Less taxes means more money in the market, which can lead to greater revenue, more jobs, and higher salaries and benefits. Now, both the House and Senate proposals include a number of tax incentives, but they are buried under billions in discretionary spending. This does not even include the billions that will go out through the annual appropriations process when Congress finishes work on fiscal year 2009 (FY09) spending. Much of this spending may not have the desired effect, which President Obama admitted in a public address yesterday, but it will continue to drag the country farther down into debt.

During their time spent in the minority, the Democratic party went on and on about how deep the President and his Republican majority was going into debt. I agreed fully with their assessment. The Republican Congress abandoned their conservative ideologies and let their spending get out of control. However, now that the Democrats have regained control of both Congress and the White House, they seem content to continue this culture of irresponsibility. As a result, we will go deeper into debt (a debt that is owned by China and other foreign powers) and the economy is not likely to recover any quicker than if it had been left to the natural forces of the market.

To give the Senate some credit, they were able to cut about $110 billion out of the proposal, cutting much of the funding that is not directly related to stimulating the economy. However, that is like ordering the triple cheeseburger, with extra grease, but taking off the mayo. It might be a little less unhealthy, but will still clog your arteries. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will vote with the majority, giving them the votes needed to pass this farce. They claim a victory because they pushed through the cuts. All they did was trim some of the fat, ignoring the real problems associated with the bill.

Resources:
CBO Stimulus Reports
Stan Collender Coverage

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.