November 28, 2008

     Presidential candidates talked a lot during the campaign about being experienced, ready to take charge "on day one."  But as we are being reminded these days, our system doesn't work that way.  Inauguration Day comes more than two months after the election.  Barack Obama can talk about how he's going to fix the economy, but he can't do anything until January 20th.
 
     Most parliamentary systems work differently.  In Britain, if the ruling Labour Party were to lose a vote of confidence, the opposition Conservatives would have a chance to form a government.  If they had the votes, they'd be in charge right away.  If they had to bargain with the third party Liberals, it might take longer but it would still be pretty quick.
 
     Do we lose things by our long delay?  Well, not if the country is peaceful and prosperous, but this year, yes, we probably do.  Obama's made a lot of proposals for how he'd fix the economy, has appointed an economic team of heavy hitters, but right now they're powerless.  Power is almost two months off.
 
     President Bush wants to fix the economy too, of course, but he has less power as his time in office wanes.  The Democrats gained seats in both the House and Senate and are likely to say, let's wait and give Barack a chance.   
 
     Will all this many any actual difference?  I have no idea.  I am not sure exactly how we got so deeply into this mess--dumb loans, sure, but is that all?  And I certainly don't claim to now how to make things better.  Economics was never my best subject in school.
 
     Obama sounds as if he just might know.  But we'll have to wait until January to find out.  
 
       

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 25, 2008

     The economy is a mess;  that's the bad news.  The president-elect gets that, and seems to know what to do about it. That's the good news.

 

     The key to a sound economy is jobs.   And there was Obama this past weekend outlining his plan: "It will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jump start job creation in America...We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, building wind farms and solar panels...."  See?  He gets it.

 

    We have a lot of old infrastructure stuff in this country.  Most governments in industrial countries spend serious money modernizing the infrastructure.  We don't and it shows.  As Bob Herbert points out in the New York Times, you have to spend this money wisely, not simply build bridges to nowhere of the kind Congress so loves.  But there's no reason we couldn't do that if we tried;  we just haven't tried lately.

 

     One of the odd failings of the Bush administration is this failing.  You'd think conservatives wanted small government and less federal spending, sure.  But Bush has managed to spend more, to send the national debt to record highs, and ignore the things that need doing at home.

 

     Maybe the new guy will do better.  Maybe we can cut back on foolish expenditures like the war in Iraq and spend some of that money on all these things that need doing at home--and building prosperity by paying American workers good money to do them.

 

    Maybe it won't happen, of course.  But the new guy does seem to know what needs doing.  That's progress all by itself. 

---

Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the "I'm a PC" Messenger themepack now. Download now.

November 21, 2008

     My dictionary defines arrogance as a feeling of superiority, manifested by an overbearing manner.  We've had some synonyms for arrogance in Washington this week.  Richard Wagoner is a synonym for arrogance.  So are Robert Nardelli and Alan Mulally.  These three clowns, or titans of industry if you prefer, are the chief executives of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford.
 
     They are synonyms for arrogance because, when they came to town this week to beg Congress for money--different from the guy on the street with a tin cup only in that they wanted more--they arrived, each of them, in his company's corporate jet.  Can you believe that?
 
     I mean, they could have shared a jet.  They could, come to that, have shared a car, except that there chauffeurs may have had the day off.  Corporate jets for beggars!  What will we think of next?  Corporate jets for chimpanzees, maybe.  Why ever not?
 
    Congress didn't give the beggars any money this week.  It almost surely will eventually, not because their argument has merit--what can they say except that they failed to make cars that enough Americans wanted to buy--but because so many Americans work in the auto plants that cutting them lose would be very hard medicine for an economy already in trouble.
 
     But I have one suggestion--any of our tax money that Congress gives the auto companies should be given only on the condition that these three captains of industry are fired.  They won't go hungry;  they are all paid eight figure salaries--twenty, thirty million a year--and they must have put a few bucks by for a rainy day.
 
     One other suggestion--don't let them teach anything like business administration;  they clearly haven't a clue.  Maybe they could be parking lot attendants, something like that   And please, make the companies sell off the jets--that's a little of your and my tax charity for these bozos that could be saved. 

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 19, 2008

 

     Ted Stevens is leaving the Senate.  Joe Lieberman is staying.  Different men, different lives.

 

     Stevens served in the Senate for forty years, longer than any other Republican.  He was an Alaska institution, mostly because he got so many goodies for his state.  He lost his election this time, mainly, I suppose, because just before the vote he was convicted on felony charges of lying on federal forms about gifts and home renovations he'd received.

 

     He routinely brought home billions in earmarks--9 billion in 2006 alone, according to one estimate.  But the felony conviction hurt, and he's out now--the close election called just this week, on his 85th birthday.  Well, forty years is a long time to keep one job.  I think Stevens had come to think the Senate was his, that the regular rules didn't apply to him.  Richard Nixon famously said once that "if the president does it, it's not illegal."  Watergate proved him wrong.  I suspect--I surely don't know--that Stevens had come to think of his power in the Senate in much the same way.

 

      While Republicans were debating what to do with Stevens--in the end they did nothing, the voters decided the election-- Senate Democrats were deciding what to do about Joe Lieberman.  He's an independent--one of two in the Senate--who caucuses with the Democrats--that is, votes with them on organizing the place--and so he's chairman of an important committee.

 

     Lieberman's offense was that he campaigned for John McCain in the election, not Barack Obama.  But the Democrats decided to do nothing.  I think--I surely, again, don't know--that Lieberman's personality had a lot to do with that.  He's a nice guy, fun to talk to, somebody you'd like to have lunch with, quite a different mix from the chillier Stevens.   Personality matters in politics, in how you appeal to the voters and, in a club like the Senate, what your fellow members think of you. 

 

      

---

Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile®. See how.

November 17, 2008

     A report from Dubai quotes former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani as saying he may run for president again.   Boy, I'll bet that has Republicans all over this country twitching with excitement.  The equivalent for the Democrats, I suppose, would be if Dennis Kucinich announced plans for a third White House run.  But the Democrats will presumably have an incumbent president running in 2012, so Kucinich may have to wait.
 
    The real question for Republicans probably isn't who, but what?  What sort of candidate and what sort of party should he represent?   Traditionally, the Republicans were for limited government, smaller government, lower taxes.  But George W. Bush has blown a huge hole in that philosophy.  He has spent more than any other president, has run the national debt up to record highs.  It will be hard to recover from that because we are in a recession and of course that's when people want more help from their government, not less.
 
     And Mr. Bush led us into two wars.  You can argue that he had no choice but to go after terrorists in Afghanistan after 9/11.  But he had plenty of choice about Iraq and chose a war which costs billions of dollars every month.   The Iraqis have now said we should leave by the end of 2011.  But a new conservative approach might be, why wait so long?  John McCain campaigned on staying until we'd achieved "victory" but I've never been sure what that would look like.
 
     A conservative party might emphasize diplomacy, not force of arms, in foreign policy.  No one wants to go back to 1930s isolationism, but it's surely cheaper to talk to other countries than to fight them.
 
     Domestically, there are programs that can be cut--subsidies to industry, subsidies to the arts, and so on.  And a conservative party might want to spend money, and create jobs, fixing up our aging infrastructure--roads, bridges, and so on.  It would put people to work and we need that.
 
     Anyway, that's the debate that hopefully lies ahead for the GOP.  Rudy Giuliani?  That can wait.  

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 16, 2008

 
 
 
 
     It's time to have fun in Washington these days, time to spread irresponsible rumors.  Just wander down the street where two or three people can hear you and say something like, "I hear it's Charlie Brown for Defense."  Keep walking.  They'll pass it on and, with any luck, you'll read some pundit in the morning, "Reliable sources say Charlie Brown is on the short list for Secretary of Defense."  You can't beat it.
 
    The fact usually is, of course, that the ones who know don't talk and the ones who talk don't know, but that's no reason not to have fun with it.  I keep reading, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is on the short list for Secretary of State.  Well, why not?  If I were President-elect Obama,  I'd be more likely to offer her Health, Education & Welfare.  She spent a lot of time, you may remember, working on health care during her husband's first year as president.  It didn't go anywhere; Congress didn't pass a bill.  But I'm sure she learned a lot about the issue and has learned more since.  What the heck, let Charlie Brown drive the tank.
 
     And that raises another question.  How much fun would you have in a cabinet job?  Most presidents want to be in charge themselves on the big issues:  foreign policy, defense.  You might have more power as Secretary of Agriculture.  Presidents are less likely to want to read the fine print on a 400 page farm bill.  Or maybe you'd be happier back in the Senate.  Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel was quoted as saying he'd rather stay there.  You can pretty much choose how many hours you work, except for when big votes are scheduled, and you can learn as much or as little as you want about the various issues.
 
     The restaurant's gone up and down over the years, but most people who lunch at the State Department cafeteria don't rave about it either.    
 
     Anyway, it's an exciting time.
 
     Really?  Angelina Jolie for Treasury?  Where'd you hear that one?  I'll pass it on.
    

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 15, 2008

 
     The New York Times reminds us that on this date in 1969--39 years ago--something like a quarter of a million people massed in Washington to demonstrate, mostly peacefully, against the Vietnam war.  The Mall was full, from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial.  I'm sure there were speeches.  I don't remember any of them.  What was extraordinary was this huge crowd assembled to tell its government--hey, you've messed up.  This war is a mistake.
 
     Nothing like that nowadays.  I'm not sure why.  I thought the Vietnam war was a mistake, especially after I'd covered it for some months.  I haven't covered Iraq--too old and slow--but from the start I've thought it was a mistake as well.  Sure, Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but he was no threat to the United States and he had nothing to do with the terrorists in Al-Qaeda.
 
     One difference, of course, is  that we still had a draft then.  Every draft age young man, and every parent of one, could think--hey, I have a stake in this.  Today our armed forces are volunteer.  Another difference is that American casualties are lower--fewer than, 5,000 Americans killed in Iraq;  58,000  American names are on the Wall here which honors the Americans killed in Vietnam. 
 
     Still, a bad war is a bad war.  That one was.  This one is.  I'm surprised we are not angrier about it.  Will President-elect Obama get us out of it as Richard Nixon, of all people, finally decided to get us out of Vietnam?  We have to hope so.
 
     I remember that demonstration, all those years ago.  There were many demonstrations and I could be wrong, but I think I ended my report for CBS News 39 years ago by saying, "It's been a very long day.  It's been a very long war."  This time too, Mr. President-elect.  This time too.
 
   
    .

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

November 11, 2008

 

     Abraham Lincoln said it best in his second Inaugural Address as the Civil War was coming to an end.   "...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan...."  Care was less sophisticated then;  one cavalry troops was told they could keep the horses;  they'd need them for spring plowing.

 

     The best job we've ever done of caring for those who have borne the battle was, I think, with the GI Bill which became law at the end of World War II.  It paid a generation which could never have afforded college enough money to earn a degree.  I met some them--I was just starting college, they were finishing up--and they were doing fine--not living lavishly--who in college was?--but able to afford tuition and books and food and rent.  They graduated.

 

     Another part of the Bill offered veterans who wanted to buy a house low-interest mortgages.  A man named Leavitt pioneered building low cost homes--seven thousand dollars or so, unimaginable today--and the face of America changed.  That first GI Bill, whether Congress intended it or not, turned out to be one of the most important pieces of social legislation in our history.  It changed the country.

 

     We haven't done as well by veterans since--help with college, but often not enough to pay all the bills, and so one.  And the veterans of our two current wars--Iraq and Afghanistan--face special problems.   They are sent back for more than one tour, which adds stress and tension to their lives.  Some are badly hurt physically, wheelchair bound or using complicated prostheses which they handle--the few I've met--with astounding courage and grace.

 

     But money is short.   The Washington Post won journalism awards last year for pointing out inadequate care being given to some vets at Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in Washington.

 

     I read, Mr. President-elect, that your priority will be to focus on our distressed economy, and no wonder.  But you might want to give a thought, this Veterans' Day, to those who "shall have borne the battle" and how we can better pay them what we owe them,  which is a lot.  

---

See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life Click here