The End of Common Sense

There are certain basic principles that have universal application.   In my opinion, these principles represent basic common sense and can and should be applied to the extent applicable when raising children, managing an educational institution, teaching students in a classroom, coaching a sports team, managing a business or group of employees, creating or maintaining relationships with friends or family members, or making decisions on how to live a responsible and independent life.  Unfortunately, there is at least one place where these principles are ignored more often than they are followed.   Our elected government officials do not apply these principles when they are adopting and implementing the laws and regulations that affect virtually every aspect of our lives.

It is difficult for me to see how anyone could disagree with the basic common sense principles to which I am referring, but it is obvious that many people do.  Because we elect our government officials and have the power to remove them from office, and because our government officials do not follow these principles, I have to assume that most voters do not agree with them.  Some of the principles to which I am referring are as follows:

(1)   Every adult, unless disabled, has an obligation to provide for his or her own livelihood and for the livelihood of his or her children.  Children are the responsibility of their parents—not of their parent’s neighbors or anyone else.    People are less likely to assume personal responsibility for themselves and their families when they are encouraged to become dependent on other people or on the government. 

(2)   People do not have the right to be rewarded simply for doing what they are expected to do, such as attending school, showing up for work, or paying their bills.  Someone who fails to do what he or she is expected to do should suffer the consequences of the failure.

(3)   Life is not fair.   All people have the right to equal opportunities, but some people will always have an advantage and other people will always have a disadvantage because of the families or the circumstances into which they are born.   Moreover, an equal opportunity does not guarantee an equal outcome.  No one has the right to a favorable outcome for everything he or she does.    

(4)   Individuals should be rewarded rather than penalized for their success, which may result from hard work, the willingness to take risks, a gifted mind, luck, other factors, or a combination of factors.   Individuals who are unsuccessful for whatever reason do not have the right to benefit from the success of others.

(5)    Bad decisions have consequences.  People do not have the right to be protected from the consequences of their bad decisions.  Someone who makes a bad decision, however, deserves forgiveness and a second chance but does not have the right to transfer the adverse consequences of his or her decision to others.     

(6)    Everyone should live within his or her means.   No one should purchase goods or services unless he or she can afford to pay for them.  No one should borrow from the future.   A person who is in debt cannot expect to get out of debt by incurring more debt.

(7)    Everyone should always save for a rainy day and remember that a penny saved is a penny earned.

(8)    Nothing in life is free.  There will be unlimited demand for any good or service provided for free, but someone has to pay for it.  If an individual obtains goods or services without working for them or paying for them, then he or she is benefitting from someone else’s labor.      

 (9)   All people should give voluntarily and generously to help those in need, and they can experience great joy and satisfaction by doing so.   The joy and satisfaction of giving, however, will be replaced by resentment when property is involuntarily taken from someone who has earned it and transferred to someone who did not earn it.    

(10)   Fear of shame creates an incentive for moral and ethical behavior.  When immoral or unethical behavior is tolerated and accepted by society, there will be no shame and the result will be increased immoral or unethical behavior.

It is obvious, of course, that many people are and always will be unable or unwilling to live their lives in accordance with the principles I have identified.  It seems to me, however, that our government policies should be designed to provide incentives for people who follow these principles and disincentives for those who do not.  Instead, many of our government policies do just the opposite.  They encourage the behavior that should be discouraged and discourage the behavior that should be encouraged. 

The Daily Disappointment

One of my uncles, who was a great man with a great sense of humor, used to refer to the newspaper in my hometown as The Daily Disappointment.    In order to keep from offending me, he suspended use of this term, at least in my presence, while I was serving as a reporter for the local newspaper.   It didn’t take long after I had left the newspaper, however, before he was again referring to The Daily Disappointment.   

I am not sure why my uncle was disappointed when he read the local newspaper.   There really wasn’t much to it.   It was small in size, usually about eight pages, including the classified advertisements.   Although most editions contained some world and national news supplied by the Associated Press, the emphasis was on news involving the local community.   Most of the local news was upbeat and positive with headlines like “Jones Receives Eagle Scout Award” and “Hoops Team Beats Mt. Sterling.”  

Journalism was my major in college.    I was taught to observe the difference between news and opinion.    Articles on the news pages were supposed to be objective and unbiased.   Opinions were reserved for the editorial pages.    

Today, when I read newspapers or watch the news on television, I am frequently reminded of my uncle’s reference to The Daily Disappointment.   I am deeply disappointed with today’s journalists.    It seems to me that many, if not most, of today’s journalists, especially those who report on politics, are activists who are more interested in promoting their own point of view than they are in providing objective news and analysis. 

Every journalist, of course, has his or her own opinions about matters of public policy.  As a result, it would be extremely difficult for any reporter to be completely objective and unbiased.   Unfortunately, many journalists seem to have abandoned objectivity as a goal.    

The best way to demonstrate media bias is to quote members of the media and let their own words speak for themselves.   The Media Research Center does just that.   It is an organization that monitors the national news media for the purpose of demonstrating just how biased the media is.    I think the Media Research Center does an excellent job of compiling examples of media bias.   My primary complaint about the organization is that it only reveals examples of liberal bias.    It is a conservative organization focused solely on demonstrating liberal bias.   The Media Research Center also does not do a good job of drawing a distinction between reporters and commentators.  

Several weeks ago, the Media Research Center released the winners of its 21^st Annual Awards for the Year’s Worst Reporting.  The annual awards are designed to identify the most outrageous or humorous news media quotes during the previous year.   Some of my favorite quotes from those identified by the Media Research Center are set forth below: 

(1)   Former MSNBC news anchor Chris Matthews earned the honor of "Quote of the Year" for his reaction to a Barack Obama speech during his campaign for President.   In reporting on the speech, Matthews said, "I felt this thrill going up my leg.  I mean, I don't have that too often…  It's a dramatic event.  He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics.  It has to do with the feeling we have about our country.  And that is an objective assessment."

(2)   Time Magazine’s Nancy Gibbs won “The Obamagasm Award” for writing, "Some princes are born in palaces.  Some are born in mangers.  But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope....  Barack Hussein Obama did not win because of the color of his skin.  Nor did he win in spite of it.  He won because at a very dangerous moment in the life of a still young country, more people than have ever spoken before came together to try to save it.  And that was a victory all its own."   CNN’s David Gergen was the runner-up for “The Obamagasm Award” for the following comment during live coverage of Obama’s convention speech:   "In many ways, it was less a speech than a symphony. It moved quickly, it had high tempo, at times inspiring, then it became more intimate, slower, all along sort of interweaving a main theme about America's promise, echoes of Lincoln, of King, even of Reagan and of Kennedy....  It was a masterpiece."

(3)    NBC News Anchor Brian Williams won an award for his “soft and cuddly interview” with Michelle Obama.  During the interview, Williams asked the following question to Ms. Obama: "What of the attacks has busted through to you?  What makes you angriest at John McCain, the Republicans?  What's being said about your husband that you want to shout from the mountain tops is not true?"

(4)   Reporter Deborah Solomon was ridiculed for her interview with Businessman T. Boone Pickens in The New York Times Magazine.   The interview included the following exchange:  Solomon: "You helped re-elect Bush in '04 when you gave $3 million to the Swift Boat campaign to discredit John Kerry's Vietnam service.  Do you regret your involvement?"  Pickens: "Why would I?"  Solomon: "Because it's such an ugly chapter in American political history."  Pickens: "Oh, I see. Well, it was true.  Everything that went into those ads was the truth."  Solomon: "Really?  I thought it was all invented."

(5)   In an article for an NBC advertizing supplement included in a newspaper magazine insert, NBC reporter Lee Cowan wrote,  "When NBC News first assigned me to the Barack Obama campaign, I must confess my knees quaked a bit.... I wondered if I was up to the job.  I wondered if I could do the campaign justice."  

(6)   ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was recognized for the following comment about Obama’s cabinet appointments:   "We have not seen this kind of combination of star power and brain power and political muscle this early in a cabinet in our lifetimes."

The news media’s adoration of President Obama and everything he says or does has continued in 2009.  Even before Obama’s first day in office, the media concluded he would be one of the country’s greatest Presidents.   The media has compared Obama to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.   Members of the media could not contain their excitement during Obama’s inauguration.   In her report during the inauguration, CBS co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked,  “Does it get any better, or more beautiful, or more spectacular, than this?"   Harry Smith of CBS referred to Obama’s inauguration as a “most sacred event.”   While gushing with praise for Obama, members of the media also could not resist the temptation to take a few swipes at outgoing President George Bush.  NBC’s Tom Brokaw said the “streets are filled with joy” because “an unpopular President is leaving and people have been waiting for this moment.”   NBC’s Nightly News Anchor Brian Williams also was unable to suppress his feelings.   He referred to the inauguration as “absolutely stunning” and added, “To see people, whatever your politics, that excited about our new chief executive after a line of what the ordinary voter would maybe describe as bad choices or choices of evils, for years, generations, it is unbelievable to me." 

I am not alone in observing the media’s obvious bias.   Some media critics have referred to the media’s coverage of the 2008 election and Obama’s inauguration and first days in office as the “death of journalism.”    Bernard Goldberg, a former long-time reporter for CBS and a vocal critic of today’s media, has written a book entitled “A Slobbering Love Affair:  The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barak Obama and the Mainstream Media.” 

For me, when I read the newspaper or listen to the news on the radio or television, I am always reminded of my uncle’s frequent references to The Daily Disappointment.    I may not be disappointed for the same reasons he was, but I am always disappointed.  The thing that disappoints me the most is when I observe a reporter who is not even trying to suppress his or her bias and to present the news in a balanced and objective manner.   Unfortunately, it is frequently difficult in today’s environment to distinguish between the news pages and the editorial pages of a newspaper or between the reporters and the commentators on radio and television.  

Everyone Loses

In a sports contest, there is always a winner and a loser.    Some football games used to end in ties, but the rules now require the teams to keep playing until one team wins and the other loses.     In the political arena, it is not always clear who won and who lost when a controversial matter is finally resolved through the passage of legislation to deal with it.  In some cases, it may take years for the winners and losers to be determined.   In other cases, the water gets so muddy it will never be clear who won and who lost. 

Despite the uncertainties and ambiguities, members of the news media cannot resist the temptation to designate the winners and losers when Congress enacts a controversial piece of legislation.  After all, the members of the news media have appointed themselves to be the final judges when matters of public policy are being debated and decided by our politicians.  Today, it appears that most reporters and commentators are declaring that President Barak Obama achieved a major victory when Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is the pretty term for the $782,000,000,000 stimulus package promoted by Obama as the center piece of his plan for returning the nation’s economy to good health.    

In my view, everyone is a loser as a result of the newly approved stimulus package.   It is not a win-win package, as it should be, and it is not a win-lose package, with clear winners and clear losers.     It is a lose-lose package.    Everyone has lost something valuable and important to him or her. 

Although Obama got what he wanted, I think he is a loser for many reasons.    First, he based his campaign for President on the promise of bringing hope and change to the country he is now leading.    In order to get the stimulus package approved, he became a fear monger and a spokesman for a “gloom and doom” outlook for the country.   Second, Obama promised to govern in a bipartisan manner and to seek bipartisan support on all major issues.   Despite these promises, the stimulus legislation was railroaded through Congress and was approved almost exclusively by Democrats, with every single Republican in the House and all but three Republicans in the Senate voting against it.   Third, the process by which the stimulus legislation was developed and approved was downright ugly.  Obama promised openness and transparency.    Instead, the single most expensive and expansive piece of legislation ever enacted by Congress was rushed through the system in less than a month.   Although the bill contains 1,073 pages and weighs more than five pounds, it was not available until early in the morning on the same day it was approved by both the House and the Senate.  It is safe to say that not a single member of Congress read the bill before voting on it.   I am sure President Obama has not read the bill.   Provisions involving billions of dollars of taxpayer money were never discussed or debated.  For the next several weeks, we will be reading about provisions in the bill that even those who supported it did not know about.    Finally, it is inevitable that the stimulus bill will result in billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money.    It will not be long before we will be hearing about inefficient government spending, new government contracts being awarded to those with the best political connections, and allegations of fraud on the part of government employees and contractors.   The stories of waste and fraud to come will tarnish the Obama Administration. 

The Republicans also must be classified as losers.    First, as the minority party, they were unable to have any significant influence over one of the most important pieces of legislation ever enacted by Congress.   The three moderate or liberal Republicans in the Senate who voted for the legislation may have received a few modest concessions, but overall the Republicans were powerless.    Second, the Republicans did not have any credibility as champions of fiscal conservatism after spending taxpayer money like drunken sailors when they controlled Congress.  They also did not have any credibility when they complained about the heavy-handed tactics of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who was simply following the example set by former Republican Speaker of the House Tom DeLay.   Finally, the Republicans now face the same dilemma the Democrats faced when they were out of control.    When President Bush was in office, many Republicans charged—correctly in my opinion—that the Democrats wanted bad things to happen to the country so they could regain power.   When Bush was President, it was very clear that many Democrats were thrilled when the War in Iraq was going badly, and they could not control their excitement when the economy went into the tank.   These developments, which were bad for the country, were good for the Democrats.    The tables are now turned.    The Republicans claimed the stimulus package would not work, and many of them will now be hoping it fails because failure will prove they were right and will pave the way for them to regain the power they have lost.   There is something wrong with a political system where the hopes and dreams of the minority party depend on developments that are bad for the country. 

The American public also lost.   Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, said the stimulus legislation will result in a “massive expansion of the federal government’s reach into the day-to-day life of virtually every citizen, business and civic organization in the nation.”   As examples, Mr. Fuelner said the bill among other things (1) “reverses the bipartisan and highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state,”  (2) “does extreme violence to the concept of federalism—bailing out states that have spent irresponsibly at the expense of taxpayers in states that have been fiscally prudent,” (3) “greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government” and “creates a new federal health board to decide which medical services are ‘effective’ in America, paving the way for government effectively to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians,” and (4) “deliberately censors religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting any ‘stimulus’ funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.”    According to Mr. Fuelner, all of this was accomplished through legislation “cloaked in secrecy” and “withdrawn from open public exposure and honest debate.” 

Perhaps the biggest losers were the shrinking number of Americans who pay federal income taxes.     According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, the current federal debt is $10,765,538,572,361 as of today, February 14, 2008.   The federal debt has been increasing at a rate of approximately $3.48 billion per day since September 28, 2007.   These numbers do not include the new debt to be incurred by the federal government to pay for the stimulus package.    As a result of the stimulus package, the federal deficit this year will easily exceed $1,000,000,000,000 and will probably approach $2,000,000,000,000, which will be added to the federal debt.   On top of all of this, the government has massive unfunded future liabilities under entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.    There is no free lunch.    All of this money eventually will have to be repaid, and the burden of repayment will fall on those who pay taxes rather than on the politicians who have created this mess by freely and recklessly spending other people’s money.  

Will the stimulus package work and get the economy moving again?    The truth is that no one will ever know.    The economy eventually would have recovered even without the stimulus package.   The stimulus package may expedite the recovery, or it may delay it.   There are so many factors affecting the economy that it will be difficult to assign credit or blame to a single factor, even a factor as large as the stimulus package.  Regardless of what happens, all politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, will make the arguments that are necessary to advance their interests. 

There are several reasons why I believe it is highly likely the economy will improve between now and the next election.   First, psychology plays an extremely important part in the economy.    Now that the stimulus package has been passed, Obama will have an incentive to talk positively rather than negatively about the economy.   He will highlight every positive development.    The members of the news media love Obama, and they will accommodate him by emphasizing positive news about the economy just as they emphasized negative news prior to the election and prior to the passage of the stimulus package.   Second, recessions don’t last forever, and the current recession won’t last forever.    History shows that periods of negative economic growth and high unemployment are generally followed by periods of high growth and job creation.   Finally, the stock market is likely to recover from its dismal performance in 2008 and early 2009, and this recovery will boost confidence in the overall economy.    According to a report issued by Goldman Sachs, 2008 was one of the three worst years in the stock market since 1825.    The other two years were 1931, when the market was down between 40% and 50%, and 1937, when the market was down between 30% and 40%.   The market’s dismal performance in 1931 was followed by a loss of between 0% and 10% in 1932 and a gain of 50% to 60% in 1933.    The market’s 1937 performance was followed by a gain of 30% to 40% in 1938.   

Obama bet the farm on the stimulus package, and he paid a heavy price to get it passed.   He violated almost every principle on which he based his campaign for President.    In the short term, his bet will probably pay off because the economy will improve and he will be able to take credit for it.   In the long run, the stimulus package, in my opinion, will have an extremely detrimental effect on the future of the country because the government will be more involved in almost every aspect of our lives and because the government debt, which was already huge, is now totally out of control.    In the long run, you can look forward to the higher interest rates and higher inflation that will inevitably result from our huge government debt.             

A Rocky Start

President Barak Obama has been in office for less than three weeks, and he is off to a rocky start.    Very few things have gone his way since his inauguration.    So far, most of Obama’s problems have been self-inflicted or have been caused by his friends—his fellow Democrats—rather than by the minority party—the Republicans.  

Obama is facing problems on a number of fronts, including his failure to instill confidence rather than fear, his unwillingness to govern in a bipartisan manner as he promised to do, the nature of the stimulus package he is promoting, the numerous tax and other problems involving his nominees for high-level positions, his repeated waivers of his own highly publicized ethics policy, and his public retreat from Bush Administration policies designed to protect the country from terrorist attacks.     For a new President who has been in office for less than three weeks, Obama has managed through his own actions or through bad luck to turn what should have been his honeymoon period into a rocky road full of potholes. 

The biggest problem facing our country today is a lack of confidence.   The public has lost confidence in both government and business.   We will not be able to solve our economic crisis until confidence is restored.    So far, President Obama has not made the transition from being a candidate seeking office to being President of the United States.   In order to attract votes, political candidates frequently paint a “gloom and doom” scenario for the country.    The President of the United States, on the other hand, has a different role.   The President needs to project confidence and optimism and to be reassuring.    In an effort to support an ill-conceived and pork-laden stimulus package, President Obama said last week the country faces a “catastrophe” if the package is not adopted immediately and without further debate.  Obama’s comment fails to recognize the importance of psychology to the country’s economic recovery.  If people expect conditions to get worse, they will take action that causes them to get worse.   If people expect conditions to improve, they will take action that causes them to improve.    We don’t need the President of the United States predicting a “catastrophe.”  

Obama won the Presidential election in large part because he promised to end the bitter partisanship that has poisoned the political atmosphere in Washington.    His first major goal as President was to pass a stimulus package in an effort to boost the economy.   He completely failed, however, to approach the preparation of the stimulus package in a bipartisan manner.    Instead, based on every news report I have read, Obama delegated the preparation of the stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one of the most liberal and partisan politicians in Washington, and to some of her equally liberal colleagues in the House.   The product produced by Speaker Pelosi included billions of dollars of old-fashioned pork-barrel spending and special interest tax breaks as well as a Christmas list of new programs long favored by liberals.   The initial stimulus package was so bad that every single Republican in the House voted against it, and they were joined by a number of moderate Democrats who could not support the package.     I provided a link to the House version of the stimulus package in my last post on this blog.    Many of the absurd provisions contained in the package have been well publicized, and there is no need for me to repeat them here.   For more information about the stimulus package, click on the following link to find an article from National Review Online entitled “50 De-Stimulating Facts”: 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI= 

After its passage in the House, the stimulus package moved to the U.S. Senate where at least some efforts were made to gain more Republican support.    It now appears that enough changes have been made in the package that a few liberal Republicans have agreed to support it.    The final package, however, will in all likelihood closely resemble the original House version in size and scope.    The final package will represent the largest single expansion of government in my lifetime—and perhaps in the history of the United States—and it will have been adopted during a period of approximately one month with little or no debate about many individual components involving billions of dollars in cost to the country’s shrinking number of taxpayers.   Senator Lindsay Graham, a moderate Republican who has a history of working with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, said this week the stimulus bill “stinks” and the process by which it was developed “stinks.” 

Instead of approaching the stimulus legislation in a bipartisan manner, Obama has reminded the Republicans on several occasions that he won the election, that the Democrats control Congress, and that they can do whatever they please.   What he has said is true.   It’s reality.    Elections have consequences.    But Obama’s comments and conduct represent “business as usual” in Washington rather than the bipartisanship he promised to bring to the political arena.   Despite the way the stimulus package was developed and the many questionable expenditures contained in it, Obama has further said it would be “inexcusable” for anyone to vote against it or to delay its passage.   In my view, Obama has squandered a great opportunity to pass a very important and necessary piece of legislation with broad bipartisan support.   

The stimulus package has not been Obama’s only problem during his short time in office.   He also has had problems with no less than five of his nominations for a Cabinet or other high-level position.   Almost every new President runs into problems with at least one of his nominations, but Obama has had a string of problems, at least four of which have involved nominees who failed to pay their taxes.   To make matters worse, Obama continued his public support for at least two of the nominees after their tax delinquencies were disclosed. 

With Obama’s full support, the Senate confirmed his nomination of Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury despite Geithner’s failure to pay more than $34,000 in self-employment taxes on compensation he received from the International Monetary Fund.   The result is we now have a Treasury Secretary who is in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and who failed to pay all of the taxes he owed to the IRS until he was forced to do so.   Geithner described his failure as an inadvertent oversight, but he reportedly had been told he had to pay self-employment taxes on his salary, and he asked for an extra allowance to cover the tax liability.   Moreover, virtually everyone with a modest amount of knowledge about the tax code would realize the taxes were owed.   Geithner got a pass because of the Senate’s goodwill toward Obama and because he was confirmed before similar tax problems with other Obama nominees became public knowledge.  

Two other Obama nominees “voluntarily” withdrew their nominations after disclosures they also had failed to pay taxes that were due.   Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes for consulting income and the use of a car and driver.    Daschle, who worked for a major law firm, claimed he didn’t know he owed taxes on the use of the car and driver.   Again, any amateur would know better.   Amazingly, Obama voiced his continued support for Daschle after the tax problem was disclosed and a mere two days before Daschle withdrew his nomination.  At about the same time, Nancy Killefer, a former U.S. Treasury official, withdrew her nomination as the government’s chief performance officer after disclosures she failed to pay unemployment taxes for a household employee.  It doesn’t end there.   U.S. Representative Hilda Solis, Obama’s nominee as Secretary of Labor, also has tax problems.   Apparently, her husband recently paid $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business.   Rep. Solis and her husband filed joint tax returns, which means she is equally responsible with her husband for any tax liabilities, but she insists the problem belongs to her husband and should not be attributed to her. 

The tax problems involving four Obama nominees arose after another nominee, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew from consideration as Secretary of Commerce because of a grand jury investigation over whether contributions to Richardson’s political action committee were related to state contracts awarded to the donor’s business. 

When Obama was not being distracted by the tax problems facing his nominees, he was busy granting waivers to his own ethics policy, which he adopted with great fanfare on his first full day in office.    Obama said he was imposing the “most sweeping ethics reform in history.”    Under the new policy, Obama said he would not allow government officials to work on issues on which they had worked as a lobbyist in recent years.   In less than three weeks since the policy was adopted, Obama has granted several waivers to individuals who had previously worked as lobbyists and who Obama wanted to place in various government positions.    It would appear, therefore, that the only purpose of the new policy was to make a good impression on the evening news shows.   In a further mockery of the new policy, if Tom Daschle had been confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, he presumably would not have needed a waiver because he was not registered as a lobbyist.  The facts are, however, that Daschle has been employed and paid handsomely by a large law firm even though he does not have a law degree.   He was not a lawyer, and he was not a lobbyist.    He was simply a consultant.    Apparently, the ethics policy does not apply to consultants. 

Obama also has created a problem for himself by moving quickly to rescind some of the policies adopted by President Bush to keep the country safe from terrorists.    For example, he announced that he is closing the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, but he has no idea what he is going to do with the terrorists who are located there.   After Obama’s announcement, there have been news reports that some of the prisoners who have already been released from the Guantanamo facility have rejoined their terrorist organizations.   Obama also proudly announced to the world, including the world of terrorists, that intelligence agencies would no longer torture terrorist suspects, as if this had been the policy in the past, which is not the case.   Moreover, Obama’s announcement contained a sufficient number of exceptions that his liberal friends were not happy.     

Despite his rough start, Obama still has a good chance to be a great President.   It’s still very early in the game.    He has a long way to go, and he still enjoys very high public approval ratings, as he should as our new President.   Obama, to his credit, has refreshingly admitted that he “screwed up” with some of his nominations to high-level positions.   If Obama is ultimately successful, these early stumbles will be forgotten.   I did not vote for Obama because he is too liberal and too inexperienced for my taste.   Nevertheless, he is now my President.  I want him to be successful, and I need him to be successful.  More importantly, the country desperately needs for him to be successful.   I can only hope he learns from these early mistakes and does not repeat them in the future.    

They Think I'm Stupid--And I Am

Herman Cain is a conservative black businessman from Georgia.  After a successful business career, he ventured into politics several years ago by running for the United States Senate.   Although he lost his bid to become the first black Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cain has remained as an active advocate for conservative principles.   He has written a book entitled “They Think You’re Stupid.”     I have not read the book, but I love the title, and I think Mr. Cain hit the nail on the head.   They—referring to our politicians—think we are stupid.     I hate to say it, but I think they are right.   At least for me, I am feeling a little more stupid with every passing day. 

I feel stupid because there are so many things I don’t understand.   I don’t understand, for example, how we can solve a problem caused by too much spending and too much debt by spending more and incurring more debt.    I don’t understand why members of Congress are putting pressure on the banks that have received federal bailout money to take more risks and make more risky loans.  I am simply not smart enough to understand why it makes sense for the government to pressure banks to make risky loans in order to help solve an economic crisis caused in large part by the government’s pressure on banks to make risky loans.  I also don’t understand why we are expecting our politicians to solve our problems when we have no reason whatsoever to have confidence in their decisions and every reason to believe they will make the wrong decisions. 

At least our politicians are trying to help me out by simplifying their vocabulary so I won’t have to understand the meaning of so many different words.  In the interest of simplification, several words have been eliminated from the political dictionary.  The new word for “pork” is stimulus.    The new word for “spending” is stimulus.   The new word for “bailout” is stimulus.   During the recent Presidential campaign, the term “tax cuts” was used instead of “welfare” when referring to government payments to people who don’t pay taxes.  Both terms have now been replaced by the word stimulus. 

Today, our politicians think they can justify any expense of taxpayer money as long as the word stimulus is attached to it.    I don’t understand, but I’m not that smart. 

If an effort to understand the meaning of the word stimulus—the new word that has replaced the terms pork, spending, bailout, tax cuts, and welfare among others—I decided to take a look at H.R. 1, the new 647-page bill now pending before the U.S. House of Representatives.  The bill is entitled the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”  The bill, if adopted, would permit the federal government to spend an additional $825 billion—that’s BILLION—that it doesn’t have supposedly for the purpose of stimulating the economy.  If you want to read the bill, you can find it by clicking on the following link: 

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf 

If you don’t want to read the entire bill, I don’t blame you.   You can take comfort in the fact that your elected representative in Congress, whoever he or she may be, almost certainly will not read the bill before voting on it.  Even if you don’t know its contents, how could you possibly be opposed to a bill entitled the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?” 

I admit I have not read all 647 pages of the bill.    But I have read enough of the bill to realize it contains a long Christmas list of spending projects submitted by hundreds of different special interest groups who have access to politicians.    I realize I am stupid because I cannot understand how many of the projects mentioned in the bill will help stimulate our weak economy.      

One of the best examples of spending being justified in the name of stimulating the economy surfaced this past weekend when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended allocating billions of dollars from the stimulus bill for an expansion of “family-planning services,” which is a code term for birth control and abortion.    Speaker Pelosi’s theory is that family planning services reduce costs because babies cost money and the government will save money if fewer babies are born.    There may be a lot of stimulus involved here, but I don’t understand how it has anything to do with the economy.   Here again, I know I must be stupid because I thought one of the major challenges facing our economy was the anticipated shortage of the future workers that will be necessary to maintain the government Ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare.   By wanting to reduce the number of future workers, Speaker Pelosi clearly understands something I do not.   

For those of you who don’t want to read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, I have provided in this paragraph a few additional examples of the many spending projects mentioned in the bill.  The amount being allocated to these projects is staggering, and these projects represent only a small portion of the projects contained in the bill.  As you read the remainder of this paragraph, focus on the amount of money being allocated to each project:  $245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency;  $1 billion for periodic censuses and programs; $650 million for a digital-to-analog converter box program; $100 million for scientific and technical research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology;  $400 million for habitat restoration and mitigation activities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; $140 million for climate data modeling; $250 million for accelerating the development of earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey; $200 million to modernize academic research facilities; $3.4 billion for state energy programs; $1 billion for advanced battery manufacturing;  $2.4 billion to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration technologies; $1.7 billion for critical deferred maintenance in the National Park System; $200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C.; $100 million for National Park Service Centennial Challenge programs; $550 million for Indian health facilities; $150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums; $50 million in grants to fund arts projects and activities through the National Endowment for the Arts; $1.2 billion in grants to states for youth summer jobs programs and other activities; $1 billion for renovation and repair of health centers; $1.5 billion for the National Center for Research Resources; $100 million for Social Security research programs; $200 million for aging services programs, $2.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control for a variety of programs; $13.6 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; $500 million to improve processing of disability and retirement claims; $1.6 billion for military housing and child development centers; $300 million for roads on Indian Reservations; and $500 million in Native American housing block grants. 

I am too stupid to comprehend the amount of money being spent in the name of stimulating the economy.  I try to think about what I could do with $1 million.  I then think about how our politicians spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our money on their favorite projects.   Government entities are notorious for being inefficient and for wasting massive amounts of money, but we are expected to go along with this spending spree because the spending is being justified on the basis that it will stimulate the economy. 

Even with my simple mind, I am sure many—if not most—of the projects included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have merit.   The advocates for each of these projects undoubtedly can make a good case for them.  What I don’t understand, however, is how these projects will help improve the economy.  I also don’t understand why it is the federal government’s responsibility to pay for state and local projects and to decide which state and local projects get funded.   The federal government cannot pay for everything.  Like every other entity, the government needs to live within its means.    It cannot satisfy everyone’s Christmas list. 

In summary, I have concluded that I must be stupid because I am too dumb to understand much of what is happening today in Washington, D.C.    In his book, Herman Cain wrote that politicians think we are stupid.   I have concluded he is right, and they are right.   

Let me make one final plug for Herman Cain.    He is trying to educate those of us who are stupid.   If you want to be educated, go to his website, www.hermancain.com, and sign up for the Intelligent Thinkers Movement by clicking on the link on the left side of the page.   

Hail to the Chief

On this Inauguration Day, I am looking backward and forward at the same time.    To George W. Bush, who today is completing eight years as President of the United States, I  say, “Hail to the Chief.”   To Barak Obama, who today assumes the responsibility and burden of being President of the United States, I also say, “Hail to the Chief.” 

As for George W. Bush, he is leaving the office of President of the United States with a mixed record.   It is way too early to determine how he will be judged by history.   Based on opinion polls, President Bush’s approval ratings are extremely low.   In my view, the opinion polls are meaningless, and the media gives them far too much importance.   I approve of many things President Bush has done during his eight years as President, and I disapprove of many other things he has done.   I would answer “No” if a pollster asked me whether I approve of President Bush’s performance as President of the United States.  I would answer “No” because I disagree with many things President Bush has done or has neglected to do.  If anything, I am amazed that as many as one-third of the people who are polled are willing to answer the question by saying, “Yes.”   In my opinion, the question is meaningless, and the results of the poll are meaningless.   

In the world of public opinion, President Bush never really had a fair chance from day one.    The left-wing of the Democratic Party and the news media, which is dominated by liberals, have demonstrated extreme disrespect and even hatred for President Bush from the beginning of his Presidency.   The mission of these hate-mongrels has been to discredit President Bush at every turn without regard to the effect of their actions on the country or on the country’s standing in the world.   These people have never forgiven President Bush for winning more votes than Al Gore during the 2000 election.   They still think Al Gore won the election, even though every single recount of the controversial vote in Florida came to the conclusion that Bush had more votes than Gore.   I dismiss all of these people as bitter and sore losers who would rather damage the country than admit their candidate lost the election.   The good thing about the change of power taking place today is that the people who have hated President Bush now have a reason once again to support the country that gives them their freedom.   

The most important responsibility of the President of the United States is to protect the country.    President Bush has fulfilled this responsibility during a time when the country has been constantly threatened by terrorists who want to destroy our way of life.   We have not had a terrorist attack on our homeland since September 11, 2001.   On September 11, 2001, no one thought it would be possible for us to go more than seven years without another major terrorist attack in the United States.    President Bush deserves great credit for protecting the country from harm.   

In addition to protecting the country, President Bush deserves credit for his tax cuts, which pulled the country out of the recession he inherited and prevented the extreme damage to the economy that could have resulted from the events of September 11, 2001.   The tax cuts encouraged economic growth and job creation.   If you listen to the news media and the Democratic talking points, you would think the tax cuts only benefitted the rich.    In fact, the wealthiest Americans are paying a greater share of the total tax burden than they were before the Bush tax cuts were enacted, and the number of Americans who are not paying any taxes is greater than it was before the tax cuts.    The wealthiest Americans benefitted from the Bush tax cuts because they are the ones who pay the most in taxes.   Moreover, the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy and resulted in increased tax revenues for the federal government.    

President Bush also deserves credit for appointing Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.   Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were extremely well qualified, and I believe both of them will be regarded by history as excellent appointments.   

On the negative side, President Bush, who ran for President as a conservative, presided over an unprecedented expansion of government and the government deficit.   Government spending has been out of control under his administration.   The budget deficit is at an all-time high, and it is going to get even higher.    During his first six years in office, President Bush stood idly by while the Republican-controlled Congress spent money like drunken sailors.   There was no discipline on the part of President Bush or the Congress.   

Many people are blaming President Bush for our current economic problems.    He clearly shares some of the blame, but previous Presidential Administrations, Congress, the Federal Reserve Board, and the business community all laid the groundwork for the economic crises we are now facing.    

In the final analysis, history will probably judge the Bush Administration as a success or a failure depending on the eventual outcome of the war in Iraq.   The war has been very controversial, and President Bush has done a poor job of defending his decision to invade Iraq.   President Bush will be vindicated if Iraq becomes a democratic society and a beacon of freedom in the Middle East.    His legacy will be severely damaged if Iraq reverts to a dictatorship or comes under the control of Islamic fundamentalists who cannot tolerate freedom.   The good news is that President Bush is leaving President Obama with a war where victory is achievable.    He is also leaving President Obama with another war—the war in Afghanistan—where victory will be much more difficult to achieve.   Ironically, the Democrats, including President Obama, supported the war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq. 

As for President Obama, who today becomes the 44^th President of the United States, I wish him all the best for a successful Presidency.   I disagreed—and still do—with most of the policies on which Obama based his campaign for President.   I am encouraged that he has backed off of some of those policies since winning the election.   I am very concerned, however, about the amount of money he is planning to spend in an effort to stimulate a weak economy.  We got into this mess by over-spending.   I do not think we will be able to get out of it by spending even more and creating more debt that someone will have to repay.   

Despite my opposition to President Obama during his campaign for President, today I am sharing the excitement of the rest of the nation, which is ready for change.    President Obama’s inauguration as our 44^th President has become a symbol of hope for a better day.     In today’s society, hope is very important.    If enough people are convinced that President Obama will bring positive change to the country, then it is highly likely that positive change will occur.     I am willing to give President Obama every benefit of the doubt as he struggles to deal with the difficult problems he is inheriting.    Even when I disagree with him, which I am sure I will do frequently, my disagreements will be based on philosophical differences rather than on disrespect or hatred for the man himself.    I hope all of those who disagree with President Obama will take the high road in doing so—unlike those who have disagreed with President Bush.   

Today, we are leaving behind eight years of bitter and divisive politics.   I hope we can look forward to a country that is once again united behind a President who is respected even by those who disagree with his policies.       

Finding Inspiration in Bad Times

The bad news keeps coming.    We are in the midst of what will probably turn out to be the longest and worst recession since the Great Depression.   Many economists are predicting the worst is yet to come.   The United States lost 1.9 million jobs in the final four months of 2008.   Some 524,000 jobs were lost in December alone.   The unemployment rate is now at 7.2% and climbing.   People who still have jobs are worried about losing them.   People who have lost their jobs have little hope of finding new ones.   Those who were planning to retire in the next few years now realize they will be unable to do so.    Those who are already retired have seen their retirement accounts plunge in value in a matter of just a few months. 

We are being bombarded every day with more depressing news.     What we need more than anything else is hope and inspiration.    For me, I find hope and inspiration in my family and in my faith, but I also find it by reading the obituaries in the Atlanta newspaper.   I know it sounds strange that reading about people who have died would give me hope and inspiration.   But the obituary page always helps me put the nation’s current problems in perspective. 

Most young people don’t read the obituaries.    They assume someone will notify them if they need to know about someone who has died.    As I have gotten older, however, I have found I always look at the obituary page before discarding the day’s newspaper.   Even in a city the size of Atlanta, it’s amazing how often I learn about the death of someone with whom I had had contact at some point in the past.   My primary inspiration from the obituaries, however, comes from reading about ordinary people that I did not know. 

Take Shelly Rosenfield, for example.  I didn’t know Mrs. Rosenfeld, who died of a stroke at age 85 in late December.    The article about her death reminded me that the current problems facing our country are minor compared to the problems others have faced and endured.    Mrs. Rosenfeld’s obituary said she was born to a well-to-do family in Lithuania and grew up in a family that prized culture.   She was well educated, spoke six languages, and loved to attend plays and visit art galleries.   According to the obituary, however, her good life ended as a result of the efforts of Nazi Germany to exterminate the Jews.  “For four years during World War II, the family lived in the Kovno ghetto in Lithuania, a concentration camp in Latvia and then Dachau in Germany.  After Allied soldiers liberated the camp, Mrs. Rosenfeld found a home in a bombed-out building in Munich, where other survivors lived.”    There she met her future husband, Joseph Rosenfeld.   Mr. and Mrs. Rosenfeld later had two daughters, both of whom became infected with polio.  Mrs. Rosenfeld’s husband later died of a heart attack at an early age, and thereafter she raised her two daughters alone by working two jobs.   One of Mrs. Rosenfeld’s daughters was quoted in the obituary as saying her mother liked the expression, “Don’t make plans.  When you make plans, God laughs.” 

There are many people like Mrs. Rosenfeld who have experienced hardships that I cannot even imagine.   I find tremendous hope and inspiration in the fact that she and others have been able to endure their hardships and go on to enjoy a relatively peaceful and happy life in the country many of us take for granted and are quick to criticize. 

On almost any given day, I can find an obituary in the Atlanta newspaper about someone who served our country during World War II.   Most of these obituaries refer to ordinary people who lived ordinary lives after fighting to secure our freedom.   Occasionally, I read an article about the death of one of the Tuskegee Airman, a group of black elite fighter pilots who flew for the United States during World War II at a time when the military was segregated.   All of us owe a large debt of gratitude to the Greatest Generation—the generation that bore the burden of World War II.   

An obituary for Margaret Thornton, who died at age 96, noted she had “lived through two major World Wars, the Great Depression, 17 Presidents and many years of hard work.”    The obituary contained no mention of a husband or children, but said Ms. Thornton was an excellent and beloved aunt to numerous nieces, nephews, great-nieces, great-nephews, and great great-nieces and nephews. 

Then there are the women who have died after devoting their lives to making a home for their families, raising their children, and loving their grandchildren.   In my view, the responsibility of making a home and raising children is the highest calling any individual can have.   I didn’t know Claudia Burel Rainwater, who died of cancer this week surrounded by her children.    The obituary said Ms. Claudia’s children and grandchildren were the sunshine of her life and her greatest joy.   She told her children she didn’t mind the suffering she endured during her cancer treatments “as long as it gave her even one more day with her babies.” 

In short, it is clear we are in the midst of a very difficult recession and that many people are hurting and facing economic insecurity.   I don’t want to minimize their pain.   At least for me, however, the obituaries remind me that I live in the greatest country on earth and that many people before us have overcome much more difficult problems and challenges than those we are facing today.   The obituaries give me a sense of perspective about today’s problems that I would not otherwise have.    The perspective, in turn, gives me hope for a better tomorrow.