Political Theatre

President Reagan was a good politician and a great communicator because he was first an actor.   He knew how to play the roles assigned to him.    The more I observe politicians the more I realize they are all actors and actresses.   They play the roles and read the scripts assigned to them by their producers (or handlers).  Like actors and actresses, politicians have some discretion over the producers for whom they are willing to work and over the roles they agree to play.   After accepting an assignment, however, the acting begins in earnest. 

The most recent example of political theatre occurred last week during the confirmation hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayer to the U.S. Supreme Court.   Everyone involved in the hearings, including Judge Sotomayer, was acting.  Everyone was delivering a script in the same way an actor or actress delivers a script in a movie or play.  

For me, watching the confirmation hearings was like watching a bad movie or play that I had already seen several times.    The only difference was that the actors had changed roles.    The Democrats assumed the role of praising and defending the President’s nominee, which was the role played by the Republicans during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush.    Likewise, the Republicans assumed the role of challenging the judicial philosophy of the President’s nominee, the same role played by the Democrats during the confirmation hearings for Justices Roberts and Alito.    All the politicians had to do was exchange scripts in the same way new scripts are assigned to actors and actresses when they play new roles in different movies or plays.  

During the confirmation hearings, many Democratic Senators heaped praise upon Judge Sotomayer because of her inspiring life story.   She is a Hispanic woman who grew up in a poor family living in a public housing project in the Bronx borough of New York.  Despite the disadvantages she faced as a child, Judge Sotomayer defied the odds and somehow managed to graduate from both Princeton University and Yale Law School, to pass the New York bar examination, to earn a position on the federal district court in New York, and to be appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Many of the same Democrats who praised Judge Sotomayer for her compelling life story, however, were playing a different role when another Hispanic with an equally compelling life story was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.   Do you remember the name Miguel Estrada?   He immigrated to the United States from Honduras when he was 17 and defied the odds by graduating magna cum laude from both Columbia University and Harvard Law School.   When President Bush nominated Mr. Estrada for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Democrats had a different role to play in the political theatre.   Instead of praising Mr. Estrada for his qualifications and accomplishments, they used a filibuster to keep his nomination from receiving an “up or down” vote in the U.S. Senate.   In both cases, the Democrats were playing the roles and reading the scripts assigned to them.    Of course, the Republicans were doing the same thing. 

The politicians were not the only ones acting at Judge Sotomayer’s confirmation hearings.  Judge Sotomayer was also acting.   She simply studied and regurgitated the scripts used by Justices Roberts and Alito during their confirmation hearings.   It made no difference to Judge Sotomayer that her judicial philosophy is probably quite different from the judicial philosophies of Justices Roberts and Alito.   She used their scripts because their scripts had worked for them and by doing so she was able to tell the Republicans what they wanted to hear.   She did not need to appeal to the Democrats because they were going to vote for her regardless of what she said. 

The most striking thing about the confirmation hearings was that Judge Sotomayer’s testimony about her judicial philosophy was totally inconsistent with her record and with her previous public statements.    Here is a woman who once boasted that the courts are where policy is made.   The same woman made it clear on several occasions that she sympathizes with various individuals or groups based on their ethnicity or gender and that she believes in the use of racial quotas and other racial preferences in order to achieve equal results among racial groups.   Judge Sotomayer’s most famous and most controversial remark was that a “wise Latina woman” would make better decisions than a white male.    Can you imagine what would happen if a white man said he would make better decisions than a Latina woman?    You know as well as I do that a white man who made such a comment, regardless of the context in which it was made, would have no chance whatsoever of being confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter. 

Judge Sotomayer’s record makes it very clear she has a liberal philosophy, but you would never know it from her testimony.   She followed almost to the letter the scripts used by Justices Roberts and Alito during their confirmation hearings.   She said, “Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. … The job of a judge is to apply the law.”   She added, “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law.”    As did Justices Roberts and Alito, she refused to answer questions on specific issues that might come before the Supreme Court, such as abortion rights, gun control, property rights, and affirmative action.  By taking this approach, she followed the standard script for any nominee to a federal court. 

What did the confirmation hearings accomplish?   In my opinion, they didn’t accomplish much.   We did not learn anything new or revealing about Judge Sotomayer’s true judicial philosophy or how she will vote on various issues as a member of the Supreme Court.  Not surprisingly, we discovered that Judge Sotomayer could remain calm, cool, courteous, and friendly under pressure.   We also discovered she could effectively deliver the script assigned to her by her producers (or handlers).   She did not make any major mistakes that could threaten her nomination.  That was her goal, and I believe she accomplished it. 

What do others think about the confirmation hearings?  Prior to the hearings, Professor Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown University, was a strong defender of some of the controversial comments made by Judge Sotomayer, including the “wise Latino woman” comment and the statement that judges make policy decisions.  After the hearings, Professor Seidman, in an evaluation posted on the website for The Federalist Society, said, “The performance of both the Senators and the nominee has been disgraceful.  If we are to give Judge Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt, she very substantially misrepresented her own views.  It is virtually impossible to give the Senators the benefit of the doubt.  Their questioning was at once frivolous, hectoring, and deeply ignorant.”   On the same website, M. Edward Whelan III, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote, “Judge Sotomayor deserves an A+ for brazen doublespeak.   She emphatically rejected the lawless "empathy" standard for judging that President Obama used to select her, but she denied the plain import of her many statements contesting the possibility and desirability of judicial impartiality.  She hid behind her empty clichés about judging, but she never recognized any meaningful bounds on the role of a Supreme Court justice.  She gave a series of confused statements about the use of foreign law that are inconsistent with each other and that contradict a speech that she gave just three months ago.”    Professor Matthew J. Franck, Professor and Chairman of the Political Science Department at Radford University, wrote that Judge Sotomayor either substantially misrepresented her own views or “is a very confused thinker if she thinks her testimony can be squared with her own past statements on repeated occasions over a 15-year period.   I think it very likely that she was well-coached by White House handlers….”   

The bottom line, of course, is that everyone was acting during the confirmation hearings, and everyone was reading the scripts and playing the roles assigned to them.   The confirmation hearings represent an example of political theatre at its worst. 

Who is the real Judge Sotomayer?   Is she a woman who believes judges can make policy decisions and who approaches cases with a biased point of view based on the background and culture of the parties involved?   Or is she an unbiased judge who gives all parties fair and equal treatment and who bases her decisions strictly on the language of the Constitution and the laws she is obligated to apply?   Who is the real Judge Sotomayer?   We will find out in due course, but I think I already know the answer.  

Something for Nothing

Like many people, I love to get something for nothing.   It doesn’t make any difference what it is.   If it’s free, I want it, even if it means waiting in line for something for which I have absolutely no use.   I don’t know whether my desire to get something for nothing is a character flaw on my part or simply an example of human nature.   I suspect it’s a little bit of both. 

Have you ever been to a trade show or walked through an exhibit hall where vendors were giving away various trinkets or samples in order to promote their products?   People line up with their little bags in front of the vendors’ booths in order to get something for nothing.   In the past, I have left such trade shows with a bag full of ballpoint pens, key chains, magnets for my refrigerator, hats, plastic cups, coffee mugs, cardboard coasters, and other assorted items, none of which I wanted or needed.  Of course, all of the items were advertisements for the vendors giving them away.    On one occasion, I stood in a long line to get a free t-shirt.    The t-shirts contained an advertisement on the front for a sausage company.   When I got home, I decided I didn’t want to be a walking advertisement for the sausage company, so I put the t-shirt in a bag designated for the local Goodwill store. 

Just this past week, I went to a fast food restaurant for lunch because the restaurant was giving away a particular type of sandwich with the purchase of a soft drink.   The restaurant was trying to promote the sandwich, which was a new product on its menu.   The sandwich didn’t sound particularly appealing to me, and I rarely consume soft drinks any more.   But the sandwich was free with the purchase of a soft drink, and I couldn’t resist the offer so I purchased a soft drink and received a free sandwich.  

Our politicians take great advantage of our desire to get something for nothing.    Most of us are more than willing to take advantage of government benefits for which someone else is paying.    President Obama and the Democrats in Congress continue to want to provide new programs and benefits to the American people while at the same time promising that only the wealthiest Americans will see an increase in their taxes.   In other words, the new programs will be free for everyone but the wealthiest Americans.    The rest of us will be able to get something for nothing. 

President Obama wants to reform the nation’s health care system, which clearly needs to be reformed.   His problem is figuring out how to pay to provide health insurance to people who presently don’t have it.   I read this weekend that the Democrats in the House of Representatives want to pay for health-care reform by imposing a new tax on families making $350,000 or more.   My immediate reaction was, “This sounds like a great idea.  I like the idea because it won’t affect me.    It won’t cost me anything.   Let those filthy rich people pay for other people’s health care.” 

My liberal instincts left me as soon as I started thinking rationally rather than emotionally.  During my rational thought process, I remembered that the taxpayers who represent the wealthiest 1% of Americans are currently paying approximately 40% of the total federal income tax burden.   Moreover, the top federal income rate is already scheduled to rise from 35% to 39.6% in 2011.    In some states, many of the wealthiest Americans also pay as much as 10% in state income taxes on top of their federal income taxes.   Like most of the rest of us, they also pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, intangible taxes, school taxes, and vehicle registration taxes.  But all of that is not enough for the Democrats in the House of Representatives, who are now proposing a 1% surtax on married couples making more than $350,000 per year, a 2% surtax for those making above $500,000, and a 3% surtax for those with incomes of $1 million or more.   The proposed surtax would increase to 2%, 3%, and 5% for each of the three levels as soon as 2013. 

Where does this end?   When do we begin to realize that President Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth around” raises a significant moral issue?   Dr. Walter E. Williams, a columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University, thinks it is immoral for the government to continue to take money away from one group of people and give it to another group.   In a recent column, he asked the questions, “Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another?   And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?”   Dr. Williams speculates that the average college professor, politician or minister would not be able to give a simple “yes or no” response to his questions.   He writes, “A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind’s most horrible injustices such as slavery.  After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another?   A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget.   There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft.” 

Dr. Williams wrote, “In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property.  That’s simple.  What’s complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else.   If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral.   Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one’s private property rights.  Theft of physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.” 

In Dr. Williams’ view, “there is no way out of our immoral quagmire.   The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral.   People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers.   They’ll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes.   As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes?  In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient.  You might as well join in the looting….” 

It is too early to tell whether the proposed health-care surtax on the wealthiest Americans will become law.   It really doesn’t make any difference.   In the big picture, it is clear the final solution will involve some form of taking from one group in order to give to another group.    The taking will include higher taxes for some as well as new laws requiring certain individuals and businesses to provide goods or services for less than the market value of those goods and services. 

The problem with government programs is that the government cannot give anything to anyone without taking it away from someone else.    The various proposals for health-care reform clearly demonstrate this problem.   I recently read an article about health-care reform that made an excellent and obvious point:   “a dollar spent on medical care is a dollar of income for someone.”    Most of us, including me, would like to get our medical care at the expense of someone else.   In this respect, we are all greedy because we want something for nothing. 

There is a big difference between getting free promotional goods or services from a business and getting free goods or services from a government agency.     In the first instance, the business is voluntarily giving something away in order to promote the business and hopefully attract new customers.   In the case of a government benefit, it’s not free.   Someone has to pay for it.  Either you pay for it through your own tax dollars, or someone else pays for it through their tax dollars.    There is no such thing as getting something for nothing when the government is involved.     

Congressional Malpractice

Would you sign a contract without reading it and at least attempting to understand the obligations the contract would impose on you, your family, or your business?     How would you react if you retained an attorney to help you negotiate and understand the contract and later discovered the attorney had not read the contract in its entirety?   Would you think your attorney was guilty of legal malpractice?   Would you use the same attorney again?  

In our society, we have extensive rules and regulations that govern virtually every profession.   These rules and regulations are designed to protect the public by preventing people who do not have the necessary education and qualifications from practicing the profession.   Only persons with a medical license, for example, are authorized to practice medicine.  In order to obtain a medical license, an individual, among other things, must graduate from a medical school and pass an examination administered by a medical board.  Similar licensing requirements apply to dentists, pharmacists, nurses, lawyers, certified public accountants, engineers, architects, teachers, and a host of other professions.   Although the need for some of the licensing requirements could be debated, they are all designed to ensure that people who engage in the regulated professions are qualified to do so.   

A license does not guarantee the holder of the license will not commit professional malpractice, but it minimizes the risk of malpractice by ensuring the professional has the background and training necessary to practice the profession for which the license was issued.   Moreover, a licensed professional who commits malpractice can be sued for the damages he or she has caused.   The attorney who fails to read a client’s contract is guilty of legal malpractice and can and should be held personally responsible for the damages caused by the attorney’s malfeasance.  Likewise, a doctor who does not properly treat a patient is guilty of medical malpractice and can be sued by the injured party.   There are many examples of lawsuits against other professionals who have committed malpractice.      

There is a least one profession whose members face no requirements whatsoever relating to their competence or knowledge.   The members of this profession also face little, if any, risk of personal liability even if they are grossly negligent in the performance of their duties.   I am referring, of course, to our politicians and specifically to members of the United States Congress.  The founders of our country did not contemplate we would have professional politicians, but unfortunately we do, and many of them can be found in the halls of Congress.  Our Congressmen live at the expense of the taxpayers and have tremendous influence over our lives, but they have virtually no responsibility for their actions.   They can get elected and remain in office simply by buying votes with taxpayer money.  They do this by promising and giving favors to the individuals and groups that help them get elected.   The favors generally consist of tax breaks for special groups, exemptions from regulations that apply to everyone else, or direct government payments to individuals, businesses, or other organizations for goods or services or for no reason at all. 

A member of Congress does not need to be competent or to have even a minimum level of knowledge about the matters on which he or she will be making decisions.   I suspect many members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have never read the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution in their entirety.    I also suspect many members of Congress are not well informed regarding world history or the history of the United States.  It is clear many members of Congress do not have even a basic understanding of economics and have never run a business or made a payroll. 

It would be nice if we could ensure that all members of Congress were competent, but I don’t think there is any way to do so.   What bothers me most, however, is not the competency of members of Congress but the malpractice committed by them in the performance of their duties.   We are seeing more and more instances where members of Congress vote on legislation they have not read and have not taken the time to understand.  When members of Congress vote on legislation they have not read and do not understand, they are, in my opinion, guilty of malpractice in the same way an attorney who fails to read a contract for his client is guilty of malpractice.  

The most recent example of Congressional malpractice occurred several days ago when the House of Representatives, by a vote of 219 to 212, approved landmark climate change legislation.   The climate change bill, which is formerly known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, contained approximately 1,200 pages.   Some 300 of those pages were contained in an amendment that was not available until the day the vote was taken.   It is obvious not a single member of the House of Representatives read the final bill before voting on it. 

According to The Wall Street Journal, the bill no one read, “will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy.  By putting a price on emissions of common gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.”   In its report on the bill, The New York Times said it “grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts intended to win the votes of wavering lawmakers and the support of powerful industries.”   The Times said Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and the co-author of the bill, was “doling out billions of dollars in promises on the House floor to secure the final votes needed for passage.”   The Heritage Foundation says the climate change bill, which is also referred to as a “cap-and-trade” bill, is nothing more than a tax on energy consumption.  “In fact, it would be a huge tax.   If enacted, cap-and-trade would be one of the government’s largest revenue sources within the next decade.”   An article in American Thinker said the bill “will result in one of the largest seizures of wealth in human history” and will “wreck havoc on American manufacturing and industry, and coerce the conformity of an already economically squeezed populace.” 

The process by which the climate change bill was approved was very similar to the process by which Congress approved the $782 billion stimulus legislation earlier in the year.   The stimulus bill was the single most expensive and expansive piece of legislation ever enacted by Congress.   Although the bill contained more than 1,000 pages and weighed 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.   Like the climate change legislation, it is safe to say not a single member of Congress read the stimulus bill before voting on it.   Provisions involving billions of dollars of taxpayer money were never discussed or debated.  

There are many reasons why members of Congress are not reading and understanding the bills on which they are voting.  Some of them probably have no interest in the details of legislation.    They will blindly vote the way their party’s leaders tell them to vote without regard to the contents of the legislation on which they are voting.    But even those members of Congress who are conscientious and would like to understand the details of the bills before them do not have time to do so.    The problem is that too many major matters are being considered too quickly and at the same time.    President Obama has an aggressive and radical agenda designed to change virtually all aspects of the way we live.   Among other things, he wants to reform our health care system, change the way our financial institutions are regulated, control the climate, regulate the way energy is created and distributed, revise our immigration laws, and overhaul the public education and Social Security systems.  At the same time, the country is in a deep recession, is engaged in two wars, and is facing major threats from the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea.   President Obama wants to ramrod through the system as many changes as he can without giving members of Congress and the public the time needed to focus on the details or the implications of the changes being proposed.    There is a method to his madness, and his method is working thanks to the gross negligence of members of Congress. 

When running for election, President Obama promised openness and transparency, but it is clear we are not getting openness and transparency.   Instead, we have members of Congress voting on extremely complex legislation that will result in sweeping and fundamental changes in our society without taking the time to read and understand the legislation or consider its implications.   A lawyer or other professional who takes on more business than he or she can competently handle is guilty of malpractice.   What we are witnessing today is Congressional malpractice on a very large scale.   Unlike lawyers, doctors, or other professionals, however, members of Congress have no liability for their malpractice.   Moreover, they can retain their positions of power by trading their votes on the bills they are not reading in exchange for special provisions benefitting the people who give them money and help them get elected.    

An Unlikely Mentor

Freddie & Me:   A Book Review  

A good friend recently gave me a very entertaining and inspiring book entitled Freddie & Me.   The book is about a black man who became the unlikely mentor for a young white boy who was the son of a well-respected doctor and who lived in an affluent neighborhood in Augusta, Georgia.  The book’s author is Tripp Bowden, who wrote the book in remembrance and in honor of his friend and mentor Freddie Bennett.    

Freddie was the long-time and legendary Caddie Master at the exclusive and world-famous Augusta National Golf Club, which is the home of the Masters Golf Tournament.   Tripp’s father, Dr. Joe Bowden, was Freddie’s doctor and friend.   

One day, when Tripp was ten years old, Freddie stopped by the Bowden home for a brief visit with Dr. Bowden.   Freddie asked Tripp if he would like to go fishing, and Tripp accepted the invitation.   The first fishing trip was the beginning of a close relationship that continued until Freddie’s death many years later.  

Freddie & Me is a fun and easy book to read, but it is also an important book because it reveals the wisdom that an older black man was able to share with his young white friend.   Freddie believed in hard work, personal responsibility and respect for others regardless of age, race or social standing.    Young Tripp soaked up everything that Freddie said and in the process learned many valuable life lessons.   

When Tripp was 14, Freddie offered him his first job as a “forecaddy” at the Masters Golf Tournament.   A forecaddy’s job is to fix a player’s ball marks and sweep sand off the green with a fiberglass pole.   Later, after Tripp had graduated from college, he didn’t know what to do with his life.  He didn’t want to be a teacher, but he didn’t feel qualified to do anything else after majoring in English and philosophy.   Freddie came to Tripp’s rescue by offering him a position as a caddy at the Augusta National Golf Course.  Tripp became the first full-time white caddy in the history of the private club.    His fellow black caddies referred to him as “White Boy” or “Little Doc.”  

Freddie continued to take care of Tripp by giving him advice about how to do his job and about life in general.    He told Tripp he would have the opportunity to meet some of the most powerful men in the world and encouraged him to develop relationships with the men who were using him as a caddy.    Freddie repeatedly reminded Tripp he couldn’t caddy forever and needed to make plans for the rest of his life.   “What’cha gonna do with your life, man?   Can’t caddy forever, you know.”  

Freddie had the unique ability to communicate his homespun wisdom to Tripp with snappy simple phrases.  Tripp refers to Freddie’s favorite sayings as Freddie-isms.   Some of my favorites include the following:  “Ever wonder why a dog chases a car when he knows he can’t drive it.”  “Seen a lot of things in my day, but I ain’t never seen no hearse with a luggage rack.”   “You ain’t gonna change the future if you don’t know the past.”    “A little tip goes a long way, but a big tip goes forever.  And forever is a mighty long time.”   “No matter the situation, there is always going to be somebody better off than you, and always somebody worse off.”  “Don’t ever tell anybody to lay up on the chance of a lifetime.”    “Even the best golfer in the world isn’t as perfect as he might appear.  You ain’t gotta be perfect to succeed.”   “Not all history is in books, you know.”    

Of all the things Freddie taught Tripp, which ones were the most important?   Tripp’s answer is contained near the end of Freddie & Me.    “It’s never too late to show your appreciation, never to late to make a wrong situation right.  It’s never too late to say ‘thank you.’”  

As Freddie planned, the opportunity to caddy at Augusta National led to opportunities for Tripp.   Ultimately, an advertising executive who Tripp met on the golf course offered him a position with a large advertising firm on Madison Avenue in New York City.    After spending some time in New York, Tripp joined a public relations firm in Atlanta.   He now owns his own advertising company and lives in Augusta.  

Freddie was Tripp’s unlikely mentor.   A mentor is a trusted friend, counselor, or teacher who provides advice and guidance to someone who generally is younger and less experienced.   My dictionary defines a mentor as “a trusted counselor or guide” and as a “tutor” or “coach.”   The word mentor comes from a character named Mentor in Homer’s story The Odyssey.   According to the story, when Odysseus, the King of Ithaca, left home to fight the Trojan War, he asked his friend, Mentor, to care for his son while he was away.   The word mentor has been used ever since to refer generally to anyone who provides advice and guidance to another over an extended period of time.   

A good mentor is had to find.   The world would be a better place if more young people had someone like Freddie Bennett to help guide them along the way.   

Freddie & Me is well worth the time it takes to read it if for no other reason than to enjoy the Freddie-isms and to think about the wisdom behind them.    I am not a golfer, but you don’t have to be a golfer to enjoy Freddie & Me.   I recommend it for anyone who needs both inspiration and entertainment combined with a heavy dose of good old common sense, which seems to be in short supply these days.    

Help Wanted

Help Wanted:    A major financial organization is seeking an experienced executive to serve as chief executive officer.    The ideal candidate will have extensive experience and a proven record of success in the financial industry, will be willing to accept a salary and benefit package that will be substantially less than the compensation and benefit packages normally provided to chief executive officers of similar companies, will have limited authority to develop and implement the short- and long-term strategies for the organization, and will be willing to testify in televised hearings before Committees of the United States Congress and accept blame for policies forced upon the organization by the executive or legislative branches of the United States Government.    All persons wishing to apply for this position should send their resumes to President Barak Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. 

If you had the qualifications and experience for the position described above, would you be interested in applying for it?   If your answer is no, then you are not alone.  Even at a time when many experienced financial executives have lost their jobs, it seems that candidates are not lining up outside the White House to apply for positions with the various financial organizations now owned or controlled by the United States Government. 

Let’s take the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., which is better known as Freddie Mac.  Freddie Mac is one of the financial institutions taken over by the government.   The current Chairman of Freddie Mac is John Koskinen, who is also serving as the interim chief executive office and the interim chief financial officer because both of those positions are vacant.   The position of chief operating officer is also vacant.   Mr Koskinen has a very difficult job.   His most difficult assignment is finding qualified candidates who are willing to serve as chief executive officer, chief operating officer, and chief financial officer.   Mr. Koskinen is being paid $290,000 a year for serving as Chairman of Freddie Mac, but he is not receiving any extra compensation for serving on an interim basis as chief executive officer and chief financial officer.    

The Wall Street Journal this week cited several reasons why the vacant positions at Freddie Mac are difficult to fill.   One reason is that the pay will be “comparatively modest.”    Another is that federal regulators “now have veto rights over major decisions.”   One former Wall Street executive told The Wall Street Journal that he was approached about the CEO position at Freddie Mac but declined because he envisioned working for minimal pay while getting “raked over the coals” by lawmakers for matters beyond his control.   Another experienced executive declined the position because he felt he couldn’t “move the dial” at the company in the face of significant government intervention.  

Mr. Koskinen agreed to become Chairman of Freddie Mac last year out of a sense of civic responsibility.    He became interim CEO in March of this year when the then CEO, David Moffett, resigned after only six months on the job because of his frustration with government control.   He became the interim CFO in April when the then CFO, David Kellermann, tragically committed suicide after serving in the CFO position for approximately eight months.   Of course, it is impossible to know why someone chooses to commit suicide.   In an article published on April 22, 2009, The New York Times reported that Mr. Kellermann had been working nonstop and had told friends “it seemed impossible to appease everyone—regulators, lawmakers, investors and other executives—given their competing demands.”   Mr. Kellerman was also despondent because he and others had become the focus of intense scrutiny over bonuses that had been promised to them.   The New York Times reported that reporters and camera crews had descended on Mr. Kellermann’s house in an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C. in their effort to get a story about Mr. Kellermann’s bonus.   Mr. Kellermann’s wife reportedly was concerned about her safety as a result of the unwanted attention her husband was receiving. 

Similar problems have surfaced at other financial institutions owned or controlled by the government.   The Federal National Mortgage Association, which is better known as Fannie Mae, has had three CEOs since the government took control of the company last September.   After taking control, the government immediately replaced Daniel H. Mudd, who had served as CEO since 2005.   Then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson persuaded Herbert M. Allison, Jr., who had previously retired after a distinguished career as a financial executive, to become the new CEO of Fannie Mae.  Like Mr. Koskinen with Freddie Mac, Mr. Allison accepted the position as Fannie Mae’s CEO out of sense of civic responsibility.   A few months later, Mr. Allison was moved to the Treasury Department to run the government’s financial bailout efforts.   The government then named Michael J. Williams as the third CEO of Fannie Mae in less than a year.   Mr. Williams, who had been employed by Fannie Mae since 1991, did not get a pay raise upon his promotion to CEO.   He does not have the authority to make any major decisions without the government’s approval.  

CEOWORLD Magazine asked Mr. Mudd, the former CEO, if he made any mistakes while running Fannie Mae.   Mr. Mudd responded, “I wish I’d said no to more of the things the company was asked to do.  We were asked—or required—to expand lending, to conserve capital while providing liquidity, to meet housing goals for the underserved, to serve shareholders and homeowners alike. … I wish I had gone to the government and gotten a clear answer to the question:  What do you want: more capital or more lending?”

Then there is American International Group, Inc., or AIG, which is also now owned and controlled by the government.   Edward M. Liddy, another experienced financial executive, was drafted last year to serve as CEO of AIG after the government took control of AIG.   He agreed to take the job for $1 per year.  Mr. Liddy now wants out, and the sooner the better.    He has submitted his resignation to be effective as soon as his successor can be found, which won’t be easy.   In an article dated May 22, 2009, The New York Times said, “Mr. Liddy took the job of chairman and chief executive of the insurer as a form of public service, but he ended up being castigated by members of Congress who seemed unable to separate him from the financial turmoil he was brought in to calm.”    In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Liddy discussed his testimony before Congress regarding the payment of bonuses that had been promised by AIG before Mr. Liddy became CEO.    Mr. Liddy said, “Except for the day my mother died four or five years ago, it was probably the worst day of my life.” 

Do you see a pattern here?   No good deed goes unpunished.   The government brings in a civic-minded executive who is willing to work for little or no pay to clean up a mess caused in part by government policies.    Members of Congress then publicly castigate the civic-minded executive while refusing to take any responsibility for their role in creating the problems the executive is trying to solve. 

Is it any wonder that ten large banks this week couldn’t wait to repay $68 billion of federal bailout funds?     The ten banks repaid the government bailout loans in order to get out from under the government’s thumb.    Many of the banks had been forced to accept the government loans against their will.    Ironically, during the same week the banks repaid the bailout funds, the Obama Administration announced extensive new regulations to which the banks will be subject in the future.    President Obama’s “compensation czar” will also be keeping an eye on the banks even though they have repaid the government loans.  

There is no doubt some financial companies have made serious mistakes that have contributed to the current financial crisis.   There also is no doubt many of these same companies paid excessive and even obscene compensation to their senior executives.   For me, however, I would have more confidence about the future if the government would allow these companies to fix their own problems rather than subjecting them to increased government control.   When the government gets involved, bureaucrats and politicians who have never run so much as a hotdog stand are doomed to make every mistake possible. 

Many years ago, I read an article entitled “Hire People You Can’t Afford.”   The article, which was written by John Malmo, Chairman of Archer-Malmo Advertising, Inc., was designed to provide advice to new entrepreneurs.   Mr. Malmo wrote, “The very first time you have to hire somebody to help, you hire cheap.  Because you’re probably poor.  So you hire the only people you think you can afford.  It takes a year or two to find out you can’t afford the people you could afford.  You’re working harder with them than you were without them, because you’re doing your job and their jobs, and you’re paying them, to boot. …. You have to do this at least twice before you realize that the only people you can afford are the people you didn’t think you could afford.”    Mr. Malmo added that a sure road to success for an entrepreneur “is to make it a point to always try to hire only people you think are better than you are, or at least have the potential to be better than you.”   He could have added that after hiring these people you should give them the freedom to do the job you hired them to do. 

Successful businesses are not run by politicians or by people who are hired by politicians to do whatever the politicians want them to do.   Mr. Malmo in his article observed, “It’s hard to remember a company chock full of talented, smart and motivated people that failed.”     Unfortunately, many “talented, smart and motivated people” are not willing to work for a business owned or controlled by the government.   Our recent history shows it does not take long for a talented person who agrees to work for a business owned or controlled by the government to get frustrated and resign.    

A Letter to President Obama

Occasionally, I like to share with readers of my blog an article, letter, or story written by someone else.    Today is one of those days.    A friend sent me a copy of a letter written to President Obama by Louis A. Pritchett, who is a former Vice President of Procter & Gamble Co.   Mr. Pritchett worked for Proctor & Gamble for 36 years before retiring in 1989.   He is a motivational speaker and the author of a business book published in 1995 entitled Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat:  Business Lessons from the School of Hard Knocks.   The book jacket describes the book as being “about learning from your mistakes and savoring your triumphs, mastering your weaknesses and fortifying your strengths.  It’s about initiating and sustaining a ‘love affair’ with your customers and your own employees.”   

Here is the text of Mr. Pritchett’s open letter to President Obama: 

Dear President Obama: 

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. 

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. 

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. 

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. 

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. 

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core. 

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. 

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. 

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. 

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. 

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. 

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. 

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. 

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. 

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. 

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. 

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. 

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. 

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. 

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
 

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. 

Lou Pritchett 

Mr. Pritchett confirmed to Snopes.com that he is the author of the above letter.  He said he sent the letter to The New York Times, which not surprisingly neither acknowledged nor published it. 

I hope Mr. Pritchett has a good lawyer and accountant who are standing by to represent him in connection with his upcoming audit by the Internal Revenue Service.   

The Truth Hurts

Have you ever known someone who was in the process of self-destruction?   Perhaps the person was drinking too much, using drugs, neglecting his or her family, failing to meet the expectations of his or her employer, studying too little, or otherwise ignoring his or her responsibilities or acting in an irresponsible manner.    

An individual who is in the process of self-destruction generally does not like to hear the truth about his or her failings.  The truth always hurts, but the truth needs to be told.    Some people will be more receptive to hearing the truth when the message is delivered by a friend or family member.   Others will be more receptive when a stranger delivers the message.  In many cases, the initial response to the message will be denial that a problem exists.   The goal, however, is that the message will serve as a “wake-up call” to the person receiving it and that he or she will respond by taking corrective action instead of continuing down the path of self-destruction.    

What happens when a country is moving in the wrong direction and is in the process of self-destruction?   Who should deliver the wake-up call to those who have the power to change the direction of the country and thereby avoid the problems that could lead to the country’s destruction?  

In my opinion, the United States of America needs a wake-up call.    Unfortunately, politicians who are in power are not receptive when politicians who are out of power complain about the direction of the country.   Most politicians have no credibility because they are expected to complain about the actions of the opposing political party regardless of what is at stake.   Complaints by those who are members of the minority political party are dismissed as being purely political rants, which they usually are.   In our current highly partisan political environment, any attempt by a politician or by someone with a strong political ideology to deliver a wake-up call will be ignored.   

Perhaps what we need is a series of wake-up calls delivered by observers outside the United States who are not involved in our internal political battles.   I don’t know whether anyone will pay attention, but we have recently received at least three such wake-up calls from outside observers.   

One wake-up call came yesterday from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez.    Let me make it clear I don’t have any respect for Chavez.   He is a Marxist who is doing great damage to Venezuela.   During the last decade, he has nationalized most of Venezuela’s key industries, including the oil industry, the telecommunications industry, and the banks.   Nevertheless, I think we should pay attention when Chavez says he and his Cuban ally, Fidel Castro, could end up being more conservative than President Barak Obama.  

According to a news report from Reuters, Chavez, perhaps jokingly, said, “Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors.  Comrade Obama!  Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.”  

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also delivered a wake-up call of her own.   According to a report in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Ms. Merkel said the Federal Reserve Bank and its counterpart in Europe, the European Central Bank, have gone too far in fighting the financial crisis and may be laying the groundwork for another financial blowup.   Ms. Merkel called for a return to more independent central banks that are free of political pressure and that avoid extensive intervention in the economy.  

The biggest wake-up call came from a Russian columnist writing in a Russian newspaper.  The Russian newspaper Pravda recently published a column by Stanislav Mishin entitled “American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper.”    In the column, Mr. Mishin said “the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath-taking speed” against the backdrop of a “passive, hapless” American public.    In essence, Mr. Mishin believes the American people are surrendering their freedoms and their souls.   He provides the following three reasons for America’s “decent into Marxism”:  

(1)  “[T]he population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics.  Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives.”   

(2)  The American people’s “faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different ‘branches and denominations’ were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more than happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the ‘winning’ side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. … Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.” 

(3)   “The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive.   His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world.   If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.”

Mr. Mishin said it “should be no surprise” that President Obama and a group of his “unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies.”   He added that Prime Minister Putin warned President Obama “not to follow the path of Marxism, it only leads to disaster.”   But he then observes that “we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our ‘wise’ Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.”

Mr. Mishin observes that the members of the U.S. Congress have responded to recent developments by putting “up little more than a whimper to their masters.”  Likewise, “the American public has taken this with barely a whimper.”    He concludes by saying, “The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is.  The world will only snicker.”

You can read Mr. Mishin’s column in its entirety by clicking on the link below:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/ 

These three wake-up calls do not represent new insights into the current direction of our country.  Republican politicians and conservative commentators have made similar observations during the last several months.   Their observations have been disregarded because of the highly partisan nature of our current political environment.   It may be time to start paying attention, however, when comments such as those mentioned above are being made by a Venezuelan dictator, a German Chancellor, and a Russian columnist.   The truth hurts.  Is anyone listening to the wake-up call?