Obama Can Succeed

While I am greatly dismayed at how the actions of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress have ballooned the federal deficit and expanded entitlements, I retain hope for the best results for our nation. The Democrats have at least another 9-10 months of control of Congress (assuming they lost the majority in the mid-terms) and Obama has another 3 years left in this term. The health care debate and passage was a waste of a year's worth of political capital and momentum. Whether or not it gets repealed is not my current concern.

I would like to see the Democrats use the rest of their period of guaranteed control to focus on things that really matter to the American people by taking measures to reduce the deficit, cut unnecessary spending programs, and help the private sector put the economy back on track. As a Republican, I could focus my energies on efforts parallel with the Republican leadership: trashing the Democrats, screaming "Repeal!", and embracing the difficult-to-define Tea Party movement. However, I will not. I want to encourage Red and Blue to work together to serve the interests of the greater American public. Don't forget: it's the economy, stupid.

Some others that haven't forgotten this include a few Democrats, who hope that Obama/Pelosi/Reid wisen up and use their current majorities to do something of real significance. Sure, effectively governing and enacting popular legislation would probably shift the tide of public support toward the Democrats and hand them the fall election. But I'm okay with that as long as whomever is in power delivers results that the country needs.

Common Since: Do I think the above prediction is a pipe-dream? You bet your ass I do. The Democrats are delusional with power as if they're on an all-you-can-drink whiskey & coke night at a college bar. Although you can't blame a guy for holding about a little hope, can you?

The Economist Lands a Punch Squarely in Obama's Face

Why hasn't the federal government effectively addressed the nation's ever-increasing problems? Blame President Obama, says The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15545983&source=hptextfeature

A Task Force Worth Forming

Today, President Obama issued an executive order creating a bipartisan fiscal reform commission. This is a step that Congress refused to take, but Obama has wisely embraced the idea first proposed by Senators Conrad and Gregg. The goal of the commission is to bring down the federal deficit to 3% of GDP. The recommendations of the commission are likely to include new taxes, spending cuts, and reforms to entitlement programs. Tax increases are obviously going to be unpopular, especially in an election year, and are unlikely to ever be enacted. But entitlement reform is sorely needed to ensure a sustainable fiscal future and spending cuts should be universally welcomed.

The possibility that tax increases may be recommended was the reason that Congressional Republicans refused to support a resolution creating the task force. Their stubbornness and inability to compromise have been duly noted for the record. Hopefully this commission can truly put aside the partisanship to find some common sense recommendations. And hopefully President Obama will follow through on his first serious attempt to control the deficit. We'll see...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/81863-obama-names-simpson-and-bowles-to-lead-fiscal-commission

Pres. Obama to Announce $ For FL High-Speed Rail Today

President Obama will be at the University of Tampa this afternoon to announce an ARRA grant of $1.25 billion for Florida's SunRail high-speed Orlando-to-Tampa connector. This announcement has been long speculated and confirmed in the President's State of the Union speech last night:

"Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Fla., where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services and information."

I am very pleased that the President will be getting back to the true stated purpose of the stimulus. I've been very critical about how the $787 billion ARRA has been spent to this point, like most Americans. Infrastructure investment deserves to be the cornerstone of this massive appropriation, which has hitherto been shuffled among the bureaucratic hierarchy. Let's hope this is a turning point that, when combined with a plan for small business loans, will have a greater effect on improving the fortunes of an increasing amount of Americans.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1068768.ece

Greed is Good, But Not When You Haven't Earned It

It was announced that the Obama administration will limit the pay of executives at the 7 companies that were the largest recipients of federal aid. It is also attempting to create strict compensation reforms. This move is in response to the overwhelming public outcry over the news of the millions of dollars in salary, bonuses, and perks these top executives received in the midst of a corporate crisis.

I applaud this measure, with reservations and amendments. The era of Golden Parachutes needs to come to an end. In a healthy economy, corporate executives need to be held accountable by their investors and stockholders, but they have not been. The financial industry tanked, employees were laid off, and these companies lobbied Washington for a bailout, which they received. As their companies have returned to profitability, these executives feel entitled to the same level of absurd compensation as the status quo. However, when they accept taxpayer money to save their sinking ship from bankruptcy, they forfeit their "right" to excessive fringe benefits and bonuses.

I'm glad that several of the banking institutions have been able to repay a significant amount of their bailouts, but until they are out of the red, they should use common sense. They have implicitly given the government the ability to limit their compensation during their period of indebtedness and should not try to push the envelope.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration should refrain from enacting permanent regulations that cap executive compensation. That level of public intrusion in the private sector is a step toward socialism. If they want to have a lasting, positive effect on this issue, the administration should push the Fed and SEC to enact regulations that give stockholders greater power to hold CEO's accountable.

Common Since: Million dollar bonuses and benefits should not be permitted for corporate executives whose companies have accepted government bailout loans. They are indebted to the American taxpayer, and returning that money must be their priority. Corporate governance reform is imperative, but should not take the form of a permanent restriction on business practices. The best solution is to encourage greater accountability between a corporation and their stockholders/investors.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

I really don't want to appear as bitterly anti-Obama; I'm not. But I was blindsided when I heard on NPR this morning that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

To me, awarding a prize is a recognition of a clear and indisputable victor or champion. For instance, whomever crosses a finish line first wins the race and whomever sells the most thingamajigs wins salesman of the month. When it comes to awarding a prize for the works of peace, judgment is considerably more subjective and convoluted. According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Peace Prize would be given to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." These broad criteria can be interpreted in multifarious ways.

Let us also not forget that the Nobel Committee has not shirked away from controversy in christening its recipient. Henry Kissinger was awarded the prize for his peace negotiations with Vietnam, in spite of his role in the escalation of that conflict. Also, they have failed to ever recognize Mahatma Gandhi, citing the fact that they only award the prize to living persons. They later awarded a posthumous prize to the Secretary of the UN who died in a plane crash. I mean, they stiffed Gandhi?! Obviously consistency has no place here and favoritism is the modus operandi.

We've established that the Nobel Committee is capricious and is swayed by their personal interests, but there has got to be some measure of accomplishment, right? The three other U.S. Presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize are Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. The big-stick-carrying, rough-rider-leading T.R. won in 1906 for his role in mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Ending a war? Peace Prize worthy. Wilson, a staunch pacifist who led the U.S. to victory in WWI, won for presiding over the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and introducing the League of Nations, the forebear of the United Nations. Creating a new forum for international diplomacy (despite criticisms of the U.N.'s institutional weakness, it is a step forward)? Prize worthy. Jimmy Carter led a lackluster presidency, and was not elected to a second term. However, in the last 30 years he has championed humanitarian causes and headed Habitat for Humanity. Building dwellings for the world's poor? Prize worthy.

President Obama has set some lofty goals for himself during his campaign and his first nine months in office. He has called for increasing diplomacy and an open dialogue among nations. He has promised movement toward nuclear disarmament. He has lobbied for Israeli-Palestinian peace. What results are there to show for these efforts? Very little.

The U.S. has not entered into formal talks with Iran to deter their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Obama has hosted talks between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but no peaceful milestones have been reached. Israel continues to encourage Jewish settlement of the West Bank. Russia is as cryptic as usual in its progress toward arms reduction, although they granted the U.S. use of its airspace for military transports to Afghanistan. Whoop-dee-doo. In return, we abandoned plans for a European missile defense shield, which has drawn sharp criticism from national defense hawks. In the off-chance Iran does acquire a long-range nuclear weapon, a missile defense installment would be a much appreciated comfort to the Europeans and ourselves.

Obama's foreign policy efforts have been far from a failure, but he has achieved very little at this point in time. The complex agenda his administration is pursuing will take many international summits and diplomatic overtures to produce concrete results. To award him the Nobel Peace Prize for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" is premature, at best. However, the Nobel Committee admits that they utilize their prizes not just as recognition of accomplishment, but to influence to direction of international politics: "The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy." And stirred up controversy they have. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is an incentive, not an award, for President Obama to make good on his lofty promises. Let us hope, for the sake of his sanity and our country's reputation, that he follows through.

Common Since: This Nobel Peace Prize is actually a Nobel Peace Incentive. It has not been earned by merit nor tangible returns, and now President Obama must prove himself worthy after-the-fact. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.