How to Lie

Maybe I'm just a little morally challenged, but I did learn one thing while working in politics -- how to lie. I know that may not sound like something important but if you look at just some of the headlines from this week's news you can see quite clearly how few people know how to lie. So, I thought that I'd write this down to help out those politicians and others out there who often feel compelled to lie but just don't know how to do it properly.The rules are simple. I will outline them and offer examples of good lies and bad lies so that you can learn the difference. Rule number one: keep the lie simple. It seems obvious, but surprisingly people are always inventing elaborate tales, tales that always seem to evolve with each subsequent telling. Start changing your story and your credibility will fall faster than the Dow when credit markets are tight. Here's an example: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ ever evolving story regarding the firings of several US district attorneys. The story keeps changing about what he knew and when he knew it. Had the Administration fired all the attorneys at the end of the first term and rehired only the ones they wanted to keep they would have been avoided any political entanglements. This was too easy a solution for the policy masters in the Bush White House...instead they had to go about it the hard way. However, they shouldn't have lied. Politicians hold sway over federal political appointees and may fire them on a political whim. This is what should have been said, even if it were wrong, admitting you made a mistake and asking for forgiveness certainly would have been simpler than the tack the Administration has taken. So, rule one again, keep it simple that way your lie is told the same way every time without having to worry about getting all the details right.Rule Two: Don't tell a lie when someone else already knows the truth. Again, a no-brainer, but we constantly see politicians ignoring this rule. Take the case of the righteous New York governor Eliot Spitzer, currently involved in a political fight with Joseph Bruno. Mr. Spitzer maintains that he had no knowledge that close political advisors where using state resources to smear Mr. Bruno. Gov. Spitzer may be telling the truth, but no one believes him. How can it be that a zealous prosecutor would surround himself with high-level staffers who knowingly skirt the law? To date no one has admitted that the Spitzer did know what was happening, but this does not seem likely to last. I hope I'm wrong but it appears that Gov. Spitzer should have stuck to Rule #2 and issued a mea culpa.Rule Three: The more outrageous the lie the more likely people are to believe it. Take for example the last time you called in sick to work. No one ever believes you when you call out on what happens to be the nicest Friday of the summer, or the night after you went to that concert. Though those lies may follow rules one and two they fail under rule three. A former colleague told the best example of a lie following Rule #3. She claimed to have cancer, kidney failure, and a daughter and granddaughter who were murdered. The individual took off (with pay) roughly 30% of the year to deal with her multitude of issues. And, given the gravity of the problems no one dared think these things could be false. She pushed the kidney failure to transplant surgery, and requested an additional three months and this brought about her downfall. Her continued lies lead to an investigation that eventually brought about her extremely quite termination. Going too far on rule three can cause you to violate rule one.That's it, three simple rules. Go back and look at all the past political lies that have been uncovered -- Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, all failed one or more of these rules. And maybe the most important lesson to learn is this -- don't lie. That's what we should do. Tell the truth; lying is just too hard even with simple rules to follow. Everyone realizes mistakes are made, and the voting populace expects even more mistakes from politicians than they do of others. What they do not seem to abide is when the lying starts. Aren't we all taught as children that we will be forgiven our transgressions if only we confess and ask for forgiveness? What is true for children and is also true for politicians.A final example -- Sen. Joseph Biden was once accused of plagiary years ago. He admitted his mistake, asked for forgiveness and moved on. He was even able to make light of it in a speech given soon afterwards, allowing the public to seen a more human side of his political persona. Shortcomings, when admitted, make politicians more likable and increase their voter appeal. Hopefully everyone will learn something from this, but experience tells me they won't.

Common Sense Environmental/Energy Policy

OK, first a confession...I used to lobby for the energy industry. I left that job, and I have at times tried without success to work for the environmental community. I have often wondered why they would not jump at the chance to hire someone who is intimately familiar with their enemy. I guessed it was because I was not pure of heart.

The environmental community in America has been responsible for a lot of public policy good over the years -- the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts among them, but they have also stopped many incremental environmental improvements. The environmental activists and their leaders have often demanded that they get the "whole pie" or they didn't want anything -- a petulant child's attitude towards public policy. It is disturbing watching the environment slowly be destroyed because the community most active in trying to protect it does not understand the importance of small victories.

There are numerous examples, and one I have personal experience with is the Three Gorges Dam in southern China. Several heavy industry companies based here in the US wanted to see if the US government would support their involvement in the construction of the world's largest hydro-electric project. Unfortunately, the environmental community here in America successfully blocked US involvement in the project with the naive hope that without US involvement the project would fall by the wayside. Fortunately for China and my fellow asthma sufferers in that nation the Chinese government went ahead with their project, and I believe it is now slated to "come on line" in 2009, and become the second man-made object that can be viewed from space (the Great Wall being the other).

Now, why the environmental community was right to object to the project was due to the vast numbers of Chinese needed to be relocated due to the lake the dam would build, and the potential devastation to three forms of wildlife dependent upon the river. However, they did not examine the possible alternative nor realize the political realities of the project. The Chinese government is not popularly elected, and certainly would never bow to the pressure brought by the global environmental community. The Chinese government also steadfastly maintained that the dam would also serve as a much needed flood control on the river, as floods annually took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Chinese living in the lower river basin (though I do not know if this assertion is true, I never heard anyone try to counter the claim). And finally the vast amount of electricity produced by the dam could only be replaced by building 250 average size coal-fired power plants, and the long-term environmental damage caused by such a decision certainly would have been significantly worse. The most disturbing item was not any of these facts, but simply that the environmental community thought the Chinese people did not need the power.

This is only an example, and should serve as a reminder that not every thing the energy industry does is bad, just like everything the environmental community supports is necessarily good. We all need to remember that the best place for public policy to succeed is for all sides to meet in the middle, find a common ground and a workable solution for all sides. When one side demands complete victory we all lose.

Random Rants

It's been far too long since my last post, and I wonder if I can still write in a coherent manner, but I'm going to give it a try.

A couple of things: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. PULEEZE! Maureen Dowd of the New York Times took the Secretary of State to task for not working harder on pressing foreign policy issues. Ms. Dowd, I beg you to stop. The less time the current White House foreign policy team spends on "fixing" foreign policy issues the less time the next administration will have to spend repairing the damage caused by such an incredible group of bunglers. Never have so few done so little to harm so many in so little time (my apologies to Winston Churchill). I shudder to think of the damage she and her cohorts may inflict if they actually spent time doing their jobs. Ms. Dowd is clearly misguided in thinking that the current Administration has even the remotest grasp of international politics. Thankfully, the White House I'm sure canceled its subscription years ago. :-)

Barack Obama. He reminds me of President Clinton, that is when the President was still just Gov. Clinton. He's full of promise and great ideas. I want him to be the next president, someone who isn't tainted or jaded. I'm trying to make my way through his most recent book -- The Audacity of Hope, and I find it an excellent read, and he appears to have a firm grasp on what is happening to our country internally and what we need to do to make it better. I wish him all the luck in the world and hope he continues to be the bright light that our party and our nation needs.

I have some thoughts about the Catholic church here in America, but I feel I should probably save them for later. Except to say that I think hopefully the settlement reached in Los Angeles will allow those involved to find some peace in their lives. And I would hope that the church leadership would spend more time addressing what may have been the root causes that led to this legal action rather than just trying to control the damage past acts may have caused. Without true introspective thought the church is very likely to find itself in this very position again in the not too distant future.

Till next time. Hoping someone reads this. :-)

Grand Plans, Part 2

In a press conference yesterday the President expounded on his thoughts regarding the current status of US immigration laws. He believes we need illegal immigrants to come to this nation to “do the jobs that Americans just won’t do.”

This is a rather interesting position for a President who used to be on the “front line” of immigration. The President, using his experience as governor of Texas as a guide, believes he has a firm grasp of what is needed in immigration reform. He truly believes he is doing the right thing by instructing the INS to look the other way regarding allowing immigrants, undocumented to work low-paying or demeaning jobs here in the land of opportunity. Immigrants taking jobs paying significantly higher than those in their homelands, but lower than a legal worker would be paid, and certainly without benefits demanded by most American workers.

The President spoke warmly of how these immigrants enter our borders looking for opportunity. Hoping to find jobs that will enable them to put food on the table, to help those they have left behind in their native lands. He believes this is truly win-win. The immigrants get what they want, and the Americans employing them get what they want too. Benard Kerik’s recent nanny problems have brought this problem to the forefront.

Most intriguing are the apologists who think hiring an illegal nanny is no big deal. It happened to several of the potential nominees from the Clinton days, and again to President Bush. The London Times “American Soup” column talked about the issue and how hard it was to find a good nanny, especially if you hire a legal one. Why is it that those with the most money and potential to distort the government are the ones who decide they are above the law? If the President does not believe these issues are important he should work hard to truly reform immigration and employment law.

Will this happen? Unlikely. More likely is that the President and his rich and powerful friends will continue to ignore the law and “lucky” immigrants will continue to suffer lower wages and worse treatment than their legal counterparts. Thank God he’s a compassionate conservative.

Grand Plans, Part 1

In a press conference today the President gave a broad outline of what he views are the changes coming to social security. He wants people to be able to privatize a small percentage of their social security savings. He also wants to reassure current social security recipients that there will be “no change in their check.” Eloquent words or at least the most you can expect from this President.

Here are some of the facts regarding the Social Security System. The current fiscal surplus is invested by mandate in Treasury bonds. These bonds in turn help underwrite a vast portion of the existing federal debt. The Social Security Administration currently is the single largest holder of federal debt, accounting holding more than 60% of the government debts. The interest paid on the debt helps pay for COLA’s for the current social security recipients.

Under the current plan for retirees the SSA will go bankrupt in 2042. This seems like a long event horizon, 35 years in fact. What to do to help keep the system solvent? The President wants to privatize part of the system. At its face this seems sensible. But what exactly does it do to help meet the projected shortfall? Nothing. The individuals who opt for private investment will individually reap the profits or potential losses of such a move. This means that even though the overall amount of money within the system may increase, the increase in funding will be specifically earmarked for those individuals who took the risk. It would not benefit all those within the system. Those people who lose money in the private market should not be bailed out by those who did not.

What to do. Unfortunately, we must make hard choices. Sacrifices are required, and if we are not going to ask them of the current retirees already dependent upon their monthly checks, we must ask it of those planning their future retirement. If we allow individuals to privatize part of their Social Security savings they must do so knowing that they are only trying to help ensure the system’s solvency, and garnering themselves only what they had already counted upon.

Other options are seemingly harsh, but given life expectancy rates continue to climb it would not be unreasonable to continue to raise the retirement age at the same rate. Another even less attractive alternative given the current federal budget deficits would be for the government to set aside additional and future revenues to meet the projected shortfalls. Certainly not an attractive alternative, but possibly one that might have to happen as it is the least painful alternative available to risk-adverse politicians.

We have to do something to save Social Security, and while some do not believe that the President must act now, acting today will lessen the pain we will undoubtedly face in the future.

Values

Let’s try some word association. Republicans – values = religion, hard work, respect. Democrats – values = religious extremism, hatred, morals. Small wonder Democrats cringe when they hear or see the word. Recently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was successful in their attempt to regain Billy Tauzin’s LA-3 district seat. The day following volunteers read the Sunday paper, mainly to see how the “liberal” media would cover the victory. One volunteer was literally appalled that the local newspaper had a section in the Sunday edition labeled “values.”

What was so objectionable about values? Why has the party become so abhorrent of values? What was also interesting about the campaign is that the party leaders seem to think something of values. What was the pitch we made to prospective voters regarding the candidate’s stand on the issues? He supported traditional Southeast Louisiana values. Admittedly a number of volunteers were shocked to learn that the candidate was not only pro-life but also pro-gun. They didn’t have a problem with his being pro-protectionist in trade stance. It’s becoming more and more interesting deciding what rank-and-file Democrats believe, and harder and harder to determine what values we Democrats do stand for.

Democrats have always had a hard time on trade issues, though it appeared that President Clinton had turned the party around on the issue. Free and fair trade is good for everyone, eventually. Protectionism only hurts our economy, temporarily staving off the inevitable. Free trade allows for goods imported into America more cheaply, and also ensures that American products are cheaper in overseas markets. This creates more jobs for Americans and those struggling overseas. Free trade allows goods to be cheaper for those struggling in America, and those struggling overseas. Isn’t the Democratic Party in favor of these ideals? Of course they are. But they feel beholden to the unions which provide them with nearly unflinching support. Perhaps, though it is time to reevaluate their support. Has their help won the party any national elections, and in fact they may have lost them. Obviously working class union workers do not vote solely for their union’s backed candidates.

We need to determine what issues truly are important to the voters. Issues we can support and take the national lead. And probably more importantly we need to stop waffling. Once we pick an issue we must take a stand on it, regardless of polling numbers. Americans respect politicians who speak their mind and lead the nation, not follow opinion polls. Americans have little use for leaders who cannot determine what issues they believe in and what they support. Trying to be all things to all people all the time only convinces them we are disingenuous to all. Americans have never respected politicians who lie to them; they only respect politicians who try to lead them.

With all politics being local, congressional races will always bring the party candidates who do not conform to a national norm. As the Republicans used to, we must be willing to tolerate candidates who have views differing from the party’s stated position. While allowing some dissent, it is important for the party’s leaders to maintain party discipline on major issues. Members must adhere to a core set of values, be they moral or others. Values are what the party stands for, now we must determine just what those values are.

Help Wanted

Wanted: Individual to fill vacancy as CFO of large corporation. Applicant must have significant work experience. They must be willing to blindly implement policies outlined by company chairman and CEO. Successful candidate must be well versed in economic theory and modern business practices. Acceptance of position will require individual to pass rigorous questioning by representatives of company’s stockholders.

You may see this ad in your local papers soon. Undoubtedly headhunters are already crisscrossing the nation, talking to potential applicants. And what is the job? It appears that the Administration wants to reorder its economic team, starting with the Treasury Secretary and eventually a new Federal Reserve chair. See story in the Washington Post.

I want to apply, for certainly my knowledge of economic theory is just weak enough to warrant consideration. It is hard not to be sarcastic here. However, who would want the job. Admittedly there is a great deal of power and prestige along with a relatively meager government paycheck. You will have the world looking to you for economic guidance, almost as if you were godlike.

Power alone is not enough of a motivation. The President hopes to accomplish many economic feats in his second term. The President envisions sweeping changes to the IRS and American’s sacred retirement plan – Social Security. The chance to defeat every American’s worst government enemy and save its beloved retirement system is a challenge to appeal to only the best and brightest.

But with all jobs there is a downside. You don’t get to follow your own ideas and plans to accomplish these unbelievable goals. You have to do the impossible. You have to balance the federal budget while lowering taxes. You must do this with an economy that is just coming into a growth period. Congress ties your hands, as it is almost impossible to envision a cut in federal spending. The only way to accomplish the balancing act would be to raise revenue by growing the economy by a rate higher than the tax cuts and existing deficits. The plan is only a pipedream, once called “voodoo economics” by a politician trying to debunk the theory.

Privatizing social security is equally daunting. Established as a safety net the agency protects American’s without retirement savings. Currently millions of Americans rely of their monthly checks. Saving the system will take a great deal of work. Unfortunately if will likely cause a great deal of pain during the process. The Administration envisions allowing individuals to divest “their” retirement funds into private stocks and bonds. It sounds like a great idea. What happens to the investments currently held? What are those investments? Ironically enough, the Social Security Administration holds Treasury bonds. The bonds finance our burgeoning budget deficit. Allowing divestiture from these bonds would force the Treasury to raise interest rates to attract other investors. It would be folly to believe the free market would replace government investors unless the rates matched rates found on the open market.

This is a catch-22. The government needs the money to finance its debts. It cannot raise the rates paid on these bonds without drastically increasing the national debt. The more capital the federal government must borrow the higher interest rates will climb as the money supply contracts.

The task facing the next Treasury Secretary will be great, but the one they must accomplish is standing up to the President and his advisors. The new secretary must follow sound economic principals in order to keep the American economy stable and protect those who have retired.

Gossed Wrong

I have a secret, and I’m certain you do too. The CIA wants to know it. Well, at least they used to. Apparently secret stealing was the mission of the CIA. Not any more. Stealing of course is amoral, and the current Administration would be loath to commit any amoral acts. So, that must be why the new CIA director, Porter Goss has instructed employees via email that the new mission of the agency is to support the Administration and its policies.

National security concerns alleviated. The terrorist threat level lowered. It is comforting to know that the new mission of the CIA is simply administrative support for White House policies and theories. This is troubling. Trouble compounded by the departure of five high-ranking agency officials. This includes two members running the agency’s covert operations division.

Republican spinmeisters have valiantly argued that past overhauls of the agency have caused similar departures. It is merely a clashing of cultures, the nation’s spymasters refusing to buckle under to Republican committee staffers now directing them. John Deutsch assumed control of the CIA during the second Clinton term, and departures soon followed. Deutsch brought with him staff from the defense department. Similar departures occurred in previous administrations as well.

It is not the departures themselves that are troubling, but the new mission of the CIA. The mission of the CIA is to gather and analyze intelligence. The new mission would not have stopped the intelligence failures highlighted by the tragedies of 9/11. The old mission appears to have been lost in a fog. The new director has referred to the agency as a secret stealer. This appears to miss the mark as well.

The nation has many tools for intelligence gathering. To be sure, the post-9/11 hiring spree has added many needed tools to the agencies assets. It is also true the number of human intelligence gatherers is insufficient, especially in the Middle East and Asia. Once this issued is rectified the agency will be able to accomplish what its mission should be.

The new mission of the CIA should be information analysis and policy recommendation. The agency should be a voice of truth and information. The Bush Administration, or any future administration, should never ask the agency to twist its finding to fit a political policy. The Administration should set its policies based on untainted analysis.

Information abounds in today’s world. Simple computer manipulation readily reveals many secrets. Brave souls hiding in dark corners uncover others. Finding the secrets isn’t as hard as it once was. The impediment is deciding where the secrets lead. Intelligence officers have a duty to make that determination. They have the most direct and complete access to the information. They should be guiding the Administration. The Administration would be wise to follow their professional guides. Intelligence officers giving the wrong advice did not cause the mistakes of 9/11; it was the advice not getting to those who could act on it.

Everyone hires experts to do a job. Those that hire them have an obligation to listen. If they do not want to listen they should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by hiring them. Otherwise listen to them.

Rising Tide

A rising tide lifts all ships. This phrase is certainly true, given two important qualifications: all the ships are seaworthy, and rest within the same sea. The statement is rising to the forefront as many have recently argued the globe and its people are getting richer.

New York Times columnist David Brooks points to the number of people who are living in extreme poverty has declined significantly over the past decade. He notes the rapid economic growth of one of the globe’s poorest nations, China, as evidence of declining global poverty. Certainly this economic behemoth is growing, and quite rapidly. But, economic growth rate among one of the world’s poorest and largest nations is no real surprise. A decade ago the average Chinese person earned less than a $1 a day. Even a doubling of those earnings would still be abject poverty. Additionally, one wonders how these statistics are measured. Are people really climbing out of poverty? Or is it more likely that the number of extremely rich people have grown? Is the gap between the rich and the poor even greater now than it was a decade ago? The most likely answer is yes.

Is the tide rising everywhere? Yes. But the current is sweeping many under. Another interesting bit of news is the growing US trade gap and the ballooning federal budget deficit. Many in the Administration point to the numbers and claim alternating theories – either they don’t matter or they are signs of great economic growth and power. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Reagan Administration saddled the United States with the very same problem in the late 80’s. Economic growth started to sputter and interest rates were starting to rise. Fortunately, President George H. Bush did the responsible thing and raised taxes. Over the following decade the deficits shrank, the American economy rebounded, and the growth benefited the entire nation. The recently reelected President Bush with his “mandate” must now show the economic courage of his father and curtail deficit spending.

America is suffering for a drastically low national savings rate. Interest rates are so low that personal borrowing is near record highs. Borrowing by the federal government is also approaching record highs again.

Where does America get the money to satiate its capital hunger? China and Japan are the principal nations running a trade surplus with the US, and lending America the capital needed to finance our economy. Chinese Yuan is tied to the dollar, and therefore unlikely for the US to easily erase its economic deficit with the Chinese.

Fortunately the Chinese are also heavily dependant upon the US consumer market for its exports and therefore are unlikely to stop investing in American dollars or dump the dollars they currently hold. However, Alan Greenspan recently argued that America must do something about its twin deficits before the rest of the world determines other nations hold a greater return on investment.

The United States must reverse its current gluttonous behavior in order to raise all ships. While the poor do benefit from cheap imported goods from across the globe, they will bear the burden in the long run the bill for deficit spending comes due. Without action now the rising tide may also sink all ships.

Thanks

Thanksgiving is a holiday designed for the whole nation to give thanks. As a nation we owe our thanks to many. First and foremost are the servicemen and women dispersed around the globe. Not only those serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also those who protect us away from the battles – stationed in peacekeeping missions on half of America and NATO. These women and men are willing to put their lives at stake in order to ensure America’s freedoms and values. They work tirelessly to protect us, and many people across the globe who cannot protect themselves.

Thanks to our nation’s founders, for establishing a government which governs by majority, but also ensures there is not tyranny of the majority. They had the wisdom to guarantee the rights of minority voices within the very government they established. Leaders oppressed by their own government worked assiduously to guard against it within their new government. Today, we are free to criticize our government without fear of reprisals. The government protects vociferous opposition to all aspects of its policies and practices. We are thankful for the variety of opinions voiced and the opportunity to voice them, both red and blue.

Today we spend time with friends and family. Loved ones we may only get to see on special occasions. They love and support us, sometimes without our knowledge. They are there defending us, supporting us regardless. We thank our families for understanding and accepting us, even when we support “moral values” or oppose them. Friends and family are there for you always, not just on the holidays, but it is the holidays that we let them know how much we appreciate their love and support.

We are thankful for the bounty our nation enjoys. The homes that we live in, with home ownership at record levels. Though there are thousands of homeless in our nation, today we are thankful for our fortune not to be among them. We also thank the countless giving people who donate their time and money to help these souls, today and everyday. We thank them for their efforts and commitment, for working to try to end the homelessness in our great nation.

The food we find before us on this day and all others. Thankful for the nation’s farmers making the bounty possible. They work from dawn to dusk to provide the nation with food. They produce enough not only for our own people, but also for many others around the world. Farming is a thankless job but today we thank all of those who perform this greatly needed service.

Thank you to those in the medical profession. Holidays, though observed, do not mean a day of rest for nurses and doctors in our nation. We give them thanks for offering care to those in need everyday, especially when others are home celebrating with their families.

Thank you to everyone who give of themselves so that other may lead a better life.

Feigned Dissent

One of the first things learned in politics is not everything is as it seems. With a mere week remaining before Congress set to adjourn for their election, Speaker of House Dennis Hastert made a ridiculous promise. He told 9/11 widows that he would guarantee that the House would pass the bill that would have reformed the United States intelligence agency. Why in the world did the Speaker make such an unrealistic promise?

Admittedly the widows did manage to accidentally run into the Speaker, and he probably felt obligated to try to please these “lobbyists.” But why lie? He knew that the floor schedule was already full and there was absolutely no chance to pass the legislation before the election recess. Is it possible he knew the bill had no future regardless of his empty promise?

The President made the passage of the bill and its reforms a part of his campaign. Voters elected him for his “moral values” and his war on terrorism. Sen. Kerry earned higher support from voters in all other categories. Obviously this was an issue of great importance to both the American people and the President.

Following the bill’s defeat in the lame-duck session of the House, stories now leak out the President’s own Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly helped torpedo the bill. How probable is it, a high-ranking member of the President’s cabinet would stab his boss in the back? The same person, who orchestrated the President’s war in Iraq, is now selling out. It is likely. More likely is that the President and Republican leadership only paid lip service to the bill.

Official Washington always resists change. Change foisted upon them by those out of power is most objectionable. The 9/11 Commission while composed of politicians; it did not have a mission aside from protecting our nation. The committee members were charged with finding problems within the nation’s national security and attempting to find solutions. These people were in the twilight of their political careers. Their final responsibility is to ensure their recommendations are followed. They have the political capitol required to fulfill this promise. They must do it now. The American people know those in power cannot fulfill their thoughtless promises made regarding our national security.

In the Dark

Many things happen in the dark of the night. The monsters come out of the closet. The break-ins many fear often happen after the sun sets. And, apparently that is when the House Republicans want to sneak into your tax returns.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005 contained language which would have directed the IRS to show individual tax returns to officials representing the Appropriations Committee upon demand. That’s right, on a late Saturday night; a lame-duck session of the House decided politicians and their agents could read anyone’s tax returns. One can only imagine what the Republican Party leaders had planned for that information.

At first glance we imagine targeting large donors Democratic like George Soros. However, not only are Mr. Soros’ donations already public knowledge, but also he has the unlimited resources to protect himself against any government persecution. The little donors are the ones who need to fear. Those people who may have made enemies of the appropriators would certainly have been targets. It could also be people who finished with higher grade point averages in school, people who got the contract on the house they were trying to buy. Life would have been very interesting.

Fortunately for all Americans the Senate, the sole surviving voice of reason within the federal government, saw this language. When questioned, the House leaders stated the language was merely a standard oversight provision. So the House passed it without further question. Not hard given most Members were out of town, it was a weekend and night had already come. It is unlikely to have gone unnoticed during the cold light of day.

When the bill came to the Senate, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) took issue with the House “oversight” language. The House managers stated the language had been available for more than a week; if the Senate had a problem with it they should have said something earlier, before finalizing the conference report. Now, after the Senate has unanimously struck the language from the bill, the House Appropriation’s Subcommittee Chairman with oversight of the IRS, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) is now claiming no knowledge of the language. The New York Times covered the issue in today’s paper.

Are the Republican Members of the House committee simply too busy and uninvolved to actually read their own legislation? Are they covering their attempt to raid the cookie jar? The potential answers are disturbing. A single political party now controls government. Americans need to be ever more vigilant.

Desperate Housewives

Not exactly politics, but Desperate Housewives appears to be a new bellwether for determining the direction of America. Moral values? Forget about it! Columnists suggest we have found new moral compass. ABC’s new show is the hottest hit on TV, following only CSI in the national ratings.

The intriguing aspect of the show is the moral values followed by the “housewives.” Admittedly one of the wives isn’t a paragon of virtue. Eva Longoria is cheating on her absentee husband. No one pretends this is moral behavior. No one believes this is appropriate. The other wives have their own problems. Motherhood overwhelms Felicity Huffman’s Lynette Scavo and has resorted to stealing prescription drugs. Teri Hatcher’s character Susan Mayer accidentally burned down a rival friend’s house. Bree Van De Kamp, played by Marcia Cross, is a “Stepford” wife who will undoubtedly go to any length to keep her crumbling family together.

What makes these wives so watchable? Is it their above average beauty? This is a compelling factor among the large male audience, but what about the female viewers? There must be some substance there. Does the show appeal to the rapidly growing number of Americans who aspire to be voyeurs? It is quite possible that the show strikes a nerve. Americans either believe this is the standard of behavior of their neighbors or they want it to be.

Right or wrong, and they are probably right; they want to see people with problems. They want to see people struggle. They want to see people come together and overcome their problems. America’s political parties might learn something from this. Even though the American people barely favor one party over the other, they would certainly appreciate government coming together and overcoming their collective problems.

A Classic Double

Web surfing is extremely enlightening. The variety of opinions voiced in America is astounding. The width and breathe of ignorance being spouted is also overwhelming.

A columnist for the Chicago Tribune, John Kass, ranted about Tom DeLay and Bill Clinton. Not exactly a pair most people would lump into the same category. Mr. Kass delimitates between the behavior of the two men. He argues President Clinton’s elicit sex acts are impeachable offenses, while Mr. DeLay’s election tampering is pardonable. Our nation has sunk to a new moral low when trying to fix elections is not the most reprehensible crime in a democracy. If we were a totalitarian regime where only a single candidate is on the ballot maybe he would be correct.

Liberal racism and Condi Rice was an equally intriguing subject. Having never believed Ms. Rice was a capable foreign policy expert I wondered if this article spoke to me. Nope. Didn’t apply, and maybe more fortunately it contained little evidence and even less analytical thought. The blog’s author, a part-time contributor to the paragon of news virtue – Fox News Channel. She accused the “left” of hating it when a person of color rises in the world and has an intellect and independent thought. I will concur that Dr. Rice is an extremely intelligent woman, but not the right person to steer our national security and foreign policy. Most intriguing was the amount of hatred written on the site. Not thoughtful criticism, simply lowbrow name-calling. Additionally the site contains a link for even more through discussion of the topic by media darling Rush Limbaugh. Hate spews from the site prohibiting me from linking to the site.

Also there has been a spate of commentary on the Desperate Housewives opening to Monday Night Football. The opening was not only salacious, but also not in keeping with the nature of football. Thank God skimpy outfits worn by team cheerleaders are exempt from consideration. The NFL’s condemnation reeks of hypocrisy. You will here no complaints regarding the cheerleaders and how they help sell the NFL’s product, but instead righteous indignation when someone else does the same thing. Personally I enjoy both programs, and agree with Globe columnist Ellen Goodman. Her op-ed supporting the show was on target.

And speaking of hatred and anger have you seen any sports highlights? How about those Pacers? Frankly I think the game should have been pay-per-view. Admittedly the fights were mismatches but so to have been the recent bouts brought to America by Don King and others. Fans and players mixing it up, what provoked the incident? A hard foul, fan taunting and throw objects. Post incident interviews drew interesting comments from some players, stating they felt fans were disrespecting them. An interesting thought. Whenever someone talks “smack” about their opponent it is hard to look behind the words to find the motivation. When was the last time someone taunted the Expos? Growing up I never said a bad word about the repeatedly hapless Cubs. Losers don’t provoke anger. Winners motivate fans on both sides. It may be hard for athletes to accept, and even harder to understand during the heat of the moment, but generally there is an underlying respect and jealously behind even the most hateful words.

Moral ascendancy should have an impact upon the nation beyond the ballot box. Morals should extend into personal behavior. Morals should broaden to include public behavior. The religious leaders who preached from their pulpits about the repugnancy of gay marriage and abortion need to broaden their horizons. A return to roots of religion. Love and acceptance, tolerance and understanding must be preached. Hatred should be condemned not preached. Acceptance of intolerance and hate is a classic double standard that must be ended.

We must teach. Enlightenment will always champion over ignorance. Thoughtfully spoken and written words will eventually topple even the mightiest physical opponent. The whole nation needs to take a long hard look at itself and find the true center. A nation founded by those fleeing intolerance should not become one of intolerance

Frankenstein Republicans?

Where have all the Republicans gone? The Republicans I knew when I was in college were fiscally responsible. This isn’t true of the party today. Today’s Republicans are the worst combination of the parties from the recent past. They have assumed prominent parts of other parties. They have kept the laissez-faire business attitudes of the party from the 80’s. They assumed the pork barrel spendthrift nature of the House Democrats from the same decade. They incorporated the foreign policy interventionism of the Kennedy years. They made prominent the right-wing religious factor that was long dormant within the Party.

LA Times columnist Patt Morrison wants to know where are the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans? The Party cast aside that part when assembling today’s monster. The party no longer cares about issues like deficit spending, environment or even global public opinion. The Republicans Morrison writes of and the ones I knew are apparently extinct. Left long dead when the Party assumed its role as leader in writing the federal budget.

Writing more seems pointless. Those who would listen have died. Those left behind have no sense of history or responsibility.

Resurgent Insurgents

The offensive in Falluja is a success. US forces have killed over 1000 insurgents. There is a small problem, winning the battle may have cost the war. Experts project there are roughly 10,000 armed insurgents in Iraq, or possibly twice as many when factoring in their supporters. And that is the fundamental problem; we are no longer fighting a defined enemy. And, if we must reduce Iraqi cities to rubble to win, we will lose. For each death we cause we will spawn at least two to take their place.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Dartmouth history professors Daryl G. Press and Benjamin Valentino point out how great a task awaits America as it strives to replace the government it toppled. They reference the numerous failed attempts by other military overlords – France and the US in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, and the British in Malaysia. Furthermore, they note that only extremely oppressive regimes, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq suppressed insurgents successfully.

They failed to provide a blueprint for successful military conquest. Nevertheless, we are there now and must find an endgame. How does a nation end the uprisings? How do we provide viable alternative to those willing to risk their lives in order remove American forces?

America must act quickly, making good on the promise of a better and freer Iraq. We must make good on our promise of elections. We have to make good on the rebuilding of the nation. We must provide alternatives for the disenfranchised to express themselves. People who have a voice in their government and choice in their life do not choose to kill themselves and others. The people in Iraq must believe the life under American military oversight is better than death.

The Iraqi people are not yearning for a return to the iron fist of Saddam. But incorporated within their national psyche is hate and distrust of the US. We must establish a basis for the people of Iraq to trust the American led occupation and no longer fear us. We need to act quickly and not squander the opportunity afforded us. Military victories may be necessary, but they are unlikely to win the hearts of the people. Changing attitudes and beliefs are the key to permanent victory.

Shocking! Simply Shocking!

“Shocking! Simply shocking to find gambling going on here! I order this establishment closed until further notice.” Taken out of context the statement would lead the uninformed to assume the character speaking is a proponent of law and order. Nothing could be further from the truth. The line uttered by the famously corrupt Captain Renault, before accepting his kickback for allowing said gambling. Today news sources, including both The Washington Post and The New York Times, are reporting the Republican Party is considering a rule change to allow indicted party leaders to continue to hold leadership positions.

Yes, the moral voters have spoken and they chose a party where one of the top leaders may soon face numerous indictments regarding state election fraud. Mr. Tom Delay is currently under investigation by state authorities directing illegal campaign contributions to state legislatures. These races allowed Mr. Delay to then gerrymander new congressional districts within the state. In turn, he helped defeat four incumbent Democrats and enabled the Republican Party to gain seats in the House during the recent election. Alas, all might be for naught. A federal court has recently ruled the new districts illegal and directed a lower court to redraw the districts before the next election.

The rule originated to embarrass another Texas politician, Jim Wright. Then-Speaker Wright was under investigation for accepting illegal contributions via book deals. The party of “moral values” adopted the rule rightly because they were in the minority and never envisioned the possibility they too would have the chance to be equally corrupt. It now appears as if two of the men instrumental in the downfall of Speaker Wright will have sacrificed themselves on the rules they helped implement.

I am not arguing that the Republican Party should revoke their rule regarding ethics and governance. Instead, both parties should adopt and enforce the rule on all their elected officials. The parties argue political motivation may lead to bogus indictments. Cases regarding election fraud deserve special attention. If innocent of the pending indictment the official would be cleared and able to resume their former post. If guilty the official should have stepped down regardless.

As things were in Casablanca, they are in Washington today. Corruption exists everywhere and our officials should guard against it. Enforce ethics rules uniformly, without regard for party leadership. The appearance of impropriety must be avoided.

Four Horses?

Colin Powell is stepping down. Our nation should mourn this loss. Critics may say Powell was unable to accomplish much during his tenor as Secretary of State. His term was not about what was accomplished but instead what was not.

Imagine the current Bush foreign policy team minus Powell. Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld, better known as the three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Where would we be without him there to rein the others in? One might imagine there would be US ground forces dispersed throughout the world, and undoubtedly the France would have been a prime target for “regime change.” Many may have imagined Powell would have ridden the “white horse” but chaffed the Administration by instead wearing a white hat.

Ms. Rice appears to be the best candidate for the job. This is frightening and sad. Just a few years ago the right wing of the Republican Party was trending isolationist. Isolationism certainly runs counter to the strong business interests that run the Party on a day-to-day basis. These experts are rightly eliminated from consideration. Where does that leave the Party? Nowhere. The Party has slim pickings when it comes to foreign policy experts. Even Rumsfeld is a throwback from Administrations past.

This is my problem with Rice. She is tragically stuck in the past. She admitted to underestimating the threat of terrorism because her focus was on the former Soviet republics. Even casual observers of foreign relations realized the next area of global concern for national security was not going to come from this region. The threat from the former Soviets was terrorists acquiring nuclear material. The Administration has done an excellent job in curtailing the spread of nuclear materials from those states. The Department of Energy was responsible for this task.

The world trembles at the thought of Dr. Rice running the nation’s foreign policy unchecked. The Senate should inform her during her confirmation they will not allow the nation to run amuck during the second term. The Senate must emphasize the importance diplomacy as Secretary of State. The Secretary should not simply threaten those who oppose our nation’s view of the world. The Secretary must now learn to effectively reign in the warmongers within the Administration. We must now act in a conciliatory nature to the rest of the world. Establishing peace and prosperity requires a global commitment from all nations, not just our closest allies. Outreach to those nations who have opposed our view of the world is essential to achieve our foreign policy goals.

The confirmation process will be quick but the Senate must ensure the incoming Secretary understand the full responsibility of the position. It is to the President, but it is also to the nation as well as the rest of the world. It is the Senate’s responsibility to ensure the Secretary does not mount the fourth horse.

Stadium Magic?

Today brought a bevy of interesting areas to explore. And my favorite topic has little to do with politics, but instead education and urban planning. NYC is contemplating luring the Jet back to the city, in the form of a $1.5 billion stadium. Government sources expect to commit $700 to the project all the while city schools struggle for funding.

My sister, the brain of the family and I have argued repeatedly about this issue Predictably, this debate rages here in DC as the city fight to find an appropriate site for the Expos to call home. Opponents have many fine examples of wasted public dollars on stadiums. Not all public financing is a debacle, certainly some of it is.

Many of these follies are in the form of football areas. And, though I know that insulting the sport is liable to incur the wrath of many Washingtonians, football stadiums should never benefit from public financing. Football stadiums sit empty too often. Maximum home games being 12, if the team makes the playoffs every year and has home-field advantage. Throw in a few rock concerts each year and you might use 20 times a year. I concede I am not an expert on stadium usage issues and maybe I’m wrong. However, if my assumptions are correct, NYC officials may reap roughly $300 million in generated tax revenues over a 30-year average life span of a new stadium.

Now there is a $400 million gap for public officials to recoup. Recapturing revenue is possible in development of nearby under/undeveloped land. The proposed NYC Jet stadium located in Manhattan will preclude this. The land though possibly under utilized will never rise high enough to generate enough revenues to meet the shortfall.

Jobs are often an excellent argument for the financing initiatives. When the current stadium or stadium site is within easy commuting distance job gains from moving the stadium are negligible. When transporting a team from a distant state job gains are much greater, but the government revenue gain by these jobs is still relatively slight. There might be an additional gain of $5 million, not much of an impact spread out over 30 years.

However, there is a much greater impact when the usage for the sites is significantly higher, such as basketball/hockey areas or baseball stadiums. Both sports, when the NHL resumes playing, would have ten times more home games and significantly more revenue generated by these events. The evidence for this argument is clear with two shining examples – Jacobs Field in Cleveland and the MCI Center in Washington, DC. Both stadiums helped revitalize cities areas in sharp decline. Jacobs Field became the cornerstone to the redevelopment of the entire downtown Cleveland area, including a new areas for football, basketball and the building of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The MCI Center is even more impressive. The area south of Chinatown was desolate. You did not walk the streets alone at night. Dozens of building had lain empty for years, and with the crash of the real estate market in the late 80’s it did not appear the DC market would make a quick rebound. The area changed this. The downtown area became hip. Stores, offices and restaurants quickly sprung up.

Opponents often argue that the revenues would be better spent on education, as is the current case in the Times article. My sister and her fellow supporter also make this argument. Alas, this is sheer fantasy. Funding for public stadiums would never go to school systems. It is a sad statement but undeniably true. Proof is evident, if the government officials actually wanted to better fund their school systems it would happen regardless of any financing matters for arenas. Unfortunately public education is entirely unsexy. Officials rarely fall all other themselves to fund education better. Instead, they always find other public projects in greater need of funding. Even with limited revenues in the public coffers, stadiums do not deter from funding of education.

There are no hard and fast rules for public financing, but merely guidelines, which lawmakers should follow when deciding to commit public revenues to build. Under certain circumstances stadiums should receive public financing with restrictions and obligations for arena owners to commit resources to education.

Control of Guns

Today Nicolas Kristof states in his New York Times op-ed column that gun control possibly cost Sen. Kerry the election. And maybe the time has come for the party to abandon gun control as unobtainable. Focus on gun safety issues as the best way to curb gun deaths in America.

His argument certainly has merit. He points to automobile deaths and subsequent safety gains as the model. Seat belt laws, air bags, and host of other technological advances have lead to dramatic decreases in auto related deaths. Gun control would benefit from similar initiatives. Gunlocks, enhanced gun safeties, and more education about securing guns from children are all excellent ideas to curb guns deaths. And then we could just forget about gun ownership since senseless gun deaths would be on the decline.

There are just minor flaws in Mr. Kristof’s theories, gun owners didn’t vote for Kerry because of concerns regarding gun ownership and that safety issues alone account for a majority of the gun deaths in America. Gun owners were not terrified of Mr. Kerry taking their weapons. Gun owners in the critical regions for the party to wrest from Republican control actually gave President Bush a smaller share of their vote. Non-gun owners increased the share of their vote they gave the President. So, it appears that Sen. Kerry rather meek position on gun control correctly cost him votes. But it was not because he was too stringent on the issue, but instead too soft. A strong stance on all gun ownership may have won him the election.

Safety issues along will not end senseless gun deaths. Gun owners are five times more likely to be shot by their own gun than by a criminal. Violent gun deaths are committed in the heat of the moment and victims are well known by their assailants. Gunlocks, new safety mechanisms, or gun safes will not curtail these crimes. The only way to stop them is to curtail gun ownership.

The Democratic Party has not yet lost an election nationwide because of its stance on guns. A majority of Americans favor gun control laws. A majority of Americans supported the Brady Bill. A majority of Americans are dismayed in the defeat of the assault weapons ban. We should not back down on gun control; we should be more serious about it. Stop trying to compromise on the issue. Non-gun owners do not respect the candidates when they straddle the issue, allowing certain weapons and not others. This is a moral value issue we can win. Killing people with guns is not a moral value, and as the party must start making its own moral campaign we could certainly start here.

Implementation of Mr. Kristof’s suggestions is important. We should not stop there. Gun control is a winnable issue and we need to use if more effectively.