This YouTube video expresses in a most succinct and eloquent fashion why we must rise to overcome the challenges of the mindless opposition to the will of the people proffered by Republicans in Congress.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Pick Two
Sunday night I was privileged to attend a function at Bet Shalom Synagogue where NPR's Scott Simon was the featured speaker. Listening to Mr. Simon wax poetic about his experiences as a journalist, the people he has met, the places he has covered, and the success he has humbly achieved as a story-teller made me feel a little nostalgic for the days 40 years ago when I considered a career in journalism.
The consideration never rose to the level of a definite plan. But I was a vociferous reader and loved to write. I had spent three years under the tutelage of Hattie Steinberg, St. Louis Park High School's legendary journalism teacher who Tom Friedman of the New York Times eulogized as the only journalism teacher he ever had, "she was that good." I won a National Council of Teachers of English award, thereby cementing my acceptance at Carleton College. While, ultimately, I pursued a career where writing skills are important, there are times when I cannot help but reflect on the life I would have led if I had stuck to answering the who, what, why, where and when mysteries Miss Steinberg trained us to solve.
Prairie Pondering is a release for my writing. Few days pass where I don't think about writing another installment. Unfortunately, few days end where thoughts are committed to my Mac's hard-drive. Typically, the disconnect results from being overwhelmed by the choice of subjects and the desire to say something meaningful and defensible. Fluff pieces are easy, but a little too self-centered. If readers are going to take the time to allow me to share my thoughts, the takeback ought to include some modicum of enlightenment or, at least, a thoughtful discussion of an issue that matters. Writer's block ensues and my blog guilt blossoms.
Tonight is no exception. It is now after midnight and I should be sleeping. In fact, I am sleeping, from time to time as I write this. But the inspiration of Scott Simon, the historic nature of the passage of health care reform Sunday night, the addresses of Secretary of State Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, the passage of the jobs bill, yesterday's observation of a Facebook friend that Michele Bachmann is "a black eye for Minnesota", the flooding down the road, and the pending return of outdoor Major League Baseball to Minnesota leads me to force myself to generate another blog installment.
Since twenty minutes has passed since I started writing the last paragraph, I will be efficient with the remaining hours of consciousness this evening (morning) and offer some thoughts that apply to nearly every challenge facing us today. I offer the lesson of "Pick Two."
More than one business client, either engaged in manufacturing, in sales or in providing a service, has applied the lesson of Pick Two to their commercial practices. It is a rather straight forward concept. When shopping for a product or a service, consider (a) high quality, (b) low price and (c) quick delivery. Pick two.
Invariably, one of the three options suffers at the expense of the other two. Let's apply it to health care. If I want to see my highly qualified primary care physician for the low price of my c0-pay, I'll have to wait to get an appointment. If I merely need a quick flu shot, at a subsidized price, I can go to a clinic at the local Walmart and receive the services of a less experienced medical practitioner who will, hopefully, have some knowledge in the use of a syringe. Finally, if I need an immediate consult with a physician specializing in what ails me, I may have to go outside my insurer's network and pay retail.
On a broader scale, we ALL want high quality, affordable health care. Under the rule of Pick Two, and as a matter of common sense, we cannot expect everyone to have instant gratification in their health care needs if quality and reasonable pricing are to be maintained. If our society continues to insist that every major hospital make the latest high quality technology available for every conceivable medical contingency (e.g., burn units and brain injuries) in order to facilitate quicker treatments and notwithstanding the competition operating similar facilities at 50% of capacity, it is going to be expensive. Hopefully, newly passed reform legislation will address such wastefulness. If so it will not be a "government takeover of health care" as much as a reallocation of limited resources and imposing brakes on the medical equivalent of an arms race.
The lesson of Pick Two applies to government services as well. When my barn starts on fire, I want a fire truck and personnel capable of handling the emergency at Meadow Breeze Farm as quickly as possible. That being said, it is going to be expensive. Someone has to pay for the purchase and maintenance of the latest equipment. Someone has to pay to support emergency service personnel. We can save money by scrimping on replacing equipment and/or cutting back on the size of the fire and police departments. That will reduce costs and leave me with either a prompt inadequate response (and a smoldering barn) or a slow comprehensive response (and a smoldering barn).
In the days, weeks and months ahead, when friends who do not share my admiration for the president and his administration challenge me on the wisdom of his policies, I will fall back on the lesson of Pick Two. This country voted for a new direction in 20008. Loudly. We were promised a change in the way government serves its citizens. Absent the political vitriol, we should be smart enough to realize that quick fixes are the antithesis of well-reasoned, high quality approaches to problem solving.
We should remember that difficulties that have developed over decades cannot be quickly and magically made to disappear. That means, under the lesson of Pick Two, we are going to have to spend some money. Not coincidentally, Republicans have been focusing exclusively on the cost of health care reform and the cost of the economic stimulus and the cost of repairing our infrastructure and the cost of converting to renewable energy sources. What they forget, and what I will remind my more conservative friends, is that if you take your time and purchase a high quality solution, you save money over the long run. And, most importantly, there can be a long run.
The consideration never rose to the level of a definite plan. But I was a vociferous reader and loved to write. I had spent three years under the tutelage of Hattie Steinberg, St. Louis Park High School's legendary journalism teacher who Tom Friedman of the New York Times eulogized as the only journalism teacher he ever had, "she was that good." I won a National Council of Teachers of English award, thereby cementing my acceptance at Carleton College. While, ultimately, I pursued a career where writing skills are important, there are times when I cannot help but reflect on the life I would have led if I had stuck to answering the who, what, why, where and when mysteries Miss Steinberg trained us to solve.
Prairie Pondering is a release for my writing. Few days pass where I don't think about writing another installment. Unfortunately, few days end where thoughts are committed to my Mac's hard-drive. Typically, the disconnect results from being overwhelmed by the choice of subjects and the desire to say something meaningful and defensible. Fluff pieces are easy, but a little too self-centered. If readers are going to take the time to allow me to share my thoughts, the takeback ought to include some modicum of enlightenment or, at least, a thoughtful discussion of an issue that matters. Writer's block ensues and my blog guilt blossoms.
Tonight is no exception. It is now after midnight and I should be sleeping. In fact, I am sleeping, from time to time as I write this. But the inspiration of Scott Simon, the historic nature of the passage of health care reform Sunday night, the addresses of Secretary of State Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, the passage of the jobs bill, yesterday's observation of a Facebook friend that Michele Bachmann is "a black eye for Minnesota", the flooding down the road, and the pending return of outdoor Major League Baseball to Minnesota leads me to force myself to generate another blog installment.
Since twenty minutes has passed since I started writing the last paragraph, I will be efficient with the remaining hours of consciousness this evening (morning) and offer some thoughts that apply to nearly every challenge facing us today. I offer the lesson of "Pick Two."
More than one business client, either engaged in manufacturing, in sales or in providing a service, has applied the lesson of Pick Two to their commercial practices. It is a rather straight forward concept. When shopping for a product or a service, consider (a) high quality, (b) low price and (c) quick delivery. Pick two.
Invariably, one of the three options suffers at the expense of the other two. Let's apply it to health care. If I want to see my highly qualified primary care physician for the low price of my c0-pay, I'll have to wait to get an appointment. If I merely need a quick flu shot, at a subsidized price, I can go to a clinic at the local Walmart and receive the services of a less experienced medical practitioner who will, hopefully, have some knowledge in the use of a syringe. Finally, if I need an immediate consult with a physician specializing in what ails me, I may have to go outside my insurer's network and pay retail.
On a broader scale, we ALL want high quality, affordable health care. Under the rule of Pick Two, and as a matter of common sense, we cannot expect everyone to have instant gratification in their health care needs if quality and reasonable pricing are to be maintained. If our society continues to insist that every major hospital make the latest high quality technology available for every conceivable medical contingency (e.g., burn units and brain injuries) in order to facilitate quicker treatments and notwithstanding the competition operating similar facilities at 50% of capacity, it is going to be expensive. Hopefully, newly passed reform legislation will address such wastefulness. If so it will not be a "government takeover of health care" as much as a reallocation of limited resources and imposing brakes on the medical equivalent of an arms race.
The lesson of Pick Two applies to government services as well. When my barn starts on fire, I want a fire truck and personnel capable of handling the emergency at Meadow Breeze Farm as quickly as possible. That being said, it is going to be expensive. Someone has to pay for the purchase and maintenance of the latest equipment. Someone has to pay to support emergency service personnel. We can save money by scrimping on replacing equipment and/or cutting back on the size of the fire and police departments. That will reduce costs and leave me with either a prompt inadequate response (and a smoldering barn) or a slow comprehensive response (and a smoldering barn).
In the days, weeks and months ahead, when friends who do not share my admiration for the president and his administration challenge me on the wisdom of his policies, I will fall back on the lesson of Pick Two. This country voted for a new direction in 20008. Loudly. We were promised a change in the way government serves its citizens. Absent the political vitriol, we should be smart enough to realize that quick fixes are the antithesis of well-reasoned, high quality approaches to problem solving.
We should remember that difficulties that have developed over decades cannot be quickly and magically made to disappear. That means, under the lesson of Pick Two, we are going to have to spend some money. Not coincidentally, Republicans have been focusing exclusively on the cost of health care reform and the cost of the economic stimulus and the cost of repairing our infrastructure and the cost of converting to renewable energy sources. What they forget, and what I will remind my more conservative friends, is that if you take your time and purchase a high quality solution, you save money over the long run. And, most importantly, there can be a long run.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Health Care Reform
A friend posted this link to a Salon.com slide show on the current health care reform proposal expected to come to a vote in the House of Representatives. It's a good starting point for discussion. It ignores arguing for (or against) the reform by relying on derisiveness which, for me, is a nice change of pace.
There's been a lot of frenzy whipping going on, by both sides of the aisle, but, as always, I tend to support the arguments that don't rely on emotional flash points (e.g., "death panels", "Obamacare") to convince me of the merits of the argument.
Thoughtful persons and others, especially persons bent out of shape over the perceived lack of transparency in the process and the willingness of Congress to vote on a bill they have not read, should click here and read the bill pending before the House. With respect to transparency, as I explained to a very close friend, long-time client and conservative businessman this week, there's never been a more transparent process. The very fact that the whole country is in a position to offer their opinion on how the process has worked, which constituencies received special consideration in return for their representatives' support, who is and who is not supporting the reform (and why or why not) demonstrates that absolute transparent manner in which the legislation has evolved. You want more transparency? Win an election and attend the meetings yourself.
There's been a lot of frenzy whipping going on, by both sides of the aisle, but, as always, I tend to support the arguments that don't rely on emotional flash points (e.g., "death panels", "Obamacare") to convince me of the merits of the argument.
Thoughtful persons and others, especially persons bent out of shape over the perceived lack of transparency in the process and the willingness of Congress to vote on a bill they have not read, should click here and read the bill pending before the House. With respect to transparency, as I explained to a very close friend, long-time client and conservative businessman this week, there's never been a more transparent process. The very fact that the whole country is in a position to offer their opinion on how the process has worked, which constituencies received special consideration in return for their representatives' support, who is and who is not supporting the reform (and why or why not) demonstrates that absolute transparent manner in which the legislation has evolved. You want more transparency? Win an election and attend the meetings yourself.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Birthday Pondering
The clock is about to strike 12, at which point I will have reached 58 years of age. The congratulations have been pouring in from family and friends all over the world since last weekend when I posted a photograph online of my close friend Greg Kellenberger and me holding candlelit desserts at the end of our annual celebratory dinner.
I've heard from Nathaniel Davis in Beijing and from Bob Levine off the coast of Brazil on a cruise ship. I've heard from cousins in California, a former girlfriend in Denver, law school classmates in Washington, D.C., family in the Twin Cities, Connecticut and Arizona. Rabbi Cohen sent me an e-card, saying nice things about me that I don't deserve. Jessica Applebaum called today because she'll be out of town tomorrow. My "brother" Bruce Mandel and I will exchange greetings on Tuesday as we have on every March 16th, our mutual birthday, since we were 3 years old.
I am one lucky S.O.B.
I'm on the backside of the mountain and, like everyone else, have no idea how steep the descent that lays before me. Yet, strangely, the contentment I feel at having had the privilege of being part of so many disparate lives, and making enough of an impression to warrant a gesture of goodwill each year, overcomes any anxiousness inherent in the realization that there's a fairly large mound of sand at the bottom of the clock.
I picked the wrong Powerball number, again, on Saturday so I have no plans of early retirement. But as I hear from so many dear, dear friends and loving family members, I realize that a more robust bank account hardly matters. Each phone call, e-mail, text message and Facebook posting is a trip down memory lane and an opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary times I've shared all over the world.
Thanks to all for the gift of sharing yourselves with me. Thank you for making me more tolerant by showing me the good in you I might otherwise miss during our fervent political debates. Thank you for indulging my delusions of artistry as I impose my writing and my photography on you. Thank you for trusting me to find solutions to your challenges, whether on a pro bono basis or at my regular obscene hourly rate. Thank you for caring enough to touch base and help me appreciate the magnificence of our connections and the shiny bow of memories yet to be made.
Here's an appropriate image for today's pondering. I was going to post it in my "Photo of the Day" Facebook album, but it seems better placed here. It's entitled "The Home Stretch" and was taken at the Little Everglades Steeplechase in Dade City, Florida two years ago. Significantly, they're not letting up.
I've heard from Nathaniel Davis in Beijing and from Bob Levine off the coast of Brazil on a cruise ship. I've heard from cousins in California, a former girlfriend in Denver, law school classmates in Washington, D.C., family in the Twin Cities, Connecticut and Arizona. Rabbi Cohen sent me an e-card, saying nice things about me that I don't deserve. Jessica Applebaum called today because she'll be out of town tomorrow. My "brother" Bruce Mandel and I will exchange greetings on Tuesday as we have on every March 16th, our mutual birthday, since we were 3 years old.
I am one lucky S.O.B.
I'm on the backside of the mountain and, like everyone else, have no idea how steep the descent that lays before me. Yet, strangely, the contentment I feel at having had the privilege of being part of so many disparate lives, and making enough of an impression to warrant a gesture of goodwill each year, overcomes any anxiousness inherent in the realization that there's a fairly large mound of sand at the bottom of the clock.
I picked the wrong Powerball number, again, on Saturday so I have no plans of early retirement. But as I hear from so many dear, dear friends and loving family members, I realize that a more robust bank account hardly matters. Each phone call, e-mail, text message and Facebook posting is a trip down memory lane and an opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary times I've shared all over the world.
Thanks to all for the gift of sharing yourselves with me. Thank you for making me more tolerant by showing me the good in you I might otherwise miss during our fervent political debates. Thank you for indulging my delusions of artistry as I impose my writing and my photography on you. Thank you for trusting me to find solutions to your challenges, whether on a pro bono basis or at my regular obscene hourly rate. Thank you for caring enough to touch base and help me appreciate the magnificence of our connections and the shiny bow of memories yet to be made.
Here's an appropriate image for today's pondering. I was going to post it in my "Photo of the Day" Facebook album, but it seems better placed here. It's entitled "The Home Stretch" and was taken at the Little Everglades Steeplechase in Dade City, Florida two years ago. Significantly, they're not letting up.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Marketing 2010
I had a thought that I wanted to preserve and claim credit for. Here it is as a quick and non-controversial blog posting:
Monday, February 1, 2010
Words Are Important
I still have not listened to or read the president's State of the Union address. I have, as discussed in my last posting, been listening to the commentators on FOX. As a result, I understand from former NYC mayor Rudy Gulliani that the president is soft on terrorism because he barely mentioned the subject in the address. I understand that the president has failed at everything he has attempted to do in the last year, including closing Guantanamo, passing comprehensive health care, and bringing our troops home. Significantly, I am now aware that the president did not learn the lesson from the recent Senate election in Massachusetts and accept the referendum on his policies from the electorate in that great Commonwealth.
My last posting drew a lot of comments from my more conservative friends. I am grateful to them for their efforts to enlighten me. From them, I now realize that the president's middle name is indicative of his secret anti-American sympathies, that he is working above his pay grade because he said so when asked a question about bio-science with a quip while campaigning for office, that he is out of touch with the American people, that he excludes the GOP from participating in the legislative process and that he is responsible for a host of other ills plaguing our country.
I am not buying it. I was going to argue about the demagoguery coming from the right but, after the president's visit to the conference of Republican House members in Baltimore last week, I don't need to. If you take the time to click here and watch the unscripted, televised live exchange between the president and members of the GOP House caucus, and you're being honest, you cannot help but come away admiring the president. You don't have to agree with his policies; he acknowledges that there will be differences. However, if you think of the political risk the president took by taking on questions from the caucus on live television, working without notes, you realize it's a far cry from having a president who would not admit to making a single mistake and who would only appear at town hall meetings that were filled with his pre-screened supporters. Add in the obvious intelligence and command of the facts with which the president responded to each and every question and challenge, and the provocative smears and half-truths used to attack the administration (and win elections in Massachusetts) ring particularly hollow.
Please watch the linked video. It really is amazing and demonstrates why I am so much more comfortable with Barack Hussein Obama sitting in the Oval Office while he takes the necessary time to address our challenges than with any of the alternatives.
Finally, I used to think the definition of "chutzpah" was the story of the son who murdered his parents and asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan. I now think it's the story of Republicans who railed incessantly against allowing prisoners from Guantanamo to be moved to secure prisons in the United States, delaying the president's plan to close the prison, and then belittled the president because he did not keep his promise to close Guantanamo within the year.
Similar examples abound and, as a result, I find the vitriol spewed on FOX to be the height of hypocrisy. Guess which network cut from the president has he responded to questions from the GOP caucus last week to take comments from the president's critics? It's one thing to merely call yourself "fair and balanced". It's another to allow both sides of the debate to be aired before directing your viewers to agree with your agenda.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
While My Head is Clear
I will try to soon share my pondering on the President's State of the Union speech, delivered earlier tonight. It's a little early to do so; I didn't see it and I haven't read the text I downloaded for later review.
That being the case, it's a certainty that I will hear critics of the President and his administration attack the speech and his efforts to reach out to the nation to offer assurances that this generation's nattering nabobs of negativism are self-serving, misguided political opportunists.
For a change of pace, I think I will try reading the criticism before familiarizing myself with the actual speech. Perhaps if I can put myself in the mindset of those who did not bother to watch the President or read the speech but who nonetheless will take cues from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck when sharing their opinions about the substance of the State of the Union, I can begin to understand how it is that intellectual laziness and news by soundbites has so effectively undermined our democracy.
My last blog, written just prior to the first anniversary of the President's inauguration, generated a number of comments. I thank my readers for all of them. None made me feel as good as the decision by my son to post a link to the blog as his Facebook status, suggesting that his friends "(c)heck this out if you're interested in some smart political commentary." Some of the comments that came in second to Phil's validation of his father disagreed with my observation that the President should be given time to accomplish his goals.
One of my readers, a good friend despite her conservative leanings, commented, "Obama was an outstanding campaigner. The presidency is above his pay grade." Clearly, he was an outstanding campaigner. He won the presidency of the United States. I had a hell of a time just helping elect a couple of qualified candidates to the Independence city council in November.
However, the second part of my friend's comment is more telling. Characterizing the President's performance in relation to a pay grade is the kind of meaningless rhetoric passing for political discourse that I lamented in my last blog. Moreover, the statement, on its face, is untrue. This president is taking a pay cut working out of the Oval Office instead of pursuing his career as an author and public speaker. As has been the case since his graduation from Harvard Law School, he continues to trade a more financially rewarding career path for public service.
Of course, the issue is not really about the President's salary. My friend's comment was shorthand for "the President is incompetent." My friend chose not to back it up with specifics or suggestions on how things might have been handled better in response to the gauntlet I threw down in the blog. Rather, my friend made my point by regurgitating a catch phrase likely picked up from my friend's favorite "news" source, the FOX Network, which, if repeated often enough by like minded sheep in the Limbaugh pasture, becomes accepted as reality.
Another comment I found interesting was from another friend and former colleague who expressed disagreement with my chastisement of the Republicans. "I wish we could offer alternatives, but the Dems don't listen and don't allow anyone into their closed door meetings. There's something seriously not right about that. So I say: Term limits. They're all so disengaged from the American people. Repubs or dems, they've forsaken us all and need to go."
Again, I'm afraid the comment merely parrots empty political rhetoric. First, the Democrats went out of their way to listen and invite Republican participation at the outset of the President's administration. Once it became clear that the Republicans were adopting a strategy of opposing all Democratic initiatives as a political tool, the White House and the leadership in Congress were understandably reluctant to continue to be played for chumps.
Second, Democrats DO let some into their closed door meetings – other Democrats. That's the way the system works. The caucuses meet with their members in private. The Republicans do the same thing. The Vikings and Saints did the same thing last Sunday. Opposing teams were not invited into the huddle, even when the Vikings thought there was room for one more.
However, these closed caucus meetings are not the only meetings taking place and what's "seriously" wrong is Republican claims that they have been trying to work in a bi-partisan fashion. There was an election in November, 2008. The electorate sent a fairly strong message that the Republicans' policies of the previous 8 years were no longer acceptable to the majority of the voters. Accordingly, it is a serious misrepresentation of the facts to claim a willingness to engage in bi-partisanship if your efforts are limited to insisting that these same rejected policies be incorporated into new legislation.
Third, term limits are not appropriate in our day and age. I did some quick research and found an on-line article from 2006, 12 years after the 1994 Contract with America championed by Newt Gingerich and the Republicans running for office that year. Term limits were a cornerstone of the Contract with America. However, according to the blog I found (here), 25 Congressman and 5 Senators who had pledged in 1994 to retire after 12 years in office were running for re-election in 2006. My guess is that reality set in for these Republican contractors.
Speaking practically, few people worth having in office would trade private life for public office if they knew that, after devoting 8 to 12 years away from their career in the private sector, they would be forced to return and, at best, compete with folks 8-12 years their junior who are better informed about the needs and status of the employer. Rather than being able to excel at either career, both avenues would be short circuited. For example, my Congressman is a Republican who gave up a promising career as an executive at Target Corporation. How can anyone expect him to give up a lucrative future with Target in order to devote himself to public service if in a dozen years when he is in his mid-50's he is expected to return to the private workplace and try to continue a private sector career? Would those concerned about entrenchment have all the legislators become lobbyists at the end of their dirty dozen?
The solution is not term limits. The solution is reform of campaign finance so legislators, once elected, can exercise the independent judgment they campaigned on. More on that when I discuss the Supreme Court's recent evisceration of our democracy.
"Term limits", "pay grade", "exclusionary" are all expressions of passion but not of substance. Although their repetition provides the speakers solace in numbers with fellow ditto-heads, they offer no roadmap on how to create jobs, reform health care or bring peace to the world. As of now, I'm not buying any suggestions to the contrary. Perhaps after I take in the criticism of the State of the Union address before viewing it and without reading it I'll come to understand the crises we face as a result of electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Or perhaps I'll follow through with my commitment made in my last blog and call a fraud a fraud. Make a bet and stay tuned.
That being the case, it's a certainty that I will hear critics of the President and his administration attack the speech and his efforts to reach out to the nation to offer assurances that this generation's nattering nabobs of negativism are self-serving, misguided political opportunists.
For a change of pace, I think I will try reading the criticism before familiarizing myself with the actual speech. Perhaps if I can put myself in the mindset of those who did not bother to watch the President or read the speech but who nonetheless will take cues from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck when sharing their opinions about the substance of the State of the Union, I can begin to understand how it is that intellectual laziness and news by soundbites has so effectively undermined our democracy.
My last blog, written just prior to the first anniversary of the President's inauguration, generated a number of comments. I thank my readers for all of them. None made me feel as good as the decision by my son to post a link to the blog as his Facebook status, suggesting that his friends "(c)heck this out if you're interested in some smart political commentary." Some of the comments that came in second to Phil's validation of his father disagreed with my observation that the President should be given time to accomplish his goals.
One of my readers, a good friend despite her conservative leanings, commented, "Obama was an outstanding campaigner. The presidency is above his pay grade." Clearly, he was an outstanding campaigner. He won the presidency of the United States. I had a hell of a time just helping elect a couple of qualified candidates to the Independence city council in November.
However, the second part of my friend's comment is more telling. Characterizing the President's performance in relation to a pay grade is the kind of meaningless rhetoric passing for political discourse that I lamented in my last blog. Moreover, the statement, on its face, is untrue. This president is taking a pay cut working out of the Oval Office instead of pursuing his career as an author and public speaker. As has been the case since his graduation from Harvard Law School, he continues to trade a more financially rewarding career path for public service.
Of course, the issue is not really about the President's salary. My friend's comment was shorthand for "the President is incompetent." My friend chose not to back it up with specifics or suggestions on how things might have been handled better in response to the gauntlet I threw down in the blog. Rather, my friend made my point by regurgitating a catch phrase likely picked up from my friend's favorite "news" source, the FOX Network, which, if repeated often enough by like minded sheep in the Limbaugh pasture, becomes accepted as reality.
Another comment I found interesting was from another friend and former colleague who expressed disagreement with my chastisement of the Republicans. "I wish we could offer alternatives, but the Dems don't listen and don't allow anyone into their closed door meetings. There's something seriously not right about that. So I say: Term limits. They're all so disengaged from the American people. Repubs or dems, they've forsaken us all and need to go."
Again, I'm afraid the comment merely parrots empty political rhetoric. First, the Democrats went out of their way to listen and invite Republican participation at the outset of the President's administration. Once it became clear that the Republicans were adopting a strategy of opposing all Democratic initiatives as a political tool, the White House and the leadership in Congress were understandably reluctant to continue to be played for chumps.
Second, Democrats DO let some into their closed door meetings – other Democrats. That's the way the system works. The caucuses meet with their members in private. The Republicans do the same thing. The Vikings and Saints did the same thing last Sunday. Opposing teams were not invited into the huddle, even when the Vikings thought there was room for one more.
However, these closed caucus meetings are not the only meetings taking place and what's "seriously" wrong is Republican claims that they have been trying to work in a bi-partisan fashion. There was an election in November, 2008. The electorate sent a fairly strong message that the Republicans' policies of the previous 8 years were no longer acceptable to the majority of the voters. Accordingly, it is a serious misrepresentation of the facts to claim a willingness to engage in bi-partisanship if your efforts are limited to insisting that these same rejected policies be incorporated into new legislation.
Third, term limits are not appropriate in our day and age. I did some quick research and found an on-line article from 2006, 12 years after the 1994 Contract with America championed by Newt Gingerich and the Republicans running for office that year. Term limits were a cornerstone of the Contract with America. However, according to the blog I found (here), 25 Congressman and 5 Senators who had pledged in 1994 to retire after 12 years in office were running for re-election in 2006. My guess is that reality set in for these Republican contractors.
Speaking practically, few people worth having in office would trade private life for public office if they knew that, after devoting 8 to 12 years away from their career in the private sector, they would be forced to return and, at best, compete with folks 8-12 years their junior who are better informed about the needs and status of the employer. Rather than being able to excel at either career, both avenues would be short circuited. For example, my Congressman is a Republican who gave up a promising career as an executive at Target Corporation. How can anyone expect him to give up a lucrative future with Target in order to devote himself to public service if in a dozen years when he is in his mid-50's he is expected to return to the private workplace and try to continue a private sector career? Would those concerned about entrenchment have all the legislators become lobbyists at the end of their dirty dozen?
The solution is not term limits. The solution is reform of campaign finance so legislators, once elected, can exercise the independent judgment they campaigned on. More on that when I discuss the Supreme Court's recent evisceration of our democracy.
"Term limits", "pay grade", "exclusionary" are all expressions of passion but not of substance. Although their repetition provides the speakers solace in numbers with fellow ditto-heads, they offer no roadmap on how to create jobs, reform health care or bring peace to the world. As of now, I'm not buying any suggestions to the contrary. Perhaps after I take in the criticism of the State of the Union address before viewing it and without reading it I'll come to understand the crises we face as a result of electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Or perhaps I'll follow through with my commitment made in my last blog and call a fraud a fraud. Make a bet and stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
