President Barack Obama’s main campaign theme was that he would bring change to Washington, “change we could believe in”. However, there is a huge chasm between his soaring rhetoric and his actions. Unfortunately, the statesman that many people hoped for is just another politician, and not a very good one at that. Instead of trying to bring this country together, he has become a divisive force.
When Nancy Pelosi served up the omnibus spending bill that was loaded with earmarks, he signed it. It was President Obama’s first bill signed into law which violated a campaign promise to be more vigilant against wasteful spending. This was an ominous sign of what else was to come.
The President’s health care initiative is an egregious violation of many of the core principals he espoused during his campaign. This became clearly evidenced from the outset when he turned over his health care initiative to Nancy Pelosi to craft legislation in the House. Subsequently, the Senate followed with its own bill. There appeared to be very little Republican input, and the attitude from the Democrats reflected “we have the super majority take it or leave it”.
The Republicans are not blameless, as there is always partisan politics. Republican Senator De Mint of South Carolina said that not passing the health care bill would be tantamount to President Obama’s “Waterloo”. Nevertheless, it appeared that the President made a very disingenuous effort to be nonpartisan. How do you expect to get the opposition party on board when the bills have already been hammered out? Furthermore, we witnessed some of the worst kind of backroom political deals to gain passage in the Senate.
Due to the unpopularity of the President’s health care initiative, there was a major public backlash which was reflected in significant democratic losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. It appeared that in order to gain public support for his heath care proposals, the President finally decided to bring the leadership of both parties together in an open forum televised by C Span. This was political theater that turned out badly for the President since no compromise resulted. Peggy Noonan characterized his behavior during this forum as “boorish”. After this charade the President pushed for the completion of the Senate bill by using reconciliation, and it finally passed. This resulted in the passage of a major bill with a 51 vote majority in the Senate.
Countless times during the Presidential campaign, President Obama stated that he would bring transparency back to politics. One way to accomplish this was to have the public view the crafting of major bills on C Span. Furthermore, he would reach across the isle to illicit the cooperation of the Republicans in order to shape major bills. He also stated that if he were President he would never use the nuclear option for major bills or what is known as reconciliation. He was quoted on film that it is necessary to achieve a significant majority when passing legislation that would have a major impact on this country.
When the President first started to frame the debate on health care, he stated that the primary reason for health care reform was to rein in the costs of this very significant part of our economy. The President’s major thrust on healthcare reform is to contain the growth of healthcare spending or face severe economic consequences in the future. However, it seems oxymoronic to postulate that we will be able to somehow limit the growth of healthcare spending and simultaneously increase the insurance rolls by 32 million. This bill is about access, not cost cutting. It is just another entitlement program at a time we can least afford.
While the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the Senate Bill would pay for itself, its analysis is based on some heroic assumptions. First, the Cadillac health care plans will be taxed in 2018. This was a capitulation to the unions. Why should we believe that somehow things are going to be different in 2018? Second, the bill calls for taking $500 million from the already bankrupt Medicare Insurance program. Furthermore, there is a major accounting gimmick as revenues for this bill will begin several years before the bill goes into effect. All these factors give the appearance that this bill will pay for itself.
The cornerstone of this bill is to create a federal agency to review and regulate health insurance premiums which is supposed to rein in costs. How does holding down premiums solve the problem of cost increases by doctors and hospitals? Moreover, state regulators are concerned about solvency. Rate setting without financial oversight is a prescription for trouble. It is a very complex analysis to determine what a reasonable premium should be in relation to benefits. This is much more suited for a market place where increased competition will help reduce costs.
The President clearly believes the end justifies the means in his zeal to do something historic. While this health care legislation institutes some positive changes, such as prohibiting insurance companies from turning people down with preexisting conditions, it comes at a huge cost. The President missed a great opportunity to incorporate the kind of change to make healthcare better and more affordable. Warren Buffet said in a CNBC interview that we should scrap the Senate Bill because it does not address the problem of costs. (Refer to my blog on healthcare.)
It is very troubling to think that this historic presidency is being squandered. This President generated great expectations based on his oratorical skills. However, his philosophy and approach of redistributing the wealth based on fairness is missing the mark. This country is a meritocracy and was not built on equality of result. Nevertheless, we should try to help those who are truly in need. One way we can accomplish this is to improve the equality of opportunity. It is also important not to enable those people we are trying to help. If we provide welfare, we need to encourage a work ethic to pursue education and/or jobs. In most cases, giving people money without incenting them to provide for themselves is a prescription for disaster.
The Democrats always refer to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. However, they fail to mention that our society has tremendous mobility between these groups according to government statistics. In fact, the Treasury Department in 2007 released the results of its study examining income mobility of individuals over a ten year period (1996 through 2005). The study found that over half of the taxpayers moved to a different income quintile. Approximately half of the participants who were in the bottom income quintile moved up to a higher group. Moreover, for those in the very top group in 1996 only 25% remained in this group at the end of 2005. This study revealed that we do not have a caste system in this county and that there is meaningful opportunity for advancement.
The Government should be focusing less on income redistribution and more on economic growth. Increasing the economic pie will provide better opportunities for wealth creation. When 10% of the population is paying over 70% in taxes, we will not achieve more prosperous economic growth by taxing this subset more. These are the people who invest capital and create jobs. When was the last time you worked for a poor person?
Not only has President Obama healthcare initiative tarnished his credibility, his handling of the latest Gulf oil disaster is now bringing into question his competency. Process, promises, and results all matter. That’s how you build trust, integrity and leadership. This is the kind of change we can believe in.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
President Obama - “We need to do a better job of connecting the dots.” Huh!
This is what President Obama said regarding the failed attempt by a 23-year-old Nigerian man to blowup an airplane bound to Detroit on Christmas day. It is only due to the incompetence of this 23 year old that a major catastrophe was avoided. There were 279 passengers and 11 crew members on board that plane. The more we learn about this potential tragedy the more it becomes evident that a number of people screwed up big time.
This boy’s father went to the US embassy in Nigeria to express major concern that his son might become a terrorist. According to the NY Times, his cousin said the father received a text message from his son that “he had found a new religion, the real Islam” and he was never coming home again. What other dots do we need? This is not a dot. It is a major bull’s-eye. Based on this information alone, this young Nigerian’s name should have been added to the top of the no-fly list?
The story even gets better since this 23 year old from Nigeria named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket for cash and checked no luggage and yet was able to board this Northwest plane in Amsterdam without incident. Moreover, how did he get an American Visa? It is absurd that we are not profiling people like this. I am sure in the future it will not be as blatantly obvious, but so far, young, male Muslims are the ones we have to be concerned about.
Anecdotally, I was searched at the airport in Minneapolis about a week after the Christmas bombing attempt. The TSA security agent was apologetic, and my response was that he should do a good job. After all, isn’t it in our best interest to endure a little inconvenience as long as the TSA is trying to keep us safe? If I were a Muslim, I would be happy that all Muslims were profiled in order to keep any radicals off my plane. Unfortunately, the cliché that the good suffer for the bad comes into play.
While we cannot completely safeguard against all human errors, this incident reveals a number of misadventures that could have easily been avoided. Not to mention that it took approximately two weeks before President Obama strongly spoke out about this security breach and reassure the American people that it will be thoroughly investigated. In addition, to make matters worse, Mr. Abdulmutallab is going to be tried in a civilian court with a plea of not guilty. He is not a US citizen and was caught red handed when he set himself on fire. It seems evident that President Obama, for what ever reason, prefers to try these cases in civilian courts whenever he can. The logic escapes me considering he sanctions the use of predator drones internationally to blow up would-be terrorists without a trial.
I hope the President continues to show outrage and determination to help prevent future attacks. Before this incident, he gave the impression we were not engaged in an all-out war with Jihadist extremists and all that was required domestically was police action. In the past, this White House refused to mention the word war to describe our approach to this conflict. The “War on Terror”, which was a descriptor used by the Bush administration, has now been replaced with a new euphemism called “Overseas Contingency Operation”.
It appears that only recently President Obama used the word war when he mentioned we are at war with al Qaeda. Hopefully, this is a sign that he will begin to rethink those policies that are making us less safe. For instance, civilian trials for terrorists make no sense since we are giving up the opportunity to extract important information that can save lives. There is no better example than all the useful information we extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11. It is beyond my comprehension that we will try him in civilian court in New York near the World Trade Center site. This will be a field day for Jihadist propaganda as our government and the CIA will be put on trial. Prosecuting a war does not permit us the luxury to follow all the legalities that are required in a civilian court room like reading someone their Miranda rights. In addition, Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, is going ahead with an investigation of the CIA during President Bush’s tenure. Some of these agents could be prosecuted for following what they were lead to believe was legal action, which may turn out to be illegal. How do we expect our agents to perform in this kind of environment? Furthermore, according to a recent Investment Business Daily op-ed, a new government report found that one-in-five released prisoners from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield. In fact, the President recently stated that for now no more prisoners would be sent back to Yemen. It was reported that a number of them were the masterminds behind the attempt to blow up the aircraft over Detroit. Yet, we are still going through with the closing of Guantanamo.
More importantly, the President needs to speak out more consistently and forcefully against Jihadist extremists that have perverted a major religion to justify their wanton disregard for human life. Thomas Friedman agrees with this line of thinking since he has written some terrific pieces in the New York Times during the past couple of weeks which articulated the importance of eliciting the support of Muslims to rail against these acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, the governments and the people of these Muslim countries have been conspicuously silent, and in some cases not only have given tacit approval but financial support to these Jihadists. He states that unless we foster a change in this complicit behavior …. “no laws or walls we put up will ever be sufficient to protect us unless the Arab and Muslim societies from whence these suicide bombers emerge erect political, religious and moral restraints as well – starting by shaming suicide bombers and naming their actions “murder,” not “martyrdom.”
This boy’s father went to the US embassy in Nigeria to express major concern that his son might become a terrorist. According to the NY Times, his cousin said the father received a text message from his son that “he had found a new religion, the real Islam” and he was never coming home again. What other dots do we need? This is not a dot. It is a major bull’s-eye. Based on this information alone, this young Nigerian’s name should have been added to the top of the no-fly list?
The story even gets better since this 23 year old from Nigeria named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket for cash and checked no luggage and yet was able to board this Northwest plane in Amsterdam without incident. Moreover, how did he get an American Visa? It is absurd that we are not profiling people like this. I am sure in the future it will not be as blatantly obvious, but so far, young, male Muslims are the ones we have to be concerned about.
Anecdotally, I was searched at the airport in Minneapolis about a week after the Christmas bombing attempt. The TSA security agent was apologetic, and my response was that he should do a good job. After all, isn’t it in our best interest to endure a little inconvenience as long as the TSA is trying to keep us safe? If I were a Muslim, I would be happy that all Muslims were profiled in order to keep any radicals off my plane. Unfortunately, the cliché that the good suffer for the bad comes into play.
While we cannot completely safeguard against all human errors, this incident reveals a number of misadventures that could have easily been avoided. Not to mention that it took approximately two weeks before President Obama strongly spoke out about this security breach and reassure the American people that it will be thoroughly investigated. In addition, to make matters worse, Mr. Abdulmutallab is going to be tried in a civilian court with a plea of not guilty. He is not a US citizen and was caught red handed when he set himself on fire. It seems evident that President Obama, for what ever reason, prefers to try these cases in civilian courts whenever he can. The logic escapes me considering he sanctions the use of predator drones internationally to blow up would-be terrorists without a trial.
I hope the President continues to show outrage and determination to help prevent future attacks. Before this incident, he gave the impression we were not engaged in an all-out war with Jihadist extremists and all that was required domestically was police action. In the past, this White House refused to mention the word war to describe our approach to this conflict. The “War on Terror”, which was a descriptor used by the Bush administration, has now been replaced with a new euphemism called “Overseas Contingency Operation”.
It appears that only recently President Obama used the word war when he mentioned we are at war with al Qaeda. Hopefully, this is a sign that he will begin to rethink those policies that are making us less safe. For instance, civilian trials for terrorists make no sense since we are giving up the opportunity to extract important information that can save lives. There is no better example than all the useful information we extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11. It is beyond my comprehension that we will try him in civilian court in New York near the World Trade Center site. This will be a field day for Jihadist propaganda as our government and the CIA will be put on trial. Prosecuting a war does not permit us the luxury to follow all the legalities that are required in a civilian court room like reading someone their Miranda rights. In addition, Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, is going ahead with an investigation of the CIA during President Bush’s tenure. Some of these agents could be prosecuted for following what they were lead to believe was legal action, which may turn out to be illegal. How do we expect our agents to perform in this kind of environment? Furthermore, according to a recent Investment Business Daily op-ed, a new government report found that one-in-five released prisoners from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield. In fact, the President recently stated that for now no more prisoners would be sent back to Yemen. It was reported that a number of them were the masterminds behind the attempt to blow up the aircraft over Detroit. Yet, we are still going through with the closing of Guantanamo.
More importantly, the President needs to speak out more consistently and forcefully against Jihadist extremists that have perverted a major religion to justify their wanton disregard for human life. Thomas Friedman agrees with this line of thinking since he has written some terrific pieces in the New York Times during the past couple of weeks which articulated the importance of eliciting the support of Muslims to rail against these acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, the governments and the people of these Muslim countries have been conspicuously silent, and in some cases not only have given tacit approval but financial support to these Jihadists. He states that unless we foster a change in this complicit behavior …. “no laws or walls we put up will ever be sufficient to protect us unless the Arab and Muslim societies from whence these suicide bombers emerge erect political, religious and moral restraints as well – starting by shaming suicide bombers and naming their actions “murder,” not “martyrdom.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)