December 14, 2009
Prolonged Presence in Afghanistan is a Mistake
The “Yes We Can” president just rolled the dice for us again last week during his speech at West Point by opting to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The problem is that he immediately followed that declaration with another one presuming his decision would result in a mission accomplished and vowed to begin a withdrawal in 2011.
Interesting how most of his colleagues applauded his decision as being rational and strategically sound, but a similar ploy by the former president drew immediate fire from the left side of the political aisle and quickly backfired. But President Obama differentiates his action from the former president’s by stating that his decision was made after a long, thoughtful, gut-checking analysis. Those questioning his rationale offer two reasonable objections: Where will he get the troops and how is he going to pay for it. If the president wanted to end both wars quickly he’d man up and demand that Congress implement the draft, something that hasn’t been openly discussed because of the guarantee of a political firestorm less than a year before House and Senate members come up for re-election.
The president has taken the least problematical step, escalating the war in Afghanistan. Bringing it to an end and getting every troop home will be challenging beyond current comprehension.
This dilemma was brilliantly stated by Andrew Bacevich, a retired U.S. Army colonel and Boston University professor of history, when he said on the radio show, “He (President Obama) seems to assume that war is a predictable and controllable instrument that can be directed with precision by people sitting in offices back in Washington, D.C. I think the history of Vietnam and the history of war more broadly teaches us something different. And that is, when statesmen choose war, they really are simply rolling the dice.’’
In effect, the president is willing to gamble with the lives of those in uniform and the future of our country. If he loses this gamble, which many sincerely believe is likely, every one of us stands to lose something in the process. But those with the most to lose are the ones on the front lines in actual conflict. I don’t believe the United States will pull out of Afghanistan in 2011. At that point the problem will be two-fold; we can’t afford to stay because we aren’t winning, lives are being lost and the country remains in turmoil, but we can’t afford to get out and observe that region, along with its neighbor Pakistan, become safe havens and uninterrupted training grounds for terrorists.
Within a short time after President Obama’s address at West Point, his top security advisor, General James Jones, said, “In no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011…"
Further degrading the validity of the president’s remarks was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She commented during an address to the North Atlantic Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO's) highest political body, that eventual troop withdrawal was significantly dependent on a gradual and continuous transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces. She also stated, "The pace, size, and scope of the drawdown will be predicated on the situation on the ground. If things are going well, a larger number of forces could be removed from more areas. If not, the size and speed of the drawdown will be adjusted accordingly." She never referred to the 18 month timetable as an objective. Maybe she comprehends that telling your enemy your plans ahead of time gives them somewhat of a strategic advantage. The president should visit the U.S. Army War College and Institute for Strategic Studies sometime soon; he might learn something about tactics and war planning. He could also scan a classic book by Sun Tzu titled “The Art of War.”
You may recall that the president cited 43 nations as having vowed their support to help win the war in Afghanistan by deploying an estimated 10,000 additional troops. The president said, “Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility. What’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.”
No, Mr. President, what’s primarily at stake are the lives of our service members who volunteered to ensure the safety and security of those of us at home by defeating an enemy based mainly in the Middle East. When you make a decision of this magnitude it should be done with the sheer intent of winning, offering a clear and concise statement of what that means, and providing your enemy with nothing more than an unwavering message that we have the will, resources, and tenacity for accomplishing that mission.
October 20, 2009
Deciphering President Obama’s Nobel Prize
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama hit the motherload when he received a Nobel Peace prize. But let’s take a closer look at how that may be perceived by many Americans and others around the world.
To date, the Obama presidency hasn’t accomplished any significant campaign promises, and certainly nothing tangible on the global front that could be attributable to him or his hand-picked cabinet members. On the global scene the Middle East remains in turmoil, Afghanistan is spiraling out of control as confirmed by the senior military commander appointed by Obama to fix that mess, the Israelis and Palestinians continue their long-standing disagreement, Iran thumbs its nose at the Americans even though they’ve agreed to an alleged nuclear inspection of their uranium enrichment sites, and Guantanamo Bay prison remains operational. Nationally, employment and foreclosure numbers continue to rise while the economy sputters, and health care overhaul bills have become so laden with earmarks and generally unintelligible that even lawyers are having trouble understanding them. And when he blows-off a meeting with the Dalai Lama in lieu of a face-to-face chat with China's President, where’s the peace part of the puzzle?
Here’s the deal: the prize he received should have been called the Nobel Piece Prize, because that’s what President Obama has managed to accomplish. He’s taken a piece of the auto industry, the housing market, Wall Street, and the largest banks and financial institutions in the country, tucked them under the wing of the federal government, and allowed the tab to be picked up the usual group of chumps, the taxpayers . Throw in an ongoing push for cap and trade that will hammer businesses even harder and you start to get a glimpse of how an actual peace price winner looks in today’s world of behind the scenes wheeling, dealing and, conscienceless functionality.
However, in his defense, President Obama has taken advantage of every conceivable opportunity for getting in front of a news camera to apologize for the way the United States has, over the years in good faith, given direct assistance to numerous countries in actual lives, goods, and humanitarian services. Unfortunately, most have squandered the potential benefits through foolish, conscious decisions or outright corruption. As if his opportunistic apologies aren’t adequate insults to the American people and especially those who were actively involved in these actions, both living and deceased, consider his resolute attempts to make friends with some the sleaziest world leaders (e.g., Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez). But the president intentionally ignored opportunities to assist recognized peace activists in Burma and Myanmar thereby allowing them to rot in prisons to this day.
I wonder how much a Nobel Prize would cost on eBay or Craigslist given the diminished value of it on a global scale.
August 25, 2009
Trouble on the home front
Good news: The House and Senate are in recess which means they can’t do any immediate damage. In fact, they’re attempting to perform personal damage control to save themselves with their constituents because of the health care debacle. And it didn't take long for them to run headlong into their voters who are miffed to the max about the House's "Health Care for all Americans" legislation, a conglomeration of multiple committees that simply guts health care for most Americans.
They’ve been attempting to peddle the bill like it was a bottle of 1800’s miracle medicine. But in keeping with their current mindset of get-it-done-quickly, not a single one of them has read the 1,018 page document that was hackneyed together the night before they left Washington even though they’re all experts on its contents.
Much to the representatives’ surprise and dismay, the taxpayers have awakened to the fact that the bill is potential disaster and have turned out in droves to the town hall meetings and spoken their minds. The politicians were so taken aback by the questions and comments that many of them have abruptly cancelled all of their planned town hall meetings and opted for phone and online offerings which are nothing more than safe havens for the interim until they can return to their private sanctuaries in Washington.
It became quickly obvious these legislators weren’t particularly adept at fielding legitimate questions and selling something they knew almost nothing about. One of the most popular and valid queries being heard is whether or not the taxpayers will have access to the same health care coverage as their elected representatives. As you might imagine the bureaucrats can’t offer an acceptable response and are often and rightfully “booed.” It’s obvious that none of them are fully knowledgeable of the contents of the rough draft and are attempting to spew rhetoric rather than information actually contained in the current bill. I’d like to make it even easier for the politicians, so here’s my proposal. All they have to do is promise us, the voters, they will totally dismantle their current executive insurance program and, once a bill is passed, select an option from those that will be offered to you and me.
Regarding the current bill, if any of them had skimmed it they’d have seen early on that page 16 contained a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. That’s right—against the law. The provision would prohibit individual private coverage. Listed under the heading "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law.”
This shouldn’t come as a surprise since the naysayers have been warning us for months that the moment the Feds get into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage the private insurance market will be smothered. And why wouldn’t the government want that to happen? With the Feds offering a public option that could be 30% to 40% less costly than today’s typical annual premiums, who wouldn’t want to buy in. Of course, you know there’s a catch; we, the taxpayers, will be funding it, so employers will have no incentive to keep their private plans and will sign up for the government’s version of health coverage.
Various estimates have concluded that private carriers could end up with an estimated 50 million fewer customers. Many won’t go out of business, but their coverage costs will skyrocket. But keep your eye on the prize, the actual coverage, because that will shrink over time leaving many people virtually uncovered due to medical conditions deemed exclusionary and outside the cost effectiveness range for coverage.
While I’m still wading through the mishmash, I’ve already uncovered many hidden flaws in the bill, but another noteworthy one is found on page 425: Everyone currently receiving Social Security benefits regardless of age or circumstances (e.g., disability) will be required to attend mandatory counseling every five years to learn how to select from a list of options available/approved for eliminating your end of life suffering. In effect, you’ll be required to choose your form of death. Another little caveat is that the government can deny health care based on age, and $500 billion will be systematically cut from this senior-related health care plan. What that means is a radical reduction in health care offerings and the oldest and most ill citizens will become expendable or non-cost effective.
There’s also some ambiguous language that implies even those who can afford to pay for private health care may be prohibited by law to purchase and partake of it if their combination of age and health diagnosis doesn’t fit the approved government template, one that was created by bureaucrats rather than medical professionals. The government intends to manage our lives from cradle to grave, and they’ll begin by controlling the end—the forced termination of our life. If this frightens you as much as it does me, then I’ve accomplished my task of making you aware of the potential lethality of the current health care bill. Don’t buy into the notion that those seen speaking up at town hall meetings have been hand-picked shills by a right wing conspiracy.
I’ll close with another unmentioned pitfall in the health care legislation, one that’s going to wipe out health savings accounts. The government now has to demolish that choice to ensure that individuals have virtually zero control over their personal medical care. By now you may be getting the picture that we’re heading for a true welfare state with the majority of Americans dependent upon the government for nearly everything from jobs to life itself. A logical and “free” person would assume that Washington couldn’t muster the constitutional authority to outlaw private health care markets in which the citizens could choose to voluntarily participate. With a little luck the politicians, those people who are supposed to be working for rather than against us, won’t be able to pull it off, but only if voters continue voicing their vehement objections to this gigantic step toward a societal takeover.
Keep in mind this is only the draft legislation, not the final version that will likely emerge if we, the taxpayers, voters and health care recipients continue to oppose and don’t allow the Feds to have their way. It's frightening to consider how many additional personal liberty infringements will emerge in the final bill, but for the moment assume the worst.
Maybe we should push for legislation that would require our elected officials to extend their summer vacations to 11 months per year. That way they could spend a reasonable amount of quality time dodging their constituents and only enough time in Washington to do minimal damage.
June 8, 2009
Domestic terrorism to halt abortions?
Political terrorism is defined by prominent political scientists as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. This is mainly applied to the violent acts of ‘jihad’ and predominately associated with anti-American sentiment stemming from the Middle East.
However, in recent years ‘domestic terrorism’ has resurged (it had been a popular method of protesting during the morally pious Reagan years); ‘soldiers’ of the morality war in America have rearmed themselves in the wake of an Obama Administration and have begun to assemble in opposition to the impending liberality.
The American population has been mired in economic woes and inundated with troubling news from a two-front war aboard for the better part of a decade now, yet the social and political crusaders continue to wage battle for America’s propriety. The death of American doctors, nurses, health care practitioners, etc, is a wholly unacceptable concept when defending the ‘right to life’ issue.
It should not have to be said that Roe vs. Wade was not simply a symbolic court decision; but it gave every woman the right to choose for herself the path that suits her life. This decision has been diluted and basically rendered meaningless over the past three decades thanks to conservatism in state legislatures who have systematically worked to create obstacles that prevent women in their states from obtaining clinically safe abortions or become at risk for targeted violence due to legislators’ open opposition to the practice of abortion.
This vitriolic passion toward abortion-seekers and providers violates not only the very essential decision of Roe, but also a woman’s basic right to quality of life. Keep in mind, most of these congressional usurpations of judicial/constitutional rights is decided upon by men. And the majority of those who become active domestic terrorists for the cause of abortion have predominately been men, including the most recent attacker of Dr. Tiller (the Fox News proclaimed “baby killer”).
It is time that Americans make up their own minds about what is right and what is wrong instead of attempting to legislate, regulate and enforce morality upon masses that are living in the present ….. Not the past. Americans should know better to fight for life with death; it is an embarrassment to the cause they are advocating for and to the nation in general. When we attempt to control our women and their minds, we become no better than those we find repugnant in other nations who dominate their women via national laws.
June 2, 2009
The End of Days: Republican leadership takes over
The official end of the first session of the 52nd Legislature was certainly anti-climatic following the antics perpetrated by the Republican Leadership on the adopted Sine Die date of May 22. Leaders in both the House, but predominately the Senate broke the public’s faith in the process of compromise and effective government (if they had it to begin with).
The Senate had failed a bill containing the new pet project of the Republican Party; the CIO bill, the language inhabited three separate bills in only a week (SB980, HB1704, HB1170). Instead of accepting that the language had failed to receive the approval necessary to move to the Governor’s desk, a certain Senator held the vote on SB980 open for nearly 5 hours allowing no other business to be conducted. While the President Pro Tempore waved the final action rule in order for the Senate to hear the bill that was gutted and replaced with the CIO language; HB1170 is the final form of the CIO bill and passed the Senate on Tuesday, May 26.
The irony is not lost on many; the Oklahoma Republicans have systematically attacked what they deem as Democratic pet projects/issues, most notably, Autism funding, without batting an eye. However, when a bipartisan vote to fail a bill occurs, they decide to procedurally throw a temper tantrum, hold a legislative session over which costs the taxpayers money; all in effort to ensure that their legacy in the majority was “successful.”
I offer the following statement for thought: how effective is your government/leadership (political affiliation aside) when it finds it not only necessary but imperative to shove a major governmental reform bill through the legislature during the final hour?
What occurred in the final days of session in the Oklahoma Legislature stands as a clear example of the abuses of procedure and leadership in order to achieve a political end. It will take awhile before we can judge whether or not the end justified the means of obtaining this potential new law, but something tells me the way in which the bill was passed that it could be very dangerous for the people of Oklahoma.
April 22, 2009
Budgeting: The Great American Process
As ‘budgeting season’ descends upon the Oklahoma State Capitol, let’s step back and evaluate the budgeting process in American politics. Pay particular attention to the in-fighting associated with the modern budgeting process.
Budgetary politics is the foundation of contemporary American governance with vested interest in the funding of discretionary as well entitlement programs that the populace relies upon. Although it has been through various stages of policy development and enactment, budgetary politics and the response by the citizenry in America has always been directly related to the political events in which the U.S. is involved.
There have been many attempts to restructure and reform the process of budgeting in American politics. Throughout our nation’s history there have only been a handful of budgeting policies that have seemingly reflected the domestic/public opinion, the political makeup of the legislature versus the executive and the events that America is linked to at the time. Power-shifting has defined the struggle to create comprehensive budgetary policy; from the Congress to the executive branch, to the newly adapted Obama strategy that involves the grassroots level of citizen-lobbying efforts to push stimulus plans through. The role that policy and the process play in budgeting continuously shifts depending on the political ‘place’ in which America finds itself.
Throughout this era in budgeting, the U.S. has seen many political maladies that have led to the attempted reformation of the process. The “Stalemate era” is characterized by the political factions that play budgeting as a game of Tit –for – Tat taxation and non-taxation; once the democrats began insisting (post 9/11) on passing legislation that assisted the unemployed, including health insurance. This idea was matched by the Republican plan to give tax credits to those who could not find employment (although welfare is certainly not a Republican-supported doctrine).
There have been many factors that have led to this stalled era in American budgeting; the rise of the “two Americas” and divided party governance. The executive branch has dominated by the Republican Party during the majority of the “Stalemate era” and has cultivated a brand of fiscal policy that is driven predominately by cronyism. There was also a large shift (since the mid-1960s) in who benefits from the budget and from where the money is raised to fund programs. There has been an increase in funding to entitlement programs and individuals in the form of social welfare which comes at the expense of another program. The real issue is not balancing the budget but budgeting the nation’s wealth; how and what to spend produces political infighting that is associated with contemporary budget agreements.
The budgeting process that the U.S. adheres to now is a culmination of economic forecasting and “new public management” ideals. There are limits to discretionary spending programs; this is accomplished by dividing discretionary spending into three categories: military/defense, international and domestic programs. This breakdown helps determine where and how much of the budget is going toward mandatory government programs. The “pay-as-you-go” mentality became common practice in the late 1980s through the 2001 period for mandatory spending programs; post-September 11, 2001 “pay-as-you-go” fell to the wayside.
Economic forecasting has become an essential tenant in the process of budgeting over the last three decades; when policy makers attempt to weigh all national and U.S. interests abroad while deciding what programs to fund and which to cut. Budget leaders, appropriation/finance committee chairs along with the executive branch began to consider economic instability (high unemployment, recessions, the global economy, disasters). Anticipating the nation’s debt and its expenditures before a fiscal year has become far more important to decision-makers struggling to gain control over the budget.
Budgetary politics is the foundation of contemporary American governance with vested interest in the funding of discretionary as well entitlement programs that the populace relies upon. Although it has been through various stages of policy development and enactment, budgetary politics and the response by the citizenry in America has always been directly related to the political events in which the U.S. is involved.
There have been many attempts to restructure and reform the process of budgeting in American politics. Throughout our nation’s history there have only been a handful of budgeting policies that have seemingly reflected the domestic/public opinion, the political makeup of the legislature versus the executive and the events that America is linked to at the time. Power-shifting has defined the struggle to create comprehensive budgetary policy; from the Congress to the executive branch, to the newly adapted Obama strategy that involves the grassroots level of citizen-lobbying efforts to push stimulus plans through. The role that policy and the process play in budgeting continuously shifts depending on the political ‘place’ in which America finds itself.
Throughout this era in budgeting, the U.S. has seen many political maladies that have led to the attempted reformation of the process. The “Stalemate era” is characterized by the political factions that play budgeting as a game of Tit –for – Tat taxation and non-taxation; once the democrats began insisting (post 9/11) on passing legislation that assisted the unemployed, including health insurance. This idea was matched by the Republican plan to give tax credits to those who could not find employment (although welfare is certainly not a Republican-supported doctrine).
There have been many factors that have led to this stalled era in American budgeting; the rise of the “two Americas” and divided party governance. The executive branch has dominated by the Republican Party during the majority of the “Stalemate era” and has cultivated a brand of fiscal policy that is driven predominately by cronyism. There was also a large shift (since the mid-1960s) in who benefits from the budget and from where the money is raised to fund programs. There has been an increase in funding to entitlement programs and individuals in the form of social welfare which comes at the expense of another program. The real issue is not balancing the budget but budgeting the nation’s wealth; how and what to spend produces political infighting that is associated with contemporary budget agreements.
The budgeting process that the U.S. adheres to now is a culmination of economic forecasting and “new public management” ideals. There are limits to discretionary spending programs; this is accomplished by dividing discretionary spending into three categories: military/defense, international and domestic programs. This breakdown helps determine where and how much of the budget is going toward mandatory government programs. The “pay-as-you-go” mentality became common practice in the late 1980s through the 2001 period for mandatory spending programs; post-September 11, 2001 “pay-as-you-go” fell to the wayside.
Economic forecasting has become an essential tenant in the process of budgeting over the last three decades; when policy makers attempt to weigh all national and U.S. interests abroad while deciding what programs to fund and which to cut. Budget leaders, appropriation/finance committee chairs along with the executive branch began to consider economic instability (high unemployment, recessions, the global economy, disasters). Anticipating the nation’s debt and its expenditures before a fiscal year has become far more important to decision-makers struggling to gain control over the budget.