Peter

I heard Peter Orszag, President Obama's ex-budget director speak at the Association for Corporate Growth's Capital Connection (ACG) in Chicago last week. The ACG is a trade organization largely catering to private equity firms and companies that seek to grow through acquisition--- that is, wealth creators and job generators.

He presented a rather grim view of the budget, stating his belief that there is actually little room on the spending side for real reductions. The military consists of 2/3 personnel and 1/3 systems and hardware costs, and since defense experts do not believe it is advisable to shrink our forces at this time and because systems have long lead times, little can be taken out of the military. Entitlement program changes, he believes, may be phased in over time, but little can be done about current retirees. He does believe that tax increases are necessary but advocates leaving the Bush tax cuts in place for two years and then allow them to automatically expire. Orszag failed to differentiate between extending the tax cuts for "the rich" from the middle class, and ducked the question about raising taxes when the economy is so weak (so the liberal argument goes, "well, we raised taxes under Clinton and got a boom."). Yes, but they did so at the front end of a once in a lifetime tech boom, not while the economy was straining to crawl out of a once in a lifetime financial catastrophe.

In addressing health care, he asserted that "the bill addresses costs more than is popularly believed," but expressed disappointment that the bill did not address tort reform (although he claimed that research shows that malpractice claims to not significantly affect costs).

While optimistic about the long term vibrancy of the U.S. economy, he said that 2012 would be "bumpy" and was bearish about prospects for the U.S. budget, given the partisanship that will undoubtedly be present in Washington after the elections.

Overall, Mr. Orszag left me a little flat. He was better after he got the obligatory bland jokes out of the way at the beginning. He attempted to steer a neutral political course in his remarks, but as a result, left unanswered the important questions about the overall efficacy of the stimulus, the effect on growth, employment, productivity, and innovaation that all these tax increases and regulatory burdens being foisted on business will have, and said nothing about financial reform.

Afterwards, I asked one professional what he thought the punchline of Orszag's remarks was, and he replied dryly, "I can't get rich. I can't retire. And I sure as hell can't get sick."

Euro-Socialism in America- Think Again

“We’re all Socialists Now” proclaimed the cover of Newsweek in February of ’09. Stuart Varney begs to differ. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Varney, senior business journalist at Fox Networks. As a fellow defender of capitalism and ardent opponent of big government, I have been a fan of Varney’s for a long time. Cheery and affable both on screen and in person, Varney is not bashful about being an advocate for the free market, and, conversely, shining a light on the demoralizing, suffocating aspects of our blossoming Nanny State. On his show that day, he spoke with the head of the Miami patrolman’s union defending the union’s position not to give an inch on its bloated pension system (where an ordinary retired police officer receives north of $90,000 per year and a lump sum payment in excess of $850,000). He also had a guest that demonstrated that the extension of unemployment benefits are helping keep the unemployment rate artificially high----when all benefits are considered, it turns out that unemployment pays better in many instances.

My chat with Varney was relatively brief, but two thoughts occurred to me afterword. The first is that Mr. Varney walks the walk—a true capitalist actor in a competitive marketplace. After shaking my hand, the first words out of his mouth were, “How can we improve the show?” I am not a media expert or consultant, but only a single consumer of his product (admittedly, one that is in his target demographic). But Mr. Varney was eager to learn if he could make his product better for his customers, ever seeking to get better. When does ANYONE in government ever ask that question? Imagine someone from the EPA or Department of Energy or Health and Human Services asking how their department might improve. The thought is preposterous. They don’t need to ask. They already know how to achieve their mission. Their mission is to develop a bunch of rules for YOU to follow, and to think of ways to make life painful and unpleasant if you do not. You really don’t have much choice about consuming the “government services” they produce. Mr. Varney does not have that luxury. He knows that if he doesn’t constantly find ways to make his show interesting, people like me will turn our attention elsewhere. He wants me to pay attention to the information that he is working hard to provide. That is the mark of a true capitalist.

Second, I understand that Mr. Varney overcome very modest beginnings to achieve the status he has achieve, and came to America to “escape European Socialism.” That is the second mark of a true capitalist. Unlike the picture that the Left likes to paint of the “idle rich,” a common thread among most genuine capitalists and advocates of capitalism is the notion of overcoming and persevering. They know how hard it is to be successful, how many obstacles and indignities must be borne, how many family dinners must be missed and how many late nights must be endured to have a chance at success.

It is not just a coincidence that there are two other conservative media personalities that have overcome--- Glenn Beck (whether you think he’s over the top or not) and Lawrence Kudlow. Beck overcame alcoholism to regain control over his life and Kudlow overcame substance abuse. Whether you agree with their views or not, both have gone on to become enormously successful conservative commentators.

That is a common conservative narrative—the notion of overcoming. Certainly, a handful of people are wealthy and successful by birth. But in America, most become successful by overcoming—overcoming poverty or modest roots, overcoming setbacks and sometimes your own demons, of being dismissed or excluded. But they persevere. By attempting to erect a Nanny State that will look after us and catch us if we fall no matter what, liberals rob us of two vital aspects of what it means to be human--- the need to constantly improve and the motivation to overcome and to persevere. Most of the great achievements involve those things. And if we stop rewarding people that seek to improve and to overcome and persevere, and we turn the “safety net” into a chaise lounge, we are dooming ourselves to a mediocre society, where nothing great is ever achieved. Worse, we are depriving ourselves of some of the most wonderful and inspirational stories that are part of what it means to be truly human.

I heard a successful Montana rancher recently say, “Most people divide the world into the Haves and the Have Nots; I divide the world into the Will Work and the Will Not Work.” My guess is that Mr. Varney would agree with this assertion.

The Boogeyman

“Bigoted,” “Intolerant,” “Small Minded,” “Fearmongering,” “Assisting Al Qaeda in its Recruiting,” and even “Hateful.” These were some of the charges leveled at me directly by some of my left wing friends and indirectly by the op-ed writers at the New York Times for my stance against the building of the Ground Zero Mosque.

When my liberal friends don’t have much to counter with, they dredge up the old bigotry charge. Immediately prior to the ’08 election, they had the “Bradley Effect” arguments at the ready. Obama was leading in the polls and it was inconceivable that someone as wise, wonderful and articulate (and, according to Joe Biden, clean) could lose. It would have had to have been latent racism. Only he got elected and that ended that. They have tried to pin the racist moniker on the Tea Party movement, too, but so far, it has not gained much traction. The Tea Party movement is simply made up of patriotic, limited government voters, and no hard evidence of racism has been unearthed. With the heated debates over health care reform, the liberals again attempted to trot out racism charges, but, again, there was no evidence to support that at all, even though Nancy Pelosi made a valiant attempt to provoke an incident by walking arm in arm with black congressmen after its passage.

Once again, the left is attempting to tar us with those ugly labels, and they are dead wrong. While I do not dispute the legal right of this group to build, I oppose the Ground Zero Mosque on the grounds that this site is sacred and because of the nature and reach of Militant Islam.
It is true that we enjoy religious freedom of expression here in the United States to an extent found in almost no other place on earth. Here, you can worship in any place and in any way you like, and there is almost no religious bigotry of any kind. Except for a few lunatics in the hills of Tennessee or the woods of Oregon, not only are different religions tolerated, they are accorded a great deal of respect. Heck, I don’t care much if you practice Santeria, as long as your chickens don’t bleed on my side of the fence. And we get a little queasy when folks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got too close to the mechanisms of government.

But Militant Islam is different. In many ways, it is an enemy uniquely adapted to our weaknesses. We do well against large armies on a battlefield. Our forces are designed to defeat people like Saddam Hussein or Soviet tanks rushing through the Fulda Gap, not bands of suicidal jihadists. Second, and more importantly, Militant Islam is uniquely designed to exploit our religious tolerance. Unlike our society’s relationship between religion and government, which, for the most part occupy separate spheres, Militant Islam’s view is that they are necessarily intertwined, and that makes it difficult. You simply cannot tell the difference between a “moderate” or a “radical” or discern who will morph from moderate to radical. While it runs counter to our society and culture to limit the rights of Muslims to worship in any reasonable way, it is also offensive to common sense to have a mosque built so proximal to Ground Zero when the perpetrators of that atrocity did it invoking the name of Islam. We’re not saying you can’t build a mosque. We’re not curtailing your ability to worship in any way. We’re just asking that you don’t build this center on this particular piece of real estate.

Several left leaning writers have said that opposition to the mosque gives Al Qaeda a propaganda tool. I assert that just the opposite is true. It is more likely that Al Qaeda will interpret our willingness to accept a mosque at Ground Zero as a huge propaganda victory. It will be seen as a monument to their martyrs and will be celebrated throughout their ranks. They will see the U.S. as a weak willed “weak horse” and that will be a recruiting tool. What other country would permit this to happen? Even pusillanimous France won’t permit women to wear hijabs. If headscarves were similarly banned here, the ACLU would go into convulsions.

Second, the location and political controversy gives rise to legitimate security concerns. Militant Islam has been very adept at mixing terrorism with mosques and charities. Imagine the propaganda victory if the next big terrorist attack on the U.S. was planned out of the basement of the Ground Zero Mosque. Further, at least one of the donors has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent holding company of Al Qaeda.

Third, Imam Rauf, the leader of the Cordoba Project and self-proclaimed “bridge-builder” has been anything but in this process. “Bridge builders” acknowledge the concerns of their opposition. Rauf has done nothing of the sort. He has stubbornly pushed ahead with his wife on national media circuit denouncing the bigotry of the opposition. His earlier statements on terrorism have been equivocal. He has not condemned Hamas and his statements indicate his belief the U.S. is just as culpable for discord around the world as the terrorists. His renouncement of terrorism and Hamas has been equivocal but his support of Sharia has not.
Fourth is its symbolism, which I touched on earlier. Ironically, liberals are in a frenzy over the symbolism of Glenn Beck’s rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of his “I have a dream” speech, even though MLK was referred to in the most respectful terms and slavery was singled out as a terrible blight on our history. Yet they insist that nothing of the sort is going on with respect to the Ground Zero Mosque. Hmmm.

I reject this charge of bigotry in most stark terms. Like most Americans, I do not care who, where or even if people worship. My opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque is rooted in the propaganda victory it will hand Al Qaeda, the equivocal approach to terrorism and Sharia law that Imam Rauf has taken, and a legitimate concern of a “mixed use” property. We are not at war with Islam, but we are at war with Militant Islam. In war, symbolism is important. Our marines raised an American flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima and that image is part of our national lore. It would be a travesty if the Ground Zero Mosque became a similar symbol for Radical Islam.

More on Cordoba House

So today, House Speaker Pelosi calls for an investigation into those providing financial support for opposition to Cordoba House. Madame Speaker, given the events of 9/11, the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, does it even occur to you that you might consider investigating the source of funding for the Ground Zero Mosque instead?

Just a few more months........

Cordoba - NO!

Once again I suspect Political Islam is using our Constitution as a shield to make a statement. In a highly inappropriate and controversial move, an Islamic group is attempting to build a mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero in New York.
Clearly, they have the legal right to do so. We do not distinguish between religions when granting private property rights. Imam Rauf, the leader of this project, describes himself as a “bridge builder.” However, Muslims all over the world howl when their “sensitivities” are offended. They rioted across Europe when a cartoonist portrayed Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. A bounty was put on the head of Salman Rushdie’s head for the unconscionable act of writing a book. Film director Theo Van Gogh was murdered for offending Islam after being condemned by a local imam. Offend the sensibilities of Islam and you will get a reaction.
But now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. Many of us are now having our sensibilities offended by the audacity of this group to put a mosque in the shadow of the place where 3,000 of our fellow citizens were murdered by fundamentalism Muslims that did so while invoking Allah.
If Imam Rauf and his group are truly dedicated to interfaith harmony, I dare them to prove it. I would take their claims to be “bridge builders” more seriously if they said, “We understand the pain that was brought by this errant group of young men that murdered in the name of Islam. They were wrong and they did not in any way represent Islam. We understand the painful association of that day with Islam and we will do everything in our power to distance Islam from it. We will build our mosque in another place.”
But that is not their approach at all. The governor of New York has offered to find another, more suitable, location. But this group wants none of it. One can only conclude that they mean to put salt in the wound.
Symbolism is important. Flying a confederate flag on one’s car antenna on Martin Luther King Day would say something very bad about you even if you have every right to do it and even if you are claiming solely to be proud of your Southern Heritage. The symbolism of the name “Cordoba House” (commemorating Muslim conquest of Cordoba in a bloody battle) is not lost.
As a legal and Constitutional matter, there is not much that can be done if this group doesn’t voluntarily come to its senses. But I am in New York frequently and if they do built it (I still have my doubts), I plan to stop by. I will park in front of it, pop open a beer and flip through a Playboy magazine. Maybe I’ll even find a girl in a bikini to sit on my lap. It would also be great if I can find a couple of friends that are gay, so that I might have them join me while they hold hands in plain eyesight. I’m all for celebrating tolerance.

A Piece of Work

It sometimes pays to be open minded. You would have had a difficult time convincing me that one of the most inspirational life stories I’ve heard lately came from a whacky, 77 year old Jewish lady that has had way too much plastic surgery. But it’s true.

I grouped ­­­­­­­­Joan Rivers with entertainers like Dean Martin, Rowan & Martin, Don Rickles, and the Smothers Brothers. I remember watching them all as a child, mostly with my grandmother on our little black and white TV. They were irreverent and edgy for their time, and often used race, gender, sexual innuendo and other heretofore off-limits topics. They paved the way for folks like George Carlin and Richard Pryor in the following generation, but now I view them as at least two generations out of date.

But, intrigued by her interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air, I went to see “Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work.” I was fascinated by mixture of the emotional reaction that the film evoked—admiration and sadness. The film gives us an inside and candid look at Joan Rivers’s life and history by following her around behind the scenes as she continues to rebuild and reinvent herself at age 77. You can’t help but be inspired by this woman’s tenacity, resilience, and drive and this late stage in her life. At an age when most people are long retired (or even gone), old Joan is still hustling for gigs, doing tours, producing a musical, writing a book---anything to keep her career going forward. And one is never sure if she is doing this because she needs to (she apparently was not a very good financial planner), or whether she continues to hustle because she is an irrepressible workaholic and cannot stop. She is horrified by the notion that she is a has- been, and there are times in her act when you see that time has passed her by. Yet there are times when she still truly is funny. Despite the constant rejection, the humiliation of having to perform in out of backwater places rather than New York or Vegas, she persists and you get a real feel for the tremendous and genuine internal strength of this woman.

There is also a thread of sadness that runs through the film. You know that time has, in fact, passed her by. Her best years are behind her and you also see that, as in most careers, one bad slip can have lasting and permanent consequences. After rising to stardom on the coattails of her mentor, Johnny Carson, she accepted an offer for her own show to compete with him. He never forgave her and never spoke to her after that. Her show was ultimately a flop and she ended up being blackballed by NBC as and as a result nearly went bankrupt. The career and financial reversals were too much for her husband, who took his own life. Her life was permanently changed in every way by the decision to leave Carson.

Later, she was let down by another man—her manager, who she was forced to fire because of his chronic undependability after years and years of service. So, here Joan continues to fight the fight on, largely alone in the world, except for her daughter. One senses the deep sadness and loneliness of it all as she nears the twilight of her life with few people to share it with. Yet, she soldiers on.

I truly enjoyed the film and enjoyed what it said about her and about life. It did drag in a few parts—the editing was quite poor. But it captured the essence of a driven woman, who, despite her flaws, was marvelously talented, energetic, and extremely hard working. Above all, I found her ability to deal with what life threw at her, and her ability to use humor to deflect some of life’s toughest stuff quite inspiring.

The final message in the film for all of us is that as a society, we will be required to work longer. Sixty five (an arbitrary age) can no longer be sustained as the “normal” retirement age by our entitlement programs, pension programs and, since the financial panic decimated our savings and the equity in our homes, our own savings. The reality is that most of us will need to work longer. And, while some may see the pathos in Joan Rivers still out hawking her schtick at her age, I also see someone who is very much alive, still productive, still taking on challenges, still doing the things she loves doing. And that is the upside for the bulk of us boomers that will be working into our late 60’s and 70’s.

We're No. 1 .....or 2 or 3?

Happy Birthday, America! For over 200 years, you have been a leader in progress, liberty, knowledge, and growth. You have provided millions and millions with a place to pursue their dreams, and crawl out of poverty and build fortunes. In America, people of all religions, all cultures are tolerated like nowhere else in the world. In times of crisis, when terrible tyrannical regimes threatened it, you pushed back, America, and shoved these dictators back into the dustbin of history.

You see, there is a peculiarly “American” character. It is self-reliant, resilient, entrepreneurial, competitive and willing to take risks. This character, I believe, arises out of being populated by people that were not satisfied with the status quo—people that escaped suffocating systems and instead bet on their own resourcefulness. Our people, and all our organizations strive to be number one. We want to be on top. It is in our DNA. And we admire people that get there. Witness the 2 million people that turned out to say congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks last month for winning the Stanley Cup. This inner drive, this competitive nature is one of the things that sets us apart as a people. Our history is littered with examples of individuals overcoming odds, seizing the initiative and doing great things from Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to the soldiers at Point Du Hoc and Valley Forge. We like winners. Even when we don’t end up on top, we aspire to, always.

But listen carefully to Obama and his spokespeople. That’s not what they are saying, and the message from this administration has been consistent—we no longer seek leadership. To Team Obama, we are absolutely ok with being number 2 or 3 or 4. There is something wrong with being numero uno.

Obama himself said in his infamous quote, “"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." So, we’re exceptional, just like everyone else.

That’s thinking like a winner.

John Holdren, Obama’s science czar said a few weeks ago, “The U.S. can’t be expected to be number one in everything indefinitely.”

Gee, that’s inspiring.

Or how about Tim Geithner’s statement just last week, “America can no longer drive global growth."?

That's visionary.

This is all just appalling and at variance with what America is all about. In my way of thinking, if you aspire to be an also-ran, that’s where you end up. I can’t imagine any CEO of any company announcing in its annual report, “We’re in an environment with lots of able competitors. We can’t be expected to be number one in our market all the time. It’s just not realistic.” The board of directors would summarily show him the door. There wouldn’t be second thought about it. And a heave-ho would be well-deserved.

But this is the mindset of the current Democratic leadership in Washington, and is troubles me greatly. The message is consistent across all agencies—America can no longer be number one, not in business and the economy, not in science, not in promoting liberty.

We should not tolerate leaders that say such things. Sure, we have obstacles to overcome. But we have great strengths as a nation. We have an economic system that, at core, is vibrant and strong. We have by far the greatest university system in the world. We have the strongest and most professional military in the world. We have paved the way for millions to throw off the yoke of tyranny and lead a better life.

And the faster we throw these guys out of office and replace them with leaders that expect great things from us and from themselves, the faster we will get back on track as a nation. That's leadership. We're the greatest nation on the planet. Don't let these guys tell you otherwise.