The Questions I'd Like to Ask

Tomorrow night is the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  The press won't do it, but here are the four questions I'd like to ask the President.

1.  President Obama,  our country's credit was downgraded for the first time in its history.  Your own bipartisan commission developed a very credible plan to put us on a healthier fiscal path.  Yet you elected to kick it to the curb and focus on health care instead during your first term.  Please explain.

2. We now know that Operation Fast and Furious resulted in the deaths of one border agent and 16 Mexican youths, yet Eric Holder is still employed by your administration.  Similarly, we now know that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack, and that was known at the time Susan Rice continued to assert that the assault was a spontaneous uprising caused by the film "Innocence of Muslims," yet she is still employed by your administration.  In each case, please explain your rationale for keeping them in their current positions.

3. Mr. President, you issued an executive order stopping the deportation of illegal immigrants under certain conditions.  You also have assured defense contractors that they will not be subject to WARN Act penalties due to failure to give required 60 day notices arising out of sequestration.  Similarly, hundreds of organizations have been given waivers from Obamacare.  Does this administration intend to enforce some laws and not others?  If so, which laws are to be enforced and what is the basis for distinguishing?

4. In light of the intelligence failure in Libya, do you intend to revisit your policy of killing terrorists from the air instead of capturing and interrogating them, since it is difficult to obtain actionable intelligence from a smoking hole in the ground?

I'm sure I could come up with a few more, but I'd love to hear the answers to these.

Mitt's Bad Week

After a summer haitus, I’m back, just in time for the final grind to this most momentous election.  This has been a most unsettling time, one in which I believe that Western Civilization could hang in the balance.  We have a clear choice in front of us.  This election features Barack Obama, who, in many ways, represents the antithesis of all that is truly American—hostile to individualism, private enterprise, and American exceptionalism pitted against Mitt Romney—the embodiment of those ideals.   Crucially, the main stream media has picked its candidate and acts as an uncompensated PR arm of the Obama campaign, effectively multiplying  Obama’s fundraising.

It was almost with disbelief that I heard the MSM talk about Romney’s “bad week” last week because of the release of the surreptitiously obtained video in which he decried the 47% that are dependent on government and whose vote he will never get.  My reaction was—big deal.  Maybe he got the number a bit wrong—it’s probably more like 30%.  But the principle is correct.  The overarching strategy of the Democrats is to get as many people hooked on government largesse as possible to create a permanent coalition supporting the Democrats.

But it was Barack’s bad week, but we heard little about that.  It has really been Barack’s bad year.  Despite the stimulus, despite unprecedented help from the Federal Reserve Board, the economy is going nowhere.   Second quarter GDP was revised downward to 1.3%.  Durable goods orders are down.  Unemployment is stuck above 8%.  Family income is down.  Regulations promulgated by the EPA, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank suffocate our economy.   Our rank in economic  freedom and competitiveness has tumbled.  Millions of job seekers have lost hope.

Overseas, the picture isn’t any prettier.  Obama’s interventions in Egypt and Libya have enabled radical Islamism, and further imperiled our ally, Israel.  The Middle East has been in flames.   Our Afghan strategy is in disarray.   Japan and China are nearly at war.  The Middle East peace process is dead.  Iran’s centrifuges continue to hum, and each day, they unveil a new weapons system design to damage us while we are happily snipping away at our defense budget to make even more room for the Obama welfare state.    In the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to meet with any of our adversaries without precondition.  In 2012, he will not extend the same courtesy to our friends, preferring time with Letterman, Jay-Z and Beyonce to our only steadfast ally in the Middle East.

Most egregious has been the patent falsehoods put forth by this administration concerning the rape and murder of our ambassador to Libya.  Blaming this horrendous incident on a kooky anti-Islamic film produced by an American citizen, the initial reaction was to decry the filmmaker and take him into custody for questioning about his alleged parole violations and to once again apologize to the Muslim world (for the free exercise of a private citizen’s First Amendment rights).    Now we are learning that Benghazi was a huge foreign policy and security blunder covered up by the Obama administration.

Both at home and abroad, Obama has been a disaster.  That Obama is polling ahead of Romney (or at best is dead even) is extremely troublesome to me.   I have deep worries about the America that my children and grandchildren will inherit if America renews Obama’s contract.

We're Not Europe

Despite the efforts of Barack Obama to drag us in that direction, we're not Europe.  Just a few weeks ago, France showed its character by responding to its fiscal woes by election socialist Francois Hollande, who promised nothing but more burdens on wealth creators and no adjustment to the lifestyles of the government elite.  Despite the organized efforts of the left to recall Scott Walker, the people of Wisconsin sent a strong message that common sense (note the title of the blog) will prevail in that state. Sure, there was a great deal of caterwauling about taking away workers rights but in the final analysis, states simply do not have the money to provide rich retirement packages that far outstrip anything that these people could obtain in the private sector.

And the people of Wisconsin have sent a message.

You see, part of being and American is working hard and sacrificing so the next generation has a shot at a better life.  It's in our DNA.

The European model is the opposite.   Screw the next generation.  We want ours now.

Stuart Varney (Fox Business) correctly observed that young people will lose opportunities and will be sacrificed because state and municipal governments are paying so much to retirees.  It's even worse than Varney asserts.  State universities are being strangled because of these overly generous pension obligations.  And state universities (and the junior college systems) are the key to opportunity for young people.

So the left wants to sacrifice the future to pay for the workforce of the past.  That's an inversion of the American ideal.  We sacrifice now so future generations can do better.

Wisconsin voters stepped up and said "enough is enough."  They figured out that it is fundamentally unfair to demand that private sector workers continue to work into their 60's and 70's so that public sector workers can be off fishing by their mid-50's.  In many state houses across the land, voters are waking up to the fiscal catastrophe that politicians have foisted on them through these bloated public sector pensions.  The math just doesn't work.

I predict that more and more states will wisely come to grips with this issue (California and Illinois being notable exceptions and will continue to drown in red ink while businesses flee those states).  Kudos to the people of Wisconsin.

Soul Mates

I was really worried about President Obama.   He seemed to have no real friends in the world.  One commentator picked that up and talked about how Bush had Blair and Reagan had Thatcher.  Clinton  had good personal relationships with many foreign leaders.  But President Obama was aloof and distant, and had almost none that shared his worldview.  In fact, promptly after entering office, he sent the bust of Winston Churchill back to Great Britain and recently declared us neutral in the Falklands dispute with Argentina.  With Israel, our other close ally, Obama publicly abandoned Netanyahu at dinner and, wagging his finger, told him to retreat back to his 1967 borders.  Our new friends in Eastern Europe, the Czechs and the Poles were treated to a midnight call telling them that the political capital they expended to become part of a missile defense system was for naught, because hitting the reset button with Russia was a higher priority.  None of our old friends or new friends seemed to hold the same values, values deep enough to forge a lasting partnership.

All that is better now as a result of the victory of Francois Hollande over Nicolas Sarkozy in France last week.  Mr. Hollande is vowing to "initiate a change in society in the long term" and explicitly tells the world that he "does not like the rich" and that "his real enemy is the world of finance."  He vows to reverse fiscal responsibility and instead push the accelerator on "growth creating spending."

Does all this have a familiary ring to it?  Of course it does.  Our enemy is not totalitarian regimes, terrorism or fundamentalist Islam (Eric Holder can't even utter the phrase).  It's the world of finance and the rich that threaten the West.

After 3 1/2 years adrift without any real close ties abroad, I see potential for a whole new Franco-American alliance, so badly damaged by the tension between George Bush and Dominique de Villepin over Iraq.  These two are blood brothers, soul mates.  I bet they can even complete each other's sentences. 

As Humphrey Bogart once famously proclaimed to another Frenchman, "Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."



A Critical Look At Ayn Rand

"Her popularity far outstrips her contributions." That was the upshot of the critical assessment of her work by Donald DeMarco, professor of philosophy at Holy Apostles College and Seminary at a luncheon presentation sponsored by the Lumen Christie Institute, the center for Catholic thought at The University of Chicago.

I continue to attempt to reconcile Catholicism and capitalism. William F. Buckley evidently was able to do so easily, but I have struggled with it at times. I had hoped that Mr. DeMarco's remarks would enlighten me. They didn't. In fact, there were several times during his presentation when I found myself wishing that I sat at the other end of the table so that I could debate him.

Mr. DeMarco was completely dismissive of Rand's thinking and writing, writing it off as "incomplete" and "cartoonish." He derided her black and white thinking and judgementalism. He was harshly critical of her personal life (she was unable to sustain personal relationships and died a lonely person). At one point, he compared her to Karl Marx, stating, "there are elements of Marx's thinking that has validity (without bothering to mention that, unlike Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, Marxism has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the last century).

What I found most disappointing about Mr. DeMarco's critique was his inability to give Ms. Rand credit for any of her views whatsoever. Her popularity did not arise out of simply clever marketing; she remains popular because in a century in which totalitarians attempted to smash individual sovereignty, Ayn Rand picked up the banner and fought back. Her thinking is even more relevant today, as government once again is attempting to undercut individual liberty.

Today, we have a government that rails against the 1%, demonizes business leaders and entrepreneurs, and threatens to choke them off with a plethora of rules and regulations. Nearly half of our citizens pay no income taxes and continue to demand more and more of the producers. Ayn Rand is as relevant today as she was half a century ago.

Yes, Mr. DeMarco raises legitimate issues about her thinking. Ayn Rand could be doctrinaire, inflexible, and detached. Her personal life was, indeed a catastrophe as her black and white thinking doomed her relationships when they ran afoul of her limitations. She failed to grasp that an important part of life rests in mutually rewarding relationships and that philanthropy is an essential part of a civilized society.

But Ms. Rand celebrated the resourcefulness, energy, intelligence and contributions of the individual. In Soviet Russia, she saw first hand what tyrants could do in the name of the collective. To a certain degree, that struggle continues today.

Ironically, Mr. DeMarco dismissed Rand's work entirely, while condemning her because of her black and white thinking. Especially in our current climate, it would be wise not to simply dismiss Ayn Rand's continued popularity.

Between Shades of Gray

Men, women and children herded into cattle cars with no food, water, or sanitation. Lice. People shot on sight for slight transgressions. "Snitches" granted favors by guards for betraying friends. Brutal cold, long workdays, scurvy, beatings, malnutrition. Death.

Auschwitz? Bergen Belsen? Dachau? No. The atrocities of the Holocaust have been well documented and memorialized in books, film, plays, and museums. The Illinois Holocaust Museum is here in Skokie. We have all seen Steven Spielberg's masterful film Schindler's List. More recently, there have been films about Hitler's accomplices, like Sarah's Key. And, of course, just about every teen has read the heart wrenching Diary of Anne Frank. The crimes of the Nazis were hideous and provide context to our foreign policy to this day as we close ranks with Israel to confront an Islamo-fascist regime in Iran that promises a second Holocaust.

But while all this was going on, there was a second "silent" Holocaust in places like Lithuania, Latvia and the Ukraine perpetrated by Josef Stalin. While Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, Stalin and his henchmen murdered almost 3 1/2 times as many.

"Between Shades of Gray" by Ruta Sepetys reminds us that as bad as Hilter was, there was a second monster brutalizing, torturing and killing millions. While Stalin did not single out a group or industrialize his death machine as Hitler did, the scale of death and dislocation was, in fact, greater. Between Shades of Gray tells the tale of a family forced from their home, separated and shipped to a work camp in Siberia. Like Anne Frank's diary, the story is told through the eyes of a teenaged girl, and tells the story of survival and death under the cruelest, harshest circumstances imaginable. It is a story of courage and strength and sometimes betrayal and death.

For me, the Ms. Sepetys's novel brought to life the culture and people I grew up with. I was raised in an Eastern European community on the Southwest Side of Chicago and attended a Lithuanian Catholic grammar school. Many of the kids I went to school with were sons and daughters of D.P.'s (short for displaced persons) and this book reminded me of exactly what that meant. As a youngster, I failed to grasp what these people experienced. One of my best friend's parents were school teachers in Lithuania and escaped one of the work camps where they surely would have been killed. After reading Ms. Sepetys's book, I now understand the terror they must have experienced as they tunnelled under the fence and ran through the woods with guard dogs on their heels. The father of another friend of mine witnessed the KGB shooting his best friend in the head when he was a young man in the Ukraine. Such were the stories in my neighborhood.

Ms. Sepetys's book had special meaning for me. It was a vivid reminder of where I came fro and what a special place America has been for peoples of all nationalities and religions that have escaped from out-of-control, unchecked state power. It was also a reminder of why I am such a fierce defender of individual liberty for my peers were descendants of people that ran from authoritarianism.

As another authoritarian state, China, rises, Islamo-fascism threatens the West, and our own country elects a president that clearly values "fairness" over liberty, Ms. Sepetys reminds us of the horrible consequences of extreme state power.

Between Shades of Gray is a compelling read, and if you are of Eastern European extraction, it is an essential one.

Voting With Your Feet

My mama used to say, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." She correctly observed that often out-of-control kids had families that were dysfunctional. That aphorism is particularly true in politics. If you want to understand President Obama, just take a peek at the state that provided him his training and background.

Illinois is an absolute fiscal catastrophe. One survey had it rated the 2nd worst run state. A Forbes survey just ranked Chicago as the 6th most miserable city (but evidently committed to being number 1.

It's an open secret that Illinois is in the top ranks of corrupt state, lavishing state workers and unions with fat paychecks and even fatter retirement benefits. The Chicago Tribune has had several investigative articles about favored individuals being put on payrolls for minimum periods simply to get retirement benefits. And, if you lose and election, like Dan Seals (an unemployed guy before losing to Robert Dold in the 2010 congressional election), not to worry. Quinn put him on the Illinois payroll at a six figure salary to be an assistant director in the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, a position for which I'm sure Mr. Seals is well-qualified.

All this largesse has come at a price. The state's pension funds are only 45% funded and Illinois is teetering on the brink. But, instead of addressing its spending binges, Governor Quinn and the Illinois legislature elected to crank up the tax man, increasing the state income tax by nearly 50% on indivuals, businesses and nearly doubing tolls. Increase taxes by 50% and you get 50% more revenues, right?

Well pols seem to forget that humans respond to incentives. The selfish beings that they are, they fail to respond to measures taken for the "common good" (translated: Democratic supporters). I don't have a full survey of the damage that the tax increases have done, but I have a bit of anecdotal evidence:

• Aon Corporation announced that it was moving its corporate headquarters to London. Think about that. A major corporation is going to undertake the expense, trigger a tax liability for its shareholders, and make some people move, to change its headquarters to London? When Great Britain is a tax haven compared to you, you're in real trouble.
• The Chicago Tribune has reported that people are taking all kinds of circuitous routes to avoid the tollway system. The Trib calculated that the increase in tolls will cost an average driver $750 per year. Again, the Dems smack the working man, the guy they claim to help.
• A friend of mind who has been working part time out of his Florida home office changed the proportion of time he spends there to comply with requirements to change his domicile to Florida. "F**k Illinois," he said flatly, "I'm not giving them any more. I work too hard and I have to think about MY retirement, not some union guy." I can only guess that there are thousands of people like him- smart, hardworking, industrious that will simply leave.
• At a roundtable of business executives recently, I posed the question to the group, "Assuming that you wish your children to be happy and prosperous, would you counsel them to stay in Illinois and if not Illinois, where would you suggest that they move to give them the best chance of that happening?" The answer to this two part question was unanimous--- NO! and Texas.

Quinn's response last week was to propose even MORE spending, leaving the Illinois legislature (not the most frugal bunch) scratching their heads. Similarly, in his State of the Union address, President Obama promised to use 1/2 of the money spent in Iraq to pay down the debt.

Democrats never stop their spending addiction. That's why raising taxes doesn't work. Tax $100 and they spend $125. And they forget that people change their behavior in response. They stop investing. They move. They avoid the roads. They buy less. They stop working. Economic activity dries up.

Quinn and Obama. Same guys. Same program for growth.