Big Government Can Be Efficient

Some conservatives think that the federal government is inefficient and incompetent in its management of its many agencies. Targets of their odium usually include The United States Post Office and Amtrak. But to be fair, I think that we conservatives ought to praise federal government agencies that are efficient and effective. Take the IRS, for example.

This agency is extremely competent. In fact, I don’t think I have ever heard anyone complain that the IRS had failed to send them their tax forms punctually every year. I have never heard anyone complain that they were left out of the tax paying process. If you move and forget to tell them, they seem to find you wherever you go. If you underpay, they can tell you how much they need to the penny. To the penny, mind you. If you ask anyone if they have paid their taxes, they invariably say yes.

They also have some excellent payment options. You can pay using Amex, Visa, Mastercard, ETF, Discover, Carte Blanche, Diners Club, and Money Order. All of these options can be done on-line, which will save you the price of a first-class stamp. They also take personal checks. With technology going the way that it is, someday you may even be spared this step altogether, and they will actually be able to withhold the entire amount up front. You won’t even know you ever had it!

Now, if the federal government were so incompetent and wasteful, how could they possibly accomplish this Herculean task every year?

I say that they could not accomplish this Herculean task every year if they were incompetent and wasteful. This is government that works, folks. We conservatives are sometimes very, very unfair.

Fabulous Idea

The President wants to cap salaries because he thinks they are too high and because their employers take federal money. Good. I suggest that voters reduce and clawback the salaries of federally elected politicians. They work for agencies that are paid by the federal government, and they have totally let the country down.

Two Reasons McCain Lost…And Why Palin’s Not to Blame

The mainstream media has decided that John McCain lost the election because of his selection of Sarah Palin as his running-mate, an honor it has decided she was not qualified for. Whatever truth there may be in this opinion (and I don’t think there is much), one error (and its consequences) stands out higher:

John McCain decided to use tax dollars to finance his presidential campaign. This was fatal for a couple of reasons. Obama raised much more money and outspent him in almost every state. While McCain played defense, Obama had a 50-state strategy and could pay for it.

McCain’s decision inhibited the growth of a grass roots network of supporters. In this election, voters wanted not only to contribute to a campaign but to feel like it belonged to them. For the first time, the Internet became a platform for voters to donate cash and share ideas, plans, concerns, joys, victories, and defeats.

The Internet was able to break down barriers between the candidate and the voters. I suspect that young voters who might have voted Republican were alienated from McCain’s campaign, and either stayed home, became independent, or voted for Obama. McCain’s reliance on federal funding made contributing money to his campaign seem less important, since, according to my understanding, it could only be used for his legal and accounting costs. Not exactly an empowering feeling. Without a grass roots network on the Internet, McCain looked older, more out of touch, and less like a change agent than Obama.

The GOP didn’t have to lose this election. A lot of people were looking for reasons to vote for McCain. It seemed that McCain was waiting for Obama to make “the big mistake.” Unfortunately, Sen. McCain may have been making them all the while. The choice of Sarah Palin was not one of them.

Ideology is Dead; Long Live Ideology

OBAMA: My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

[You can say that again.]

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

[We gather not because we are unified in our beliefs, only to inaugurate the president.]

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

[What specific dogmas? What false promises?]

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

[Again, specifically which things are childish? In what sense can history be 'chosen'? ]

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.

[It's interesting. American military history begins in Concord and then skips to Gettysburg. What happened in between? What about the Mexican-American War? The War of 1812? World War I? Korea? Is this 'choosing' our better history?]

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

[Is it the federal government's job to create jobs, build schools, and lay a new foundation for growth? The federal government did not create jobs for the people who traveled across the oceans, settled the West, toiled in sweatshops. The federal government took them in and let them struggle.]

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

[Jefferson said that the government should be "wise and frugal." He did not say that it should "spend wisely."]

[Finally a specific point. The question is many people's minds is precisely whether our government is too big or too small. Some people would argue that it in fact does not work precisely because it is too big. He's saying that the debate is over. Government is big and will be bigger.]

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

[No mention of the government's role in the crisis. Who will watch the watchers? Crucial, crucial, crucial, crucial question. The answer until now? Nobody, really.]

["The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product..." RFK used nearly the same language.]

[We don't extend opportunity to the every willing heart out of charity? We do it because it's efficient? I don't really get this point. And when the government is doing the extending, the historical record suggests that its efforts have neither as efficient nor as effective as they should have been.]

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers … our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

[The war in Iraq liberated 50 million Muslims.]

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

[Earlier generations defeated Hitler with tanks and soldiers and guns. After WWII, a number of alliances helped to ensure a cold peace. That, and a whole lot of humanitarian and military intervention in the Third World.]

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

[Are we going to defeat them because our spirit is stronger or because we have the military power to bring the hurt to them in a mighty big way?]

[And don't we have to win the war in Afghanistan before we forge a peace?]

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

[This country has never been indifferent to the suffering of the world's poor. The U.S. is the world's most charitable nation ever.]

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

[My understanding is that military families voted overwhelmingly for Bush.]

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it).”

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

[A little Shakespeare here. Richard the III?]

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Turn off the TV…or put it on mute.

I watched the screen stricken with dread. I might have to wait eight long years–a lifetime–before I see the back of this guy. I am astounded that my middle age may pass away with this man in the White House. Now I’m listening to another lecture. Another humorless, self-righteous, immodest, self-congratulatory speech to tens of thousands of fans hypnotized by a cult of personality. It’s like a rock concert. He’s not even president yet and I can’t stand listening to him. But its not over yet. Joe Biden has a few brief, coherent remarks to make. He’s begun to speak…and speak….and…little by little everything fades out. What did this Biden say?

He said that he would sermonize every day before heading home on the Amtrak to his wife. No, that’s not it. He said he was going to give a sermon only on the days that the president takes a day off from giving speeches. No, that’s not it either.

I’m already counting the days.

Better turn off the TV or put it on mute.

Powell Weighs In…

The most revealing thing about Colin Powell’s announcement today on Meet the Press is not that he endorsed Barak Obama. This election cycle has seen its fair share of defections from one party to another. Joe Lieberman, the Democrats’ choice for Vice President, endorsed John McCain. And it’s no secret that both parties have disgruntled members. John McCain was one of them.

What is revealing about Powell’s announcement is why he waited so long. Was he really undecided until this weekend? The most likely answer is that he wanted to endorse him all along, and was too cautious to do it earlier, when Obama’s polling statistics were weaker than they are now. If Obama were losing would he have made the same decision, or would he have just kept his real feelings to himself?

Powell is bothered that more conservatives will be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court if John McCain wins. Why is he concerned? He doesn’t say. His next point is that he doesn’t like McCain’s campaign. It’s too narrow for him, and he doesn’t like the fact that McCain is trying to get people focused on what little record Barak Obama has. The fact is that Obama’s been involved with individuals whose political views are very far out of the mainstream. It’s a fact. It’s his record. There is a huge disconnect between the image Obama has crafted for this campaign and the last thirty years of his life. Why does Obama run away from it?

Why is it “narrow” for McCain to bring it up? What should John McCain talk about? Should John McCain go through the entire Democratic platform point by point and discuss it on TV? The fact is that Obama’s associations are embarrassing, and, when looked at in their entirety, are revealing. The image Obama has crafted for himself has been purchased with at least a half a billion dollars. The “temperament” that Powell so highly praises is an image that has been purchased. Obama is a commercial. He is a brand. Is it so shiny and glamorous that Powell cannot see through it?

Harvard Dean Says SAT ‘Imprecise’

Here’s a quick quiz:

The SAT is _____________ measure a student’s academic potential.

a) a blunt tool that claims to

b) an imprecise tool that purports to

c) a test created by The College Board, a firm that possesses a monopoly on college admissions tests, which purports to

d) a fatuous waste of time that purports to

For any student who has had to prepare for and suffer through the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), a recent conference held in Seattle to discuss the value of the test and its proper role in the college admissions process is cause for celebration. Many of the 5,500 conference participants agreed with Harvard Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons’s presentation, which laid out the findings of a commission he led to study the use and misuse of standardized tests in the college admissions process. According to the article in the New York Times, the commission found that the SAT was “‘incredibly imprecise’ when it comes to measuring academic ability and how well students will perform in college.” According to the commission, one of the reasons the test is imprecise is because test prep courses can often raise students’ scores dramatically, giving wealthy students an unfair advantage over the rest.

But that’s not the end of it.

In my view the test is imprecise because it cannot substantively (as opposed to statistically) distinguish between two students with similar scores–whether they have had equally good test preparation or not. The SAT is very good at identifying two types of students: the very intelligent and the unintelligent. A student who receives a 1600 combined score, whatever their high school grades may be, has intellectual ability. A student who gets a 200 combined score, on the other hand, is probably pretty dumb. But you don’t need to give an idiot the SATs to figure out they’re an idiot, and anyway, most of us score somewhere in the middle. What’s the difference between a student who receives a 1100 combined score and another who gets a 1300? The answer: maybe three or four questions.

More troubling is that the centrality of the SAT in college admissions sends students the message that there is only one right answer (or one ‘best answer,’ which–on a standardized test–is a distinction without a difference) to important questions. This is the most pernicious effect of the test and particularly deleterious because a bright mind should know that only the most trivial questions have a single solution. When, year after year, we reward a new group of students who have a gift for solving problems that have appeared in basically the same form for decades, isn’t it possible that the smart students we are promoting all think alike? Over time, this dynamic perpetuates itself, and could result in a form of “high level mediocrity.”

How did the SAT become so important? One reason could be the self-perpetuating cycle I mentioned above, but I suspect that over the years the SAT rose in importance as our secondary schools fell in quality. This, combined with grade inflation, made it too difficult for admissions people to figure out what a candidate knew. For a while, the SAT must have given them a way to do a reality check. In 2008, however, we know our secondary schools are lacking in some pretty big ways. Instead of encouraging students to memorize vocabulary words and attend costly test prep courses, we should be reforming our schools.

By the way, the correct answer is C.

Who Won the First Debate?

Since the mainstream media decided the Barak Obama won the first debate, I won’t question their judgment in this post. I mean, after all, they know best, right? Still, while most of the United States knows by now that Barak Obama is running against John McCain, I wonder whether either Obama or the mainstream media knows who they are running against. During the debate, it sounded like Obama thought he was running against George Bush. One example: Barak Obama was still arguing with the decision to liberate Iraq. Eventually McCain said, “The next president will not have to make that decision.” Perhaps you can come up with other examples.

The trick of not only to making John McCain into George Bush but running against him is one that could only be accomplished by the Obama campaign and the mainstream media together. The time to have debated the wisdom of liberating Iraq was in 2004. If voters had wanted to change course and end the war, they could have done so then. As it turned out, they didn’t want John Kerry, they didn’t want to end the war, and the voters, in their wisdom, decided that they would give Mr. Bush another go at it. My recollection is that Iraq was the single biggest issue of that election, and the Democrats lost. My point is, that debate is over. No amount of wishing will turn back the clock, and no amount of prayer will transubstantiate John McCain into George Bush.

To me, John McCain came off as incredibly knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Barak Obama came off sounding like he was well-read, -briefed, and -coached. John McCain told us that he had been to nearly every hot spot on the globe; Barak Obama, on the other hand, spent the last few days brushing-up on world affairs in Florida–a hot spot to be sure–but one of a very different kind.

At the first debate, John McCain could not hide his annoyance with his opponent’s naiveté at times. And while I understand why, I do worry that it will make him seem less likable than his opponent, a man who himself seems so detached and unemotional at times that he risks seeming too analytical. Seen from this angle, was Barak Obama’s detachment was an effective counter to McCain’s intensity?

Game Changer

The mainstream media has tried mightily to spin the financial crisis as a positive for Barak Obama. The reasoning goes like this. It’s complicated, subtle, and very profound. But try as hard as you can to follow it. Sen. McCain is really the same as George Bush. In case you missed that I’ll repeat. Sen. McCain is really George Bush in disguise. And since George Bush is disliked by many Americans, and since the financial crisis occurred during George Bush’s presidency, it follows that………….John McCain is somehow responsible for the financial crisis! Amazing, isn’t it? The depth of the learning, the elegance of the logic. And all this from a Harvard Law graduate!

OK. Now, when Barak Obama gave his speech in Denver a few weeks ago (it seems like years ago, though doesn’t it?) his plans for the country were so grand that even my seven year old son didn’t think they’d happen. I don’t know. Maybe the altitude gets to out-of-towners and impairs their judgment to the point that they’ll believe anything. Or maybe they just don’t get it. Either way, Congress, the last two administrations (that means Clinton’s and yes Bush’s), and some of our captains of industry have a lot to answer for in this latest financial crisis. I’ve thought about this and I don’t know what you think, but the root cause of this problem is more than bad loans. At heart it’s a fundamental lack of trust in our elected officials and their political appointees. Right now, the markets and investors don’t trust them, and we’re feeling the pain. Our financial system is based on trust.

The next Administration and Congress will have plenty of time to hold Enron-style hearings and sober committees to “get to the bottom of this,” and although I have complete faith in their ability to do the former, the latter is another story because they are part of the problem. What to do? We need leadership. Leadership is not getting up on stage and shouting “Yes we can,” “Change we can believe in,” “This election is about you,” or “This is our time.” It’s also not about making promises to the effect that the government will take care of everyone’s healthcare, pay for your child’s college tuition, buy you a house, heal the earth, cut your taxes, and pay for your retirement. All of that’s out the window now. The game has changed.

Character is the Most Important Qualification for President

The Republican Convention has done a heck of a job unifying around their candidates.

Rudy’s speech kept me thinking about the central question of this election: what are the qualifications for holding the nation’s highest office?

Rudy derided Obama’s lack of executive experience. For Rudy, executive experience the key qualification and differentiator between the candidates. After all, he did say both men were equally patriotic. And I gathered that for Rudy, executive experience is primarily about leadership. I paraphrase Rudy: “[Obama] has never run a city, he’s never run a state, he’s never run a business, and he’s never run a military unit.” If you left out military unit, who would that describe? Let me see, hummmmmm. Maybe three of the four candidates?

Senators don’t lead people the way an executive must: it’s not their job. It all comes back to the question of what are the qualifications for holding the nation’s highest office. Everyone has their own opinion. My view is that moral character is the indispensable qualification, without which experience and leadership skills are meaningless. I discern a person’s character when I discover what specific political positions they consistently hold and defend. Politicians sometimes like to say that they never violate their principles. That’s good, but it’s not good enough. For me, McCain has the edge as far as character is concerned.