Liebherr shows off the power of their Excavator (that's backhoe to you non-construction people). I promise you this is the coolest thing you have seen all day!
Friday, September 25, 2009
Worthless Indoctrination
No doubt by now just about everybody is aware of the video showing the schoolchildren being taught, and subsequently singing, a glorifying song about Barack Obama.
It would be hardly appropriate to address the existence of this video, without addressing the items that Zennie Abraham has pointed to today in responding to what he somehow perceives is a racially motivated witchunt on Michelle Malkin's part in her coverage of the video. The first is video that Abraham brings up is one of kids at Jesus Camp being directed to praise President Bush.
The second item is a song that kids were taught for an appearance by Laura Bush, praising Congree, FEMA and Bush for their work after Katrina.
This has been the big argument from all who are outraged at the Obama Song video. This is happening in public schools, funded by taxpayer dollars. Many have argued that this has never happened before. This is where Abraham's citations are important. He is showing us, even though his point is ignorant of anything that matters, that this has in fact, happened before. This is where his citing the FEMA song is much more pertinent, and where his closing reprimand of Malkin would carry some weight, if only his own argument weren't one rooted in race relations.
The reason is simple. There is always an indoctrination of the young that takes place in any learning setting. We have all gone to school and been taught songs glorifying the United States. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, America the Beautiful, the Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America. The list is endless. But the list is full of important songs. Every song instills in us a sense of pride for liberty, for freedom, and love for the beautiful country we call home. Such feelings indoctrinated into us are feelings that inspire us throughout our lifetimes to live lives of purpose, and act with reverence for where we live. The bravest and most dedicated amongst us choose to go into service to defend our highest principles of freedom and liberty.
The types of songs I've listed above are the songs of my childhood that still fill me with pride. Every now and then, they can be sung so beautifully as to raise goosebumps on one's skin, or to bring a tear to one's eye. All of them were written for this purpose. All were intended to instill a lifelong love of the United States of America into the listener, a love that would run deeper than any personal disagreement with the politics of our leaders. All were intended to unify us in common song, in common reverence for our principles.
As innocuous as something like a cute song being made up by teachers to show reverence to a visiting president, any visiting president, may seem to some folks, we have to recognize that everything of this sort is indoctrination, whether intended to be or not. And in the end, the indocrination of the minds of the youth toward an individual is particularly dangerous, not only for the health of the country, but for the health of the minds of the children.
A simple question can be posed. If time is spent now glorifying Barack Obama in the minds of those kids, what then are those kids going to think in three more years if Barack Obama is no longer the President? Likely they will wonder with disillusionment where their leader went. Perhaps some of them may become resentful, having been taught to equate the United States of America with Barack Obama. Thus their love of country would become damaged, and a longer period of readjustment to the realities of a republic would need to take place. The practice in general becomes divisive for the country as a whole.
This is the case for educators of any persuasion. Indocrination of a love of the United States of America as a land of freedom and prosperity and opportunity can instill a sense of team unity that will transcend political differences for a lifetime. Indoctrination of love for individuals can only be damaging, and in the end, worthless.
It would be hardly appropriate to address the existence of this video, without addressing the items that Zennie Abraham has pointed to today in responding to what he somehow perceives is a racially motivated witchunt on Michelle Malkin's part in her coverage of the video. The first is video that Abraham brings up is one of kids at Jesus Camp being directed to praise President Bush.
The second item is a song that kids were taught for an appearance by Laura Bush, praising Congree, FEMA and Bush for their work after Katrina.
Our country stood beside usNow, first of all, I would be remiss in allowing Zennie Abraham off the hook for his claiming that Michelle Malkin's coverage of the Obama Song video is racially motivated. His own argument falls under its own weight.
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us,
our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join
them hand-in-hand!
Now I'd bet Michelle would say, "Aww, that's so cute!" Why? Because the kids are white and its George Bush? Yeah, right. And so there's the racial problem - she can ignore singing if its done by white school kids praising a white Republican President, but if the subject's America's first black President, she gets really mad.First of all, apparently Mr. Abraham is color-blind himself, and didn't notice the african american boy in the video he brings to our attention. Who knows, perhaps he assumes the boy is a "token" included for purposes of diversity by the filmmakers? Doubtful given the boy's exuberance in his praises for God. More to the point, however, to move out of the useless realm of racial politics, it is important to point out that Mr. Abraham's video is from a religious camp, and not a public school. Children there are being indoctrinated in their families' faith in a private setting.
This has been the big argument from all who are outraged at the Obama Song video. This is happening in public schools, funded by taxpayer dollars. Many have argued that this has never happened before. This is where Abraham's citations are important. He is showing us, even though his point is ignorant of anything that matters, that this has in fact, happened before. This is where his citing the FEMA song is much more pertinent, and where his closing reprimand of Malkin would carry some weight, if only his own argument weren't one rooted in race relations.
You've got no choice here; no cherry picking. Either accept them all, or denounce them all.The answer, of course, is that everyone should denounce such individualized indoctrination. This is not something that a Democrat should look at and say is OK just because it's Barack Obama. Neither is the FEMA song something a Republican should defend just because it was George Bush. Both Republicans and Democrats absolutely must discourage such behavior on the part of our educators, whether public educators, like those in the Obama and FEMA songs, or private educators, like those in the Jesus Camp video.
The reason is simple. There is always an indoctrination of the young that takes place in any learning setting. We have all gone to school and been taught songs glorifying the United States. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, America the Beautiful, the Star Spangled Banner, God Bless America. The list is endless. But the list is full of important songs. Every song instills in us a sense of pride for liberty, for freedom, and love for the beautiful country we call home. Such feelings indoctrinated into us are feelings that inspire us throughout our lifetimes to live lives of purpose, and act with reverence for where we live. The bravest and most dedicated amongst us choose to go into service to defend our highest principles of freedom and liberty.
The types of songs I've listed above are the songs of my childhood that still fill me with pride. Every now and then, they can be sung so beautifully as to raise goosebumps on one's skin, or to bring a tear to one's eye. All of them were written for this purpose. All were intended to instill a lifelong love of the United States of America into the listener, a love that would run deeper than any personal disagreement with the politics of our leaders. All were intended to unify us in common song, in common reverence for our principles.
As innocuous as something like a cute song being made up by teachers to show reverence to a visiting president, any visiting president, may seem to some folks, we have to recognize that everything of this sort is indoctrination, whether intended to be or not. And in the end, the indocrination of the minds of the youth toward an individual is particularly dangerous, not only for the health of the country, but for the health of the minds of the children.
A simple question can be posed. If time is spent now glorifying Barack Obama in the minds of those kids, what then are those kids going to think in three more years if Barack Obama is no longer the President? Likely they will wonder with disillusionment where their leader went. Perhaps some of them may become resentful, having been taught to equate the United States of America with Barack Obama. Thus their love of country would become damaged, and a longer period of readjustment to the realities of a republic would need to take place. The practice in general becomes divisive for the country as a whole.
This is the case for educators of any persuasion. Indocrination of a love of the United States of America as a land of freedom and prosperity and opportunity can instill a sense of team unity that will transcend political differences for a lifetime. Indoctrination of love for individuals can only be damaging, and in the end, worthless.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Time Is Now
Back in April, I began to take notice of bubbles forming in the bottom of our great melting pot. Anticipating the rolling boil that would come to pass over this past great summer, I wrote about HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency, and called it History in the Making. In five short months, the bill has gone from 91 cosponsors (a significant number on any bill to begin with) to 290 cosponsors. It is accompanied by a sister-bill in the Senate, S 604, which has garnered 27 cosponsors.
HR 1207 has garnered widespread support for one very simple reason. The Federal Reserve is accountable to no one. Whether one is of an Austrian leaning economically, and wants this country to follow the moral path of sound money, or one is a ruthless big government zealot foolishly hoping for more political control of monetary policy (as if this were possible), the attraction for transparency is universal.
Some, like Henry Bee, argue that an open and transparent audit of the Federal Reserve would be "economic suicide." I have countered those arguments, and subsequently gone on to have a comment-battle with Mr. Bee over the issue in this post.
All of the talk, all of the Tea Parties, all of the grass-roots activism pulling in support for HR 1207 has worked. The time is now for HR 1207. Tomorrow, Friday morning, September 25th, the House Committee on Financial Services is holding hearings on HR 1207.
The show begins at 9:00 AM EST and will be broadcast live on the web. Go here to check it out. Even if you don't really care about it, think of it as a gameshow hosted by Barney Frank. Then you can laugh on a Friday morning!
HR 1207 has garnered widespread support for one very simple reason. The Federal Reserve is accountable to no one. Whether one is of an Austrian leaning economically, and wants this country to follow the moral path of sound money, or one is a ruthless big government zealot foolishly hoping for more political control of monetary policy (as if this were possible), the attraction for transparency is universal.
Some, like Henry Bee, argue that an open and transparent audit of the Federal Reserve would be "economic suicide." I have countered those arguments, and subsequently gone on to have a comment-battle with Mr. Bee over the issue in this post.
All of the talk, all of the Tea Parties, all of the grass-roots activism pulling in support for HR 1207 has worked. The time is now for HR 1207. Tomorrow, Friday morning, September 25th, the House Committee on Financial Services is holding hearings on HR 1207.
The show begins at 9:00 AM EST and will be broadcast live on the web. Go here to check it out. Even if you don't really care about it, think of it as a gameshow hosted by Barney Frank. Then you can laugh on a Friday morning!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
What's Ten Years?
When you have this kind of power?
Lost Decade, here we come.
The Lost Decade (失われた10年, ushinawareta jūnen) is the time after the Japanese asset price bubble's collapse (崩壊, hōkai), which occurred gradually rather than catastrophically.
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve acknowledged Wednesday that an economic recovery was under way, but signaled that it was still much too early to start raising interest rates.
In a statement following a two-day meeting by the Fed’s policy makers, the central bank repeated that it would keep its benchmark overnight interest rate at virtually zero for “an extended period.” That almost certainly means until at least some time in 2010.
Lost Decade, here we come.
The Lost Decade (失われた10年, ushinawareta jūnen) is the time after the Japanese asset price bubble's collapse (崩壊, hōkai), which occurred gradually rather than catastrophically.
The Lost Decade consists of the years 1991 to 2000. [1]
The strong economic growth of the 1980s ended abruptly at the start of the 1990s. In the late 1980s, abnormalities within the Japanese economic system had fueled a massive wave of speculation by Japanese companies, banks and securities companies. A combination of exceptionally high land values and exceptionally low interest rates briefly led to a position in which credit was both easily available and extremely cheap. This led to massive borrowing, the proceeds of which were invested mostly in domestic and foreign stocks and securities.
Recognizing that this bubble was unsustainable, the Finance Ministry sharply raised interest rates in late 1989. This abruptly terminated the bubble, leading to a massive crash in the stock market. It also led to a debt crisis; a large proportion of the debts that had been run up turned bad, which in turn led to a crisis in the banking sector, with many banks being bailed out by the government.
Michael Schuman of Time Magazine noted that banks kept injecting new funds into unprofitable "zombie firms" to keep them afloat, arguing that they were too big to fail. However, most of these companies were too debt-ridden to do much more than survive on further bailouts, which led to an economist describing Japan as a "loser's paradise." Schuman states that Japan's economy did not begin to recover until this practice had ended.
Common Sense Setting In
Gregg Easterbook writes a weekly column for ESPN.com called Tuesday Morning Quarterback. Aside from being a great read with an interesting perspective on football, the article is often interwoven with Easterbrook's political musings. I've read him for close to ten years now and I'd say he leans moderately to the left, in the old style, JFK Democrat manner. This hasn't stopped him catching a few annoying bouts of BDS over the past year or two, though. Now it seems, however, that the common sense bug is biting a pop culture liberal, as he turns a critical eye toward President Obama, focusing in first on his incessant speech-giving, and later on the incredible beauracracy that continues to unfold.
President Obama -- Stop Talking! In the first half of the George W. Bush administration, when the 43rd president was popular, Bush spent a great deal of time traveling around the United States giving speeches: sometimes advocating various causes, sometimes at fundraisers, sometimes simply appearing before some organization. That any president should use the public's time -- and the million-a-day cost of moving and protecting the president -- at partisan political fundraisers is offensive. All postwar presidents, Democratic and Republican, have appeared at partisan fundraisers at taxpayers' expense, and TMQ thinks this should be banned. Some Bush speaking appearances became controversial, when the Secret Service or Republican Party operatives tried to forbid anyone critical of Bush from entering the speech locations. But the key point was not that Bush was making speeches under questionable circumstances; the key point was that he was making way too many speeches, period. Ultimately, substituting speechifying for governing diminished Bush's presidency. Now Barack Obama has started down the same path.
Merely in the past two weeks, President Obama has given a major health care address to Congress, a major address on bank regulation on Wall Street, a speech to the nation's schoolchildren (who were considerably better behaved than Congress), a major address on the economy to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, a speech on health care in Minneapolis, a speech on health care at the University of Maryland, a speech marking the anniversary of 9/11, a speech to the UAW at an auto plant in Lordstown, Ohio, a speech in New York honoring Walter Cronkite, a speech at an Arlen Specter fundraiser in Philadelphia, a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (it's not a caucus, it's a Caucus Institute), a speech at a picnic in Cincinnati, a speech lauding a posthumous winner of the Medal of Honor, a speech about community colleges in Troy, N.Y., and a major speech on climate change at the United Nations. You can track presidential speechmaking here. This paragraph lists only his prepared speeches at public events: I exclude media appearances and informal presidential remarks during the greeting of world leaders, literary figures or sports teams. Obama is making way too many speeches.
The first reason he's making too many speeches is that speechifying is time-consuming. Writers prepare the texts, but Obama must think about what he wants to say; rehearse what the writers come up with; travel to the speech location; give the speech and travel back. A speechmaking appearance outside the nation's capital pretty much nails the day. Obama's trip to Los Angeles to give a speech and appear on "The Tonight Show" nailed two days, taking jet lag into account. Just because jets make travel convenient -- when FDR left on the battleship Iowa to attend the 1943 Tehran Conference of Allied leaders, his travel time each way was more than a week -- does not mean constant flying around is sensible. When does Obama have time to do the actual work of governing?
The next concern is that too-frequent speechmaking devalues the presidential voice. When the president speaks occasionally, he commands attention; a president who speaks all the time becomes just another clanging cymbal in the background yammer. I bet Obama gives 10 speeches for every one given by John Kennedy. At the current rate, by 2010, an Obama speech will no longer be viewed as an important moment.
More than this is the concern that speeches are stage-managed to stroke the president's ego, which is the last thing any chief executive of either party needs. There's always an adoring crowd, waving banners, saluting soldiers, with thunderous applause. Surely all recent presidents come away from such stage-managed speeches thinking, "They love me!" Surely the younger George Bush gave so many speeches in his first term because it was flattering to his ego to be surrounded by cheering crowds who would clap loudly even for inutile banalities. But the office of the presidency isn't about fun for its holder. Bush wanted to give speeches to sympathetic crowds to make himself feel good. If Obama is speechifying for the same reason, this does not speak well of him.
Most important, too-frequent speeches turn the president into an actor reading lines. Barack Obama's job is not to get applause: his job is to improve the country. But improving the country is pretty challenging, whereas going out and getting applause is a snap. We don't yet know if Obama can reform health care or negotiate with hostile powers or reduce the national debt; we know for sure he can get applause. It's disturbing to see him spending so much time and energy chasing ovations, which have zero lasting value, while putting off the real work of reform. A president who gives speeches all the time becomes a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk but never gets around to accomplishing anything. For Bush, by his third year in office, his road speeches sounded like he was campaigning -- he would speak vaguely about an agenda while wagging his finger against Washington, skipping the complication that he was in charge of Washington. This is already creeping into Obama's speechmaking. Lately he has been wagging his finger about "folks in Washington" as though he's not one of them, to say nothing of Folk Number One.
One of the core realities of politics is that it is a thousand times easier to campaign than to govern. Sarah Palin quit being a governor because that's a lot of work, the work requires you to cooperate with opponents, and you're held accountable. In campaign speeches, by contrast, you can denounce opponents and promise the moon, but never take responsibility. Being president of the United States is a huge amount of work. Giving speeches and being love-bombed by adoring audiences sure sounds like a more pleasing way to spend the day. It's time Barack Obama stopped giving so many speeches and concentrated on leadership.
Will The Car Czar's Children Inherit His Title? Right now, Glenn Beck and others on the right are obsessing about President Obama having too many czars, some of whom are not Senate-confirmed. Is this shocking? As Paul Light of New York University showed in his 1999 book "The True Size of Government," the number of political appointees directly controlled by the president is surprisingly small, fewer than 3,000 positions. Most Washington executive officials are civil servants, military personnel or foreign-service officers, over whom the White House has suasion but not hiring-and-firing authority. It does not offend me that the president grants portfolios to advisers: I am not clear on why this offends Beck, other than, perhaps, he needs his rabies booster shot. Conservatives rarely object when governmental czars behave like actual czars, such as in 2002, when Tom Ridge was George W. Bush's security czar and was busily approving restrictions on civil liberties. But I do worry that recent presidents have too much redundant overlap among councils, directors, czars and czarinas, and that Obama is worsening this trend, which seems most pronounced in intelligence, economics and environmental policy. Consider:
Obama has an Environmental Protection Agency, plus a Council on Environmental Quality chaired by Nancy Sutley, plus a White House-level special environmental adviser, TMQ's pal Carol Browner, plus environmental divisions in the departments of Energy, Transportation and Interior, plus a Fish and Wildlife Service, plus a Bureau of Land Management. He has a Treasury Department, plus a Federal Reserve, plus a Council of Economic Advisers chaired by Christina Romer, plus a National Economic Policy Council chaired by Lawrence Summers, plus a White House special economics adviser, Paul Volcker, plus an Office of the Trade Representative, which does economic policy. The Council of Economic Advisers has, in turn, its own staff of economic statisticians, though an entire Bureau of Labor Statistics exists to compile economic data, while the Federal Reserve also has an econ stats division. What do such overlapping advisers and councils do? Fight for the president's attention.
Overlap is worst on the security, military and intelligence fronts, where the top of the United States government increasingly looks like a scene that Gilbert & Sullivan cut from "H.M.S. Pinafore" as unrealistic. Obama has a Secretary of Defense, a Secretary of State, a CIA director, a Director of National Intelligence, a National Security Adviser, a National Security Council, a President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a President's Intelligence Oversight Board, a National Security Agency, a Defense Intelligence Agency, separate Air Force, Navy and Army intelligence commands, a National Counterterrorism Center, a Department of Energy Office of Intelligence, an FBI Directorate of Intelligence, a State Department Intelligence and Research branch, a Treasury Department Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, an Office of National Security Intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration, an Office of Intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, a Secret Service, a National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and a National Reconnaissance Office. All these in turn have their own internal hierarchies: For instance, the Treasury Department Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has a Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Office of the Secretary.
Several of these top-heavy, intersecting security and intelligence entities were created in the wake of 9/11, apparently on the assumption that terrorists would be afraid of very large, slow-moving bureaucracies. Though the United States already had a CIA director, whose grand formal title is Director of Central Intelligence, in 2004, Congress added the Director of National Intelligence; at the time, Tuesday Morning Quarterback quipped that the new official should be dubbed the Director of the Director of Central Intelligence. On paper, the Director of National Intelligence is superior to the CIA director, so surely you know who this august individual is. One canny tactic of the Director of National Intelligence is to post our antiterrorism strategy on the Web, complete with colorful graphics. Are the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of Central Intelligence working together tirelessly in the national interest? No, they are engaged in a childish food fight regarding who gets to sign memos. You can bet all the overlapping councils and directorates spend as much time in turf wars regarding trite markers of personal prestige, such as sitting close to the president during photo-ops, as they do in service to the taxpayer.
President Obama -- Stop Talking! In the first half of the George W. Bush administration, when the 43rd president was popular, Bush spent a great deal of time traveling around the United States giving speeches: sometimes advocating various causes, sometimes at fundraisers, sometimes simply appearing before some organization. That any president should use the public's time -- and the million-a-day cost of moving and protecting the president -- at partisan political fundraisers is offensive. All postwar presidents, Democratic and Republican, have appeared at partisan fundraisers at taxpayers' expense, and TMQ thinks this should be banned. Some Bush speaking appearances became controversial, when the Secret Service or Republican Party operatives tried to forbid anyone critical of Bush from entering the speech locations. But the key point was not that Bush was making speeches under questionable circumstances; the key point was that he was making way too many speeches, period. Ultimately, substituting speechifying for governing diminished Bush's presidency. Now Barack Obama has started down the same path.
Merely in the past two weeks, President Obama has given a major health care address to Congress, a major address on bank regulation on Wall Street, a speech to the nation's schoolchildren (who were considerably better behaved than Congress), a major address on the economy to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, a speech on health care in Minneapolis, a speech on health care at the University of Maryland, a speech marking the anniversary of 9/11, a speech to the UAW at an auto plant in Lordstown, Ohio, a speech in New York honoring Walter Cronkite, a speech at an Arlen Specter fundraiser in Philadelphia, a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (it's not a caucus, it's a Caucus Institute), a speech at a picnic in Cincinnati, a speech lauding a posthumous winner of the Medal of Honor, a speech about community colleges in Troy, N.Y., and a major speech on climate change at the United Nations. You can track presidential speechmaking here. This paragraph lists only his prepared speeches at public events: I exclude media appearances and informal presidential remarks during the greeting of world leaders, literary figures or sports teams. Obama is making way too many speeches.
The first reason he's making too many speeches is that speechifying is time-consuming. Writers prepare the texts, but Obama must think about what he wants to say; rehearse what the writers come up with; travel to the speech location; give the speech and travel back. A speechmaking appearance outside the nation's capital pretty much nails the day. Obama's trip to Los Angeles to give a speech and appear on "The Tonight Show" nailed two days, taking jet lag into account. Just because jets make travel convenient -- when FDR left on the battleship Iowa to attend the 1943 Tehran Conference of Allied leaders, his travel time each way was more than a week -- does not mean constant flying around is sensible. When does Obama have time to do the actual work of governing?
The next concern is that too-frequent speechmaking devalues the presidential voice. When the president speaks occasionally, he commands attention; a president who speaks all the time becomes just another clanging cymbal in the background yammer. I bet Obama gives 10 speeches for every one given by John Kennedy. At the current rate, by 2010, an Obama speech will no longer be viewed as an important moment.
More than this is the concern that speeches are stage-managed to stroke the president's ego, which is the last thing any chief executive of either party needs. There's always an adoring crowd, waving banners, saluting soldiers, with thunderous applause. Surely all recent presidents come away from such stage-managed speeches thinking, "They love me!" Surely the younger George Bush gave so many speeches in his first term because it was flattering to his ego to be surrounded by cheering crowds who would clap loudly even for inutile banalities. But the office of the presidency isn't about fun for its holder. Bush wanted to give speeches to sympathetic crowds to make himself feel good. If Obama is speechifying for the same reason, this does not speak well of him.
Most important, too-frequent speeches turn the president into an actor reading lines. Barack Obama's job is not to get applause: his job is to improve the country. But improving the country is pretty challenging, whereas going out and getting applause is a snap. We don't yet know if Obama can reform health care or negotiate with hostile powers or reduce the national debt; we know for sure he can get applause. It's disturbing to see him spending so much time and energy chasing ovations, which have zero lasting value, while putting off the real work of reform. A president who gives speeches all the time becomes a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk but never gets around to accomplishing anything. For Bush, by his third year in office, his road speeches sounded like he was campaigning -- he would speak vaguely about an agenda while wagging his finger against Washington, skipping the complication that he was in charge of Washington. This is already creeping into Obama's speechmaking. Lately he has been wagging his finger about "folks in Washington" as though he's not one of them, to say nothing of Folk Number One.
One of the core realities of politics is that it is a thousand times easier to campaign than to govern. Sarah Palin quit being a governor because that's a lot of work, the work requires you to cooperate with opponents, and you're held accountable. In campaign speeches, by contrast, you can denounce opponents and promise the moon, but never take responsibility. Being president of the United States is a huge amount of work. Giving speeches and being love-bombed by adoring audiences sure sounds like a more pleasing way to spend the day. It's time Barack Obama stopped giving so many speeches and concentrated on leadership.
Will The Car Czar's Children Inherit His Title? Right now, Glenn Beck and others on the right are obsessing about President Obama having too many czars, some of whom are not Senate-confirmed. Is this shocking? As Paul Light of New York University showed in his 1999 book "The True Size of Government," the number of political appointees directly controlled by the president is surprisingly small, fewer than 3,000 positions. Most Washington executive officials are civil servants, military personnel or foreign-service officers, over whom the White House has suasion but not hiring-and-firing authority. It does not offend me that the president grants portfolios to advisers: I am not clear on why this offends Beck, other than, perhaps, he needs his rabies booster shot. Conservatives rarely object when governmental czars behave like actual czars, such as in 2002, when Tom Ridge was George W. Bush's security czar and was busily approving restrictions on civil liberties. But I do worry that recent presidents have too much redundant overlap among councils, directors, czars and czarinas, and that Obama is worsening this trend, which seems most pronounced in intelligence, economics and environmental policy. Consider:
Obama has an Environmental Protection Agency, plus a Council on Environmental Quality chaired by Nancy Sutley, plus a White House-level special environmental adviser, TMQ's pal Carol Browner, plus environmental divisions in the departments of Energy, Transportation and Interior, plus a Fish and Wildlife Service, plus a Bureau of Land Management. He has a Treasury Department, plus a Federal Reserve, plus a Council of Economic Advisers chaired by Christina Romer, plus a National Economic Policy Council chaired by Lawrence Summers, plus a White House special economics adviser, Paul Volcker, plus an Office of the Trade Representative, which does economic policy. The Council of Economic Advisers has, in turn, its own staff of economic statisticians, though an entire Bureau of Labor Statistics exists to compile economic data, while the Federal Reserve also has an econ stats division. What do such overlapping advisers and councils do? Fight for the president's attention.
Overlap is worst on the security, military and intelligence fronts, where the top of the United States government increasingly looks like a scene that Gilbert & Sullivan cut from "H.M.S. Pinafore" as unrealistic. Obama has a Secretary of Defense, a Secretary of State, a CIA director, a Director of National Intelligence, a National Security Adviser, a National Security Council, a President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a President's Intelligence Oversight Board, a National Security Agency, a Defense Intelligence Agency, separate Air Force, Navy and Army intelligence commands, a National Counterterrorism Center, a Department of Energy Office of Intelligence, an FBI Directorate of Intelligence, a State Department Intelligence and Research branch, a Treasury Department Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, an Office of National Security Intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration, an Office of Intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, a Secret Service, a National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and a National Reconnaissance Office. All these in turn have their own internal hierarchies: For instance, the Treasury Department Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has a Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Office of the Secretary.
Several of these top-heavy, intersecting security and intelligence entities were created in the wake of 9/11, apparently on the assumption that terrorists would be afraid of very large, slow-moving bureaucracies. Though the United States already had a CIA director, whose grand formal title is Director of Central Intelligence, in 2004, Congress added the Director of National Intelligence; at the time, Tuesday Morning Quarterback quipped that the new official should be dubbed the Director of the Director of Central Intelligence. On paper, the Director of National Intelligence is superior to the CIA director, so surely you know who this august individual is. One canny tactic of the Director of National Intelligence is to post our antiterrorism strategy on the Web, complete with colorful graphics. Are the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of Central Intelligence working together tirelessly in the national interest? No, they are engaged in a childish food fight regarding who gets to sign memos. You can bet all the overlapping councils and directorates spend as much time in turf wars regarding trite markers of personal prestige, such as sitting close to the president during photo-ops, as they do in service to the taxpayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
