The US Postal Service is contemplating increasing postage rates and eliminating Saturday delivery.  Really?  They lost approximately $4 billion last year.  But don’t worry the CEO got a bonus.  It is reported that their labor costs, heavily unionized, exceed 80% of revenues.  Did you know that the only place where unionization is growing is in the public sector?  Union representation in the public sector surpassed the private sector for the first time this year.

But don’t worry, President Obama has a handle on it.  He appointed Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union to the board to figure out how to reduce the deficit.  Do you see a problem between these two news items?  Can you see a problem with the objectives of an Andy Stern and you and me?

As a side note, Rick Perry just won the Republican primary for governor of Texas and in his campaign he used no yard signs, no phone banks, and no direct mail.  As one comentator said “paper is dead.”

I know this is completely anecdotal, but my local post office just completed an expansion project increasing the size of the building.  I have noticed more than one post office being expanded as well.  Again, this is just my limited, personal observation, not a scientific study, but with the drop in mail volume, “paper is dead”, $4 billion in losses, performance bonuses for lackluster performance, heavy unionization, am I being unreasonable in thinking the government couldn’t handle health care even if it was a good idea?

Just what is a czar anyway?  And I am not talking about the Russian royal family.  A czar is essentially a presidential advisor.  Take a moment to think about that.  Why does President Obama need to appoint 32, give or take, czars in his administration?  Could it be that he really, really needs a lot of advising?

In the campaign, the main stream media, somehow diverted the attention away from Obama’s glaring lack of experience as the Presidential candidate and put all their focus on Sarah Palin’s “lack of experience.”  Sarah Palin had more executive experience as a sitting governor and I emphasize executive experience, than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined.

But the media tut-tutted, and said “it’s only Alaska,” as for her mayoral experience, “it was a very small town.”  When Obama slipped his teleprompter and tried to claim he was running a very large organization, his campaign, it was laughable.  But don’t worry, he had Joe Biden to lean on.  I feel better.

Presidents and The Experience They Brought With Them

Let’s take a look back at past elected presidents and the executive experience they brought to office:

• George W. Bush — Governor of  Texas
• Bill Clinton — Governor of Arkansas
• George H. W. Bush — Vice President of the United States, Head of the CIA
• Ronald Reagan — Governor of California
• Jimmy Carter — Governor of Georgia
• Richard Nixon — Vice President of the United States
• Lyndon Johnson — Vice President of the United States
• John F. Kennedy — None.  He was a legislator and his inexperience nearly got us annihilated with the Cuban Missle Crisis, following the Bay of Pigs, and an embarrassing showdown with Khrushchev
• Dwight D. Eisenhower — Five star general in command of all Allied Forces in Europe in World War II
• Harry Truman — Vice President of the United States
• Franklin D. Roosevelt — Governor of New York , Secretary of the Navy
• Herbert Hoover — Secretary of Commerce
• Calvin Coolidge — Vice President of the United States, Governor of Massachusetts
• Warren G. Harding — Lieutenant Governor of Ohio
• Woodrow Wilson — Governor of New Jersey, President of Princeton University
• William Howard Taft –  Secretary of War
• Theodore Roosevelt — Vice President of the United States, Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Legislators Versus Executives

So, from the beginning of the 20th Century until the election of Barack Obama, only once has a  president with only legislative experience been elected, John F. Kennedy.  Nikita Khrushchev took advantage of Kennedy’s inexperience in their first summit in Vienna, and then there was the aborted Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the attempted overthrow of Castro.  On top of those two building blocks we got the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought us closer than we have ever been to thermonuclear obliteration.

The Eternal Campaign

President Obama is no different.  He has the least experience of any president since 1900.  He effectively was only a United States Senator for two years, as he was busy campaigning for the next two years and resigned his last two years after being elected president.  So what does he do?  He does what he is comfortable doing and what he is good at, campaigning.  He has held more press conferences in six months than his predecessor did in eight years.  Who is running the show while Obama is running around?  Is it Nancy Pelosi?  Rahm Emmanual?  His programs are falling apart.  The stimulus isn’t working and more Americans say that it has hurt the economy rather than helped it (31%-25%) and that the rest of it should be canceled.  His cap and trade plan is opposed by most Americans (56%) who don’t want to pay more in taxes to fight global warming.  His government takeover of our health care is opposed by most Americans (53%-44%) and yet he presses on, figuring that with enough campaigning the American people will be won over.

This may be a long slog, waiting for 2012 and hoping our country does not get destroyed by all the power grabbing characters in Congress, who don’t care a whit about us, only about increasing the powerful control they have over our lives.  We have tothe fight of our lives on our hands preventing the taking of our liberties.

Sometimes I wonder if this is all a bad dream and I will wake up at some point, in a cold sweat, comforted in knowing that it was just that.  With the enhanced interrogation techniques, aka waterboarding, that was used on exactly three very bad men, and yielded 60% of what we learned about Al Queda, we are now Mirandizing terrorists on the battlefied.  For those who never got a sufficient dose of crime dramas on TV here is how the Miranda rights start:

“You have the right to remain silent…”

Say no more.  That is all you have to know.  From using a technique to compel these murderous fiends to give up information about their likeminded associates, we have moved to telling them it is their right not to say anything.  Here’s my advice… steer clear of tall or government buildings.

How 9/11 Happened

This is exactly how 9/11 happened.  The Clinton Administration treated terrorism as a law and order issue rather than a war on our way of life.  They constructed walls between the FBI and CIA forbidding them to share information.  What the CIA learned about the terrorists before 9/11 they couldn’t tell the FBI and vice versa.  As a result we got blindsided.

It is interesting to note that in putting together the 9/11 Commission to investigate how it all happened and what we could do to prevent it happening again, Jamie Gorelick, the individual who constructed this barrier in her role in the Clinton White House, was added to the Commission panel when she should have been testifying before it.  (Later, without any financial background she was appointed Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, made millions during her tenure, and Fannie Mae’s actions led to the current financial debacle).

What more will the Obama Administration do to weaken our defenses?

Wobbly Republicans

The drumbeat is starting.  The Democrats are gleefully opening their playbook to the right page and holding it open for the weak kneed Republicans to see.  “If you vote against Judge Sotomayor, the Hispanic vote will go against you and make you pay.”

Ah, the politics of class warfare.  Republicans fall for it almost every time.  That’s why we got John McCain as our nominee.  The news analysis will point out how fewer Hispanics voted for McCain than for Bush, with Bush getting 40% and McCain only 31%.  Maybe it was because McCain was a weak candidate?  Bush put forward Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court, he appointed Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General, McCain and Bush were both for open borders.  Boy, did that pay off!

Bush appoints Colin Powell as the first black Secretary of State, followed by Condoleezza Rice as the first black woman Secretary of State.  So how did the black vote turn out for Bush?

So let’s get over copying the Democratic practice of appealing to groups and get back to our conservative principles of appealing to individuals.  Don’t worry about the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the gay vote, the union vote, the Catholic vote.  Worry about doing the right thing for all Americans.  The Democrats want us to worry about all these blocs so that they can get us to meekly wave through their nominees.  But when the tables are turned (e.g., Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Miguel Estrada, et. al.) they will be vicious, slanderous, mean and ugly.  They don’t give a damn about offending the black or Hispanic vote because they think they own them.  And when we put up candidates that are a weak imitation of the Democratic candidate, they do.

We need to stand for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and not back down from that.  The votes will follow.

As Barack Obama builds his Administration team you can sense the frustration starting to build on the left and among those who are still paying attention.  In an article in yesterday’s New York Times, Obama Describes Team as Experienced Yet Fresh, you can anticipate the eloquent gymnastics you are about to read as you would watching the young Chinese girls at the Beijing Olympics.

The Perception of Change

As the agent of hope and change, some people are beginning to wonder that if this is so, why is he populating his adminstration with so many people from the Clinton administration, causing one pundit to ask if we wanted a return to the Clinton Administration we would have voted for Hillary.  The master politician responded to this line of thinking thusly, “Americans would be ‘rightly troubled’ if he overlooked experience to create the perception of change.’”   Let me see if I have this right.  If you actually change, it is a perception of change, but if you don’t change, it is real change?  I got it.

He went on to elaborate, “What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking.  But understand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost:  It comes from me.”  Okay, let me take a hack at that one.  Barack Obama is bringing together all these people with long resumes in government, with years of experience, and confident in knowing what to do and how to do it, but they are all going to follow Barack Obama’s direction and apply fresh thinking to their settled ways.  Or might they say, yeah kid, go back to the Oval Office and we’ll call you when we need you.

The Voice of Experience

Painting the picture further Obama says, “I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.”  But an inexperienced president?  No problem.  Even JFK, who was elected the youngest president in our history, had served one full term in the Senate, was reelected, and was two years into his second term before becoming president.  And he had a pretty rocky time between the Bay of Pigs, his Vienna meeting with Kruschev, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Viet Nam, in less than three years.  Barack Obama was four years into his first term and half of that time he spent running for president.  Should we not be concerned at the lack of experience at the top?

The Definition of Freshness

To prove his point about the freshness of hope and change, he spoke of Paul Volker.  Now, I think very highly of Paul Volker.  I believe it was he who got inflation under control after the disasterous Carter Administration economic policies.  Obama appointed Volker to lead his economic advisory board.  At 81 years old, he is the epitome of freshness.  How is that you wonder?  Obama masterfully spins it this way, “Paul Volker hasn’t been in Washington for quite some time and that’s part of the reason he can provide a fresh perspective.”  So where does that leave Obama?  Is he stale because he has been in Washington or his he fresh because he has been out campaigning for the last two years?

To cap it off in a question and answer period Obama said, according to the Times, “his [Obama's] call for new ways of thinking on the economy should not be interpreted as a reflection of frustration and disappointment with the Bush administration’s recent economic-recovery efforts.  He signaled his support for the latest $800 billion government bailout plan, which is intended to provide new lending for consumers as well as push down home mortgage rates.”

Anyone Out There Feeling Buyer’s Remorse?

So the purveyor of hope and change wants us all to believe that bringing back the Clinton administration is change; that 81 year old Paul Volker is fresh, but 72 year old John McCain is ancient; that Bush is the cause of all that is wrong with America, but fresh thinking should not be interpreted as frustration with Bush.

My sense has been that Barack Obama was painting himself into a corner.  All the while he believed that with his adroit political and verbal skills he would be able to slip out of the corner unnoticed.

The Democrats have only held the White House for eight of the last twenty-eight years.  So realistically, where else would Obama go for experienced executives?  With no executive experience himself, it’s not like he can bring colleagues in from his past executive positions, like Carter from Georgia, Reagan from California, Clinton from Arkansas, and Bush from Texas.  With only four years in Washington, two of them spent on the road campainging for president, it’s not like he built a network of experienced executive branch contacts there either.

He is also in the precarious position of having built up expectations so high, there is really no where for his job approval ratings to go, once he takes office, but down.  In addition to all this, he has to watch his left flank.  There are a lot of grumbling noises coming from that direction from a bunch of people with balled up IOUs in their fists, thinking we got you here, where’s the payback?

I was having lunch with a colleague the other day and the conversation turned to the economy. He spoke of some recent analysis of the number of jobs that would be lost if the Big Three failed.  He recounted not just the employees of the auto companies themselves, but the employees of their suppliers, advertising firms that produce car ads, and on and on.  His final tally was well over 1 million jobs lost.  He concluded by saying it would make the current financial crisis a walk in the park.

Getting enough exercise?

Does that mean that we are all going to start walking?  Not that that would be a bad idea, we could all stand to lose some pounds, but for someone who has a 23 mile one-way commute with no option for mass transit, it’s just not going to happen.  So what do we do?  Well, one of several scenarios is going to happen.

Scenario 1:  The Big Three Close Their Doors

If this scenario came about, what would we do?  We would go buy Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, Volkswagons, etc.  Those companies would have to scale up to fill the void caused by the Big Three closing their doors.  That demand would need people.  So a significant number, but by no means all, of the laid off workers from Detroit would move south to North Carolina, Alabama, and other points south, and join these auto companies at their U.S. plants.

Likewise the suppliers would form new alliances to supply these car companies, as would all the other ancillary companies that currently support Detroit.  Would jobs be lost?  Yes.  Would it be anywhere near the number of jobs my friend projected?  No.

Scenario 2: The Big Three Reinvent Themselves

The liberty of the car companies to reinvent themselves is constrained by government regulations.  Surprise!  If the Big Three have any hope of reinventing themselves, they have to have the freedom to do so.  Start by eliminating the CAFE standards.  CAFE, which stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, is the mileage standards dictated by the government that the auto companies must comply with or face heavy fines, draining more money from the Big Three’s coffers.  So for every car that the Big Three build that may get 20 mpg, they may have to build and sell perhaps 3 that get 30 mpg, in order to meet the standard.  But what if they can make money on the 20 mpg car, but they lose money on every 30 mpg model?  What if the reason they can’t make money is because of their labor costs per vehicle, their pension costs per vehicle, their health care costs per vehicle, when added up are too high compared to their foreign competitors.  They are basically forced by the government to make an unprofitable product.

Why not abandon the CAFE standards?  Let Detroit build the cars and trucks that they can make at a profit.  Let the foreign manufactures make cars that they can make at a profit, including high mileage cars.  Let the American people have the freedom to choose which they want.  As the price of gasoline climbs as it did, and will again, people will want to buy high mileage cars, hybrids, electric cars, but they will also want to buy SUVs, luxury cars and light trucks.  Why does a particular manufacturer have to produce all kinds?  When has government ever made the right call on what products to produce? (Hint:  think of all the five-year plans and Great Leap Forwards from the Communist world).

Scenario 3: The Government Bails Out the Big Three

The government prints up a bundle of cash, $25 billion or more, gives it to the auto companies and hands the IOU to you and me.  The new Democratic Congress and Administration will toe the line for their backers in the environmental movement and demand higher CAFE standards for the auto companies in the interest of addressing: our dependence on foreign oil; green house gases; and helping consumers.  This will put increased pressure on the Big Three to make more unprofitable products and we will find ourselves back in the same place a few years hence.  More liberties will be vaporized as the government appoints a czar to oversee the auto companies to be sure they are building the right products, that management is not getting paid too much money, and well let’s face it, they would basically be nationalizing the auto companies.  Management talent would dry up, and socialism would make greater inroads into the U.S. economy.

The Best Scenario

The Big Three file for bankruptcy, if that is what they need to do.  The stockholders would probably be wiped out, the management team would be replaced, and this will let them re-negotiate their labor agreements.  Congress and the new Administration realize that people will want to purchase cars with higher mileage as the price of gas climbs regardless of any government requirement.  There is no justifiable reason that any particular auto company has to build a particular car because the government says so.  Achieving this state of enlightenment, Congress repeals the CAFE standards.  With the liberty to manage the company to make a profit rather than meet the constraints of a bevy of interest groups, a more energized management team takes the reins, and returns the Big Three to competitiveness.

Drawing a line in the Sand

If we don’t take a stand here and now, every company that wants a cash cushion will be working the halls of Congress to get their hands on your money.  There is not enough to go around.  In addition, many of the problems we are facing were created by government initiatives.  The mortgage mess was not the result of not enough regulation but by government programs that compelled lenders to give loans to people who could not afford them.  Detroit’s problems are a result of CAFE standards. and onerous union contracts.  Since government created many of thse problems why do we think that government knows how to fix them?  What we need to do is tell them to back off and let the free market work.