Leadership at Home

Today, I watched the replay of the much-maligned former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Carly Fiorina telling the public that none of the candidates, presidential or vice, could run a large company. Her bigger-picture point was eclipsed by McCain's fury at her, and that was: leading a large corporation is not the same as leading the United States, contrary to popular Republican belief.

Of course there are similarities. As President or CEO, you have to be smart, you have to know how to negotiate, you must ingrain thrift at all levels, and you must inspire everyone that you are leading to do their best.

But a CEO's job, though tough, is actually quite simple: it is to maximize shareholder value ("eradicating greed" as John McCain says he'd do, is not an option as any adult member of the human race will tell you). A President, on the other hand, can't focus on a few financial metrics to gauge success. A President must be thoughtful, weigh options, and link policy to results (an area in which we can make great gains with ever-advancing data mining technologies) in order to make ours a country of peace, prosperity and equal opportunity (after all, if you want peace, work for justice). As Robert Kennedy said:

“Gross National Product measures neither the health of our children, the quality of their education, nor the joy of their play. It measures neither the beauty of our poetry, nor the strength of our marriages. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our wit nor our courage, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worth living. It can tell us everything about our country, except those things that make us proud to be a part of it.”

Bleeding Heart or Ulterior Motives?

Nationally, the incomes of the top fifth of Americans went up 9.1% over the last decade, while incomes among the bottom fifth fell by 2.5% and the middle fifth increased by 1.3%.

Is this a problem? Bleeding heart liberals think so. They act like they care about poor people and feel just fine about taking money out of other peoples’ pockets to hand it out to the slackers we will always have among us. This approach is okay for socialist Europe but not for the US, as we have built our nation on equal opportunity rather than equal outcome. Wealth redistribution is not good for our country or for our economy.

So why does the richest man in the world, one who considers fiscal, monetary and trade policies to be of primary importance, support Barack Obama for President? Because Warren Buffett is a pragmatist. In fact, many Republicans who support Obama’s economic plan to McCain’s do so because, like Buffett, they realize that if this trajectory continues unabated, we will end up with a country with more crime, worse health, and less social harmony and civic participation. That equates to less opportunity for all, rich and poor.

When Ronald Reagan was elected, tax rates on top incomes were so high – almost 60% combined federal, payroll and capital gains – there was little incentive for business leaders to invest in expansion or new companies. By the end of his second term, Reagan had cut this combined rate to 35%; Clinton raised it to 40%; the second Bush lowered it to 34%. The intended outcome is greater job and income growth, which should translate into higher educational levels, lower crime and a better society overall. This works when business investment creates jobs at home, but as we all know and as the straight-talking John McCain will tell you, new technologies and low-cost overseas labor have made many blue-collar jobs obsolete in the US and, as McCain says, those jobs are never coming back. In the last week alone, we’ve seen that Dell’s selling its factories, HP’s laying off 26,000 people, and who knows what will happen to the 24,000 or so working at the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

So how to approach this new economy so the benefits will trickle down to the majority of Americans? Would a tax increase on the rich to just over Clinton-era levels stifle this new economy? This was the fear in the 90’s, but it never materialized. Incomes grew, as did the economy, and we erased the federal budget deficit. In 2001, when these rates were reversed, economic growth slowed and the deficit returned.

That government spending could ever be a good thing has been out of favor since Reagan, and for good reason. But with the implosion of Wall Street over the weekend, with our infrastructure crumbling and with schools cutting out programs and even school days (given their slashed budgets in the face of the mortgage meltdown), there are some worthy uses for our tax dollars that don’t include bailing out investment banks or rebuilding Iraq. They include spending on infrastructure, accelerated research into alternative energy - including nuclear - and education and training – areas where a fully free market fails us and where small investments today can turn into big dividends tomorrow.

Wall Street Journal

I read the Wall Street Journal and usually enjoy it until I get to the Editorial page, at which point I start asking myself why I subscribe. So I was surprised to come across an article today that pointed out that, although McCain said Sarah Palin hadn’t sought any earmarks as governor, the Alaska state records show Gov. Palin has actually asked U.S. taxpayers to fund $453 million in specific Alaska projects over the past two years. It was probably more of a mistake than a lie on McCain’s part, so I doubt he’ll say that again. Palin is a different story. Trying to attack Obama on earmarks, she says over and over that he has requested about a million dollars for every working day he's been in office. Not untrue, except she neglects to point out that her record is worse. The same article in the Wall Street Journal points out that, using her same methodology, i.e., the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama.

Summer is Over

Sad to say. But we squeezed in a trip to the Big Apple while it was still hot, a trip to the zoo, and found a house with a fireplace to move into before the snow sets in. I know it looks small (it is) but there's always room for visitors! And, as you can see to your right, Souleye finally managed his long-procrastinated trip to the beauty shop - his dad barely recognized him afterward, though he's handsomer than ever.

Sex Ed

Who are you and what have you done with John McCain? I would have VOTED for you in 2000 - you really WERE a maverick back then.

So how could you, the real John McCain, actually approve a message saying Barack Obama backed "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."? saying "Learning about sex before learning to read?"

Where's the honesty? The integrity? The honor?

Barack Obama voted for the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Had Obama voted AGAINST it, McCain's ad would have said:

"Barack Obama voted AGAINST legislation to help protect kindergartners from sexual predators... Leaving our children helpless, vulnerable and UNeducated. Barack Obama. Wrong on education, wrong for your family."

Painting Obama as a weird sicko who wants to teach kindergartners about sex is wrong, pathetic, and insulting to everyone who saw it.

Big Government

Many of you who are reading this are Catholic, so you already know that the Catholic Church condemns the use of anything other than natural family planning. However, the majority of people in the United States are not Catholic and rely on other methods. Should they be subject to the Pope’s edict, even though they are not Catholic? The Wall Street Journal reported on July 31 that the Bush administration is drafting a regulation with a definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying most birth control pills and IUDs as abortion. The draft regulation, circulating within the Department of Health and Human Services, could undercut dozens of state laws designed to promote easy access to these methods of birth control, used by more than 12 million women a year. If the draft regulation were to prompt some insurance companies to drop coverage for prescription birth control, “that would be fantastic,” said Tom McClusky, a strategist with the conservative Family Research Council. John McCain has declined to comment on the proposal.

Creditworthy?

At work today I noticed that Institutional Investor magazine published the Semi-Annual Country Credit survey results today. They showed, not surprisingly, that the US’s creditworthiness continues to fall, down 0.8 for the six months and over 1 point for the year, ranking 13, behind Canada and 12 European countries. For the six months, Iraq was up 8.8 points, UAE up 6.8 points, and Brazil up 5.2 points. Why? Well, the national debt is $9.5 Trillion, and YOUR tax dollars are paying interest on that - $406 Billion in fiscal 2006. This is about 30x NASA's budget, 15x Education's, and 8x that of the Dept of Transportation (we got bridges falling down and we're paying interest to the Chinese government). Why this matters: when you spend too much and have to borrow to do it, your credit score falls, you become a CREDIT RISK, fewer people want to invest in you, demand for American dollars go down so it gets weaker, and you pay that much more for anything overseas (like oil). So if you feel we are obligated to stay in Iraq until... I guess until they have a stable government (when have governments in the Middle East ever been stable)... know that we are bankrupting our country - and its citizens - in the process.