Dawn of New Era

With so much media attention focused last week on coverage of Michael Jackson’s death, it is not surprising that most Americans are not aware the entire country has entered a new era. Maybe you felt the earth move just a bit last Friday when the vote came in on the so-called “climate change” bill in the House. By passing the comprehensive energy bill by a vote of 219 to 212, the House crossed a threshold never achieved before – one that sets out to change American energy policy.

It's not law yet...but it's moving!

I have been an observer of the many attempts by Congress to address this issue in a substantive way since 1973, and I’ve seen many serious attempts to reform energy policy get sucked into the powerful quicksand of the status quo. Nothing happens to change things. All efforts to do so disappear before your eyes.

But not this time.

Under the bill, greenhouse gases must be trimmed by 17 percent from 2005 levels and all by 2020. Utilities must also generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Energy efficiency gains of 8 percent are required by the same time. The overall goal is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

This bill is a game changer. America’s utilities know it. Some generators of electricity fear the impact on their bottom line and on the economy in general. But they are also aware that if it is accompanied by initiatives to facilitate the development of new technologies in the market, it could work without slowing down economic growth. The growth – real growth – that results from this massive and complex effort could be the beginning of the paradigm shift that awaits this country in its new world leadership role on energy.

Now – on to the US Senate.

Republicans Can't Say "Taxes"

Banks will soon begin paying back the money they borrowed earlier this year from the taxpayers. Obama’s early initiative is proving to have been a good investment for those who pay America’s taxes. When you think about it, isn’t the paying of our fair share of taxes about the most patriotic thing a citizen can do?

(Did you notice I used the word “taxes” in every sentence above? It didn’t hurt at all.)

Why then is it that the Rs can’t even bring themselves to say the word “taxes” except when they choose to smear initiatives sponsored by the Democrats? Do they take voters in their party for complete fools, Simple Simons who can’t even find their way to the fair? It would appear so.

Of course, nobody wants to pay too much in taxes, but it is disingenuous to pretend to lead voters by promising to magically reduce their taxes and reduce government spending when you know the truth: you may succeed in lowering taxes for short term political expediency BUT you will not be able to effect a commensurate decrease in spending so long as 67 percent of the federal budget is fixed – which it is. All you will succeed in doing is raise the deficit and soon the debt – as Ronald Reagan did.

But I digress.

The American Petroleum Institute is run by a Republican. How do I know? Take a look at the TV commercials API is running on television in support of off shore drilling. A line from one of their TV commercials says:

“Increased production of oil and natural gas can help rebuild America’s economy by creating new jobs and generating more than $1 trillion for federal, state and local budgets.”

They cannot bring themselves to say “…more than $1 trillion in taxes for federal, state and local budgets.” They can’t say “taxes” because their tongues are incapable of saying the word without giving it a negative partisan connotation. Yes, they prefer to attach the word “Democrat” to it each time it is used. The Rs have succeeded for so long with the slogan – “we’ll give you lower taxes and smaller government” – that they know nothing else. Maybe they should change their name to the “Know Nothing” party. Do you think the Simple Simons of their party would ever catch on?

Ronald Reagan Statue Unveiled in Capitol Rotunda

I don’t know about you but I watched in great surprise the other day as they unveiled a statue of Ronald Reagan in the Rotunda of the Capitol. The occasion was the fifth anniversary of his death. I was surprised because there used to be a rule in the Congress that no member of Congress could be considered for such an honor until the 25^th anniversary of his death had come and gone and his reputation stood the test of time. This rule apparently does not apply to Presidents or was waived when the Republicans approved the statue idea a few years ago when they had majority control of Congress. No doubt it was seen by Republican leaders as a way to guarantee their political “saint” would have a place of honor no matter what history may say about him.

And so there it stands – a statue to honor the man who testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 on the extent of the Communist Party’s penetration in Hollywood, a statue to honor the memory of the fiscal “conservative” who tripled the national debt during his 1981-1988 Presidency, the governing “conservative” who grew the federal government exponentially during his eight years of service, a economic “conservative” who presided over two recessions; indeed, a statue to honor the man who spent countless hours in the Oval Office regaling visitors with tales of the more than 50 B-grade movies he made during his 20 years in Hollywood.

Look, he was a wonderfully affable man who made us feel good about him and about the America he saw, shining like a “city on a hill.” He was a great confidence builder. And no one could read a Peggy Noonan speech any better than our 40^th President. But shouldn’t more be required before one gets a statue in the Rotunda? I think so.

Of course, neither party is in a hurry to erect a statue to Bill Clinton. If not for his amoral ways, they might have considered one, but no, his actions of moral turpitude besmirched his reputation, eroded his credibility with the American people and weakened the President’s moral authority on the world stage…so much so that one member of Congress wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting that his actions may actually require his resignation. But didn’t he give us a strong economy, creating millions of new jobs, putting more people at every economic level on the road to prosperity? But that darn blue dress! So much for the Clinton statue.

Neither man was perfect. The only perfect man we have had in recent memory was George W. Bush. We know that because, in answer to a reporter’s question at that now famous news conference, Bush said he could not think of even one mistake he had made. “Oh, some of the people I have appointed have disappointed me,” he said but no, he could not think of a single mistake he personally had made. Well, the least said about that one, the better. Suffice it to say, there will be no statue to Bush 43 in the Rotunda anytime soon. History will make sure of that and it won’t need 25 years to make a determination.

If you wonder why President Obama is taking on so much, tackling so many issues, launching so many initiatives, and seems to be busy on literally all fronts, maybe it’s because many of his predecessors squandered their time in office, preferring the road of political expediency, enjoying the perks of office, spending countless days on vacations, doing little to address some of the nation’s most vexing problems, and thus disappointed the American people. I have the sense President Obama wants to give the American people something more substantial upon which to judge his service – and I suspect he is willing to give them a full 25 years to evaluate his time in office.

My Republican Friends

My Republican friends e-mail me almost every day with some new “old” complaint about the President. He is so different from their model, so different from what they expect an obedient, “do what we tell you” President ought to be. They just can’t understand this guy. Here is a President who actually thinks before he answers a question, who actually listens to others, who believes in the true separation of powers, and in using all three branches of government to govern. It’s just a bit much for them to get their brains around.

They do not yet see that the auto industry WILL be entirely something else in eight years; they do not see that America WILL be a whole lot less dependent on fossil fuels to drive its cars in eight years; they do not yet see that financial markets WILL have new supervision and oversight; they do not see that health care WILL be reformed and universal health care WILL be accepted, indeed, embraced even by Republicans.

I advise them to get ready for an economy that will grow at a healthy rate for at least another 25 years. This is the kind of paradigm shift that impacts all facets of our lives. (Wait until nanotechnology hits computers in your office and automobiles in your garage with its full potential. You will be witness to real growth!)

Our President is just getting started. The credit card bill – a measure we have sorely needed for 30 years – is just the beginning. I tell my Republican friends, “If you can’t understand what is happening, if you think it is too much for us to handle as Americans, if you think we can’t or shouldn’t do any of these ambitious things, you best stand back because you will be run over by people who see ‘yes’ where you see only ‘no.’”

PS Keep you Blackberry fully charged if you want even a slim chance of keeping up.

Can the Ends Ever Justify the Means?

Former Vice President Cheney said yesterday President Obama makes “pretty speeches” but that “pretty speeches” do not leave our adversaries in awe of us. In other words, you can talk about being a nation of laws, but if you want to be effective in this “war against terrorism” you have to ignore law and do what you must, including torture. That sort of rationalization could have been used by bin Laden himself by simply saying he hated to do it, but slamming planes into the WTC was effective and thus a fine thing to do.

Mr. Cheney, I urge you to read the speech President Obama delivered yesterday. It was a sober, serious and yes, patriotic speech – perhaps the most important speech of his tenure. It did not lay out a plan in the sense that it did not say, “Tuesday, we will deliver Guantanamo inmates 1-20 to federal prison x.” No, it was far more important than that. It was designed to help Americans understand – again – basic precepts upon which this government was founded and has been governed for 233 years. Much of what President Obama said has been forgotten or ignored in recent years.

President Obama framed his approach to combating terrorism in both American law and values. He outlined the problems as they exist and the challenges to solve them. Most important, he elevated the issues above the current debate. “I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values,” he said. “…Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset.”

But it is clear Mr. Cheney will never understand that. When he opened his speech, he gave us an indication of the total disdain he has for our President when he said, "It's pretty clear the president served in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives because, of course, in the House, we have the five minute rule." Cheney was complaining about the length of President Obama’s speech. I suspect he did not listen to it. Mr. Cheney, get a copy….please.

BTW, the Obama speech was 6,000 words and the Cheney speech was 5,500.

Another BTW, if there was any doubt about who was President during the last administration, it has been brushed away with Cheney’s full blown attempts in the media to defend actions of the Cheney/Bush administration. Now we know, CHENEY WAS the President. As Cheney would say, “The fact of the matter is, I was the President, and if you will, I liked it.”

Give the Speaker a Break

I worked on Capitol Hill for nearly 19 years -- all of it on the Senate side of the Hill -- and it was generally known among Senate staff that the CIA altered its briefings to members depending on who was receiving the briefing.

The CIA often found excuses NOT to brief certain members of Congress at all for fear of seeing the information in the newspaper the next morning.

Some members, for the same reason, were given only partial information at briefings.

Some members of Congress may have been intentionally mislead on occasion.

And, of course, some members were briefed completely, accurately and honestly because the CIA trusted those members to use the information supplied properly.

So this business of saying, as Newt Gingrich did last night that "The CIA is prohibited by law from lying to Congress, and thus would never do that" is ridiculous -- and Newt knows it.

I have my own view of what Speaker Pelosi might have been told but it is not relevant so I won't offer it here. What is relevant is that the facts have not changed: Torture is illegal and the Bush/Cheney Administration authorized it it. It makes no difference what the CIA told or did not tell Speaker Pelosi. Soon the focus will return where it rightfully belongs -- not on the people who wrote the justifying memos, rather on the people who made the decision to torture in the first place.

And even if there is no prosecution of these individuals, history will "prosecute" by recording the truth for future generations to read and not repeat.

If Only Peter Could Pay Paul...

The Obama Administration has proposed a budget of $3.6 trillion for FY 2010 which starts October 1, 2009. It is $1.84 trillion more than the government will take in from all sources.

The numbers are so large it is difficult for ordinary citizens to comprehend them, but almost every citizen worries about where the numbers might take us. Most of us see the deficit numbers piling up and worry that inflation will likely be used to pay for most of the spending we are doing today.

$3.6 trillion.

It is enough to take your breath away no matter your political leanings. Democrats will tell you it is a lot of money and it is necessary to (1) meet the demand for government programs and services from the people (everything from defending the shores to making sure beef is safe to eat), (2) restore some semblance of normalcy to the economy (stabilize the banks, secure the insuring entities), and (3) invest in our future in ways only government can. I repeat: …in ways only government can.

In short, there is a role for government in our lives. Dismiss any who say we need less government because it is too late. What we need, what we ask for, what we demand cannot be done with less government. If you know someone who believes otherwise, tell them to “get real.”

$3.6 trillion.

That IS a lot of money. Surely, we don’t need all of it. Surely, there is waste we can cut out and balance our federal budget. Why can’t we just cut those crazy programs at universities that do useless research like the one studying the sex lives of Australian slimy toads? When someone comes up and starts talking about such, I hope you will tell them, as politely as you can, to “please stop.” Such conversations, while they may feel good to the one complaining, do not reflect even a basic understanding of where we are….or, more importantly, where we are going.

Here’s where we are: Fully 65 percent of the federal budget is COMMITTED to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Interest on the National Debt, and Defense of the nation. That’s two of every three dollars – gone. Can’t be touched. You wouldn’t want to cut a dollar from any if you had the responsibility. Obama does have the responsibility and he was able to cut only $17 billion from the Pentagon’s budget for next year. He cut the entire F-22 Raptor program and other major line items but only cut $17 billion from the DOD budget.

OK, OK… so, two of three dollars are committed; what about the remaining dollar?

That last dollar supports every agency and department in the Executive and Judicial branches of government as well as a tiny amount for the Legislative branch. That last dollar goes to Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Justice, Labor, State, Energy, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, NASA, Veterans, Treasury, and Congress.

The deficit for the coming year will be around $1.84 trillion, according to a new projection released by the White House today, and that’s more than half of the $3.6 trillion budget proposed.

So, what’s a responsible government to do? It can slow down the rate of growth in entitlement programs, for one thing. It only takes political will. That means you and I have to give our elected officials the freedom to address these issues responsibly without threatening them with dismissal at the next election. It also means we have to give government the freedom to do some risk taking on our behalf, as the Obama Administration is attempting to do by investing in health care reform (control the rate of growth in health costs while improving health care), investing in new energy sources (lead us to energy independence), investing in environmental innovations (slow climate change and improve the quality of air we breathe), invest in infrastructure (improve roads, bridges, transportation, and communication, to name a few).

In other words, we can pay for the deficits of today with inflation if we do nothing or we can pay for the deficits by growing the economy in real terms through investing in the full potential that exists in the human mind. I don’t know about you, but I prefer the latter.