Right in San Francisco

Obama's Katrina?

    There will be much written about Flight 253 - some of it a chronology of facts; some of it a search to attach or deflect blame; much of it political.  In my perspective, there are two questions - is the management right? and does leftist ideology get in the way of common sense security measures?

   1. Do we have the right management in place? The Department of Homeland Security is a difficult job, even in a conservative administration. By most accounts, the 180,000 person department went through consolidation pains under the politically capable Tom Ridge, and got its act together under the more managerial Michael Chertoff. Somewhere in the murk between Janet Napolitano's idiotic "the system worked" and the apologists like Richard Clark who feel that she is doing a great job (like Katrina's "Brownie"), lie serious management questions. Obama has had a year to work on it, so it is a bit lame to talk of Bush's procedures which they inherited. 

   - If the transportation Security Administration is so important, why did the Obama administration wait until September to nominate Erroll Southers (an apparently well-qualified former FBI agent) to lead the TSA? The Bush administration created a non-union TSA, but gave the director the authority to allow union elections - a likely prospect in any Democratic administration for the 50,000 federal employees, but one that has caused Senator DeMint to hold the nomination pending a debate on the merits - a debate that will probably not ever happen. .

 -  Is there a system in place to consolidate all of the known intelligence, review it continuously, and take action on questionable actors - arrests; extra screenings; review of visas; more extensive monitoring.   If not, is it because of practical considerations (limitations of data base management capabilities), or concern for civil liberties? With Oracle's data base expertise and Google's magic, why is there a problem in sorting the data?  With American Muslims attacking military facilities and traveling to Somalia and Pakistan to blow themselves up, it is obvious that the question isn't just about boarding airplanes.

 -  Are there regular brainstorming sessions and exercises to stay ahead of the evolving terrorist threat? It is good to keep some of the procedures vague - witness the potential damage from the December 8 publication of airline screening procedures on the Internet.  Hopefully, the Intelligence committees will have private inquiries into such questions as why there were apparently still no air marshals on the same Amsterdam to Detroit flight two days after the attempted bombing incident, and why the authorities in Amsterdam had instructions not to use body scans on passengers bound for the United States.  

The senior management responsibility is to make sure that the proper processes and people are in place, and then to periodically test them. Bad managers do nothing (Katrina); mediocre managers thrash around after problems (current); good managers use profound understanding to prevent problems.  Obama recently gave himself a B + for his first year in office; he needs a mulligan.  

   2. Does President Obama get it? His three days of silence in Hawaii while he deferred to Secretary Napolitano is eerily similar to President Bush's reading "The Pet Goat" to second graders during 9/11. When he eventually referred to the "alleged" bombing attempt and called the bomber an "isolated individual",  he obviously didn't have his normal well-tuned PR voice. 

    But, this incident should not be viewed in isolation. Like the pending trial of KSM in New York, this is treated as a criminal rather than military offense. This bomber was arrested and charged with the crime of threatening an airliner - thus getting a lawyer, and shutting down his discussion of his Yemeni contacts - who were they; where did he get the materials; what other targets were considered; why did he pick Amsterdam? Presumably he will be able to see all of the evidence against him and have the right to challenge any witnesses. 

Interestingly,  Dawn Johnsen, Obama's stalled nominee for Director of the Office of Legal Council in the Justice Department would have a big part in the administration's policies on interrogation and prosecution, but enough senators have opposed her for extreme national security and abortion views to deny her the position. Assuming that her name is not resubmitted, Obama has the opportunity to select someone who clearly distinguishes between criminals (entitled to US civil trial rights) and unlawful combatants (entitled only to limited Geneva Convention rights on treatment; and subject to indefinite detention). We'll see.

   A narrow criticism of the CIA and the National Counter Terrorism Center will not be enough - although they are appropriate and easy targets. Congress and the public should hold Obama to his outraged call for accountability.  

-----

  This week's video is an interview with Parker Griffith, the Congressman (and oncologist) from Alabama who changed party registration from Democrat to Republican this week. Hopefully, his logic will have broader acceptance. 

And for those who want one more "2009 in Review", Dave Barry's column is the funniest ever.   

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site  

bill bowen - 1/1/10

A Welcome Inspiration

   Terrible year. Whether you're part of the unemployed 10% (really 20); whether your retirement plan was irreparably damaged; whether you are concerned about the debt being piled on our grandkids; whether a nuclear Iran or North Korea is your concern; whether you are just appalled by Harry Reid's sordid civics lesson. A terrible year by any measure.

    But, there is a transcendent better perspective. The following "In Hoc Anno Domini" editorial has been run each year in the Wall Street Journal since it was written by Vermont Royster in 1949.  

   When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.

    Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

    But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression -- for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?

    There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?

    Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

    And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

    So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.

    But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

    Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.

    Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter's star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.

   And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:

   Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

-----

   For more seasonal inspiration, go to Pandora Radio, sign up, and enter your favorite Christmas carol. Consider Pandora my present to you. In return, you can "re-gift" www.RightinSanFrancisco.com.

bill bowen - 12/25/09

Financial Suicide

    It is virtually impossible for anybody to digest the volley of news about multi-hundred billion dollar spending bills coming out of Congress and the White House. We have even lost the assumption that Senators and Congressmen would read and understand the bills before voting on them, much less think about the implications for future inflation and taxes. With the impending increase of the debt limit by $1.8 trillion (some now, some in 2010) - to an amount about equal to the annual Gross Domestic Product - and a 12% increase in funding for general spending for 2010, the growth of spending departs further and further from the crisis which Rahm Emanuel called "too good to waste".  Consider four types of spending:

    1."Must do" - the argument being that the damage of inaction would be so great that no economic evaluation is appropriate - the Afghan War; climate change; saving the financial system. House Democrats even have a Stimulus III bill, promising that they are committed to financial responsibility, but that this is just not the time.

   2. "Strong policy direction" - things that Obama's most ardent supporters wanted when they voted for him; after all, "elections have consequences" - health care expansion; green energy. When Obama gets done saying he didn't run for president to help the fat cat bankers, this IS why he ran for president. A trillion dollar increase in health care costs; a trillion dollar tax of one sort or another on energy usage.  

   3. "Normal business" - ongoing staffing and feeding of the bureaucracy - 2% pay raises for federal workers whose pay has exploded over the past few years to average $71,000 compared to a national average of $40,000; budget increases of more than 10% for Transportation, Energy, and Education. In fairness, Secretary Gates did cut some Defense programs that the generals did not want, but which have traditionally been added by Congress. In business, management asks each department for a budget recommendation, then, in "Step 2", scales them back to fit a profit plan. In Obama's Washington there is no "Step 2".

   4. "Corruption by any other name" - not just the private corruption of the tax cheats like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel, but the public stuff - 5000 earmarks in the 2010 spending bill, billions of dollars of pork in the Stimulus Bill, $300 million for Louisiana to get Mary Landrieu to support the health care bill; unread bills passed in the middle of the night; clearly bogus assumptions in cost estimates. At least Acorn got unfunded for awhile, thanks to the efforts of Glenn Beck and others.

    For their part, the Republicans (who ratcheted up earmarks and budget deficits during their tenure) are hoping that memories are short or that voters will believe that they have changed their ways. They can take hope from the fact that even NBC's polls show only a third of respondents believing that Obama has the right "goals and priorities" for the economy. And Congress is worse.  

    Ages ago, during the 2008 election, there were some who claimed that a governor (think Alaska) would know more than senators about setting priorities and balancing budgets, that a strong stand against earmarks was not just a quixotic quest (think the Senator from Arizona), and that there was real danger in having one party (either one) control all of the levers of power. Bite your tongue.

 -----

This week's You Tube is a surprise appearance by Sarah Palin on the Tonight Show, responding to a series of anti-Palin skits by William Shatner. Go you girl.

bill bowen - 12/18/2009

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site  

The Afghan Surgelet

I must confess that the clever "surgelet" title belongs to George Will in his overly pessimistic reaction to President Obama's December 1, speech at West Point. My general premise that the region should be looked at from the perspective of Pakistan rather than Afghanistan is contained in my March 20 blog. (See archives to the right.) As much discussion as there has been of Obama's third Afghan strategy - one for the campaign; one in March when he appointed General Chrystal; one now - most observers seem to have missed important points.

First on the substance:

1. Relative to Afghanistan: We can succeed if the objectives are limited. If we need to purge governments of corruption, we should start in Louisiana, New Jersey, or Chicago. If we need to stop the flow of drugs, we should focus on Mexico and Columbia. Schools? - we can start here in California. If we just want to deny a safe haven to al Queda, we can do that with a secure government in Kabul which allows us to "search and destroy" as necessary.

2. Relative to Pakistan: I hear pundits talking about how we need to convince the Rawalpindi government of the seriousness of the need to engage the fundamentalists. They have had two prime ministers assassinated and suffer frequent suicide bombings of civilian targets and military headquarters. They get it. What they don't need - and which our media and politicians regularly give them - is embarrassing calls for governmental change attached to aid agreements, publicized discussions about violations of their sovereignty with drone attacks, and discussions about cooperative plans to secure their nuclear weapons in the event of Taliban attacks. We have been on Pakistan's side since the Cold War (when the Russians picked India); their military leaders have attended American schools; they use American military aircraft. Vagueness is necessary for internal Pakistani sensitivities - and a strategy of pushing the terrorists across the border into Pakistan makes no sense.  

3. Relative to Iraq: It is good to hear the grudging realization that the Petreus/McCain surge worked there and that the strategy of isolating extremists who abuse the population is to be copied. In a way, Iraq was harder with the Sunni/Shiite division, and the prospect of Arabs from throughout the Middle East coming for their chance at Eternity. The Afghan problem is Pashtun and largely limited to the South and East. Even there, there are not many folks wanting to die to help al Queda. (Again, limited objectives.)

4. Relative to Vietnam: (I served there in 1967-68, and worked on Southeast Asia stuff at the Pentagon in 1970-72.) Some justify the Afghanistan mission as a result of "but they attacked us and the Vietnamese never could", but it wasn't the Afghans who attacked us and al Queda could just as easily move to Yemen or Somalia.  Ironically, the true risk becomes one of a "domino theory", with failure in Afghanistan leading to disaster in nuclear-armed Pakistan.  

5. Relative to the Budget: An annual "all-in" cost for Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11 has been about $940 billion. If we are to criticize the environmental crazies for not caring about the cost of their ideology, the Bush-era practice of carrying the cost of the Iraq War "off budget" should be avoided, and there should be a debate about guns, butter, and taxes. (Overall, we spend about 4 % of GDP for defence and 17% for health care.)

And on the politics:

1. There is little risk in the "begin withdrawal" date of July 2011. Aside from the Gates/Clinton/Jones tour to calm frayed nerves in the region and in the military, there is no way that Obama will create a Dunkirk-like collapse of his war a year before his reelection bid.

2. The New York Times had an excellent, long article on the White House's deliberations, which had two messages - there are more leaks than discussions, and the law professor asks a lot of good questions, but doesn't know how to bring it to a decision. Why he excluded General McChrystal from the discussions is anybody's guess.

3. Chris Matthews spoke from the heart for many on the Left when he called West Point the "enemy camp."  These intelligent, educated, disciplined young patriots signed up well into the Iraq War and know what service awaits them. To many on the Left, this is unfathomable.

-----

Instead of a You Tube, this week's humor comes from a conference on governmental transparency put on by the new Office of Government Information Services. George Orwell would be delighted; the Daily Show should be. The conference at the Commerce Department was closed to the public and the media.

bill bowen - 12/11/2009

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site

Fixing The Financial System

When Barack Obama became president in January, the American people had two priorities: stop the implosion of the economy; and fix the system so that it doesn't happen again. How's it going?

By most measures (except unemployment and credit for small businesses - see the November 20 blog) , the implosion has stopped, particularly for Wall Street. Economists will long argue about the natural course of the business cycle and the long term implications of our massive debt, and politicians will long argue about the Stimulus Plan, TARP/TALF, home purchase incentives, mortgage restructuring, the auto bail out, and "cash for clunkers", but the reality is that the "green shoots" turned into Gross Domestic Product growth in the July - September quarter, and those consumers who have jobs seem to promise a decent holiday shopping season. Priority 1 - implosion stopped. Mission Accomplished (to coin a phrase).  

The same cannot be said about Priority 2 - understanding and fixing the root causes.  What has been done? Other than compensation limits for TARP recipients, very little indeed.  What is needed?

1. Eliminate the "too big to fail" problem for large, complex banks which received billions in subsidies after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Options include reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall Act (rescinded in 1999) which separated commercial banks from investment banks; other downsizing alternatives; a protocol for managing bankruptcies; increases in capital reserve requirements; an overarching regulator; international agreements. Maybe some day, if Goldman Sachs agrees.

2. Require greater transparency and control over trades in derivatives such as  "credit default swaps". Perhaps require that trades be done on an exchange instead of back rooms. Maybe some day, if the hedge funds agree.

    3. Overhaul the directly responsible agencies - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who buy most of the inadequately secured mortgages. And the rating agencies who gave AAA ratings to bundled garbage. Maybe some day, if Barney Frank agrees.

   4. Restructure the regulatory framework for banks, hedge funds, consumer lenders, and sundry financial institutions.  In another case of "leave it to Congress", we have radically conflicting bills from Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd's Senate Finance Committee. Centralize - disperse. Elevate the Fed - subject the Fed's monetary policy to congressional oversight. Settle some scores with Sheila Bair at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Settle some scores with Tim Geithner at Treasury. Lets have Ben Bernanke grovel with the Senate for his reappointment at the Fed. We will apparently get a Consumer Protection Agency to control the abusive practices of banks on credit cards and mortgages - although the prior was not a factor, and the latter was just one of many causes.  Maybe it would help to go back to the dormant proposals of Hank Paulson in April of 2008.

   One of the missing points on the health care debate is the misdirection of the Left's priorities. In the short run it should be "It's the economy, stupid", and in the long run it should be the huge deficits which will squeeze out of funding for education, national security, and anything else. Why Obama put all of his eggs into the "increase health care from 16% to 17% of the national economy" basket instead of concentrating on the economy defies explanation.

-----

  This week's You Tube is from Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate Environmental Committee, dismissing the recent exposure of e-mails showing systemic manipulation of climate data, and emphasizing the criminal activities of the whistleblower. Science is sacred, unless it is not.  Unfortunately, the Al Gore crowd has precluded an objective discussion of the last 10 years of data showing no global warming. (See my October 29 blog for a balanced view.)

bill bowen - 12/4/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site