Jobs, Jobs, But Only If They're Union

Great column today in the NYT by Joe Nocera. I sometimes disagree with Nocera, as when he famously called Tea Partiers who objected to raising the debt ceiling "terrorists" (yet later apologized for it). But I loved his piece two years ago on the utter absurdity that is the U.S. Postal Service.

Now he has drawn more attention to an absolute outrage -- the chicanery emanating from the National Labor Relations Board in the matter of Boeing. If you want a refresher on my views, see a post I did in June.

Essentially, Nocera makes the indisputable point that the Obama administration is standing in the way of job creation in South Carolina in order to appease organized labor back in the state of Washington. Could someone explain how this is helpful to the economy?

I know. Both political parties accuse the other of lacking ideas in the area of job creation, because -- frankly -- no one really seems to know what to do to get this economy moving again. Contrary to Republican dogma, Obama can counter the claim that tax increases kill jobs. After all, look to other vibrant economic eras that saw robust growth in spite of significant tax increases.

But here is an example of an American corporation that wants to invest billions of dollars in this country's manufacturing sector. And there is simply no way to get around the fact that the actions of the NLRB are designed to punish a right-to-work state and reward big labor in another state. And the cost? Thousands of jobs, Mr. President! Don't you get it? Or don't you care?

The headline on Nocera's column linked on RCP says it all: "The Boeing Case Should Embarrass Democrats."

'An Unhappy Birthday'

My favorite economics writer, Robert Samuelson, has written a terrific but depressing column on the occasion of this nation's 235th birthday. And it feeds right into the prevailing narrative of this blog.

Republicans and Democrats are not getting the job done. As Samuelson sees it, Democrats are "reactionaries" in refusing to face up to the limitations of what government can accomplish with the funds available. "Tax the rich," say the Dems. In other words, raise taxes on anyone who makes more than the typical Democratic voter.

Republicans, on the other hand, are "radicals." GOP "promises of more tax cuts either border on dishonesty or imply huge unspecified spending cuts that would devastate national defense, states and localities, and the poor," Samuelson said.

To that I would add a few thoughts of my own:

Neither party has really embraced the non-partisan Simpson-Bowles or Rivlin-Domenici plans for restoring fiscal discipline. Why? Both plans call for a combination of painful spending cuts and tax increases. Look at the composition of those commissions. Notice how the title of each chair is preceded by the word "former?" Former senator Alan Simpson, former budget chief Alice Rivlin.

Why? No sitting public official of either party can come out with the kinds of recommendations made by those two groups. Why? Because they belong to political parties that would, on some level, find those conclusions to be heretical. A Republican who calls for a tax increase or a Democrat who advocates for significant cuts in social programs would either lose a re-election bid or face an ugly primary challenge. Even unelected White House officials such as Rivlin and Erskine Bowles would probably have found themselves out of a job if they had promulgated such apostasies.

So what we have is a dreadful situation in which legislative gridlock has become the order of the day. Why? Because the politicians who run our government are more concerned about their careers than they are about saving the country. This brings to mind what George Washington said in his farewell address about party power struggles, which he called a "frightful despotism:"

But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Cain and the Not So Stable

No, West isn't at a Nazi
event -- he's visiting a Holocaust
museum in Jerusalem.

I've been hearing a lot of noise lately from Tea Party types who are bored with the dreary Republican presidential field for 2012 and are looking for a fresh face who just might stand a chance against The Great One.

Two names come up more often than you might think: Herman Cain and Allen West. Cain, a businessman and unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, just announced his candidacy yesterday. West, a first-term congressman from Florida and retired Army officer and Iraq war veteran, is being urged to run but has not yet committed.

Cain has never held elected office and West has been a Congressman for all of four months. So what do they have in common? They're both conservative and African American. Since its inception, the Tea Party has been dogged by charges of racism within its ranks — unfairly in many cases.

Why then would so many of those TPers gravitate toward these two black men? Well, if you're a Tea Partier looking to dispel the notion that you're a racist, there's no better way than to embrace a black candidate who shares your views.

Here's the problem with that. If TPers were beating the drum for someone like Colin Powell, that would be one thing. But Cain and West, while interesting characters, are no better prepared to assume the presidency than was Obama in 2008.

Tea Party types are fond of saying, with some justification, that Barack Obama had one of the thinnest resumes of any incoming president. But doesn't supporting the candidacies of Cain and West feed into the stereotype of the underachieving affirmative-action black man?

Conversely, when progressives ridicule the candidacies of Cain and West, don't they leave themselves open to charges that they placed their faith in a similarly unqualified man?

As the saying goes, "Just asking ..."

They Have Done The Deed

Osama bin Laden is gone. Ding dong, the wicked terrorist kingpin is dead.

I give President Obama credit where it's due. Despite campaign promises to get out of the Afghanistan region with all due speed, he quickly realized how important it was to hold firm in the face of a severe threat. Now you would think that the assassination of OBL would be the perfect pretext to withdraw from the region ASAP. But I don't think he will.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the reason we remain in Afghanistan is Pakistan. The latter nation possesses nuclear weapons but has millions of Islamic fanatics, including most of the Taliban that used be in Afghanistan. If the radicals take over that country, we and India (a key ally in the region) could be in a lot of trouble. Standing by next door sends an important message to Pakistan that we're ready to act if need be. And that's an important message, given the revolutionary climate currently prevailing in the Middle East.

Heck, even if the current regime stays in power in Pakistan, we could be toast. Evidently, the 3,000 SF home OBL was living in was only 30 miles north of Islamabad and a stone's throw away from a Pakistani military installation. The Pakistan government, or large factions in its military, had to know OBL was there.

Leave it to others to find humor in this. My friend John Pollard reports a great Facebook posting: "Osama should have been caught alive and continuously made to go through airport security for the rest of his life."

As someone who recently received a full 10-minute shakedown by Bahamian airport security in Nassau, I can definitely relate ...

Sometimes I Wonder About This Guy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You have got to be kidding me. Bill Maher thinks Bill O'Reilly in his interview with President Obama on Super Bowl Sunday was "unpatriotic." And why would this be?

Because the overbearing O'Reilly asked Obama some tough questions and interrupted him a few times. Good grief! Would Maher have said the same thing about Dan Rather and his smart-alecky questioning of President Nixon ("No sir, Mr. President. Are you?")? Or Wolf Blitzer's embarrassing interview in 2007 with Vice President Cheney? That CNN piece was so bad that it succeeded in doing the impossible: making Darth Cheney into a sympathetic character.

Presidents (and would-be presidents) tend to be great bullshitters. That's how they got there in the first place. And sometimes they need to be interrupted, lest they avoid answering the question. I thought Bad Bill's interview was fine and you know what, Mr. Maher? Obama did just fine, too.

I used to like Maher back when he hosted Politically Incorrect and he routinely went after both sides. Now he's basically turned into a shill for the Democrats. That's his right if he wants to do it, but it doesn't make for very interesting television.

State of the Union Distress

So, thumbs-up or down on the president's SOTU address?

As these things go, I actually thought it was OK. If we use George Will's gauge ("Every president, regardless of party, tries to stroke every erogenous zone in the electorate"), then I think was a success.

And I liked the symbolism of having members of the two parties sit together (see image top right). It made for less hooting and hollering and was far more collegial than any SOTU I can recall. But perhaps for that reason, Obama seemed to lack passion.

Be that as it may, some observers, such as Ben Stein, were absolutely scathing in their assessment of the speech:

... in its lack of eloquence, its complete absence of high points, its elementary school pedagogy, its complete absence of any interesting or memorable phrases, it was possibly the lamest SOTU speech I have ever heard.

But really Ben, they're all pretty lame. From Thomas Jefferson through Woodrow Wilson, presidents fulfilled their obligation to opine on the SOTU only by delivering a written essay to Congress. I'd like to keep it that way, but I guess I'm one of the few who would rather watch a basketball game than listen to a president rolling out a laundry list of gauzy goals, most of which are unattainable anyway.

Nor do I share E.J. Dionne's view that this was a gem of a speech, a stem-winder that will be remembered by generations to come. But I did like Obama's efforts to pull himself back to the center, which is where most of the votes are.

To wit, his remarks on education:

Let's also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child's success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as "nation builders." Here in America, it's time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.

My position exactly. Except how do you do that? End teacher tenure? Institute more rigorous evaluation? Face down the unions? He never said, which is why I can't stand these kinds of speeches. More later.

P.S. My Facebook friend Denise Parris first used the clever phrase in the above headline.

Come On, Admit It ...

Even the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page liked Obama's speech last night in Tuscon, adding that "he spoke to the better angels of our democracy." So, too, did conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer. Why do some on the right find it so hard to concede that it was a very good moment for the president?

I think Obama did exactly what he needed to. He elevated the debate, tried to calm the nation and steered clear of any partisan score-settling — all with an eloquence appropriate for the occasion. Who could possibly disagree with any of it?

Hero Worship Gone Awry

What else could go wrong for Barack Obama? His poll numbers remain below 50%, he lost control of the House of Representatives and there is a movement afoot to repeal his signature achievement, Obamacare.

Now over Thanksgiving weekend we learn that he took an elbow to the mouth in a pick-up basketball game, prompting White House surgeons to sew his lip together with 12 stitches. As one commenter snarked:

While they're at it, they could do us all a favor and just stitch his mouth shut.

I continue to be amazed that there are erstwhile Obama supporters who say they are surprised at his less-than-stellar performance as commander-in-chief. Did they honestly think that a man with such a thin leadership resume was really prepared to assume the grandest leadership role in the world?

If Obama had stayed in the U.S. Senate for a full term or two and chaired some important committees (or if he had left this year to run for mayor of Chicago and served for a few years as chief executive of the Windy City), then he would have been poised to use that experience as a guide for success in the White House.

But when your work history includes little more than a brief stint in the U.S. Senate, part-time state senator, part-time adjunct law lecturer and community organizer, there's not a whole lot to draw on when it comes to governing one of the most ungovernable nations on earth.

So disenchanted progressives are reduced to either attacking him as a spineless moderate or castigating Republicans for doing a great job of demonizing him. But the reality is that the only reason the Republicans are becoming "the party of no" is that there is absolutely no political downside to doing so. Most of Obama's policies are unpopular and, as I made clear in a column earlier this fall, absolutely no one fears him — not even members of his own party.

Good luck, Mr. President. You're not a bad guy, but I think you're in over-your-head. And unless the economy makes a strong recovery over the next year, you're sunk. May you have a happier Thanksgiving in 2011.

Four Years And Out?

Two longtime political strategists have penned an op-ed this morning in the Washington Post calling on President Obama to declare that he will not seek re-election.

Such pontificating could be easily dismissed if it were written by Republican operatives — say, Karl Rove and Haley Barbour. But this piece was put out by two Democrats, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, who worked for presidents Carter and Clinton, respectively. Their argument is really quite simple:

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

I think their case is plausible. Do I expect Obama to take their advice? No. However, to the case against an Obama second-term, I would add that he doesn't appear to enjoy being president very much.

If Obama were to go on his merry way in 2012 and hand the reins over to Hillary, he could be one of the greatest ex-presidents in history — one whom the passing of time would treat kindly, given the historic nature of his presidency and the impressive list of legislative accomplishments in his term in office. That list, by the way, might very well grow longer if he could throw off the partisan shackles by freeing himself from having to run again.

And I'm sure there are Democrats in Congress who would love to run for re-election themselves without having to say, "Barack who?" when asked about the depth of their support for the faltering president.

On the other hand, there would also be lots of Democrats who would resist such a move — either because they think Obama could accomplish more if he weren't a lame duck or because they simply don't want to give Republicans the satisfaction of having driven him from office.

And there is also the argument that Obama would be pulling a Sarah Palin. Yuk ...

A House Divided

Divided government works. Or at least in the U.S. it works better than having one party in charge.

I think that will be the message voters will have sent come Wednesday morning. We live in a peculiar form of democracy known as a constitutional republic. In most other western democracies, they practice a parliamentary form of governance.

In the latter system, which I watched closely while I lived in Canada, when one party takes over, it assumes total control of both the legislative and executive branches (except in the case of a coalition government, but that's another matter). There's more accountability in a parliamentary system, but if the party in power goes too far, a vote of non-confidence can be called, which in most parliamentary systems mandates new elections within 30-60 days.

We have no such mechanism in the U.S., so the next best thing is for different parties to control Congress and the White House. One prevents the other from overreaching.

Recent history bears this out. As noted by the Cato Institute, over the past 60 years, federal spending has risen least when one party occupied the White House and the other had control of at least one house of Congress.

Consider what transpired in 1994, when President Bill Clinton saw his party lose both houses of Congress to the Republicans. What happened? Clinton decided to focus on a balanced budget with Newt Gingrich rather than face united GOP opposition to any more big programs such as healthcare reform.

The result? Several years of peace and prosperity. The only other modern era with a similar stretch of fiscal restraint was during the divided Eisenhower era. The Reagan era, however, was mostly divided but not marked by fiscal restraint.

I suspect that's because the Gipper had bipartisan support for two popular items: tax cuts and an expensive defense program that ultimately helped bring down the Soviet Union. Fortunately, those two initiatives did make for a roaring economy for most of Reagan's tenure.

So if Republicans gain control of one or both houses of Congress, it might not be a bad thing for Democrats. Indeed, it might even save Barack Obama's troubled presidency.

Come On, Gary!

Trying to really get inside the minds of comedians and satirists is difficult, if not impossible. Sort of like cracking a tough-shelled egg without breaking the yolk. Interviewing one rarely amounts to anything more than a "why-are-you-so-funny?" bull session. Of course, P.J. O'Rourke is a notable exception ...

Still, I found myself strangely drawn to this Gary Trudeau interview, conducted via email by Slate's David Plotz, mainly because of the sub-headline that mentioned "the difficulty of satirizing Obama." Here's what the author of Doonesbury, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary, said about the subject:

Believe it or not, Obama's very tough for business. The contradictory characterizations of him as fascist or socialist only serve to confirm the truth -- he's a raging moderate. And satirists don't do well with moderates, especially thoughtful ones. In addition, Obama rarely makes gaffes and has no salient physical or temperamental features. And sinking popularity isn't a critique. Even SNL's main rap on him is his unflappability, hardly a vice in a world leader.

Hmmm ... First of all, you could make a pretty good case that Obama isn't terribly moderate — at least not in a center-right nation like the U.S. I suspect that's why his party will take such a drubbing in the midterm congressional elections.

He "rarely makes gaffes?" Perhaps that's because they're seldom reported in the news media Trudeau consumes. Indeed, Obama's list of gaffes is long and substantial -- not quite on a level with his vice president, but formidable nonetheless.

No "salient physical" features? Are you kidding me? Cartoonist Pat Oliphant has said the same thing, complaining that "Obama's physical features don't naturally lend themselves to caricature." Think about it, guys. The big ears, the white teeth, the cigarettes, the omnipresent TOTUS. Heck, George Bush was mercilessly caricatured to look like Curious George, a baboon, Alfred E. Newman or worse.

As I've already stated, I can't pretend to get inside of Trudeau's head. But I suspect his reluctance to caricature Obama stems from a genuine affection for the man and his policies, coupled with a fear of being labeled a racist for exaggerating Obama's physical features.

Come on, Gary. Throw political correctness to the wind, After an initial reluctance, even Jon Stewart has dared to make fun of the man he once supported. You once went In Search of Reagan's Brain. Can't you go looking for Obama's 'prompter?

Clueless In D.C.?

It's looking more and more like the Obama camp is under siege. It seems that every day the administration trots out some mystifying argument against the opposition. Or yet another erstwhile sympathetic pundit writes a column comparing the president to everybody's favorite whipping boy, Jimmy Carter. Or Obama's handlers revive the terrifying specter of George W. Bush.

There is an old saying in politics that if you don't have the facts on your side, then find a wedge issue. That's what the Republicans did most recently in 2008. After all, why talk about Iraq and the economy when you can rail against ACORN or gay marriage?

Now Obama is doing much the same thing. His villain du jour? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which Obama and VP Biden insist is using foreign funds to influence the midterm elections. As the Columbia Journalism Review has pointed out, this is pretty much a non-scandal lacking any substantive evidence.

There was a very telling moment (see video above) on Face The Nation on Sunday when host Bob Schieffer asked Obama advisor David Axelrod, "Is this the best you can do?" The host then further asked, "Mr. Axelrod, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?" To which Axelrod responded:

Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob? The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from.

You know you're in trouble when you resort to demanding that your opponent prove he no longer beats his wife. Unemployment is still pushing 10%, the president's approval ratings are in the 40s, his major accomplishments are unpopular, few Democratic congressional candidates want his help and the most sought-after Democratic stump speaker is Bill Clinton. And, of course, absolutely no one fears Obama.

And to top it off, Obama is faced with the likelihood of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives in January. Now we're supposed to be worried that there might be some foreign money in our elections?

There seems to be a developing consensus — even among some of the Democratic elites — that Obama and his people are simply out of their league when it comes to navigating the roiling political waters of the capital. Witness this fairly devastating piece from Time's Mark Halperin, the non-partisan journalist who co-authored a seminal book on the brilliant 2008 Obama campaign.

At this point, the only thing that will save Obama between now and 2012 is a robust and rebounding economy. Sorry ... but right now, I just don't see that happening.

Muslim, Schmuslim!

Is President Obama a Muslim? Nearly one in five Americans — including my own mother — thinks he is, despite any compelling reason to believe so.

All available evidence indicates the president is a Christian. How do we know this? He says he is. His press spokesman says he is. And he went to the Trinity United Church of Christ for almost 20 years.

Count me as one of those who believes Obama is a Christian. I tend to take people at their word when they profess their faith. But the ironic thing about the kooks who insist Obama is a Muslim is that technically they're correct, although they probably don't even know it. As foreign relations scholar Edward N. Luttwak wrote when Obama was running for president:

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

But the real scandal is that presidents need to profess their faith in the first place. Dwight Eisenhower did not belong to a church at all until he ran for president, at which point his advisers told him he'd better pastor-up or risk the wrath of a religion-mongering electorate.

Despite his public utterances, I never really believed Ronald Reagan's attachment to faith. Asked why The Gipper and Nancy never went to church in Washington, the Reagans' flak said they were concerned about security. Huh?

I don't think Obama prays toward Mecca (not that, in Seinfeldian terms, there's anything wrong with that). But nor am I convinced that he's terribly religious. I find it hard to believe, as his spokesman insists, that Obama prays daily and "communicates with his religious advisor every single day."

One of my readers will no doubt ask: "Well, if you don't think Obama's religious, then why did he go to Rev. Wright's church for two decades?" Isn't it possible that he viewed membership at that church as a way of rubbing elbows with the Chicago movers-and-shakers who could help him forge a political career?

People talk about how great it is to have our first African American president. When do you think we will elect our first atheist president? Now that would be an equally impressive achievement.

Build It But ...

Is it possible to agree with two people on opposite sides of an issue?

President Obama has finally weighed in on the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, saying religious freedom "includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

How true. It is simply un-American -- even unconstitutional -- to say to a group of people, "We're not going to allow you to build your place of worship because we don't like your religion." If there's criminal activity in that mosque, then it should be investigated and prosecuted, if warranted, but denial of a building permit based on religious faith would be an abomination.

To my conservative friends, how you would like it if national efforts were made to block construction of an Evangelical church around the corner from a clinic where a Christian zealot had murdered an abortion doctor? Hey, if you like religious discrimination in the case of the NYC mosque, it could be your religion slated for persecution somewhere else.

On the other hand, we have Rep. Peter King, who said "President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero."

King is correct that it's in poor taste for these Muslims to build the mosque so close to a place where Muslims murdered thousands of Americans. As to whether it's deliberately provocative, as a 9/11 victims organization has charged, I cannot say.

My solution is similar to one recently put forth by Gov. David Paterson, who wants to give the Islamic group some state-owned land elsewhere in the city. Come on, governor, you can't just give the group a government-owned lot (that might also be unconstitutional). But you could propose an arms-length deal that would still be too sweet to resist.

As Jeff Jarvis tweeted recently (and I am paraphrasing), "I believe construction of the mosque should be permitted but am also mindful that the 9/11 plot was hatched inside of one."