Politics On Steriods
My good friends over at the American Missive have a very interesting article on President Obama’s Afghan plan.
I agree with the Mr. VanNuys 110%. The plan seems reasonable but in light of our current spending Obama is trying to have it all. The reason I agree 110% is Obama is wrecking us financially faster then anybody else would have.
However, I’d like to point out that things wouldn’t have been much different under Republican leadership. In fact, Republican leadership as pointed out in the Washington Times would do even more in Afghanistan.
As far as the spending goes Obama is just the Republican party on steroids. In the Omnibus bill Republican’s had 40% of the earmarks, McCain infamously took time off his presidential campaign to go to Washington and support the Pelosi, Paulson, Bush Wall Street bailout. Further, for all of McCain’s talk of limiting earmarks this is just politics as well. Read any of the great minds of today and they will tell you to focus on the top 10 to 20% of the problems that create 80% of the results. McCain and other conservatives focus on limiting earmarks is just politics. Earmarks only account for a small percentage of spending compared with the overall spending. True leadership along the lines of what Stephen Covey, Jim Collins, Peter Drucker, or Jack Welch would call for would be true meaninful reform.
This is the problem. While I agree with those at American Missive I’d take it a step further. What is the alternative a slow decline or a fast decline? A slow decline surely gives us time to change. But we aren’t changing for the better I don’t see any swinging of knowledge or understanding of the principles that would make this country stronger. A fast decline would hurt but maybe it would shake us up sooner rather then later. With four young kids for their sake I’d rather be stuck with the burden of the hard life so I could leave them with a better world. One could almost be justified in supporting Obama on this ground. Although personally faced with two evils like the Republican party and Democratic party I will choose neither. The ends do not justify the means.
I wonder do those at American Missive see as large a lack of leadership in Washington as I do?
Although I did not read the American Missive post you mentioned, my question in reading your post is “decline from what or where”. Speaking only for myself, I do not think in terms of any current policy getting us back to “where or what we were” thus I do not use “decline” to define where or what we change or move to become.
The “better world” you wish for your children (I think is worthy goal) may very well be something none of us that have lived through the last fifty years can envision. In strickly my view, focusing on short-term (next five years) fiscal or monetary policies, foreign policies, healthcare, etc severely limits what the vision for that better world might just be.
Just to comment on one of the individuals mentioned in your blog; Jack Welsh. Mr Welsh created “value” for thirty years based primarily on economic and corporate “growth” at GE. Thinking about just the concept of “growth” as practiced by GE for the past really fifty years, you could ask the the question “is that kind of growth sustainable indefinitely into the future”. If not then a “better world” will not be envisioned by even Jack Welsh’s wisdom.
These are my thoughts as I read your post; think past “party politics” and for what ever its worth, I still think President Obama was thinking long-term when making so-called promises during the election process; he just has to initially do some short-term stuff (while holding his nose).
Thinks for stopping by and reading my first entry. It’s greatly appreciated. Also, thanks a lot for a reasoned comment.
By decline I mean a decline in freedom from more freedom to less freedom from more choice rather then less choice. As a financial officer in the health care industry I realize how quickly the government is stealing our freedom with medicare and medicaid. Meanwhile they are stealing money from my pockets, which are means to make other choices. I’ve got 6 dependents and still pay thousands upon thousands in taxes. This limits my choice in education, health care, vacations, cars, homes, etc. Meanwhile the government is investing my money in financial firms and car manufactures. If I had wanted to invest my money in those companies I should have been allowed a choice in the matter. Further my money goes to social security and medicare. Who is this for? My parents have had health insurance and I’ve setup long-term care policies for them so that I wouldn’t have to carry them financially in old age. So, now why is the government choosing who I’m going to take care of in old age? I should have the choice to care for who I want to care for as should my children.
So, what I’m looking for is somebody that is shouting for freedom!
I agree Welch created value and vision. One of his concepts was a focus on being number one and number two in the industries they competed in. What I was implying by bringing those thinkers into the conversation was that these guys were big picture oriented. They don’t tend to focus on the small things. Unlike politicians who harp on measly bonuses while they demoralize the very company they invested our money in (AIG). Or like McCain who chases after ear marks. Or like Nancy Pelosi who flies around in a private jet but lectures the CEO’s of Detriot on this. Like my local senator Robert Byrd here in W.Va. who builds a road to nowhere.
I disagree though with the fact that Obama is thinking long-term. I don’t think it is in his nature. The “don’t let a crisis go to waste” mentality is not long-term thinking, overspending is not long-term thinking, regulations and labor unions aren’t long term thinking. If he had to “hold his nose” to do this stuff that isn’t long-term thinking either.
As a father I teach my children if you have a choice between TWO bad options don’t choose either. So if Obama is “holding his nose” then he doesn’t have the mentality for long-term thinking. If he’s not “holding his nose” then that’s the worse option. Like Stephen Covey in that list of great minds “think win-win”. This is what I teach my children. A lose-win or win-lose mentality is NOT good.
Read where Mr. Obama’s economic policy will amass more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined. And he’ll do it in just four years.
The solution to being to far in debt is not to spend more money. Kind of strange that nobody get’s this now a days. Look at the savings rates of average American’s. The government’s just following the masses. Those that think debt is bad and savings is good are in the minority now.