It’s been a while since I’ve weighed-in on the political front, and with the recent failure of the Budget Super Committee, I thought it would be an interesting time to examine the difference between statesman and politician.  I don’t know about you, but I’m so fed-up with the rhetoric and the gamesmanship in Washington that I’m about ready to give-up on all politicians. Our country was founded by great statesmen, and somewhere along the way we turned our nation over to a bunch of self-serving politicians. While the term political leadership may have become an oxymoron, it is simply impossible to be a statesman and not be a leader…

It has been said that a politician is concerned with winning an election, and a statesman is concerned with future generations. The politician makes speeches and promises motivated by pride, ego, notoriety, power, position, stature, and personal success. Contrast this with a statesman who keeps commitments, is motivated by service above and beyond self, and by making a lasting positive difference. The true statesmen is a breath of fresh air whose only pursuit is to improve the welfare of those they serve regardless of public opinion, or self-interest.

With unemployment still out of control, our nation adding more than $4 Billion dollars a day to our budget deficit, and no hope in sight for true change vs. promised change,  it is far past the time for business as usual in Washington. Our nation racked up more debt during the time that the Super Committee was in session than they were charged to eliminate in the first place. Leadership isn’t about creating committees, it’s about making tough decisions, and getting things done that accomplish the mission. Leadership isn’t an absentee business, leadership isn’t about giving speeches, leadership isn’t about placing blame, leadership isn’t about the leader – it’s about those whom the leader serves.

I did something interesting last night which I’d suggest you do as well….I researched the cabinet members of our first 10 Presidents and compared them with our current cabinet members, and what I found simply confirmed the sentiments that I described above. Without listing all 10 cabinets just take a look at the comparison between George Washington’s cabinet and Barack Obama’s cabinet and you’ll see why I’m so frustrated…

President: George Washington  vs. Barack Obama
Vice President: John Adams vs. Joe Biden
Secretary of Defense: Henry Knox vs. Leon Panetta
Secretary of State: Thomas Jefferson vs. Hillary Clinton
Secretary of the Treasury: Alexander Hamilton vs. Timothy Geithner
Attorney General: Edmund Randolph vs. Eric Holder
* I only included cabinet positions that existed during Washington’s era for direct comparison purposes.

Do you see the difference yet between politicians and statesmen? Perhaps the most telling failure surrounding the Super Committee was the absence of our president during the process. Rather than leading by attending to the business of the nation, our president was campaigning. Can anyone reading this post truly imagine Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, etc., not being fully engaged in bringing resolve to matter? When our nation’s leader is more concerned about winning a second-term in office than leading our nation forward we all have pause for concern. We simply need to restore principled leadership in Washington. Our nation needs serious people to step-up during serious times. What we need is to send home disingenuous politicians (republicans, democrats & independents alike) and replace them with true statesmen.

In the end, my message to those on Capitol Hill is a simple one – do the right thing regardless of partisanship, compromise is honorable where it serves a greater good, and remember that leadership is about the people you serve and not self-interest. All of our nation’s politicians should take to heart the message that those leaders not accountable to their people, will eventually be held accountable by their people. If there are any true statesmen left on Capital Hill, it would be a great time for them to show themselves…

I welcome your comments below, but let’s try and focus on the big picture and not partisan quibbling.

Do you know who Brian Deese is? I didn’t have a clue until Monday when I read a very disconcerting New York Times article entitled: “The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling GM.” Well, Brian Deese is in fact the 31-year old staffer for President Obama referenced in the aforementioned article, and who also happens to be the primary influencer/driver behind the policy decisions now guiding GM. This is normally where my late father-in-law would have said, “no wonder the Russians are ahead.”

When you read the resume of Mr. Deese it is clear that he is a bright young man. It is also clear that he certainly has no executive level experience in the manufacturing sector, much less the automobile industry. Even more scary is that he has never really held a private sector job of any consequence. Mr. Deese is by any fair analysis nothing more than a very young, very inexperienced, campaign staffer who now finds himself way in over his head (see a previous post entitled: “Operating Outside of Competency“).

Regardless of how bright and talented Mr. Deese may be, there are nevertheless certain challenges and obstacles he will face for the first time that more seasoned executives have encountered numerous times over the course of their careers. Individuals who operate outside of experiential boundaries are met with frustration, if not failure, by having what appear to be great ideas eventually unwound by unforeseen factors that were only unforeseen to them due to their inexperience or lack of discernment. It doesn’t matter that Mr. Deese has an Ivy League education, or that he’s worked on a few political campaigns…he is still sailing in uncharted territory which is dangerous for even the most seasoned operating officers.

Bottom line…if this is the best our administration has to offer the stakeholders of GM and the American public (oops…I forgot we’re one in the same now), then I would submit that this is merely a sign of more ominous things to come…

Today’s announcement by President Obama that he will reduce federal spending by $100 million dollars is nothing short of laughable. This move insults the intelligence of all Americans, and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at pandering and political posturing. In today’s post I’m going to begin by giving you some simple math to consider, while I offer a historical perspective on why both Obama’s strategy and tactics are fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail…

First the math…a $100 million dollar reduction in spending represents about one-fifteenth of one percent of the current federal deficit. Put another way, today’s proposed reduction in spending would barely cover one day’s interest on Obama’s $787 billion dollar stimulus plan. I think Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw’s may have provided the best analogy: “To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.”

If the utter ridiculous nature of Obama’s fuzzy math doesn’t bother you, just take a look at some of his proposed cuts, the most egregious of which is the proposed reduction in death benefits to the families of police officers killed in the line of duty. Out of all the possible things he could have proposed to eliminate, why on earth would he choose this…Enough of the math and on to the history.

I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve heard the current economic situation being compared to the Great Depression.  Nary a day passes where a news commentator doesn’t attempt to connect the two, and some would argue that Obama is returning to many Rooseveltian policies in handling the current economic crisis.  This sort of policy-building based on history is faulty for several reasons.  While it is important to learn from history, no situation is ever the same.  When we respond to current issues based almost solely on a historical scenario we are always one step behind. 

While one can learn from the response of the Roosevelt administration, you must take it with a grain of salt.  This is 2009, not the 1930s, and our economy has many new and complicating factors.  There are many different opinions regarding the origins of the Great Depression, but one of the main contributing factors was the overproduction in the agricultural sector with a declining demand due to the industrialization of the nation. 

Today’s economic crisis is based on something entirely different- the irresponsibility of the Clinton administration in passing legislation that allowed people who could not afford houses to buy them.  This is obviously a simplified explanation- but truly, I’m sick of people blaming Bush for a crisis that was initiated by an irresponsible and overindulgent Clinton administration. 

What makes me nervous, is the constant referencing of the Great Depression, when today’s economic landscape is very different.  If we handle this economic situation the same way Roosevelt did, we will not have the same results.  The irony of it all, is that while I respect Roosevelt as an amazing Commander in Chief, and one of the most brilliant politicians in our nation’s history, he is often credited with something that he did not achieve. 

Roosevelt did not bring America out of the Great Depression, the booming economic growth that happened when we entered World War II is what pulled us out of the Great Depression. Unfortunately, Obama is spending like a maniac; spending that puts what seemed extreme in the 30’s to shame! Spending that will stifle any hope for sustainable economic growth.

So liberals who blame Bush for spending too much in two wars, and for causing the economic crisis, look in the mirror! The problems we are currently dealing with were instituted by one of your own in response to the Great Depression. Food stamps, governmental support for the unemployed, over-regulation…these were all created specifically to deal with the Great Depression- they were not meant to be carried forward in perpetuity. Because they have been, they have caused many of our nation’s most grave financial and social problems. 

The issues described above were only compounded by the Clintons loose spending, government over-involvement, and absurd wasting of money. This trend regrettably been taken to new heights with the Obama administration.  This is a formula that does not work.  It’s commonsense.  As an already industrialized nation, a world war will not help our economy as it did in the 30’s and 40’s.  And as previously discussed, Roosevelt’s spending and government aid were not what solved the problem anyway…in actuality, his policies merely served to slow the recovery.

We are at a point in time where we must find our own present day solutions to deal with the current economic crisis.  We must learn from history, but not imitate it.  We are in a completely unique situation, and we need to treat it as such.  We cannot sustain unprecedented and reckless spending without very dire consequences. Mr. Obama, the math doesn’t lie, and neither does an accurate look at history…Your spin and rhetoric are becoming tired and worn.

General Motors fell on its sword today essentially offering itself up for nationalization. In a previous post entitled “Good Money After Bad” I warned of the evils of government intervention into private enterprise, and now I’m afraid we’re about to reap what we’ve sown. Nothing good comes of bailing-out failed entities. The only thing this exercise in frivolity accomplished was to delay the inevitable, and to waste more taxpayer money. The “Financial Times” had a good piece on this sad moment in American history which I would recommend reading.

In today’s post I’ll give President Obama a break on his domestic policy, but I cannot give him a free pass on his foreign policy agenda (or lack thereof). I can’t recall a President in modern times who has exhibited more foreign policy naivete than Barack Obama. He has the uncanny ability to make the wrong move, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place. His apologetic statements at the G20, allowing North Korea to launch a long range missile, continuously falling prey to the lulling tactics of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bowing to the Saudi King, and giving Hugo Chavez a propagandist photo opportunity are nothing compared to his decision to release “top secret” CIA memos on interrogation methods. In today’s post I’ll explain why this President and his administration are in way over their heads…

From releasing prisoners at Gitmo without any plan, to using public funding to finance abortions overseas, to Hillary’s inappropriately translated “reset” button, to Obama’s classless gifts to foreign dignitaries, the new administration just can’t get it right. While the phrase “War on Terror” has been banned by the Obama administration, Janet Napolitano didn’t seem to have any trouble floating the idea that our veterans could pose a terrorist threat…Any sane individual would have to admit that it makes no sense whatsoever that the Obama administration will not call a terrorist a terrorist, but they don’t hesitate to label the men and women who risk their lives in the service of our country as potential terrorists. Give me a break…

While I could fill pages with the foreign policy gaffes that have occurred during the first three month’s of the Obama Administration, nothing supports my case that President Obama is not ready for prime time more than his decision to release CIA memos on US interrogation methods. Barrack Obama just told our enemies exactly what they can expect should they be captured. They now have a field guide for use in the recruitment and training of terrorists provided by Barrack Obama. If memos like this were leaked in a responsible administration, at a minimum it would have been considered a breach of national security, and would more likely have been considered treasonous.

I wish I were hopeful that these types of mistakes would cease to occur moving forward, but given this administration’s lack of common sense, coupled with their lack of foreign policy experience I’m afraid I won’t hold my breath…

I don’t know about you, but last time I checked those of us residing in the United States of America live in a Democratic Republic underpinned by free market capitalism, and not a Socialist State. While the United States needs to be an active participant in the global community to protect our interests, said interests can never be protected by allowing our sovereignty to be undermined. As citizen’s of this nation we should resist at all costs allowing our personal rights and freedoms to be subordinated to global policy controlled by foreign governments. 

Barack Obama is President of the United States and not a foreign lobbyist. He is also not Robin Hood. I don’t desire to have Mr. Obama determining how much of my income he is going to give away to other citizens or governments based upon his definition of “fair,” and I certainly don’t want G20 nations telling Americans what is fair and right. 

We live in the United States of America, and not Cuba, North Korea, China, etc. Our founding fathers would turn over in their grave at the thought of their precious country being socialized. The concept of government sponsored wealth redistribution has no place in a free Democratic Republic. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine being espoused by Barack Obama is a threat to our economy, our personal freedoms, and our way of life as we’ve come to know it. The really scary part, is that more Americans don’t seem to understand this.

I grant you that we are facing challenging economic times, but that is no reason to usher in a Socialist form of government, or to allow the erosion of our rights to the interests of a global agenda. The Constitution guarantees us certain freedoms that I don’t wish to have eviscerated based solely upon what Mr. Obama happens to think is fair. Lest I remind you that it was the Democratic Party’s attempt at social engineering (FannieMae, FreddieMac, CRA, etc.) that placed us in this current mess to begin with, but I digress…

Growing up I was never taught that life is fair. In fact, I was taught just the opposite…that life is anything but fair, and that I wasn’t entitled to anything that I didn’t earn. There have been times in my life where I have greatly benefited from our Capitalistic ways, and other times when I have suffered as a result. But never, even in the darkest of times have I desired to become part of a Socialist State…

Enough is enough…it’s time to do away with celebrity worship, politically correct psycho-babble, and the notion that the globalization of fiscal, social, and economic policy is somehow in America’s best interests.

In a BBC interview, Secretary of State Clinton’s Science Advisor, Nina Fedoroff stated: ”We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people,”  When Fedoroff was pressed further on the subject she responded by saying “There are probably already too many people on the planet.” Fedoroff’s quotes reminded me of one of my late father-in-law’s sayings…he had a phrase he liked to use when something struck him as utterly ridiculous…he would just shake his head and say: “no wonder the Russians are ahead.” In today’s post I’ll examine the relationship between populist theory and fact…

I’ll stipulate from the outset that being environmentally responsible is a good thing. However I also believe that using fuzzy math and fear mongering to drive political agendas is the height of irresponsibility. So, is the planet over-populated? While I may not be a noted scientist, I can do some basic arithmetic…a simple back of the napkin calculation shows that if a person can stand in 4 square feet (2 feet by 2 feet), then the entire population of the world, can stand in about 933 square miles. Rhode Island is 1214 square miles. That means that the entire world population of 6.5 billion people could stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the State of Rhode Island.

I’m not so naive to think that standing shoulder-to-shoulder is the equivalent to having adequate space to live a comfortable and productive life, but given that the earth has a surface area of roughly 197 million square miles (57 million square miles of land with the balance being water) then surely we have not yet reached the earth’s population limits. The truth of the matter is that the proliferation of factually incorrect statements in areas related to population growth, global warming, resource depletion etc., have a myriad of hidden agendas associated with them. These topics are not really “science” issues at all, but rather moral and ethical debates disguised as scientific discussion.

The truth of the matter is that those who favor radical social and genetic engineering, abortion, and those who place the value of an animal’s rights (I guess I missed the part in the Constitution guaranteeing animals rights) over the needs of humans get farther with their agendas using scientific arguments than they do with common sense logic. This is because there isn’t much common sense to their argument…

Rumor has it that President Obama fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Actually, the truth of the matter is that the Obama administration “asked” Mr. Wagoner to step down, and he agreed to do so. This was all part of President Obama’s auto industry plan announced today, which was largely based upon the recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by guess who…the Treasury Department. My question is this…what the h*ll does the Treasury Department know about the automobile industry, and why is our President firing (or coercing to resign) a private sector CEO? In today’s post I’ll share my thoughts on this disturbing turn of events…

I’m in no way arguing that Mr. Wagoner shouldn’t have been fired…he should have been. However it should have been his board of directors that called for his termination, and not the Federal Government. If the Federal Government would have kept its nose out of the private sector to begin with, and not bailed them out in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this debate today. The sad part is that because President Obama has invested such a significant amount of political capital in the auto industry you can mark my words that he will continue to fund subsequent bailouts with our dollars. The snowball is just beginning its downhill roll…

Let’s do a bit of a deeper dive on the disturbing trend of government intervention into the private sector…Not only is this just flat-out wrong, but it sets a very scary precedent…When the Federal Government can acquire privately held companies, force the sale of privately held companies to foreign entities, fire CEOs of privately held companies, pass legislation that has not even been read, and use the tax code in targeted punitive fashion, then why even have a private sector? Oops…I guess that’s the change that Mr. Obama promised.

It has gotten so bad that on the heels of yet another press conference by our President, Morgan Stanley recommended the immediate sale of US stocks, and the Dow closed down more than 250 points today. Is this really the change you’re looking for? Not me…

Do today’s inaugural events resemble change or more of the same? Call me crazy, but while I wish President Obama all the best, I cannot for the life of me understand $175 million dollars being spent on his inauguration during this time of financial crisis. This is not change, but it is just more of the same on steroids…On election day I vowed to lend my support to the new administration for as long as it was earned. I stated that we all must now hope for great things from our new President, but we must also hold him accountable to uphold the standards of the office he holds and the country he represents. Not to be a party-pooper, but it’s time for my first accountability call…

My hope is that in the case of today’s celebration that one day does not make a trend. President Obama is clearly charismatic and affable. In fact, I even found myself starting to like him as I watched him interact with his family, the Bush family, the troops, volunteers and the like. I also understand that today’s historic event is deserving of celebration, and don’t begrudge him that. However, I believe the excesses of this inauguration are not in good form. At a time when our nation and its people are suffering from economic turmoil largely due to unprecedented financial excess, is this really the time to spend well more than 2 times what President’s Bush and Clinton combined spent on their inaugurations?

Wouldn’t it have been better form for President Obama to cut spending on his inauguration and lead by example? Wouldn’t it have been more inspiring if he had instructed the large list of corporate and financial donors to make contributions to charity and those in need in lieu of contributing to the inauguration gala?

I’m not going to belabor the point any further other than to say that I hope President Obama uses more wisdom and discretion in how he handles matters after the events of this inauguration day have passed…

Good money after bad…this is perhaps the most apropos description of the current proposal to bailout the  big three US auto makers. Have we learned nothing? Are we again going to let fear mongering subject us to more flawed decisioning? The lack of management and accountability for the trillion dollar government bailout of the mortgage and finance industry has been nothing short of amazing to me. Do you sincerely believe the appointment of an “auto czar” and the submission of business plans is going to make a difference? I don’t; it’s simply more political gamesmanship, more of the same, and will result in nothing more than throwing good money after bad. In today’s post I’ll share my thoughts on the auto bailout…

Here’s a news flash…when a business becomes insolvent there is already a provision within our legal system that affords a mechanism for protection. It’s called a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, which oddly enough is often referred to as a “reorganization,” “restructuring,” or “workout.” I don’t know about you, but a workout or restructuring certainly has more appeal to me than another “bailout.” Filing for protection under Chapter 11, a corporation can seek temporary protection from its creditors by submitting a business plan to the court for approval, which if approved, will grant the company sufficient time to restructure itself and work it’s way out of a financial crisis. This is the Bankruptcy Court’s job and falls squarely within the realm of the Judicial Branch of the government. It has nothing to do with the Legislative Branch of government, and Congress should flat out abstain from such an over-reaching and improper use of their authority.

But Mike, what happens if the reorganization doesn’t work? Then the business fails and its assets are liquidated to offset the outstanding debt owed to creditors. This is how business works and the automakers should have no special rights or privileges. If they fail they fail…period end of sentence. 

But Mike, what about all the workers who will lose their jobs if the automakers fail…wouldn’t this throw our country into a depression? First of all, there is no guarantee that they will fail by going through the normal channels of filing for bankruptcy. They may actually survive to be better run companies. However, even if they were to fail, it wouldn’t throw our nation into a depression. If you aggregate all the direct employees of the big three, along with all the indirect (dealers, suppliers, etc.) employees associated with the big three, it doesn’t even come close to the numbers of people employed in small businesses across the country. This wouldn’t be as tough for our country to absorb as the bursting of the dot.com bubble, or other sector rotations that have occurred historically.

So what would happen in a worse case scenario? Three companies that failed to innovate and to sustain their competitive advantages would suffer the just consequences of poor leadership. Some people would suffer the hardship of temporary unemployment while they were recycled back into the workforce, and other new businesses would blossom as a result of new ideas and innovation aided by the law of necessity. By way of example, just look at the logging, mining, and shipping industries. They all went through their boom and bust cycle and our nation survived. We took many unskilled workers thrust into the ranks of the unemployed, retrained them, and redeployed them as better skilled workers. This is the natural order of things, and while certainly not pleasant, it is nothing to be feared.

The moral of this story is that the free market economics of capitalism work best if left alone. Those companies that do the right things prosper, and those companies who don’t keep pace with the competitive forces in the market fail. It’s not a bad thing, it is an unfortunate thing, but it is what it is…