President

Republican Foreign Policy Melt-Down

13 May
by John, posted in leadership, Liberty, Middle East, Policy, President   |  No Comments

For me George Schultz summed up Ronald Reagan. I have seen Schultz repeat it in various formulations many times.  Some people run for President to be President.  Ronald Reagan ran for President to do things.

It was a time of big ideas – 1980.  Reagan had decided that containment of the Soviet Union had reached its limits and that detente was just as limited a doctrine.  The time had come to call evil, evil.  To rearm and assert that the binding glue of civilization was not collective dehumanization, but liberty.

Today we have the Republican Party, the party that gave us 4,000+ dead in Iraq based on ideological misjudgment, determined to prove that President Obama conspired in Benghazi to do …  I have no idea what it is the President’s administration is covering up.  But this blog has associated itself for a long time with the view that President Obama is a smart and intelligent fellow with a wonderful family who is by  temperament and skills incompetent as President.

What we know about Benghazi is that the President’s administration through incompetence and bureaucratic in-fighting got four guys killed.  Then through incompetence it bungled every non-political aspect of reporting on the facts.  Given the President’s inability to pass any material legislation since 2010 that he is incompetent is hardly news.

When I was in Budapest in 2004, I was amazed at how many Hungarian business people, waiters, artists, and people across the capital stopped to thank me as an American for freeing them from communism.  When I took a cab ride out to the airport, the driver refused to charge me and drove me around the city to see memorials, tank shell holes, and the other visible signs of the Hungarian struggle for liberty.   In Warsaw that year it was the same experience.

There was a long bipartisan effort to contain communism.  But it was Reagan’s decisive abandonment of Carter’s bumbling “human rights” agenda, in favor of a foreign policy based on liberty that changed the game.  Reagan’s aides were concerned he was a neophyte unable to carry his own weight in foreign policy.

Instead he, almost alone,  had the central analysis correct.  The CIA’s estimates that the Soviets were outgrowing the US were wrong.  The US could simply out muscle the Soviet economy in any arms race.  It was a dangerous theory for a nuclear war strategy, but it forced the Soviets  to the table.  And for all the foreign policy elites scoffing, let me state the following unequivocally.

This blog values the opinion of that Hungarian cab driver more than the views of any “expert”.   Under the policies of those elites I crawled in fear under my school desk.  Because of Ronald Reagan my children never have.

This is what I know about Republican foreign policy today.  There are two wings.  One believes we should intervene militarily in every Arab or Persian crisis, while not advocating intervention in any black African, Asian, or Latin American country suffering war induced famine, rape, and genocide.  It does not care that every US kinetic intervention in the Middle East with the exception of the Gulf War in 1992 has cost more lives than anticipated.  Every such intervention has yielded unintended results worse than the initial problem.

The other wing believes the United Nations is a global conspiracy.

We are witnessing the passing of the baton on foreign policy competency to the Democrats.  Since 1968 the Republican Party has owned national defense and foreign policy.  It was the party of limited decisive intervention.  This began to collapse with the 2003 Iraq invasion and the rise of Neo-Con “invade every culture we do not really understand” policies.

Now, rather than articulating a vision for how to engage in Asia on a broad economic, cultural, humanitarian, and lastly military basis, we have the Benghazi investigation.   Even as a Democrat I would venture to guess that would not be President Reagan’s foreign policy agenda for 2013.

The Known Natural Gas Problem

06 May
by John, posted in environment, leadership, Policy, President   |  No Comments

Right before I departed on my spring time tour of rural Nebraska and Colorado, I attended FrackingSense’s “Atmospheric Perspective on Oil & Gas Operations” from CU’s Jana Milford, a professor with expertise in airborne pollutants, and NOAA’s Gabrielle Petron, who is busily measuring field levels of airborne pollutants in oil & gas fields. It was very hard to get either of them to use the word fracking. They just do not accept it as scientifically relevant to the pollution issue.

It reminds me frankly of listening to someone who is an expert on firearms pointing out why “assault weapons” is an irrelevant term in gun violence.

For two years while at CU Law I interned for the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and a coalition of water groups in Summit County, Colorado.  It was hardly a pro-extraction group.  But whether it was whooping cranes on the Platte, pronghorn antelope in Wyoming, or air pollution from uranium mining it was all about science.  In those days and in heavily rural Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska the emotion was all on the side of the farmers and ranchers.

After several months of attending the FrackingSense forum at the Center for the American West I have had everyone of my preconceived views confirmed, but one.  Water pollution, traffic, noise, pipeline construction and maintenance are all solvable problems under assault from people who act as if hydrocarbon production is a new untested industrial process.  These problems deserve much more study and innovation, but they are not the problems to focus upon. The air pollution impact is much worse than I thought.

Off the record some of the top regulators in Colorado had warned me that this was the main issue.  There are two grave distortions fostered by the environmental community diverting our attention from the methane, and more importantly, volatile organics currently flooding our new hydrocarbon fields.  First, is that the unscientific video in Gasland and elsewhere points to a water table crisis.  Second, is that the Clean Air Act does not apply to oil & gas production through the so called “Halliburton loophole”.

Both of these are false.

There are water use issues in some watersheds in Colorado, but in no watershed does oil and gas production require the kind of permanent substantial use that agriculture (80% of CO water useage mostly for cattle production) and municipal usage require.   There is a ready and functioning water market with increasing use of industry recycling.  You have a 100% recycling of the fracking fluid and a reasonable near term chance of 100% recycling of produced (ancient underground) water.

The issue is that there is substantial leakage of methane, and worse, volatile organics at the surface in the oil & gas fields.  The leaks can come from drilling, particularly completion of the well processes.  The leaks come from tanks, pipelines, dryers/evaporators, and other equipment.  All of those leaks are regulated at the federal level under the Clean Air Act.

It is the exact opposite of Gasland.

We need the EPA to act within its existing authority to tighten the amount of leakage through the use of technology, enhanced monitoring, and inspections.  The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful US regulatory efforts in history.  Go back and watch video from the 1960s of any major US city before the Clean Air Act .  You will cough in sympathy.

So much of the FrackingSense presentations have been about what we do not know. But it was clear already from Ms. Petron’s previous work and published measurements in Utah and Colorado that a field can be a “sea of methane” from leaks. More importantly accompanying that methane are volatile organics that in the presence of sunlight convert into ozone (O3), one of the original air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Regardless of your view of the science on methane and climate change, nobody debates that ground based ozone kills people.

Instead of wasting all this effort on unknown water pollution and temporary disruptions to the surface, the environmental community should be focused like a laser on what we already know.  We have a bad ozone pollution problem, regulated under the Clean Air Act, which we can abate right now.  All it requires is the President to stop campaigning and start acting under existing law.

The Coming of the Second Jimmy Carter

17 Apr
by John, posted in Euro, Falklands/Malvinas, Middle East, President, UK   |  No Comments

For those of us in 2008 who voted enthusiastically for Senator Obama from the center of the Democratic Party it has been quite a ride.  Through TARP, the auto-bailouts, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden we saw a steady moderate hand at the tiller of crisis.  Then the diversion into healthcare resulted in the loss of a governing majority.

Having sacrificed his political capital on healthcare, the President has been unable to follow a traditional Keynesian path to stimulate the economy.  His vaunted stimulus was both more effective than his critics admit, too structurally dependent on temporary tax cuts,  and too short lived to have any real long term effect.  His efforts on “too big to fail” banks who are bigger than ever ended in another regulatory flop. The most capitalists in the US can hope for is that the supposedly “Keynesian” President ceases raising taxes, imposing higher healthcare costs, raising the minimum wage, and pursuing short term austerity in a shrinking discretionary budget.

But while the President remains tactically more reliable than his predecessor overseas, he remains blunderingly opaque on strategy.  Surely a pivot to Asia involves more than sending a detachment of Marines to Australia. Would not a transformative economic proposal linking China further into the international trading system be a stronger strategic initiative?

But there is another immediate foreign policy strategic tipping point coming in our most important ally – Great Britain. In 2014 Scotland may secede from Britain. Sometime after 2015 Great Britain will probably vote on whether to leave the European Union.

What is President Obama’s policy on revolutionary change within our strongest ally?

If Scotland leaves, the Labor Party in Britain is finished.  England is a Tory bastion.  And in a rump Britain England will dominate even more. The Tories will chart a more conservative course.  And since the desire to leave the EU is even stronger with Tories than in Britain as a whole, a follow-on referendum could leave a smaller and militarily weakened Great Britain outside the EU.

Mr. President, what is our plan for that?

Scotland has played an outsized role in Anglo-American defense strategy since World War I.  Most of the secure naval harbors in Britain, including its only harbor for nuclear weapons capable ships, are in Scotland.  The Scots have sacrificed the most per capita in causalities within the UK from World War I onward.  Scotland has always been at the heart of British defense capabilities.

Now this is not all bad news.  Change is inevitable and Britain has not yet faced all of its past in Scotland, Ireland, the Falklands, and Gibraltar.  The US could much more easily reach trade agreements with an independent Britain than with the EU.  The debate over Scotland’s readmission into NATO after it leaves Britain could force a needed conversation. Why are the United States, Britain, Canada, and France undertaking to defend small countries who cannot or in the case of the Scottish Nationalist Party will not contribute to our nuclear deterrent?

The point is a major strategic moment is coming within this President’s term.  What is the plan?  Surely it is not merely to send a mid-level official to London to lecture the British government on why it is in the United States’ interest for Britain to stay in the EU. I am confident FDR or Reagan would have sent a high level official to explain why it is in Britain’s interest to stay in the EU.

But as with all the strategic things in his Presidency – the economy and foreign policy – President Obama is incapable of acting. It is if he exists in an ether world of soft focused rallies calling for dinners to discuss budgets.  As with President Carter’s last years the President just cannot get anything strategic done.  Perhaps at this point that is a comfort.  And on and on we go riding the 13 year merry-go-round of limp leadership.

The Alternative Universe in Washington

26 Feb
by John, posted in Cost-Cutting, leadership, President, Uncategorized   |  2 Comments

You get the impression listening to the President, cabinet secretaries, and others discussing the sequester cuts that the American people do not understand “cuts” mean furloughs, layoffs, cancelled initiatives, frozen pay, cut benefits, and an uncertain future.  It rings particularly untrue when the President acts like a middle manager and touts all the horrors of modest cuts to growth in federal spending.  As someone who has participated in mass RIFs (reductions in force), the President has spent the last week acting just like a junior manager who “does not get it.”

The decision is made the cuts are going to happen. Today the President refused the Republican offer to give the him the flexibility to make the decision on targeted cuts.  I have never met a CEO who would not seize that offer of flexibility from a board of directors.

What leader refuses the offer to lead?

It is as if Washington lived through 2008 and 2009 and the years afterward as a business school case.  Well guess what DC, those unemployment figures were real people with mortgages and the people hanging around the park mid-day with kids or working retail were furloughed.  That was real suffering and now it is going to happen to federal employees and the crony capitalists.

And I am in total agreement that across the board cuts are ridiculous.  I worked in a large printing company where for years I begged for more investment in a small software business the printer owned by accident.  In years where we spent 60 or 65 million dollars in capital on equipment the software business got scraps.  When cuts came, they got their across the board share.

The broad cuts did not save the main business and killed the little business that was the future.  That is the issue with the sequester cuts and March budget battles.  Are they going to follow the path of the bankrupts from 2008 and 2009 or the smart companies that de-levered, shed unessential functions, and focused on best in class strategy.

Talk to me about leadership, long term entitlement reform, how you are going to pass immigration reform, how we are going to compete in Asia.  Do not try and scare me with a vision of job cuts, furloughs, and stupidity over a minor budget battle.  Whining achieves nothing.

 

 

Minimum Wage – That Is Your Growth Plan?

14 Feb
by John, posted in leadership, Life, Policy, President, Rural, South, Texas, Urban Policy, West   |  3 Comments

I really do admire and respect the President, but raising the minimum wage as a growth strategy does not line up with memories of my Jimmy Carter era high school economics class.  I favor a minimum wage as a floor to exploitation, but nobody I know argues it results in more jobs and more hiring.   President Obama is just not a fan of private enterprise expansion.

Actions are louder than words.  The more expensive labor costs, the more corporate executives retard budgeted and unbudgeted hiring.  That is true in my personal experience throughout the US, Canada, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark where I ran or had some executive responsibility for various manufacturing and high tech businesses.

But all my early jobs were in small businesses.  Our son, Jack, is sixteen and looking for his first summer job.  My first job beyond the family was at age 15.  I was the junior guy in a delicatessen in Highland Park Plaza in Dallas.  The owners were two Jewish guys, but they were not equal partners.  It made for an unusual hierarchal management style worthy in my view of a TV sitcom.

I cleaned out the grease trap and once a bathroom that had the appearance of a ritual killing site, scrubbed floors and dishes, and did every dirty job in the book for $2.50 an hour plus lunch.  It was the first time I had an African-American as a peer in anything, who was also a mid-twenties single woman.  An altogether great cultural and fantastic culinary experience.

Minimum wage was actually $2.65 an hour.  In my first hard ball negotiation with one of the owners I asked for $2.65.  He told me to take $2.50 or he offered me his hand.  Dad confirmed for me there was some sort of exemption for him to hire me into the job.

Now you can say I was exploited.  But, I hope Jack has half as positive an experience as I had that four months.  And raising the minimum wage in Colorado and huge parts of the country is not going to make finding that summer job any easier.  It is an opportunity killer.

Mr. President, please remember that there is still almost 8% unemployment.  Strip out college graduates and the picture is scandalous.   Please, focus.