We heard a lot of nice sentiment from President Bush Tuesday night but, alas, it is another case of too little, too late. (Or... is it never too late?) It would be great if the $18 billion in "pork barrel" spending he mentioned is really cut by restricting the ease with which our legislature can attach its pet projects to entirely unrelated bills under the cover of darkness. This is the equivalent of about seven weeks of spending on the Iraq war, at current levels.
It also begs the question as to what the administration was thinking until now, as we spent perhaps $100 to $120 billion during his watch on an abundance of special projects. If we give the President and his team credit for on-the-job-training the first year, even though every candidate makes cutting government spending a part of his platform, the administration should still have done something earlier, especially with Republicans steering this ship! This is very embarrassing -- and shameful!
It makes me think the attitude in Washington was that 'the Democrats got theirs, now we're going to get ours'.
On the way to work I heard Frank Deford -- sports journalist, NPR commentator and Sports Illustrated writer and editor -- giving his sentiment on the salaries of Division I college coaches. Basically he does not care what they're paid. It is not an issue to him. Whatever they are making is only relevant in terms of what the market will bear.
This got me thinking about what our legislature spends its time on. For example, we can all get into long debates about how much star athletes and coaches make, and Congress can investigate any number of issues in the sports world -- like steroids, monopolistic practices, strikes, salary caps and the like -- but it does not compare to what we would all gain if they cleaned up their own house.
If every head coach in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and the NHL earned $3 million per year (some do, most don't) it would tally out to $363 million. So if they all worked for free it would not save as much money as the slightest improvement in a few government programs.
A case could probably be made that the biggest waste in Washington from an economic perspective is what our elected officials choose to waste their time debating. The President also spoke about health care, tax reform, education, guest workers, securing our borders and OH YES, support for a troop surge in Iraq.
I do not think the President comprehends that more troops is not a strategy. If he had a strategy, then he could explain it. If he could explain it maybe more people would support it. The scary thing is that many people have been asking this question for years now, on both sides of the aisle, in all 50 states, and around the world, and he has not demonstrated that he understands the question. If he does not understand the question, how can he come up with the answer? If he does not even realize that he does not have a strategy then how can he devise one? If there is anything that is destroying President Bush's credibility, it is his steadfast and forceful approach of sticking to his principles; which is to be admired, except that having principles is not a plan either. Principles can give you guidance in devising a plan, but they are not a plan in and of themselves.
Someone hand this definition from Merriam-Websters to President Bush.
- Main Entry: strat·e·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek stratEgia generalship, from stratEgos
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies of insects>
A strategy might include more, or less troops. The troops can implement a strategy, but by definition they are not one. The President would like us all to follow his lead. That is very hard when we do not know where he is going or what he intends to do when he gets there, wherever 'there' is. A lot of people were listening, some were applauding courteously, but most were left scratching their heads. Everytime I hear Bush speak, my first thought is...and then what?
You want to send more troops to Iraq...and then what? This is the 'in for a penny, in for a pound' scenario. One person's surge is another's escalation. A timetable may not be wise from the United States, but perhaps we should ask for one from the Iraqis... that I would like to see; and so would a few other people.
Forgive my straying into politics once in a while, but this is costing us all, in so many ways, and for better or worse, our government is our largest enterprise.
Check out my other posts for BloggingStocks here. Be sure to read You don't have to be 007 to find the best picks for 2007!
Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the vice president for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.
Retailers can't wait for Black Friday, open Thursday
Tiffany's serves up solid quarterly earnings
Cramer on BloggingStocks: This bullish retail story looks like a good fit 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-25-2007 @ 11:44AM
Gary E. Sattler said...
Sheldon, this article is not a blog post.
It's a work of art.