INEXPERIENCE (Letter to Independent Coast Observer)

President Obama often bemoans the fact that he has been burdened with unique and extraordinary challenges. But all presidents have faced great challenges and all have had to deal with multiple crises. Even so, Obama may find the job exceptionally difficult for two reasons:  (1) He did not bring to the presidency any meaningful work experiences that prepared him to handle the profound challenges inherent to the position, and (2) he and his advisors are mostly left-leaning ideologues who arrogantly believe they can reshape the country and the world by applying their “superior” intellect and ideas to difficult domestic and foreign policy issues. Instead the President and his minions have littered the political landscape with failed policies and broken promises (e.g., high unemployment, Obamacare, closing Gitmo).

But the President’s dithering throughout the Libyan crisis has awoken many to the fact that this seemingly decent, pleasant person may be in well over his head. No one can say with certainty whether bombing Libya was the right decision. However, there is substantial unease among even his most ardent supporters that the President has mishandled the entire affair. Richard Cohen, the liberal columnist, wrote that it was three strong women, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers, who pushed a reluctant Obama into the decision to attack Libya without Congressional approval. (Even Bush got Congressional approval!)

Cohen sums up the concerns many have about this presidency, “ . . .  the Obama administration has applied incoherence to confusion. It is an odd, dangerous, mix . . . . The change that Obama promised has settled on us all like an irritating drizzle. His ideas were untested by either age or experience . . . .” (Washington Post, 3/22/2011) 

These latest actions (and inactions) regarding Libya are part of a continuing pattern of incompetence in the oval office and in the administration in general.

Jim Littlejohn

Thugs with Badges (Letter to Independent Coast Observer)

Recently a news service headlined that as a result of their defeat in Wisconsin, unions vow to target Republicans. When did the news equivalent of “dog bites man” become headline worthy?

In Wisconsin some police, firefighter, and teacher union leaders sent a letter to local businesses that contributed to Governor Scott Walker, threatening that these businesses publicly support the unions or: “In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company.”

Translation: “We’re going to make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

FDR, who opposed public employee unions, is rolling over in his grave.

Is ending public employee collective bargaining that critical for getting budgets under control? Yes, and a liberal columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, Chip Johnson, proved this using a database of local government salaries and compensation compiled by state Controller John Chiang's office. In Oakland, current pay and pension costs of police and firemen squeeze everything else in the budget. Even the police budget: over 80 recently hired and trained policemen were laid off, but still leaving Oakland with a $46 million budget deficit. One reason for police layoffs: the Oakland firefighters’ contract ensures no layoffs, minimum staff requirements aboard fire trucks, and no station closures. One union dog eats the other.

But the police aren’t complaining, although Oakland residents are; eight of the ten highest paid in Oakland are police, and 440 of the 500 highest paid are police and firemen.

Wisconsin taught a valuable lesson that should benefit both Democrats and Republicans. If you don’t like the way the game is going, and you grab the ball and run away, it only works if your opponents don’t have any to spare.

Michael B. Combs

Don't Step In It (Letter to Independent Coast Observer)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Governor Brown missing budget deadline!  Republicans’ fault!

Brown isn’t getting the two Republican votes each in the Senate and the Assembly he needs to call a special June election for voters whether to extend taxes. It’s Déjà vu all over again. In May 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger got the votes and put tax-increase propositions on the ballot. The voters defeated them 2 votes to 1. Then, as now, Democrat politicians said that if the propositions didn’t pass then drastic cuts would be made to education and health services. Then, as now, none were.

Now the sorry state of California’s finances are the Republicans’ fault, even though Republicans for years haven’t had enough votes to raise or lower anyone’s taxes, or to either cut or raise spending. Blaming Republicans is like blaming the street sweeper after the horse parade for all the manure on the road. Believe me, he wishes it never got there in the first place.

Republicans are trying to use the only clout they have to get the majority Democrats to work on the problem. From what has been in the news recently, so far the Democrats haven’t found one program that could stand even the slightest cut. “Cut spending? We need to raise it!” they cry, as they fall in line behind “Economist” Paul Krugman of the New York Times.

Governor Brown talks some spending cuts, but he knows that even if he gets the tax extensions on the ballot, and by some miracle they pass, he still won’t be able to wring promised spending cuts from the Legislature. Even his seizure of redevelopment funds, which cities like Santa Rosa are working hard to circumvent, only moves spending from one account to another.

More smoke and mirrors.

Michael B. Combs