Being Human

So the other night, the lady and I are watching Piers Morgan's new show as he interviews former GWB National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. While my lady and I each share an admiration for Ms. Rice's groundbreaking accomplishments as a black woman, I am not as enamored with her political views.

When Piers asked "Condi" about her thoughts about President Obama, she expressed her own admiration for his accomplishments as a black man while respectfully disagreeing with his politics. She went on to describe her conservative beliefs, at one point using the phrase "individual freedom" to which I responded "except, of course, if you're gay."

My lady shot me a look and said, "People have the right to feel how they feel!" I said that was fine but I couldn't help but notice a glaring inconsistency when Ms. Rice and other conservatives apply "freedom" to (mostly) fiscal matters but not to social issues. I later thought to myself again about the "God and guns" dichotomy. While I don't begrudge anyone for exercising their legal rights to feel secure, I somehow don't think that "what Jesus would do" would involve open or concealed carry.

I did concede that progressives can be just as guilty. I noted that there are indeed so-called "limousine liberals" who believe in socioeconomic diversity in theory yet choose not to live that reality in practice. It may even work in the other direction as those at the other end of the spectrum - shall we call them "public transit progressives"? - who give lip service to working together with their more comfortable brethren but may not be so crazy about socializing after hours let alone welcoming them as in-laws.

Madison, Wisconsin and Colorado Springs, Colorado are two of America's quintessential small cities. They are also bastions of progressivism and conservatism, respectfully.

As the state capital, Madison's vibe is no doubt influenced by the presence its government employees as well as the University of Wisconsin. I have read anecdotes about Madison that say city residents people are generally eager to embrace "green living" and gay pride but are naive if not skittish about embracing the relatively low number of poorer minorities.

Colorado Springs is the home of the Air Force Academy as well as the Focus on the Family religious organization. While the support for family values is obvious, I would hazard a guess that the definition of such  would not necessarily extend to households that included same-sex parents, parents adorned with tattoos and piercings or families who had a generally progressive view of religion. Budding Air Force officers - if not also any Academy staff - who happen to be gay or lesbian probably are likely not encouraged to live openly, the pending repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" notwithstanding.

Both Madison and Colorado Springs seem to live under a "group think" where those who don't toe the party line (no pun intended) will have a hard time getting along in town, despite claims of open-mindedness or benign values.

People do indeed have the right to their personal and political beliefs. When those beliefs seem inconsistent or contradictory, I suppose that is what makes us human.

One and Done

Here's an interesting article about Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, who has just dropped out of the race for re-election, and how he has (not?) affected the number of African Americans in the GOP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11826_rncvoteblackrepublicansgrademichaelsteele

And So It Begins....

While this picture is representative of a typical day in Northern Virginia at rush hour, it's also meant to signify the virtual "gridlock" that I predict that will unfortunately grip the Congress and the White House once again over the next two years.

President Obama may be at least giving lip service to bipartisanship - as did Bush in 2007 - but not only does House Speaker John Boehner already plan as an initial action for to hold a vote to repeal the health care reform law, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also openly stated his main goal is to make sure President Obama is not re-elected. With that sort of opposition, the likelihood of bipartisanship (in public anyway) seems infinitesimal.

Speaker Boehner obviously knows that his repeal bill may sail through Congress only to hit the wall in the Senate. This is just grandstanding for the conservative GOP base and other who are opposed to the health care reform law as it exists. I would imagine that Boehner will later attempt to repeal individual pieces of the law which he feels may have the best shot at removal. Instead of trying to remove parts of the law, I would rather see him work to add something such as tort reform; that is an idea - at least in terms of subjective "pain and suffering" judgements - that I would support. The trial lawyer lobby was certainly instrumental in  preventing the then-Democratic Congress and Senate from including that in the bill.

The new GOP majority in the House - particularly the freshmen Tea Party affiliates - have pledged to cut the federal budget by $100 billion. I would like to support this idea but I continue to have the feeling that the programs Republicans will focus on trimming will generally affect those that need it the most, i.e. social assistance. However, if Congress is willing to look at every government program and department equally, I think there are places where they can find a significant amount of savings.

Let's start with the Department of Defense. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates already has. If his plans come to fruition, that would account for 20% of the Congress' savings by itself! Of course, those who believe that the government's main job should be to "provide for the common defense" may be concerned that the defense cuts may go beyond mere improved efficiency and instead affect the level of human and equipment resources. But considering Secretary Gates is someone who served under the previous administration - thereby fulfilling at least one goal of not changing leaders during wartime - one would like to think that his priorities haven't significantly changed.

How about corporate welfare? I have to wonder if those who were opposed to the bailouts of the banking and automotive industries are also against the money that corporations receive on behalf of research and development. How about we cut back or eliminate the research subsidies that we give out to these private companies?

This may be blasphemous for me to say as I have occasionally benefitted from related opportunities, but let's also take a look at the numerous private government contractors, of which a critical mass exists here in Northern Virginia.  And while a fair amount of contractor employees eventually cross over to the government, how about we expedite the process? Bringing these workers into the Federal fold would eliminate the formerly built-in contractor profit margin and slightly reduce salaries in favor of more favorable benefits. In the long run, I would predict this would save an significant amount of funds, much of which would again come from defense-related work.

UPDATE (January 6): Defense Secretary Robert Gates has really come through in the clutch, identifying up to $78 billion in potential savings! With "only" $22 billion left to cut, perhaps the House of Representatives will be more likely to focus on programs that will affect those individuals and companies who can afford to absorb the loss. One can only dream...