Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--MIND YOUR P'S AND Q'S

THE ENTERPRISE--MIND YOUR P'S AND Q'S

WHERE DID THAT SAYING COME FROM?
Jolly old England where the ale was consumed in Pints and Quarts.  Thus when someone was drinking a bit much, he was often reminded to "mind your P's and Q's."  I want to use it in another couple of ways. 

TEN P'S AND A COUPLE OF Q'S, ON THE WAY TO SUCCESS IN BUSINESS (AND LOTS OF OTHER THINGS)

• The most important thing in business (and life) is People (P1)—not Profit (P10), which is an outcome of a bunch of other P's. 
• Find the best people.  Too few good ones is better than too many not-so-good ones.  Choose Quality (Q1) over Quantity (Q2)
• Figure out what the Purpose (P2) of your business is, or what it intends to be.  Lacking a purpose is like being lost without a compass.
• You must have a well thought out Plan (P3).  No plan means no clear direction, and that is bad because you can't set Priorities (P4).  Priorities determine how you will spend your scarce resources--of which there are only three:  Time, Money and Talent.
• Your plan should prioritize what need/want you will fulfill with your Product (P5).  Don't develop a product and then go looking for the need/want it fits.    Solutions looking for problems is backward.
• Pursue (P6) your purpose and plan with Passion (P7) and Perseverance (P8), because these will set you apart from the crowd, especially when the going gets tough--which it will.
• If you do this, you will make Progress (P9)--assuming you chose some metrics against which to measure how you are doing. Be sure you did, and if you didn't, do it now--ASAP.  It will be tempting to take short cuts, cut corners, and make easy or expedient, but not wise decisions.  Don't do this. Use Q1 as your primary guide:  Quality  has to come first--in all its connotations.
• Apply some hard work, stick to it and finally, success in the form of Profit (P10), will result.

While you are doing this, always remember Levitt's Rule:  "The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer,"  and add Mariotti's corollary:  ...happy. If you can find a customer who wants/needs what you have, and if you will consistently create and deliver the best value, you will win.  Now go back there and mind your P's and Q's.

THE 11TH P--PRAGMATISM:  AFGHANISTAN--IN THE NEWS FOR GOOD REASON
The McChrystal incident simply reinforces the doubts that exist in many minds--military and politicians alike--whether the US should be devoting the resources it is to Afghanistan.  The politicians don't have a clue.  The military shouldn't have aired their complaints and contempt in public, but I'll bet they were simply so frustrated, they "lost it."  No excuse, but a reasonable explanation.  The politicians guiding these far-away wars are foolish, often poorly informed, inexperienced, misguided, etc. etc. and etc.  This has been called an "unwinnable war."  That may be right, simply because the definition of "win" no longer means what it used to mean. Obama was lucky to have a man like Petraeus in the wings and ready to take over.  But even he will struggle to "win" unless the definition is changed.

PRAGMATISM:  WHAT CAN YOU REALLY EXPECT?
 The central question remains:  what is the goal.  If it is "defeating the Taliban," forget it.  The Taliban live there.  It is their native country. The Taliban may be and have been an evil force, and a supporter of terrorism al Qaeda style. No matter how evil they are, these facts remain. The Taliban may be driven out of certain areas "for a while," and even defeated militarily in certain "battles," but the Taliban will be like crabgrass or cockroaches.  It will survive and given the smallest openings it will spring forth and spread again. stronger than ever.  That we (Americans) believe we need our military to teach Afghanis to fight is preposterous.  Who taught the Taliban, who kicks our ass regularly? 

ED. NOTE: [Petraeus already has begun to act, since he knows that to follow those absurd "rules of engagement" (where medals were given for non-confrontation) and to employ "practices developed for different wars in vastly different theaters"—is a large part of the military problem.  But it ignores the cultural problem in Afghanistan. What happened favorably in Iraq was not because we wanted it. It was because the Iraqi people (whether Sunni or Shiite or Kurd) wanted it.  What Petraeus did (brilliantly) was make it possible for them to have what they wanted (independence and local autonomy) at the same time as we got what we wanted —(out!).]

BE PRAGMATIC: VICTORY IS AN ORDERLY EXIT WITH A STRONG REMINDER OF CONSEQUENCES
The way we can win in Afghanistan is to leave, and to leave behind the certainly that IF whoever "rules" the various parts of it decides to harbor our enemies, we will come back with a vengeance, not on the mountainous ground fighting on the Taliban's terms, but from the air, with the "wrath of God" raining down on wherever those terrorists are being harbored.  If civilians are there, they must get out, or they will be collateral damage.  We don't relish harming civilians.  We also cannot stop enemies from using them as shields.  We also don't need to, and shouldn't want to occupy and manage Afghanistan with its warring tribes and corrupt politicians.  We have no right to do that unless or until they are helping our enemies to harm us.

Here's a proposal President Obama: Invite all of our "Allies" to match our troop strength and spending in Afghanistan, and if they don't (can't, won't, etc.) then we withdraw too and let the Afghani people live, fight and control their own country.  Nobody named us to be the one to control other countries destinies, until or unless we must do so, to protect ourselves and our interests.

THE ULTIMATE PRAGMATISM: THE USA CANNOT & SHOULD NOT BE THE MILITARY POLICE &/or NATION BUILDER FOR THE WORLD
Bush went into Iraq for entirely different reasons than were stated.  WMDs may have existed--or may not.  Saddam was a really bad man, as were his sons.  Dictators have ruled in that area of the world for centuries.  It is the only way the people knew to live.  The USA went in there hoping to stabilize the Middle East and keep Saudi Arabia from going over the al Qaeda's side (al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia).  A more stable and different Iraq between the Iranian mullahs and madmen and the Saudi princes and royalty, did help.  Bush & Petraeus surge worked, so to speak.  Obama is now trapped in fighting a war he cannot win.  His surge will not work, because it is crippled by his proclaimed desire to leave ASAP...and (back to the first section)...the Afghani people will not make it work.

Don't Quit per se, but re-Prioritize where and how we choose to "fight" and for what end.  We must get out, as "gracefully as possible," but also as safely and efficiently as possible.  At the first sign of "regression," we must make frightening strikes to send the message that we meant what we said--no terrorist safe havens-ever.  Meanwhile we can re-task, re-build and rejuvenate our military, and spend on with tools (weapons systems) to fight 21st century conflicts and enemies, and not those of the mid-20th century.

THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS MAY BE SHOCKING TO SOME, BUT THEY ARE AS PRAGMATIC AS I CAN BE.

A FEW MORE P'S COME TO MIND--ON OUR POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE DAY

PREVENT SCREW UPS: CAN GOP CANDIDATES KEEP FEET OUT OF MOUTH?--CAN THE TEA-PARTIERS HELP, NOT HURT!
It seems that a few of the latest GOP candidates and a few other incumbents are suffering from "hoof in mouth" disease.  When the Democrats are making a mess of things, can't these folks be satisfied to stay away from "hot button issues" and let the Dems stew in their own messes?   The Constitution is a theoretically good common ground, but there are land mines buried there due to the past abuses and neglect of its principles forced by vocal special interests.  Rand Paul about learned this one.

PARTNER: THE GOP & TEA PARTY NEED TO FIND COMMON GROUND TO BEAT THE DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL INCUMBENTS.
If ever there was a time for a "marriage of convenience" it seems that the traditional GOP leaders and the Tea Parties' leaders (there are multiple of them) should get together and stake out some common ground for future campaign themes.  I'd propose "fiscal sanity/responsibility and reducing big government while curtailing the growth and cost of government".    Time has proven that "throwing taxpayer money at them" has not solved any of the nagging problems in the USA--Energy, Health Care, Immigration, Education, etc. etc., even Defense/Homeland Security, and especially "entitlements" (SS & Medicare).  The goal must be to take back control of Congress from the left/liberal Democrats--in 2010!  THAT WILL REQUIRE UNITY OF EFFORT, NOT FACTIONS FIGHTING INTERNALLY.

DO NOT PREVARICATE: KIRK (R, IL, Gov. candidate) JOINS BLUMENTHAL (D. CT, Senate candidate) IN "MISSPEAKING" ABOUT SERVICE RECORDS
Do they think nobody will notice a few little lies?  Just because other elected officials have done it, and survived, doesn't mean they can.  In these days of cell phone video cameras and millions of bloggers, nobody is immune to being caught. So why do it?  Stupid. 

STOP THE EXCESSIVE PATRONAGE: OHIO IS A MICROCOSM OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR POLITICAL PATRONAGE SYSTEM
If you are incredulous when you read this, join the club.  I fear that I can put something like this in every edition of THE ENTERPRISE, and only occasionally have to go outside Ohio for my examples.  (Actually Illinois and California are the champions of waste, but then that's no big surprise, is it?)

Ohio Sheriff's Auditors: Another Example of Government Excess

By Mary McCleary
Policy Analyst
[email protected]

As the saying goes, "It's not what you know.  It's who you know."  This statement especially rings true when it comes the Franklin County Sheriff's auditors.  Only two of nine auditors are actually licensed appraisers, but all, surprisingly enough, are political supporters of the sheriff.  Although the sheriff looks for real-estate experts, he can appoint whomever he wants.  For example, when two auditors on the staff died, the sheriff filled their spots with the deceased's family members.  While one of the appointees was licensed, the other was not.  The point is that employees are not hired based on merit, but instead through a system all too similar to that of the corrupt Tammany Hall. 
 
Even more ridiculous than the hiring process is the compensation the sheriff's appraisers receive.  Appraisers "earn" $101 for each property they assess.  The highest paid auditor averaged 14 appraisals per workday and made $442,410 in 2009.  In the same year, the lowest paid auditor only averaged 3.2 appraisals per work day, yet still made $108,155.  Including driving time, the highest paid auditor only spent a little over half an hour on each property.  How can each property appraisal be worth $101 when the appraisal only takes a matter of minutes?
 
Contrast the Franklin County Sheriff's appraisers to the Franklin County Auditor's appraisers. The auditor's appraisers earn between $45,000 and $55,000 annually, with each appraisal costing only $24.  Assuming an eight-hour workday, the auditor's appraisers average between 7.21 and 8.81 appraisals per day.  Including driving time, they spend between 55 and 67 minutes per appraisal.  How does the county manage to keep costs so low?  According to former Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa, Franklin County keeps costs in check by allowing private companies to bid on jobs.  Costs are kept down by allowing market forces to work through private sector competition.  
 
In other words, the auditor's appraisers earn less than a quarter of what the sheriff's auditors earn per parcel.  Not only are all of the county auditor's appraisers certified, unlike the sheriff's appraisers, but they also spend nearly twice as long on each property as the sheriff's appraisers.  The county auditor's appraisers are more qualified, produce more thorough appraisals, and are significantly less expensive.
 
Are the sheriff's appraisals even necessary?  According to a 2001 study by the Franklin County Auditor's Office, probably not. The sheriff's appraisers only appraise homes that have gone into foreclosure and need to be sold.  The law requires that all foreclosed homes sell for at least two thirds of the appraised value.  The 2001 study found that 85% of all foreclosed properties sold for two thirds or more of the county auditor's appraised price.  Thus, for 85% of properties, the sheriff's auditors' appraisals were redundant and unnecessary. 
 
Regarding the other 15% of properties, the county auditor's office could have reappraised each parcel for a fraction of the sheriff's auditor's cost.  If a property could not be sold for two thirds of the appraised value at the sheriff's sale, the county auditor's office could reassess the parcel for a mere $24, as opposed to the sheriff's price of $101. The savings are enormous!
  
Assume that 85% of the 2009 appraisals were unnecessary and that the county auditor's office could have handled the other 15% of the appraisals.  If this were indeed the case, eliminating the sheriff's appraisers would have saved $2,653,596 in Franklin County alone.  The Franklin County Auditor's office could have performed the exact same task as the sheriff's auditors for only $65,254, as opposed to the $2,718,850 spent in 2009.  The sheriff's system costs 41.67 times more than the amount required to fund the same work through the county auditor's office
 
Some might argue that there is nothing wrong with the sheriffs' auditors appraisal system since the taxpayers do not directly pay for the appraisals, as they are funded by the mortgage companies.  While mortgage companies do foot the bill, they do not bear the full impact of the expense.  Instead they pass along a portion of the appraisal costs to their other clients in the form of fees.  In essence, the appraisal fee is really a tax on mortgage companies and their clients.  The $101 per parcel must come from somewhere, and that somewhere is still the private sector.
 
Even though the sheriff's auditors are technically contractors and not public employees, the end result is still the same:  taxpayer dollars are wasted through frivolous government spending.  The sheriff's auditor positions should be eliminated, and all government appraisals should be done through the county auditor's office. 

THAT'S ENOUGH P'S FOR ONE WEEK. 
I hope I gave you some things to think about.  I don't know if I'm right, because these are just (two more P's) my Ponderings & Pontification.

Prego, JOHN




-----------------------------------------------------------
 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."   Margaret Mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959  http://www.mariotti.net   http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------

THE ENTERPRISE--WHAT ARE OTHERS SAYING

THE ENTERPRISE--WHAT ARE OTHERS SAYING

A COMPILATION OF OPINIONS OTHER THAN MY OWN
After writing mostly my own opinions week after week, I decided to choose just a few of the most noteworthy articles and opinions I found in the news media.  Of course I get lots of good material from readers and correspondents, so I also considered those.  I tried to "vet" the pieces for accuracy using places like Snopes.com and TruthorFiction.com.  It's not a precise job, but I do the best I can.   Sometimes the headline and a key phrase or two excerpted from the article will do the job.  In other cases, the entire piece is necessary to convey the message accurately.

I know this edition is too long.  Read whatever you want of it.  It all offers useful insights from a very diverse group of writers.

FIRST A FEW "HOT BUTTONS" OF MINE--HOW STUPID? VERY STUPID!
--Reportedly, 38 people die each day not wearing seat belts required by law in their cars. DUH? Buckle up!
--Motorcyclists not wearing helmets dramatically increase their chances for fatal head injuries. Wear Helmets!
--Many people drive and talk on their cell phone, ignoring their driving. Just Drive!
--Many more text while driving, ignoring their driving even worse.  Even new laws won't stop this. Please, Just Drive
--Many people walk out into traffic while talking on cell phones, so absorbed in conversation, they don't even notice cars. Pay Attention!
--Children's games (Little League baseball) are being played without scores kept, so no one has to "lose."  Games Have Winners and Losers.
--Many kids, and most parents keep score--so who is kidding whom? Get Real!
--Schools now granting partial credit on math problems with the wrong answer "but the right process?" Teach the Right Way!
--Schools grading without using the ABCDF scale, using descriptive words. (Hint, parents and many kids immediately convert an Outstanding to an A! Get Real II.
I hope I'm not ever risking my life riding in or traveling on something designed by a person with "the wrong answer but the right process.
I also hope someone tells those kids that in the cold hard world they'll be entering, there will be winners and losers. 
The question is which they will be. 
Get Used To It--It's Called LIFE!

BUT...now I understand how half of the country could vote for Obama and a lot of the incompetents in Congress. 
Really,  how could our country choose to put an impostor, an incompetent in the White House? 
They were deceived. What the President is great at is deception.  Too bad that doesn't solve any of our country's problems.

"EUROPE'S FAILING, SO WHY EMULATE IT?"
Victor Davis Hanson's WSJ article carried this title.  His closing sentence is enough to convey his concerns--and those I share with him: "Only one question remains: at a time when Europe is discovering that its democratic socialism does not work, why in the world is the United States doing its best to copy it?"  If you are a voracious reader, I posted a lengthy column answering that question in one aspect.  It's title is "THE ALIEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE."  It's posted below.

"WHERE ARE THE INVESTMENTS TO CREATE JOBS"
This headline led off Bob Herbert's NYTimes opinion piece.  Now I must admit, that I usually disagree with Bob Herbert on a lot of things.  So why am I using his article?  Because he calls it mostly right.  I will just cite a few of his statements:
"I know the president has a lot on his mind but the No. 1 problem facing the US continues to fester and that problem is unemployment." ... "Obama's take on the May numbers seemed out of touch." [when he said] 'This report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day.' ... "The economy is sick, and all efforts to revive it that do not directly confront the staggering levels of joblessness are doomed." ..."...how is anyone going to get a handle on the federal deficits if we don't get millions of people back to work and paying taxes?" ... "There is no plan that I can see to get us
out of this fix." ...  "Bold and effective leadership would have put us on this road to a sustainable future.  Instead, we're approaching a dead end."

OBAMA WILL FIND THE CHICAGO WAY WON'T WORK IN WASHINGTON
So says Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner.  His closing paragraph sums it up well:  "The problem with Obama's Chicago Way is that Chicago isn't America.  The Chicago Way works locally because there is an America out there that ultimately pays for it.  But who will pay for an America run the Chicago Way?"

Obama Pays Back Political Favor By Scott Wheeler June 16, 2010
President Obama has now made the United States an official “state sponsor of terrorism” a designation, applied to other countries, would mean no aid or trade with the US. It is unclear how Obama’s actions will affect our ability to trade with ourselves as a nation. On June 9, President Obama announced a 400 million dollar aid package to the West Bank and Gaza, which are currently two separate entities; the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate by radical Islamic standards, Gaza is run by the democratically elected Islamic Resistance Movement known otherwise as the terrorist group Hamas.

Obama was trying to be sneaky in announcing this “aid package” to Gaza with Abbas present thus conflating the moderate with the radical terrorist group Hamas, a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny of handing over American’s money directly to a terrorist organization that has murdered American citizens. Whatever else you can say about Obama, at least he never forgets his friends. Thanks to the investigative work of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs we know that in 2007 Obama’s campaign received over 30 thousand dollars in illegal donations from Hamas controlled Gaza....

...Since 2001, the United States has listed Hamas as a “Specifically Designated Global Terrorist” organization. The sanctions for providing support for a SDGT are harsh. Even the New York Times, which is as a rule sympathetic to terrorists, stated “The details of how the aid would be used in Gaza remained unclear. Nor was it immediately clear how Mr. Abbas, who has authority in the West Bank but not in Gaza would be able to administer it.” But, according to the Times, “White House officials said the money would be spent on housing, schools, efforts to provide access to drinking water and other health and infrastructure projects.” Of course, with Americans providing all of their financial needs it frees up Hamas’ other money to buy weapons and afford them more sophisticated means by which to smuggle them into the strip, no more raggedy flotillas for these terrorists.

I reported before the 2008 election that Obama had been endorsed by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, who himself had been a Hamas operative inside the United States for years, using several aliases, until I confronted him and informed him that I knew who he was. He denied that he worked for Hamas and then promptly fled the country and two years later turned up in Damascus, Syria as a senior Hamas leader. Obama is either completely ignorant of the war Islamic terrorists such as Hamas are waging against us, or worse. Until we know more I have the unfortunate task of reporting to you that we are now a state sponsor of terrorism.

================
MOST READERS OF THE ENTERPRISE UNDERSTAND THESE FOREGOING ARTICLES
But what it the large part of America that supports President Obama and his colleagues who control the Democratic Congress, and his appointees and czars who control the rest of our government.  You see they have a very different, and arguably flawed perspective.  Read the following, and try to follow the immense point it makes.  There are fundamentals of economics that are not understood the same way--or at all--and that leads to many of our problems as a country.
================
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?--Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.
By DANIEL B. KLEIN
[Ed. Note:  Could this partially explain why the USA is in deep economic trouble?]

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.  Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian. Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure. Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical. Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.  Americans  in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities. Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect. Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

==================

OBAMA: AN INCOMPETENT EXECUTIVE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on DickMorris.com on June 14, 2010
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes. And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.

When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.

The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."

Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.

Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late. Why didn't the Administration act sooner?  Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.


Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.

A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy. When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."

An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway. But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.

Published on DickMorris.com on June 14, 2010

=======================

I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN, BUT THIS GUY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE
Wayne Allen Root was the Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate a few years back.  Of course he lost, big time--but that doesn't mean he was wrong.  He just lacked the huge resources of the two major parties. Anyway, I'm not sure anyone could have beaten the glib lies and misspeaking campaign skills of Barack Obama, especially when backed by the bias of the major media--the largest misuse of freedom of the press--through distortion and misreporting, in our country's history.

Obama's Agenda: Overwhelm the System
By Wayne Allen Root, Fox Nation
      Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.
      Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
      Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
      -- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
      -- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
      -- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

Gary Hubbell: The Redneck tree hugger:
Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
GARY HUBBELL, ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever. Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection.

Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace. That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored. Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence.

They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness. Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion.

Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives. But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest. In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real
estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com.
http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100229854&template=printart
=====================
The Alien in the White House—The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.

There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.

A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his  ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the  demented fringe. One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so  vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judiciary Committee on May 13.  Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."

And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marveled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.

Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.  It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.

So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.

It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his  distant relation to the country he was about to lead.

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.  Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

-----------------------------------------------------------
 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."   Margaret Mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959  http://www.mariotti.net   http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------

THE ENTERPRISE--BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

THE ENTERPRISE--BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

TEN COLORFUL WAYS TO RECALL ENDURING TRUTHS
I have used these Ten Points when speaking to college seniors this past year, and realized that I think they are so relevant to all situations, and especially business settings, I'd share them with everyone.  I'm sure for many it is a welcome break from politics and current events.

1)  The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer. — I first read this in Theodore Levitt's fine book, THE MARKETING IMAGINATION, over 25 years ago.  As the years go by, I realize how profoundly true it is.  I would only add one word to make this legendary statement truer yet.  Add the word "happy" after customer.  Don't forget that.

2)  People are most important of all--then comes Profit. — I usually test the class asking them what 6 letter word starting with P is the most important thing in business.  They usually say "Profit," to which I must say, "Close, but not right."  People are the most important thing in business.  Everything happens because of people, including profit which is how we keep score in business.  Business is a competitive game where the score is kept in money (profits) and if you "win" you get to play again, and again, and again.

3)  Trees can't grow to the sky, but forests can grow to the horizon. — I learned this as I studied why so many once admired companies like Rubbermaid (where I once worked) fail to grow past some point.  I could have used Sears, USSteel, GM, and any number of others, including lately, Walmart.  Trees have limits to growth imposed by nature.  I think companies do too.  Perhaps because the "laws of nature" apply as more than just metaphors for business.  I once wrote an opening to a book about the BIg Tree and  I later published it as a standalone paper on amazon.com.  It was one of the most profound things I ever wrote (I realize now, I didn't then.)  http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Trees-Business-Parable/dp/B00007K45S/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276201406&sr=1-17

4)  Making a ranch bigger makes it harder to manage with more manure.  That's why most mergers do not work. — Many corporations figure a merger is a quick way to grow larger.  It is, but what often happens is that the merger doesn't work right.  Merging the DNA of two totally different companies is hard.  Which merger partner will win the tug of war to be in charge.  Whose facilities and people will be found to be redundant.  And so on, and so on.  My rancher friend was right, and experts at McKinsey have studied it and find the same thing.  After the first year or two when the "synergies" of duplicate people, facilities, etc. are flushed out, the merged company falls back to a level that is less than the total of the two merger partners.  A high percentage of mergers destroy shareholder value, not increase it.  Prime examples:  AOL-TimeWarner, Lucent & Alcatel.

5)  Never double cross a partner--Partners are critically necessary. — In this increasingly complex global economy, no one, no company can be "good enough" at everything.  That's why they need partners--and I don't just mean "outsourcing suppliers."  True partners rely on trust, shared goals with reasonable risk and rewards for both partners, and open communications.  Mutual dependence is a strong bonding agent for partnerships.  Where both partners need something the other one has, somehow that works very well.  When one partner tries to use power over the other, power is like poison and the partnership dies.  Trust is built slowly and can be destroyed rapidly, so to be trusted, be trustworthy. 

6)  How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. — You all knew the answer to this one, and yet many people still run at the whole elephant with their mouth wide open.  The result is ugly. Big problems, big tasks, big acquisitions, etc. all need to be broken down into manageable size bites and each of those managed or they become indigestible.  And by the way, if you decide to "dance with an elephant" (a huge customer), "the elephant will want to lead!"

7)  FInd the root cause; don't just treat symptoms. — If you have a headache because someone is hitting you over the head with a bat, taking aspirin will not cure your headache.  Take the bat away.  If you have customer service problems because your culture is bad or your processes are flawed, more inventory and expedited shipping won't solve the problem.  Those things are just expensive Band-Aids.  Inspectors don't make quality better, they just pick out some of the defects.  The rest get through and get shipped.  Track problems past the symptoms, all the way to the root causes and fix those.  Japanese root cause theory suggests you might have to ask "Why" 6 or 7 times to get to the bottom of things.

8)  When you are hot, you're hot; when you're not, you're not. (When you are in a hole, stop digging!) — This could apply to BP.  Or to Blago.  Or to Tiger Woods.  Or to lots of other situations.  When "you're hot" almost anything is possible.  (President Obama just after his election.)  When you are not, almost nothing is possible.  (President Obama now?)  The same applies for companies and stocks.  Walmart could do no wrong for 20 years.   Now, everything they do is under the microscope, and a lot of it is "not so hot."  Once you've been "hot," and get "not," it's really hard to get "hot" again.  Best advice:  try to stay "hot" or at least "warm," and don't get "not."

9)  Nothing happens until you take action.  (Making a decision is nothing; taking action on it is progress.) — "Three frogs are sitting on a log; one decides to jump off.  How many frogs are on the log?"  If you said two--WRONG.  Still three.  There is a huge difference between decision and action.  Nothing happens until you act on a decision, and follow it through to a successful outcome.  Otherwise you're still just a "frog on a log."

10)  Time is the perishable of the three key resources--Time, Talent, and Money. (Two MIle Trip) — The most difficult job in business (and in life) is setting priorities--and then allocating scarce resourced to the best opportunities.  In business there are really only three resources to allocate: Time, Talent (People) and Money.  Spend those on nagging problems and the big opportunities go untapped.  Worse yet, one of those resources—Time—is perishable.  Once spent, it's gone.  No way to get it back.  Here's another riddle for you:  "You have to make a two-mile drive and you must average 60 mph for the two miles.  You decide to be cautious and drive the first mile at 30 mph.  How fast must you drive the second mile to average 60 mph?"    If you said 90 mph or 120 mph--WRONG.  This is a trick question.  There is NO speed you can drive the second mile to average 60 mph because to do so, you'd have to make the trip in 2 minutes, and you used up your 2 minutes going too slowly on the first mile.  Time lost can never be recovered, so it is critical to plan well, and take action swiftly--while you still have time.

A COUPLE OF TIDBITS THAT MAY FORETELL THE FUTURE OF BUSINESSES
US Companies are currently holding more cash than at any point on record.  The Federal Reserve reports  that non-financial companies have $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of March 2010, up 26% from last year.  That is 7% of all company assets.  So--if we want to trigger a recovery, it might be wise to give companies an incentive to invest that cash in growth initiatives.  Hmmm.  I wonder if anyone in Washington, DC would ever think of that?  (Doubtful.  They be more likely to tax it, so they can spend it!)

INVENTORY BUILDING MAY NOT BE OVER YET
There was the rebuild of inventories depleted by caution during the worse of the recession.  Those are now restored, but companies are losing sales due to out of stocks.  That means more inventories are needed to grow sales.  It won't solve everything, but might help keep the recovery moving while consumers take a pause and don't spend as much--as long as the pause isn't too long.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS
Public pensions combined with runaway wages and benefits for public employees are going to break many states.  No one is willing to face what needs to be done.  Unions and governments worked together to cause this problem.  Unions demanded more in wages and benefits including pension plans.  Governmental officials agreed and gave them what they wanted.  The Unions turned around and donated to the campaigns of the government officials so they could be reelected.  To make matters worse, states did not account for the pension plan deficits correctly, and hugely understated them.  Now there is a bigger problem:  now that the problem exists, nobody wants to "give back" what they shouldn't have been given in the first place.  And no elected officials want to ask for the give-backs because these overpaid public employees are also voters. 

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION--STATE AND FEDERAL EXORBITANT PAY AND BENEFITS
What's the solution?  Rational, responsible people know what it is.  There simply have to be cuts in public pay and benefits--just like there was at GM, Chrysler, et. al.  The alternative, to raise taxes and continue paying exorbitant levels of pay and benefits in totally impossible.  The state pension plans are insolvent.  There is not enough money to pay the benefits they have promised.  What's the shortfall?  Only about $1 trillion! (That's only state pension plans.)  People who faithfully served and earned pensions are now going to have to give back part of what they earned.  Yikes!  Can that be true?  Yes, sadly, it is.  Why?  Because there is NO MONEY to pay them.  Sound familiar?  Sure it does:  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

SOCIALISM IS A SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T WORK ECONOMICALLY
That's the problem.  The further the US Governmental units push in that direction, the deeper the hole gets.  Remember the earlier statement:  "When you are in a hole, quit digging!"

That's plenty for this week.  Next week will be a long one, so I'll cut this one short.

Best, John

====================
A BONUS FEATURE ON WHAT AMERICANS' CONCERNS ARE:
American Pulse™: Economy, Healthcare and Deficit Top Concerns Regarding America’s Future    

49% Give Poor Or Failing Grade for Handling of Gulf Oil Spill

COLUMBUS, OH – (MARKET WIRE) – 6/10/10 – When it comes to issues that concern Americans regarding the future of America, the economy tops the list at 81.2%, followed by healthcare (67.6%) and the federal deficit (64.9%), according to the latest American Pulse™ Survey (N= 5,123). The economy is also the #1 issue worrying Americans about their personal well-being (79.1%). Healthcare (66.6%) is #2 and terrorism (47.7%) is #3. In both instances, national affairs outpace international affairs, indicating that matters closer to home are weighing heavy on the minds of Americans.

Top 5 Issues Concerning…
Future of America                   Americans' Personal Well-Being
Economy (81.2%)                     Economy (79.1%)
Healthcare (67.6%)                  Healthcare (66.6%)
Federal deficit (64.9%)             Terrorism (47.7%)
Job Creation (63.5%)                Job Creation (46.1%)
Terrorism (60.6%)                   National Security (42.6%)

Source: American Pulse™, June-2010

It doesn’t appear that Americans believe the economy will recover soon. 68.8% have little-to-no confidence that government’s economic policies will get the economy back on track, compared to 31.3% who do. Similarly, 73.8% have little-to-no confidence that government policies will help lower unemployment (v. 26.2% who do).

Another issue on the home front is the Gulf oil spill, and Americans tend to score the Obama administration low on handling it. 29.3% gave it a “C,” 25.4% gave a “D,” and 23.4% assigned an “F.”

Uneasiness about domestic issues may be affecting how Americans would vote for president. If the election were today, 36.8% of adults would vote for a generic republican candidate versus 34.7% who would vote for Obama. 37.8% of registered voters would vote for a republican (v. 35.1% for Obama).

Complimentary trended data and full report: http://americanpulse.bigresearch.com.

Other findings:
•    67.9% agree/strongly agree that Americans are consumed by technology…10% disagree/strongly disagree.
•    44.3% think technology overload is bad for Americans saying its changing behavior…31.8% think it’s good; Americans can never get enough technology.
•    71.9% say watching movies at the cinema is too expensive…19.7% say it’s worth it. Only 25.9% are waiting for a summer blockbuster to attend… 74.1% aren’t.

About American Pulse™
The American Pulse™ Survey is collected online by BIGresearch® twice a month exclusively utilizing Survey Sampling International’s (SSI) U.S. panel covering topics such as politics, pop culture and the economy. Over 5,000 respondents participate, providing greater insights and accuracy of +/- 1%. www.bigresearch.com

THE ENTERPRISE--"THE MYTH OF THE OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT"

THE ENTERPRISE--"THE MYTH OF THE OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT"

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING CONVINCED OF A MYTH--THAT GOVERNMENT CAN--AND SHOULD--SOLVE EVERYTHING; DO EVERYTHING; FOR EVERYONE...
What a terrible, fatal mistake that is--creating a "dependent" populace.  The government struggles to do what it must do adequately, including maintaining domestic tranquility (police), provide for the national defense (military--bloated and wastefully duplicative), protect our borders (at which the Federal government does an awful job), maintain a rule of law (courts) and provide commonly needed infrastructure (roads and other public works.)  Government must also pass laws which support and sustain the people, not limit their rights as citizens. Somewhere along the way special interests demanded and got a lot of other services, paid for with our tax dollars.  Departments were formed, failed to do what they were formed to do, but still became large, self-sustaining bureaucracies--the Dept. of Energy is a prime example. 

THIS LEADS ME TO THE REAL TOPIC OF THIS WEEK'S EDITION: "THE MYTH OF THE OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT"
As the Obama/Democratic Congress crams more and more government control on every walk of life, this oil spill crisis points out the profound ineptness of the government at even doing what they should be doing.  This is the government we are going to allow to run our health care system, to regulate our financial markets, to control environmental and energy policy (see how well the government is handling this crisis?)  If anyone is saying, "but this was an unforeseen accident," that may be true-but when you want to take over everything, then you have to be prepared--and competent--to handle anything that comes up.  Obama is clearly not competent enough, (neither was Bush on Katrina), and the folks in Congress--forget them--they are dominated by power crazed old fogeys who already have everything done for them.

EXAMPLE: WHAT A COMPETENT PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE DONE ABOUT THE GULF OIL SPILL
If President Obama had any meaningful leadership experience and wasn't so busy trying to "look good" and "assure his reelection," he should have done the following within the first week of the spill: Give BP one or two chances to fix its own mistake (call it an accident if you wish, but BP took numerous short cuts that dramatically increased the likelihood of this "accident" happening).  If BP's fixes continued to fail (which they did and still do),there should be a mandate to immediately convene a group of leaders/experts from the "deep water" oil drilling community to collectively figure out the next best steps.  Bring in BP's competitors like Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc.  Bring in the drillers and contractors, like Halliburton, et. al.  Add leading consultants and scientists in the field, wherever they come from. And ask a few grizzled old veterans what they would do.  Find the "top ten+" and get them to collectively help solve the problem. 

NOTE: After a private conversation with an "inside source" I learned that BP did consult with knowledgeable deep-drilling competitors, but not because anyone in the US government suggested it.  I also learned that some of the more knowledgeable foreign deep-water drillers mandate that one or two relief wells be drilled simultaneously with the main well.  For just the reason you can imagine--the added cost is not that great as "insurance" against a big gas-explosion accident--just like this one.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is also totally frustrated by Obama-speak,"We'll do everything within our power..." and then the dithering and delays while the Army Corps of Engineers debate solutions.  This is the same group that gave you the New Orleans/Katrina levee problems.  Jindal's solutions may or may not have helped Louisiana marshlands, but at least he had an actionable plan.  No wonder he's frustrated and angry.  Finally, weeks after Jindal's first request for sand berms to keep the oil out of Louisiana's marshlands, Obama yields to what--common sense?  Indecision is a hallmark of an inexperienced and under-qualified leader.  You figure it out.

A RECENT COMMENTARY ON THIS BY DICK MORRIS

"Conservatives are so enraged at Obama's socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America's beaches not only reminds one of Bush's terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter's incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill."

A VOID OF LEADERSHIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT
This is called a problem of leadership (or a lack thereof), inadequate management experience and undeveloped problem solving skills, all of which are deficiencies that President Barack Obama has. Honestly, I don't think his predecessor George W. Bush had much better ones--but he had been governor of Texas (more than you could say about Obama), and he had Dick Cheney—love him or hate him—who was a proven CEO in this field!)   When the American people elect an articulate, inexperienced lightweight to the highest office in the land, they should expect that his On-The-Job training will result in some big mistakes.

REMEMBER, OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SMART AND COMPETENT? WRONG!
There is no teleprompter script for dealing with the huge problems facing America.  No campaign speech.  No glib turn of a phrase. 

It takes CHARACTER, COURAGE AND COMPETENCE--ALL AREAS WHERE HE HAS BEEN FOUND DEFICIENT--and it takes experience, know how and expertise--three more areas in which is resume (if he'd ever reveal one) is deficient.

CONSIDER WHAT THE "OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT" IS SUPPOSED TO SOLVE, MANAGE AND CONTROL (a partial list...)

• The Economy & the sub-prime mortgage crisis—(caused by bi-partisan government repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990's a screw up by both Republicans and Democrats, and worsened by the arrogant foolishness of Congress, notably Dodd, Schumer, Frank, et. al) and irresponsibility of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae management. Multiply by the criminal misrepresentation of the quality of the investments by rating agencies, and you have a credit crisis. 

• Government Omnipotence?  Where is it?  The fix: throw taxpayer money at it.  Stimulus packages that only stimulate the growth of still more government, while taxing small businesses and regulating large ones to get the money needed to pay for all the government bureaucracy that is taking over the country. (The most recent jobs report confirms his:  few private sector jobs added; many new government jobs added; little wealth created, but much wealth appropriated and misspent.)

• Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. wars—The Iraq war which was misrepresented as to its reasons, and then terribly mismanaged--until Gen. Petraeus was put in charge and supported.  Afghanistan is likely a much bigger problem since the factions that allowed Iraq to "calm down" don't exist there.  Add the Obama "pull-out date" announcement, and the Taliban simply be an military irritant and hide for the next year. Then as US & NATO troops pull out, the Taliban will retake control.  Government omnipotence at work again?

• Terrorists are hiding in our military bases, and in our cities, and in major cities all over Europe (as well as the Middle East) and they are packing explosives anywhere possible—in shoes, in underwear and in SUVs parked in Times Square.  The Obama administration led by it's misguided Attorney General) wants to "be nice to them, and protect their rights."  Maybe they should move in with Eric Holder, so he can coddle them up close and personal.

• Rogue states with Nukes... -N. Korea has never kept an agreement with the USA, thus why would our Omnipotent Government put any faith in the success of continued negotiations--yet, short of a military attack, there are few options.  China won't help because it doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees.  The US should close down any form of trade and aid with North Korea--simple quit giving N. Korea anything—and stop as much stuff flowing in there as possible.  If the North Korean people suffer, that's a shame, but its the fault of their "Beloved Leader." Maybe they'll revolt and overthrow him. 

• And building Nukes—Ahmadinejad & Iran have already spit in Obama & the USA's face repeatedly.  How naive can he be.  Or maybe is he simply a hopeless appeaser and a fool.  After all, Obama tells the world how many Nukes we have (a criminal/treasonous offense if anyone else did it) and he wants to dismantle America's nuclear arsenal while the rogue states are building theirs?   Maybe he'll decide to just sell them some of our Nukes, so they don't have to build their own--and maybe they'll "Like him" more.

• Rogue Factions who hate the USA—Hezbollah, Taliban, assorted Palestinian rebel groups, etc.  None of them respect the US government; few of them fear the US government any longer; most of them hold our government in contempt. All thanks to our new, naive President. He leads the US government we are relying on to handle threats to us, to our country and to its security.

• The Deficit and flagrant overspending—Sure, Bush and the previous Congress get some of the blame for this.  Bush never vetoed a spending bill--what a stupid way to run the country.  Meanwhile, the GOP led Congress spent like "drunken sailors"  NO, that is a slur on sailors. They spent like "greedy politicians."  Now Obama and the Democratic Congress led by Pelosi and Reid have eclipsed all past spending levels in just under 18 months.  (I wonder how much deeper in debt they'll put the US before we can get them out of office.  What problems did this spending solve?  Very few! (Maybe it kept some banks from failing--maybe.)  Most of the TARP money is coming back (was it needed at all?) and the rest--among it the "stimulus" money was misspent on pet projects and pork.

• The European financial crisis—The Euro is tanking.  The US dollar growing stronger will depress American exports--a key to our economic survival for the past couple of years.  A strong currency is not bad per se.  When you want to grow your economy by exporting, it is a big obstacle. (Ask China who manipulates its currency to avoid these problems.).  But your Omnipotent Government will solve this all--Obama will load up his teleprompters and his entourage and go on another speaking tour.  While, he will make additional concessions, getting nothing back in return for them. But he will declare the speaking tour a success--because of how he measures success--"adulation--not admiration."

• Protect our borders?—Are you kidding me?  Even when Congress passes a law and appropriates the money, the government can't build a fence--forget about whether the fence was a smart idea or not. The Omnipotent Government has no idea how to secure the border, so the solution is just let the illegals come and then grant them amnesty, and make them citizens so they can vote for Obama (out of gratitude).

These are just a few examples...there are many, many more...  THE THEME IS THIS.  RELYING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THE THINGS IT SHOULD BE DOING IS RISKY, AND TO RELY ON IT TO DO EVERYTHING IS CRAZY.  THERE IS NO "FREE LUNCH."  THERE IS ALSO NO SUCH THING AS AN "OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT."

FRANKLY, PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO FIX THE OIL SPILL--NO PRESIDENT CAN HAVE THAT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE
What should be expected is that he would lead strongly, manage competently, and surround himself with competence, not sycophants.  Failing that--read on.  David Brooks outlines a possible scenario that could result.

DAVID BROOKS COVERS IT PRETTY WELL--EXCERPTS FOLLOW
=========================

David Brooks: Government is about to shift into slow motion
Wednesday, June 2, 2010  02:50 AM
    The failure of the top-kill technique in the Gulf of Mexico represents a turning point on the Obama presidency. It symbolizes the end of the period of lightning advance and the beginning of the period of nasty stasis. President Barack Obama swept into office having aroused the messianic hopes of his supporters. For the past 16 months he has been on nearly permanent offense, instigating action with the stimulus bill, Afghan policy, health-care reform and the nearly complete financial reform. Whether you approve or not, this has been an era of bold movement.
    But now the troops are exhausted, the country is anxious, the money is spent and the Democratic majorities are teetering. The remaining pieces of legislation, on immigration and energy, are going nowhere. (The decision to do health care before energy is now looking unfortunate.) Meanwhile, the biggest problems are intractable. There's no sign we will be successful in preventing a nuclear Iran. Especially after Monday's events, there's no chance of creating a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unemployment will not be coming down soon. The long-term fiscal crisis won't be addressed soon either....

    ...The plume taps into a series of deep anxieties. First, it taps into the anxiety that the people running our major institutions are not competent. Second, it feeds into the anxiety that there has been an unhappy marriage between corporations and government officials, which has had the effect of corrupting both. Most important, the plume exposes the country's core confusion about the role of government.
    When this country was born, the Founders laid down strict roles for the federal government and the president. But over the years, the roles of government and the presidency have expanded. As a matter of conviction, the country is deeply uncomfortable with these expansions. Operationally, on the other hand, the country has become accustomed to the new programs and to the new presidential role. In a crisis, you get a public reaction that is incoherence on stilts.
     On the one hand, most people know that the government is not in the oil business. They know there is nothing a man in Washington can do to plug a hole a mile down in the gulf.
    On the other hand, they demand that the president "take control." They demand that he hold press conferences, show leadership, announce that the buck stops here and do something. They want him to perform the proper theatrical gestures so they can see their emotions enacted on the public stage.         They want to hold him responsible for things they know he doesn't control. Their reaction is a mixture of disgust, anger, longing and need. It may not make sense. But it doesn't make sense that the country wants spending cuts and doesn't want cuts, wants change and doesn't want change.
    At some point somebody's going to have to reach a consensus on the role of government. If this disaster teaches anything, it is that we are a venturesome, entrepreneurial society. We rely on corporations like BP to bring us energy. At the same time, it is clear that even well-meaning corporations sometimes take shortcuts when it comes to controlling pollution and protecting workers. So we want government to regulate business. ...

    ... We should be able to build from cases like this one and establish a set of concrete understandings about what government should and shouldn't do. We should be able to have a grounded conversations based on principles 95 percent of Americans support. Yet that isn't happening. So the period of stagnations begins.
        David Brooks writes for The New York Times.
=========================

HOW TO TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THE SENATE:  ONE PERSPECTIVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWooGP6RueI

TO RESTATE WHAT I SAID BEFORE AND WHAT DAVID BROOKS REITERATED:
AMERICA NEEDS TO DECIDE (ALL OVER AGAIN) WHAT ROLE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY IN OUR LIVES. 
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK THE ROLE IT IS PLAYING NOW--HEADING TOWARD IN THE FUTURE--IS FAR TOO DOMINANT, FAR TOO LARGE, AND CERTAINLY FAR TOO COSTLY.

We know that public sector employment is growing, thanks to the creation of many new bureaucracies, and higher public-sector pay and benefits. We know that Obama's own head of his Council of Economic Advisors, Christine Romer--while she was a professor—led a study and co-authored the paper that proved that every dollar the government takes from the people and spends in the name of job growth actually has a negative job creation effect.

We know, that the government creates no wealth of its own.  It can only take the wealth created/earned by the American people from them, and redistribute it—spending it on the pet programs of the political party and President in office at the time. (Neither party is innocent in this regard!) 

Our Founding Fathers intended government to work for the people.  Now, the tables are turned, and the America people are slaves to their own government and its leaders. 

IF YOU READ THIS FAR, I CHALLENGE YOU:  SEND THIS EDITION OF THE ENTERPRISE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN. 

ESPECIALLY SEND IT TO KNOWN OBAMA SUPPORTERS FROM 2008.  BY NOW, EVEN THEY ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THE HUGE MISTAKE THEY MADE.

THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FIX EVERYTHING.  IT CAN'T TAKE CARE OF EVERYBODY.  IT HAS NEITHER THE WISDOM, NOR THE EXPERIENCE, NOR THE KNOW-HOW, NOR THE MONEY TO DO IT, NOR SHOULD IT DO SO--IT ISN'T EVEN GOOD FOR MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO BECOME DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT!

NOTE:  EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT "TAXED THE RICH" 100%--THAT'S RIGHT--TOOK EVERY PENNY OF THEIR INCOME, IT WOULD NOT COVER THE INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL DEFICIT CREATED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND CONGRESS IN THE PAST 17 MONTHS.

Spread the word.  Tell your children and grandchildren who are old enough to understand it.  Big government is an attractive curse, like a drug habit.  It leads to the "high" of feeling good by not taking the responsibilities that come with your rights.  And it is followed by the crash, the low when it "wears off" and you realize that the drug induced high of big government taking care of everything and everyone is the worse habit forming drug of all.  And that is about as direct as I can put it.

Worst--not Best, John

PS: Remember the old kids books about "Uncle Remus" series (now deemed politically incorrect) and Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.  The more Brer Rabbit struggled with the Tar Baby, the more entangled and covered with tar he became.  I hope this old story reminds me of President Obama and the Gulf Oil Spill.


-----------------------------------------------------------
 "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to "Pick up a turd by the clean end."
        (Winner in a Texas A &M contest for the best definition.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959  http://www.mariotti.net   http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------