Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday a 10-page government report caused quite a stir on the blogosphere.  (Read it here.) The report’s central claim is encapsulated in its title: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.  The report basically insinuates that the economic downturn and election of Barack Obama is a perfect storm, leading to the reemergence of homegrown “rightwing extremists.”

 The kerfuffle over the report may puzzle some. But it is worth examining what is labeled an “extreme” position. “Rightwing extremism in the United States,” the report opines, can include individuals or groups who “reject[...]  federal authority in favor of state or local authority” or are focused on a “single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” 

This broad and generic language is unprofessional and irresponsible. The language calls into question whether or not Federalism is “extreme” (which generally favors state authority over federal authority). But Federalism has been a legitimate mainstream American political position since the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, the disappointingly broad-brush language tars people who oppose abortion as “extremists.”  We can debate the precise numbers, but last I checked, roughly half of the American people opposed abortion or wanted to see it limited in some way.  Does that make them an extremist? Such slanted innuendoes may be part of the coarse political that characterizes vibrant debate in a flourishing democracy. But such demagogy has no place in an official U.S. government report.

An objective, dispassionate reader can easily conclude that this report is bereft of relevant facts and full of conjecture. Few college students would be able to get a passing grade on a term paper in which the  logic was so lacking, and the evidence presented was so anecdotal and impressionistic. Many of the examples in the report are from the ’90s – some examples are well over a decade old. If I wanted to be snarky, I would say one could drive a truck through the assumptions and gaps in the report.

 Unfortunately, lame government reports get published fairly often. But to many, this disappointing, half-baked report smacks of a thinly-veiled political attack by the left against conservative individuals and groups who are pro-life, advocate for immigration enforcement, and adhere to a federalist philosophy of government. Interestingly, this constellation of beliefs and political approaches is not that radical or “extreme,” as all three dynamics characterize Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who was the GOP’s Presidential nominee just a few months ago.

I am not a member of the black helicopter caucus, and I generally grow weary of conspiracy theories. However, the angry reaction and outrage in response to this report is understandable.  The loose language and irresponsible conjecture in the report leaves room for people to perceive the U.S. government as attacking the very thing it exists to protect: our political and philosophical freedoms. As a nation, we may disagree on the merits of various perspectives, but we should be disappointed and frustrated when our government fails to live up to its promise.

President Obama has said now is the time for government to lead. Perhaps the key question is, where is it leading? And who is leading? Looks like he has his work cut out for him.

Image by Center for American Progress Action Fund via Flickr

There no longer is any doubt: President Obama has a personnel problem.

HHS nominee and Governor Kathleen Sebelius’ latest revision of her finances is the latest in a long string of embarrassing personnel problems, not to mention her second such error. Though one may judge the severity of the President’s personnel problems based in large part on one’s political loyalties, there is a strong empirical proof that all is not well. Let’s just consider some facts.

On the campaign trail, President Obama was fond of talking of the importance of “good judgment.” Yet, just a few weeks into his Presidency, he made history with his candid assessment of his own judgment. “I screwed up,” he said regarding his decision to nominate former Senator Tom Daschle to be health and human services secretary. No disagreement here with the President.

Every White House has their personnel glitches, but Team Obama’s blunders in judgment are glaring. Daschle was a tax deadbeat, initially not paying over $100K in owed taxes.  After that, President Obama nominated Timothy Geithner to oversee the IRS as Treasury Secretary, despite knowing Geithner owed late taxes. Even the President’s own nominee for chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer, had to withdraw because of unpaid taxes. The question of what kind of people the President trusts is an important one.

The conduct of the President and his staff also raises important process questions. Normally, a President waits to publicly announce a new nominee until the individual has completed the required legal paperwork and background checks. Occasionally, a President will announce an “intent to nominate” an individual before their paperwork is completed.

But Team Obama has been plagued by news of intended nominations leaking weeks before a candidate is announced. There are two options to explain this. Either 1) the President’s staff are terribly loose-lipped, or 2) the President’s staff are intentionally leaking private, sensitive discussions with candidates in an effort to create the public perception of progress on filling vacancies. My money is on the latter. What else would explain the case of Rodgin Cohen, a well-respected Wall Street adviser once thought to be in the running for Deputy Secretary of Treasury?

Hiring misfires not only create a lack of public confidence, but in such perilous economic times, they can create a sense of investor confidence. Such public implosions and missteps are damaging. In this case, they hurt Treasury’s credibility. A recent poll demonstrated a dearth of confidence in Treasury. Even now, nearly 3 months into his Presidency during the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” there are only 3 or 4 nominees for about 18 leadership posts.  This leaves many analysts understandably worried that financial staff are stretched too thin.

There are other disappointing hiring policy decisions. Despite a “no lobbyists in my White House” campaign pledge, President Obama not only granted several waivers to lobbyists, but it took semantic gymnastics for the White House to define the lobbying prohibition in such a way that retained the campaign talking point, but robbed the provision of all practical meaning inside the Beltway.

But if President Obama is soft on lobbyists, he’s hard core when it comes to czars. Obama has appointed more czars than any other President in history: eight. This may seem inconsequential, but influential czars often enjoy unfettered access to the President and West Wing offices, while escaping the legal tethers of Congressional oversight which come with Senate-confirmed Cabinet jobs. Czars inhabit a gray netherworld, given a broad portfolio of duties and a huge bully pulpit, but accountable to no one, save the President. I had expected something different from a President who as a candidate was so scathing in his critiques of then-current President Bush’s White House personnel arrangements.

Finally, there is another hugely ironic dynamic worth noting. So far there have been no CEOs appointed to the President’s Cabinet, senior team, and perhaps even the entire Administration. Some have even called this a ‘CEO black hole.’ I know many readers may eye CEOs with mistrust, in view of recent economic developments. But shouldn’t people chosen as senior government executives actually have previous experience as a senior executive? Government leaders must be able to navigate through this mix of dynamics, but one of the most desirable qualities in senior government leaders is management ability. If the President does not have strong managers around him, he  is likely to spend more of his time reacting to problems, rather than leading people.

Some may argue I am being too severe. After all, President Obama has filled about twice as many spots as the last two Presidents did at comparable times in their first time.  Filing vacancies is critically important, but precision is as important as speed.  What President in recent history had so much on his plate? Two wars. North Korea. Iran. A global recession. President Obama will need to build the strongest, smartest team possible.  And he will need to start with building the right personnel team. Then perhaps he would not fewer embarrassing situations akin to those of Chas Freeman, Bill Richardson, Judd Gregg, or Adolfo Carrion.

The good news is that such missteps are avoidable and preventable. But the Obama team will have to get its act together soon. Over half way through the President’s first 100 days, the clock is ticking, and there are still serious personnel gaps. And with so much at stake, this is a big deal, Mr. President, and getting it right is important. To borrow the moniker of the hour, one might even say it is “too big to fail.”

Image via Wikipedia

One has a good sense of the absurdity of government plans when the line between public policy and late night comedy becomes quite blurred, as it did this week with President Obama’s moves on the big 3 — or what’s left of them, in Detroit.

Late Night Comics Mock Auto Intervention

Image via Wikipedia

In a disappointing confirmation hearing today, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (KS-D) expressed her support of the possible use of an arcane budget procedure (‘reconciliation’) as a possible tool for cramming a massive health-care-and-energy-tax-change through Congress.  I am apoplectic.

Yes, Reagan and Clinton both used the ‘reconciliation’ process to advance elements of their budgets. But since the Budget Act of 1974, no party has ever used the procedure to make such dramatic and sweeping policy changes as the Democrats are toying with now.

President Obama ran on a platform where he promised unparalled transparency. He ran as a post-partisan candidate who would transcend old divides.  But this budgetary gimmick is one of the worst kinds of debateless, lop-sided, partisan ideas proposed in some time. In historical terms, it is literally unprecedented.

To make matters worse: later in the day, Governor Sebelius revealed she recently paid some late taxes. Yes, another Obama nominee with tax problems. This is quite disappointing.Sure, our tax code is obtuse, but we have professionals to help navigate the tax laws. Our President has called for a ‘new era of responsibility,’ but he continues to nominate indiviuals who cannot even pay their taxes — and this is to say nothing of their policies.

Governor Sebelius is a disappointment. Mr. Obama may have brought change to Washington, but I’m afraid it’s only change at a rhetorical level.

Baucus Supports Sebelius, Despite Tax Flap – Roll Call.

Image by Stéfan via FlickrWrit

The digital information age moves with increasing speed. We have 24-hour news cycles and rapid response ‘tweets.’ We read books digitally while blogging from our phones. Our online friends include local and global neighbors.

How do you sort through the digital noise each day and make sense of things? Perhaps you find it challenging. I sure do.

This is why I find True/Slant’s vision compelling. I am drawn to a network of credible, informed voices which cut through the noise, offering cogent, thoughtful insights.

Surely this is an interesting time for students of history. We have a new President who was swept into power with wider electoral margins than any President in a generation. And Republicans are in the political wilderness. Yet American’s confidence in Congress continues to hover near all-time lows.

Meanwhile, our nation is going through turmoil. We’re in a severe financial crisis which has slammed the brakes on global economic growth. The market is dropping while unemployment is rising. The costs of gas and consumer goods have slowed, but the price of health care and education continues to increase.

In this environment, more than ever, we need perspectives based on solid assumptions and informed by experience. That’s what I hope to offer.

Given my column’s title, you might can guess my personal ’slant.’  So, expect me to address issues which may be out of the headlines at the moment, but which matter. Also expect me to generally sympathize with traditional Republican ‘conservatism,’ but from a position which is neither knee-jerk nor uncritical.

I won’t always get it right, but I will strive to think carefully about U.S. politics, the presidency, and the nature of government while addressing the proverbial elephant. You are free to disagree or challenge my thinking (which is welcome), but I do bring a perspective informed by experience.  And that’s my true slant.