Reset Your Presidency Mr. Obama

By TED VAN DYK

Wall Street Journal

July 17, 2009

Time out, Mr. President.

As we approach the August congressional recess, it's clear that our economic distress is deeper than we thought, and thus your health-care and energy initiatives are in danger of stalling out. You could use a reset button for domestic policy.

Let's take it from the top.

Your presidential campaign was superb. You restored hope to millions -- including me -- who had been demoralized by the political polarization that characterized the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. You talked about reaching across party and ideological lines to get the public's business done. Your biography was appealing, and for those of us who entered politics motivated by the civil-rights struggle, your candidacy represented an important culmination.

You displayed an intellect and sense of cool that made us think you would weigh decisions carefully and view advisers' proposals with skepticism.

The first warning signals for me came with your acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. In it, you stressed domestic initiatives that clearly were nonstarters in the already shrinking economy.

I had greater concern when you staffed your administration and White House with a large number of Clinton administration retreads who had learned their trade in the never-ending-campaign culture of the Clinton years. Some appeared to represent what you had pledged to eradicate in the capital.

Many of the missteps that have followed flowed, in part, from your reliance on these Clinton holdovers. Your chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, defined your early strategy by stating that the financial and economic crises presented an "opportunity" to jam through unrelated legislation. To many of us, the remark was cynical and wrong-headed. The crises did not represent an opportunity. They presented an obligation to do one thing: Return our financial system and our economy to good health.

Since January, your advisers have compared your situation to those of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson after their landslide victories in 1932 and 1964. In fact, your situation is quite different. Most centrally, FDR's and LBJ's victories and congressional majorities were far larger than yours. Thus their mandates were stronger.

FDR's first months in office were devoted entirely to financial and economic recovery. His big domestic initiative, Social Security, was not enacted until 1935. LBJ pushed an ambitious Great Society agenda into law in 1965. But the U.S. economy was growing robustly in 1965. Johnson referred to it as "an endless cornucopia" which would generate tax revenues to pay for the Great Society. When he learned in mid-1967 that the projected federal budget deficit was $28 billion -- almost twice the amount projected six months earlier -- he went to Congress to push for tax increases in order to prevent Vietnam War and Great Society spending from creating unacceptable deficits.

Your staff recently has compared your strategy in pushing health-care and energy initiatives to the way Johnson pushed his Great Society legislation. That's not a fair comparison. Johnson's initiatives were framed in the White House by his administration. But at every stage, congressional leaders of both political parties and financial, business, labor and other private-sector leaders were consulted. Johnson wanted to assure that his legislation was substantively sound and could get consensus support in the Congress and the country.

Your strategy, by contrast, has been to advocate forcefully for health-care and energy reform but to leave the details to Democratic congressional committee chairs. You did the same thing with your initial $787 billion stimulus package. Now, you're stuck with a plan that provides little stimulus until 2010. A president should never cede control of his main agenda to others.

This tactic has already had negative consequences. Frightened by the prospective costs of your health-care and energy plans -- not to mention the bailouts of the financial and auto industries -- independent voters who supported you in 2008 are falling away. FDR and LBJ, only two years after their 1932 and 1964 victories, saw their parties lose congressional seats even though their personal popularity remained stable. The party out of power traditionally gains seats in off-year elections, and 2010 is unlikely to be an exception.

What adjustments should be made?

- Cut back both your proposals and expectations. You made promises about jobs that would be "created and saved" by the stimulus package. Those promises have not held up. You continue to engage in hyperbole by claiming that your health-care and energy plans will save tax dollars. Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates otherwise.

It's time to re-examine these initiatives. Could your health plan be scaled back to catastrophic coverage for all -- badly needed by most families, but quite affordable if deductibles are set at the right levels? Should the Rube Goldbergian cap-and-trade proposals be replaced with a simple carbon tax, with proceeds to be allocated to alternative-fuels development?

The evolving health and cap-and-trade bills are loaded with costly provisions designed to gain support from congressional leaders and special-interest constituencies. In short, they have become an expensive mess. This legislation will not clear Congress by the August recess, as you have requested, and could be stalled for the remainder of 2009. Settle for incremental change: Do not press Democratic legislators to vote for something they fear will destroy them in 2010.

- Talk less and pick your spots. You are outdoing even Johnson and Mr. Clinton with your daily speeches in the capital and around the country.

Applause and adulation are gratifying. But the more you talk, the less weight your words will hold. Let voters see you at your desk, conferring with serious people about serious matters. When you do choose to talk, people will understand that it's important and they should listen.

-Conform your 2009 politics to your 2008 statements. During your campaign, you called for bipartisanship and bridge-building. You promised to reduce the influence of single-issue and single-interest groups in the policy process. Yet, in your public statements, you keep using President Bush as a scapegoat.

You have ceded content of your principal proposals to Democratic congressional leaders who in large part have yielded to special-interest constituencies and excluded Republican leaders from policy formulation. This certainly was the case with the stimulus plan. It has been the case with health and energy legislation, with the notable exception of Sen. Max Baucus's attempt in the Senate Finance Committee to develop genuinely bipartisan legislation.

You have an enormous reservoir of goodwill among Americans of all persuasions. They want you to succeed. Level with them and trim your proposals to what is practical in the current environment.

You had things right in 2008. Take a timeout. Get back to yourself. Make a fresh start.

Mr. Van Dyk was Vice President Hubert Humphrey's assistant in the Johnson White House and active in national Democratic politics over 40 years. He is the author of "Heroes, Hacks and Fools," (University of Washington Press, 2008)

According to the latest Federal data, there are 3,320,977 small businesses in California. It’s not enough any more to have a unique idea or recognize an unmet need to start a small business. Coming up with enough capital is always a challenge, but possible for the determined. However, in Sacramento the challenges just keep getting lobbed.

If I want to start my own small manufacturing company in Sacramento, I must first deal with a staggering the twenty-one agencies for permits, licenses and regulatory controls:

• City of Sacramento City Finance, Revenue Department
• City of Sacramento Fire Department: Fire Prevention Inspection
• City of Sacramento Planning Department Land Use Permit/Zoning Clearance
• City and County Police Department Police Regulations/Public Safety Issues
• County Assessor Business Property Statement office
• County of Sacramento Treasurer Tax Collector's Office
• County of Sacramento Environmental Health Department Hazardous Materials/Waste
• Sacramento Metropolitian Air Quality Management District
• California Department of Industrial Relations Air Tanks Permit
• California Secretary of State Corporation, Company or Partnership Filings
• California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste Facility (two different permits)
• Cal Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Activities Storm Water General Permit
• California Department of Industrial Relations: (OSHA)
• California Employment Development Department (EDD)
• Franchise Tax Board
• US Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Services
• Department of Industrial Relations (Workers' Compensation)
• US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

It is not enough that a small business owner must apply to and work with each of these agencies before starting a business; surprise inspections and unannounced visits regularly occur. Any business owner can enumerate from memory, the audits and inspections they are subjected to: Annual inspections by the Fire Department and/or Fire Marshall, OSHA, safety and liability inspections by Insurance carriers, EPA and Cal-EPA toxic substances inspections, and Sacramento Air Quality Management District for emissions tests, to name just a few. There are surprise spot checks for permits and licenses by the city, county and state, even if there are current permits and licenses in place, as well as highly disruptive unannounced inspections.

One manufacturing owner shared that recently he has been subjected to increased permitting, licensing mandates, pop inspections, and required to obtain additional insurance coverage (terrorism insurance?). The Fire Marshall recently decided that the annual inspections by the Fire Department are not enough, and has conducted several surprise inspections, consequently announcing that he needs to purchase additional permits for paper storage and propane tank usage, replace existing EXIT signs with larger EXIT signs, change the open/close direction of interior doors, stop using extension cords, and the like. The redundancy of their request with Sacramento County and State licensing and permitting is of no concern as long as fees are associated; it is as if orders are coming from the top down in all city agencies to step-up permitting, fines and fees collection. This is mafia-style extortion for hapless business owners to operate in certain areas of certain counties and cities – such as Sacramento.

Another business owner told me that during a recent unannounced insurance inspection to his business, the Insurance company Risk Assessment Manager “recommended” the company move large rolls of paper away from the printing presses, and to take sales reps off the road if they have any moving violations or spotty driving records. City of Sacramento Parking Enforcement department keeps ticketing his trucks… parked on his property.

This is all in addition to all of the annual audits conducted by the IRS, the Franchise Tax Board, the bank, State sales tax audits, Worker’s Compensation insurance audits, payroll audits, and EDD audits, all totaling hundreds of hours of employee time.

The business climate in California is treacherous and unfriendly. The City of Sacramento is no better and is bullying more and more business owners with no concern whatsoever for the cumulative impact of their demands. Existing businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water in an ever-increasing regulatory nightmare, not to mention a particularly hostile economy. Given this miserable climate, who would want to start a business in California, and equally important, who wants to continue doing business in this city and state?

Katy Grimes is a long-time political activist, writer and columnist.

The ADA defines a covered disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was charged with interpreting the 1990 law with regard to discrimination in employment. Its regulations narrowed "substantially limits" to "significantly or severely restricts".

Police Officers, Fire Fighters and members of the Military are often called brave and valiant Heroes. And they should be; much of what they do is dangerous and requires a degree of courage, selflessness and valor.

They are also, public (government) employees.

Police are at-risk every moment of every day they are on-the-job; from the cop on the beat to the patrol officer, every person they speak to, every car they pull over is a potential risk to their life. They serve voluntarily and selflessly, putting themselves in harms way every day.

Military personnel who serve in war-torn countries serve voluntarily and selflessly, and often give their lives in the course of defending democracy.  Stateside military personnel tirelessly train in preparation for the day they will be sent into battle.

Fire fighters are faced with treacherous work conditions when fighting fire. Of particular note are the California Department of Forestry (CDF) - fire fighters, who work tirelessly trying to prevent wild fires in our summertime parched state.

Missing from the discussion of selfless, tireless public safety workers, is the union representing the City of Sacramento Fire Department who of late, have been behaving more like hoodlums, than heroes.

Months ago when the City first started talking about the need for sizeable budget cuts due to a record budget deficit, the Sacramento Police Officers Association union (SPOA) almost immediately stepped up and agreed to make their $6.4 million budget work – cuts, salary freezes and all. The Fire Fighters union, Local 522 (an AFL-CIO union), instead turned on the machismo, did a few chest bumps, and began a months-long public tantrum played out dramatically in the media, by refusing to live with and manage their $5 million budget.

Remember the City of Vallejo’s recent Bankruptcy? It was their Fire Department that forced the city into the financial dire straights that led to insolvency, due to record and unsustainable salaries, benefits and pensions. This is a common theme in the state of California, and a severe lesson the City of Sacramento seems unwilling to experience.

The Sacramento Police Department and the SPOA actively educated members in order to get input and involvement on the inevitable budget problems the city was facing. Already down by 104 sworn staff officers since 2007, the Sacramento Police Department decided they could not afford any more police officer cuts. SPOA agreed across the board to accept the City’s budget, freeze salaries as of the last budget, and take cuts where deemed necessary in order to save jobs.

Contrast this with Local 522, the Fire Department union, and even city employee union Local 39: both unions propose sacrificing only lower paid workers, while insisting on raises for the older, more highly-paid workers. Many Sacramento residents are critical of firefighters for being hypocritical for claiming union “solidarity” with their firefighting “brothers” while rejecting a deal that will lead to the City laying off 50 of their “brothers.” Fire Fighters are behaving like thuggish teamsters, forgetting that they are city employees, and serve voluntarily.

Additionally, Fire Fighters have come under intense scrutiny for excessively high overtime abuse and ongoing abuse with sick-leave usage. With city fire fighters largely on-call while on duty, their antics are becoming intolerable.

What happened to the days when fire fighters called to a medical emergency showed up as a first-responder, in a two-person team driving a light-duty truck? The fire fighters’ demand for 4-man teams on every truck for every call, is unrealistic and absurd, and demonstrative of their refusal to prioritize staffing levels based on the nature of the emergency calls. Current staffing levels and call response tactics are purely to justify their pay, pensions and big budget.

This from the same local fire fighters union who recently threatened that they were considering sponsoring a ballot initiative that would seek to ban the City Council from ever reducing firefighters’ pension benefits without a vote of the public. 

This is all behavior inherent to Chicago-style unions, not most individual fire fighters. However, the fire fighters who consider themselves union members first and only secondarily fire fighters, made their voices clear at recent city council meetings.

When was the last time police or military personnel threatened using thuggish teamster tactics because they weren’t getting guaranteed pay and pension increases? Military and police personnel respect integrity and distinguished public service.

 Fire Fighters, police and military personnel choose their career paths voluntarily. Society honors those who choose careers that require courage and valor in the face of danger. But when Sacramento City Fire Fighters threaten tyranny while already receiving abundant wages, rich benefits and inordinately large pensions, while most of the rest of the city’s employers are laying off employees and cutting wages and salaries, we know that the union running the show has reached beyond usefulness and is moving into foolishness. Thus is the inherent problem with labor unions representing public employees.

Public employees work for the citizenry, but appear to work for the supremacy of the city, county or state. The law and the government are intended to serve American freedom and self-determinism — not the other way around. 

But now the power of the people of California to change the law by gathering signatures and placing voter initiatives on the ballot is under siege by Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Recently, Jerry Brown engaged in both legal and semantic manipulation when he summarized my Vote SAFE initiative as "prohibiting citizens from voting."

In fact, Vote SAFE protects the rights of all registered voters including military voters. Vote SAFE expressly provides that no person shall be prohibited from voting for failure to display photo ID but shall receive a provisional ballot. The photo ID and provisional ballot requirement are based on an Indiana law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (2008). Tellingly, when Bill Lockyer was attorney general, he summarized a similar initiative as a requirement that voters display a photo ID, not as a prohibition against citizens voting.

The oh-so-chic Tina Brown wrote a vile column today for The Daily Beast, her version of The Huffington Post. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, and Vanity Fair. In her column, Brown compared Hillary to Sarah – Clinton’s elegance and experience versus Palin’s bitter, backwoods, novice politics.

Brown described the swearing-in of a former Hillary Chief-of-staffer, Melanne Verveer, to an Ambassador position, in full Vanity Fair mode: The scene was a great snapshot of two battle-tested empty nesters, both handsome blown-out blondes in their early 60s, both wearing consummately safe alpha-female pantsuits (Hillary in self-possessed powder blue, her new ambassador in respectful grey), both dedicated policy wonks who worked on behalf of oppressed women in unpronounceable places long before it was fashionable, both mothers (a grandmother in Verveer’s case) with hunky husbands (anchorman-handsome Philip Verveer is a powerful communications lawyer in Washington and soon to be the State Department’s U.S. coordinator for international communications with the rank of ambassador himself).  

Oh my! Be still my beating heart. Tina Brown left me breathless (and a little jealous) of Hillary and her alpha-female suits. However, she fails to mention Hillary’s ever-expanding derrière and nasty cankles as the need for the pant-suit wardrobe. And for the record, I too am an empty-nester, am 47, and prefer wearing skirts and dresses above-the knee. And unlike Hillary, I don’t see women as “oppressed,” unless she’s referring to women whose husbands sleep around.

The female-dog tone Tina Brown uses demonstrates the raw fear that Leftist women have of Sarah Palin. Often described as hokey, stupid, unsophisticated, white-trash, the left have proved they must reduce themselves to petty, bitter name-callers instead of arguing substantively… say… against Palin’s politics or policy? Brown knows that with her straight-talkin’ style and real-woman life experience, Sarah Palin can make Tina Brown and Hillary Clinton look like the uppity, condescending, middle-age liberal feminist harpies they are. Who do the waitresses, the dental hygenists, hair stylists, store clerks or the stay-at-home-moms in America look up to? Not Hillary Clinton and not Tina Brown.

There’s so much work to do!” Hillary exclaimed to me in the receiving line, her eyes sparkling at the thought of the impending avalanche of briefing papers heading her way from her new global women’s issues czarina. Is Brown writing a Harlequin or covering a news story? Czarina? It’s not only Hillary’s derrière that's getting bigger. 

She might get somewhere in the long run if she would just go away in the short run and read some books. Her problem is that she thinks the popular culture is the culture. She has no context, no knowledge of the world to offset her obsessive Nixonian flailings about how everyone is belittling her stature as the hardworking governor of Alaska.. Did I already mention the female-dog-tone? And Tina Brown accused Sarah Palin of being “Intellectually dishonest?” I thought she said Sarah needs to hit the books… how can she also be intellectual?

When I thought Tina couldn’t get any more ludicrous without getting moronic, Brown actually throws in Nancy Pelosi as an example of a sophisticated, female politician: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a mother of five who translated what she wanted for her kids into fighting for affordable health care and clean air. Palin has a disabled child, one of a sadly ignored subset of Americans whose chances to live a better life desperately need her celebrity spotlight. Teenage mothers could use a leg up from Palin, too, but she’s too busy ginning up celebrity feuds. She actually played the disabled child card? Despicable given what an advocate for mentally disabled children the Palin family has become since Sarah Palin gave birth to her 5^th child – developmentally disabled Trigg. One can bet that had Tina Brown discovered she was pregnant with a developmentally disabled baby, she would have made a quick call to Planned Parenthood.