Scott: Hi Jack, it's Scott, Hillary‘s husband. Hillary is feeling a little under the weather this morning, so I thought I would pinch-hit for her today. Also, I have a few ideas of my own, which I would love to discuss with you.
Let‘s start with a question: President Obama gave his state of the Union address this week, and he also had what I consider to be an unprecedented Q & A session with Republican Congress members. While I think he served himself very well in both situations, my question is this: how can policy achievements match his rhetoric?
JACK: Scott, I am delighted to have you participate. You bring another point of view to the party and I am sure you have some insight in your capacity as a Compliance lawyer working for a major mortgage lender. I watched with interest President Obama confronting the Republican Congress people. The revolutionary part was that it was televised, so that we, the public, could get some insight on the direct exchange and form our own conclusions. I think this is a superb idea because we are getting the information directly from all the horses' mouths, rather than an interpretation from pundits on television.
I am much impressed with the President‘s ability to keep an even temper while faced with blatant campaigning masquerading as questions. I was also impressed with the fact that he suggested with some tact that the rhetoric be abandoned, so that a real discussion and possible solutions can emerge. Like many people, I have been watching the confrontations, accusations, and pointed suggestions. It was refreshing to hear it directly and I was pleased that the exchange was starting to heat up as the President pointed out that much of the disastrous economy was inherited and could not be attributed to anything he did. While admitting that he was less than perfect, he did correct the record and gave a very good account of himself and his activities. I was still left wondering whether we can really expect something positive to emerge in the way of bipartisan legislation that would benefit the American population.
SCOTT: Jack, I could not agree more. I was left wondering the same thing myself. The question is – where do we go from here? As the President pointed out himself several times during the Q&A, Republicans have painted themselves into such a corner that if they support Obama, or even work with him on any issue, they would cripple themselves politically, and risk losing their next election. So — is it even possible for the parties to work together in such an environment, or should the Democrats use the majorities that they have, and push through the agenda that they feel would be best for the country?
JACK: While the Republicans have remained solid in their opposition to anything that the Democrats put forth, the Democrats have been dancing timidly around the idea of direct confrontation. Somehow they succumbed to the myth that then cannot accomplish anything unless they have 60 votes (the majority needed to prevent a filibuster) and lost sight of the fact that despite that, they are a huge majority. In fact they have the largest majority in Congress that either party has enjoyed. So I wondered how the Republicans, particularly in the past 8 years, enacted all kinds of legislation (tax cuts, declarations of war, business incentives) in the face of not having as much of a majority as the Democrats enjoy today. What am I missing?
SCOTT: In my view, Obama has spent much of the past year trying to please everybody. But, I feel that when you try to please everybody, you often end up pleasing nobody. Further, I would sum up 2009 as a year of MISSED OPPORTUNITY. For example, Obama walked into office in the face of two extremely costly wars. It seemed to me that he felt we had to stay there because we had been there for years. My question is – why? Why can‘t he change the game? What if we could take all that money to improve the lives of Americans here at home. What could we do then?
JACK: Once more, I believe that perception has overcome reality. Somewhere along the line (probably starting with Vietnam) we have believed that by changing course we were being less than patriotic, and we were short-changing all the wonderful service people who had already sacrificed their health and their lives. As a former combat veteran of World War II, and as a card-carrying capitalist, I am a great believer that you don‘t throw good money after bad, or try to justify past actions by killing more people. Aside from the financial consequences, I get physically ill when I see what tremendous hardship our armed forces have had to endure. My opinion is that the logic for going in was bad, and the logic for getting out should not justify the original action. In this real world, we must face the real facts.
Every so often, it makes sense to stand back, look at where we have gone, and re-adjust our position to being ourselves in step with the reality of the situation. So far, as the economics are concerned, I do believe it‘s the first time in history that we went to war and lowered taxes at the same time. Aside from the terrible casualties in people, someone has to somehow pay for these huge costs that are part of a wartime economy. So, getting back to the recent exchange between the President and the Republican opposition, I welcome an honest debate based on the facts, and not wild accusations.
SCOTT: I agree Jack, and here is a fact. Unemployment is currently at 10%. And, if you add to that the number of people who have given up looking for work, or who are only working part time, the number grows closer to 20%. I would imagine that most people in America would say that the #1 issue on their mind is the economy – how can I get a job? Will I be able to keep my job? How can I afford heath care, education for my children, etc.? So – this ought to be our #1 priority. How can we improve our situation here, while faced with 2 costly wars abroad, combined with a tumultuous political system here at home?
JACK: This is not the first time we have had this problem. During the great depression of the 1930s, the unemployment rate shot over 25% and we also had an enormous loss of jobs some twenty years ago, after appropriate downsizing in the Reagan administration. I recently was interviewed on internet radio about how to get jobs, and other places that the unemployed can turn. It is a half-hour interview that I will link to a future blog. In summary, there are answers that are very American and are once more a tribute to our capitalist Democracy‘s ability to recoup and to go forward. People have to face their own responsibility, and should be made aware of the many opportunities that are open to them, even in a tough economic market in the United States.
SCOTT: I have one more question for you, Jack. I admire President Obama in several ways. He is extremely intelligent, and has had a varied career, full of achievements. One thing he has never done, however, is run a business. You, Jack, have run a very successful business for decades, and among other things, have created thousands of jobs all over America (and abroad). What advice would you give President Obama, as he goes forward with efforts to put people back to work?
JACK: I agree with you on the President‘s intelligence. I would however, qualify success as having two major ingredients. The first is the concept and the second is the execution. I think the President‘s inexperience in business has him falling short on how he executes his ideas. I certainly would advise him to put on his staff an individual with broad experience both in business and in politics, so that he could map a course that will face the second part of the equation. In the business world, particularly in sales, we value THE CLOSER more than the individual who doesn‘t know how to finalize a deal. I feel the same applies in politics and I think that President Obama needs a CLOSER on whom he can rely.
