A Fortunate Terror-Free Christmas for 2010

On the morning of December 20, 2010, British police arrested 12 men in a large-scale counterterrorism operation at a time when there have been growing concerns about threats of terrorist attacks across Europe. The Wall Street Journal reported that: "The arrests represent one of the largest counterterror operations by U.K. authorities in recent years... Recent months have seen a number of terrorist-related arrests across the region, including in Belgium, Denmark and Norway... An attack by a suspected suicide bomber this month in Stockholm heightened fears that terror groups are targeting nontraditional sites." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703886904576030912668857954.html

These arrests came after al Qaeda had warned Europe of the threat of a commando-style attack, such as the one conducted in Mumbai in 2008. Since the arrests, it has been learned that one of the planned targets for these terrorist plotters in the UK was the US Embassy in London.

Yet in the afternoon of December 20, hours after the British arrests had been reported on numerous news broadcasts and Internet sites, the man above, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, sat down for a television interview with ABC news anchor Diane Sawyer, along with his Homeland Security colleagues, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and White House Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, and responded to Diane Sawyer's question about the UK arrests with a blank stare and the response "London?". Brennan quickly clarified that he knew of the arrests and saw no concern for the US homeland.

Since the US Embassy in London was found on the suspects' "targeting list", as the Weekly Standard said, the first official response from Brennan that "there was no apparent 'homeland nexus' is small comfort to the Americans working at the London embassy. In addition, embassies have long been attractive targets for jihadists. Any threat to an American embassy, especially from a group that was already practicing with explosives, is serious."

The next day, Brennan told the press: "I know there was attention by the media about these arrests and it was constantly on the news networks. I am glad that Jim Clapper is not sitting in front of the TV 24 hours a day and monitoring what is coming out of the media.”

Why would anyone in the 21st Century have to watch TV 24 hours a day to keep up with the latest news? Does DNI Clapper not own a smart phone or other mobile device with Internet access as most of the US population does? Does Clapper not have staff traveling with him on appointments, especially to an interview on national television, who have easy access to the Internet 24/7; not to mention the fact that any such staff should have had information about important arrests of Muslim jihadists by one of our closest allies in order to brief the head of "National Intelligence"? Later the DNI's office admitted that Clapper had not been briefed on the arrests in the UK before going to the ABC interview.

The office of the Director of National Intelligence was created by Congress after the 9/11 Commission recommended such a function in order to better coordinate the sharing of information between the various intelligence agencies. If the current DNI does not know of the latest developments in fighting terrorism, why do we have this office and the bureaucracy that goes with it?

DNI Clapper's failure to be in the loop on the UK arrests is also particularly troublesome because "American officials have repeatedly trumpeted the cross-Atlantic counterterrorism cooperation between the UK and U.S. How, then, could American authorities not have known that this bust was going down? And if they did know, as they almost certainly did, then how could they have forgotten to tell the DNI? In other words, there are good reasons to believe that Clapper should have been informed not only after the fact, but also beforehand." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dni-director-james-clapper-needs-know_525796.html

Since the UK arrests took place, five other suspected Muslim jihadists were arrested in Denmark and Sweden for planning a commando-style gun attack at the Copenhagen offices of a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005. All of the unsuccessful jihadist attacks stopped by our allies' efficient counterterrorism operations in Europe appear to fit within the scope of the threat issued by al Qaeda earlier in the holiday season.

I wonder if our Director of National Intelligence knows about these events since apparently, according to the White House Counterterrorism Advisor, Clapper does not follow TV news and seems to lack routine access to the Internet or even "intelligent" staff.

How fortunate we were that these terrorists were caught by our European allies. If any such terrorist plans had been directed at the US homeland (as one was in 2009 on a Christmas day flight from Amsterdam) would our current team of Counterterrorism "Keystone cops" have stopped it? What a fortunate Christmas we have had.

Sphere: Related Content

Mainstream Media Takes Notice of the Public Sector-Private Sector Income Disparity

My last post noted that recent survey data has shown the advantage that public sector workers have over private sector employees in terms of total compensation, including salary and benefits. I also noted that part of the reason for this advantage is due to the higher proportion of graduate and professional degrees among public sector workers. The Washington Post last week published the graphs shown above that demonstrate this disparity in educational achievement, as well as the fact that public sector workers are generally older than private sector workers.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post noted that state politicians in particular are talking about this pay package disparity between public and private sector workers because many states' fiscal problems are in large part due to the burden of having to pay for public workers' benefits, especially the pensions of their retirees. The general public is also likely to become increasingly concerned about, not only the pay package disparity, but also the relative security of public jobs during a period of continuing high unemployment throughout the country.

The Post quoted several elected state officials talking about this new type of class warfare:

"We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and the taxpayers who foot the bill are the have-nots," Wisconsin's incoming Republican Gov. Scott Walker declared this month, as he raised the idea of stripping state workers there of collective bargaining rights. Outgoing Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is mulling a GOP presidential bid, also sounded a class-war note last week on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal: "Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt."

It is not only Republicans that are recognizing this issue. Democratic Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo in New York is preparing to face the issue in that state when he takes office next month "warning that state employee salaries and benefits are unsustainable at a time when the state has a $9 billion deficit."

The Washington Post goes on to note: "Relative job security with generous benefits that extend into retirement has long been part of the appeal of working for the government. But an eight-hour day in a drab Independence Avenue office building can look like a supremely privileged lifestyle when Americans in the private sector are panicked and furious over what has happened to their own salaries, health coverage and 401 (k)s. Add to that the growing view that the government has gotten too big and that deficits are going to swallow the economy, and you have all the makings of a backlash." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005225.html?tid=wp_featuredstories

In an October editorial in Newsweek magazine, Mortimer Zuckerman stated that we are becoming "two Americas", but not the type that politicians have usually been talking about: that is the class warfare between rich and poor. Rather Zuckerman said that the division between the public sector and the private sector will define the "two Americas". He quoted from a 2009 Mayo Institute study that found "private-sector workers three times more likely to be jobless than public-sector workers", and Zuckerman notes public sector employees can thrive even in a down economy.

Zuckerman also stated that the compensation gap has been growing quickly in recent years because federal employees have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases for nine years in a row. As a result, he says this "is tantamount to a wealth transfer from the citizens to the people who serve in government". As I noted in my last post, even the federal pay freeze recently announced by President Obama will not stop all federal pay increases over the next two years, as his announcement may have implied.

As I have said before, the fact that there exists this pay disparity, on average, between public and private sector workers does not prove that public sector workers are overpaid because other factors such as the types of jobs, experience and educational levels must be considered. However, the fact that this issue is getting more attention by the mainstream media and state officials facing growing fiscal deficits at a time when high unemployment continues to plague the economy, while public workers are more secure in their jobs, will assure that the term "class warfare" will likely start to take on a new meaning.

Sphere: Related Content

Are Federal Workers Earning Their Pay?

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama announced a freeze on federal workers' pay for two years. The freeze only applies to the "cost-of-living" raises given annually and only to the Executive branch workers (other than military personnel). Congressional members and their staffs' earnings are not included. It also does not apply to the automatic step increases that federal employees routinely get or to overtime pay. So federal workers will continue to get pay increases in spite of the fanfare given to the President's announcement.

There has been much discussion and analysis regarding the question of whether federal workers are overpaid, as the above graph published in USA Today suggests. The graph illustrates average pay over the entire federal and state/local government workforces compared with the full range of jobs in the private sector. It is often pointed out that government workforces have a larger segment of professional and college graduate employees than the private workforce in general.

President Obama even made this statement when discussing the issue of whether federal workers are overpaid:

"[T]he data we get back indicates that high-skilled workers in government are slightly underpaid. Lower-skilled workers are slightly overpaid relative to the private sector... And that's not surprising because it's a unionized workforce" in government, while the private sector typically is not.

Of course, one reason that highly skilled workers are "slightly underpaid" is due to the large number of lawyers who work for the government, who represent a much higher percentage of any government workforce than the private sector. Lawyers working for government salaries generally make much less than they would in private law firms or even in corporate law departments. However, they do not usually make government work their full career. They move out of government with valuable experience into the much higher paying jobs after their government service.

It is also worthy of note that, as above graph demonstrates, federal benefits represent a much higher average amount of federal compensation than benefits do in the private sector. In addition, while private sector workers have suffered lay-offs and high unemployment during the recession of the past few years, federal workers have much more job security. In fact, the federal workforce (not counting Census workers) has grown in the last two years. All of that federal job growth, job security and steady pay increases (even though now reduced some) likely accounts for the fact that seven of the highest ten average household income counties in the USA are in the Washington, DC metro area.

But my concern is not so much with whether government workers are overpaid as it is with whether they really earn whatever they are paid. Just look at the major foul-ups and misdeeds by many in the federal workforce, including lawyers, in recent years that could be contributing to the general public despair and uncertainty about the country's direction and outlook for the future.

To start with the economic meltdown, we need to look at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has as its mission the job to oversee and regulate the financial and securities industry and protect public investors. We learned earlier this year that while the financial industry was on the way toward near-collapse beginning with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2007 that investigations by the SEC inspector general’s office found 33 agency employees (including lawyers) violated internal policies by viewing pornography for hours a day since at least 2005. How many unreasonable Wall Street risks and unscrupulous investment schemes went undetected by the SEC because their "underpaid" professional workforce was distracted with porn?

It has also been reported that a whistleblower brought evidence of Bernie Madoff's scams to the SEC staff several times over several years before someone paid attention to it. After Madoff's arrest, we learned that he perpetuated the largest "Ponzi scheme" in history; costing his investors about $50 billion in lost investments.

Recently, it has been disclosed that many mortgage foreclosures have been filed without proper paperwork, including actual evidence that the parties filing foreclosure actions really had the right to foreclose. When these problems were discovered, many banks froze all foreclosure proceedings across the country for weeks while new procedures were put in place.

These banks and other companies in the chain of the mortgage processing industry are regulated by an alphabet soup of federal agencies that have the power to audit and investigate the companies' books and procedures. However, no federal agency uncovered these major problems in foreclosure actions that have been displacing homeowners and driving down real estate values nationwide over the past several years. Rather it was a pro bono lawyer in the private sector representing a homeowner defendant in a foreclosure action whose diligence discovered a common industry practice that led to foreclosures all over the country being put into question.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April again brought up ethical issues reported by Inspectors General (IG) at the Interior Department for several years about the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the Department, which had the responsibility for approving which oil companies received leases to drill for oil in the Gulf and for collecting government royalties due under those leases. An IG report released a month after the BP oil rig in the Gulf exploded and started leaking "found that [MMS] inspectors had accepted meals, tickets to sporting events and gifts from at least one oil company while they were overseeing the industry. Although there is no evidence that those events played a role in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the report offers further evidence of what many critics of the Minerals Management Service have described as a culture of lax oversight and cozy ties to industry."

The New York Times article from which the above quote is taken goes on to say:

"The [IG] report includes other examples of troubling behavior discovered by [MMS] investigators. In mid-2008, a minerals agency employee conducted four inspections on drilling platforms when he was also negotiating a job with the drilling company.... And an inspector from the Lake Charles office admitted to investigators that he had used crystal methamphetamine, an illegal drug. Investigators said they believe the inspector may have been under the influence of the drug during an inspection." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/25mms.html

While the May report focused on the agency's Lake Charles, Louisiana office, previous IG investigations of the MMS found inappropriate behavior by the royalty-collection staff in the Denver office.

None of these problems at MMS was news to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. He had ordered a new ethics program at MMS soon after he became Interior Secretary. Nevertheless, it was not until after the Gulf oil spill that Salazar reorganized the oil leasing agency by separating safety oversight from the division that collects royalties from oil and gas companies. He also replaced the head of the agency and renamed it the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

It has also been reported year after year that there are many federal employees who owe back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). According to a report by the IRS last year, federal workers owed $3.3 billion in delinquent income tax payments for 2009.

The Homeland Security Department has also had a few lapses of note. The most serious problem was the failed attempt by a Nigerian Muslim extremist last Christmas to blow up an aircraft traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit. In spite of this would-be bomber buying a one-way ticket with cash and recently visiting Yemen for a couple of months, he did not get any extra scrutiny before boarding the plane. Later it was also learned that this young man's father had reported his concerns about his son's extremist leanings to the US Embassy in Nigeria. Although the Embassy reported that information to the State Department, the intelligence community did not get the information to airport security personnel. After the fact, all air travelers are now being subjected to special scanning machines or more intrusive pat-downs before boarding planes.

In recent weeks, there have been reports of drivers transporting nuclear material across country for the federal government being observed drinking alcohol while en route. In addition, last week it was reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is missing important information about 199,000 aircraft listed on its registry of commercial aircraft.

And, of course, in recent weeks, the world has had access to a treasure trove of classified US State Department cables as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures on its own website, as well as the sites of major news organizations given prior access to the cables by the Wikileaks staff. It is suspected that the Wikileaks staff was provided with these classified government cables (and other classified government files disclosed several months ago regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) by an Army intelligence officer named Bradley Manning who is now in military custody awaiting court martial.

Manning had access to classified government files when he was stationed in Iraq as an intelligence officer. His ability to download hundreds of thousands of secret government files on to a device that he then took out of a military intelligence center near Baghdad without oversight or detection is a security failure of supreme significance. Any intelligence center permitting military access to classified information of the type being released by Wikileaks around the globe should have been subject to security procedures carefully designed and installed by high level experienced military intelligence personnel. But the Wikileaks fiasco suggests that even people of this supposed high level of professionalism failed miserably in carrying their extremely important duties.

While this list of fairly recent federal worker foul-ups, misdeeds, ethical lapses and disregard for official duties is rather lengthy, I need to also acknowledge that many more federal workers not only earn their pay but often go far beyond the call of duty. Clearly, Americans are grateful for the outstanding service provided by most of the military. Bradley Manning, the Fort Hood shooter and others who have disgraced their uniforms are the rare exceptions.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been performing an outstanding service in apprehending Muslim jihadists on US soil over the years since 9/11 before any destruction has taken place. The FBI arrested two such extremists (who are American citizens) in the past couple of months who were plotting to bomb the DC Metro and another who tried to set off explosions at a military recruiting center in Baltimore. These are just the most recent examples of the critical role the FBI has been playing to keep us safe in our own homeland.

Nevertheless, there are always bad apples in every barrel and sorry news about certain federal workers falling short on the job, such those described above, will likely continue to be reported in the future regardless of how those public servants are paid. Sphere: Related Content

Salute to My Family's Veterans on Veterans Day

JOHN W. RAYMOND (1922-1999), US Navy, 1944-45, served in the Boston Navy Yard as a Boiler and Turbine Engineer, keeping our Navy's Ships at Sea.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this Veterans Day 2010, I want to honor the veterans in my family, starting with my father shown above in the listing included at the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. My father was also recalled to duty during the Korean War serving in the same capacity working as an engineer on the engines of the US Navy ships stationed at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

There are also veterans of other wars earlier in my family tree.

ROLLIN B. TRUESDELL (1839-1914), my father's great grandfather on his mother's side, served in a New York State Infantry Regiment in the Army of the Potomac under Union Generals George McClellan, Joe Hooker and Ambrose Burnside from 1861 to 1863 during the Civil War. He saw action during the Peninsula Campaign, Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.

JAMES F. HARRINGTON (1834-1917), my father's other great grandfather on his mother's side, served in the Missouri State Militia Cavalry throughout most of the Civil War engaging Confederate forces wherever his unit was needed to keep Missouri under the control of the Union Army.

DANIEL RAYMOND (1747-1830), my great great great great grandfather, served in the New York State Troops of the Colonial Army under General Schuyler in 1777 during the Revolutionary War. Daniel also had three brothers who served in the Colonial Army during the Revolutionary War in units from other states in the Northeast. The grave of his brother Joseph Raymond, who reached the rank of Captain in the Massachusetts Troops, is shown here with a Revolutionary War Veteran marker and flag. We found this grave and that of Daniel's brother, Paul Raymond, who also served in the Massachusetts Troops, in the Center Cemetery in Richmond, Massachusetts when we visited the Berkshire Mountains last month.


We honor all veterans today for keeping our country safe and secure from tyrants, dictators and terrorists for over 200 years.

Sphere: Related Content

The War Against Terrorism Continues

Within days of Juan Williams' firing by NPR for admitting apprehension when seeing passengers in airports wearing Muslim garb and the over-the-top walk-out from "The View" TV talk show by Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar when Bill O'Reilly failed to use an adjective to describe the Muslims who attacked the US on 9/11, the FBI arrested the man shown above for plotting to attack various Metro stations in Northern Virginia. The man shown is Farooque Ahmed, a naturalized US citizen who was born in Pakistan, but has been living in the US for 17 years.

Ahmed thought he was plotting with members of al-Qaeda, but was actually conspiring with undercover FBI agents. The FBI was tipped off to Ahmed in January, when a source inside the Muslim community said the 34-year-old telecommunications worker was asking around, trying to join a terrorist group to kill Americans. This is the latest in a series of undercover FBI stings that have caught Muslim extremists in the US who have sought to join in the holy war against Americans, even though many of these extremists have been living in the US for years.

Around the DC beltway and interstate highways, there are electronic signs that advise motorists to "report suspicious activity" with a phone number noted to call. The street vendors who reported the suspicious SUV in Times Square in May (that was discovered to be packed with explosives by another Pakistani born US citizen of the Muslim faith) said they reported the vehicle to police because New Yorkers know that "if you see something, say something".

Within the last few days, another credible terrorist threat was discovered when explosives were found in packages on cargo planes bound for Chicago. This threat, of course, started in Yemen, not in the US, but it demonstrates once again that the Muslim extremists continue their war of terror aimed at Western targets and the US in particular.

So it must be asked: if Juan Williams or anyone else saw the man above taking photos inside Metro stations in Northern Virginia and/or otherwise acting suspiciously, wouldn't it cause an average citizen to be nervous or concerned? And should that concern lead such a person to report the activity to police or the FBI?

Or would the recent reactions of the Politically Correct Police at NPR, the co-hosts of "The View" or Time magazine cause average citizens to think that they could be accused of overreacting or being Islamophobic or racist and cause them not to "say something" like the Times Square street vendors did?

Sphere: Related Content

Virginia's Experience with New Republican Governor Recognized by the Washington Post

As previously noted (and foretold) in posts on this blog, there is much that Washington can learn from the Republican Governor that Virginians voted into office last year. My previous comments on what Governor McDonnell has been accomplishing can found on the posts of April 8, 2010 at http://jaxonnews.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-washington-can-learn-from-richmond.html; July 24, 2010 at http://jaxonnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-lessons-for-washington-from.html and August 30, 2010 at http://jaxonnews.blogspot.com/2010/08/additional-lessons-from-richmond-for.html. Finally, it appears that some in the mainstream media are also noticing.

The Washington Post on Saturday, October 30, 2010, ran a front page story entitled: "Virginians share lesson learned: GOP in power not so bad". The Post story begins by noting that President Obama's theme in campaign appearances this year has been: don't vote for the Party that drove the car into the ditch. The Post then states:

"Virginians overwhelmingly ignored [Obama's] advice, and a year later many say they have few regrets and are generally pleased - if not ecstatic - about what Republicans have done.

Voters, including some who didn't back him, credited Gov.

Robert F. McDonnell with working hard and engineering deep budget cuts from a generally fractious General Assembly with relatively little heartache. The result of those efforts was a narrow surplus by the end of the fiscal year, achieved through bipartisan action and without the tax increase that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine proposed before leaving office."

In addition, of course, New Jersey elected a Republican Governor last year who is receiving a lot of national attention. The Post noted that result as well:

"Only Virginia and New Jersey held elections in 2009, and both states elected Republican governors after being firmly behind Obama in 2008. The GOP has since pointed to McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as examples of new kinds of Republicans and also of what voters could expect if they return the party to power in Washington.

'I hope that what I've been able to do, in some small measure . . . will at least create confidence that if people elect Republicans at the federal level, that they're going to get similar good results,' said McDonnell." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907043.html

President Obama's plea to voters not to vote for the same people that "drove the car into the ditch" also fails to be accurate because so many of the Republican nominees for office this year are newcomers inspired by the revolt against big government and deficit spending, most visibly demonstrated by the Tea Party protests held across the country over the past year.

This is not the same GOP you love to demonize anymore, Mr. President.

Sphere: Related Content

Why the US and NATO are still in Afghanistan

Do the Code Pink anti-war ladies want to abandon Afghan women like the one pictured above on a recent cover of Time magazine? Do the Democrats that President Obama was worried about last year when he announced a decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan want to abandon such women to the terrors of the Taliban? Reports about Bob Woodward's new book about the Obama administration indicated that Obama inserted a promise to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 in his troop increase announcement because he said "I can't lose all the Democrats". Does Obama realize that he is President of the United States and that he should make decisions that are in the best interests of the country, not just the Democrats?

The woman pictured above, named Bibi Aisha, was disfigured by her husband after local Taliban leaders in her village (where NATO troops have not yet taken over) found her guilty under Sharia law of abandoning her abusive husband when she moved out of his house. The penalty ordered by the Taliban was to have her husband cut off her nose and ears.

Such practices under Sharia law were common during the Taliban rule that preceded the US and NATO invasion nine years ago to overthrow the Taliban government. That objective was quickly achieved, but establishing a competent new government has taken much longer, and it seems that many are growing weary of protecting those Afghans who are now living in a more civilized society than existed in that country before 2001 while also taking the necessary military action to drive the Taliban and its extremist influence out of other areas.

One person who remembers why we need to remain in Afghanistan until the Karzai government can stabilize its control of the country and secure its own countrymen and women is Laura Bush, the former First Lady. On Sunday, she wrote an editorial about the struggles that Afghan women face even today and what could be at risk if Western troops leave too soon.

"Nine years ago, many around the world learned of the severe repression and brutality against women that was common in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Girls were forbidden to attend school. Women were imprisoned in their homes and denied access to doctors when they were sick. And Afghanistan had the highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the world.

Today there are encouraging signs of progress: More than 6.2 million students are enrolled in Afghanistan's schools, and 35 percent of them are girls. Afghan women serve as government ministers and lead as provincial governors. Women have been elected or appointed to the National Assembly. Afghan women work as entrepreneurs, educators, lawyers and community health workers. And their work is essential to the growth of the Afghan economy.

Yet serious challenges remain. A culture of fear still silences women. In many rural areas, those who dare to teach receive letters threatening not only their own lives but their children's as well ......

Though some Afghan leaders have condemned the violence and defended the rights of women, others maintain a complicit silence in hopes of achieving peace. But peace attained by compromising the rights of half of the population will not last. Offenses against women erode security for all Afghans -- men and women. And a culture that tolerates injustice against one group of its people ultimately fails to respect and value all its citizens."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100806343.html

There is no moral justification for pulling our troops out of Afghanistan just to appease anti-war Democrats and "peaceniks" who live in cozy suburban homes when the Afghan government is not yet able to secure the rights of all of its citizens without the risk that the Taliban fanatics could regain control.

It is strange that left wing liberals are often campaigning for the US to help oppressed people around the world, even as Americans contribute more generously to victims of disasters, disease and oppression than citizens of other countries and our government does more to help foreign countries than any other. But when action to help others results in violent conflict, national resolve is limited due to the cries for withdrawal from the conflict by the same left wingers.

Well, at least Bibi Aisha has received the generous help of American charity and goodwill. She has received a new nose from plastic surgeons in California and has escaped the terrors of the Taliban. Sphere: Related Content

Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act by the Obama Justice Department

The image above has been reprinted many times in news media since Election Day 2008 when the members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in the photo stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia. Before leaving office, the Bush Justice Department charged these individuals and the NBPP with violating the Voting Rights Act because they allegedly made statements and certain gestures that intimidated or could have intimidated some white voters. After receiving a default judgment against the defendants, the Obama Justice Department, under new Attorney General Eric Holder, dismissed the case against all defendants except one, who was enjoined from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place.

One month after the disposition of the NBPP case, the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) began an investigation into the conduct of the Justice Department in its decision not to seek injunctions against the NBPP and the other defendant. The USCCR was created by Congress in 1957 to investigate allegations of civil rights abuses that were quite common in those days in the South. Their first investigation involved looking for evidence of racial discrimination in voting procedures within the state of Alabama. Their investigative reports to Congress led to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

In the USCCR's first letter of inquiry to Justice in June 2009, four Commissioners stated that the decision of the Civil Rights Division of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one defendant in the NBPP case was of concern to them because the defendants were caught on video tape "engaging in attempted voter suppression the likes of which we haven't witnessed in decades". The video showed the defendants "blocking access to the polls,... physically threatening and verbally harassing voters" during the November 2008 general elections. http://www.usccr.gov/correspd/VoterIntimidation2008LetterDoJ.pdf

Since this first letter, the Commission has held hearings and taken depositions of many of the parties involved, including the Civil Rights Division Chief and two of the Justice lawyers who handled the lawsuit when it was in court. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) has been diligent in pursuing information about the Justice decisions in this case and its implications for impartial enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, even when it might involve white victims of discrimination by blacks. Frank Wolf's extensive correspondence on this matter can be found at http://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=372&itemid=1622.

One of the key Justice lawyers involved in the NBPP case is Christopher Coates, who was the former head of the Civil Rights Division until the Obama Administration took over. After the NBPP case was dismissed against all but one member of the NBPP, Coates was reassigned to the South Carolina US Attorney's Office after working in the Civil Rights Division since the Clinton Administration and being awarded the Civil Rights Division’s Walter Barnett Memorial Award for Excellence and Advocacy during his tenure in Washington. The USCCR subpoenaed Coates to testify in their investigatory hearings last year, but he was barred by his supervisors from doing so.

Another Justice lawyer, J. Christian Adams, who worked on the NBPP case, resigned from the Department and testified in June 2010 about the hostile environment created in Eric Holder's Justice Department toward any Voting Rights cases being brought against black defendants. That testimony by Adams gave the USCCR investigation more attention by the press and Congressman Wolf.

Frank Wolf's pursuit of the Justice Department's enforcement philosophy regarding Voting Rights Act cases resulted in the Department's Inspector General, Glenn Fine, agreeing on September 13, 2010 to review the broader issues of voting rights enforcement by Justice that go beyond the NBPP case.

Then, just at the end of September, Christopher Coates was finally able to testify himself to the USCCR. However, Coates had to do so with cover from Congressman Wolf, who wrote to Eric Holder before Coates' testimony to remind the Attorney General that his employee, Mr. Coates, is protected under the Whistleblower Protection laws that bar anyone from denying or interferring with the testimony of a federal employee.

Coates testified that, after Barack Obama became President, many people in civil rights organizations "who had demonstrated hostility to the concept of equal enforcement of the [Voting Rights Act]" were brought into positions of power and influence in the Justice Department. Coates testified that in his view these people believe that the protections of the Voting Rights Act should not be extended to white voters and should be limited to racial, ethnic and language minorities.

Coates further stated that the new Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Obama Administration, Julie Fernandez, held meetings with the Civil Rights Division in 2009 at which she said that the Department's approach to enforcing the Voting Rights Act would be to "provide political equality for racial and language minorities" and that "is what we are all about". http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/TestimonyChristopherCoates_09-24-10.pdf

The implication of Adams' and Coates' testimony seems clear, i.e. that white voters are not to be protected under the Voting Rights Act by the current Administration. The Inspector General's current inquiry will provide more information about the Justice Department's civil rights enforcement approach when it is concluded, but Congressman Wolf must be commended for pursuing this matter when it is certainly not a headline grabbing issue for the mainstream media that continues to spin the Obama mythology of "Hope" for the middle class regardless of color.

It is also strange that an Administration that promised transparency has tried to bar Christopher Coates from testifying to the USCCR for over a year, put J. Christian Adams in the position of having to resign from his job to testify and sends high ranking Justice officials to testify without being candid about their true voting rights enforcement philosophy.

What happened to "Equal Justice Under the Law"?

Sphere: Related Content

A Day of Remembrance

On the evening of September 11, 2001, my wife, Peggy, and I went to the US Capitol where we heard an impromptu gathering of people was forming to solemnly mark the end of one of the most terrible days in our country's history. As a group of ordinary Americans, who were stunned by the terrorists' attacks that morning, people of all ages, races, ethnic groups and nationalities slowly and silently moved from the streets and arriving cars to climb the steps of the West side of the Capitol building. Capitol Police stood silently in watch. Voices that were heard were softly spoken, when heard at all.

As the sun was setting, we sat on the steps looking in the direction of the Pentagon (about 3 miles away across the Potomac River) where one of the jetliners commandeered by hijackers had hit its target. We were all in disbelief that such evil exists in the world and that so many innocent lives could be ended so suddenly without any provocation by the victims.

I agree with President Obama when he says that we are not at war with Islam. George W. Bush said the same thing several times. But it cannot be denied that there is a radical segment of the Muslim population that is at war with America and what our country represents as a financial, economic and military superpower which provides freedoms to its citizens unknown in much of the Muslim world.

In the nine years since the 9/11 attacks, our government has taken many needed steps to make the country safer, but no one can be sure that we are safe. We now face a new extremist threat as American Muslims, such as the Fort Hood shooter and the failed Times Square bomber, are responding to the jihadist calls from followers of Osama bin Laden.

I keep waiting for a recognized Muslim leader of PEACE to provide teachings and messages that dispute and counter the extremist views of Islam repeatedly sent around the world by al-Qaeda and its allies. Instead, we continue to see images of Muslims in protest burning American flags and chanting "Death to America" (and now "Death to Obama") whenever they are told of perceived insults to their religion, even if such reports are not true. For examples of such Muslim protests, see Michelle Malkin's article at http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/10/the-eternal-flame-of-muslim-outrage/.

However perverted bin Laden's view of Islam may be, will this religiously driven hatred toward the West ever end?

Sphere: Related Content

Additional Lessons from Richmond for Washington

I have reported previously on the successful action being taken by the new Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, to reduce spending in the state government and eliminate the deficit he inherited from the current Chairman of the National Democratic Party (his predecessor, Tim Kaine). In my last post on this subject, I noted that Governor McDonnell announced in July that the $1.8 billion deficit projected for fiscal year 2010 when he entered office had been eliminated and that he estimated that the fiscal year would end with about a $220 million surplus. See http://jaxonnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-lessons-for-washington-from.html

Well, the fiscal year has now ended and the Governor announced on August 19, 2010 that the fiscal year ended with an actual SURPLUS of $403.2 million. However, rather than take all the credit for the turnaround and blame his predecessor for the mess he "inherited" as our President repeatedly does as the national debt grows and the country's economy continues to falter, Governor McDonnell said this:

"Last session we faced a potential $1.8 billion shortfall in the remaining FY 2010 budget. Today I am pleased to report that we closed the fiscal year with a $403.2 million surplus. We collected $228 million more in revenues than expected and spent $175 million less than budgeted. But please don't get too excited, most of it is already obligated in statute or in the budget to meet various needs.

This modest surplus and fiscal turnaround was achieved by two Administrations, two houses of the General Assembly, and two political parties.

I applaud former Governor Tim Kaine for the tough cuts he made in this budget prior to leaving office. Governor Kaine also exercised conservative judgment in his revenue reforecast in December. Our Administration continued that policy of restraint during this session.

With a politically divided General Assembly, nothing meritorious is possible without bipartisan cooperation. The spending cuts and fiscal discipline that led to this surplus were the result of tough negotiations and agreement between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Thank you for your leadership and cooperation in this endeavor....

The other side of the surplus is found in savings. Virginia's dedicated state employees deserve credit for their efforts to save nearly $175 million in tax dollars at the end of the fiscal year, rather than spending their budgets down to zero. Our managers found savings, and the Cabinet found smarter ways to do business, adhered to our hiring freeze, and brought in strong leaders.

Of the $228.5 million collected above the official forecast for general fund revenues and transfers, individual non-withholding payments and corporate income tax payments accounted for $169 million of that total. In addition, withholding and sales tax collections, which are directly tied to economic activity in the Commonwealth, exceeded the forecast by $62 million. This revenue growth occurred in the last four months of the year, beginning in March....

I am pleased to report that $82.2 million of the revenue surplus will go to provide the general fund share of a one-time 3% bonus to state employees on December 1, an action we all agreed to in the budget last session. Our state employees have not received any increase in pay since November of 2007. A prudent budget strategy we adopted was to incentivize state workers to generate savings and not spend their entire agency budgets by the June fiscal year close. Our employees knew there would be a financial reward for saving taxpayer dollars and returning unspent balances to the General Fund. I thank our hard working state employees, though there are fewer of them, for saving so much even after their budgets were reduced.

What this result also shows us is the power in economic incentives. This notion of gain sharing or economic rewards for getting results is a concept widely used in the private sector, and long overdue in practice and implementation within state government operations. I plan to look for more ways to use such incentives in the budget and amendments I submit to you in the coming years....

The preliminary balance sheet for June 30, 2010 indicates that the Commonwealth ended the fiscal year with cash equivalent assets in the general fund of $872.9 million. This is the first time since June 30, 2007, that we have seen an increase in general fund assets from the previous fiscal year....

Working together during this past General Assembly session, we made the very tough choices necessary to close an unprecedented $4.2 billion shortfall in the FY 2011/2012 budget through reducing spending, not increasing taxes. And we did it on time, in a bipartisan fashion.

We also made Virginia one of the only states to have already balanced a budget for FY 2012, the first year in which states will no longer receive Federal stimulus funding...

While we have balanced our budget responsibly by making tough choices and not raising taxes, other states have chosen a different approach. Wisconsin, Massachusetts, California, New York and many others have chosen higher taxes as their solution to budgetary shortfalls. These choices have repercussions for future economic growth....

I thank you again for giving me the tools to tell the Virginia free enterprise success story around the nation and the world to help create jobs for our people.

From February to June, Virginia ranked 3rd highest nationally in the total number of jobs created, trailing only Texas and Pennsylvania, and 4th highest nationally as a percentage increase.

Our statewide unemployment rate has fallen to 7.0%, which ranks Virginia the 12th lowest rate in the nation and the 3rd lowest east of the Mississippi behind only Vermont and New Hampshire. During these tough economic times, it appears that our business-friendly policies are bearing fruit as we fare better than most states. Virginia's workforce remains one of the most diversified in the country, but workforce development remains a top priority to facilitate greater competitiveness in the growth industries of tomorrow....

In the toughest economy since the Great Depression, with our national deficit at $1.6 trillion for the year and our national debt exploding to over $13 trillion, Virginians and Americans are looking at how things are done in the Commonwealth, and they see that there is another way forward. We should not hesitate to tell the story of Virginia's balanced budget and spending restraint, and to encourage our federal government to learn from our bipartisan effort." http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=319

Our nation's Chief Executive and other federal employees should learn some lessons from Virginia's leader and his state's accomplishments: bi-partisanship; spreading credit rather than blame among one's political opponents; using private sector approaches to provide incentives for cutting spending rather bureaucratic approaches to using every dollar appropriated before the the fiscal year ends; rejecting tax increases as a method to balance budgets; rewarding government employees for contributing to reductions in public spending after freezing public compensation in earlier periods, and thanking all those who contributed to the good results rather than seeking to divide political factions with selective praise and pointed attacks at the opposition party.

Listen Up, Washington!!! Sphere: Related Content

Jaxon News Anticipates Mainstream News and Events

Federal Debt Crisis: In my latest post on July 31, 2010 below, I noted that Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) had a plan to cut the federal debt:

"To reduce spending in the long term, [Grover] Norquist [of the Americans for Tax reform] recommended a Republican proposal offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is also a member of the National Commission, that Ryan calls a 'Roadmap for America's Future'.... Liberals would probably be surprised to learn that Republicans actually have ideas for fixing major problems in our country. That is the natural result of believing what the Democrats say about the GOP and only reading the mainstream media or liberal blogs and never watching Fox News."

Well to my surprise, the Washington Post (a long time member of the "mainstream media") actually ran a story about Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" (on the front page!) two days later on August 2, 2010! The Post stated that

"[Paul Ryan] is determined to persuade colleagues to get serious about eliminating the national debt, even if it means openly broaching overhauls of Medicare and Social Security. He speaks in apocalyptic terms, saying the debt is 'completely unsustainable' and warning that 'it will crash our economy.' He urges fellow politicians, and voters, to stop pretending that this problem will go away on its own.

He administers his sermons with evangelical zeal. He will go anywhere and talk to anyone who will listen. When he is not writing op-eds and appearing on television, he can often be found speaking to liberal and conservative audiences alike about his 'Roadmap for America's Future,' a plan he says would fix the problem." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103518.html

Illegal Immigrants: In my blog post on May 23, 2010 discussing the announcement by the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that his agency might not process illegal immigrants sent to him by Arizona authorities because he feared that the new Arizona immigration law could lead to racial profiling, I expressed my outrage that a federal official would fail to carry out his duty to enforce the laws he swore an oath to enforce. I also noted my view that the Arizona law would not seem to require law enforcement officers in Arizona to do anything unusual for any police officers to do:

"[T]he new Arizona law only requires state law enforcement officers to inquire about immigration status whenever "any lawful stop, detention or arrest [is] made by a law enforcement official" and a "reasonable suspicion exists that the person [stopped] is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States". Even without any statute, it would seem that such an inquiry would be a logical approach for any law enforcement officer to take in any state in the country." http://jaxonnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/dereliction-of-duty.html

Well, on July 30, 2010, Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia, issued an opinion to a member of the Virginia legislature that agrees with my assessment in May:

"Indeed, it would be most surprising if state and local officers lacked the authority,
where appropriate, to arrest individuals suspected of committing federal crimes such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. State and local officers are not required to stand idly by and allow such criminals to proceed with impunity. The same holds true with criminal violations of the immigration laws....

The new Arizona law does not purport to grant new powers to law enforcement officers in Arizona; nor does it suggest the absence of authority by police officers in Virginia. The Arizona law expressly leaves the determination of an alien's immigration status to ICE or to a federally authorized law enforcement officer. Virginia law enforcement officers have the authority to make the same inquiries as those contemplated by the new Arizona law. So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime.

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has found that so long as the questioning does not prolong a lawful detention, police may ask questions about immigration status. [Footnote on this point cites Muehler v. Mella, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) as the Supreme Court case referenced above].

It also should be noted that under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
state and local officers are required to advise foreign nationals of their right to speak with a consular officer when those persons are arrested and held for longer than a short period of time. It is difficult - if not impossible - to effectively provide that advice, mandated by treaty, without making an inquiry into the nationality of a person who is in custody." http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-047-Marshall.pdf

-------------------

Keep reading this blog if you want to stay ahead of events......

Sphere: Related Content

Resolving the Federal Fiscal Crisis Requires a Better Understanding of Economic Reality

The graph above was recently created by the Congressional Budget Office to illustrate the size of the US federal debt as a percentage of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since the founding of our Republic and projected into the future for 30 years or so based on currently planned government policies.

The Washington Post published an editorial today about the CBO report in which this graph appeared and referred to the future projection as a "Matterhorn-like incline of what happens next". As the Post editorial notes, the federal debt has grown very quickly to the present and projected crisis levels shown in the CBO chart.

"The federal debt held by the public -- and, increasingly, "the public" means foreign governments and investors -- has mushroomed from 36 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 2007 fiscal year to a projected 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal 2010. By way of comparison, only during and just after World War II has the federal debt exceeded 50 percent of GDP." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/07/31/ST2010073100015.html?sid=ST2010073100015

As I have noted in prior posts, one successful approach to reduction of government deficits is to reduce public spending. See my posts about the actions taken by Governor Bob McDonnell in Virginia. The mainstream media (including the Washington Post) and Democratic policy-makers usually say that the solution to our fiscal crisis is to reduce spending and/or to increase taxes. However, it would be more accurate to say that reducing spending and increasing government revenue would help address the problem. Increasing government revenue can actually be accomplished by economic growth without raising taxes. And renewed economic growth can even be stimulated by lowering taxes. These seem to be concepts that are very difficult for the liberal mind to grasp.

Grover Norquist, President of the Americans for Tax Reform, recently presented his recommendations for reducing the federal debt to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on June 30, 2010. This National Commission is the Presidentially appointed commission (which includes several members of Congress and Senators) that has been asked to make recommendations for solving the debt crisis. President Obama established this commission because our federal officials do not seem to know how to work together effectively in the halls of Congress in accordance with the usual Constitutional procedures to solve the most important problems of the day as we elected them to do.

In his testimony, Norquist stated that the deficit problem is caused by spending:

"100 percent of the fiscal crisis we face is due to an over-spending problem in Washington. Federal tax revenues have averaged approximately 18 percent of GDP since 1970. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), tax revenues over the next decade will climb back to this historical average—even if all expiring tax relief is extended, and the AMT is indexed to inflation. Clearly, taxes are not causing the deficit—spending is.

Since 1970, spending has averaged about 21 percent of GDP (giving a structural budget deficit of 3 percent of GDP). According to CBO, federal spending will exceed this level for the entire decade, averaging 23 percent of GDP."

To reduce spending in the long term, Norquist recommended a Republican proposal offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is also a member of the National Commission, that Ryan calls a "Roadmap for America's Future". Ryan's proposal can be found at http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/. Liberals would probably be surprised to learn that Republicans actually have ideas for fixing major problems in our country. That is the natural result of believing what the Democrats say about the GOP and only reading the mainstream media or liberal blogs and never watching Fox News.

Here's Norquist's reference to the Ryan plan, as well as another Republican proposal for the short term:

"Given the dual nature of the present overspending problem, leaders must pursue both long and short term solutions. Long-term spending restraint is best achieved by reforming the long-term entitlement programs and enacting meaningful budget constraints as found in Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) “American Roadmap” plan.

In the shorter run, the [Republican Study Committee] balanced budget plan is notable for not raising taxes or letting tax relief expire and returning discretionary spending to the FY 2008 approved level (that is, pre-bailouts)."

The Republican Study Committee recommendation referenced above can be found at http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/Solutions/RSCFY2011Budget.htm. This recommendation includes the extension of the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year unless extended by Congress.

So how can the extension of tax cuts and the failure to increase taxes cause government revenue to rise? Well, one point often not understood is that for income taxes to bring in more revenue there has to be enough INCOME to tax. When we have high unemployment, increasing bankruptcies and extensive business losses during an economic downturn, there is not as much income to tax. If the economy and hiring increase, there will be more income to tax ... whether taxing at the same rate as today or at lower tax rates that will stimulate more investment and business activity... and, therefore, there will be more government revenue.

Here is Grover Norquist's recommendation on how to raise government revenue:

"Cut marginal tax rates. It is vital to economic growth to cut marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses. In particular, the corporate income tax (the highest in the developed world at 35 percent) should be no higher than Europe’s 25 percent average. The capital gains and dividends tax should be eliminated. The top individual marginal income tax rate (where two-thirds of small business profit taxes are paid) should be reduced from 43.4 percent (after next year’s expiration of the 2001 tax relief and Obamacare’s new 3.8 percent Medicare tax) to 25 percent. This will ensure that the economy will grow faster –and CBO has said that faster economic growth of even one percentage point would lead to $2.5 trillion in new tax revenue.

Lower marginal rates work. They worked in the 1920s when President Coolidge cut rates until President Hoover raised taxes and helped create the Great Depression. They worked in the 1960s when President Kennedy cut rates until Presidents Johnson and Nixon raised taxes to pay for Vietnam abroad and spending at home. They worked in the 1980s when President Reagan cut rates until President George H.W. Bush raised taxes and ended the Reagan boom. They worked in the 2000s when a GOP Congress cut rates in 2001 and 2003 on individuals, businesses, capital gains and dividends until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 under the promise to let them go up.

Make all expiring tax cuts permanent. Given the positive effects of lower tax rates on growth, economic efficiency, and tax revenues, tax cuts should not be set to sunset when crafting legislative proposals, and those that are scheduled to expire should be made permanent."
http://www.atr.org/grover-norquist-outlines-recommendations-obama-debt-a5252##ixzz0vJ7uwaih

Maybe the wise men and women on the National Commission will see the light and recommend sensible solutions to resolving our fiscal crisis. Sphere: Related Content

More Lessons for Washington from Richmond

When Bob McDonnell was sworn as the new Governor of Virginia in January of 2010, he "inherited" (as President Obama likes to say) a $1.8 billion budget deficit from his predecessor, Tim Kaine, who is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Party. Last week, Governor McDonnell announced that the fiscal year of 2010, which ended on June 30, 2010, would conclude with an estimated $220 million SURPLUS.

The Governor explained this accomplishment as follows:

"Just six months ago we faced a $1.8 billion shortfall in Virginia's budget for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2010. When the General Assembly convened I made it clear that we would not balance Virginia's budget by making it harder for Virginians to balance their own. Through bipartisan cooperation we made tough realistic decisions and closed that shortfall without a tax increase. We continued this work by addressing the unprecedented $4.2 billion shortfall in the Fiscal Year 2011/2012 budget, the spending document that has just gone into effect, in the same manner. We have reduced state spending in this new biennium to 2006 levels. At the same time we put in place funding for a number of job-creating incentives and programs that are already helping us attract new employers to the Commonwealth."

As noted in the Governor's announcement, he also worked with the legislature to close the projected deficit in the next fiscal budget for 2011/2012. All this was done by working cooperatively with both Republicans and Democrats in the legislature to find ways to cut state spending and to adopt job-creating incentives designed to stimulate economic growth without any tax increases!

Governor McDonnell also noted what the surplus would be used for:

"The majority of the surplus is already dedicated within the budget to a number of areas. One of those is to fund a one-time non-recurring 3% December bonus for Virginia's state employees. Our state employees have worked without any increase in pay for nearly four years. This session of the General Assembly, I proposed a plan supported by Democrats and Republicans to incentivize state employees to save state dollars at the fiscal year-end, and receive an incremental bonus of up to 3% if a surplus was achieved. For too long the unfortunate standard procedure in state government has been for agencies to spend down all appropriated funds to zero prior to the ending of the fiscal year. We successfully changed that model by implementing private sector principles of rewarding fiscal discipline and sound management of scarce resources. State employees were successful in identifying more than $28 million in savings..." http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=238

The "unfortunate standard procedure" of spending all appropriated funds for the fiscal year down to zero is not just a standard practice in state governments. This has been the standard practice in the federal government for many years as well. Governor McDonnell has changed the incentives among state employees from spending money quickly before the end of the fiscal year (so as not to lose it) to looking for ways to SAVE money in order to earn bonuses which he will now use the surplus to pay!

This change in incentives initiated by McDonnell has caused a remarkable shift in the usual manner of bureaucratic behavior. If this approach were to be used in the federal government, it would be very interesting to see what would happen to federal spending.

There is a reference in McDonnell's statement to an action taken by his predecessor in an attempt to control spending that has also not been tried by the federal government: that is that the state employees had not had a pay increase for nearly four years. Imagine how federal spending would be affected if all non-military federal salaries (which now exceed on average private sector compensation levels for comparable jobs) would be frozen for four years!

Private enterprise has built-in incentives to control expenditures in order to help assure a profit for the enterprise's stakeholders. As a result, when economic circumstances make it difficult to maintain the enterprise's revenue streams, it is common practice to adopt incentives to save money, including freezing certain expenditures such as compensation or new hiring.

These types of incentives are, however, not common in the public sector because government employees and their leaders do not have to acquire or maintain customers to earn their revenue. Public employees have operating funds appropriated to them by the legislature, which receives those funds from taxpayers; not customers who must like the organization's products or services before agreeing to pass on their money. Taxes are mandated by the government. Taxpayers must pay taxes or suffer legal penalties, whether they like the government's services or not; or even whether they receive those services or not.

Bob McDonnell had private sector experience before becoming Governor, as have many other Governors. Unfortunately, we now have a federal government run by an Administration that is led by people with no (or very little) private sector experience. The US Congress is led by career politicians who have been on the public payroll so long they do not understand any way of funding the government other than by looking to taxpayers; rather than finding new ways to control spending on their own or to incentivize government employees to reduce spending, as Governor McDonnell has done.

While the federal deficit for fiscal year 2009 was a record $1.41 trillion, the White House just announced a projected deficit for the current fiscal year of 2010 of $1.47 trillion, with the deficit projected for 2011 at $1.42 trillion. Rather than adopting ways to reduce spending, the President has pushed through his Democratic led Congress massive new federal programs from the stimulus bill of last year to health care reform and financial regulatory reform this year.

But Obama does not acknowledge that his new programs have contributed to the lack of any reduction in the deficit. No; he likes to remind everyone that he "inherited" the 2009 deficit and that the economic downturn (that he also "inherited") has made it difficult to cut the deficit. In fact, in today's weekly radio address, the President said that it will take years to significantly cut the federal deficit.

Bob McDonnell also inherited a budget deficit, and Virginia is also impacted by the same economic downturn as the rest of the country (except to the extent that Virginia has a large number of federal facilities and employees that have benefited from the growth of the US government during the Obama presidency). In spite of what he "inherited", Governor McDonnell achieved a budget SURPLUS in six months without raising taxes or blaming his predecessor for the problems he left behind.

How is President Obama addressing the federal deficit? By waiting for a report from his specially appointed budget commission, which will issue its recommendations after the elections in November. I thought we elected Presidents and members of Congress to solve our countries' problems. Why do they have to wait for a group of unelected citizens and a few specially selected members of Congress to come up with solutions?

The Washington Post article on the White House announcement about the revised budget projections describes the Obama approach to the federal deficit this way:

"Economists agree that the most important measure of the deficit is against the size of the economy. Opinions vary, but many economists say a deficit of 3 percent of gross domestic product is sustainable since it would stabilize the overall debt when measured relative to the economy.

The [new White House] report put the deficit at 10 percent of GDP this year and 9.2 percent of GDP next year. It would never reach the 3 percent figure under Obama's predictions - which underestimate war costs and depend on assumptions of tax hikes that may not materialize." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072303812.html

So it appears that the federal government officials that the American voters elected cannot devise a sustainable budget without seeking advice from a taxpayer funded Presidential commission. As a Virginia voter, I am sure glad we elected a more innovative leader for our Governor. Hopefully, voters in the rest of the country will find better candidates to elect in the future to go to Washington and adopt more creative solutions to our fiscal problems than the unimaginative crew (obssessed with partisan bickering) that we have running the country now.

Sphere: Related Content