NEEDED: REAL PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

With the submission of President Obama’s deficit reduction plan, all major players are on board for what could be an enriching debate focused not only on deficit reduction but, more importantly, on creating an expectation for America and particularly for our children.  This involves deciding as a people our own quality of life and our role in global affairs.  Such a magnificent opportunity should not be blown away by ignorant and self-serving partisan rhetoric.  The real test is not the deficit but the broader issue of civil discourse and governance.

As an electorate, we have choices.  There are four major deficit reduction plans emanating from the Republicans, the President, the Bowles-Simpson Report, and the team of former GOP Senator Pete Domenici and Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin.  In addition, GOP Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is working with a bi-partisan “gang of six” on producing another entry.  All plans have some genuine merit and give us an opportunity to piecemeal together a superb approach that not only reduces the deficit to manageable levels but also permits more investment in our transportation infrastructure and our young people via a real focus on educational excellence and opportunity for economic growth.  It must be about tomorrow.

In a sense, the budgetary dilemma is simple:  we are taking in some 18 percent of GDP in revenue and spending at a 24 percent rate.  The gap is the deficit and is currently being covered by heavy borrowing from investors both here and abroad.  Right now, foreign investors hold some $4.3 trillion of US treasuries.  We currently pay $413 billion per year in interest costs but the kicker is that within 10 years that figure will rise to approximately a trillion dollars – thereby crowding out other vital expenditures ranging from education to defense.

However with Standard & Poor’s warning and changing our government’s credit rating from “stable” to “negative”, time is no longer an ally and will likely compel some key decisions by July as part of the debt ceiling debate.

If there is a missing ingredient, it is not on the program side but rather in the area of leadership.  I would contend the President’s opportunity to take the political initiative was lost when he largely ignored the report of his own bi-partisan commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson Report) and gave the lead role to the GOP.  The President should fully accept this and now decide to fully commit himself  to providing broad Presidential leadership encouraging participants to sharpen their proposals and then laying down solid visionary goals that compel all approaches to deal with specific ideas relative to economic growth and excellences in global competition. 

What the debate needs is not an Obama proposal but rather an Obama vision with the leadership skills necessary to piece together the best from all proposals.

Realistically, his proposal is the weakest entry and has all the characteristics of a hasty effort.   It should be withdrawn.   Clearly, the two most solid approaches emanate from Domenici-Rivlin and Bowles-Simpson.  They appear to be well researched and reflect quality bi-partisan thought.   I also suspect that the “gang of six” will come up with a very workable plan.

After the election debacle of 2010 and the health care debate, I doubt that many Congressional Democrats will fall on their swords for the President’s late entry.  But what everyone would appreciate is Presidential leadership that guides the debate to a quality conclusion.

If I may, let me be blunt.  If the President is seen as a partisan combatant, the food fight will continue and we, the people, will truly suffer with higher interest rates and a declining economy.  Hence, we need a President that will lead all America.

Toward this end, it is imperative that he form a bi-partisan team to formulate an agreement.   This means real input from all sides, a non-partisan tonality, and shared ownership.

Nothing less will stabilize the financial ship of state.

RESOLUTION VERSUS STALEMATE

Governor Mark Dayton’s March 28^th letter to Republican legislative leaders was less about a negotiated budgetary settlement and more about framing the debate after he vetoes their budget proposal.  From a strategic perspective it was masterful.  It was clear, intelligent, and firm.  Assuming legislative Democrats remain firm, the Governor will have the upper hand.

In any type of struggle involving a Governor versus the Legislature, a Governor will almost always prevail.  First of all, a Governor is the sole leader of a vast statewide management system; can move with speed and flexibility; and has the ability to instantly communicate to the media and the public.  Secondly, he has the full muscle of the veto.

Governor Dayton’s letter suggests that he fully understands the powers of his office and is prepared to use them.

The Legislature, on the other hand, is designed to be slow moving and cumbersome with power divided among 201 members and two separate chambers, House and Senate.  Even caucus leadership is divided thereby making it very difficult for any one leader to speak for all.

The specific situation as it pertains to Republicans and their control of both houses has additional burdens including:

1—They are locked into their own campaign rhetoric which railed against any form of “revenue enhancement” and this includes debt.

2—The expectations held out by their leaders during the campaign – Emmer--Pawlenty--Sutton—to the effect that either there are no deficits or that they will be easy to manage.

3—The increasing pressure from Tea Party supporters demonizing “revenue enhancement” and all the tools normally employed by political systems to resolve conflict such as compromise, negotiating, or even meeting with the other side.  In Minnesota, this pressure increases as Michelle Bachman’s presidential campaign gains strength.

All these forces are designed to push legislative Republicans away from a negotiated settlement and more towards a stalemate that would close government.  There can be no doubt that the Republican Party will be split between those willing to govern and the new far right which will not compromise.

Frankly, legislative Republicans deserve a more favorable destiny.  Many truly believe in reducing the size, scope, and costs of government.  But this approach cannot be successful in a slash and burn budgetary environment.  Roughly, 85 percent of state monies end up in local districts.  Inflicting harm, particularly when it is perceived to be extreme, is a sure path to political defeat.

However, closing the legislative session with a compromised budget situation and an agreement to work with the Governor on a reform agenda designed to review concerns of affordability along with size and scope of government has enormous appeal.  Minnesotans care deeply about quality of life issues and it is important that Republicans once again identify with those concerns.

This approach to governance helps both parties in that it brings intelligent bi-partisanship into play and embraces the middle of the political spectrum which is where most Minnesotans reside.  Perhaps of greatest importance is that it focuses positively on building a more promising future.

Let’s hope....

Another Republican Loyalty Test

Last month, Minnesota GOP chair, Tony Sutton, wrote a very public letter to Republican lawmakers warning them not to violate what he terms are the “principles of the Republican Party” with a sharp focus on any form of “revenue enhancement” including “raising taxes, raising fees, expanding gambling, expanding the sales tax, or any such schemes that not only violate our principles but are also bad politics and bad public policy.”

This represents a remarkable turn from his sturdy defense of these very same practices when Governor Tim Pawlenty was leading Minnesota. Come to think of it, he branded anyone who challenged Pawlenty’s financial management as “traitors” and banished them to non-Republican exile.

Just look at the record that Tony Sutton so vigorously defended:

Borrowing:         
$1 billion – tobacco settlement fund
$2.3 billion – federal stimulus funds

$1.4 billion – K-12 education           

Taxes raised:               

Sales tax in Hennepin County for new Twins Stadium                                                    

$400 million - Health impact fee (75 cents/pack cigarettes)

In addition, a variety of significant fee and tuition increases occurred along with shifts to local governments.  The Star Tribune estimated that property taxes during this period rose by 75 percent.  Further, Pawlenty “borrowed” hundreds of millions of dollars from the Health Care Access Fund.

But what is most disturbing about Tony Sutton’s vigorous defense of poor financial management was his ignoring the repeated warnings of Moody’s which go back to 2003, long before the recession of 2007.  From 2003 through 2010, Moody’s warned of “non-recurring fixes” which were the hallmark of Minnesota’s budgets from 2003-2010.  Even Moody’s lowering of our credit rating did not disturb the GOP party chair.

There is no way for anyone with an IQ approaching room temperature to maintain that Tony Sutton’s turnabout is anything short of 180 degrees.  The question then becomes, why now?

I think the answer lies just east of Minnesota and the rapidly rising star of Governor Scott Walker as a very possible GOP standard bearer. In his budget speech, he drew the same rigid lines as Tony Sutton and criticized past governors – Republican and Democrat – of “one-time fixes, accounting gimmicks and tax increases” and proceeded to take aim at the various borrowing practices similar to those utilized in Minnesota.

The simple fact is that this latest loyalty test of Sutton and Walker is an extension of what has been developing in New Jersey, Indiana, Florida, Ohio and other states where Republican governors are drawing a very hard line on debt and “revenue enhancement”.  These governors, who include likely Presidential contenders such as Christie of New Jersey, Daniels of Indiana, and now Walker of Wisconsin,  are increasingly separating themselves from the financial management practices of the older set of governors who also aspire for the prize including Huckabee, Romney and Pawlenty.

As a matter of fact, while writing this blog, a Reuter’s poll came out listing Walker as having a greater favorable rating than Huckabee and Romney as potential GOP Presidential nominees.

Again, why the sudden reversal by Tony Sutton?  Perhaps, he recognizes changing wind patterns and, like so many leaders, is trying to catch-up with his followers.

But this is precisely what is wrong about today’s politics.  It is more about personal gain than good public service and more about ambition than substance.    Sadly, this damage to democracy is cloaked under the guise of higher virtue such as loyalty and divine power.

Political parties in a two-party system should be wide and broad reflecting and respecting the positive role of diverse and dissenting opinion.   Now we are witnessing the irony of  an older set of leaders who were so quick to impose loyalty when they reigned becoming victims of a new and more demanding standard.  Apparently, the Republican Party has not learned a fundamental lesson of the French Revolution of 1848 and, that is, leaders who impose loyalty tests will soon find themselves branded disloyal and their necks in the guillotine.

WHEELOCK WHITNEY - A MINNESOTA GIANT

In 1929, Ole Rolvaag wrote Giants in the Earth, depicting the trek of Norwegian immigrants and their families coming to the upper Midwest and instilling their values of hard work, perseverance, community, vision, sacrifice, and a love of God and their new land.  They were truly giants.

Now fast forward to March 6^th and the annual gathering of MOFAS (Minnesota Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) and the honoring of another Minnesota giant, Wheelock Whitney.  On this date, he was being lauded for his efforts in founding MOFAS along with my wife, Susan.

But like most giants, his fingerprints are on virtually all efforts that define Minnesota’s quality of life ranging from bringing big-time sports to Minnesota to his leadership in the arts and education.  However, in chemical dependency there is hardly a program that does not reflect Wheelock Whitney’s vision and personal commitment.

What I have always appreciated about Wheelock was his ability to think big and radiate optimism.  For instance, in 1976, the 200-year anniversary of the freedom of our nation, Wheelock thought it a good idea to celebrate freedom from the confinement of chemical addiction by bringing everybody to Met Stadium in Bloomington.  At first blush, the idea of attracting over 45,000 to an outdoor stadium to celebrate sobriety seemed impossible.  But it wasn’t.  The stadium overflowed.  Freedom Fest became a national event, and Dick Van Dyke, who came to Minnesota for treatment, returned as Master of Ceremonies.  That is a Grand Slam in any park.

Due to Wheelock’s efforts, Minnesota became the world’s leader in chemical dependency treatment and many of those providers and recipients of treatment were there to simply say “thanks.”  Among those were Governor Mark Dayton who personally expressed his gratitude for the impact that Wheelock Whitney had on him and his family.

It should be noted that it is impossible to be in a room with Wheelock without humor and laughter.  But the surprise was the quick and delightful banter between Dayton and Whitney.

More than anything else, it is nice to know that giants did not pass away with Rolvaag’s book.  No, they live on and we are truly blessed……

THE RED FLAGS ARE WAVING

On January 8, 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson, Arizona.  A nation was horrified.  And, as a people, we resolved to bring about a new environment of civility.  Republicans and Democrats reached out to each other and vowed mutual respect.  Sadly, that effort has come to a halt.

Today, we have reached new heights of anger as a result of the struggle in Wisconsin.  What we fail to realize is that history has taught us to be careful about a herd mentality because once thoughtful restraint is abandoned, recklessness and harm takes over.

Just briefly look back to the sinking of the Maine and our immediate assignment of blame which launched us into the Spanish-American War.  Decades later we acknowledged that the explosion was internal and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Spanish.  But how do you undo a war?

Fast forward to events that were even more serious:  the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.  How we wish that we had exercised at least some reflective restraint before sending our fine young men and women into harm’s way and tearing our nation apart

Perhaps in Wisconsin we could pause and start to take a slightly different look at Governor Scott Walker’s legislation.

First of all, it may be well to actually review the bill before rendering judgment.  Overall, the proposed legislation provides for:

1—Limiting collective bargaining for state and local government units to the issue of wages

2—Limiting wage negotiations to the cost of living index and not exceeding that limit without a public referendum

3—Including all public unions except for police and fire.

Now let’s ask two questions:

1—If collective bargaining is an evil that inflicts considerable harm on the public, then why does the bill exempt fire and police?  Governor Walker assures us that it is not political and the fact that some of these public safety unions supported his candidacy had nothing whatsoever to do with his decision.  Ok.  If that be the case, then why the exception?

2—We all know about the extended phone conversation with a fake Koch brother.  But what we do not know is why that call was accepted while calls from legislative leaders were shunted aside.  The Koch brothers run a privately held energy conglomerate headquartered in Kansas.  They reside in New York City and Wichita, Kansas.  They are also large financial supporters of Governor Walker.  Now we are assured that the acceptance of the call does not reflect any form of favoritism.  If that were the case then should not the Governor tell us why he so eagerly accepted this out of state call and refused the calls of legislative leaders elected by the public?

What is perplexing here is that governors are usually sensitive to the needs of the minority party and attempt to engage in negotiations in order that public policy decisions can have broad support.  That is what governance is about.  Certainly there may well be a need to reform the collective bargaining process.   Therefore, why not try to negotiate reform rather than refuse to bargain, and ultimately, create a bitter divide that can cause the Governor harm down the road.

Further, there is a growing interest in another provision of the bill that is totally unrelated to collective bargaining.  Jill Burcum of the Star Tribune, and Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winner in economics, and the New York Times are starting to focus on a provision in the bill that has to do with the sale of state-owned energy facilities.  The language reads as follows:  the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount the department determines to be in the best interest of the state.

Certainly this empowerment should be disturbing to all particularly conservatives.   How is it in the public’s interest to give such extraordinary power to one person (the Governor) who can dispose of taxpayer-owned facilities without public hearings, without legislative review, and without competitive bids? 

In essence, publicly owned energy facilities can be sold like used furniture.

Now, it may be that this interpretation of that language is off base.  However, the involvement of the Koch brothers, their energy conglomerates, their heavy financial interests in Wisconsin political campaigns and the Governor’s relationship with them and the language in the bill should at least cause thoughtful people to pause until the public receives solid answers.

DICK STAFFORD - A TRUE PUBLIC SERVANT

The hardest part of writing about a friend who has passed away is changing the tense of the verb “is” to “was”.  On one hand it is so simple we can do it automatically.  On the other hand, it involves a person’s entire life and the impact that life had on so many others.

Dick Stafford, who passed away yesterday, gave definition to the phrase “public servant”.  By way of background he served for decades as Washington County’s Auditor, Treasurer and County Commissioner.  But holding various posts in government is not remarkable but Stafford’s service in those posts was remarkable.

I remember coming in as State Auditor in 1979 desirous of upgrading the quality of local government accounting and auditing and bringing the total system into the computer age.  It is one thing to want change and quite another to bring everyone on board.  Dick Stafford, as Auditor of Washington County, was a game changer.  He ran the updated model of what we wanted but he could have easily opposed efforts towards statewide uniformity.   We are all familiar with battles on local control.

But Dick Stafford quietly and persuasively brought county auditors on board.  He forged the partnership between local and state that allowed Minnesota to lead the nation in uniform accounting and develop programs to provide early warnings relative to debt, deferred maintenance, health care, etc.  In essence, accounting of the past was being used to plan for the future.   That is one of the reasons Minnesota has the truly exceptional level of quality in our local government.

These efforts of Dick Stafford and his colleagues were not headline grabbers but they formed the foundation of local government excellence.

How fitting it is that we reflect on the impact of a selfless public servant at a time when they are under attack.

 I just wish the rock throwers had a bit of the integrity and humility of Dick Stafford.  Dick, we will  truly miss you…..

ON SCRUTINY

One of my recent blogs dealt with the need for the national media to pay more attention to the actual records of Governors seeking the Presidency and less on what the candidates advance as their version.

This nation has a staggering deficit, an equally alarming rate of deficit growth, and a political system more concerned with posturing than with making courageous long-term choices.  The office of the Presidency has the capacity and, I would argue, the responsibility to lead with courage and with a commitment to the nation’s best interests regardless of the immediate political consequences.  To date, timidity is more apparent than courage and the 2012 elections more important than our long-term future.  So much of today reminds me of St. Augustine’s prayer of Lord make me pure but oh not yet.

The Presidency and the nomination for the Presidency must not simply go to the one who wants it the most or is willing to excel at pandering.  No, today more than ever, it must go to that individual who has the proven ability to govern and to lead, make the challenging choices, and place the well-being of the future over any temporary success.

Surprisingly, Molly Ball of Politico takes exception to this scrutiny of candidates.  It seems she has made the examination and concluded that they all merit a passing grade and anyone who disagrees is a “backstabber”.  How novel?  And here I thought journalism was all about free inquiry and truth.

Molly Ball’s defense covers the gambit of candidates from Huckabee to Palin.  Unfortunately, she fails to discuss what the electorate can discuss about the candidates since their past record is off the table.  I also have to wonder about whether President Obama’s record can be examined or will all those Presidential “wanabe’s” who are critical of the President be labeled “backstabbers”.

Further, she takes exception to criticism from the Governor’s home states.  In essence, those who know the candidate the best and who have lived under the policies of the candidate shall receive the least consideration.

I am fearful that Molly Ball is more desirous of keeping the controversy of politics alive while dismissing substance.  Name-calling among numerous candidates builds for easy sensational coverage.  Substance involves work and is less exciting.  Therefore, why not support the superficial culture of the loud and offensive?

Democracy is not only about dissent but also about holding accountable those in positions of power.  No one is considered to be above the law or above examination and review.  Our history is rich with examples of those who had the courage to stand tall in the minority and to hold firm in their belief that truth must prevail.  This was the role of our founding fathers all the way through Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King.  All of us in our own way are a small part of that legacy and have a responsibility to be forthright and truthful.

No, anyone who holds himself up for public office must be scrutinized but always fairly and thoroughly and outside the realm of personal vindictiveness.

It is no secret that I have serious qualms about the candidacy of Governor Pawlenty and do not believe his claims of prudent financial management come anywhere close to the truth.   Hence, the scrutiny will continue……….