By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/25/07

A few weeks ago the nation was stunned to learn of some of the conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center. This is supposedly the flag-ship military hospital that even provides medical care for many of the elected officials in Washington. For all of us who hold our military personnel in the highest esteem for their sacrifices in behalf of our country and security, the revelations were demoralizing at best, and devastating at worst.

However something often overlooked in a discussion of the Walter Reed conditions, is exactly what the problem is at the root, and how it got that way. The issues are not rhetorical, but demand further analysis.

Apparently, it is not the medical care by the doctors, surgeons, and the nursing staff that suffers. By all accounts, the actual medical care is outstanding. Good enough to provide medical care to the President and the Vice President for their regular checks up and more complex medical procedures.

Aside from the bureaucratic blunders, the biggest problems apparently have to do with the physical facilities, maintenance, and sanitation. Problems with rodents and mold don’t rest with doctors and nurses, they are supposed to be dealt with by those in maintenance. Regrettably, they are governed by civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. Currently those working at the hospital, and elsewhere throughout the government, are protected by the most complicated set of job protection rules outside of old East Germany.

Nominally, the military is responsible for running the facility. But how is the Surgeon General of the Army, or even the hospital administrator supposed to ensure proper maintenance and sanitary conditions if those failing to provide such are protected from being fired? These same conditions are found anyplace where market forces have been artificially removed and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, and operational controls.

Frankly we find the same situation in public education. A few weeks ago Steve Jobs, Chairman and CEO of Apple, Inc., and Pixar raised a few eyebrows with comments made to an education reform conference in Houston. He said, "I believe that what’s wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way. This has constrained schools from attracting and retaining only the best teachers and from dismissing the less effective ones. This, in turn, deters quality people from seeking to become principals and superintendents. What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn’t get rid of people that they thought weren’t any good? Not really great ones because if you’re really smart you go, ‘I can’t win.’" Jobs concluded his remarks by stating, "This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy." Attendees at the conference reportedly "applauded enthusiastically" at his remarks. And so they should.

If there is going to ever be meaningful reform in education or in government-run hospitals, the stranglehold of unions over administration must be broken. Those who are incompetent, ineffectual, and lackadaisical should not be tolerated in any of our government operated services. Administrators must be able to, within guidelines of an adequate redress model, fire and remove from their positions those who give government jobs a bad name.

John Gardner, former U.S. Commissioner of Education in his book "Excellence" stressed the point that for our educational system to truly teach our children and achieve it’s full stature, a system of incentives for quality performance is critical. Not surprisingly, the Idaho Education Association opposes merit pay based on performance. I have never understood why incredible teachers like Joe Morris, Sharon Sanders, Amy Atkinson, and Wendy Shelman should be limited in their compensation and paid no more than a bad teacher with the same longevity, experience, and educational credentials. What is the logic in that? Granted, those outstanding teachers have an inner drive that compels them to do and be their best. Why should they not be compensated based on their abilities, determination, commitment, and performance? Many of those elements are subjective, but much in performance can be quantified.

Currently about one fifth of adults are classified as "functionally illiterate," and about one third of the residents of D.C. are so classified. Makes you wonder how many of those work for the Federal government. We can’t help but wonder how much lower that number would be if only the dedicated and competent teachers were retained.

In 1983 I served on the Commission for Excellence in Public Education. I rue the failures of that commission in addressing properly the merit pay for quality teachers and the stranglehold that unionization has had on excellence in our educational system.

As long as administrators’ hands are tied from removing either incompetent teachers or hospital maintenance workers, our governmental systems will be mired in mediocrity and sub-par performance. Amazingly, our Congress doesn’t seem to grasp that reality, as they are now embarked on a move to unionize the workers of the Transportation Safety Administration. That’s all we need: mediocrity in transportation safety to be added to hospital maintenance and education of our children!

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/18/07

Nothing like a Washington non-event to draw the partisan vultures from their holier-than-thou perches. That’s precisely what we witnessed this past week after the Bush Administration fired eight U.S. Attorneys.

Why is this a non-event? Because United States Attorneys are appointed, as specified in U.S. Code, to serve four-year terms at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at anytime for cause or otherwise. As a matter of fact, in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno demanded the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys just two months after Bill Clinton was sworn into office. Were the partisan vultures circling after that provocative announcement? Hardly a foul was to be found, except in the White House where the Clintons had ordered the purge.

In 1993, the move was clearly motivated by politics. The Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia was within a few days of filing charges against the corrupt former Illinois Democrat Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, and the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas was pursuing charges against Hillary and Bill Clinton for their involvement in the Whitewater scandal. By removing all the Federal prosecutors, the Clintons successfully defrayed criticism that otherwise would have been leveled against them for removing prosecutors selectively. You can’t get much more political than that, especially since the removal of all 93 Federal prosecutors effectively curtailed investigations against the Clintons on the Whitewater illegalities since the Arkansas prosecutor was replaced with Paula Casey, a close friend of the Clintons. The evidence trail was considerably cleaned by the time Kenneth Starr tried to resurrect the investigation years later.

If the firing of eight prosecutors last week was performance related because of ineffectual follow through on voter fraud investigations as indicated, fantastic. Get rid of the bureaucratic non-performing "dead wood." If they were politically motivated, just follow the Clinton model and remove them all. But for heaven’s sake, don’t apologize for it, don’t claim mistakes were made, and don’t make staffers resign over it.

According to the actual Justice Department memos recommending the purge, the removal was in fact performance based and political in nature. The Washington Post disclosed the contents of those memos, and the underlying determinant on who was retained and who was not, was " Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General. Recommend removing: weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc."

Democrat and media reactions to the firings are laughable and border on the absurd. I’m convinced that if they witnessed President Bush walking on water, the headlines the next day would read "President Can’t Swim," and the Democrats would charge "trickery," and call for Congressional hearings.

Why is it that those who are most partisan are the quickest to point the finger and charge "partisan crimes?" If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is.

Perhaps even more disconcerting, if that’s possible, is the reaction of the administration. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said "mistakes were made," and his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson has fallen on his sword as a sacrificial offering to the media and Democrats. The firings, whether performance based or not, are fully within the purview of the constitutional powers of the Presidency. No apologies are necessary, no sacrificial resignations are warranted, and no excuses need be proffered.

If anything, the President should have done a clean sweep of political appointment positions when he came to office in 2001. The U.S. Attorneys, the State Department, CIA, FBI, NSA … all of them. His spirit of bi-partisanship he attempted to infuse into the D.C. environment backfired. Leak after leak has characterized this shadow government of Clinton holdovers which has undermined our ability to wage successfully the war on terror or for the Executive branch to function with the cohesion observed during the Clinton years. After all, half of D.C. works for the government, and the other half are advisors in the private sector waiting until their party comes to power again.

So should Alberto Gonzales resign? Absolutely not. There is no reason for it. Should there be Congressional hearings? No, since there is no constitutional authority for Congress to oversee Executive Branch personnel issues, except as stipulated in the Constitution for confirmation and impeachment. Will there be Congressional hearings? Probably, as this Congress seems to have nothing better to do than micromanage the President and attempt to minimalize and discredit him as much as possible.

So here we are with Congressional Democrats (and a few idiot Republicans) crying "foul" in the firing of eight ostensibly ineffectual Federal prosecutors. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi appoints the bribed William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana to the Homeland Security Committee (if that’s not a security threat I don’t know what is). And the former Clinton administration National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, is caught steeling documents from the National Archive, and getting away with little more than a slap on the wrist. Hmm. Seems to me all the attention should be directed to where the real illegalities are occurring.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/04/07

It appears increasingly that John Murtha is the de-facto spokesman for the majority party in Congress on the Iraq conflict. This last week Murtha, when asked about the non-binding resolutions that they’re working on, indicated what he would like to see happen as far as Congressional support of the troops is concerned. "They won't be able to continue, they won't be able to do the deployment. They -- they won't have the equipment, they don't have the training, and they won't be able to -- to do the -- the -- the work."

Murtha’s next sentence was even more incredible. "What we're trying to do is -- is make sure people understand, we're supporting the troops, we are protecting the troops, but on the other hand, we're going to stop this surge." Don’t feel alone if this seems totally incongruent to you. Not only is it asinine but to many of us it’s borderline treasonous. "Support the troops" but "they won’t be agle to continue…they won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training, and they won’t be able to do the work." With support like that who needs enemies? I’m sure the terrorists rejoice every time they hear a political leader in this country show that kind of warped "support" for our cause.

According to the DC insider publication The Politico, the Democrat strategy is set. The "top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to US involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options." What’s truly pathetic about their "slow-bleed" strategy, is that it will be the soldiers who will be doing the slow bleeding as a result of their attempts to micro-manage the Iraqi front to the war on terror, and their attempts to usurp the Commander In Chief Role. I have never witnessed such cowardice and spinelessness in elected officials in my life!

They can undercut the mission; they can stop reinforcements; they can stop redeployments; they can keep needed equipment from getting to the troops; they can stop new training; they can do all of this while at the same time saying they support the troops. This is patently absurd!

Vice President Cheney sees this rhetoric for what it is, and said earlier this week "I think in fact if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the Al-Qaeda strategy. The Al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit." The Vice President is exactly right.

Three weeks ago, Senator Larry Craig said on the floor of the Senate, "The only enemy that can defeat American soldiers on the battlefield is the low morale of the American people." Murtha et al are doing all within their power to diminish the mission and the importance of our successful mission there. With the "Peace Democrats" abject investment in failure, it will be nothing short of miraculous if our military is able to succeed in stabilizing Iraq sufficiently to start withdrawing on our terms, instead of the enemies’ terms.

It was gratifying to see that the British are able to start downsizing their presence in the Southern part of Iraq. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister announced last week the reduction of their force by 1600 soldiers, which will leave just over 5,000 British troops after the deployment. The media would have us believe that the British are abandoning Bush, and leaving altogether, but their reduction of troops is exactly what we hope to be able to do shortly as well, and is roughly the same number they increased with their "surge" last year. Far from being an "abandonment" of the coalition, the British are implementing the plan to perfection. Fortunately for them, they haven’t had the insurgency problems in the South that we are experiencing in Baghdad.

America has never lost a war except for when politicians intervened on behalf of the enemy and crippled the Commander In Chief, preventing him from executing his constitutional duties and the American people were convinced to lose their will to win. That has happened once, but the Congressional majority and the media are trying to re-enact the Vietnam experience, but with potentially much graver consequences to the country this time around.

When Congressmen Murtha and Pelosi were in the minority, they could do not much more than shoot spitballs at the President and his Iraq plan for resolution. As the majority party, they have to realize that their actions will bear fruits of massive consequences, and they will be fully culpable for those consequences. There will be a day of reckoning.