There is a segment of our population that considers itself superior in intellect, tolerance, and compassion. Yet they almost universally display a regrettable characteristic when confronted with an ideologically contrary view. Their actions, words, and dispositions become antithetical to their avowed values.

That fact is made clear by the intellectually dishonest, intolerant, and mean-spirited fashion by which they treated our former president. By all accounts, those who know George W. Bush or have worked with him have nearly unanimously expressed appreciation for how respectful, genuine, and likable he is. Unlike most who lust for leadership, he is uncharacteristically not full of himself, doesn’t take himself too seriously, is not egocentric, and doesn’t minimize others to advance himself. In short, he is a good, honest, and decent man by firsthand accounts, which is a far cry from what is said by those who don’t know him.

During his eight years as president, he faced more calamities, crises, and major decisions than most, and made intensely difficult decisions with regularity. There is no evidence from eight years of service that he did anything for his own aggrandizement. Contrary to empty claims to the contrary, there is no empirical evidence Iraq was about oil for his “oil buddies” or Haliburton. He wasn’t peddling text books tuned in to the No Child Left Behind Act. For all intents and purposes, it appears he made all decisions based on what he felt was right for the country.

I remember listening to an interview of then Secretary of Education, Rod Paige during the first term. Paige, a Democrat in a Republican administration, was asked what it was like to serve with President Bush. Paige replied, “You don’t know what a thrill it is to work with someone of his caliber who makes all of his decisions based on principle rather than political expediency.”

Freedom and liberty were central themes and values to Bush, both domestically and globally. They were evidenced in economic policy, foreign policy, and his social orientation. The two areas of criticism most frequently hurled his direction that to a superficial mind might seem in opposition to those principles were regarding abortion and anti-terrorism tactics. But even in those areas, higher principles governed, for protection and preservation of life trumps the freedom to kill the unborn, and the primary constitutional requirement of the government to protect our nation trumps individual freedom from monitoring while calling terrorists in foreign lands and funneling money to terrorist groups.

Many criticize or object to Bush’s decisions, but there is ample evidence that Paige’s perception is an objective one. The animus, abject hatred, and vilification of the man especially by those claiming to be so tolerant and compassionate is beyond my comprehension. I have always thought as people matured, they could make the distinction between disagreeing and being disagreeable; that they could honestly express opposition to an opinion or policy, and yet not be hateful and demeaning to those with whom they disagree. Obviously, that level of maturity is not attainable by many in our society, including virtually all of the mainstream media, the Hollywood effete, those who are too ideological or intellectually lazy and rely on only mainstream media accounts to shape their opinion of him, and much of academia which seems to bask in the unwarranted air of superiority created by maligning the 43^rd president of the United States.

Bush actually is much more similar to Lincoln in terms of leadership characteristics, ideology, and conviction to values and principles than our new president. Lincoln’s famous comments from his second inaugural address, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in…” fit Bush to a tee. He even refused to refute or lash out at his critics, and instead seemed to simply “turn the other cheek” in response to their denigration.

A few years ago, a couple of scholars wrote a book about the leadership genius of George W. Bush. Those experts identified the traits that made of him a great leader, even though the traits were not universally recognized. They identified his trustworthiness, his persistence in hiring the good people and scrupulously not micro-managing them, his approach to forthrightness and honesty, and his practice of always holding other people accountable.

In spite of his penchant for making up words (which Mark Twain once said was totally acceptable), and his southern drawl, there is little evidence that the man is as vapid as his critics have charged. You don’t graduate from Yale or Harvard Business School, even by Bush’s own account as an “average student,” unless you have intelligence. Perhaps the ultimate compliment came from one of his most ardent critics, Chuck Shumer, Democrat Senator from New York, who after a losing another in a series of senate votes was overheard to say of Bush, “How does he always beat us like that?” For all his presumed incompetence, he was remarkably successful in getting his way with those who thought they were the sharpest tacks in Washington. No wonder he was so “misunderestimated.”

While there were many policy issues I objected to over his eight years as president, I will always be grateful for his steady and reasoned hand at the helm of state in some of the most challenging times for our republic. And I can only hope that we will mature as a citizenry to the point where we can disagree with our elected officials without reviling and belittling them. Can we get to that point? I say, “Yes we can!”

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/18/2009

One of the most remarkable characteristics of this republic of ours is about to be played out on the world stage. The peaceful transfer of power from one president to another, from one administration to the next, is truly amazing. That it should occur in the midst of such financial turmoil in our economy, and with two wars being fought, is a testimonial to the viability and vibrancy of America.

I can’t help but marvel at the dichotomy of media coverage from four years ago and this year’s coverage. As preparations were being finalized for George W. Bush’s 2^nd inauguration, we were not in the midst of a recession. The economy was clicking along especially coming off the heels of the dot-com bubble, the attacks of 9/11, and the collapse of Enron and Worldcom. We were involved in a global war with two very active fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In that context, President Bush was universally castigated by the media for staging an inauguration that was to cost more than any other. The sentiment was captured by Will Lester, an Associated Press writer, who pointed out that President Bush’s second inauguration will cost $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. He queried, “With that kind of money, what could you buy? 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq. Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami. A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year....”

The charge of elitism and inappropriate ostentation spilled over to the politicians, as well. New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt's inauguration during World War II. He declared, “President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington state. They continued, “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”

Now we fast forward to Inauguration Day 2009. The nation is still at war against radical Islamic terrorism with major operations being conducted on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But unlike four years ago, the economy is contracting into a recession, and with the proposed governmental actions by the new administration which sound increasingly like the proposals of Herbert Hoover and the first two moribund terms of FDR, we may be on the verge of a depression.

As dire as things are, a logical person might well think that the new administration would be sensitive to the plight of the nation, respectful of our service men and women, and avoid the excesses of the Bush administration in the 2004 inauguration. Alas, there is no such logic to be found. The UK Times and Newsmax report total costs for the 2009 inauguration to be approaching $160 million. That’s nearly four times the cost of just four years ago. Bush was criticized in large part because his $40 million inaugural price tag was $9 million more than Clinton’s second inauguration. So what are we to think of a price tag four times larger?

Granted not all of this $160 million is coming from public funds, with about 1/4^th of it coming from private donations, corporate and individual. But does that make it any less inappropriate for such excess and lavishness in such challenging times? And what strings are attached to such contributions? How many of the contributors are about to sidle up to the public trough to request TARP funds or a government bailout in the next year?

There is only praise, adulation, and outright veneration for the massive and ostentatious Inaugural plans from the media. No rhetorical questions of how that much money could or should be spent, no criticism for the impropriety of such excess in troubling times, and no charges of being “out of touch” with the plight of working men and women in the country. And there are no denunciations of impropriety by celebrities as there was four years ago.

Just as we see the media condoning improprieties of Obama appointees, and moving swiftly to excuse them away, the media are essentially singing the “Hallelujah Chorus” for the next president. They failed their due diligence in vetting candidate Obama, and they will, due to their biases, likely fail in their due diligence in their coverage of President Obama as well.

The excesses and costs of this inauguration and the media adulation of the president elect make this seem more of a coronation than an inauguration. Is this “coronation” typical of what we can expect for the next four years? Are we to become accustomed to the most expensive, the most excessive, and the most grandiose of everything? Or is this an anomaly, and will we return to a modicum of modesty, prudence, and parsimony?

Whether a matter of extreme narcissism or just detachment from reality, the extravagance of this inauguration forebodes a stupendous willingness to spend other people’s money for what appear to be self-aggrandizing reasons. I was concerned before about the propensity for profligate spending; now I’m downright scared.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/11/2009

One of the distinguishing characteristics of America versus European or Asian nations is a commitment to the principles of free market economics. This is the conviction that entrepreneurism by individuals can create products and services of sufficient demand that wealth can be created; that those emerging companies can then adapt, expand, and create more products and services that create more wealth, more jobs, and generate the necessary capital to fund expansion.

This concept of free-market economics, or capitalism, has as its foundation, freedom. Freedom to work for whom we desire, freedom to create a company if so desired, freedom to create products and services, and the subsequent freedom to spend the fruits of our labors according to our desires and needs. For in a capitalistic system, the means of production are owned by individuals, and the private sector, rather than by government. This principle made America the economic power that it is.

Many have literally cheered the purported demise of capitalism with the housing and financial collapse of 2008. But far from a failure of capitalism, what we have witnessed is a government-created calamity. Lending institutions are naturally averse to lending their capital to people who are not likely to repay it. But when the Community Reinvestment Act was implemented during the Carter administration, the pressure was placed directly on banks to do just that.

This coercion only increased during the Clinton years when then-Attorney General Janet Reno declared they were going to aggressively pursue lending institutions not in full compliance with the CRA. The squeeze was on for banks to lend where otherwise they would not. But with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac serving as guarantors of those loans, the incentive for mortgage bankers to avoid risk of non-repayment was essentially thrown out the window.

After the collapse of Enron, Congress passed the most stringent and onerous regulation governing publically traded companies ever. The intent was to prevent another Enron from happening, yet Congress intentionally excluded Fannie and Freddie from coverage under that regulation. Two years later, Fannie was doing the same thing Enron did, cook the books to make their earnings appear better than they were.

Capitalism takes risk, but not imprudent risk to lose capital. Without government policy forcing banks to make the loans they did, and without the explicit guarantee of those mortgages by the corrupt Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) of Fannie and Freddie, we would not have had the collapse of the financial system we’ve witnessed this past year.

In all likelihood the real estate bubble would have still happened, as the Federal Reserve had reduced the Fed Funds Rate and the Discount Rate to such a point that long-term investing in real estate was suddenly more attractive. But bubbles come and go, whether it’s tulips in the Netherlands, dot-com bubbles on Wall Street, global oil futures, or domestic real estate valuations. The bubbles burst, markets correct, and we move on. But not so easily this time.

The failure of government to properly regulate their own mortgage enterprises jeopardized our entire financial system. And yet some say that deregulation has created this milieu even though the National Registry of all government regulation is larger now than ever before since it was created in the 1930s, at over 80,000 pages. Regulation is not a panacea to cure all potential abuses, but smart regulation can be. What Congress has done to our financial institutions and to our economy is inexcusable. They bear full culpability and not only are they not held accountable for their abuses, but they’re throwing money at the situation to try to fix what they broke.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor said recently in the Wall Street Journal, “The present crisis started not because capitalism was allowed to run its selfish course, but because the government interfered with the operation of private businesses and allowed excessive growth of money and credit.”

Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary principle that applies as aptly to free market capitalism as it does to biology. The worst thing government could have done was to step in and play “god” to the financial markets to determine which survive and which do not. Free markets do that on their own when allowed to. We see it every day. And the notion runs in direct contradistinction with what the President Elect said this week, “Only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.”

The government should not be trying to spend our way out of the recession by throwing money at it as they have. In all likelihood the efforts will not only fail but will encumber many future generations with a federal debt unlikely to ever be repaid. Sounds a lot like the mortgages they forced banks to make, doesn’t it?

Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University has proposed a capitalist solution. He said, “Just let the defunct firms fail, and the healthy ones purchase the assets.” Now that would be capitalism that we can believe in.

Economics professor Walter E. Williams was even more blunt. He said recently, “The blame for our current financial mess rests with government… In the clamor for more regulation over our financial institutions, has anybody bothered to ask whether people in government know what they're doing?” Centralized planning has never worked. What we need is more free-market economics, not more government control.

With the plethora of wise men and women who have preceded us in this mortal sojourn, perhaps this time of transition provides an opportune time to review some of the astute and prudent insights offered by great minds from previous generations. Certainly some of the challenges facing our nation and our society this coming year can be seen through the lens of proven wisdom. In this light I thought I’d cherry pick a few of those quotes that have been validated by history to provide a little sagacious insight for the context of what our politicians are threatening to do for the next few years.

Winston Churchill once declared, “For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” With all the talk of our incoming politicians intent on increasing taxes, creating up to an additional trillion dollars worth of stimulus (national debt), and a massive infrastructure building program to “stimulate the economy,” (more national debt) Churchill’s statement seems, well, “Churchillian.”

Unemployment stands currently at 6.7%, and most economists anticipate it could rise to 8% before it begins to stabilize. That could be another 2.5 million lost jobs before the hemorrhaging stops. That’s the same number the new administration has declared they want to create with a New Deal type rebuilding program. I just have a hard time visualizing all those unemployed bankers and wizards of Wall Street out there building bridges and highways.

Racking up more federal debt will not apply the desired tourniquet to the jobs hemorrhage. Even after the stock market collapse of 1929, and the depression settling in by 1931, our nations’ biggest industrial collapse actually occurred in 1937, five years into the New Deal of FDR. In 1939, after a full decade of frantic federal spending, unemployment was still over 17%. FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, lamented, “I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.”

I think Churchill was correct. Government can’t create an economy. The best thing government can do is create an environment that is conducive to growth, with reduced taxes and a regulatory environment that facilitates private sector growth.

George Bernard Shaw, although a self-avowed socialist, was nonetheless bright enough to observe, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” Reviewing the electoral map by county of the last election lends tremendous credence to Shaw’s observation. With few exceptions, counties heavily dependent on the public dole voted for the incoming administration, while those not dependent went the other way. The square miles of land won by the new administration were 580,000, while 2,427,000 voted the other way.

In his inimitable cynical style, writer and journalist P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!” With talk of providing universal health care, the financial costs to the nation of essentially nationalizing 1/5^th of our economy are staggering. All this expense providing health insurance for the approximately 10% of our citizens who don’t have it! There has to be a better way.

The “great communicator” Ronald Reagan, observed the practices of government, and summarized, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” If that doesn’t capture the mindset of our current congress, even in light of our economic conundrum, I don’t know what does. But if we’re going to emerge from this recession any time soon, that mindset has to be altered. Washington is on the cusp of becoming another Detroit, New Jersey, or New York, all of which have been in economic thralldom because of that mentality.

Thomas Jefferson warned over 200 years ago, that, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” It appears increasingly that’s the kind of government we’re headed toward. He further warned, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” This bodes ill for us all with the increasingly strident notion that the government should regulate every aspect of our lives, from what we drive and what we eat, to how much energy we consume.

Perhaps the best idea for governing, however, was uttered over 2000 years ago by Cicero. He said, “The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”

I wonder if Roman leaders wish they would have listened to him. It’s painfully evident that ours won’t.