Much hoopla has been made about the first 100 days of the Obama administration, and frankly, I’m pretty tired of it. There is no particular significance to the first 100 days of any new administration, other than to give our 24 hour news media something to blather about. In historical terms, 100 days is a meaningless yardstick. In the end, President Obama will be judged on the totality of his accomplishments, and no one will care if a particular piece of legislation was signed on day 99 or 999.

One thing that is clearly evident about the first 100 days is the fact that we remain deeply divided over the direction our nation is heading. The remarkable difference in the President’s approval rating between Democrats and Republicans is evidence that we don’t see eye to eye on much of anything. The divide is so deep that I’ve actually avoided writing about political topics recently because I simply don’t have the stomach for a debate in which both sides prefer name calling over logic and reason.

No matter what your political beliefs or your party affiliation, there is one thing that we all seem to agree on regarding the first 100 days of the Obama administration. Aretha Franklin flat out rocked the inauguration with her hat. Long after the over the top inaugural festivities are forgotten, we will all remember that hat. Aretha has even agreed to loan it to the Smithsonian, and eventually to donate it to the Obama Presidential Library.

In the spirit of political reconciliation, I invite you all to relive the brief moment when every man woman and child in the nation was awed by the sheer splendor of Aretha and her magnificent hat. Since we as a nation are in desperate need of a cause that we can all support, I will be holding a contest here to find the most creative use of Aretha’s hat in a photograph. Simply download the hat image using the link at the end of this post, and place it on the head of your favorite celebrity, or politician. Email your completed masterpiece by May 15th, and I will post the best entries here for everyone to enjoy. There are no prizes, but the winner will have the satisfaction of knowing they contributed to healing a political rift that threatens to tear our nation apart.

Download The Hat

Email Your Entries

On days when the weather is less than ideal, I can walk for miles and not encounter another person along the way. Sunny weekends are a completely different story, and Roanokers of all shapes and sizes come out to enjoy the trails. This is when things get interesting.

Perfectly rational people who would never consider driving their cars on the wrong side of the road are somehow oblivious to the fact that the same basic rules of traffic apply on the greenways. Folks who would never allow their dogs to poop on the neighbors grass have no problem letting them take a giant dump right in the middle of the trail. Parents who watch their kids like hawks at home allow them to pedal out of sight on tricycles on the greenways. What is it about nice weather and pleasant walking trails that causes people to lose their minds?

I don’t want to come off as a sanctimonious greenway snob here, but I have seen every imaginable stupid act committed by my fellow walkers and cyclists. As a result of my observations, I’ve come up with a list of common sense rules that will allow us all to have a safer and more enjoyable greenway experience.

1: Always keep in mind that the same basic rules governing two-way traffic on our streets apply on the greenways. This means always keep to the right, and always pass on the left.

2: Be aware of your surroundings. Near misses and collisions occur on the greenways for the same reasons that they happen on the roads. Turn down the volume on your iPod and pay attention to what the traffic around you is doing.

3: The greenway is not a coffee shop. If you want to get together with your girlfriends, go have a nice chat at Mill Mountain Coffee. Do not walk 3 and 4 abreast while you catch up on the latest gossip.

4: Keep an eye on your kids. Young children on bikes and trikes are the most common cause of traffic jams and collisions on the greenways. Kids don’t understand the basic rules of traffic, so it is up to the parents to make sure they don’t cause problems. They may be cute, but they can be a real menace when they weave from side to side or stop suddenly in the middle of the trail. You wouldn’t teach your teenager to drive at the Indy 500, so please think twice about teaching your kid to ride a bike on the greenway on a busy Saturday.

5: The greenway is not a phone booth. If you absolutely must talk on your phone, please don’t stop in the middle of the trail to do it.

6: Control your dog. Like kids, dogs don’t understand the rules of traffic, so it is up to their owners to make sure they don’t cause problems. Always keep to the right, with the dog on your right. If you dog displays unpredictable behavior around other dogs or small children, leave them at home.

7: Leave the retractable leash at home. You wouldn’t stretch a tripwire across a highway, so don’t allow your dog to stretch their leash across the trail. Every weekend I see people doing this, and I’ve seen many accidents when cyclists encounter these situations. You are endangering the life of your dog and of the cyclists on the trail.

8: Forget the stupid pet tricks. At least once a week I see an idiot who thinks it’s a good idea to ride their bike while dragging their dog on a leash. This is dumb for more reasons than I can count.

9: Pick up after your dog. I see people every day who allow their dogs to poop in the middle of the trail and simply walk away. They do this even on days when dozens of people witness the act and they seem unfazed. One day I’m going to follow one of these people home and take a dump on their sidewalk.

10: Remember that you are part of the scenery. One of the reasons that people use the greenways is to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. Keep in mind that your appearance can detract from that natural beauty. If your waist size is greater than half your height, please don’t wear spandex.

Join the 10 Simple Rules group on Facebook

The contents of this bill should come as no surprise, since generations of lawmakers have successfully rigged the rules to concentrate power in the hands of a few committee chairmen, and to avoid ever being held accountable for their actions. The result is a process whereby the American public and the lawmakers themselves have no idea what a bill contains until after it has passed. This is antithetical to the fundamental concept of democracy.

I’ve thought for years about possible solutions to the systematic abuse of power in Washington. I’ve come up with several ideas that would, in theory, solve the problem. However, just as incumbent lawmakers successfully killed the term limits movement, they would never stand for any other weakening of the corrupt system they have worked so hard to put in place. Unfortunately, my humble suggestions for more honest and effective governance will remain nothing but a fantasy.

End Committee Chairmanships Based On Seniority

Committee chairmen hold all the cards in Washington. They determine which bills reach the floor, and what provisions they contain. This is an awesome power, and one that is highly coveted. Unfortunately, these appointments are not made on any qualitative basis. Instead, they are virtually always decided on the basis of seniority. This means someone with 30 years in the Senate would be chosen to chair the banking committee, ahead of a member with 30 years of banking experience. As ridiculous as this may seem, it’s not the worst problem with the seniority system.

The awesome power of incumbency means that once a member is elected, they become virtually impossible to defeat. It doesn’t matter if their political views no longer represent those of their state or district. Name recognition and the power of pork are almost always enough to ensure re-election. What this means is that the people who occupy the most powerful positions today were first elected 30 or even 40 years ago. Their political views are a more accurate reflection of the 1970’s than the 21st century.

End Omnibus Legislation

The single most effective way to end legislative abuse is also the least likely to ever be implemented. The vast majority of wasteful and abusive spending occurs when unrelated provisions are attached to larger bills. Sometimes these are tucked into a package under cover of darkness, but it’s far too common for a bill to be held hostage in return for an entirely unrelated provision. This has become a favorite sport of lawmakers. In theory, the solution is simple: Ban the practice of omnibus legislation altogether. If a bill related to the Defense Department is under consideration, it should be illegal to attach any provision unrelated to defense. A provision that cannot pass on its own merits in the light of day should never become law.

Require Lawmakers To Read Bills Before Voting

Lawmakers routinely vote on massive bills that run hundreds or even thousands of pages without knowing what they contain. This practice is patently absurd. My proposal would require that before casting a vote, every member of the House or Senate would be required to sign a pledge stating that they have read the entire bill. This would make it much more difficult to sneak hidden provisions into a package, and it would require lawmakers to slow down and consider the possible unintended consequences of their actions. It would also have the benefit of forcing them to craft legislation that is more concise and more understandable to the voting public.

Require Bills to Be Posted Online For 72 Hours Before Voting Takes Place

Voters rarely have enough information to make informed decisions when it comes to supporting a particular piece of legislation. Both sides do everything possible to distort the facts about what a package does or does not contain. Citizens deserve the opportunity to know exactly what our representatives are voting for or against. There should be a 72 hour waiting period between the time a piece of legislation reaches the floor and any voting takes place. During this time, the bill should be posted online for voters and the media to see exactly what it contains. We can never hope to hold our elected representatives truly accountable for their actions unless we understand those actions more clearly.

President Obama is not alone in placing a high value on past experience when choosing Cabinet level officials. President Bush surrounded himself with acolytes from various Republican administrations dating all the way back to Richard Nixon. History will be the final judge, but the experience that these veterans of past administrations brought to the table doesn’t seem to have served him particularly well.

The most common argument we hear in favor of the unending cycle of revolving door cabinet appointments is that it is essential to have inside knowledge of the way Washington works. Unfortunately, this logic is deeply flawed. Our federal government is one of the most dysfunctional organizations on the planet, and inside knowledge of how to operate within a broken system only serves to make you part of the problem, not the solution.

President Obama has also reneged on his pledge to keep lobbyists out of his administration. According to USA Today, 21 registered lobbyists have been appointed to various posts thus far, including William Lynn, who will serve as Deputy Defense Secretary, and Mark Patterson, who will serve as Tim Geithner’s chief of staff at Treasury. Lynn is a former lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, a firm that received over $54 Billion in government contracts during his six year tenure. Until April of 2008, Patterson was a lobbyist for Goldman-Sachs, a company that has received $10 Billion in TARP bailout funds. How can these people possibly do their jobs without major conflicts of interest, and why are there no other candidates for these posts who do not bring excess baggage to the table?

The most troubling appointment so far is that of Tim Geithner to be Treasury Secretary. Sixty members of the Senate voted in favor of his confirmation, buying into the argument that his experience somehow made him indispensable. The fact that he knowingly failed to pay his taxes for years was simply overlooked since he is somehow regarded as the only one capable of solving our current economic troubles. The amazing thing is that this guy was the chief architect of the TARP program, and there are 60 senators who still believe that he is the answer and not the problem!

I had not intended for this be a post about President Obama and his cabinet picks. What he has done is simply par for the course in Washington. My real question is what makes us believe that any one person is somehow the only one capable of performing a particular job? If we look at the world today and the people who consider themselves to be indispensable, Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez are the best examples that come to mind. Why are we willing to bend the rules and overlook potentially criminal activity to avail ourselves of the services of one individual? In a nation of 300 million people, I refuse to believe that there is not a single law abiding citizen with qualifications equal to or greater than Tim Geithner’s.

As voters, we need to ask ourselves why new names and faces so rare in Washington, and why are we never presented with options for real change? We consider ourselves to be the greatest democracy in the world, but we can’t seem to come up with candidates who are actually worthy of holding public office.

RELATED POST

Votrs Deserve Better Choices

Unfortunately, there are still a number of bitter Republicans out there who simply cannot bring themselves to hope for the best. Rush Limbaugh showed his true colors last week when he proclaimed, I Hope Obama Fails. I’ve lost track of the number of other rabid right-wingers who have echoed those same sentiments in the past few days. This post from Chris Wysocki is a great example of the attitude displayed by the sore losers among us. He has some perfectly valid concerns about our new President, but rather than pledging his efforts to put forth a committed opposition, he simply takes the position that Mr. Obama must fail.

One of the greatest anti-war pieces ever written is a brief story by Mark Twain called The War Prayer. After a rousing church service in which a community gathers to pray for victory in the coming war, God sends a messenger to explain to the congregation the unspoken implications of their request.

“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.”

Just like the congregants in The War Prayer, Rush Limbaugh and his fellow doomsayers fail to recognize the unspoken implication of their own words. By hoping that Mr. Obama fails, what they are really saying is that they hope our economy languishes in a deep recession for the next four years. They are hoping for American industries to fail, and for our manufacturing base to be further diminished. They are hoping for millions more of our fellow Americans to lose their jobs and their homes. They are hoping for our financial system to collapse, and for the retirement security of an entire generation to be wiped out by falling stock prices. They are hoping that terrorists will once again feel free to attack us on our own soil without fear of reprisal.

We are at a moment in our nation’s history when failure is simply not an option. Those of us who believe that a particular policy will be harmful to our nation must put forth a committed opposition and do our best to moderate or defeat it. We must propose solutions of our own and convince the American public that our ideas are superior. Most of all, we must be willing to work with the new administration to secure a safe and prosperous future for ourselves and for our children. As painful as it may be for some among us to see Mr. Obama succeed, we cannot afford for him to fail.

Mr. Obama’s improbable rise to the most powerful office in the world was made possible by his ability to inspire confidence and hope for the future. As he prepares to take office, our nation is facing a crisis of confidence, and we will look to him to restore our collective faith in the institutions that drive our economy. His presidency will be defined early on by his success or failure in dealing with our economic troubles.

Unfortunately, our broken economy is going to require more than inspiring rhetoric to recover from a deep recession. While I cannot think of a better person to lead our nation from a purely inspirational standpoint, I have virtually no confidence in the policy direction Mr. Obama intends to take us.

Everything I know in my gut tells me that massive government intervention in the free market will only serve to make matters worse in the long-run. I know with absolute certainty that the way to undo the damage caused by misguided and corrupt government programs is not by introducing additional misguided and corrupt government programs. I have no doubt that raising taxes on the most productive members of society will only serve to slow our economy further. History has shown us that government funded works programs are temporary solutions at best, and will do nothing to fuel a longer-term recovery.

I know these things with the same degree of certainty as many of the right-wing ideologues who can’t wait for Mr. Obama to fail. The difference is that I hope I’m wrong. I value the prosperity of our nation more than I value my own personal beliefs, and I have no desire to see the crisis prolonged for the sake of proving a particular ideology. Our politics have been driven for too long by rabid partisanship, and too many of our elected leaders would rather watch the opposition fail than to see our nation prosper under the wrong party banner. Mr. Obama has demonstrated a sincere desire to work with members of both parties to develop solutions to our economic problems. Regardless of our individual beliefs, we should all hope that he is successful.

Where am I to turn when I no longer recognize the party I have supported for so many years? Who represents my voice when my party abdicates its traditional mission in favor of promoting “Christian” beliefs like racism, homophobia, and the denial of every principle of the scientific method? In too many cases, the candidates put forth by the Republicans now represent the greater of two evils.

My dissatisfaction with the Republicans does not make me any more inclined to support the Democratic party, at least not in its current incarnation. My libertarian beliefs place me at opposite ends of the spectrum from those who continue to promote the naïve proposition that government can produce a Utopian society through social engineering and massive income redistribution. Given the insurmountable odds faced by third parties under our rigged two-party system, I am feeling more left out than ever before.

If there is a single ray of hope left in Washington, it is the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats in the House. While the members of the coalition represent a range of ideological positions on social issues, they are all committed to the basic principle that our government must live within its means. They are despised by traditional liberals within their own party for their support of the radical notion that spending increases must be offset by reductions in other parts of the budget. They may not represent my views perfectly, but at least that’s the kind of radical idea I can live with.

American voters have fallen hook line and sinker for the notion that the president has the ability to somehow “manage the economy”. For the past eight years, the Democrats have pointed to the record of Bill Clinton as proof that they are the more responsible stewards of our economic well being. The suggestion is that by returning to the Clinton era policies, they can recreate the economic conditions of the 1990’s. Of course it is much easier to make these claims when they are not in power and they cannot be substantiated.

Now that the Democrats are poised to take control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government for the first time in 14 years, the American people have lofty expectations of a return to prosperity. Given the economic conditions that they will inherit, the Democrats will be hard pressed to deliver. Unless they can demonstrate that the Clinton economy was a direct result of Democratic policies, and not simply a product of natural cyclical variation, it will likely be another 14 years before they are in power again.

Even the most diehard GOP loyalists have to admit that things have not gone well under the leadership of George W. Bush. Whether he is entirely to blame for the problems we face, or if he was a victim of circumstances beyond his control is a matter that will be hotly debated by partisans and scholars alike. There can be little doubt that the attacks of 9/11 were the defining moment of his presidency, and that he had the political misfortune to begin and end his time in office at natural low points in the business cycle. These are circumstances that would have challenged the greatest leaders in our history, and we have no way of knowing how they might have responded differently.

The choice of Senator Obama as our next president is a clear indication that Americans are ready for a change. What we don’t know is exactly how radical a change voters are prepared to accept. The choice to move away from a far right agenda does not automatically mean that we prefer a shift to the far left in its place. The contentious primary race for the Democratic nomination is a clear indication that no real consensus exists, even within the Democratic party.

There is a great deal of pent up demand for a new era of big government among the hardcore liberals who have not had a truly sympathetic ear in the White House since Jimmy Carter. Already rumors are circulating that indicate Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are planning to introduce a series of pro-labor initiatives before a new president is even sworn into office. The most notable proposals would eliminate the secret ballot requirement for union elections, and require employers to provide paid sick leave for workers. The idea that job growth can be stimulated by imposing additional burdens on employers defies the basic laws of economics, but these are exactly the sort of ideas that make old school liberals salivate. They are also the sort of proposals that President Obama would be well advised to view with a healthy dose of skepticism.

As much as I dislike the man for his personal failings, I have to grudgingly admit that Bill Clinton was perhaps the most successful centrist president of my lifetime. He learned a few hard lessons early in his first term about how far left the American public was willing to lean. The healthcare fiasco ultimately brought about a voter backlash that cost his party control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. From that point forward he put forth a series of moderate policies that allowed him to be the first Democratic president to win re-election since Franklin Roosevelt. The fact the meaningful welfare reform and NAFTA were both signed into law by a Democratic president, and that he left office with a 65% approval rating is a remarkable statement about the true sentiment of the American voter. President Obama would be wise to follow his example.

In a year when the Republicans faced insurmountable odds from the start, primary voters selected the candidate whose record least reflected the values of the radical right wing of the party. John McCain established his reputation by having the political courage to stand up to the agents of intolerance within his own party, and he has been one of the few members of the Senate to truly embrace the bipartisan spirit. In doing so, he has consistently placed the interests of the nation above those of his party.

Once the nomination was secured, McCain faced the most significant decision of the election. Would he run as himself and reach out to moderate members of both parties, or would he go against everything he has ever stood for in order to appease the far right wing of his own party. In his choice of running mates, McCain made it clear that he lacked the courage to stand up for his convictions when it mattered most.

When faced with a choice between a far left and a far right candidate, most Americans would prefer none of the above. Unfortunately, we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. McCain had a golden opportunity to fill the great moderate void, but when faced with the decision of a lifetime, the maverick of the Senate turned out to be a mouse.

We now face a situation where neither party is entirely satisfied with their choice of candidates, but the political pendulum has swung so far in favor of the Democrats that it will be nearly impossible for Senator Obama to lose. He has the enthusiastic support of the hard core liberal elite, and of the young people who are predisposed by their lack of life experience to believe that government policies can produce a utopian society. On the other hand, many traditional Democratic voters are wary of his liberal agenda, and would have preferred a candidate with broad moderate appeal.

Senator McCain was never an ideal candidate, but he was the least rabidly partisan nominee either party has put forth in recent memory. He could have taken advantage of his maverick reputation to appeal to a broad cross section of dissatisfied voters from both parties. Imagine how different the polls might look today if he had opted to hold the middle ground, and had the courage to tell the radical right to go to hell. Imagine if he had chosen a running mate with a record that complimented his own rather than contradicting it. Imagine if he had made his choice based on principle rather than partisanship.

Reports indicated that McCain’s personal preference for a running mate was Joe Lieberman, another man who has chosen time and time again to place his principles above his loyalty to the party. Like McCain, Lieberman is also despised by the radical elements within his own party. He has demonstrated that he values personal integrity above partisan politics, and like the McCain of old, he is admired by moderates from both parties. A McCain Lieberman ticket would have appealed to a huge number of voters who are disgusted with the purely partisan choices they now face, and if elected, they might have ushered in a new Age of Reason in American politics.

RELATED POST

It’s Time To Send The Parties Packing