The Spencerian

The Obligatory Contemplative Post

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Tonight I walked outside and looked up at the stars.  I was wearing shorts and a T-shirt.  It's cool, but not cold -- not by a far sight.  

Up in Washington, they're bracing for a snowstorm.  I don't know why, but whenever they get a snowstorm there, I always get nostalgic for D.C.  Which is not to say I'm not frequently nostalgic for my old city, anyway -- I am.  

It's true.  I guess my case of Potomac Fever is incurable.  And I'm mostly okay with that.

I don't think we'll get back to Washington, at least not in the foreseeable future.  And that's okay, too.  

I'm more and more okay with it every day.  The Washington, D.C. I grew up in professionally in the 1990s is not the same place it is today.  You can tell when all the restaurants change, it's true.  

But you can also tell by the way they get the business of the people done... or not done, I guess.  Sure, when I was there, we had the infamous government shutdowns.  It was awful, and I remember being really freaked out not being able to go to work.  How long would it last?  What did it all mean?

Those were, more or less, anomolies, and Speaker Gingrich paid a steep political price for his antics.  

Today, this is more like business as usual.  The conversation used to be about the size and efficiency of government.  Now it's about whether we should even have government at all.   

Worse, the machinery of our government has never been more disonnected from the mechanisms of driving our economy.  As the first sequester furlough notices going out -- which will hurt real Americans with real jobs -- the Dow Jones celebrates a record high.

Who are we?  What does all this mean?  

Who have we become?  

I still have hope, but the truth is, my interest in national issues has begun to wane.  Maybe it's just the depressing nature of the national conversation, such as it is.  Or maybe I just have a lot going on at home.  Who knows.  

I am still hopeful.  I hope my friends who'll get snowed in tonight can dig themselves out and get around safely tomorrow.  

I hope my government can dig itself out of political stalemate, too.  I'll be watching from under the stars, here in Florida.

Finally Friday Sequest-Mageddon Edition

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Yeah, Julie?  What would you suggest he do?

Welcome to Seqeuster Nation, everybody.  We're all screwed, blued and tattooed, as my old bosses at the Drug Czar's office who served in the Army used to say.  I've done the links a few times, now.  These cuts are bad.  They are draconian, and indeed they are the opposite of what we need coming out of a recession.

And yet here we are.

For whatever it's worth, I think a lot of the President's anger is well-placed.  What I don't get is how a vocal minority of tea party economic and fiscal dead-enders can drive so much of the conversation.  We should be having a conversation about smart -- and yes, increasing -- spending in the federal sector.  We should be talking about stimulus, goosing this slow recovery along.  

Instead, the crazies have everyone singing from the crazy-wild-debt sheet music.  And it's nonsense, of course, as has been shown again, and again, and again.

Look, whether you like President Obama or not -- and I recognize that plenty of people on both sides of the political aisle don't -- you have to at least agree that the election of 2012 was decisive.  Tea party types lost.  Democrats -- mostly -- won.  Shouldn't President Obama, and the Republicans in Congress who actually want to, you know, govern, be able to drive this conversation along?  

# # # #

There's a lot of debate about the, well, debate on this sequester deal -- and the philosophy of spending versus a running a deficit or the national debt.  I disagree with John Harwood in the New York Times:

Republicans don’t seek to grind government to a halt. But they do aim to shrink its size by an amount currently beyond their institutional power in Washington, or popular support in the country, to achieve.

That's not true.  It is the sacred covenant of the modern-day Republican to "grind government to a halt."  It's anti-tax lunatic Grover "Drown-government-in-the-bathtub" Norquist who wrote that gospel.  

I'm not sure why Harwood is so scared to talk about what happens when there is not enough resources in government to grow the economy.  The story about the fiscal collapse of Detroit -- just taken over by the State of Michigan -- is reported on right next to his piece in the Times.

If you're a mainstream journalist, why can't you just say it?  The tea party crazies want no spending.  None.  They say so on (one of) their own websites: "Fiscal responsibility means not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills."  In other words, stop spending just when we need it most.

# ###

As a follow-up to yesterday's post: my prediction is no, I don't think it's going to snow here in the Tampa Bay area tomorrow. 

# # # #

It's finally Friday.

Get To Work: The Yahoo Work From Work Debate

by Benjamin J. Kirby

This week, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer ordered all the Yahoo employees back to the office.  No more working from home. 

A memo explaining the policy change, from the company’s human resources department, says face-to-face interaction among employees fosters a more collaborative culture — a hallmark of Google’s approach to its business.

In trying to get back on track, Yahoo is taking on one of the country’s biggest workplace issues: whether the ability to work from home, and other flexible arrangements, leads to greater productivity or inhibits innovation and collaboration. Across the country, companies like Aetna, Booz Allen Hamilton and Zappos.com are confronting these trade-offs as they compete to attract and retain the best employees.

I know what you're about to say: what in the hell does any of that have to do with politics and government?

Great question, actually.  And the answer is: not much.  

I've worked in politics and government for a long time.  One thing I know for sure: with respect to workplace, government is more or less the opposite just about any technology company you could name.  

I have high hopes that will change some day.  What if Congress operated more like, say, Oracle.  How about if the Department of Commerce was more like, say, Google.  What if the Department of Health and Human Services was run like Apple.  What if the Executive Office of the President worked more like Facebook.

I'm not saying how government uses technology: I mean the way government works.  In many respects, it remains a very old fashioned work environment.  To be fair, I was briefly at the USDA during the last year they allowed smoking in the offices.  Ashtrays in offices were for more than just holding paperclips.  In my very short tenure, they cut back to smoking in the hallways only.

And I know that government -- federal as well as local -- does something entirely different than what tech companies do.  That is fine.  But technology firms have mastered something, and every sector -- not just government -- would do wise to (finally) take a page from what you might call the Google handbook (there's a reason it's the best place in the world to work).

But back to Yahoo.  I admit: I saw some value in Marissa Mayer's strict new policy.  I've just finished reading Imagine, by Jonah Lehrer -- the shamed author who plagiarized bits of the book, and totally made up others.  

Then there was a pretty good argument by Slate's Farhad Manjoo on the value of working from home. 

The larger problem with the ban is its apparent cluelessness about how creative work occurs. Marissa Mayer is said to be a devoted office worker. Both her admirers and critics call her a workaholic, a woman who’s gotten ahead not just through talent but also by working longer hours than most other people. Yahoo is a Web and media company, a firm teeming with engineers, designers, writers, and editors—people whose work not only can be accomplished remotely, but also people who may find working at home to be a better way to get things done. This decision suggests that Mayer doesn’t understand one of the most basic ideas about managing workers—that different people work in different ways, and that some kinds of pursuits are inhibited, rather than improved, by time in the office.

Look, I take Manjoo's point -- Mayer is essentially punishing people in highly intellectual jobs that mostly can be done from home because she is trying to generate that creativity Lehrer talks about in his book (the originating New Yorker article of which Manjoo references).

What Manjoo -- and his Slate counterpart, Katie Roiphe, who more or less takes the Mayer side -- fail to mention is that Team Yahoo is pretty much getting its ass kicked by the likes of Google and Facebook and Apple and others.  

Name the last big innovative, cool, new thing to come out of Yahoo.  

Look, I've had my Yahoo email account for years and years, now.  Almost ten years.  It has done better than my Hotmail account, and though I love my Gmail account, the Yahoo account is still the one everyone knows and uses. 

But there's been nothing new with it -- except the creepy avatar I created that I can't get rid of, now -- for a long, long time.  It simply is what it is.  

I don't wonder if there's not a happy medium, here.  Maybe there can be certain days you're in the office, or better yet, certain meetings assigned a designation: red meetings mean you have to show up in person.  Yellow meetings, it's your call.  Green meetings, stay at home and send your robot. 

Part of the problem is everyone in Silicon Valley and in the technology universe generally are all too busy trying to out-innovate one another to give this any real thought.

Now, if only there were some gigantic industry infrastructure that could take a whole concept, slow it down, and execute it with as little speed and efficiency as possible.  Build it from not the highest common denominator, but the least -- ground up.

Is it me, or does this sound like a job for the Federal Government of the United States of America?

 

The Sequester Grift

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Well, all my life I've expected only the best of things
Now I see your clouds and they are appearing
And these strange sensations have such an, oh, so familiar ring
Rain on the window and tears on my pillow
The wind in my mind keeps a-blowin'

Tornado warning
Came in this morning
Tornado warning

The wind is blowing strong
We must hold on to wait another day, we must go o

-- The Pure Prairie League, Tornado Warning

Happy Sequestration Week!  As you may -- or may not, (though, really, given the full court press coverage, how could you not?) -- know the massive budget cuts called "sequester" are set to kick in on Friday.  That's about $85 billion -- with a b -- worth of spending cuts, across the board.

Look, I'm not an economist, but I don't think there's anyone who thinks this is a good idea.  I've not read one single, solitary thing that says the thing to do in a slowly recovering economy is budget cuts.  Indeed, the opposite is true:

...we estimate policymakers truly committed to a full and durable recovery would need to target roughly $1.5 trillion to $2.2 trillion in additional fiscal support over the next three years.

In other words, the government needs to be spending more money, not cutting back!  

The sequester cuts mean the very real possibility of the nation slipping back into recession.  So of course, the tea party freaks love it.

But these cuts are real, with real consequences.  Here in Florida, the effects will be immediate and readily apparent:

With federal budget cuts looming, MacDill Air Force Base is bracing for the possibility of civilian employee furloughs and the cancellation of Airfest.

There are about 3,000 civilian employees at MacDill. Most of those workers could be affected, said Terry Montrose, a spokesman for the 6th Air Mobility Wing at MacDill.

[snip]

If a deal can't be reached, civilians would be forced to take an average of one unpaid day every week for up to 22 weeks, Montrose said. The furloughs would start April 25.

"This equates to a 20 percent cut in pay," Montrose said in an email. "We are deeply concerned about the negative effects of furloughs on the morale and effectiveness of our valued civilian workforce."

Congratulations, tea party.  That's 3,000 Tampa Bay area families whose lives get thrown into chaos.

And that's not the worst of it for Florida [PDF, via the White House]:

Teachers and Schools: Florida will lose approximately $54.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 750 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 95,000  fewer students would be served and approximately130 fewer schools would receive funding. 

 o Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Florida will lose approximately $31.1 million in funds for about 380 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Florida would lose about $5.2 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Florida could lose another $1.1 million in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

Those 3,000 or so up at MacDill? Only 3,000 of 31,000 in Florida:

Military Readiness: In Florida, approximately 31,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $183.2 million in total.

It is, like these things always seem to be, bad for children, too:

Child Care: Up to 1,600 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Vaccines for Children: In Florida around 7,450 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $509,000.

Those are just some highlights.  It gets worse.  Here's a nation-wide impact:

A vast majority of FAA’s nearly 47,000 employees would be furloughed for approximately one day per pay period, with a maximum of two days per pay period. The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians would require a reduction in air traffic to a level that could be safely managed by the remaining staff, resulting in slower air traffic in major cities, as well as delays and disruptions across the country during the critical summer travel season.

Disrupted air travel?  We're all still bitching about shoes and full-body nekkid picture scans.  Not being able to fly anywhere at all so that the crazy hat lunatics can blubber on about FREEEDOOOMMM!!!   

...well.  That's just not going to work.

So here's my little prediction.  I say that sequester -- like the debt ceiling debacle before it -- will actually come.  We'll get to Friday, cuts will happen, and then there'll be a series of back-room deals to band-aid over the worst of the cuts.  If the deal comes to a vote in the House, the tea party contingent will vote "no" on it, again, much like the debt ceiling deal.  

And they will become that much more outside the mainstream.

For what it's worth to you, I truly hope it doesn't happen, mostly because if it does, I think the worst legacy of it would be that it would represent our "new normal."  

I hope I'm wrong.

Water

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Mama never understood what it's like for a losin' man
when her number one son goes bad playin' cards with the Devil's hand

 -- Eddie Money, Gimme Some Water 

Can I tell you how unimpressed I am with the Marco-Rubio-drank-water-during-the-SOTU-rebuttal thing this week?  

It looked bad at the time, but with the idea of giving donors a bottle of water with each donation to his PAC, the guy turned a made-for-TV-fumble into a win.  

This is a man who knows well how to work the media.  After all, it was during his run for Senate here in Florida that he ran what I maintain is one of the best political ads of all time.

But the truth is, Rubio is a retrograde Generation X version of the crusty old tea party freaks running the show right now.  This Marco Rubio who gluggingly rebutted the State of the Union is the same Marco Rubio who voted against the Violence Against Women Act.  Oh, and he's got a history of scandal and corruption.  

In essence, he is nothing more than a repackaging of the same Republican principles, the same Republican values that have been losing elections and will continue to in the future.

I'm usually reluctant to link to a piece I've only read half-way, but the New York Times piece by Robert Draper is already a must-read:

Nonetheless, the focal point of Proximus’s mission is not policy formulation but salesmanship: how to bring new voters into the fold while remaining true to conservative principles.

"Proximus," by the way, is the name of a group of conservative friends and activists who sit around a snooty Russian bar and drink weird import beer from Moscow and talk about "how to bring new voters into the fold while remaining true to conservative principles."  

When was the last time you sat in a bar with your friends and said, "Hey!  Let's name this group... I'm thinking something Latin!"  Who does that?  (Let's not even mention the Russian beer...)   

Out of touch idiots, that's who.

This is the Marco Rubio world.  Salesmanship... "not policy formulation."  They are what they are and they are not changing.  They're just going to make their face a guy my age with good hair and an unfortunate predisposition for dry mouth.  

In closing, let me just send out a warning shot to liberals and Democrats.  We caricature the Marco Rubio water comedic hardy-har moment at our own peril.  Marco is a right-winger, and he'll stay right-wing as long as he's running for President (and let's please not pretend that he's not) in an attempt to appeal to the base.  But he is more media and tech savvy than any of the last batch of contenders who sought the GOP nomination in 2012 -- and that includes Mitt Romney (I would sort of hope it would go without saying).  

Marco will jiu-jitsu his weaknesses into strengths, and it'll happen fast.  We need to stay focused not on the fact that he got thirsty, but on the fact that he's bad for Florida.  As a President, he'd be worse for America.  And when he's standing behind the podium giving the State of the Union, not rebutting it, I bet he'll drink all the damn water he wants.

Smart Money: Raise the Minimum Wage

by Benjamin J. Kirby

We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.We should be able to get that done.

President Barack Obama, State of the Union, 2013

Mustang Bobby's Question of the Day post -- Have you ever had a minimum wage job?  -- got me thinking about the minimum wage jobs I had when I was younger, which I shared with him and his readers in the comments.

My first job that wasn’t working for my father was as a busboy in a Mexican restaurant — Browning's (refurbished and modernized, I've heard from Mom).  This was a sort of pseudo-Mexican restaurant, a place genuinely of the South, which meant that you’d get a burrito or maybe a taco or tamale, but with a side of mashed taters, green beans, or maybe collards.  

That job lasted about three months.  My tales of culinary horror were so bad, I recall my parents being at least somewhat supportive when I quit.  Following my brief career in the food service industry, I had a truly awesome job as an usher in a movie theater.  Come on.  Free popcorn?  Free soda?  Half-priced candy, nachos and hot dogs?  All the movies you could ever want to see?  The place didn't open until noon-ish, and oh, yeah -- cute girls worked there, too.   

More recently, I served as a little bit different kind of usher (no free popcorn) for the Arkansas Legislature after the 2002 election didn’t work out for any of my candidates.  Highlights included wearing a distressed, hand-me-down, red blazer — they called us Red Coats — and sitting on my ever-expanding ass in the State House balcony all day.  It was educational.  I got to watch the Arkansas Legislature be about as crazy as you probably think they would be.  There was also an excellent cafeteria in the State Capitol; lunch was almost always fantastic.

All of these jobs were minimum wage (the Red Coat job may have paid a little bit more, but not much if at all).  And though the most recent one was about ten years ago -- the others, more than twenty -- I can tell you that it would have been impossible for me to live off of that salary.  In every instance, I lived with my parents.  They supported me.  They housed me, fed me, clothed me.  

In 2011, "1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour," according to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Now, in 1989 the minimum wage was $3.35, and in 2002 it was $5.15.  

It wasn't enough to live off of then.  It's not enough now.  Indeed, even less so, because we know that the purchasing power of what worker's earn is 30 percent lower today than it was in 1968.  It's gone up, sure -- but by far less than it would appear.

According to Raise the Minimum Wage, a project of the National Employment Law Project , the annual salary of a person making minimum wage is $15,080.  No way any reasonable thinking person believes that is something sustainable for a person struggling to make ends meet, least of all raise a family in America today.

Well.  You're not House Speaker John Boehner!

“When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it,” Boehner said at a House Republican press conference this morning. “At a time when Americans are still asking the question ‘Where are the jobs?’ why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?”

In other words, keep obscene profits at record highs for those all-important "job creators" -- screw the working man.  Again.

This crap is so easy to disprove, it's almost like Boehner's not even trying anymore.

Contrary to Boehner’s claims, research suggests that minimum wage increases have little or no effect on job creation. One study found “no detectable employment losses,” another found “no impact on hours worker or employment levels,” and another found that the minimum wage actually strengthens employment. Other studies found that raising the minimum wage doesn’t impact job growth even if it is done during periods of high unemployment.

Again, according to the Raise the Minimum Wage people:

* The majority (66 percent) of low-wage workers are not employed by small businesses, but rather by large corporations with over 100 employees;

* The 50 largest employers of low-wage workers have largely recovered from the recession and most are in strong financial positions: 92 percent were profitable last year; 78 percent have been profitable for the last three years; 75 percent have higher revenues now than before the recession; 73 percent have higher cash holdings; and 63 percent have higher operating margins (a measure of profitability).

* Top executive compensation averaged $9.4 million last year at these firms, and they have returned $174.8 billion to shareholders in dividends or share buybacks over the past five years.

Of course, President Obama said it best in his State of the Union this week: 

This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. And a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government. In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year -- let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.

Look, this is an easy one.

We need to raise the minimum wage.  

Every once in a little while, I'll get asked why I don't run for office.  There are a ton and a half of reasons why I don't (not the least of which is I don't like raising money).  But if I ever did, the concept of a livable wage -- one that could actually get working Americans above the poverty line -- would be on my permanent list of priorities.  And no, President Obama's proposed increase to $9.00 an hour doesn't actually get us there.  From the Facebook page of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 should be a no-brainer. Republicans say it will cause employers to shed jobs but that's baloney. Employers won't outsource the jobs abroad or substitute machines for them because jobs at this low level of pay are all in the local personal service sector (retail, restaurant, hotel, etc.), where employers pass on any small wage hikes to customers as pennies more on bills. $9 an hour translates into about $18,000 a year -- still under the poverty line. (When you add in the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps it's possible to barely rise above poverty at this wage, but even the poverty line of about $23,000 understates the true cost of living in most areas of the country.) The proposed increase would put more money into the hands of families that desperately need it, allowing them to buy a bit more and thereby keep others working. A decent society should do no less.

From about $15,000 per year to about $18,000.

That right there is a flat no from the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives.

No, it doesn't get us where we need to be, but it's a step in the right direction.  

Oh -- and Speaker Boehner may want to take particular note here -- the idea of raising the federal minimum wage is incredibly popular with the public [PDF]:

A proposal to raise the federal minimum wage garners striking support, in terms of both breadth and intensity. Nearly three-quarters of likely voters support increasing the minimum wage to $10 and indexing it to inflation (73% support, 20% oppose) in 2014, including a solid 58% majority who feels that way strongly.

I'd say the ball in in the Speaker's court, but it's not.  It is in ours.  Let's get this done, America.

The Bad Old Days: Blog Comments on the George W. Bush Administration

by Benjamin J. Kirby

It's rare, but every once and again, I get some fun comments on this blog.

Most recently, these comments have come from a post I did way back in April of last year after a photo surfaced of the former President helping wounded soldiers complete a bike race up a mountain.  My thoughts on the subject of the photo -- which was "missing George W. Bush" -- were than you basically needed to have your head examined if you missed anything at all about the Bush years.

...if you "miss George W. Bush," you need to have your head examined.  I mean it.  You need to go seek professional help.  Get to a goddam emergency room.  Check for bleeding.  Because there's not a reasonable thinking person in the world who wouldn't say that the former president A.) was an unmitigated disaster, and B.) as the Commander in Chief who ordered these wars, one botched and one questionably legal at best, is directly and personally responsible for the lost limbs of those wounded warriors.

In other words, I couldn't possibly be the only one who thought it was a little dark that the former Commander in Chief, who ordered the botched war in Afghanistan as well as the illegal war based on wholly false premise in Iraq, could now be hailed as somehow "missed"in a kind of heroic way because he got caught on film pushing the limbless former soldiers of those tragic wars up a mountain.

What I didn't expect was a George W. Bush defender!  And I certainly didn't expect him -- his Typepad profile username is TellyStern -- to comment on my blog.  TellyStern himself may not have expected a whole post in response to his comments, but I think it is certainly worth it.

First, the back-to-back comments in their entirety:

You're the one with issues. Bush hatred and Obama worship are the same pathology.

All military actions during Bush Admin were authorized by Congress. War with Al Qaeda and Iraq became inevitable during Clinton Admin. Pres. Bush never blamed Clintin though, because Pres. Bush isn't Obama.

Posted by: TellyStern | February 07, 2013 at 06:19 AM 

War with al Qaeda and Iraq became inevitable during Clinton Admin...

Hot damn!  I just knew the the conservative nutsery would figure out a way to blame Bill Clinton.

You have to love the logic.  George W. Bush didn't do anything wrong.  But if he did, it's Bill Clinton's fault.

Classic.

My favorite, though, is this: "Pres. Bush never blamed Clintin [sic] though, because Pres. Bush isn't Obama."

Well, President Bush isn't Obama, that's for sure.  But Bush never blamed Clinton?  Nice try, TellyStern.  

Here's TellyStern's next comment, a real doozy:

Can any of you Bush haters explain how we could have dealt with Al Qaeda and the Iraq crisis without military action? Do you have any idea what the world would be like today if we hadn't. Serous questions. What you got?

Mean while Fearless Leader is extra-judicially executing people without any sort of oversight. So far I don't have a problem with the Drone War, but I do have a problem with hypocrisy.

You all owe Pres. Bush a debt of gratitude.

Posted by: TellyStern | February 07, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Holy crap, "the Iraq crisis"?  What the hell was the Iraq crisis except for the United States lying about weapons of mass destruction there, breaking alliance -- and international law -- with the United Nations and dissolving ourselves into the morass of a directionless war with a country that proved to be no imminent threat whatsoever?  

What would the world -- and America -- be like if we hadn't?  Let's ask ourselves those questions.

What would it be like if we hadn't had a president who rendered the United Nations irrelevant and went to war virtually unilaterally?  Would the U.S. still be on the Human Rights Commission at the U.N.?  Would we still be in the World Court of Law?  Would we still abide by the Geneva Conventions?

Would we have dissolved more international treaties than at any other time in our history?

Would we have cut health benefits for war veterans?

Would we still have a surplus?  Would we have bankrupted the treasury?

Would we have ever busted the record for the biggest annual deficit in the history of the nation?

Would more than two million Americans have lost their job in the first two years of his term?

Would we have acted on a CIA memo entitled "bin Laden determined to strike in US"?

Would we have slashed taxes for the rich while going into unplanned wars with two countries?

What would the world be like, TellyStern?

What a world.  

Even if there had been a 9/11 in this fantastical dream world that could never, ever happen under a George W. Bush Administration, would he still have failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"?  Because Obama didn't.

George W. Bush oversaw dismal economic growth in this country, and presided over the worst economy in decades.  He tried -- and failed -- to prove the myth that "tax cuts pay for themselves" and gave us a decade of deficits.  He ushered in an era of declining incomes for the middle class, record income inequality, increased poverty, and perhaps most egregiously for your children and mine, TellyStern, he jeopardized our future economic growth.

The world would almost assuredly be a better place had George W. Bush never been named President by a sycophantic Supreme Court.  

That's "what I got," TellyStern.

I guess I shouldn't pick on one of the least popular Presidents of all time -- right up there with Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce.

And, by the way, I do have a problem with the drone war, as I said yesterday.  But then again, I can hold two different thoughts in my head at the same time.  It's called being reasonable.  I don't like the drone war, or the secrecy surrounding it, but I like much more about President Obama than I do about the alternative (Mitt Romney, John McCain, and really, George W. Bush).

Feel free to leave a comment any time, TellyStern.  I'll look forward to it.

Sam Henderson for Mayor of Gulfport

by Benjamin J. Kirby

We got our ballots in the mail yesterday, and I am about to break one of my own rules... sort of.

I have said in the past that I wouldn't write an endorsement of a candidate on this blog without first meeting that candidate.  Seems like a common-sense rule to me.  I'm not saying they have to come have dinner at my house and follow me around for a day.  I am just saying that it's nice to meet someone in person before you give them something as sacrosanct as your vote.

I will be voting for Sam Henderson for Mayor of Gulfport, and I'll tell you why in a moment.  

But first, I should clarify that I have met Sam, but it was only in quick passing -- at the Fourth of July parade in Gulfport.  He was, like the rest of us, hot, sweaty and distracted.  There was so much to see and do, so many people to meet.  Hi, how are ya' was about as much as either of us could get out before being dragged in opposite directions.  

I would also note that of either candidate running for Mayor of Gulfport, only Sam's campaign has knocked on my front door.  We weren't home, but they left a nice flyer and note about an upcoming event.  I say close enough.

So, why am I voting for this guy that I only met quickly in passing as half the town of Gulfport tromped by in a parade?   

Because when you look at his priorities, they're just what we need:

• Maintain our police and emergency service to ensure the safety of our residents


• Install user-activated crosswalks at critical intersections.


• Complete major infrastructure improvements, such as the improvement of storm water conduits draining to Clam Bayou and Boca Ciega Bay and the repair and replacement of wastewater lines that are currently costing our city money.


• Reliably fund redevelopment plans for the city’s waterfront and 49th Street corridor.


• Continue to preserve and improve our parks, waterways and greenspaces, and protect those urban ecosystems for wildlife and the current and future residents of Gulfport.


• Maintain our level of service to residents, while keeping our taxes and user fees as low as possible.


• Improve and extend our spur to the Pinellas Trail in order to enhance connectivity between this outstanding walk & ride parkway and our unique waterfront downtown.


• Maintain the Old Florida character of our city, while still keeping us in line with our changing times.

Yes.

Yes to all of that.

And the list of what he has helped accomplish as a Member of the City Council is even more impressive.

It would be easy to write off Gulfport as a weird, small town that doesn't need a lot of hands-on governing.  I don't think that's true.  I think Gulfport wants to be a lot of things -- and sometimes those things are at odds.

We relish the weird label -- we want to be small and quirky and fun.  And we want to keep the small-town charm.  That is huge for everyone we know in Gulfport, and it's really important for me and for Duncan.  We love the proximity to St. Petersburg and to Tampa and to the other communities (and to the beaches and beach communities) -- but we are not Tampa, for sure, nor are we St. Petersburg.

Yes, we are a part of the larger Tampa Bay community, and in many instances, are leading the way with respect to public policy.  Because of our proximity to a large body of water, and to a regional natural treasure, our leader have to think in creative and innovative ways -- not always the kind of thinking associated with small towns.  

In a number of ways, though, all of this gets to the issue at my heart: working with across boundaries to bring the region closer together.  Who is going to extend a hand to our friends in St. Petersburg?  Spend half a minute on 49th Street -- the border between Gulfport and Florida's fourth largest city -- and you'll see the work we need to do together.  Who is going to work best with other community leaders like Mayor Buckhorn in Tampa?  Pinellas County Sherrif Gualtieri?  The Members of the School Board?  

I think the answer is Sam Henderson, and if you're one of our Gulfport neighbors, I hope you'll join me in voting for him for Mayor of Gulfport.

The Enterprise of Integrity

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Buckle up, kids: this one is complicated.

First, make yourself familiar with a fantastically-named organization called Integrity Florida.  This is "a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute and government watchdog whose mission is to promote integrity in government and expose public corruption."

Excellent!  We could use one of those here in Florida.  

Our vision is government in Florida that is the most open, ethical, responsive and accountable in the world.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you call home, I think we can all agree that these are noble missions and goals.  I think we can also agree that these guys have their work cut out for them.

Ethics in government isn't always as straightforward as we think it should be.  Hey, it's easy to point a finger at the guys on the other side who do wrong -- obvious wrong.  But, as they say in the comic books, who watches the Watchmen?   

In other words, who ensures the... well, integrity of Integrity Florida? 

It is a reasonable question, and one brought into stark relief as they released a scathing report on an organization called Enterprise Florida [read the full report here], "the official economic development organization of the State of Florida."

The report is tough on this Legislature-created entity designed to support the business presence in the state and boost the economy.  For example:

1. Enterprise Florida has failed to meet its job creation objective: In 1992, the Florida Legislature created Enterprise Florida with an initial objective of creating 200,000 highwage jobs by 2005. After operating for twenty years and despite negotiating more than 1,600 transactions involving economic development incentive agreements worth more than $1.7 billion, Enterprise Florida reports that only 103,544 jobs have been delivered since 1995 – half of their original target and eight years beyond its original target date. 

2. Enterprise Florida has failed to obtain its required level of private sector support: As a public-private partnership, Enterprise Florida is expected to obtain private sector support to help pay for its costs of operation. The Florida Legislature required Enterprise Florida to obtain 50% private sector contributions by Fiscal Year 2000-01. As of Fiscal Year 2010-11, more than 85% of Enterprise Florida’s funding comes from government and less than 15% comes from the private sector.

3. Enterprise Florida has the appearance of pay-to-play: Enterprise Florida, while subject to the dominion and control of the Florida Legislature, collects on average $50,000 each from corporate members for about half of the seats on the organization’s board of directors. Several Enterprise Florida board member companies received incentive agreements and vendor contracts following negotiations with Enterprise Florida staff during  the 2012 fiscal year giving the appearance of pay-to-play.

4. Enterprise Florida has apparent conflicts of interest: The Enterprise Florida Board of Directors and the organization’s staff have a relationship that may be a conflict of interest. Enterprise Florida staff bonus pay of nearly $500,000 ($427,500 for staff, $70,000 for President/CEO) in 2012 was provided by Enterprise Florida board member companies that were also Enterprise Florida vendors and others that were recipients of incentive deals in the 2012 fiscal year.

5. Enterprise Florida is picking winners and losers: A number of executed agreements detailed in the 2012 Enterprise Florida Incentives Report demonstrate clear state government favoritism of some companies and industries. Enterprise Florida issues unnecessary benefits packages to entice businesses that should already be attracted Florida’s business friendly environment. These benefits are not necessarily enjoyed by competitors across an industry or all businesses moving to or expanding in Florida.

All pretty bad stuff, right?  Sure, it's awful.  

Are you outraged that your tax dollars support this scheme?  Sure you are.

But what if I told you that the information you just read was funded in part by the Florida branch of Americans for Prosperity?  

Americans for Prosperity, you'll recall, is the Koch Brothers outfit designed to do just a handful of things, as long as the top thing remains defeating whatever happens to be at the top of President Obama's policy agenda.  One of the most chilling profiles I've ever read was Jane Mayer's account of these basically evil men who will stop at nothing until America is rendered a libertarian cesspool, where guys like them spend their days and nights lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, and suckers like me and you duke it out for survival in some kind of modern-day Ayn Randian Thunderdome.

It remains a little bit of a mystery to me why the Koch Brothers would fund something that essentially attacked a pro-business operation like Enterprise Florida.  After all, I thought sucking public dollars and funneling them to private organizations was the name of the game.  Who knows, maybe they needed a touch of street cred for something else down the road.  

More important, why would Integrity Florida partner with such a blatantly partisan group as Americans for Prosperity?  This is how the very first sentence on the AFP "about" page reads:

Americans for Prosperity is a grassroots movement of over 2.3 million activists nationwide who advocate and promote limited government, lower taxes, and more freedom. 

Well, sure they're going to fund a study that says we should cut the knees out of a government-founded organization.  Surely Dan Krassner, the Executive Director of Integrity Florida, understood this.

This is all a fairly big deal -- big enough that Integrity Florida board member Martin Dyckman, a retired associate editor for the Tampa Bay Times as well as a columnist and reporter, resigned his spot on their board. 

Dyckman said he asked Krassner to indicate on the report that not all members of the board agreed with the sponsorship of the report. He said was disappointed in the decision by Integrity Florida head, Dan Krassner, to refuse that request and to accept the financing but "it is a step too far for me."

Why wouldn't Krassner take that simple step, I wonder?

It's a little bit like me starting a gun control organization and getting the Brady Campaign to fund a study saying we need universal background checks on all guns.  Of course we need universal background checks on guns.  But wouldn't my study have had more validity -- or at least be taken more seriously -- if I'd partnered with, say, the National Science Foundation, or maybe something like local hospitals?  Maybe the Census Bureau?  Department of Justice?  Local law enforcement?    

What am I saying?  What does all of this mean?  

It means we need to actually do ethical things in government, not talk about doing them.  In my view, government leaders should set those benchmarks, not organizations whose hearts may (or may not) be in the right place.  

In the end, I regard it largely as I do things like PolitiFact and the Washington Post's Fact Checker.  All the Pinnochios and Pants-on-Fires can be useful to you when you're talking about the other guy.  But mostly they serve as distractions -- and when they're downright wrong, it's hard to set things right.  Once the story has been told, well... it's a done deal.  

Often, like the fact-checkers, too, things that sound above politics are used as political cudgels.  And then, when the actual truth comes out, it's too late: the story has been told, and it has the imprimatur of this "above politics" kind of organization or group.   

It's true.  We need a more ethical Florida -- we all agree on it.  After this, you can't help but feel we've taken a step back. 

Hillary Clinton on the Horizon

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Of course, the standard caveat applies: though incredibly minor in scope and depth, I am nonetheless one of a vast league of people who have served in the vaunted (and now multi-platform) "Hillaryland".  My year of service was during her tenure as First Lady, in her White House Millennium Council office.

And now a caution: if you read John Cassidy's piece in the New Yorker on her tenure at the State Department, you might get frustrated.  I did.

Cassidy saves himself at the end, barely.

Secretary Clinton's legacy at state is larger than some accord or some piece of paper with her name on it.  By re-establishing America's image around the world, she essentially re-invented the job of Secretary of State.  And the way she did it was by working -- very hard -- at a granular level on policy issues too complex for most folks to grasp.

As of today, the State Department has a new boss: Secretary John Kerry.  He's got a big job in front of him... and it's more or less a brand new position.  

There is not a soul in the world who thinks Secretary Clinton has left the global stage for good.  Most folks figure she'll run for President of the United States in 2016.

I am one of them.

Where I differ is how she'll do and how she will do it.  After all, she was not a prototypical First Lady.  Nor was she your usual kind of Senator.  And we all agree she was an innovative and new sort of "Global Ambassador" as Secretary of State.  This was really her magic -- taking something expected and turning it into something entirely new. 

She will be a whole new kind of presidential candidate.  We can only imagine what that looks like now.  Four years is a long time.  

I'll miss her.  Most of the world will, too.

The haters morphed into the tea party wingnuts and birther weirdos -- and we see how things are going for them.  

She will be back.  Somehow.  In some capacity.  And it will be quite something to watch.  It always is when it's something new.

The South's Gonna Do It Again: The Southern Conservative Fact Sheet

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Some smartypants signed me up for the "Southern Conservative Newsletter"... and I could not be happier.  

Since the decisive 2012 elections, Republicans have been spending a lot of time evaluating themselves and their place in the political world.  For good reason.  They ran a clown-car presidential primary, finally nominating a guy nobody liked who offered a message (such as it was) that resonated with no one.  

Republicans lost ground in the Senate, and though they still retain control of the House, the divisive, obstructionist tea partiers were greatly diminished.  America's negative views of the tea party continue to increase.

Some folks -- like the Southern Conservative Newsletter gang -- apparently didn't get the memo.

There's a lot, so I'll spare you the full cut-and-paste.  But here are some highlights. 

Southern Conservatives Leading GOP (Once Again)

Just as the SEC dominates college football, states with SEC teams dominate Republican politics. The South is both the ideological driver of the party as well as the largest source of its representation in Congress. Where is the party headed in its strongest region? What are Republicans doing with the power and influence they hold in the region? Can they be the force that drives change for the party in the rest of the country? 

Wait a minute... [Googles "states with sec teams"]

Okay.

You keep the "states with SEC teams", except for Florida, and we'll go ahead and keep taking everything else, cycle after cycle.  Good luck with that.  

Well, you know me and sports.  I just don't get it.  So I decided to look at it another way: most of those red states -- the SEC states, as it were -- take in more federal aid than they pay out.  

Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.

Who knows.  Maybe this will help with their messaging on the debt.  

By the way, are you really sure you want the South to be the "ideological driver" of a party that took such losses at the polls?  As for the second half of that sentence, I'm not sure what it means.

Despite rampant gerrymandering and uncompetitive districts, Congressional representation is still based on a system of, well numbers.  I know -- numbers and facts weren't too friendly to Republicans this last time around. 

Congress has a total of 535 voting members: 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the Senate. Members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms representing the people of a district. Congressional districts are apportioned to states by population using the United States Census results, each state in the union having at least one representative in the House of Representatives. Regardless of population, each of the 50 states has two senators; the 100 senators each serve a six-year term.

Let's get back to the weird newsletter:

FACT: The Republican Party is Being Lead from the South

There are 11 states (22%) that have a team in the SEC, yet 43% of the Republican House members (100 of 234) and 40% of the Republican Senate members (18 of 45) will be from one of those states. Of the 11 SEC states, 10 voted for Mitt Romney and Florida was a virtual tie. Despite what the media wants you to believe, the South's domination is a positive thing for the Republican Party.

Okay, I get it: Republicans are from SEC states.   

Heh, and "Florida was a virtual tie," as if that somehow makes up for the loss.  

So, is the idea that if Republicans can just hunker down in the South, the North, and the West will eventually catch up to their enlightened ideals?  Is that really the plan?  That's really the best they got?  

FACT: To Stay Viable, the Republican Party Must Perform Better Among Minority Voters

The percentage of all voters who are white has dropped from 88% in 1980 to 72% in 2012. Barack Obama received over 93% of the African American vote and over 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012. Even amid all of the hype of Obama’s strength with women and young voters, it was still race that decided the election. 56% of white women voted for Mitt Romney as did 51% of 18-24 year old white voters. Less than 10% of Republican voters were non-white. Republicans lost because we didn’t get a large enough share of minority voters.

Well, that's true: to stay viable, they really must perform better among minority voters.  In my world, that means starting with polices that don't adversely affect or even discriminate against minority voters.

Here is one of my favorite parts, though:

 FACT: The South will lead the Rebuilding of the GOP and Save America from Liberal Domination

While the election of Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Scott, and Haley are important steps, the party has the opportunity (and must do more) to reach minority communities over the next ten years. Republicans provide a much more comfortable ideological home than Democrats for most African Americans and Hispanic voters. Republicans hold levers of power in the South that can be used to help recruitment candidates, to build bridges to and expand access in minority communities that can’t be matched by the Democrats. Republicans have SO much to gain if successful and so much to lose if we do nothing. Literally, nothing less than the balance of power for a generation rests on Republican ability to attract minority votes - no ideological changes are necessary. Just changes in outreach, effort, access and approach.

Really?

"...no ideological changes are necessary."  Forget the election results, gang.  Those words right there are the biggest GOP failure of Election 2012. 

"Republicans provide a much more comfortable ideological home than Democrats for most African Americans and Hispanic voters."

Um.  How's that?  Maybe it has something to do with "gifts"?  Is it the fair and honest voting laws you support?  Is it calling the current African American President "the food stamp President"?  (Repeatedly, neverendingly, incessantly) questioning his place of birth?  Racist bumper stickers?  Racist t-shirts?   

A "comfortable ideological home" for African Americans and Hispanic voters.  A profoundly interesting thought.  Here you'll find a map of where people where when they Tweeted hateful things upon President Obama's re-election, most of it obscenely, wildly, violently racist. 

Care to take a look at that SEC map again?

Here's the next line out of that paragraph:

Republicans hold levers of power in the South that can be used to help recruitment candidates, to build bridges to and expand access in minority communities that can’t be matched by the Democrats.

Never has the phrase "levers of power" been so ominous.

Here's my next favorite part -- and just so you know, I am convinced this is one of the core problems with Republicans today:

Think about it like a business.

You run the biggest business in town. You look around and see a segment of your potential customer base growing larger and larger each year. These new customers aren’t coming to your store though, and, as a result, your competitors are getting bigger and stronger. They have passed you in other parts of the country already. If you DID get these customers, you would bury your competition for years to come, possibly forever. Would you ignore these new customers and say, “I’m already the biggest in town, this town at least, and I don’t need new customers” or would you say, “I’m the biggest in town, I have resources available to me that my competitors don’t have. I can get these new customers and put my competition out of business for good and ensure a strong business for years and years, not just here but around the country."

Voters aren't customers.  People don't buy ideologies.  Policy platforms are not sold with a blue light special.  

Politics.  Is.  Not.  Like.  A.  Business.

Politics is not like a goddam business!

As long as Republicans -- Southern or not -- believe that their outdated-but-rebranded ideologies and same old policies repackaged anew are simply something to be sold to a new client base, they're the ones who are done for a generation or more. 

In Rock Star News: Seth Harris Named Acting Labor Secretary

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I know you're probably done with the stories coming out of the Clinton/Gore Old Folks Home, here, but I beg your indulgence, just for today.

Via the Department of Labor newsletter I get (because yes, I like getting the employment figures five seconds before you read them in the national media outlets), Deputy Secretary of Labor Seth Harris has been named Acting Secretary of the Department.  Here's what they said:

Seth D. Harris, the department's deputy secretary since May 2009, has been selected to be the acting secretary of labor. In an email to department employees on Jan. 24, Harris wrote, "Our goals in the department are stability and continuity as we wait for a Secretary of Labor to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate." Before joining the department, Harris was a professor of law at New York Law School and director of its Labor & Employment Law Programs. He served for seven years at the department during the Clinton administration in key positions, including counselor to the secretary of labor. Harris, who takes office with the resignation of Hilda L. Solis, told department employees in his email that "our mission has never been more important than it is today. Let's work together to carry it out, to help the people and organizations that depend on us, and to continue rebuilding America's economy."

I've told this story before.  Seth -- that's Secretary Harris -- was the guy who hired me as a 21 year-old college drop-out to do administrative stuff for the transition during the Clinton/Gore Campaign of 1992.

In Washington -- and in politics generally -- having mentors or people who more or less fill that role is really quite important.  It's just part of the process, part of how things work.  I was incredibly lucky in that I had several great mentors over my career. 

But Seth was the first, and he was a pretty good one.  It has been great to watch him serve as the number two guy in charge at DOL these last four years, and it's just fantastic that he's going to serve as the top dog, if only until President Obama's nominee gets confirmed.

Way to go, Mr. Secretary.  A whole lot of us who were just kids back in 1992 are awfully proud of you today.

Equality Fail: Hillsborough as Scourge of the Bay

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I was so proud when my town of Gulfport became the first in Pinellas County to approve a domestic partner registry.  We're a small town, but it was a big moment for equality.

A few months later, our neighbors in St. Petersburg figured it out for themselves.

Just a few days ago, Pinellas County itself followed suit: 

A proposal to create a domestic registry in Pinellas County passed on Tuesday, giving unmarried couples — gay or straight — legal recognition of their relationships.

The law will allow couples to register as domestic partners, granting them the right to visit each other in hospitals, make medical decisions for each other in a crisis and, depending on their employers, share health insurance coverage. The Pinellas County Commission passed it by a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Norm Roche dissenting.

Hey, equality in Tampa Bay, right?  

I mean, if "the 'Burg" can do it, and us weirdos in Gulfport can do it... surely the Big Dogs of the Tampa Bay area -- Hillsborough County -- can do it... right?

Apparently not.

By a 4-3 vote, the Hillsborough County Commission on Thursday rejected a domestic partner registry for unmarried couples.

And by a vote of 4-3, Hillsborough County proved it is still governed under the dark shadow of longtime hate-monger (and former Commissioner) Ronda Storms:

The Hillsborough County Commission stripped discrimination protections for gays and lesbians in the 1990s. It has blocked efforts to restore them. In 2005, then-Commissioner Ronda Storms got fellow board members to ban government support of gay pride displays or events after seeing one at a library.

The Hillsborough County Commission should not only be ashamed of itself today, it should recognize that it has a lot of work to do to catch up to those of us leading the way in places like Gulfport, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Pinellas County. 

For the record, the breakdown for and against went like this: Commissioners Mark Sharpe (the guy who proposed the issue, and, it should be noted, a Republican), Kevin Beckner and Les Miller voted in favor of creating the domestic partnership registry.  Commissioners Victor Crist, Al Higginbotham, Sandy Murman and Ken Hagan voted against equality.

Just this past Sunday, Robert Trigaux wrote in the Times about how this area lacks a "brand".  

When researchers at Tampa marketing firm Spark last year started digging deep into what comes to people's minds for this area, what did they find?

A blank slate.

"We do not have a brand," says James Robbins, Spark's brand director. And places without a brand end up with consumers conjuring one of their own, he warns, showing an image of a local strip club that too often stands in as Tampa's identity in the national media.

A domestic partnership registry is not a brand.  Nor is gay marriage.

But the active opposition to our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors can begin to brand us in a way -- a negative way.  We can look to the top for the way on this issue: President Obama himself made history by openly discussing gay rights and equality in his Inaugural address.  

And it that seems like too much, too aspirational, that Washington, D.C. is too far away, well -- you can always look and see how we do here in Gulfport.

Learn more about the good work they're doing on these issues at Equality Florida -- click here.

It was 20 Years Ago Today, Sgt. Pepper Taught the Band to Play

In serving, we recognize a simple but powerful truth—we need each other. And we must care for one another. Today, we do more than celebrate America; we rededicate ourselves to the very idea of America.

 -- President Bill Clinton, Inaugural Address, 1993

by Benjamin J. Kirby

I apologize for the lack of entries this weekend, Inauguration Weekend, as well as the day we honor the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am working on getting over a cold.  Three things you need to know about me and having a cold.  One, I'm terrible at being sick.  Just ask Duncan, who at this point has garnered more sympathy than I have, and rightly so based on my incessant moaning and groaning.  Two, the worst part for me is not the stuffy nose or the achy joints or the sore throat.  It's the foggy head.  I can't think straight.  The third thing is...  wait, what?  

As I said four years ago, if Election Day is like the Superbowl for political junkies, Inauguration Day is a bit like church.  Election Day has a kind of down and dirty feel, dividing these votets from those, whereas Inaugurations are about coming together to celebrate democracy.  What most Americans saw yesterday was a ceremonial event, but an incredibly important one.  We're a peaceful democracy, and the way leaders of differing visions comport changes in power is important.  It is important to show abroad, and increasingly, it is important to remind ourselves here at home that we're really not under the leadership of some horrible tyrant.

This year, it was hard for me to imagine that I attended my first Inauguration twenty years ago.  

It was pretty incredible.  I went to the Inaugural Ball (there were dozens, mostly centered around states, and instead of the Arkansas Ball, which was one of the hot ones back then, I ended up in the Washington, D.C. Ball, but since I didn't know any better, I didn't really care), with wicked hot blind date from Smith College.  We ended up dancing and people-watching, staying up all night, talking and eating breakfast in Georgetown and making out somewhere.  Life as a single twenty-one year-old in Washington, D.C. was pretty great.

But aside from getting lucky for the parties, what really moved me was the actual Inauguration.  I'd never seen anything like it.  I had certainly never been around that many people all in one place (or if I had, I didn't remember it).  

As great as the beautiful girl from Smith story is, the better story I always tell about the Inauguration from 1993 is what I did after, which was, once it ended, walk the opposite way everyone else was walking -- which was towards Pennsylvania Avenue and the parade route.  I made my way to Capitol Hill, and a virtually abandoned Mexican restaurant, the proprietors and staff of which, I think, were surprised to get a customer at all.

It was cold, and I was too happy to wolf down spicy hot sauce and chips, a burrito smothered in a pound of molten cheese, refried beans and Spanish rice, all washed down with a margarita in a glass with the diameter of a hub cap.

I was finishing up relishing being alone after fighting the crowd in the cold for what felt like days when in walked Paul Begala and my personal hero of the 1992 Campaign, James Carville.  They were with Mary Matalin -- who Carville would later marry -- and a couple of other folks.  I didn't have the guts to walk up to them and say hi and thank you.  Instead, I gave my waiter a few extra bucks and asked him to make sure they knew the next round was on me.  And then I left.

I told myself these stories a couple of times these last few days, in between feeling sorry for myself about the cold I'm fighting and playing with the kids over a long weekend.

Used to be I'd think of old times from the Clinton Years, embellish them a little, like I always do, and it would bring me some joy.  

This year felt different... but different good.  

As I reflected on what life was like twenty years ago, as I polished up those old war stories again and again, it felt less and less like the good old days, and more like, well, history.

This year, twenty years after President Clinton called on Americans to "renew America" and "revitalize Democracy," I was in a place even more quiet, intimate than a Capitol Hill Mexican joint.  I was in the playroom with my son as he smiled brightly and showed me he could clap his hands.  I was with my daughter on the couch, watching TV as she leaned on me and said, "you're a good Daddy."  I was surrounded by my beautiful family in my house as President Obama spoke of our generation's task," about "these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and acting "in our time."

This weekend, at least, it sure felt like "our time".   And I was so glad for it.

It's easy to forget, but we are not building for today.  We never are.  We are building for the future, the future of my family and yours.  For as divided as we often seem today, we are building for all of us, together.  

Thinking about the history makes me glad I started on the right track.  It is a pursuit of happiness I hope is only beginning.  Reflecting on the President's remarks yesterday make me feel hope for the present.  With him, we can do right in our time.

Looking at my son and daughter, I know that this weekend -- as it was twenty years ago -- is really all about their time.  

They Way of the Gun

by Benjamin J. Kirby

First, I know I've been writing a lot about guns lately.  I believe continuing the conversation about our society and the safety of our children is worth it.  Thanks for following along.

Second, because I want to write about something local before getting to the big national news out today from the White House, I want to take a quick moment to remind you that this is a personal blog.  It does not in any way reflect the view of my employer, the Juvenile Welfare Board.  These are opinions, and they are all mine.  

I remind you of that because I want to briefly comment on the article out earlier in the Tampa Bay Times on Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch and Sheriff Bob Gualtieri and what they had to say about armed officers on school campuses.  Though Commissioner Welch is not currently serving on the JWB Board in his capacity as County Commissioner, he has in the past.  Also, given our community work with at-risk youth and families, Commissioner Welch is a reasoned voice of leadership and one myself, my colleagues and my superiors at work greatly respect.  When he talks, we all listen. 

That being said, today, Commissioner Welch is off the mark, at least a little bit:

...Welch, who has a 10-year-old daughter attending a Pinellas elementary school, said the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary convinced him that additional law enforcement presence is a good idea. Welch has met with the county administrator and county attorney to discuss what steps would be necessary to appropriate the money for it.

Welch noted that school resource officers are already posted in the district's middle and high schools. "I'm just speaking as a parent," he said. "I would feel better. It is another layer of protection."

Welch added, "In a violent society, with weapons available . . . I think we're not being realistic if we don't look at every measure of security. We're not talking about fortresses, but an armed, trained resource officer is, I think, a reasonable response."

Trust me, Commissioner -- I have a daughter, too.  And she will be school-aged soon enough.  I worry for the safety of her and her brother every single day.  

That said, I have a hard time squaring the idea that the answer to gun violence is simply more guns, no matter who is carrying them.  

Indeed, we know this is a fallacy.  Last summer during a shooting at the Empire State Building in New York City, nine bystanders were wounded... by police gunfire.

In 2009, a deranged man killed thirteen people and wounded many more on an Army base in Texas.

Even when armed guards are at schools these tragedies cannot be prevented.  Just look at Columbine, where armed guards couldn't stop the senseless killing.

Like I said, when Commissioner Welch speaks, I listen, and so I take his comments seriously.  And I balance them with the comments of the guy who would be in charge of those theoretical law enforcement officers stationed at campuses county-wide -- Sheriff Gualtieri (who was backed up in that article by St. Petersburg Police Chief Harmon):

"Just to take that amount of law enforcement personnel and assign them to those schools because of what happened in Connecticut — I don't think it's prudent. I don't think it's necessary," Gualtieri said this week, adding he shared his opinion with County Commissioner Ken Welch and School Board member Robin Wikle when they called to solicit his views. "I just don't think it's going to accomplish anything, other than create a 'feel-good' situation."

Gualtieri supports measures to improve the physical security of school buildings, such as equipping classrooms with doors that lock from the inside. But he characterized the idea of armed officers in all schools as an unwarranted reaction to Newtown.

"...doors that lock from the inside."  There's the kind of creative policy idea I've come to expect from, well, fantastic public servants like Commissioner Welch.  I've often wondered about tall perimeter fences with a locking gate, monitoring who enters and exits.  I don't particularly care for the idea of our schools as impregnable fortresses, either, for what it's worth, but here we are.  

Hey, these aren't easy questions.  There aren't easy answers.  Just look at our neighbors in Hillsborough County, who just voted down the idea of armed guards in schools.  

Right or wrong, I'm glad reasonable people here are continuing the conversation about what to do for our children.

# # # #

Now the political right is going to distort one of the many bold initiatives out today from the White House: putting cops in schools -- actually COPS; there's an important difference, and it'll probably get lost in the shuffle.

The COPS program was created by the 1994 crime bill, a law signed by Clinton and sponsored by then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) with the goal of hiring 100,000 police officers nationwide. Other provisions in the anti-crime package included the Violence Against Women Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, both of which have since lapsed over Democratic objections.

After a wave of school shootings in the late 1990s, Clinton signed a bill funding grants to hire specially trained community officers in schools. The bill was authored by by then-Rep. James Maloney (D-CT), whose district includes Newtown today, and was aimed at least in part at preventing mass shootings. At a press conference in 1998, Clinton argued for passage of Maloney’s proposal by telling the story of a school officer in Richmond, Va., who was hired by the existing COPS program and apprehended a 14-year old shooter after the teenager wounded two students.

COPS.  

Community Oriented Policing Services.  As you may have guessed, it's a lot more than just keeping potential maniacs with guns out of schools, it is...

...a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.

In other words, it's a whole new way of doing police work.  

This idea -- plainly differentiated from armed teachers -- has the support of the NEA, and considering what some of these kids are facing in school today (aside from the threat of gun massacres), perhaps a positive role model in the form of a community police officer in their life wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Where are these COPS today, you may ask?  Great question.

The funding was cut dramatically under the George W. Bush Administration.  And if that surprises you, then I respectfully suggest you haven't been paying attention, oh [checks watch], let's say ever.

Of course, this is a larger conversation that just armed personnel in schools, as it should be.  President Obama has proposed twenty-three Executive Actions on guns, and that's just the start.

We're talking about as much as $500 million dollars and one of the biggest legislative efforts in a generation.  The NRA is left a half-dozen steps behind, still reeling from the backlash of one of the most politically tone-deaf -- and, let's face it, inhuman -- attacks in recent memory, choosing to pick a fight with President Obama's daughters, simply because they have Secret Service protection.

It seems to me the final road-blocks to sensible gun legislation and a series of federal actions which we hope trickle down to place like Florida and Pinellas County is a Republican-lead House of Representatives.  This time, will Boehner be able to cobble together a coalition?  I genuinely hope so.

When that happens, perhaps President Obama will have a big signing ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House.  I'm sure Vice President Biden will be there, just like he was in 1994 as a United States Senator and the lead author of the Crime Bill that established COPS.

And maybe somewhere, in the back of the pack, far from the dais, deep in the audience will be a goofy twenty-three year-old White House staffer who has more charm than brains, money than sense, whimsy than reason.  He will just be glad to be there, caught up in the majesty of the moment, truly unsure of what it all means.

Someday, maybe nearly twenty years later, instead of looking at the back pages of his resume to find the meaning of the moment, he will simply look into the sparkling eyes of his beautiful daughter, and know he was a part of progress.