Its Time to Do Something About Social Security

In 2004, President Bush tried to make the entitlement programs for Social Security and medicare the topic of a national debate. Unfortunately, vested political interests prevented any progress on this vital issue and and obscured any understanding of it with lies, half truths, and mis-representations.

Those who want to duck responsibility on this issue cite the trust fund. They want us to inhale the political smoke, not breathe the clean air of reason. The sad fact is that there are no trust fund assets.

There are few issues in which both political parties have worked as hard to obscure the economic realities from the American public as Social Security and Medicare. The concept of a trust fund for both programs must rank as one of the greatest political fictions of all times. In reality, the funds are just meaningless bookkeeping entries that have no intrinsic value or assets behind them. Each of us can become instant millionaires by writing ourselves an IOU promising to pay ourselves a million dollars sometime in the future. That personal trust fund, without assets backing it, will have the same value as the government's promises to pay itself in the future.

The only thing that counts in this issue is cash. In any given year, the only significant sources of cash for the federal government are tax collections or borrowing through the bond markets. The government must meet its cash obligations in that year from the funds it receives in that year.
How it allocates these collections and expenditures are bookkeeping issues that may provide useful information but do not change the basic equation. The government may say that the dollar it takes from your pocket is a tax collection or it may call it a payment from the Social Security Trust Fund. Whatever the government may call it, it still must take that dollar from
your pocket before Washington can spend it.

For at least two decades both Social Security and Medicare have taken in much more cash than they have given back to the recipients of those programs. Each year, the tens of billions of surplus cash has been spent to fund other government programs, including the pork barrel projects that are so popular among those seeking re-election. This stealth tax has been hidden
by claims that the excess has gone to a trust fund. But, the cash has been spent. The only thing that has gone to the trust funds is an IOU. And, unlike the bonds sold by the government, these trust fund IOU's are not bound by any binding legal commitment. The government may change the rules at any time it likes.

The system has already gone bust. I have read that this year's demands from Social Security and Medicare recipients will be some $60 billion more than those two programs collect in taxes. If that number is accurate, it means that this year Washington has $60 billion less to spend on other programs, or it must find that much more cash from somewhere else. Each year the cash shortfall will increase and, with it, the pressure on the federal budget. Real programs must be cut or real taxes must be raised.

In just a few years, certainly by the next president's term, this will have hundreds of billions of dollars impact each year on the federal budget--regardless of the accounting entries in the trust funds. And, the political blame game will begin. Unfortunately, the president in office when a crisis strikes gets the blame. It will mean nothing that politicians from both sides of the aisle have avoided this issue for decades; pushing it off to their successors. The future has arrived, and it can't be avoided.

D-Day Today

(Written in June, 2006.)

Every day the news is full of things that have gone wrong in Iraq. Yet, the sixty-second anniversary of D-Day might give us some perspective on what is happening now in that war.

The invasion of Normandy began on a gray day. The gray clouds covered the sky down to the horizon, blending into the gray water almost without seam. Thousands of gray ships lay before the beach. The pebbles there also seemed gray in the overcast. Indeed, the men riding the rough waves toward the shore lost all color as they became wet with spray. The only changes from the oppressive gray were flashes of white caused by the breaking waves, and the German shells hitting the water; fired by men uniformed in gray.

Then, the first bit of color appeared; a burst of bright crimson signaling the end of a young life and the shattering of a family's heart and hopes. The monochrome world became Technicolor.

As the soldiers fought to gain the shore so that they could begin to fight the enemy, they found confusion and chaos everywhere. Nothing seemed to be going as planned. Mistakes were being made. Some of the soldiers, a very few, weren't behaving as they should. And, worst of all, everyone seemed trapped on the beach; there was no way out, victory did not seem possible.

Cynics, both then and today, would have seen only the problems. They would have rushed to question the need for the battle, its plans, and its execution. They would have focused only on the confusion and the mistakes--and would have declared it a failure before it even began.

But, the soldiers lying on that beach weren't cynical. They had a job to do, and they did it.

Where they found confusion, they restored order and moved on. They fixed the mistakes and amended the plans, and moved on. When one of their comrades was wounded, they gave what aid they could, and moved on. When one fell, they set aside a small part of their heart in which to carry a memory that would never fade, and moved on. When they were trapped on the beach, they found a way out, and moved on—to victory.

In doing so, they liberated Europe and destroyed one of the worst evils of the last century.

They would be the first to tell us that the honor we give them does not diminish in any way the honor that is due those who have come after them. Honor is not finite. There is always enough to recognize those who rise to the occasion to do what is right whatever the cost.

The soldiers of Normandy were part of a long line of men who have risked all to combat evil. They were part of the endless fight to allow people to live free of tyranny; and they fought the enemy of their time. The unit insignia they wore was the same as that worn by their fathers who had risen to the challenge a generation before. It is the same insignia that is now worn by their grandchildren who are combating evil's most recent incarnation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The uniforms and weapons may have changed. The form of the enemy may be different. But, the courage and determination of the brave men and women who are willing to put themselves between us and danger has not changed.

If those who struggled so valiantly in the past deserve our honor and respect even though they were not always perfect, do not those who follow them in the struggle today deserve the same? Denying honor to one group diminishes it for all, for all fight for freedom.

One way of denying them honor would be to focus only upon the mistakes that were made, and the plans that had to be changed once the battle began. Another way would be to ignore their remarkable acts of personal bravery. Sixty years ago, a rush to embrace all of the negative aspects of Normandy and ignore the positive, would have robbed these soldiers of their victory and stolen their honor. More importantly, it would have denied freedom to a continent. Even today, a cynic can find much to criticize in the conduct of the Normandy invasion.

But, thank God, the soldiers of Normandy weren't cynical. They had a job to do. And they did it. And there is no doubt about what they accomplished.

So, as we honor their great achievement let us also learn from the example that they set for us. For, we also fight for freedom today. Let us accept that battle against a capable foe will lead to confusion at times, and will require that plans be changed as we go forth. Let us also recognize that, in the fury and confusion of battle, individuals may do wrong—and will be punished for their misdeeds. Like the men on that Technicolor beach so long ago, let us fix the problems as they arise, and move on until, like them, we also enjoy victory over evil.

Why Are Judical Filibuster's So Important?

Those of us who like classic movies remember fondly the filibuster scene in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". In it, Jimmy Stewart rises to speak in the Senate against a corrupt bill then being considered by the Senate. He refuses to yield the floor until the public learns the truth. He stands there for hours, fighting for a just cause, until he finally falls to the floor in exhaustion.

That is the historic and romantic view of a filibuster; one brave individual standing against a wrong, no matter how powerful it may be. In the Senate today, however, that romantic process has been coarsened. Today, a brave Senator is not required to stand before the public and explain his or her position for all to accept or reject. Today, one need not risk exhaustion or ridicule in defense of a principle.

No, all that is required is that a Senator notify the leadership in private that a measure will be filibustered. That measure then goes into a category that will require 60 votes to pass, not the simple majority the Constituion requires. Other business then goes on as if nothing happened.

This is today's filibuster--painless obstructionism.

As we approach the mid-term elections in November 2006, the press is reporting that the Senate Democrats are again preparing to use filibusters to block highly qualified nominees to the Federal bench. The politics are clear. But, the press doesn't bother to explore the more important question of why are they fighting so desperately?

The Supreme Court is the least democratic element of our government. The justices are appointed for life and are shielded from the political considerations that influence every other Federal official. The law is whatever five of the justices say it is. But, in theory, the powers granted to the government by the people are enumerated in the Constitution. The Judiciary determines whether a law is consistent with the Constitution. In doing so, the courts are supposed to be bound by it just as much as everyone else. If judges are free to amend the Constitution as they wish, the Court is then bound only by the individual conscience and ideology of the Justices. Just as the ancient kings were answerable only to God, an unbound Judiciary is free of earthly constraints.

Throughout our history, many have been tempted to bypass the slow, frustrating process of building a consensus for policy in the Congress and just impose it by dictate from the Court. Since the New Deal, generally liberal justices have expanded the Constitution to find new rights and powers in various emanations and penumbras of that document. This legislation from the bench has been supported by legal scholars who speak and write of an "evolving" document that must be "interpreted" for modern times.

Having worked so hard to stretch the Constitution, weaken its limits on the Court, and to justify this role with legal scholarship, the liberal organizations that have benefited for so long now live in fear that the weapon they have created will be used against them. For, if it is appropriate for liberal justices to impose their conscience, isn't it equally appropriate for conservative justices to impose theirs? The stakes are high, and the Senate Democrats know it. This is one issue that they believe that they cannot loose, and survive. Do not expect compromise in the Senate.

Stating the issue as whether a President should have the right to have his own nominees on the bench implies that the judiciary should be partisan. It should support whatever party is in power. If that ever becomes accepted, we will no longer be a nation governed by law, but just another country in which justice is only what the ruling elite says it is.

Whether the current nominees before the Senate are appointed or not, the Democrats will loose their fight to keep the courts the sole preserve of liberal activism. Conservative judges will be appointed. I just hope that the Republicans do not use this as an opportunity for payback and continue the effort to free the courts from the Constitution. We must fight for the principle that the Judiciary interprets the Constitution, it doesn't rewrite it to its own purpose.

The outcome of this issue will shape our country for generations to come.

Thoughts About the Columbia Disaster

(This was written in response to press reports in August 2003.)

Many recent stories and opinion pieces on NASA refer to a bureaucratic culture that contributed to the Columbia disaster. Apparently, the desire to adhere to the publicly announced schedules and not to admit that anything was wrong led many in management to not give sufficient weight to the available danger signals. The stories have not addressed, however, just how deeply embedded this attitude is within the NASA culture, and how difficult it will be to change.

Shortly before the Challenger accident, almost 20 years ago, I was a Special Assistant to President Reagan and chairman of an interagency task force to promote the commercial use of space. After the accident, I was a member of a highly classified group to assess the condition of America's space effort and to outline the options available to restore a space capability to the US. In both cases, senior NASA personnel acted as if anything that portrayed the Space Shuttle as less than perfect, or not capable of meeting all U.S. needs in space, was a direct attack upon their agency and budget. Information submitted by the agency to support the Presidentially-directed analyses was so obviously and clumsily skewed to support NASA's self-image of the shuttle, that in some cases it was an out-right fabrication. Other, more reliable, sources had to be found to develop the recommendations submitted to the President.

It is quite common for government agencies to "promise the moon" and ignore doubts and problems when they compete for budgetary resources before the Congress. If they over promise, so what, it is just money that's wasted.

Although NASA must operate in this political environment to obtain funds, it carries out its missions in a universe in which the iron laws of physics--and not political promises--rule. Twenty years ago, NASA managers forgot this simple fact, and nothing has happened since then to change the culture of politics over science.

The famous line from Apollo 13 was, "Houston, we have a problem." Unfortunately, today the message would be: "Houston, you are the problem".

NASA can't fix itself. A total overhaul is needed from the outside.

The Beginning of the Iraq War

(This was written in July, 2003.)

As the first shots have just been fired by coalition forces in Iraq, the shrill voices attacking President Bush have risen in pitch. This situation reminds me of a time our Nation once promised itself that it would never forget.

Then, an aggressor nation, recently defeated by a coalition of nations, was subjected to a highly restrictive set of sanctions designed to prevent it from attacking its neighbors again. That nation, however, routinely violated those sanctions and armed itself with the most dangerous weapons then available. The international institutions created to prevent war were ineffective. Many of the leading nations of those institutions were themselves selling questionable material to the sanctioned nation at huge profit to themselves--and saw these issues as opportunities jockey for power within those institutions. The nation in question made no secret of its plans and had already shown its ruthless disregard for law and human rights against its own citizens. Yet, ambitious politicians saw the opportunity for personal gain if they presented themselves to be on the side of peace and possible risk to their careers if they called the foreign dictator to account for his actions. They maintained that diplomacy was enough to curb the actions of a man who did not want peace and would not honor any agreement. Although many political leaders of the West could see what was coming, none was prepared to take the personal political risk of calling for action.Then, Adolf Hitler invaded Poland.

Today the stakes are higher and the weapon much more deadly, but political ambitions remain the same. Men of commitment and courage, who will do what is right for others, regardless of the cost to themselves, are the rarest of human beings. As a combat veteran of Vietnam and the father of a daughter in an area targeted by terrorists, I am honored that our Nation has just such a leader in George W. Bush. Our country is more important than the personal ambitions of politicians thirsting for higher office. If more of them could see that, both they and we would be better off.