February 10, 2019

Thoughts about Presidential Candidates

by Steve Dana

In 2016, Republicans went through the process of selecting a presidential candidate from a large field (17 candidates) that ultimately narrowed it down to Donald Trump.  Now with the democrats forced to pick a challenger, it looks like they will have even more names than the GOP.  Some estimates say the field will number more than 20 Democrats but realistically, you have to produce some creds to be taken seriously and most of the wannabes will fail to deliver; Vanity campaigns.  Hoping to learn from the past, I compiled a file on past presidents to see if there were patterns that might lead to a winner in 2020.

It’s interesting to note who our presidents have been over the past sixty years and where they came from.  John Kennedy was a first term Senator in 1960.  Kennedy’s work life was almost entirely as an elected member of the congress both in the house and the senate.  He was a first term senator from Massachusetts when he ran.  Lyndon Johnson took over after Kennedy’s assassination and was elected to the job in 1964 but he was also a senator from Texas before teaming with Kennedy as his vice president.  Lyndon Johnson spent most of his working life in the congress both in the house and the senate.  He was a lawyer.

In 1968 Richard Nixon (a lawyer) was out of government but came back to win the presidency. His previous job had been Eisenhower’s vice president and before that he was in the congress from California.  When he was driven out of office following his re-election in ’72, Jerry Ford filled in but failed to win election to his own term.  Ford was also a lawyer and career politician.

Jimmy Carter was governor from Georgia and a relative unknown, but he came out of the sticks and beat Ford in 1976.  Carter had been a farmer before election to governor. Carter was a graduate of the Naval Academy and spent a number of years serving in the Navy.  Carter was not a lawyer.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won and was re-elected in 1984.  Reagan had been governor of California previous to running for president.  He was thought of as a weak candidate because of his actor back ground.   In 1988 George Bush won the presidency after being Reagan’s vice president for eight years.  He only served one term.  Bush 41 was probably the best qualified candidate in modern times having been a successful business man in Texas before serving in the congress, as an ambassador and as director of the CIA.  Neither Reagan or Bush 41 were lawyers.

In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected as governor of Arkansas.  Other than being a lawyer by trade he spent his whole working life as an elected official in Arkansas.  Clinton served two terms.  Where Nixon resigned before he was impeached, Clinton stuck it out through the impeachment process but was not removed from office by the senate.

In 2000, George W Bush won the presidency as the governor of Texas.  He served two terms.  He spent eight years as governor of Texas but previous to that was an OIL MAN in the state. Bush 43 was not a lawyer.

In 2008, Barack Obama won a hard-fought battle to be the democrat nominee over Hillary Clinton then defeated John McCain for the presidency.  Obama was a lawyer by trade whose work history described him as a neighborhood organizer.  Other than that, he had never held a job until being elected to the Illinois State legislature.  He was a first term Senator when he ran for president.

In 2016 businessman and political rookie Donald Trump defeated sixteen primary rivals and the vaunted Hillary Clinton to be president.  He came directly to the highest office in the land from the business world.  It wasn’t the first time in our country’s history that it happened, but in the modern era it was unheard of.  More often than not, the candidates have been lawyers by trade.  In my mind that is not a recommendation.  Of the winners of the office in this review all but Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and Trump were lawyers.  Is it any wonder our country is in the dire straits with so many lawyers in charge?  Of the non-lawyers, all were Republicans except Carter.

So, in review, voters in America have been fed lawyers with little or no management experience running anything in the private sector to manage the largest enterprise in the world and we’re surprised it hasn’t thrived?

The success of a president is frequently impacted by the level of cooperation with the congress.  If you have a president with a congress of the same party the outcome can be impressive because of the compatible ideology.  A president with a split congress will be somewhat less successful because of the compromise required to work with the opposition party.  The hardest time a president will have if the congress is wholly of the opposition party.  That is hell in the world of politics.

Gauging the success of presidents needs to be viewed in the context of the congresses they worked with. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be successful if the congress is with you.  It takes a master deal maker to accomplish anything if the congress is opposite.  From a nuance perspective, the size of the political majority is also a factor.

If Trump is the deal maker he tells us he is, the next two years will be his biggest test.  The clinker might be the determination of the opposition to prove him to be a loud-mouthed blow hard.  Sadly, Trump’s style will not serve him when he in forced to work with people he has insulted time and time again.  That might be a teaching moment for Trump.  Insulting your rivals might bite you in the ass down the road.

Now moving forward to the looming campaign of 2020, the Democrats are jockeying for the run.  It’s interesting to note the number of first term senators (like Obama) who view the time being right for another lawyer to run the country.  It appears that lawyers will be the most numerous in the field this cycle as well.

Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and now Amy Klobuchar all lawyers, all career politicians.  None of them have experience running a business or managing an organization larger than a campaign.

Bernie Sanders is a career politician but is not a lawyer.  Interestingly, the Democrats allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat when he competed against Hillary Clinton even though he does not belong to the Democrat Party.  It will be interesting in the next cycle to see if they allow an unaffiliated candidate to participate.  Howard Schultz is thinking about running as an independent even though he has always identified as a democrat.  How can Sanders run as a D if he’s never identified with the party?

I have to concede that Abe Lincoln was a lawyer, so I’m not completely turned off by them but the reason our country is in the difficulty we are is largely due to lawyers and insurance companies.  And yet, we keep regurgitating lawyers as candidates.

Donald Trump has demonstrated that a guy with good business instincts can do good work leading the country so I don’t think we should eliminate business people from consideration.  As a side consideration, for a business guy, being president calls for a cut in pay.  For career politicians, election to the presidency is a step up in status and pay.  It might be worthwhile to develop a cultivation program for business people as candidates so they can bring that experience to the job.

Finally, what we’ve learned from Trump is that our president does need a bedside manner.  Our president needs to be the hard ass in private while being civil in public.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »

March 26, 2018

Fund the Carnegie at the expense of What?

by Steve Dana

Like most of you, I read the article in the Everett Herald about the county’s plan to build the much down-sized court house remodel. I’m happy for the court house workers that they are getting updated facilities they need so badly.

This example in Everett of elected officials recognizing the error of spending $172 million for the original plan and scuttling the deal even though they had already spent millions up to that point can serve us as we look at the Snohomish Carnegie Library project. Snohomish needs to make sure that spending $4-5 million dollars on the old Carnegie is the best use of our limited public funds.

The county council pulled the plug on the project because it was too expensive. What makes their case different from ours is the fact that the project they killed actually served the people working on the county government campus. The common sense elected officials concluded that spending an extra hundred million didn’t make any sense. Even in the face of a critical need.

So, I come back to the decision-making process in Snohomish regarding the Carnegie Library project. There’s no question that there are strong feelings about restoring the old building, but aside from historical aspects, the building will neither serve a constructive purpose in our little town nor fill a critical need. The spending of the public money will be for a vanity project that does not serve a single identified deficiency or person in our town.

I applaud the county council for recognizing the poor judgment of squandering that money when a more sensible alternative was available. I hope elected officials in all our communities vet big budget projects before they get so far into them that they cannot pull out.

I would hope that before we agree to commit public funds to a project, that project must serve a public need first and second the cost must be reasonable in the context of our total budget. One way to fund controversial projects is to put them up for a public vote. If the citizens want to take on bonded debt to pay for the project, then a public vote would confirm that. I would be in favor of that method of funding the Carnegie.  Then voters would agree to tax themselves to pay for the project.

All of our communities struggle with their own challenges in meeting the needs of their citizens. Both Lake Stevens and Arlington are living with working libraries that are grossly inadequate for their communities but like our city did, they are doing their fiscal analysis and hopefully concluding that the need justifies the cost. When we built our new library, it made sense because we determined the need justified the expenditure.

Now looking at the old Carnegie building, I see a building that has no functional purpose in our city. At the same time, our finance department is advising us that revenues coming into the city coffers are trending downward and how we must be cautious with our commitments looking out into the future.

The funding source for the Carnegie Library is Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies. This money is earmarked for certain kinds of projects; one of which could be restoration of the Carnegie. So technically, it qualifies. But the larger question that should be answered first is “What other projects might this money be used for that actually serve the needs of our city and citizens?”

I would hope the Snohomish City Council would do a thorough budget analysis regarding our REET funds to insure that committing millions to one project won’t handicap us in other parts of the city where there is an actual need.

Posted in Economic Development, Political commentary, Snohomish City Government | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
January 4, 2017

Build American, Employ Americans, Buy American

by Steve Dana

I can remember a couple years ago when the Boeing Company was planning the 787 Dreamliner program and where to build the airplane.  There was mega competition between our state and a bunch of others.  I remember a half dozen state representatives from various states making a case for Boeing building the factory there.  Attracting Boeing jobs to their states and the economy created by those jobs is the thing we want for our whole country moving forward with the Trump administration.

The state of Washington was eager to throw in the kitchen sink to keep jobs here while South Carolina made a similar offer and was rewarded with an assembly plant.

Don’t tell me that every manufacturing company in and out of the US isn’t playing that same game.  Who is willing to give up the farm for the jobs our company brings when we choose your state or country.

If our government adopts regulatory policies, tax policies and trade policies that encourage businesses to move jobs out of the country, can we be too surprised when they do move to Mexico, China or Viet Nam?

When the goal of our elected officials is to tear down our country in order to build up foreign economies it all makes sense.  The New World Order folks are determined to level the playing field and it will happen at the expense of Americans and America.  For me, whatever we do needs to consider American interests first, period.

The two sectors of the economy growing in our country are Service and Public Employees.  Since we need a robust service sector to take care of us this group cannot be outsourced. We are making it really easy for immigrants (illegal or legal) to get jobs in the service sector. The problem is that they are the lowest paid sector and only insures that the workers remain poor.

The health care industry is one of the fastest growing service sector components, it does include workers in upper income areas, but since it’s closely tied to insurance companies, it isn’t really a free market industry.  Consider how many doctors are retiring because of the government and insurance company restraints.  Health care is a growth industry, but because of the regulation and insurance it’s not as much a profit center it once was.

The Public Employees range from Police and Fire Fighters, to city, county and state public works employees, transportation workers and many social service agencies.  Federal agencies also employ millions of Americans.  The good news for these employees is the pay tends to be higher than service sector jobs.  The bad news is public employees work for a non-producing segment of the economy.  Public agencies rely on the private sector economy to produce the revenues that feed the growth of government agencies.  Can you think of any government worker that is paid the minimum wage?

The bottom line is we need a very robust tech segment coupled with a robust manufacturing segment to create the jobs required to have a growing, producing economy that will produce tax revenues to feed government’s needs.  The role of government is to be good stewards of the public funds but since they didn’t have to work or sacrifice to make that money, it is often squandered.

The key is not the government, but the private sector businesses that produce the products and services and jobs that make up a healthy economy.

How could NAFTA or any other international trade agreement that encourages American businesses to move their facilities out of the country be good for Americans?

It used to be that there were American companies and foreign companies.  Now companies are international or not affiliated with a country; they are looking out for their share-holders first, second, third and last.  Privately held American companies are an exception but they represent a small percentage of businesses and a large number of employees.

If we want to grow the American economy, we need to create incentives to retain businesses and jobs here like we did with Boeing while we consider appropriate penalties for companies that move their jobs off shore but want to sell their goods here in America.

The answers are not simple, but since the companies don’t have allegiance to America first then I’m not as likely to cut them slack if their decisions exploit our economy but don’t enhance it.

If Americans believe that they will get a fair shake from any international government or company, they are nuts.  We need to fight for our economy even if it means some consumer goods are more expensive.  Build American, Employ Americans, Buy American.

Posted in Economic Development, Federal Government, Political commentary, Washington Jobs | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
November 11, 2016

YOUR’RE FIRED is still in play!

by Steve Dana

Now that the election is over, it’s time to get to work.  For the new administration, a legislative agenda would be helpful.  For each cabinet position where a new appointee will take over, a preliminary legislative plan needs to be developed in coordination with the corresponding House and Senate committee chairs.  Whoever is managing the ObamaCare replacement needs to be working simultaneously with other folks working on defense and veterans affairs, EPA regulatory burdens, the IRS Tax Code, immigration, trade policy and all the other government issues holding back our economy.

Each of the Committee Chairs in the Congress needs to be working with the new administration to propose and draft legislation then hold hearings that can move toward adoption one after the other.  Negotiating a preliminary framework for target legislation in the weeks prior to the inauguration should be a job for a guy like Newt Gingrich who already has a history with the Contract with America. Newt and Mike Pence should be able to work together to make it happen.

For years these electeds have been sitting on their butts doing nothing.  Now it’s time for them to start working positively FOR something.

Striking while the iron is hot is key.  Call the Republican leaders together and get them working on something positive; keep their feet to the fire and get something done.  It will be a good test of whether leadership in the Congress is serious about moving the rock or just jacking their jaws.  I suspect that Mitch McConnell might have another agenda, but we will see.

President-Elect (PE) Trump comes to the Presidency from the private business sector so he should be able to recruit executives from very successful businesses to facilitate some of the leadership tasks.  One of the things we’ve learned over the years is that when your President calls and asks you to set aside your personal agenda to serve your country, you need to give it serious consideration. Historically, politicians have turned to business round-tables for input.  We have an enormous pool of talent in our country waiting to be tapped into.  This is a good opportunity to bring folks in from key disciplines to offer suggestions.  A SHARK TANK for government.

If our government is operating properly, then the environment for business is invigorated.  Business leaders should be able to identify specific ways to reduce governmental burdens while protecting consumers from unscrupulous businesses.

Finally, whoever is chosen to lead our Defense Department and State Department need to strap on their vests and sidearms and develop a preliminary plan to take the reins and send the message around the world that America will not be intimidated or disrespected.

This is an aggressive plan for PE Trump that calls for him to demonstrate his business management skills including delegation of responsibilities.  It will be a test of the appointees.  Ironically, it may be another chance for Trump to invoke his most famous line; “You’re Fired” for folks who are not up to the task.

Posted in Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »