Ranking The Presidents

In honor of President's Day, I thought I would rank the country's Presidents. Not all of them, but the ones we have had in my lifetime. I was born in 1966, and this country has had nine Presidents in that time.

Now, in all fairness I should explain my biases so that you can see why I ranked the Presidents as I did. I vote for Presidential candidates based on economic policies such as tax policy, fiscal policy, trade policy and how that shapes the candidates view of the government's role in our lives. I also take into account leadership qualities, and the overall sense of confidence the candidate inspires. My own biases are towards free markets and free trade, lower taxes, and reasonable regulation which keeps the government from being overly intrusive in our daily lives. I really pay very little attention to more social issues such as the environment, abortion, gay marriage, etc.. I realize that some people consider social issues to be more important, but they are secondary considerations for me.

So, without further delay, here is my list, from worst to first:

9. Barack Obama

8. George W. Bush, Jr.

7. Richard Nixon

6. Gerald Ford

5. Jimmy Carter

4. George H W Bush, Sr.

3. Lyndon Johnson

2. Bill Clinton

1. Ronald Reagan

As I look at this list, the only ones I would truly label as "good" or better are Reagan and Clinton. I give Reagan the nod because his tax policies, I believe, had a lot to do with the economic expansion that lasted through the Clinton years, too. Plus, Clinton did push for changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that mandated higher levels of subprime home lending by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Reagan truly changed the paradigm of political discourse in this country. He told us that the government wasn't the solution to the problem, but that government was the problem. For that time, he was right. He got two major tax cut bills passed through a Democratic House and Republican Senate. He stared down the Soviet Union, yet also struck a genuine friendship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The two signed the only treaty that actually pledged to reduce nuclear weapons. Most of all, his economic policies led to a 92 month economic recovery and expansion that created 19 million jobs. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild union and Governor of California.



Bill Clinton also presided over a large economic expansion, led by the technology and financial sectors. The economy created 23 million new jobs during his time in office. Whereas President Reagan sought to unleash the private sector, President Clinton was more about public/private partnerships to create jobs. During President Clinton's time in office, the federal budget was balanced, and upon leaving office, the federal budget was actually in surplus thanks to economic growth and limited growth in government spending. Clinton was also surrounded by the smartest economic team of our time, with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin being perhaps the best of all time in that position. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan could do no wrong during this time. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Clinton was the Attorney General in Arkansas and Governor of Arkansas.

Among the other Presidents, Lyndon Johnson gets high marks for signing landmark Civil Rights legislation into law in 1964. Johnson readily conceded that he was handing the South to Republicans for a generation, but still did the right thing. However, his handling of the Vietnam War leaves plenty of room for heavy criticism. To be fair, Johnson was following US policy of containment, so there was no perceived need to "win" the war. Without any clear objective, besides killing the enemy, it was inevitable that US would not win the war, and ultimately left South Vietnam at the mercy of the communist forces from North Vietnam. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President of the United States.

George H W Bush deserves high marks for prosecuting Operation Desert Storm, and for creating the RTC to handle the savings and loan crisis. The way that Bush handled the first Iraq War was far different than the way his son handled the second Iraq War. Bush, Sr. garnered worldwide support for the operation, he had a clear mission and a clear exit strategy. I also mention the RTC because Bush, Sr. was hammered by conservatives for this move, but the RTC did clean up the mess and helped save the banking system. This move is a highly under-appreciated move that really helped the economy grow in the 1990's. But Bush did not tend to economic policy as the economy sank into a recession. He also signed a disastrous tax hike into law just as the economy was entering a recession. Really a sad ending to a long and distinguished public service career that included stints as a member of the US House of Representatives, Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Vice President.

Jimmy Carter gets high marks for brokering a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and for appointing Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, Carter's term as President was marred by high inflation, led by high energy prices, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter appeared weak when confronted with these crises. He responded to high energy prices with more regulation and a speech in which he stated that a "general malaise" had fallen over the land. With the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter deserves credit for getting all the hostages home alive, but his lack of leadership led to an embarrassing crisis for the United States and let the crisis escalate to what it did finally become. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Carter ran his family's peanut farm and was Governor of Georgia.

Gerald Ford actually gets an incomplete with a term that lasted about 2 1/2 years. His one notable act was pardoning Richard Nixon and as he put it, "ending our long national nightmare." Richard Nixon deserves credit for achieving detente with the Soviets, going to China and opening the way for diplomatic relations, and for getting us peacefully out of Vietnam (if there was any way to get out peacefully). However, his main character flaw (paranoia), led to the largest abuse of power in this nation's history. A bungled break-in at the Watergate complex was ultimately found to be a cover-up that went all the way to the White House. It came to be defined by Sen. Howard Baker's question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?". In addition, Nixon's economic policies were a diaster that ultimately led to the high inflation that we saw in the late 70's. In addition, his Administration saw the creation of the EPA, and OSHA, which greatly expanded the government's role in our daily lives. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Nixon was a practicing attorney, US Senator, and Vice President of the United States.

On Sept 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed the goodwill of the entire civilized world. George W Bush blew through all of it. He responded to the terrorist attacks by fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, with very little worldwide support. He deserves credit for recognizing that we were in a war. But he failed miserably to get the support he needed to fight terrorism. The economy also performed weakly as his 2001 tax cut produced very little, if any, additional economic activity. His "tax rebates" were clearly a gimmick and people saw it as such. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Bush was the CEO of an oil company in Texas, the head of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the governor of Texas.

Barack Obama was saddled with worst economy in several generations when he came into office. Strangely enough, he barely addressed economic concerns, pushing for a poorly designed stimulus bill, then focusing on other issues. He came into office as the least qualified of all the previous people mentioned in this list, and it shows. He shows very little command of basic economics, does not appear to share the concerns of his citizens, and shows little, if any, leadership ability. He is surrounded by a weak economic team (Geitner is the worst Treasury Sec I have seen), which hasn't helped anything. Hence, unemployment stayed above 9% for 28 months in a 30 month stretch, while his focus was on social issues, and "fairness", neither of which was creating any jobs. The economy is showing signs of coming back, which may help him win re-election.

So there is my list and my reasoning. Feel free to agree or disagree as you wish, just be respectful about it.

Give Me Old Fashioned Rivalries

Kansas vs. Missouri. I have loved this rivalry and tonight's game promises to be a good one, with #8 Kansas visiting #4 Missouri. I was born and raised in a family of Jayhawks, so I will be rooting for Kansas. Sadly, this will be the last time the two teams play in Columbia, with Missouri jumping to the Southeastern Conference. To put it mildly, conference realignment sucks. The past few months have seen a lot of big names jump conferences, with Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC, Texas A&M and Missouri going to the SEC, and West Virginia and TCU going to the Big 12.

The conference realignment has also seen the destruction of three historic rivalries: Texas-Texas A&M, Kansas-Missouri, Pitt-West Virginia. My question is this: how does that make college athletics better? It doesn't. It will make college athletics worse. Much worse, I'm afraid. One of the great things about college athletics are the long rivalries, with all the fan hostility, the pranks, one-upmanship of it all. Within college athletics, almost all the great rivalries fall within the confines of conference match ups. Michigan-Ohio State, Auburn-Alabama, Duke-North Carolina are among the biggest, but many rivalries are more regional or local in nature. It could be Arizona-Arizona State, Mississippi-Mississippi State, or Kansas-Kansas State. Each of these rivalries are extra special because of the added meaning of a conference game. While I do appreciate Missouri's desire to continue playing Kansas, I believe Kansas did the right thing in saying no. This kind of a rivalry game belongs within the confines of a conference match up. A non-conference basketball game in December would never carry the same significance as tonight's game. And that will be missed.

Ten years from now, Kansas and Missouri will be tuned out from each other. So will Texas-Texas A&M. This is so sad. There will be no rivalry, the students will have no appreciation for what once was. Kansas will still have K-State, Texas will still have Oklahoma. Texas A&M does have a long history with Arkansas, and some history with LSU. But that's what will replace its rivalry with Texas? Not even close. And what about Missouri? There is nothing in the SEC that will even remotely begin to replace their rivalry with Kansas. It will be as if a piece of each school's heart has been cut out. No one wins in this scenario.

So I will savor tonight's game. Next year college athletics will feel much emptier without the big rivalry games. Conference realignment sucks, and it will not make college sports better. College athletics will have lost a bit of its soul, and lost a bit of what truly makes it special and so fun to watch. A few more moves like this and college sports will have all the uniqueness of a Pacers-Nuggets game (or was that Suns vs. Bobcats?).

P.S. Rock Chalk Jayhawk, KU!

Why I Am A Dick Vitale Fan

I like Dick Vitale. I know many do not like him. He's loud. He's obnoxious. He's pro-Duke, pro Coach K. He's bald (that's not really so bad!). What I saw Monday night in Lawrence, prior to the Baylor-Kansas game was amazing. I am talking about the stuff that did not happen on camera.

Monday night, the old man really "worked the room". He would say hello to everyone who said hi. Took pictures with all kinds of people, signed lots of autographs. The only thing that stopped him was arena security that was worried about people being able to pass through the aisle. He hammed it up with the students. And he did it all with a smile. I saw a man who truly loved being there. He was not there just to do a job. Mr. Vitale is in his 70's. Yet he brings the enthusiasm of teenager to his job. I am sure he's seen it all before. You would think this is routine for him, just another night, another arena, another job, another game to get through, then onto the next game, the next arena. I saw a kid at heart, like someone who was seeing his first game ever at historic Allen Fieldhouse.

Dick Vitale put ESPN on the map. Not just the college basketball map. The map. He gave ESPN a presence in college basketball, long before ESPN ever broadcast NFL games, major league baseball games, college football games, long before ESPN had any star personalities. The man simply put ESPN in the "majors" through his sheer force of personality. He's earned his accolades. He can rest on his laurels. But he does not. I can only hope I bring the same enthusiasm to life and to my job when I am his age. The world will be a much better place if we all did that.

I know there is plenty to criticize about Dick Vitale. But I am a fan.

Looking Ahead to 2012

Happy New Year everyone! If the ancient Mayan calendar is to be believed, this will be the last year any of us ever hear that greeting again. However, between now and then, many interesting things will happen, and here are a few of them:

1. The world really won't end on December 21, 2012. Actually, I don't know that for sure. My best source on this subject says the day and hour is unknown.

2. Barack Obama will win re-election. The 2012 Presidential election should be a layup for the Republicans. Instead, the Republicans are turning the layup into a desperation heave. Look for someone to draft a "Reagan For President" campaign. However, when it is discovered that he read mainstream media publications and negotiated with Democrats, extreme conservatives will deem him too liberal and refuse to vote for him. The fact that he is dead will never be a factor in any of this.

3. Folks in Louisiana will be celebrating their two favorite football teams in January and February. LSU will beat Alabama to win the BCS Championship game, and the Saints will defeat the Steelers to win the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, Chiefs GM Scott Pioli will determine that the Chiefs biggest need in the draft is for a backup punter. And in keeping with the "Patriots Way" he hires New England's water boy to be the Chiefs' new head coach.

4. In other sports predictions, the Miami Heat will win the NBA Championship, North Carolina will win the NCAA Championship, and the Lady Baylor Bears will win the women's NCAA Championship! President Obama will pick Kansas to win the tournament in his bracket, and when the Jayhawks are eliminated, he will blame George W Bush for his failure.

5. The economy will sputter along, with GDP growing 2% in 2012. Unemployment will inch down to 8.6%, and the S&P 500 will advance 14%. Interest rates will remain stable in the US. Nancy Pelosi will once again say unemployment checks will grow the economy.

6. As usual, I will likely be clueless on pop culture, but my girlfriend will put forth her best effort to make sure I keep up. My kids will continue to believe I'm a dork and an old man, but there will be still be plenty of times they think I'm cool.

7. My son Brent will shoot at least one round of golf in the 70's in 2012. For 18 holes. I can also shoot in the 70's but there are still 5 holes left when I do.

8. I will win at least one $100 million lottery in 2012. I will use the money to buy a spectacularly lavish house with a pool, and will live a life of splendor and luxury. Ahhhhhh, the good life...wait, is that my alarm clock going off? Is it time to get up? Was that a dream??? Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

9. I will write "2011" as the year on my checks for at least a month....wait, does anyone write checks anymore??

10. I will get married! (Pause...sound of girlfriend hitting the floor after fainting). Actually, this is my idea of a running joke. Someday the joke will be on me, and strange thing is, I might actually be happy about it.

Most of all, to my friends and my family and those I love: Happy 2012! May your year be filled with prosperity, health, laughter, unbridled joy, and love.

Back To Work

"Government must do all that is necessary, but no more than is necessary" Ronald Reagan, 1984 Republican National Convention

The title of this post is also the title of former President Bill Clinton's latest book. Since I am fascinated by the marriage of government and private sector economics (which makes me a first rate nerd), I thought this would make an interesting read. At the beginning of the book, the former President asks the right questions, primarily, "How do we propose to restore the American Dream at home?"(Ch. 1, p.3). I really love the bigger question that goes with it: "How do we get back in the future business?" What I most liked about this book is Mr. Clinton's focus on ideas that would actually create jobs, something sorely lacking in either political party these days. Mr. Clinton is particularly enthralled with the idea of public/private partnerships that he claims could create many jobs. Mr. Clinton does spend plenty of time in his book on partisan political jabs, but if you can read through that jibberish, he presents some solid ideas. However, my own biases would be more reflective of President Reagan's quote above, and would temper Mr. Clinton's enthusiasm for more government.

I want to focus on three areas that Mr. Clinton addresses that I believe are good ideas: cleaning up the mortgage mess, transforming the energy industry, and trade. His first idea for getting back in the future business is to clean up the mortgage mess. I could not agree more. The housing industry is essentially stagnant right now because up to 25% of homeowners are underwater on their mortgages, many more are behind on their mortgages, and many others are either foreclosed or about to be foreclosed. Government agencies and GSE's should allow principal writedowns for those mortgages underwater. In normal economic times, I would disagree, but these are not normal economic times. Right now, a perfect storm exists that is slowing housing turnover to a crawl, is greatly suppressing new housing, all of which will result in lower housing values for us all. Of course, this will cost a lot of money (although Mr. Clinton says it will not). In the end, it may create more money than it costs through interest savings to consumers, a return to normal housing market activity which will help boost home values.

Mr. Clinton spends a lot of time on energy policy in this book. I completely agree with the idea of building a "smart grid" that will provide electricity more efficiently through the energy spectrum. He also advocates tax incentives to finance building retrofits so that older building can become more energy efficient. This would create jobs and help us become more energy efficeint. He also spends time talking about how the Pentagon could save millions on energy, and they will need to with inevitable budget cuts coming as we wind down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton also makes known his love of solar panels, windmills and other forms of "green" energy. I am also favorably inclined to green energy. I see fossil fuels as a sunset industry. However, green energy is also far from price parity with fossil fuels. Until green energy can come close to price parity, and harness energy much more efficiently, it really is not a viable alternative.

Finally, Mr. Clinton spends a great deal of time on trade. He rightly identifies the need to increase exports. But he goes much deeper than this. He calls for tax incentives to repatriate money back to the US from multinational corporations headquartered in the US. If corporations would invest money here, they would create jobs here. He also believes that enforcing trade agreements would create jobs, but points out that it is tough to enforce trade agreements with China and Japan when they are our national bankers. At the same time, we are their biggest customers, so maybe it is in their interest to live by trade agreements.

I like that Mr. Clinton has some good and thoughtful ideas. I believe that he is an underrated President, particularly given what has followed, with both Bush, Jr. and Obama. However, three criticisms of Mr. Clinton's ideas, and they relate to his partisan jabs. He is highly critical of President Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980's. Here, Mr. Clinton is not connecting all the dots, in my opinion. Mr. Reagan's tax cuts flooded the venture capital industry with money, much of which was spent on new tech start ups. I believe this helped fuel the tech boom of the 1990's that benefitted our economy greatly during Mr. Clinton's term in office. Of course, the whole "Y2K" computer conversion helped, too. I also believe that he is overlooking fossil fuels. I believe a strategy of drill now has to be a part of our overall energy production. Oil drilling creates many high paying jobs, and reduces our dependence on imported oil, much of which comes from countries that wish to do us harm. Finally, Mr. Clinton overlooks his role in the mortgage crisis that hit in the 2007-2008 time frame. In 1994, Mr. Clinton proposed amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act that mandated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase purchases of subprime mortgage securities.

I would recommend this book for those interested in the partnership/conflict between the government sector and the private sector. Overall, this is an interesting read for those who are interested in real solutions to the unemployment crisis in the US. Political bickering on both sides is not getting anything done. Both parties are "do nothings". I do not agree with all of Mr. Clinton's ideas, but he proposes some solid solutions, and he understands that the private sector has a critical role to play. I applaud his effort to look for solutions rather than just exlusively bash those with whom he disagrees. I do not agree with the idea that the government must always be at the center of every solution. As I referenced up top, the government must do what is necessary, but no more than that.

Finding The Extraordinary in Unexpected Places

Tonight, I went to the KU basketball game, and I sat next to Al Kelley, as I have done several times in the past. So, who's Al Kelley? Today, Mr. Kelley is an 80-year-old man. He's a little gaunt, a little frail, and walks a little slow. And he is still, after all these years, endlessly entertained by a basketball game. He's a first class gentleman, and has always been so friendly to me. Very pleasant to talk with. You would think that Mr. Kelley was one of those guys who wished he could have played ball with all the popular kids on the playground. Mr. Kelley is also in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. Today, you would never know it. He does not talk about it. Never brags about how good he was back in the day. Mr. Kelley played on the Kansas team that won the 1952 NCAA Championship under Coach Phog Allen. He was also on the 1953 NCAA Runner-Up team at Kansas. Mr. Kelley was a first team all conference player in 1953 and 1954 at KU. He is in the Naismith Hall of Fame as part of the 1960 U.S. Olympic team that won the gold medal, a team that included Jerry West and Oscar Robertson. KU is justifiably proud of its winning tradition in men's basketball. It was built by players like Chamberlain, Manning, Lovellette, Collison, Valentine, JoJo White, and so many others that are too numerous to count. It was built by coaches like Phog Allen, Larry Brown, Roy Williams, Ted Owens and Bill Self. And it was built by guys like Al Kelley, if you take the time to find it all out. They say there are no heroes anymore, and this past week we have been tragically reminded of this. Maybe we just need to look a little deeper.

The Great Awakening

There is something going on. That is what I know. I do not know exactly what it is, but something strange, and perhaps not so wonderful is going on in the U.S. The environment in this country is ripe for revolution. The United States appears to be a powder keg ready to explode right now.

Commentaries on the Occupy Wall Street protests (and the Tea Party for that matter) are missing something. One side mocks the Occupy Wall Street protestors, one side glorifies them. The reverse is true of the Tea Party. Yet there is something bigger going on that such small analysis misses. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are protesting different sides of the same coin. OWS is protesting the "1 percent", those who have gotten fat from Big Business. The Tea Party is protesting Big Government. I believe that Big Business, Big Government, Big Labor, and to a large extent, Big Media have been in an unholy alliance of greed and hubris. Finally, the excess greed is catching up to all of them.

Executive compensation has been out of touch with reality for the better part of the last twenty years. There seems to be very little accountability on the part of corporate boards of directors to reign in executive compensation, even during this difficult economic period. This is especially true on Wall Street, where taxpayers were called upon to bail out bank after bank that took The System down. Within two years of the bailouts, Wall Street securities firms were posting record profits and handing out bonuses deemed obscene by many who were struggling to find work or make ends meet. Their tax dollars went to line the pockets of the fat cats in the most unholy of alliances between government and business. So the "1%" live as high as ever on the hog while the rest of us fight for scraps. Is it any wonder that this type of largess has drawn protests?

Now, do not misunderstand me. I do believe that executives should earn more than entry level, clerical type workers. I applaud those who risk their capital and earn a fair profit. And if consumers are willing to pay premium prices for certain products (i.e. Apple products), then God bless that company. And I do not mind an executive has earned a large compensation, including bonuses. But too often, executive compensation is disconnected from reality. Executives too often have been paid fat bonuses in the face of declining sales and declining profits (or even losses). It is easy for the masses to become disillusioned when the company's fortunes are declining, workers are being asked to take pay cuts or are laid off, and the executives are earning ever higher amounts of money.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party protests a government that has clearly grown too big. The government is now running $1.5 trillion annual budget deficits and has a national debt equal to our annual GDP. Until the Tea Party came along there was no action by either party in Washington to do anything about it, other than kick it down the road. The Tea Party to its credit understands that there is a fundamental entitlement mentality among the politicians in Washington that is bankrupting our country. Yet until they awoke the politicians, they were all for living off the fat of taxpayer money, being completely oblivious to taxpayer anger over irresponsible spending. Is it any wonder CNBC commentator Rick Santelli ranted on TV and got the Tea Party started. If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else.

With the $1.5 trillion budget deficits projected as far as the eye can see, interest expense to service the debt will become an ever larger piece of the federal government's budget. Even with record low interest rates, this component is one of the largest parts of the budget. What happens if short-term interest rates go to 3%? Interest expense will explode and we will be looking at the budget deficit increasing by hundreds of millions of dollars each year simply due to a movement in interest rates. On top of that, the latest CBO estimate is that the new health care law will increase the budget deficit by $540 billion in the first 10 years of the law's existence. Remember when we were told that it would cut the deficit by $138 billion during the first ten years? Not going to happen. Remember all the back room deals made to pass the bill? Is it any wonder that people rose up and protested a government that was too big and too arrogant?

What this all amounts to is a Great Awakening by ordinary citizens of this country. The politicians either ignore or mock the protestors at their own peril. The Tea Party needs to understand that in the end, the OWS crowd is their friend and vice versa. If the 1% and the government are truly responsive to the protestors, then we will wind up with a more accountable Corporate America which will help facilitate a more limited government. If Big Government and Big Business take on a "let them eat cake" mentality (which both seem to be carrying at the moment), then this thing will end very very badly. Revolutions never end well for those in power, and right now, those in power are sitting on a powder keg that is ready to explode.