In Defense of Roy Williams

This comment may draw the ire of many Kansas Jayhawk basketball fans, but I will say it anyway: I am a Roy Williams fan. Now, the vast majority of KU fans have moved on, and retain fond memories of Mr. Williams's time at KU. Sadly, there are still a sizable minority that have not forgiven Williams for leaving. How sad. I am thankful for all the wonderful things he did for the KU program. KU would not have near the program it has today were it not for Roy Williams. For that, KU fans should be grateful and should honor Mr. Williams accordingly.

My gratitude to Mr. Williams dates back to October 31, 1988, before he ever coached a game for KU. That was the day the NCAA leveled sanctions against the KU program for violations that occured during Larry Brown's tenure. KU was prohibited from defending its 1988 NCAA Championship, having a post-season ban placed on it. However, that was not the worst penalty. The NCAA also leveled the KU program by prohibiting the university from hosting on campus recruiting visits for the entire 1989 calendar year. The NCAA designed these penalties to cripple the KU program for at least 5 years. In other words, it would be a long time before KU would contend for the national championship, right? Wrong, thanks to Mr. Williams, and a little bit of luck.

KU entered the 1988-89 season with just 9 eligible scholarship players, so the recruiting restrictions were particularly harsh at a time when KU needed players. But Mr. Williams refused to feel sorry for himself or for the KU program. He vowed that KU would win under his guidance and that they would win the right way. Now, it needs to be remembered that his hiring was not universally welcome at KU. Many KU boosters thought that the Jayhawks, as defending national champions, could hire a big time coach to come in and continue the winning ways re-established by Larry Brown. Hiring the #2 assistant coach off the North Carolina staff was not what the KU faithful had in mind. More than a few KU boosters complained that the Jayhawks went from having the best coach in the country to having the third best in the state of Kansas. KU wound up the 1988-89 season with a 19-12 record, going 6-8 in the Big 8 Conference.

Predictably, after the NCAA sanctions were announced, Williams's first recruiting class fell apart. Thomas Hill changed his mind and went to Duke. Harold Miner changed his mind and went to USC. Only Adonis Jordan kept his commitment to KU (thank you Adonis!). Coach Williams did sign Terry Brown and Pekka Markannen in the spring 1989 class. Then, for the fall 1989 recruiting season, Williams did find some luck. Kansas City and Wichita were both loaded with talent. Kansas City had Jevon Crudup (who went to Missouri), Chris Lindley and Patrick Richey (who both went to KU) while Wichita had Cortez Barnes and Steve Woodbury (who both signed with KU). Williams also signed a power forward from Little Rock named Richard Scott who never saw the KU campus before signing. In a bit of bad luck, Barnes did not qualify academically and Lindley lost a foot in a train accident; neither ever played a game at KU.

So what happened over the next four years, in which the NCAA had targeted the KU program for erosion? KU won 113 games, three Big 8 championships, went 43-13 overall in Big 8 Conference games and went to two Final Fours! Williams would go on to win 418 games, 9 conference championships and appear in four Final Fours, finishing runner-up twice. Only Phog Allen himself has hung more banners in Allen Fieldhouse than Williams. But in those moments, in those days after KU was sanctioned by the NCAA, Williams saved the KU program from inevitable decline, and in fact enhanced the program. That took a lot of doing, and for what he did during that time KU fans should be forever grateful.

But KU fans turned on Williams after he left. Of course, some of the hurt is natural when someone of such public importance leaves. He told the world that he couldn't turn down Coach Smith twice. But think about this. In 2000, he stayed. Dr. Bob Frederick was still KU's Athletic Director, the man who took a chance and hired Williams in 1988. Williams always maintained his loyalty to Frederick, and by extension to KU. In 2001, Frederick was forced out, and KU hired Al Bohl to replace him. Williams did not get along with Bohl. Ultimately, KU fired Bohl in a last ditch effort to keep Williams. At that point the KU athletic department was a great big circus. If you found yourself working for a person you could not stand, and a longtime friend came calling with a job offer, wouldn't you look hard at taking the new job? That's where Williams was in April 2003. And if my employer was a circus, I would look for exits fast! When long time friend Dick Baddour (North Carolina's AD) came with an offer of more money, a bigger basketball budget a great deal of stability and the opportunity to return home, Williams would have been a fool to say no

Meanwhile, KU was damn lucky to get Bill Self. After KU fired Al Bohl, former Kansas City Power & Light CEO Drue Jennings was hired as the interim AD. How many of you would take a job not knowing who your boss would be? Yet Bill Self took the KU job not knowing who his boss at KU would be. Self also had the pieces in place at Illinois, the nucleus of a team that would eventually be the national runner-up in 2005 (ironically to Roy Williams's North Carolina team).

So why do KU fans still carry a grudge against Williams? This is obviously insulting to Williams, but also insulting to the KU basketball program and to man who succeeded Williams, Bill Self. For to carry the grudge means that you believe the KU program suffered, and is still suffering, because Williams departed. In fact, KU has won 8 consecutive Big 12 Conference championships, and an NCAA Tournament championship since Williams left. I also find it interesting that when KU met North Carolina in the 2008 Final Four, Williams's former KU players were all Jayhawks that day. I believe this is testament to the character of Williams that instilled a sense of loyalty to the institution in his players. The loyalty was not to Roy Williams, but to KU.

On a more personal level, Mr. Williams may have saved my Dad's life. In 1999, after my Dad retired, my Dad and his wife thought it would be fun to take road trips to watch KU play basketball games in other conference venues. Coach Williams gave my Dad some time and they discussed the various venues in the Big 12. For the record, Williams's favorite road venue was Oklahoma State, but he did also strongly advise my Dad to never see a KU game at Missouri. Williams just flat out told my Dad that he would be taking his life into his own hands if he attended a game at Missouri. Thank you Roy Williams for keeping my Dad and his wife from harm!

Bill Self has taken the KU program to the mountaintop. But let KU fans not forget to take the time to honor Williams for stepping up and keeping the KU program on top when a lesser man would have slip down the slippery slope the NCAA had set up for him. Does anyone really believe that Bill Self would be the KU coach today if Roy Williams had failed in those first five years? I do not. Does anyone believe that KU would be the perrenial national championship contender that it is today if Roy Williams had failed in his first five years? I do not. Thank you and God bless you Roy Williams. Oh, one more thing...on Sunday, it is Rock Chalk Jayhawk KU!!

March Madness

It's Selection Sunday as I write this, the day the NCAA men's basketball tournament field is announced. I love filling out my bracket after the field has been announced. Something about matching wits with other "experts" in the field, whether they are co-workers, family members or the million who will play the ESPN Bracket Challenge for an opportunity to win $1 million that brings out the competitive juices in me (and apparently, many others). However, by the end of that first weekend, my bracket has been shredded by the on-court results (I am usually good for about 20-22 correct calls out of 32 first round games), and I can just enjoy the rest of tournament. But it sure is fun to fill out that bracket. I do believe there some simple rules to follow to fill out a successful bracket.

Calling the Upsets
Predicting the first round upset is the most enjoyable, and challenging, part of filling out the bracket. Upsets happen every year, but correctly calling the upsets is quite difficult. First, the easy rule to follow: Do not ever pick a #16 seed to defeat a #1 seed. It has never happened. In the 27 previous tournaments with the modern format, the #1 seed is 108-0 against the #16 seed. Do not count on it happening anytime soon. Next, do not pick the #15 seed to beat the #2 seed. In the modern format, this has happened 4 times, none since 2001. Do not count on it happening again. The most common upset usually occurs in the 5-12 first round match-up. Why? This match-up usually matches a low ranking member of a power conference (the #12 seed) against a mid major or against a team that posted a glossy record in an overrated power conference. Look for your opportunities here. Other upsets occur when an underrated mid major team is playing against an overrated power conference team. In any event, do not predict your first round upsets to win in the second round. This could save your bracket.

Who Do You Pick To Go Deep?
This is always a dilemma because some highly ranked teams inevitably fall early in the tournament and picking which ones will survive can be tricky. Here, you have to look at coaches. Some coaches seem to do very well no matter what while others have consistently disappointed. In this day and age, the coaches who regularly perform well in the tournament are Coach K at Duke (11 Final Fours), Roy Williams at North Carolina (7 Final Fours), Tom Izzo at Michigan State (6 Final Fours) and Rick Pitino at Louisville (5 Final Fours). For my money, Izzo is the best tournament coach in the field. At a minimum, you are safe to pick these coaches teams to "play to their seed". All coaches have their tournament disappointments, but these coaches are not likely to ruin your brackets with early round defeats. Coaches who have consistently disappointed are Bill Self at Kansas, Fran Dunphy at Temple and Tom Crean at Indiana. I would not pick these guys to go deep into the tournament.

The next factor to look at is experience. Teams that are junior and senior dominated tend to go farther than freshman and sophomore laden teams. When looking particularly at the mid majors, those with lots of experience can win games and go deep in tournament. Another factor that play into a deep tournament run is the strength of a team's guard play. A strong point guard can control the tempo of the game and will always get the ball into the hands of his teams best scorers at crunch time. As I look at the 2012 tournament, I believe that strong guard play and experience can take a team like Missouri far into the tournament while weak guard play can leave a team like Kansas vulnerable to an early round upset. Experience could work against a team like Kentucky, but help a team like Syracuse.

Sizing Up 2012
Overall, the top two teams are Kentucky and Syracuse. I do not see any noticeable differences between the two. Syracuse has more experience, but Kentucky has more talent and they have a coach who has been to two Final Fours. What are some of the possible upsets in the first round? Well since I spotlighted the 5-12 match up, I really like Long Beach State to beat New Mexico. Other possible upsets include NC State over San Diego State. If California makes it past South Florida, then I could see Cal beating Temple (another 5-12 match up). Another underdog that no one on TV is talking about is St. Mary's, which I think could give Kansas a lot of trouble in the second round. South Dakota State will give Baylor trouble in their match up, but I think BU pulls out an ugly win. Of the Big 12 teams, Missouri will go the farthest in this tournament. I think the Tigers will meet their match in Michigan State. As I said earlier, Tom Izzo is the best tournament coach out there right now.

In the end, the Final Four could be like 2008, with all four #1's making the Final Four. Back in December, I predicted that North Carolina would win it all. I have changed my mind. In the end, Syracuse will be cutting down the nets in New Orleans.

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.