The 2012 Presidential Election is headed to America like the proverbial freight train, and the only good thing about it is the Democrats don’t have to go through the pain and agony of selecting a new candidate. Instead we get Barack Obama, for better or worse… but this isn’t a post about Democrats, that’s scheduled for Tuesday. Today we are talking about the other side, the not-so-loyal opposition, the Republican Party nomination process. Here, in short order, are my thoughts on the major candidates, why they are in the race, and what it means for nation.

Before I get started on particular candidates, I want to point out that the bench is not shallow, contrary to what the press my be reporting. You’ve got sitting and former congress people, a bunch of governors, and only one dude with zero government experience. It was not but four years ago that the Democrats nominated someone with an awfully shallow government resume.

Tim Pawlenty (Former Governor of Minnesota)

We’ll start with the least interesting, not because the candidate is a bad guy, but because he dropped out back in August. I think the decision to drop out so early says more than anything Pawlenty ever sad on the trail. As a governor of a state that voted D for the past several decades, Pawlenty came to the table with new electoral votes and a moderate record. Given his endorsement of Romney after he dropped out, one assumes he found it difficult to fund raise being essentially Romney v2, but with less awesome hair. But what does it say about a party’s nomination process when there’s only enough oxygen in the room to support one reasonable candidate?

Gary Johnson (Former Governor of New Mexico)

Clearly I haven’t been paying as much attention as I should, because I know next to nothing about this guy. His photo on Wikipedia does not inspire presidential confidence. Can’t imagine he’ll last past Iowa and New Hampshire.

Rick Perry (Governor of Texas)

Perry had a strong position when he announced late into the primary season, but after pushing a immigration plan that was mainstream GOP just six years ago, his campaign appears in decline. Which demonstrates a fundamental issue with the GOP primary process this year… there’s not a single, or even set, of litmus tests this year. Ideological purity on every issue appears to be required of any candidate. I’m reminded when it was a big deal that the Democrats wouldn’t consider nominating a anti-choice candidate… but I struggle to think of any other issue where the base would reject the candidate outright if they held a position that differs from the party platform. I wonder, how a party evolve to meet a changing reality if divergent opinions are punished so severely?

Mitt Romney (Former Governor of Massachusetts)

Romney is the front-runner, even if today’s polls say it’s someone else… everyone knows that the race is down to Romney and TBD. No one thinks the race is going to come down to Gingrich and Paul, or Huntsman and Bachmann. I’m told that history supports Romney’s front-runner status, as his 2nd place finish in 2008 means the party elite are likely to coalesce around him. The big question with him is whether or not the GOP has changed so much in the past 10 years that elite endorsements (where Romney is the far-and-away leader) are more of a detriment than an asset. I’m not convinced that Romney is a shoe-in, but if he loses by a large margin (major campaign catastrophe not-with-standing) I would say the future of the GOP does not look bright. If the elite don’t have at least some influence on the party, how is it a party and not just an angry mob?

Newt Gingrich (Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives)

I’ll admit right now, I’m a Gingrich fan. No, I can’t stand his politics and I find his conduct to be generally reprehensible. What I like about him is that he’s not afraid to appear smart on stage. He’s not up there spinning old yarns about how Grampa Joe’s work ethic is an allegory for the global economy. I also appreciate his belief in science and technology as forces for good. There was even a time when he supported efforts to address climate change! However, there is a nasty side to Newt. He tends to get very personal in politics, and will tear his opponents down in an ugly fashion. It’s not very Presidential. As of today, Newt is the poll front-runner, and I’m hopeful it stays that way. Not that I want him to win the nomination, per se, but more because I think keeping him on the stage keeps the conversation from going totally off the rails into crazy Tea Party Town.

As a side note, the Gingrich campaign has given rise to one of my election coverage rules. If the coverage of a campaign makes it seem like the whole thing falls apart over night (like it did with McCain in 2008 or with Gingrich in the summer of 2012) it’s probably overplaying the situation and it can — and often does — come back together just as easily as it appears to have gone away.

Jon Huntsman (Former Ambassador to China and Former Governor of Utah)

I still find it amazing that the one GOP candidate who has embraced evolution in the classroom and climate change as an addressable threat is a Mormon. I grew up with Mormons, and they are some of the nicest folks I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting… but, to generalize, they can be among the most stubborn when reality doesn’t fit their religious beliefs. So that a Governor of Utah, former Ambassador to China from the Obama Administration, and devote Mormon has taken up the mantel of intellectual honesty in the GOP primary is one of those things you don’t expect to see in your lifetime. If he were to win the nomination, I’d be genuinely worried about the general election. He’s cultivated a persona that is attractive to disaffected Democrats, who are likely not going to pay attention when Huntsman’s economic politics, which are very conservative, start getting press. Thankfully, there is zero chance that national GOP will nominate him… if they are gonna nominate a Mormon, it’s gonna be Romney.

Ron Paul (Congressman TX 14th CD)

Now we are starting the descent into crazy town candidates. Ron Paul is a perennial GOP candidate, sort of like Dennis Kucinich for the Democrats, except a lot closer to capturing the prize. In general, I try to avoid saying bad things about Paul, because I just don’t understand his MO. Here’s a man who has been in Congress since the 70’s (with some noticeable gaps) and yet, shows up to vote “no” on essentially every bill. What makes him keep doing it? It can’t be the money, he could make tons more on the full time speaker circuit. It can’t be the power… since he always votes “no”, he essentially has no power. I get he’s a libertarian, so the votes fit his philosophy… what doesn’t fit is his desire for office in the first place. One of the reasons I don’t generally worry about libertarians destroying the social fabric of the nation is that they are too busy taking care of themselves to do any real harm… but here’s a guy who claims to be a self-promoter who is not spending time self-promoting. Until I understand what he’s trying to accomplish, Paul remains a mystery. Never the less, I imagine this is the last race we will see him.

Rick Santorum (Former Senator from Pennsylvania)

Wow… I honestly can’t imagine what amazing dare Santorum had to have lost to try to run for national office. Beyond the fact that he’s got a snowballs chance in hell of winning the nomination in the first place, I can imagine no better candidate to galvanize the Left and ensure high turnout for Obama. Santorum was too active of a culture warrior to be Presidential material. I assume he’s going to write a book.

Michele Bachmann (Congresswomen, MN 6th CD)

Bachmann appears to suffer from any number of mental aliments, and I don’t say that as a joke. Her grasps of basic facts appear far too slippery, and her drive to be seen as the spokesperson for the Tea Party seems to come more from a place of megalomania than political aspiration. But here she is, running for President on the “I’m not Sarah Palin, but I’m willing to let you think I am” platform. I assume Bachmann supporters flock to her because of her ideological purity… but, in truth, I’m not convinced she has any idea how that ideology would be turned into government policy. It’s a bit too much like the folks who don’t want the Government to interfere with Medicare. They know the ideology (government == bad) but have no idea how that relates to questions like “how do we make Medicare better?” It doesn’t matter, I suspect Bachmann will be gone once South Carolina wraps up.

Herman Cain (Businessman and Radio Host)

Cain has already suspended his campaign by this time, which you had to see coming the moment he announced his candidacy. The question is, after he got the bump in book sales he was looking for, why did he stay in the race for so long? I read a report on Cain a few weeks back about how Cain was willing to leave in person audiences standing around for hours to take last minute TV opportunities. You don’t win elections that way, and I’m sure his staff knew that. I suspect Cain became the victim of his own PR machine, believing himself to truly be the savior of the GOP. Thankfully, the real world doesn’t work in such absolutes, and his past came out to remind him that no one is perfect. I just hope the book sales prove worth the destruction of his personal life.

Sarah Palin (Former Governor of Alaska and Former GOP Nominee for Vice President)

Palin never declared, and as of today, she’s saying she won’t run, and I take that as truth. The reason I mention her at all is to gloat. Way back in 2009-2010 I was very vocal about my belief that Palin had zero intention of running for President. Her behavior continues to suggest she is a Grade A grifter, and you can’t grift from the White House. She’ll make a ton more money doing exactly what’s she is doing now. So let’s all just stop talking about her… as soon as we stop paying attention, she will go away.

And all the Rest…

So, there you have it, one of the above names is likely to be the GOP candidate for President. My personal hope is for either Romney or Gingrich. If it’s one of the Tea Party folks, we’ll be looking at another 4 years of useless polarization. But if the Republicans nominate someone who is at least partially reasonable, then perhaps some middle ground can be identified during the campaign. In either event, I’m looking forward to Obama after the election, and after the point where the GOPs sole purpose in life is to deny him a second term. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll be willing to help govern the country for a few months.

You might be wondering how the overturning of a policy I support is a good thing, and the simple answer is process matters. The process matters because not all law is of equal value, and this particular regulation wasn’t the sort of foundation upon which you would want to build a free internet. To understand what I’m driving at, you need a basic understanding of the interplay between Congress, regulatory agencies like the FCC, and the Courts. Here’s a quick set of principles

• Congress doesn’t act unless it needs to — This is generally true in all areas, but especially true in technology policy. Congress, for all its many faults, recognizes it’s the least good way of getting things done. It lacks expertise and is highly susceptible to outside interests whose goals are not always aligned with the public. As such, there are numerous mechanisms in Congress to ensure only a small fraction of bills get approved, even if they have majority support.
• Regulatory agencies are expected to pick up the slack — Congress can sit on its hands because it has already setup numerous agencies to make the sorts of expert technical decisions Congress is not so good at. For example, the recent health care reform bill, while very long, will pale in comparison to the length of the regulations that will eventually be written to implement the same. Those regulations will largely come from the Department of Health and Human Services. When flaws are found in the original bill, it won’t be Congress that tries to fix it, it will be DHHS using its regulatory power.
• Courts act as a check against undemocratic law making — Yes, for all you may have heard from conservatives about courts being undemocratic, it is their responsibility to ensure regulators do not overstep the authority granted to them by Congress. This is a challenging but critical task. Regulators are under heavy pressure from advocates, legislators, and the President to push the bounds of their authority to avoid spending political capital on enacting a statute. It is the Courts job to ensure that this doesn’t get out of hand.

The interplay between these three forces is subtle and complex, and I don’t claim to be anywhere close to an expert. But what I can speculate is that when network neutrality failed in the last Congress it was in part because would-be supporters didn’t feel the issue was sufficiently ripe. Why cast a potentially difficult vote when you can have the FCC do your dirty work for you? Now that the courts have ruled that the FCC lacks sufficient authority, the issue goes back to Congress where we can finally get a good sense of just what kind of political support exists.

In the meantime, the court’s decision tells us something else important: the FCC lacks authority to regulate the internet in whatever manner it sees fit. As anyone in the TV business will tell you, that’s probably a good thing from a content perspective, least we end up with such delightful concepts as “community standards” being forced upon us all. With clear limits on the FCC’s ancillary regulatory powers over the internet, Congress can now draft specific authority for the purposes of network neutrality while avoiding the pitfalls of creating a overbearing internet regulator, but also ensure a durable and lasting legislative framework for a free and open internet.

What is this controversial amendment, you ask? Well, to answer that we start by understanding what the bill say before the amendment. First a quick caveat, I haven’t read the bill so this is all second hand reporting… consult a health care expert for full details. But do keep reading, as I do have a genuine thought near the end here that will only make sense once the context is provided. Anyway, the bill itself currently contains a compromise between some (read: not all) anti-choice Democrats and the pro-choice wing which requires that in any given insurance market there always be at least one insurance option that provides abortion services and one insurance option that does not. Once those requirements are met any number of additional plans, with or without abortion services, can be offered. My understanding is that, at present, most insurance plans in the United States cover some level of abortion services, so the existing compromise is a net “gain” of sorts for anti-choice supporters, as this increases their own ideologically-pure insurance options.

Of course, the compromise itself is somewhat silly, because most Americans don’t select their own insurance but rather sign up for their employer’s plan. Even at my tiny company where worker opinion is solicited for important business decisions on a regular basis, the health insurance decisions are quite opaque. But even though it’s a “win”, it apparently wasn’t enough of a win. The anti-choice partisans are worried that poor Americans who receive insurance through the new Insurance Exchange with federal subsidies will have access to abortion services paid for by federal dollars. This, for reasons I’ve never fully understood, is a big deal. Money is fungible, and if you really have a problem with the idea that your money is paying for abortions, just pretend like all of the taxes collected during your entire lifetime goes to pay for .001% of a cruise missile used to blow up something in Iraq… but I digress. Years ago an amendment was passed called the Helms Amendment that prevents the spending of any federal dollars for abortion services unless in the case of incest, rape, or saving the life of the mother (note, no general health exception is provided… she has to be dying to get access to federal funds). Thus medicad — the primary source of health funds available to those still able to reproduce, since medicare is primarily for the elderly — have always been highly restricted.

The original compromise maintains this restriction. Someone buying insurance on the Exchange, even the one with abortion services, would only be able to access those services under the Helms Amendment restrictions. In order to cover any other abortion services you would need to purchase additional coverage. In this, it was believed, the status quo was more or less maintained.

Not so, says the anti-choicers! Best as I can figure, their argument boils down to this: if the government is providing subsidies to help me purchase insurance, that leaves me with more money in my pocket which I can then use to purchase the “full service” abortion package, and thus federal taxes are indirectly being used to pay for non-Helms-Amendment type abortions. The proposed solution is to ban the sale of abortion service insurance on the Exchange entirely. That’s right… NO ONE on the individual market or public option would be able to buy insurance that covers abortions. To draw an analogy… by providing food stamps to the poor, we enable them to spend what money they do have on alcohol, which is probably not a good use of their funds. The obvious solution then is to mandate that the poor can only purchase food at one approved location, regardless of whether they are using stamps or hard cash, and that said location will not carry any products we deem inappropriate… and that since we are dismantling all the rest of the stores while we are at it, everyone is going to have to buy from that same no-alcohol location even if they aren’t on food stamps. Only then can our conscience rest peacefully.

Okay, context is provided… here’s my original thought. I don’t think this amendment can stand legal scrutiny, and I think the Democrats know it. Access to abortion is a legal right in this country, and insurance is the way we pay for it. The government cannot prohibit insurance from paying for a service that is a right as it’s functionally no different than an outright ban. I suggest that prohibiting a whole section of the population from even having access to insurance options is more or less the same. But this is a gamble. The court isn’t what it used to be when it comes to choice. Though the case wouldn’t ultimately be about choice as much as a questions of the power of Congress to regulate beyond the scope of federal dollars (remember, there is only a tenuous connection between federal dollars here). Given this, I’d still place bets that the amendment can’t withstand scrutiny. Which I think is why the vote is going forward. As long as they can get together 216 votes today, the Democrats can worry about the five votes on the Supreme Court later.

Then, unrelated to anything I did, MoveOn released this really great video on the Public Option.

That may be the single best piece I’ve seen on the topic.

I certainly buy the corollary relationship between a popular president and positive media coverage. It’s not hard to extract from the basic rules that “Media outlets want to sell subscriptions” and “News stories about popular people sell subscriptions” to reach “Media outlets write stories about popular people.” But the analysis can’t stop there. You have to ask yourself two questions: (1) is there a reason why the President is popular, and; (2) is there a reason the press isn’t writing negative stories about a popular president?

Samuelson has a whole list of answers to #2. My personal favorite is “they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises).” When has policy agreement ever stopped a journalist from writing a damning story about presidential mistakes? Certainly Bill Clinton enjoyed the same sort of policy alignment with the Washington press corp, but enjoyed no such kid gloves. Samuelson never even tries to address #1.

I propose a different sort of answer to both questions, one that Samuelson could never write in his column. Obama is popular and enjoys positive press coverage because he’s doing a decent job. Past performance is an excellent indicator of future performance. That’s why we give promotions to those who have done well at their jobs, not those who may grand claims about what they are going to do in the future. And by many, many objective standards, Obama is doing well. Even when he has messed up, he’s known the right way to admit his failing and get moving.

Now, let’s compare his first 100 days against the last two presidents. W. Bush came in under a heavy cloud of election uncertainty and a questionable Constitutional ruling. He governed in such an isolated and fiercely conservative manner that Sen. Jeffords left the party, handing control of the chamber over to the Democrats. Clinton came into office without a majority popular vote thanks to Ross Perot. He then also governed in a very closed manner, leading to the eventual failure of health care reform in ‘93 and the disastrous midterm elections of ‘94. Obama came in with a clear and decisive majority vote and has lead the most open and accessible government in the modern era.

Both past presidents came from previous executive positions… in fact, you have to go back to JFK to find a President who was not either elected from the Governor’s mansion or the Vice Presidency. Ironic that Samuelson says the only President who has enjoyed such positive media coverages as Obama was Kennedy. Perhaps, just perhaps, executive bravado isn’t what’s really needed in the White House? Perhaps all it really takes is a steady hand, a strong — yet tempered — ego, and a willingness to work hard on any good policy idea that comes their way. I’m certain that should Obama ever stray from that formula, we’ll see a flood of negative press. But until that happens, I consider it a positive sign that the press has good things to say about a good man, instead of just trying to tear him down.

As an exercise, I’m reproducing the entire article below and will respond to each point, because he’s pretty much wrong on every issue and a summary rebuttal just isn’t going to cut it this time.

A Budget To Beggar Us

By Judd Gregg
Wednesday, April 1, 2009; A21

When speaking with the hardworking New Hampshire families and business owners whom I represent in Washington, I hear the same concerns echoed by Americans across the country. People are worried about keeping their jobs, their homes and their savings safe. They ask, “When will the economy recover? What kind of economic future will our children have?”

These questions are not easy to answer. Yet I believe that over the next couple of years, the country will recover from this severe recession. We are an inherently resilient nation.

I’m not entirely certain where Sen. Gregg confidence comes from. That the United States has survived previous disasters is no indication that we will unquestionably recover. This is perhaps the most important flaw of Gregg’s letter, because such confidence takes away our modesty. There is no reason to agonize over whether a choice is the right or not if you are certain success is inevitable. Such logic suggests we go about as if nothing is going wrong and pursue are normal political objectives. Sounds a little like fiddling while Rome burns, does it not?

Our longer-term future is harder to predict, though, especially since the Democratic Congress is on the cusp of adopting President Obama’s budget blueprint. This is a defining budget. It shows very clearly where the president and the Democratic majority want to take our country: sharply to the left.

When Congress says “budget” it is important to understand what they mean. Congressional budgets don’t spend money… in fact, most laws don’t spend money even if they sound like they do. What spends money are the appropriation bills passed near the end of the fiscal year.

There is no doubt that the president came into office facing significant economic challenges. To stabilize the economy, he has been forced to take aggressive steps, some of which may have been necessary to avert a systemic financial collapse.

But don’t be fooled when the president says the economy he inherited is the reason that future deficits and debt skyrocket.

The President’s budget is an attempt to retool the American economy to be competitive in the 21st century. As the most prosperous nation in the 20th century, we have the greatest built up momentum in the direction of what was successful then. But it’s now, and that means reexamining how we have structured our economy and make sure it works going forward.

Don’t believe for a moment when the Republican’s tell you that the economy is a purely self-organized affair. Small businesses have routinely indicated that the greatest challenge to their continued success is the rising cost of health care. Other industrial countries don’t have this problem and it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our health care system is as it is because of our government’s actions — or failure to act.

The president’s budget makes clear that a huge expansion of government is not just about today’s economic downturn. Once the recession is behind us, this budget will continue pushing for more and more government in our everyday lives.

It’s not the President’s budget that makes clear… it was six months of campaigning that made it clear Obama envisioned a new role for government. McCain yelled and screamed about it for months, to no avail. The American people knew what they were getting when they cast their vote. As the Republicans were fond of saying during the Bush years… elections have consequences.

Instead of tightening Uncle Sam’s belt the way so many American families are cutting back these days, the president’s proposal spends so aggressively that it essentially adds $1 trillion to the debt, on average, every year.

Except for some accounting gimmicks, the budget makes no attempt to cut wasteful spending or find savings. It ignores reform for major entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which are on track to cost us $67 trillion more than we have over the next 75 years.

Gimmicks and rhetoric, all of it! First, the general consensus among economists is that as households tighten their belt it is imperative for the government to step up spending to ensure the economy doesn’t slide further into contraction. The government has tried to cut spending in the face of economic decline in the past… it was the policy of the Hoover Administration which gave us the Great Depression.

The Medicare and Social Security numbers are a scare. Social Security is sound and I haven’t heard anyone convince me otherwise. Believe me, I’ve asked lots of people. Medicare, on the other hand, is a real concern if medical inflation continues as it has. But that is what makes the President’s intervention into health care so important. If costs continue on their current trajectory, no one is going to be able to afford health care… it doesn’t matter if we are talking about private citizens or the government, it’ll bankrupt us all.

The new spending is coupled with the largest tax increase in U.S. history — $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

It is the largest single tax increase because it follows on the heals of the Bush tax cuts that combine to be the largest tax decrease in U.S. history. The tax cuts were reckless then — even John McCain said as much at the time — now we have to clean up the mess.

Who will pay all those taxes? The president says it’s just the rich. But let’s keep in mind that a lot of these “rich” people are actually small-business owners, and small businesses create 70 percent of the new jobs each year. When millions of Americans are out of work, taxing job creators and making it harder to run a business are certainly not the answer.

I’ve never understood this argument. If the small-businesses are doing so well that they earn enough in profit to pay the increased tax, then who cares? Our tax code is such that it’s always wise to make more money if you can… so a tax increase does little to deincentivize profit-making activity. More generally, “small-business” is the usual straw-man argument presented to protect “big-business”… just like family-farms are trotted out anytime someone is opposing the estate tax. It’s a marginal case that can be easily handled, not a justification for wholesale obstructionism.

Moreover, all American families will get stuck with a new “light-switch tax” on electricity bills that is in the president’s budget. Even though taxes will go up dramatically, this new revenue will not be used to reduce the deficit. Instead, it is going to expand the government beyond what we can afford.

I assume he’s referring to cap & trade here. Cap & trade is the only economically friendly idea on the table that will save planet Earth from environmental disaster. There are costs for the centuries of poor planetary stewardship that we are just now beginning to understand, but the cost to pay them today are still vastly cheaper than the alternative.

And since the revenue the government collects still won’t cover all its spending, we will be left with an unsustainable level of debt. Under the president’s budget, the national debt doubles in five years and nearly triples in 10 years. Our debt will exceed 80 percent of GDP by 2019 — the highest level since World War II.

I always love the “highest level since World War II” comment. You see the a lot, because WWII is a recognized worthy expense and therefore whatever was a record back then was justified, while today’s new record is — presumably — not. The trouble with this turn of phrase is its breadth. World War II happened to coincide with another global event I’ve already mentioned: The Great Depression. In many ways, the America war effort was just another stimulus plan which jump started the economy. Like I said before, more government spending is what we need right now, not less.

This borrowed money is certainly not free. Our children and grandchildren will be hit with the bill. Sadly, in 10 years, we will spend more on interest payments on this debt than we spend on education, energy and transportation combined — almost four times as much.

Yes, too much interest is bad. But economist have long recognized the time-value of money, and interest reflects that valuation. Oftentimes available money today is worth more than money tomorrow, so we borrow and pay interest, provided the calculations show a net profit on the whole transaction. We can’t simply “freeze spending” because we think all borrowing is bad, unless we want our government to tie one hand behind its back.

What the Senator’s factoid this really tells you is just how little the federal government spends on education, energy, and transportation. Those are all drop-in-the-bucket budgets compared to military spending.

Imagine that as your family budget. Could you afford to spend so much on credit card finance charges that it dwarfed what you spent on food, utilities and other necessities? Neither can our country.

Apples… meet oranges.

At the heart of this budget debate are differing philosophies on the role of government in our lives. Republicans do not believe that we can expand prosperity by expanding government, or by increasing the burden of spending, taxes and debt. We believe that it is the individual American who creates prosperity and good jobs, not the government.

The Republican party has certainly traveled far from its roots. One of the original Republican policy agendas back when the party was formed in the age of Lincoln was National Improvements. The idea that the federal government should be involved with constructing rails, canals, and other large infrastructure projects. It was a massive re-visioning of the federal government and fiercely opposed by what passed for Democrats at the time. But their argument was as true then as it is now: some things are better done collectively than individually… and government is just the word we use to describe those activities we do collectively.

Our nation has a history of each generation passing on to its children a stronger and more prosperous country, but that tradition is being jeopardized by this budget’s attempts to dramatically expand the size and cost of the government, to the point that our children’s opportunities will be crushed under the burden of debt. This budget plan is clearly not the right path for America today or for future generations.

This is such a delightful historical revision. Apparently no previous generation has ever failed to give a stronger nation to the succeeding generation. Except for the generation that gave us financial instability that lead to the Great Depression, or the regional strife that lead to the Civil War, or the societal indifference that gave us the Culture Wars. Those generations took the easy way out and left subsequent generations with even worse problems then the ones they faced. Today’s challenge is no different… do we make hard decisions today, or do we face catastrophic decisions tomorrow?

So the goal of Republicans in Congress is to restrain spending and to reduce the deficit while still moving forward on important issues such as health-care reform, energy independence and national security. Only then will our children and grandchildren inherit a healthy economy and enjoy the opportunities for prosperity, peace and freedom that we were given.

Unless you listen to economists, who say the opposite is true… but it certainly is convenient that such a stance fits so neatly with the Republican party’s rabid anti-tax philosophy. I wish I had such a simple one dimensional ideology that I could just sacrifice everything else in dogmatic pursuit. It would certainly make decisions a whole lot easier… guess that’s the joy of being the minority party.

The writer, a Republican from New Hampshire, is ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee.

The rebuttler, a Democrat too far from his home of Washington State, is a twenty-seven year old Information System Director who seems to get it more than the leading Senate Republican on the topic.

The outcry began with the Sen. Byrd of West Virgina, long the defender of Senatorial privilege. The thrust of the complaint is that Obama has, or is planning to, appoint a number of Presidential Assistants to handle particular policy areas… so called policy czars. Covering issues like health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change, these new White House offices are charged with crafting White House policy positions and working with Congress. These positions are not required to go before the Senate for confirmation, they serve entirely at the pleasure of the President who may hire and fire them at will.

Senator Byrd says this is a power grab. By appointing presidential advisors that skip the Senate confirmation process, the White House is avoiding an important constitutional check on executive power and denying the peoples’ representatives a chance to review the credentials of those who will be trusted with power. A Washington Post oped today by Prof. Ackerman of Yale argues the same, complete with historical evidence.

Seems the idea of the presidential assistant started with FDR, who lobbied for the right to appoint six such assistants for the purpose of information gathering. Prior to that, the President really only had personal secretaries for clerical work and had to rely on his Cabinet for any policy muscle. The positions were not put to Senate confirmation because “[the] aides would have no power to make decisions or issue instructions in their own right.”

My personal opinion is that nothing has changed. The offices in question still have no legal authority to act and rely entirely on the President. In contrast to the Department Secretaries who have individual statutory authority which they can exercise independent of the President (though, if you a big believer in the unitary executive theory, that may not be the entire story).

The point is that the White House Office on Health Care Reform is an extension of President Obama, nothing more and nothing less. It does not speak for the Department of Health and Human Services nor can it order any legal or governmental action. The office has as much power as the President decides to give and as much clout as Congress wishes to bestow. If Senators wish to only speak to Secretaries, such is their right and privilege. They don’t need to take the call from an internal White House office… but my guess is they will, because it’s as if the call is coming from the President.

The distinction here is an important one. There is a difference between governing and advising. The secretaries do both. They govern sprawling executive departments, promulgate regulation that impact millions of Americans, and render judgments in Article 1 courts. They also advise the President in his executive decisions and the Congress in their legislative process. The White House offices do not govern. Their sole role is to advise… and it is up to those whom they advise to listen or ignore.

If there is fault with the current system it is not that we fail to vet these advisors, or that the Senate doesn’t get a chance to confirm them, it’s that those who listen to their advice give them too much agency. For each of these offices, the buck stops at the President’s desk. Obama must be held accountable for the advice given, whether right or wrong… but if we instead fall into the trap of placing the blame of failure (or the praise of success) at the feet of those who do not actually decide, then we truly have broken the appointment process.

The first example is from the glorious state of Illinois, home base for my employer and our current President. In tribute to the discoverer of Pluto, an Illinois native, the State Senate has declared that Pluto be “reestablished with full planetary status” and that March 13, 2009 be declared “Pluto Day”. As the original source of this story said, “I hear those pesky Hoosiers next door want to make π equal to 3!”

The second example is closer to home… and perhaps more surprising than it is superfluous. Penny-Arcade, a Seattle based webcomic about gaming was honored by the Washington State Legislature. Which is totally something I would have voted for, given both their wide ranging impact on the industry and all the good things they have done for Seattle. But I wonder if the legislators voting in favor have any clue just how many times the word “f*ck” finds its way into the strip? Don’t get me wrong, I love Penny-Arcade, but it’s not your usual “family values” stuff you tend to see promoted by our public officials. As to be expected, Penny Arcade responded to this act in the only ways they know how.

Which is really too bad. Not that I actually expect there to be some horrible truths to uncover. As the witnesses before the Committee testified, we are a far cry from South Africa post Apartheid. But there can be no question that the Bush Administration kept many things confidential to the detriment of democratic institutions. I agree with the Administration that we should be focused on the were we go from here, I also believe that future Administrations should know — at their core — that if they try to hide constitutional malfeasance all of their sins will be put on parade once they leave office.

The fact is that the White House is a very powerful and yet insulated political entity. Once elected there is very little anyone (Congress, the Press, the public) can do to force the President’s hand short of out right impeachment (which, so long as the country remains deeply partisan, is effectively impossible). So we rely on a coalition of forces to ensure the power of the Executive is kept in check. The judgment of history is part of that mechanism and setting the precedent of convening Truth Commissions to investigate obvious abuses of power might have been just the muscle history needs to be truly effective in the face of such rampant disregard for accountability.

What do I mean by government institutions? I guess what I mean is process stories. Conventional wisdom says that the news reading public isn’t interested in process stories, they either want to hear about entertaining politics or impacting policy. So, a story about the mechanics of Senate procedure tends to be reduced to a vague allusion about arcane rules. It’s banal and useless… but thankfully it was rare.

Two stories have recently come across my RSS feed reader that make me wonder if we are entering into a new era where the press tries to write more process stories, but fails miserably.

First, the U.S. Senate. This is a tricky institution with lots of history and complications. The Majority Leader is said to need skills in the herding of stray cats. Thus, when the Majority Leader calls a press briefing and says something like “It’s very clear they’ve made a decision they want President Obama to fail,” the chances he is going to say who they are essentially nil. Thus it’s not news when “…asked to name specific Senate Republicans who wanted Obama to fail, Reid would only say a ‘number of Republicans.’” But that didn’t stop the Politico from summarizing the article as:

Reid: Senate GOP wants Obama to fail. When asked for names, Reid would only say a “number of Republicans.”

Sigh

The second was a dreary piece in Monday’s Washington Post about the White House New Media team. A personal friend of mine works for said team, she’s a smart lady who knows what she is doing and has realistic expectations for the world around her. I find it most unlikely she “acknowledge[s] being caught off guard by the strictures of government bureaucracy.” These people are far more tech-savvy than the person writing the story, they know what’s possible, they know what’s practical, and they know what failure looks like.

Launching a site as widely followed and as heavily scrutinized was whitehouse.gov and recovery.gov is hard under the best of circumstances, even more so when you have less than two months between the election and the inauguration, and damn near impossible when you aren’t handed the keys to the castle until the day you are expected to launch.

Which is why the press is simply making mountains out of molehills when it drums up controversy over the allowed comment length or that some YouTube videos have only 25,000 views (I wish my videos had that many views!). Technology isn’t easy, nor is governing… to imply that combining the two in ways never done before should be easy, and that the Obama team is failing to live up to those expectations, is simply creating controversy where none previously existed.

I am the constituent these technologies are for. I am the tech-savvy 20-something who wants to see technology keep my government accessible, transparent, and accountable. I am the ultimate arbiter of success. By any objective standard the White House New Media Team has done extraordinary work in a short time… and just as economists are standing up against the Press’ doom and gloom denouncement that Obama has already failed to save the economy, so too shall technologists come to the President’s aid and say, “keep up the good work, you’re doing fine.”