The issue raised by the NYT, wrongly, as it turns out, is that the film depicts most American Muslims as extremists. It does not. The film opens with the sentence “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals.” Okay, well, three sentences, but you get the point. 

The New York Times has constantly hammered away on what it portrays as a biased and “hateful” effort by the NYPD to demean our Muslim community – with undercover agents infiltrating their communities, attending their mosques and reporting on suspicious activities. This film, the Times charges, further divides our community by creating suspicion. 

I beg to differ. The events that have created suspicions between Muslims in the United States and non-Muslims are the numerous attacks on Americans perpetrated by radical Islamists. The effort by the Obama administration to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. The Obama team calls the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence” and the underwear bomber an “isolated extremist.” Words matter, and this clouding of the war being waged by Muslim extremists is inexcusable. No one is fooled.

Thankfully, Police Chief Ray Kelly understands his brief – to keep New York City safe. The Big Apple is the number one terrorist target in the world, we are told. The NYPD is constantly uncovering plots that would wreak havoc in this crowded landscape. For a decade, Kelly and the NYPD have fended off such attacks, and have consequently come to be regarded as the best police operation in the world. If they think exposing officers-in-training to the truth of the Islamist jihad is important, I say they’ve earned the right to make that decision. Without a doubt they know more about it than the pontifical and quick-to-judge NYT.

From the numerous errors and misstatements in the NYT editorial, it sounds as if perhaps the writers actually never saw the film. Maybe they should take a look, and while they’re at it, spend a little time with our Police Commissioner, who has cut crime to the bone while all the while working with budget constraints and a shrinking department. In other words, lose the bias and do your homework.

As Joe Biden might say, this is a “xo###@@#” big deal.

In yet another sign of Big Labor’s waning influence, Indiana’s House of Representatives has approved legislation that prohibits contracts requiring workers to pay union dues.

The bill, sponsored by Republicans, will almost surely pass the state’s senate, and be enthusiastically signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels. That means that Indiana will be the first state in a decade to adopt the “right-to-work” rule.

This represents a solid win for those who believe that union labor costs and work rules have become an obstacle to job growth, and a frightening loss to labor leaders. It is an even more worrisome development to Democrats, who have long fed on Big Labor’s steady stream of campaign cash. In the 2010 election cycle, labor spent $96.7 million, 94% of which went to Democrats. 

That doesn’t count the invaluable “get out the vote” organizing and other grass-roots efforts unions brought to the contest.

Labor leaders are frantically trying to put out anti-union bonfires across the country. 

They may be fighting a losing battle. Americans’ affection for unions has been in decline, reaching an all-time low in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis. 

The bail-outs of GM and Chrysler alerted an alarmed public to the crippling costs of union benefits. Pew Research reports that many more Americans think that unions hurt rather than help our country’s competitiveness. 

With joblessness the nation’s number one concern, that’s not a winning perception. Anti-union sentiment has been reinforced by the growing number of cities and states that are grappling with excessive public employee pay. 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sprang to national attention largely by taking on the teachers’ unions,  explaining to his beleaguered constituents just why their state and local taxes were the highest in the nation.

This is by any reckoning a desperate time for organized labor. Union membership in the private sector has been shrinking for decades, while numerous organizing attempts in recent years have been cold-cocked. 

Already this year labor has suffered a defeat as employees of a Texas electrical cooperative rejected the local union. 

Last year, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.‘s production and maintenance employees spurned union representation (for the third time in over six years) while similar efforts failed at a Target store in New York, a furniture maker in Virginia and a Texas sprinkler maker.  Formerly organized employees at a Dallas door manufacturing plant threw the union out.

 In 2010, a fight to unionize various segments of Delta Airlines –  the largest private sector organizing effort in 50 years—flopped despite the intrusion by the National Mediation Board, which demanded a do-over on one of the votes. (Two of the three members of the NMB are former union heads.)

This death-march for Big Labor drove President Obama to make two confrontational “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board earlier this year – hires that may be more consequential than putting Richard Cordray in charge of the new consumer watchdog agency. 

Why does it matter? 

Because the NLRB has a mission – changing organizing and work rules so as to give new life to Big Labor.

In December, membership on the NLRB was down to three members.  Notwithstanding a decades-long “unwavering practice” to require three affirmative votes, the two Democrats on the NLRB rammed through a ruling allowing the “fast-tracking” of union election disputes. 

A vote was taken on the controversial amendment before the term of “recess appointee” David Becker expired – over the protests of Brian Hayes, the one remaining Republican on the board. So, a rule that makes union organizing easier, that could impact millions of American workers,  was enacted by two Democrats, only one of whom had been confirmed by the Senate. 

It will take effect April 30. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce calls it the “ambush election rule” and has filed suit to block its implementation.

This is the threatening nature of the no-holds barred Obama NLRB, a board that before the president’s recess appointments (and with the loss of Becker) did not have enough members to conduct business. 

Board Chairman Mark Pearce recently declared in an interview that “he wants easier organizing rules”, and was cheered by the AFL-CIO, whose spokesman said the NLRB was trying to “create a level playing field.” 

Some think the playing field has been tilted too radically in favor of organized labor, and in opposition to the best interests of the United States. 

The ability of Indiana to become our 23rd “right to work” state suggests a mandate to correct that imbalance.

However, Big Labor will not give up easily. They have a powerful ally in the White House, and are now buttressed by a beefed up NLRB, suggesting titanic battles ahead.

The recess appointments to the NLRB are under scrutiny by the House; the proceedings of that body should be scrutinized by all.

Eastman Kodak’s recent bankruptcy is a timely reminder of how sleepy managements can throw thousands out of work – and of the role private equity firms like Bain Capital have played in rescuing American companies. Kodak, the paternalistic giant,  was blindsided by Fuji Photo decades ago and then by the rise of digital photography. The organizational structure was a mess. At one time,  while giant Canon was working with three different printer engines,  Kodak was developing 66, so “silo-ed” was its operations.  It is quite possible that outside investors like Bain Capital, with eyes uncluttered by past allegiances, could have saved Eastman Kodak – and at least some of the jobs that have been lost.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has failed to make that point. What was his campaign staff thinking? How could they be caught flat-footed by Newt Gingrich’s attacks on the candidate’s business career,  his prime credential in the race to unseat President Obama? Supporters have been shocked that Romney has not countered criticisms of his experience at Bain Capital—an appalling lapse that cost him South Carolina and has him now trailing in Florida. While others have spoken up for private equity investing, the campaign remains mute. Romney needs to tell the story that will resound with voters—the story of America’s reboot.

During the ‘70s, I was a young Wall Street analyst sent out to talk to business execs at auto companies, dragline producers, makers of machine tools and farm equipment. Yes, it was very sexy.

Everywhere, I found the same story: Upstart foreign competitors (mostly from Japan) were gobbling up market share. More alarming, the newly visible rivals were selling a better product. Quality control programs embraced by Japanese steel, auto and machinery producers meant a vast reduction in reject rates; they were not succeeding because of price alone. They delivered better value.

Some of our better managed companies (Caterpillar, Deere) rallied to this increased competition; others – including auto companies situated far from the California docks where Toyotas rolled off ships in the thousands—didn’t have a clue. When OPEC sharply jacked up oil prices, the trickle of economical Toyotas and Hondas into the U.S.  became a torrent.  In 1965 the U.S. imported 25,538 cars from Japan. By 1975, that figure had soared to 695,573; a decade later, we imported 2.5 million automobiles from Japan – a 100-fold jump in 20 years. By contrast, sales of U.S.-made cars and trucks actually dropped between 1965 and 1985 – from 8.8 million to 8.2 million.

The truth began to dawn: U.S. companies had gone soft. They were increasingly uncompetitive and stuffed with excess costs.

Similarly, Japanese steel producers clobbered U.S. manufacturers in the 1970s, producing cheaper and higher-quality products in modernized plants built after World War II. By the late 1970s our domestic industry was in trouble; five companies received $300 million in loan guarantees from the Carter administration. Later presidents tried to help the industry’s long decline by imposing import quotas (Reagan) and offering loan guarantees (Clinton) to no avail.

Americans were appalled. The truth began to dawn: U.S. companies had gone soft. They were increasingly uncompetitive and stuffed with excess costs. The door to change was opened and, with the assist of a depressed stock market, in walked the so-called corporate raiders. Their objective was to buy fat but enduring firms with largely borrowed funds, trim the excess and ultimately sell back to the public a leaner more profitable company.  Sometimes this was done with the cooperation of management, sometimes not.

Between 1979 and 1989, there were over 2,000 leveraged buyouts worth more than $250 billion. Kohlberg, Kravis, Icahn, Peltz, Pickens,  Bass and many others played the game. Wilbur Ross stepped into the all-but defunct steel industry and bought LTV Steel, Bethlehem and certain other companies which he combined to make the International Steel Group. By renegotiating pensions, cutting the workforce and changing union work rules, Ross kept the companies alive.

There are fewer over-ripe targets for plucking, and consequently fewer hostile deals that make headlines.

In 1989, the $31 billion hostile buy-out of giant RJR Nabisco highlighted the sea-change in U.S. industry. If such a large company was at risk, no one was safe.  In boardrooms across the country, CEOs,  alarmed about foreign competition and goaded by raiders, worked harder to jack up profits. Some cut costs by shipping jobs overseas, automating or trimming worker benefits. Others plied foreign markets or changed decades-old distribution and marketing models. They got tougher.

Today, private equity investing is less visible and more sophisticated. There are fewer over-ripe targets for plucking, and consequently fewer hostile deals that make headlines. Private equity investors now typically look for companies that can profit from outside expertise - like how to ramp up exports, or navigate government regulations.

Companies like Bain or Blackstone can help finance new technology or can acquire services like insurance more cheaply because of their “stable” of companies. By taking companies private, managements can plan for the long term, avoiding the immediate judgments of the stock market. They can forego current growth to move a plant, for instance, or risk a disruptive shift in management. As Bain and others did with Staples, private equity investors can take a young firm to the next level.

Private equity investing has made billions in profits for investors, including thousands of colleges and pension funds. It would be impossible to measure the jobs gained or lost through the many deals that have taken place, but this is for certain: American industry is better off today than if profit-hungry private equity investors had never roamed the country. The wholesale tightening of management practices (Ross flattened Bethlehem Steel’s management from eight layers to three) and revamping of labor costs saved many firms from going under.

Romney seems incapable of telling this story – his story. He needs to tell voters that he figured in America’s first reboot, and stands ready to do it again. This country needs, one more time, to overhaul our business model and to regain our competitive edge. Mitt Romney is the man to get it done.

Meanwhile, the firestorm in South Carolina didn’t do much to advance the GOP brand, or to set the stage for a contest with President Obama. I heartily agree with Mitch McConnell - the important thing is to defeat Obama. I continue to think that Romney has the best chance of attracting disaffected Independents - voters who were turned off last time, for instance, by Sarah Palin. Looking as far out as November, though, won’t mean much unless Romney gets through the primary maze. These are the issues that are important, and that we should focus on (borrowing from Kyle Smith’s excellent January 22 op-ed in the Post): 

1)      In the 2009 budget, 70% of American households were set to receive more from the government than they paid in. This imbalance cannot endure. As for Obama’s demand that everyone “do his fair share” – this single number proves just how off-base his campaign pitch is.

2)      Between the end of 2007 and June 2009, the number of federal employees earning more than $100,000 rose by 47%. Obama’s administration may teem with people who don’t have any business background or understanding, but they sure seem to understand compensation!

3)      47% of Americans pay no income tax.

4)      In 2009, the average government worker was paid $123,000 in pay and benefits, compared to $61,000 for private sector employees. 

These are hard facts, and potent talking points. Unhappily, no one is talking about them. 

A number of people emailed me after the primary, saying they liked Gingrich because he can debate rings around Romney and will be able to similarly (verbally) squash Obama. The former speaker seems able to channel the wrath of the people in a way that Romney cannot. I don’t think that Gingrich can go the distance – he’s too mercurial, too self-absorbed and there are far too many former colleagues who will attest to his serious shortcomings. This may be a make-or-break moment for Romney; he has to up his game. Let us hope he is able to do so, and then go on to defeat Obama in November.

Gingrich expressed outrage that moderator John King of CNN would lead off the evening by asking about potentially damaging charges made by the Speaker’s second wife in an interview with ABC News’s “Nightline.” 

The audience howled its approval as Gingrich tore into the “destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media…” As ever, the former Speaker was brilliant, evading the problematic topic of his personal indiscretions and simultaneously punching a white-hot button launching an assault on what Sarah Palin describes as the “lamestream media.”

Why are so many Americans hostile to our biggest media outlets?  Because almost all the major networks and newspapers in this country are operated by liberals while three-quarters of the country describe themselves as moderate or conservative. 

This is not a figment of fevered right-wing imagination. A UCLA-led study of major newspapers, TV and radio stations in 2005 concluded that “there is a quantifiable and significant bias… to the left.” Numerous record-keepers have documented that more than 80% of reporters vote for Democrats. 

It’s real, it’s there, and it’s infuriating.

It’s especially infuriating when it impacts the way the media presents – and Americans then view GOP candidates. 

In this cycle, President Obama is vulnerable – on our continuing high unemployment in particular and because people increasingly view him as not sharing traditional American values. The sympathetic the media is worried. Consequently, they have launched an all-out offensive against GOP candidates, especially targeting front-runner Romney and surging Newt Gingrich.

When it comes to Romney much of the withering criticism has nothing to do with policy, but focuses instead on the former Massachusetts governor’s apparently infuriating wholesomeness. 

In the New York Times last weekend, this irritation was on full display. Columnist Maureen Dowd makes fun of the young Romney’s affection for “The Sound of Music”  (what is it about that musical that so annoys the left?) and disregard for The Grateful Dead. 

She describes him as living in a “non-drinking, nonsmoking, suburban,  uxorious bubble with Ann, revolving around Mormon rituals, Mormon couples, and the Mormon credo of strong, heterosexual, traditional families.” (In case you wondered, that’s meant to be a criticism.)  “Uxorious” means having an excessive fondness for one’s wife – something that Ms. Dowd finds unacceptable. 

She should know that rampant divorce and children born out of wedlock cost our country an estimated $112 billion in 2008; chances are the recession has driven that figure above $150 billion. Heads up- there are worse things than the enduring family.

In the same paper, Lee Siegel describes Romney as “the whitest man to run for president in recent memory.” In case that one leaves you scratching your head, Siegel explains that he means “the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.” 

He derides Romney for being “implacably polite, tossing off phrases like “oh gosh” with Stepford bonhomie.” In other words, shame on Romney for his decency, for having been happily married to Ann for decades and for earning a living. More important, shame on him for imagining that a great many Americans might aspire to do the same.

Are these columnists and the rest of the “mainstream media” really focusing on the concerns of American voters? The very voters who fear taxes will go up because of reckless handouts to public employee unions,  see their tax dollars squandered on bankrupt Solyndra, worry that ObamaCare will limit our health care choices, see their kids’ schools failing to ready them for college or for the workplace, watch as the national debt soars to unprecedented levels, see job opportunities blown because Obama wants to court environmentalists? No, memo to Maureen Dowd, most voters are not worrying that Mitt Romney is too attentive to his wife.

The media does not limit its snark attacks to GOP candidates. Take Tim Tebow.  Like a number of GOP candidates, Tebow espouses traditional values and is a devout Christian, inspiring ridicule on both counts. 

Andrew Sharp, a contributor to SBNation.com, wrote before last week’s playoff game “instead of an icon to hard work and humility or a football player that’s fun to watch play football, for a week at least,  he’s the walking, kneeling reminder of just how completely f**king insane America can be sometimes.”

What really drives Sharp nuts is that 43% of Americans trace Tim Tebow’s success to divine intervention –“the insane fans who think he’s Jesus Christ in a flak jacket.” 

Yes, Americans may have gone a little loopy over Tebow, but so what?  These are tough times, and if people find inspiration in a clean-living,  spiritual and charitable young man who can occasionally pull off surprising wins, bully for them and for him.

The media has focused on Mr. Romney, since he is in the lead, and because he is viewed as most likely to attract the all-important independent voters who elected Mr. Obama but who are deserting him in droves. That focus could shift, if someone else clinches the nomination.  What will not shift is the incessant ridicule of GOP values and standards from the left.

Let us hope voters are not swayed.

How many votes does President Obama hope to win from environmentalists? More, apparently, than from construction workers. That would appear to be the calculus behind the decision of the White House to deny approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which has been vehemently opposed by environmentalists, a key Obama constituency. A constituency, it should be said, whose enthusiasm has waned as the president failed to deliver on cap-and-trade and, more recently, prevented EPA head Lisa Jackson from imposing draconian new ozone limits. The administration had already punted on the hot-button Keystone project, deferring a decision until after the 2012 election, but Congress included a provision in the recent payroll tax agreement that forced Obama’s hand, demanding an up or down decision by February 21.

In denying the pipeline permit, the president risks appearing indecisive (the State Department left open the notion that a refigured route could lead to approval as early as the first quarter of 2013) and, more important, indifferent to job creation even as 21 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed.

Related: What Is the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline?

It has been estimated that the $7 billion project would create more than 20,000 construction jobs, as many as 100,000 “spin-off jobs” and raise over half a billion in state and local taxes for the six states through which it would pass. With Chief of Staff Bill Daley, a supposed agent of pro-business moderation, on his way out the door, the decision also bolsters the view that the president is clinging to his populist Big Government, anti-private sector, higher taxes approach – despite his drubbing in the 2010 midterm elections.

More to the point, the decision will put the president once again on a tightrope, balancing the needs of the country against the needs of the special interests that support him. The green lobby has been a major backer of Obama, but so have unions. Pipeline News reported in 2010 that four unions, “representing 2.6 million workers, sent a letter in October to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging approval for the project.”

More recently, the Teamsters, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Laborers’ International Union and the United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters for the United States and Canada have come out in favor of the project. Others with conflicting interests, such as the Transport Workers Union, have been opposed.

Environmentalists object to the project for two main reasons. First, the pipeline traverses sensitive aquifers in Nebraska, which heightens reasonable concerns about a possible spill; TransCanada has already agreed to reroute the line so as to avoid the Sand Hills region in question. The second line of attack is that the line will pump 700,000 barrels per day of crude derived from the tar sands of Alberta via a process that generates more pollution than conventional oil production. This is not a valid issue. If the oil is not shipped to the United States, it will be exported to China. One way or another, the oil from the tar sands will be produced.

President Obama has said the decision is “not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline” but rather “the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.” Since the proposal has been under review since 2008, this is an almost laughable claim. In 2009 the agency held 20 public meetings along the proposed pipeline route, it hired a specialty consulting firm to prepare the environmental impact statement (EIS), it issued a draft EIS in April 2010, held another 21 public meetings in the states impacted, received 8,000 written comments, issued a supplemental EIS on April 15, 2011 (just to bring home where your tax dollars are flowing), and then solicited and received over 200,000 additional comments. In July 2011, the State Department promised to issue a final environmental impact statement in mid-August, and then to host meetings in September on the topic in each of the six states involved. Following those sessions, the agency said it would hold a “final public meeting in Washington, D.C.”

The final EIS was in fact issued in August, and found few environmental problems with the Keystone XL project, cheering industry supporters. Nonetheless, the State Department said in its statement yesterday that “the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.”

The president, as is his wont, blamed Republicans for the decision; he said the GOP deadline “prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact.” He further claimed “commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs…” Just, apparently, not these jobs.

Is the Keystone XL pipeline in the national interest? It would put thousands of struggling construction laborers to work and further our access to a friendly source of crude oil, enhancing our energy security. As Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said earlier, “The country needs conflict-free oil.”

What Keystone XL fails to do is dovetail with the president’s relentless Quixote-like quest for green energy or score sufficient political points. President Obama would rather waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on Solyndra, a bankrupt, uncompetitive maker of solar panels, than allow the oil industry and its supporters in the GOP a win on an important and economically sound project.

Which begs the question, are Mr. Obama’s interests in the national interest?

Is it possible that the real divide in the United States today is between unions and… everybody else? Consider the issues making headlines: education reform, busted state budgets, the battle to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, free trade agreements, Occupy Wall Street,   the fight to make Indiana a right-to-work state. What these stories have in common is the waning influence of organized labor and the all-out battle by union leaders to hold on.

Take the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top initiative. Education Secretary Duncan recently warned that several states, including New York, might not receive monies earlier awarded through that program because they have not followed through on required reforms. The stumbling block? Teacher evaluations. In New York, the opposition to proposed reforms by unions – unions that constantly complain about inadequate funding—could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg laid out new education initiatives in his recent State of the City address, among them a proposal to give $20,000 raises to the best teachers, in return for changing the way educators are evaluated. Today, teachers are rated either satisfactory or unsatisfactory; 97 percent fall in the former category. UFT President Michael Mulgrew immediately denounced the plan,  describing Mr. Bloomberg as “lost in his own fantasy world of education.”

Mr. Mulgrew may be the one living in a fantasy world. Pressure to boost our country’s public schools is one of the rare priorities on both Republicans’ and Democrats’ to-do lists. Americans are appalled by our plummeting world education rankings,  and by our graduates’ lack of preparedness for today’s job market.  While the decline in our schools stems from a number of sources, most reformers – including Secretary Duncan – see the intransigence of unions on the “job for life” rules that perpetuate mediocre teaching as a major roadblock to progress. 

Likewise, the recession has forced politicians to confront bloated public employee contracts that have torpedoed many states’  budgets. Estimated at over $3 trillion, the underfunding of state and local pension plans has been described as one of our most serious fiscal problems.   Voters now understand that unless elected officials overhaul pay and benefits packages they will face soaring taxes or reduced services.

This, too, is a bipartisan effort. In Rhode Island, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who is a Democrat, has made headway (and headlines) in overhauling the state’s burdensome pension agreements. Speaking recently at a Manhattan Institute gathering, Raimondo noted that when she took office a year ago, ten cents of every dollar spent by the state supported employee pension funds. Within five years, absent any changes, that share would rise to 20 cents. The $14.8 billion pension system assumed investment returns of 8 percent; actual returns had recently averaged 2 percent, putting the state’s defined benefit program in dire straits. Raimondo described the state’s underfunded pension liability as the highest in the country on a per capita basis.

Remarkably, Raimondo was able to tackle this problem by selling voters on the need for reform. She impressed upon the citizens of Rhode Island that if nothing changed, monies for public schools, transportation and other services would face deep cuts. She put together a report summarizing the state’s problem but did not lay out a solution. She wanted “the enormity of the problem to sink in. We focused on math, not politics. There was no finger-pointing, we didn’t blame anyone. We said it was the fault of a poorly designed system.”

Her approach worked. The state passed legislation revising the assumed returns on pension funds, raising the retirement age, and suspending the plans’ cost of living adjustment. She sold voters on the idea that everyone needed to contribute to solving a shared problem. As a result, the system is 60 percent funded now, up from less than 50 percent, and the ratios are moving in the right direction.  

Progress like that is taking place elsewhere, but not always so civilly. Governor Walker’s efforts to rein in unsustainable public employee costs in Wisconsin (and to reduce a sizeable budget deficit) became the rallying point for terrified union leaders who see their only growth opportunity – public employees – under attack. Though Walker proposed terms that were still more generous than the national averages, his attempts to limit collective-bargaining rights (like 24 other states) aroused labor’s fury. Union leaders struck back, rallying workers from across the country to their cause; they are now trying to force the governor from office.

Another battle pitching organized labor vs. the public interest is the effort to join our competitors in expanding trade deals with other countries. President Obama finally signed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama which had languished in Congress for years, held up by unions. Even the labor-friendly Obama administration had targeted such pacts as essential to boosting exports and jobs.

These confrontations have left Big Labor bruised but unbowed, and eager to turn public anger elsewhere. They have nurtured and funded the Occupy Wall Street protests for just that reason, ginning up resentment against the “one percent” and especially against banks and bankers.   Better to raise taxes on the wealthy than to cut government payrolls.  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has over one million members and much to lose from widespread government reform efforts, has been especially eager to support the protests. Stephen Lerner, a highly regarded union organizer and former SEIU official,  spoke to students at Pace University last March about his plan to “destabilize” the country through civil disobedience, strikes and large-scale protests. Acknowledging that labor was under pressure and needed to stay out of the spotlight, he insisted that students and community groups take the lead. Welcome to OWS.

Happily, the public is not so gullible. On many fronts, Americans see unions as part of the problem, not part of the solution. Our leaders need to follow Raimondo’s lead, and educate the public about changes essential to our progress. Voters can connect the dots, between the interests of the nation…..and defeating the interests of organized labor.

Is it possible that the real divide in the United States today is between unions and… everybody else? Consider the issues making headlines: education reform, busted state budgets, the battle to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, free trade agreements, Occupy Wall Street,  the fight to make Indiana a right-to-work state. What these stories have in common is the waning influence of organized labor and the all-out battle by union leaders to hold on.

Take the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top initiative. Education Secretary Duncan recently warned that several states, including New York, might not receive monies earlier awarded through that program because they have not followed through on required reforms. The stumbling block? Teacher evaluations. In New York, the opposition to proposed reforms by unions – unions that constantly complain about inadequate funding—could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg laid out new education initiatives in his recent State of the City address, among them a proposal to give $20,000 raises to the best teachers, in return for changing the way educators are evaluated. Today, teachers are rated either satisfactory or unsatisfactory; 97 percent fall in the former category. UFT President Michael Mulgrew immediately denounced the plan, describing Mr. Bloomberg as “lost in his own fantasy world of education.”

Mr. Mulgrew may be the one living in a fantasy world. Pressure to boost our country’s public schools is one of the rare priorities on both Republicans’ and Democrats’ to-do lists. Americans are appalled by our plummeting world education rankings, and by our graduates’ lack of preparedness for today’s job market. While the decline in our schools stems from a number of sources, most reformers – including Secretary Duncan – see the intransigence of unions on the “job for life” rules that perpetuate mediocre teaching as a major roadblock to progress.

Likewise, the recession has forced politicians to confront bloated public employee contracts that have torpedoed many states’ budgets. Estimated at over $3 trillion, the underfunding of state and local pension plans has been described as one of our most serious fiscal problems.  Voters now understand that unless elected officials overhaul pay and benefits packages they will face soaring taxes or reduced services.

This, too, is a bipartisan effort. In Rhode Island, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who is a Democrat, has made headway (and headlines) in overhauling the state’s burdensome pension agreements. Speaking recently at a Manhattan Institute gathering, Raimondo noted that when she took office a year ago, ten cents of every dollar spent by the state supported employee pension funds. Within five years, absent any changes, that share would rise to 20 cents. The $14.8 billion pension system assumed investment returns of 8 percent; actual returns had recently averaged 2 percent, putting the state’s defined benefit program in dire straits. Raimondo described the state’s underfunded pension liability as the highest in the country on a per capita basis.

Remarkably, Raimondo was able to tackle this problem by selling voters on the need for reform. She impressed upon the citizens of Rhode Island that if nothing changed, monies for public schools, transportation and other services would face deep cuts. She put together a report summarizing the state’s problem but did not lay out a solution. She wanted “the enormity of the problem to sink in. We focused on math, not politics. There was no finger-pointing, we didn’t blame anyone. We said it was the fault of a poorly designed system.”

Her approach worked. The state passed legislation revising the assumed returns on pension funds, raising the retirement age, and suspending the plans’ cost of living adjustment. She sold voters on the idea that everyone needed to contribute to solving a shared problem. As a result, the system is 60 percent funded now, up from less than 50 percent, and the ratios are moving in the right direction. 

Progress like that is taking place elsewhere, but not always so civilly. Governor Walker’s efforts to rein in unsustainable public employee costs in Wisconsin (and to reduce a sizeable budget deficit) became the rallying point for terrified union leaders who see their only growth opportunity – public employees – under attack. Though Walker proposed terms that were still more generous than the national averages, his attempts to limit collective-bargaining rights (like 24 other states) aroused labor’s fury. Union leaders struck back, rallying workers from across the country to their cause; they are now trying to force the governor from office.

Another battle pitching organized labor vs. the public interest is the effort to join our competitors in expanding trade deals with other countries. President Obama finally signed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama which had languished in Congress for years, held up by unions. Even the labor-friendly Obama administration had targeted such pacts as essential to boosting exports and jobs.

These confrontations have left Big Labor bruised but unbowed, and eager to turn public anger elsewhere. They have nurtured and funded the Occupy Wall Street protests for just that reason, ginning up resentment against the “one percent” and especially against banks and bankers.  Better to raise taxes on the wealthy than to cut government payrolls. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has over one million members and much to lose from widespread government reform efforts, has been especially eager to support the protests. Stephen Lerner, a highly regarded union organizer and former SEIU official, spoke to students at Pace University last March about his plan to “destabilize” the country through civil disobedience, strikes and large-scale protests. Acknowledging that labor was under pressure and needed to stay out of the spotlight, he insisted that students and community groups take the lead. Welcome to OWS.

Happily, the public is not so gullible. On many fronts, Americans see unions as part of the problem, not part of the solution. Our leaders need to follow Raimondo’s lead, and educate the public about changes essential to our progress. Voters can connect the dots, between the interests of the nation…..and defeating the interests of organized labor.

In today’s New York Times Dowd compares Romney to George H.W. Bush She sees them as joined at the hip since both come from impressive families and share “the gee-whiz language, hokey humor, awkward stage presence, sense of entitlement and noblesse oblige…” It is this latter charge that is mystifying. President Bush - 41, as she calls him—served his country with great honor and has manifest great dignity and diplomacy even as the Dowds of the world savaged his son. That cannot have been easy. Other than insisting on jumping out of airplanes at an advanced age, I cannot think of a single embarrassing moment the former president has rained on the country. (Compared to Jimmy Carter’s mortifying sallies into international diplomacy, for instance.) When called upon, Mr. Bush has stepped up to rally the nation for various charitable needs – such as working with former President Clinton to raise money for the victims of the South Asian tsunami. Otherwise, he has kept a low profile.

Ms. Dowd snipes “It’s easy to picture Poppy and Mitt sitting in a wood-paneled room in a country-club, chatting about tennis….”  Maybe it’s not so easy for Dowd, who grew up in D.C., youngest of five and daughter of a cop. There were probably no country clubs in her childhood. Is this the all-too-obvious issue with Dowd? She resents the silver spoon she never had?  

As to spending in December, it failed to live up to the excitement generated by November’s retail surge. Retail sales in the final month of the year rose a scant 0.1%, considerably less than the prior month’s 0.4% gain and below the prevailing expectation of a 0.3% rise. Worse, comp-store sales fell more than 5 percent during the first week of January from the previous seven days, apparently the largest decline since records began in 1989. In other words, having pretended during the first weeks of the Christmas season that life had returned to normal (note rising consumer sentiment), Americans came to their senses during December. No one should be shocked. The 2.4% bounce in spending in the third quarter was fueled by a collapse in savings. In September, consumers socked away 3.6% of their income—the lowest savings rate since the 2.6% level recorded in December 2007. That’s quite a drop from the 8.3% of income put aside in May 2008.

The American consumer still has too much debt, and is scared besides. Home prices continue to plummet; stocks, too, failed to deliver winnings last year. We have a political stalemate, which signals to many that our economic problems will not be resolved any time soon. In short, there’s not much to cheer about. As bored as Americans are with the lingering effects of the recession, as tired as they are of penny pinching, the numbers do not lie. Incomes are simply not rising fast enough to prop up robust consumer spending growth.

As for JP Morgan Chase, the normally buttoned down Jamie Dimon delivered what some listeners described as a “rant” when asked about the bank’s 23% slide in fourth-quarter earnings. Dimon blasted wrong-headed rules and regulations which have constrained the financial sector and which he describes as “counter-cyclical.” He is completely correct. The popular notion of punishing the banks for their role in our financial crisis has taken precedence over nurturing the struggling recovery. Efforts in the U.S. to redistribute income (a la the debit charge fee rulings) and more generally in the west to raise required reserve ratios while banks are already struggling with sovereign debt exposure may help politicians but it surely won’t lead to expanded credit.

 We haven’t even begun to see the carnage that may follow tightening reserve demands in Europe. Banks need to raise capital so are trying to sell assets; unfortunately, since most are in the same boat, there are few takers. This will not end well.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich has been excoriated for his attacks on Bain Capital. Really, what is he thinking? He knows full well that Bain has for the most part been successful by making other companies successful, and that the bought-out firms without the advantages of a well-heeled owner would nearly always have done worse. He talks about quick profits – in private equity there are no quick profits. That’s why investors agree to a multi-year “lock-up” of their money.

Americans aren’t interested in the intricacies of the private equity game – they re taking away from Gingrich the notion that Romney made his fortune doing something shameful. This is an appalling message from a Republican, or from anyone for that matter. A couple of years ago I interviewed two very successful business people – one English, one French, about why they had chosen to live and work in the United States. Both explained their choice in almost exactly the same words: “In the United   States you have always celebrated success.” Both added, “I’m not sure that will be true going forward.” These words haunt me today. Are we as a nation going to become suspicious of success? Will we abandon the system that has lifted so many millions out of poverty? For the sake of our ambitious children, for those immigrants coming here to make their fortunes, for the inspired entrepreneur who might change our lives or the lab technician who may cure cancer – I surely hope not.

Though the report cheered Democrats, some noted that the trajectory of monies drag-netted by the Obama machine was headed in the wrong direction: the fourth-quarter tally slumped slightly from the third period ($70.1 million), which was in turn down from the second ($86 million), which counted as the start of this election cycle. Still, $222 million is quite a chunk of change, and certainly way more than any of the GOP presidential hopefuls have pocketed.

Obama backers remain confidant that in this cycle the president will top his $750 million haul of the 2008 election.
Earlier, enthusiasts were projecting a $1 billion pot, but such talk has been tamped down of late. That lowering of expectations could be in anticipation of a further slump in receipts. Or, it might be that for a president traveling the country lambasting “millionaires and billionaires” for not doing their fair share, raking in a billion bucks of your own (and especially from hard-pressed small donors) seems downright tacky.

Folks might wonder, aren’t there better uses for one billion dollars,  or even for $750 million? What is Mr. Obama going to do with it? After all, the guerilla warfare going on across the aisle is likely to leave the GOP candidate so bloodied that Democrats may have to prop him up,  just to have a bona fide election.

Mitt Romney, the odds-on favorite to win the nomination, may survive the attacks by Newt Gingrich et al, but for sure he will be a weakened candidate. He will be spending an awful lot of the $24 million he raised just to survive South Carolina.

With 21 million Americans out of work or not able to find full-time jobs, and with small businesses continuing to struggle for credit, maybe President Obama could do more than his fair share by turning over some of his campaign coffers to boost the economy.

Taking a leaf from Mr. Romney’s career, Mr. Obama could invest in companies that need growth capital. With (conservative) six-to-one leverage, $500 million of Mr. Obama’s campaign funds could provide $3 billion of funding – how significant could that be to companies beaten up in the recession? How many workers would that employ?

Or, Mr. Obama could turn over some of his winnings to the Small Business Administration – the government agency that helps provide credit and support to small companies (often cited by the president as the source of most new jobs.)

Consider: the entire budget request for the SBA is $ 985 million – the Obama camp could double the agency’s efforts!

In the current fiscal year, the SBA asked for $103 million to support 900 small business centers – Mr. Obama’s campaign could easily double the program. The agency allocated $23 million to supporting women-owned businesses – think what the campaign could provide.

It is the very smallest firms that get squeezed out of the credit markets in times of stress – companies looking to borrow $25,000 to $100,000 for instance. The Obama campaign could provide 15,000 companies with $50,000 loans. How many people could those 15,000 resuscitated companies hire?

Of course, there are trade-offs. Mr. Obama isn’t going to sit on full coffers – he will be shelling out millions for ad time and campaign buses, TelePrompters and pollsters. Still, those reelection ads would look a lot more convincing with a few sound bites from entrepreneurs whose fortunes were actually improved by Mr. Obama – a commodity scarce on the ground today. In any event, a short course in funding small companies could boost the president’s scant private sector credentials.  Who knows, even Newt Gingrich might approve.

President Obama is on fire. His campaign committee and the DNC raised $68 million in the final quarter of 2011, and $222 million for the year. What a haul! There are private equity funds that didn’t raise that much last year.

Though the report cheered Democrats, some noted that the trajectory of monies drag-netted by the Obama machine was headed in the wrong direction: the fourth-quarter tally slumped slightly from the third period ($70.1 million), which was in turn down from the second ($86 million), which counted as the start of this election cycle. Still, $222 million is quite a chunk of change, and certainly way more than any of the GOP presidential hopefuls have pocketed.

Obama backers remain confidant that in this cycle the president will top his $750 million haul of the 2008 election.
Earlier, enthusiasts were projecting a $1 billion pot, but such talk has been tamped down of late. That lowering of expectations could be in anticipation of a further slump in receipts. Or, it might be that for a president traveling the country lambasting “millionaires and billionaires” for not doing their fair share, raking in a billion bucks of your own (and especially from hard-pressed small donors) seems downright tacky.

Folks might wonder, aren’t there better uses for one billion dollars, or even for $750 million? What is Mr. Obama going to do with it? After all, the guerilla warfare going on across the aisle is likely to leave the GOP candidate so bloodied that Democrats may have to prop him up, just to have a bona fide election.

Mitt Romney, the odds-on favorite to win the nomination, may survive the attacks by Newt Gingrich et al, but for sure he will be a weakened candidate. He will be spending an awful lot of the $24 million he raised just to survive South Carolina.

With 21 million Americans out of work or not able to find full-time jobs, and with small businesses continuing to struggle for credit, maybe President Obama could do more than his fair share by turning over some of his campaign coffers to boost the economy.

Taking a leaf from Mr. Romney’s career, Mr. Obama could invest in companies that need growth capital. With (conservative) six-to-one leverage, $500 million of Mr. Obama’s campaign funds could provide $3 billion of funding – how significant could that be to companies beaten up in the recession? How many workers would that employ?

Or, Mr. Obama could turn over some of his winnings to the Small Business Administration – the government agency that helps provide credit and support to small companies (often cited by the president as the source of most new jobs.)

Consider: the entire budget request for the SBA is $ 985 million – the Obama camp could double the agency’s efforts!

In the current fiscal year, the SBA asked for $103 million to support 900 small business centers – Mr. Obama’s campaign could easily double the program. The agency allocated $23 million to supporting women-owned businesses – think what the campaign could provide.

It is the very smallest firms that get squeezed out of the credit markets in times of stress – companies looking to borrow $25,000 to $100,000 for instance. The Obama campaign could provide 15,000 companies with $50,000 loans. How many people could those 15,000 resuscitated companies hire?

Of course, there are trade-offs. Mr. Obama isn’t going to sit on full coffers – he will be shelling out millions for ad time and campaign buses, TelePrompters and pollsters. Still, those reelection ads would look a lot more convincing with a few sound bites from entrepreneurs whose fortunes were actually improved by Mr. Obama – a commodity scarce on the ground today. In any event, a short course in funding small companies could boost the president’s scant private sector credentials. Who knows, even Newt Gingrich might approve.

As the New Year dawns, Americans are feeling more upbeat – more confident in the future than they have been in months. Their president is not. 

Mr. Obama started the year by tossing red meat into the lion’s den –  making controversial and apparently illegal “recess appointments” to two hot-button agencies that immediately plunged the nation into political turmoil. 

He next demanded serious cuts to our military – proposals that leave many Americans feeling somehow diminished. Is this our new reality?  Reducing our military?

It is hard to imagine a worse beginning to 2012. More political warfare, more depressing consequences to our soggy economy. To top it off, Chief of Staff Bill Daley is quitting. Though Mr. Daley’s tenure was rocky, his presence in the Obama administration was initially welcomed by The Business Roundtable and by the Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations hoped the former bank exec could infuse the White House with some much-needed “real world” pragmatism, and some sympathy for the private sector. Daley was expected to help the president move towards the center in response to the huge GOP win in 2012. His abrupt exit confirms low expectations on that front.

In a year when the GOP will be lambasting President Obama for having put pet liberal projects like universal health care, green energy and pro-union workplace rulings ahead of growing our jobs market, Mr. Obama has molded his campaign with conflict and anger, tapping into the deep-seated resentments that he believes defines our nation. He will continue to blame our dawdling economy on the rich and on Congress.

This is not only the most depressing and meager of platforms, it isn’t smart. 

A recent Gallup poll indicates that Americans are much more concerned about growing the economy than addressing the “wealth gap between rich and poor”. More revealing, more than half the country says it’s ok that “some people are rich and others are poor.” Consider: with all the careful nurturing donated by a sympathetic media, Occupy Wall Street barely occupies our thoughts. The campaign to lay our problems at the feet of our well-heeled uncaring one percent – enthusiastically endorsed by the president—has fizzled. Obama is shadowboxing; this isn’t the fight he should be waging.

Instead, he should be working overtime to gin up the job gains that have cheered the nation. Unhappily, he has no clue how to do this. He is not aware, for instance, that his pessimism not only saps his popularity, it is bad for our economy. There’s a reason forecasters focus on consumer confidence. Rising optimism – the hallmark of Ronald Reagan’s tenure—leads to higher spending and to job creation.

His approach has not helped his standing. After President Obama launched his populist “us versus them” speech in Kansas on December 6,  his negative ratings moved higher and his approval numbers didn’t budge.  Gallup’s figures show his approval ratings reaching their highest point in recent months between Christmas and New Year’s, when he gave the country a vacation from the rancor.

It is hard to imagine that voters will be satisfied with Mr. Obama’s campaign. It is some measure of his recent accomplishments that a two-month tax break extension was counted a major victory. Two months!  Perhaps his self-awareness was more in focus when he described himself as an “underdog” coming into the 2012 race.

My advice to the president: get to work. Decide that addressing the country’s real needs is more important than slamming GOP stubbornness. 

Lay out a specific plan for changing our tax policies and reining in our entitlements programs. 

Reach out in a sincere way to Republicans – and challenge them to ignore the overture. 

So far, Mr. Obama has left the hard work of building legislation up to Congress; he has positioned himself as a taster, rather than the cook. Maybe it’s time he donned the toque blanche.

After all, he seems to have time on his hands. Consider, for instance, Monday’s less-than-taxing schedule:

10:45: Daily Briefing
11:20: Meet with Senior Advisors
12:00: The President visits with NBA Champions Dallas Mavericks
7:00 pm: Campaign Event
8:00 pm: Another Campaign Event

Mr. Obama’s task is clear. If jobs are being demolished by increasing investment in technology, we better be sure we’re the ones providing that technology. If workers need a better education to secure their future, we cannot continue to graduate illiterate young people from our high schools. If entitlements programs have spun out of control and threaten all other government functions, we need to reform those programs.

These issues are pressing and immediate. They demand the full-out effort of our political officials of both parties. It is the job of President Obama to lead this country. Americans should demand nothing less.

What did we learn from New Hampshire?  We learned that Ron Paul’s libertarian message continues to attract rebel voters. Paul acknowledged that sentiment last night, saying, “We are dangerous to the status quo.” Especially in a state whose bumper stickers read “Live Free or Die,” Paul’s message has appeal.

Americans are rightly concerned about the noxious spread of regulations and laws that threaten to smother our economy like the creepers overgrowing Sleeping Beauty’s castle. For decades this entanglement has grown – but the Obama White House has spurred the nettles like a farmer spreading fertilizer. Mitt Romney should pick up some of Paul’s message and make it his own.

Paul is particularly popular with young people, who are by tradition attracted to new ideas and new political messages. They are also likely to oppose military interventions; Paul has highlighted the danger to young people of our various military excursions. Further,  those under thirty think of themselves as self-sufficient. (Compared to boomers,  they are self-sufficient. It is a lot easier to intone against an activist and over-reaching government when you aren’t cashing Social Security checks.) 

A vote for Paul is not so much a vote for a candidate as it is a vote against all that we dislike about the federal government.

Still, it is hard to imagine that anyone truly considers Paul presidential material. His offbeat message instead is a strike at conventional thinking, conventional electioneering and certainly conventional governing. A vote for Paul is not so much a vote for a candidate as it is a vote against all that we dislike about the federal government.

That’s why Republicans and independents want a new president.  Exit polls show voters’ main concern was “electability,” and that most saw Mitt Romney as more likely than any other GOP candidate to take over the White House in November. Also, it was notable that Romney won across nearly every demographic. He was the frontrunner among men,  women, those who described themselves as “very conservative,” “somewhat conservative” and “moderate to liberal,” evangelicals, the wealthy and the not-so well off and among the most and least educated.

The only categories who picked a different winner were young people who went for Paul (by a large margin), independents (who barely broke for Paul) and Tea Party opponents, who cast their votes heavily in favor of Huntsman. People in the lowest income category were equally divided between Romney and Paul.

The nation’s first primary also showed that Rick Perry should go home. After coming in fifth in Iowa and barely registering a heartbeat in New Hampshire, Mr. Perry is out of the game. Jon Huntsman,  similarly, hasn’t got a prayer. He scored well only with Tea Party opponents. Okay, that’s not a major power base, especially in South Carolina. New Hampshire – a relatively well-educated and prosperous state – was meant to be his best arena. He apparently didn’t get that message.

The most positive development for fans of the front-runner in the New Hampshire wrap-up is that Mitt Romney finally uttered some memorable words. His victory speech was excellent and hard-hitting,  faulting President Obama not only for failed policy but failed hopes.  Rarely does Mr. Romney find political poetry; it’s not clear whether this is the fault of his speechwriters or his own, but it was nice to see him break out with some quotable lines about Obama last night. “The President has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses.” Amen to that.

I could not disagree more energetically. Our country faces urgent challenges – $15 trillion in debt,  20 million underemployed, $2 trillion in infrastructure needs,  unsustainable entitlements programs, dismal public schools and a monthly $37 billion bill for imported oil. We cannot talk our way out of these problems. If we could, the loquacious President Obama would now be enjoying rhapsodic approval ratings.

Mr. Robinson says correctly that the president only hires a “few thousand of the more than one million civilians that the federal government employs.” That is correct, but those chosen can have extraordinary impact on the direction and tone of the country. In the Obama administration, this is especially true. This White House has beefed up its staff by hiring dozens of “czars” not confirmed by Congress or accountable to our legislators. It has also not been shy about vaulting itself into the private sector. As a consequence,  numerous sectors hitherto relatively immune to federal meddling (think autos) have received the Obama imprimatur.

Mr. Obama’s hires have been
notable for having little private sector or
“real world” management experience.

Consider one of President Obama’s first hires – Rahm Emanuel.  Obama’s choice for Chief of Staff was known to be a ruthless (and profane) infighter – someone who could act as “enforcer” with Congress.  How does that square with Obama’s campaign promise to “reach across the aisle” and cool the partisan boil? From the day of the announcement,  Republicans in Congress were on full alert—this was not the choice of a conciliator.

Like many of his predecessors, President Obama assembled a tried and trusted group of confidants to run his White House, and chose ideologically-aligned activists like Lisa Jackson (EPA), Hilda Solis (Labor) and Steven Chu (Energy) to manage critical departments. That is his prerogative, but the trickle-down impact has been a serious shift in focus and policy – one that has undermined business confidence at a critical time.

Mr. Obama’s hires have been notable (and frequently noted) for having little private sector or “real world” management experience. The unusual sway held by academics and activists in the administration has meant that one of the most important tasks confronted by CEOs— prioritizing the needs of an organization – has been ignored. When President Obama took office, the failing economy required all-out triage, and to his credit, President Obama was convinced to rescue the battered banks and to push for emergency stimulus spending. So far, so good. With an infusion of some $800 billion, and the nation buoyed by constructive measures, the economy began to show the first signs of recovery.

Not recognizing the fragility of those green shoots, President Obama then pressed ahead with his legacy-building healthcare program.  In the process, he torched any further political collaboration –  collaboration ultimately essential to our continued recovery. Not only did the Obamacare wars alarm the nation, they spawned the Tea Party,  which rose up in fury and delivered a confrontational Congress in 2010,  effectively blocking any forward momentum.

This administration has given
us 16 programs aimed at fixing our
housing bust, but none has worked.

A good manager figures out a way to get his board and his workers in his corner. Without a doubt, the emboldened GOP has been obstructionist at times – especially on the matter of raising taxes. However, Mr. Obama has seemingly encouraged the rift at pivotal junctures. During the debt ceiling debate this summer, for example, he chose to score political points rather than work with Congress to achieve the goal. He studiously ignored the pledge many in Congress had made saying they would not agree to higher taxes. As to exciting the worker bees, Mr. Obama has played up resentments and finger pointing, blaming one group and then another for the country’s problems. This is not leadership.

A good manager places a high priority on protecting his brand.  Under President Obama’s watch, and in part because of the partisan warfare that he has engaged in, the United States has suffered its first debt downgrade. The damage from that unparalleled loss of prestige would be much worse were the EU not in disarray.

Perhaps most important, a good manager understands how to fix things. There are no ends of things that are broken in our country today. From the postal service to our embarrassing airports, to our doomed Medicare system, we need solutions. This administration has given us 16 programs aimed at fixing our housing bust – all launched with lots of well-chosen words – but none has worked.

Mr. Robinson is correct that a leader needs good communication skills. But he needs – first and foremost – sound ideas and principles to communicate. Mr. Romney is not a great communicator, but he has a solid history of fixing broken organizations. Surely that counts for more than words.

It is unpleasant to close the year on a sour note. The wrangle over the short-term payroll tax-cut extension sums up this frustrating year: the policies being blocked by House Republicans are bad policies, but infuriated voters will blame them nonetheless for their intransigence.

The Senate and the President are pushing for a two-month “fix.” Do we seriously believe that at the end of the next two months Congress will be better positioned to tackle tax reform or to plug our leaky budget? Will some magic elixir in their Christmas stockings imbue our legislators with vision, or leadership?

Americans are so tired of political bickering, and so longing for a plan to get us out of this mess. Which leads me to review the lead editorial in Tuesday’s New York Times – one of the most depressing items I have read lately, which is saying a lot.

It would be hard to slip a sheet of cheap copy paper in between the views of the Times’ editorial board and those of the oval office. Thus, the piece is of interest as it reflects the very core of the administration’s policies. It lauds the president’s recent speech in Kansas, which turned up the demagoguery and laid out his campaign themes. The Times takes the ball and runs with it, laying out their priorities for translating “the plight of the middle class into an agenda for broad prosperity.”

It is as hopeless and wrongheaded a platform as one can imagine. There is no notion of building the wealth of the country, of stimulating industry, attracting foreign investors, inviting tourism, providing a solid and secure financial backdrop – nothing, in short, that would inspire private enterprise. Why am I surprised? The New York Times scorns the power of markets and the wealth created through capitalism. To the editors, the upturn in housing starts that so buoyed markets yesterday stemmed not from rising rents, which drove landlords to build more apartments, but doubtless from some government incentive.

The major points of the NYT program to boost the middle class are:

“Creating good jobs” – not through real options like attracting foreign manufacturers or fast-tracking natural gas development, but through “stimulus bills that include spending for public works, high-tech manufacturing and an infrastructure bank.” In other words, the government should fund job creation, even though we have already lost our triple-A status and our spending must – must – come down. By the way, in case the NYT is confused – high tech is doing quite well, thank you.

The Times admits that some of the droop in middle class income has issued from the faster growth of the service sector, which typically pays less well than manufacturing. No problem – raise the minimum wage, they suggest, to narrow that divide. Never mind that service jobs require less education and add less value, which together explain the discrepancy. Hike the price paid for those workers and the nation will be richer. This is poppycock of course – jack up the wages and watch demand for those workers decline. Have these folks ever read an economics text?

“Stopping foreclosures.” The Times sees a clear answer to the overhang of negative equity – force the banks to forgive monies owed. (Talk about creating absolute chaos in the marketplace, keeping it hanging in limbo forever.) Moreover, they encourage Mr. Obama to “opt for a thorough federal inquiry” into “banks’ conduct during the mortgage bubble.” Yes, that will certainly help stimulate loan making. The editors argue that banks should be pressed to modify mortgages since “they make more by foreclosing rather than by modifying troubled loans.” This is simply not true. Banks generally lose twenty to thirty percent of a mortgage’s value through foreclosure – it is absolutely the last resort.

The Obama administration has made a complete hash out of providing complex short-term programs intended to help underwater homeowners. None has helped. They would do much better to stand aside, let the prices of homes fall to a clearing level and allow the banks to work with credible mortgage holders who could benefit from loan modifications. Today, far too many homeowners are hanging on for dear life, expecting the federal government to bail them out.

“Regulating the banks” is supposed to be another growth mechanism. It is not. The banks are so rattled by the maze established by Dodd Frank that they are overly cautious. They face increased capital requirements through Fed action or Basle III; they are desperately trying to sell assets to meet new standards. This is deflationary—the NYT (like Europe’s regulators) is fighting the last war.

“Raising taxes” on the wealthy. This is of course the nut of the great debate that has consumed Washington this year. The age-old concept that raising taxes is a mistake in a recession has been tossed overboard – hiking levies on wealthy people apparently is acceptable. It’s an odd theory when high earners are the ones propping up demand at the moment. In any event, it would seem an inefficient way of helping the middle class.

This is, in sum, the proposals that the Times sees brightening the prospects of the middle class. It is a dark vision, and explains the gloom hanging over the country. Let us hope that next year we elect a candidate that brings the sun from behind the clouds, that can envision a country growing and prospering – at all income levels. That has been our history, and it is our future.

Want some 100-watt bulbs in your Christmas stocking? You might want to put off hoarding; the status of the endangered incandescent bulb, originally scheduled for extinction as of the New Year, is suddenly uncertain.  Tucked inside the latest mess of Congressional activity that passes for legislation is a measure that delays the ban on importing or manufacturing traditional light bulbs until next September. Score one for consumer choice.