The people taking to the streets to protest “big government” and out-of-control spending are a little late getting into the game.  The massive federal budget deficit didn’t just happen when Obama took office, as this article clearly points out.  It’s been many years in the making.

A huge reduction in tax receipts, thanks to the tanked economy, is a big factor in the deficit.  Also, Bush administration initiatives that have been adopted by Obama (Iraq, Afghanistan, middle class tax cuts, Medicare drug benefits) have for years and continue to push us into the red.  Obama’s initiatives, including the stimulus package, account for just 10% of deficit spending.

I know I’ll be lambasted by the right for “blaming it all on Bush”  (I know, a two term president who’s now out of office should be free from citicism).  But Obama does deserve a knock or two for not confronting the reality of the deficits and how to deal them over the long term.

So my question to the ”Tea Partiers” is, what’s taken you so long?

If Boeing and the machinists union negotiate in good faith and reach an agreement on a no-strike clause, fine. But for Boeing to insist on it under a threat to open another 787 production line in a different state is just plain wrong.

Boeing’s CEO has said that the company and the unions must set a new, more cooperative tone - and that makes sense. But basically demanding that the unions completely “disarm” is not a step in that direction.

Business is a two-way street. Management can’t see labor as an enemy and vice versa. And the right should stop blaming workers for the failures of businesses they work for.

Republicans in congress and others are criticizing President Obama for not being more supportive of the protesters in Iran.  But I think they’re forgetting, or ignoring the fact that he toes a very fine line.

Iran’s supreme leader has already blamed the U.S. and the west in general for fomenting the unrest that has led to the protests over the disputed election and even for causing the protests themselves.  He doesn’t have much to base that claim on, but would if Obama jumps in as a cheerleader for the protest movement. 

This is the Iranian peoples’ fight, not ours.  It would only undermine and demean their bravery if Obama were to grandstand on Iran’s turmoil.

General Motors is a mess, a mess created by the free market - and not one that the right can blame on the government.  Now, what should the government do?  Stand idly by while the whole thing collapses and takes an entire American industry with it?  Or step in, invest a lot of money and order it to restructure into a competitive company? 

Of course, Obama chose the latter and most agree it’s the right thing to do.  The new CEO of General Motors says it’ll allow the company to come back stronger.  The conservative PM of Canada says his government’s similar investment in GM there will save the Canadian auto industry. 

I know many say we should just let it collapse (serves the unions right), just as we should have allowed the banking and insurance systems to fail.  I guess the thinking is if we all just suffer enough for four years a Republican will certainly be elected in 2012.  Sounds like the right really wants not just Obama, but America, to fail.

I also find it funny, if it weren’t so sad, that many are so disgusted by our government taking over a failed company, but don’t bat an eye when it takes over another country.

Enough of this nonsense already over the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of the potential for violent hate groups to make a resurgence.  It is sensible for law enforcement to be dilligent in considering potential threats where ever they may lurk.  It’s just too darn bad that some extreme rightists have been and could continue to be a threat to the nation and its citizens, just as have left wing nuts and other extremists.  And former soldiers have done some very bad deeds.  Timothy McVeigh was a gulf war veteran.  Even sniper John Muhammad was a veteran.  Still, Janet Napolitano and the FBI itself say veterans and conservatives aren’t being “profiled.”

And to everyone hollering about surveillance of Tea Party attendees (which didn’t happen anywhere that I have seen) I say:  where were you freedom lovers when anti-war marches were regularly video taped by police during the last administration.

And Obama certainly takes all types of terrorism seriously as evidenced by his focus on Afghanistan.

I get many e-mails from listeners who vehemently disagree with President Obama, and myself, about how we should be dealing with the current economic mess.  I try to respond to them all, but it gets a bit overwhelming.  So instead, I’ll respond to some assertions made by listener Bill in a recent message…

• the Obama Administration does want to nationalize business in this country.  How else will he redistribute wealth as he and others in his party have stated is their goal?

Obama does not want to nationalize business in this country, and he doesn’t want to redistribute wealth.  He does believe, as many do, that the wealthy (including himself) should shoulder their fair share of the tax burden, and that there must be a safety net for vulnerable Americans.  More on this as we go along…

• the economy is now officially owned by the Obama Administration since he and the Democratic majority have pushed through the recent Stimulus Bills and budgets with his $3.6 trillion budget about to be pushed through as well.  He is increasing debt, not cutting it.

It’s true that the economy is Obama’s baby now, and he admits it himself.  He will be judged by the success or failure of his economic plan.  But he’s the guy who was elected to implement his ideas.  Be honest, though.  The first stimulus bill was passed under the previous administration.  He is increasing debt, not cutting it, out of necessity.  With all quarters of the economy contracting, the government can’t sit on the sideline and watch the economy collapse.  I don’t care what history revisionists say, the New Deal did pull America out of the Great Depression.  World War II finished the job - but that was exactly because the government adopted even more deficit spending.

• Politicians are very good at grand standing and rushing to pass new regulation and do a terrible job of evaluating what the unintended consequences of their decisions or bills may be.  This is also another basic rule in business, determine what the upside and downside of the decision that you are about to make may be.

That may well be true of politicians.  But we’re seeing in vivid detail that businesses aren’t always so capable of determining what the upside and downside of a decision will be.  The bottom line is that this recession was caused by businesses run amok, not by government, though I believe government could have done much to prevent it via stricter regulation of these irresponsible financial institutions.

• Joe. My father worked three jobs to provide for his family.  He never sought, demanded or expected the government to support him or his family.  I have worked since I was 14 years old and actually from the time I was 8 if you consider a paper route, snow shoveling and lawn mowing jobs.  Now Joe. My father worked three jobs to provide for his family.  He never sought, demanded or expected the government to support him or his family.  I have worked since I was 14 years old and actually from the time I was 8 if you consider a paper route, snow shoveling and lawn mowing jobs.  Now I am supposed to just sit back and accept that all that I have EARNED with over 45 years of work is to be taken or taxed away to redistribute to second and third generation welfare recipients who have proven that they are too lazy to work and also to support illegal aliens who shouldn’t be here in the first place. And you call this fair and just?. And you call this fair and just?

Your father’s work ethic is admirable.  But there are many, many people out there who can’t find one job, let alone three these days.  Shouldn’t government help those people via unemployment benefits, etc.?  I, too, have worked all my life and have never gotten government assistance - unless you want to count student loans (which I did pay back 100%).  But I don’t resent a portion of my tax dollars going to support an unemployed worker or a family mired in poverty.  And to say that “I am supposed to just sit back and accept that all that I have EARNED with over 45 years of work is to be taken or taxed away to redistribute to second and third generation welfare recipients who have proven that they are too lazy to work and also to support illegal aliens who shouldn’t be here in the first place” is nonsense.  If anyone says that raising the tax rate the wealthiest Americans pay from 35% to 39% percent is taking “everything they’ve worked for,” that person needs to get an education in mathematics.  Also, don’t discount the benefits that workers, whether legal or not, bring to our communities. 

Once again, as my title to this blog says, we have to be honest in our arguments.  Outrageous overstatements and misrepresentations do nothing to either solve the problem or enhance the discussion.

I hope Obama succeeds fantastically!

The right’s favorite word is now “socialist.”  It’s used so often and in relation to so many issues that it’s lost all meaning.  Actually nationalizing a company or industry is a socialist move.  Simply propping up a failing bank or institution is not.  If Obama is a socialist for giving capital and loans to teetering banks, then so is George W. Bush and his father along with Ronald Reagan.  The younger Bush began the bank “bailout” that Obama has continued.  Reagan and his successor bailed out hundreds of failed Savings and Loan institutions in the 80’s and early 90’s.  I think they all made the right decision.

Obama acts while McCain twitters… 

Taking a break from politics for a moment…

My wife and I attended a talk on aneurysms this week at the UW Medical Center.  One of the speakers was my wife’s neurosurgeon, Dr. Laligam Sekhar.  He’s world famous and an innovator in his field, and his talk focused on brain aneurysms and their treatment.  That was very eye-opening for us as we got a detailed look at the kind of surgery she experienced.

The other speaker was the head of vascular surgery at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Dr. Benjamin Starnes.  He talked about aortic aneurysms.  They’re a bulging of the aorta, usually in the upper abdomen.  Like brain aneurysms, they can rupture, often causing death.  But treatments have advanced at an incredible pace in just a couple of years, and patients can often be treated without open surgery and go on to lead long, productive lives.  The issue is detection.  He urges everyone, especially men, and especially people with a history of smoking, to have a simple ultra-sound examination at about age 65.  It can detect an aneurysm and its size, allowing the patient and doctor to determine if treatment is necessary.

 It could save your life.

In a voicemail on my office phone, listener Gene made the observation that it wasn’t Republicans or Democrats who caused the current financial crisis.  It was greedy bankers and financiers focusing only on short term profit and ignoring the incredible rishs they were running.  He also said he agrees with the Obama administration’s conclusion that many of these teetering institutions are too big to allow them to fail - lest their collapse bring down the entire economy.  I agree.  His idea was to limit how big a company can get.  It would be illegal for a company to grow so big that its failure would be a threat to all of us.  I don’t know if that would work.  What I do think we need is more oversight and, yes, tighter regulation of the banking and insurance industries if we’re going to avoid this kind of mess in the future. 

Discussions about global warming often lead to the response that “we don’t understand the climate and how it changes.  In fact, the worry in the 1970’s was that the climate was cooling and we were headed toward another ice age.” 

I’ve searched for articles from that period to find evidence of that and have been unsuccessful, so the other day during the morning show I asked listeners where I could find some and a couple of people responded.  Gerritt sent me a link to this Newsweek article from April 1975, and Kathy sent me a link to this article from the New York Times in May of that same year.  Thanks to both of you.

The articles are similar and both very interesting.  The thing that leaps out at me, though, is the lack of certainty from the scientists who were interviewed for the articles (they are pretty much the same scientists).  They think the climate is cooling but aren’t sure and have very little historical information to draw from.  Ultimately, the authors aren’t able to draw a very definitive conclusion.

I would point out that these are two articles that were published about a month apart.  That doesn’t mean there weren’t more from that era, but I don’t recall a huge outcry about global cooling during that period.

I’ve interviewed climate scientists who say that the climate was indeed cooling for a time during that heavy industrial age due to the immense amount of particulate pollution that was being produced.  They contend that stricter regulations on that type of pollution mitigated that effect and, with ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses being introduced into the atmosphere, a warming of the climate began.

I don’t believe that human activity is the only factor in climate change.  To believe that would be silly.  But I also think we’re in total denial if we think that spewing billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air coupled with massive deforestation and the other ways we are uniquely able to alter the planet and its balance can in no way affect the climate.  And, despite a few dissenting voices (dissent is good, don’t get me wrong), the overwhelming scientific opinion is that human activity is involved.

Admitting we have a problem is the first step toward recovery.