The minority party should focus on the effectiveness of existing programs

Today, our Congressman spoke at a local business alliance luncheon. Being from the minority party, he had the usual comments about what the majority is doing wrong. I suggested that the SBIR grant program for small business was flawed - the focus should be on growing businesses, not perpetually small operations whose main expertise is applying for and winning government grants. (This was not my opinion, but the GAO's.) He replied that rather than give out the grants at all, he'd like to give every business that creates a new job a 25% tax credit.

This is where the minority party gets it wrong. Both parties focus on strategy and power, regardless of their majority or minority status. But the minority party, especially when a minority in all 3 branches, is not going to drive policy. Better to present their alternate proposals, then focus on the government's execution of its existing programs. Uncover waste, fraud, unintended consequences; expose these to the public, and push the majority party to govern effectively.

Going back to the SBIR example, when the minority says "We shouldn't spend that money at all, we should give it back to the people"; well, no matter how valid that position is the majority will respond, "We won the most votes last time, so more people clearly agree with us that it should be spent."

On the other hand, if the minority party points out that the SBIR program has stated goals of creating jobs, yet half of all small business grants go to "small businesses" that have been small for decades, receive the bulk of their money from a never-ending stream of small business grants, and have few productive skills outside of winning those grants - what will the majority party say? "True, but we won the election so the American people clearly want us to waste that money."

John McCain - Secretary of Defense

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has served exceptionally under two Presidents. Now that he plans to retire in 2011, I would like President Obama to consider John McCain as the next Secretary of Defense.

McCain has the experience and respect for the position, he’s a warrior who knows the cost of war, and he’s a budget hawk who will be able to both cut wasteful spending *and* improve our future security. John McCain is an American hero and was a proven independent before he ran for President.

Secretary Gates has recently attacked spending priorities in the Defense Department. Only a strong character with unquestionable courage will be able to fight the political-military-industrial complex that has led to so much bloat in Defense. McCain possesses those characteristics, is respected by most Republicans, and has the experience and background to take over the Afghanistan war effort.

Candidate Obama stressed bipartisanship during his campaign; a McCain appointment would be his biggest step yet in fulfilling that promise as President.

Build a trans-Palestine Corridor to Gaza to secure peace.

Last week, The Economist published a leader recapping the roadmap to peace in Palestine. I've heard the same proposal for over 20 years, yet with the focus on securing a peace agreement, no one explains to me how the peace would be maintained against the focused efforts of a small minority of radicals (on both sides) who don't want a two-state solution.

I think that most Palestinians, like most people everywhere, would rather support themselves and their family than strap a bomb to their chest and wreck havoc. Yet with unemployment in Palestine at 16% and Gaza at 41%, the sheer number of rootless men will prevent a lasting peace.

I propose the addition of a "trans-Palestine Corridor", connecting southern Palestine with Gaza, to the peace roadmap. In exchange for the Israeli West Bank settlements and land enclosed by the security barrier, Palestine would receive a wide corridor between their two territories. This would be a world-class transportation corridor, funded by the international community.

I'm imagining a mile-wide stretch of four-lane highway with room for 12 lanes, high-speed passenger and freight rail lines, power transmission, water canal, natural gas pipeline, fiber optic lines, gas stations, rest stops, emergency vehicle areas, a manned security barrier isolating the corridor from Israel, secure crossing points to leave the corridor (part of Palestine) and enter Israel, north-south tunnels under or bridges over the corridor connecting the resulting northern and southern portions of Israel. This 30-60 mile corridor through current desert, coupled with the construction of a major port in Gaza, would take a generation to complete, creating hundreds of thousands of long-term jobs at all skill levels for Palestinians, billions of dollars worth of contracts for companies from Israel, Palestine, America, Europe, and other countries who pay the bills and ensure the security during the transition period. The resulting work-driven economic boom in Palestine could be enough to unite a majority against the violent minority, instead of standing by indifferently as we see today.

Would Israel give up 50 square miles for a corridor between Palestine and Gaza in exchange for the West Bank land and settlements they have already built? Will the world stop spending money on military actions and repeat the conflict for another 50 years, or find the billions needed to develop a viable Palestine and lasting peace?

The President should resign from their party after election

Previously, I advocated that the Vice President should perform party duties so the President can focus on American issues, not party concerns. Recent news from the White House, defending their attempts to divert Joe Sestak from the Senate primary race against Arlen Specter as "politics as usual", now makes me think that the President should resign their party in their Inauguration address.

While I don't think that anything illegal was done, the whole system stinks. All candidates for political office are American citizens, and they each should be able to count on neutrality from their President. Were the President to become an Independent on day 1, then they could establish a standard that they won't participate in political activities. As a bonus, the President could avoid the poor appearance of speaking at a fund-raiser for a Democratic Senator while oil continues to pour into the Gulf of Mexico.

It doesn't help America when mass media manufactures anger to boost their ratings.

There are very few things that you should get angry about, but there are a very few number of things that you should get very angry about.

Sustainable trade is fair for all countries

The United States' trade balance with other nations was negative $517 billion for the last 12 months ending March 2010. Last week, Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman suggested that retaliation for perceived currency manipulation by China could be a threat to impose a 25 percent import surcharge on Chinese goods.

Before we start a trade war with a future superpower peer, we should re-visit Warren Buffet's 2003 proposal to balance the trade deficit. Simply, every time a company exports $1 of merchandise from the U.S., they receive the right to import $1 of merchandise. We set up an exchange where companies can sell import certificates that they won't use and buy ones they need. Since the deficit is so large, and has built up for so long, such a system would initially shock markets. So the federal government could sell extra import certificates on the market to stabilize prices and purposefully run a declining trade deficit, for example, $400 billion the first year, $300 billion the second, and so on. During this transition period, the program would thus result in some revenue for our government to fund export programs such as ports and export banks.

This system will end our unsustainable trade deficits through a combination of (1) making import certificates too expensive to be worth importing certain cheap goods (2) moving some manufacturing to the U.S. to prevent the need to buy import certificates for goods sold here, or to produce export certificates for goods sold overseas. Such a system is fairer than tariffs, since it doesn't target specific products, industries, or nations. All of our trading partners would be welcome to move production capacity into America, and thus produce import certificates rather than consume them.

There is hope: the Economic Policy Institute is studying the proposal's implementation, and Senators Dorgan and Feingold have in the past introduced a bill before Congress. Of course, concrete proposals like this will bring out all of the reasons we should not do this, and no new system is perfect, so it would need to be adjusted in practice.

The goal, however, must be achieved: over time, the United States should run a neutral trade balance.