BY: MIKE PORTER

We hear it every day in the news as more American jobs continue to be lost overseas. Politicians always claim to have the answer to our problems and offer to come to our rescue promising to stop global outsourcing for good. Why shouldn’t they, right? If they succeed, then everyone who has a job will have the politicians to thank. When President Obama was on the campaign trail, he said “When I am President, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put money in the pockets of working Americans…” several times. (1) Many on the left as well as some moderates repeat rhetoric similar to this and only talk about the negatives of outsourcing. Language like this sounds great on the campaign, but is there any truth to it? Is outsourcing really a bad thing for our economy, and should it be stopped to save America? Nothing could be further from the truth, and in all actuality, outsourcing helps the U.S. economy in many ways. Why do politicians say things like this? They either do not understand how everything works themselves, or they do not think you are capable of understanding the truth about outsourcing. I think it is a little of both, and once you learn about outsourcing, they may lose your vote. These benefits help not only the companies that choose to outsource, but also employees and consumers. There are also some things you can do that can aid in protecting yourself should you run into an outsourcing situation at your company.

Let’s begin by addressing the myth surrounding the jobs lost as a result of outsourcing. There is no disputing the fact that some jobs are lost overseas when companies choose to outsource. To deny this claim would be absurd; the point of outsourcing is to move some jobs that are currently being performed by people in the United States to countries with cheaper labor costs such as India, China, or Poland. On the surface, this sounds cruel, as it does mean some people who are working in factories or in highly skilled Information Technology positions will be out of a job. The fact that critics leave out is the number of state side jobs that are saved as result of outsourcing. Moving some of this labor overseas could mean the difference between a company staying in business or going out of business. Losing some jobs in the short term is certainly a better option. Companies often take the savings gained from outsourcing and reinvest these savings in order to expand and create better jobs in the United States. For example, just after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed, Zenith Electronics Corporation sent over 10,000 jobs to Mexico. However, they continued to employ over 6,000 people in the United States. (2) Today, Zenith employs thousands of people in the United States because they were able to save some money by utilizing overseas labor. If Zenith could not take advantage of NAFTA, the likelihood of Zenith going out of business would have been very high. As a result, the job losses that would occur from Zenith’s bankruptcy would have had a much greater impact on jobs and the economy. The leveraging of capital also saves the government from having to bailout companies who are “too big to fail.”

Companies aren’t the only ones that benefit from outsourcing. You, the consumer, also benefit each time you purchase products. Many of the products sold at retailers such as Wal-Mart are assembled in factories overseas and can be sold at a cheaper price than if they were manufactured in the United States. Critics of outsourcing always like to talk about the loss of jobs and the ensuing problems, but they rarely factor everything into the equation. Opponents do not complain when it comes time to buy something at their favorite store that is cheaper as a result of outsourcing. During difficult economic times, people need a low cost option. In addition, outsourcing helps U.S. based companies take advantage of cheaper labor, which allows them to compete with companies overseas.

It has been established that the consumer and the company benefit from outsourcing, but what about the employee? Is it possible for employees to benefit from outsourcing? The employees who remain employed by the company can benefit from additional skills as a direct result of outsourcing. For example, some employees may take on more of a management role and work with employees abroad. This provides opportunity for the employee that would have been difficult to obtain if it were not for outsourcing. In some cases, the overseas labor will take on more of the “mundane” tasks, which will free up the state side employee to focus on more meaningful activities. Moving simple, repeatable tasks tend to be focus of outsourcing. These same tasks also inclined to be more of the everyday tasks that many domestic employees dislike. Why not move these tasks over to another team of people for a lower cost? What if I were to tell you someone else was going to do all of your simple and tedious tasks you hate doing in order to free you up for more interesting work?

Employees who are let go as a result of outsourcing also benefit. While they may have lost their job, this change will force many people to pick up new and improved skills, which will land them a better paying job. This applies to non-skilled labor as well as highly skilled labor and everything in between. While short-term job loss is never good, the long-term benefit of a more skilled workforce is more than an offset. In many cases, companies who are engaged in outsourcing are always in search of talent. In several instances, American based companies like IBM or Hewlett Packard (HP) will hire most of the people who were outsourced to work for them and their outsourcing efforts. A quick search on IBM or HP’s website will illustrate how they are constantly looking to fill open positions here in America even though they employ thousands of people overseas. How many of these jobs would be lost if IBM or HP could not leverage their assets by going overseas? Furthermore, what about the thousands of companies as well as new companies that are able to start up and survive as a result of outsourcing some of their information technology operations to IBM or HP?

Outsourcing also benefits other countries. One may ask why America would be interested in other countries benefiting from outsourcing and how another country’s prosperity is beneficial to the United States. To begin with, the shifting of some labor over to another country will benefit the economy of that country. Improved economies in foreign countries will improve their citizens’ way of life and expose the benefits of capitalism in their country. This has resulted in increased demand for U.S. products and services performed by people right here in America as well as overseas. For example, Coca-Cola has shown continued profits while domestic sales remain flat. In July of 2009, Coca-Cola announced their second-quarter profit rose 43 percent due to increased sales in China and India while domestic sales fell one percent. (3) Without overseas sales, Coca-Cola most likely would have had to lay people off or cut back on some employee benefits. Improving the lives of the people in these countries has allowed their citizens to have the extra income to spend on something like bottles of Coke. Poverty stricken countries are not going to have the improved lifestyle or the spare cash to spend on soft drinks without American help through outsourcing. Situations resembling the jobs saved at Coca-Cola as a result of outsourcing will never make headlines; however it happens quite frequently. One would think most people would embrace the idea of private companies making investments domestically as well as overseas to improve the lifestyles of millions of people all over the world – all without taxpayer dollars.

What about the retailers who hire people to sell these products? How many of the 2.1 million retail jobs would a massive retailer like Wal-Mart lose should they be forced to sell products at higher prices? (4) What would happen to the benefits a company like Wal-Mart is able to provide for all their U.S. based associates? One of the primary concerns in today’s political arena is people who do not have access to health insurance. Outsourcing has given many companies the ability to provide their employees with health insurance. This is a fact that protectionists fail to acknowledge. Wal-Mart was able to add $870 million dollars into employee profit sharing and 401K plans which are funded regardless of whether or not the employee chooses to fund their retirement account. (5) It would be highly unlikely this retailer would be able to provide these benefits if they were not a successful company. Wal-Mart thrives on their ability to be a low-cost provider which can only be achieved through selling many products made overseas. If we are seeing this kind of result from one single retailer, imagine what the effects would be for other retailers and suppliers who provide raw materials to overseas factories all over the world.

Regardless of how you feel about outsourcing, the statistics show outsourcing isn’t going away any time soon. Therefore, what can you do about outsourcing, and how can you protect yourself should your job become outsourced? You should acquire as many skills as possible both on and off the job, show up on time with a good attitude every day and learn as much as you can about the field in which you work. Additional skills and business knowledge will make it easier for the company to move you into different roles should your current role be lost to outsourcing. If the worst case scenario actually happens and you are laid off, you will have additional skills and business knowledge that could easily be taken with you to another company. Employees who learn new skills are helpful to themselves, their employers, and the economy as a whole.

What can our government do about outsourcing? Given the many benefits outsourcing provides, the government should do very little. Our government should allow private firms to decide whether or not outsourcing will be a good strategic move. In several cases, companies have cancelled outsourcing contracts and pulled their operations back to the United States on their own. One example is a decision made in 2009 by AT&T to bring over 4,000 jobs back to the states that had previously been outsourced overseas. (6) If our government is concerned about job losses as a result of outsourcing and wishes to provide better job opportunities for America, it should focus on the following:

* Encourage business to succeed and allow poorly run companies to fail
* Eliminate unnecessary and costly government regulations
* Remove its pro-union stance which results in the high cost of labor
* Provide a tax-friendly environment
* Create an atmosphere that encourages investment and profit

There is no such talk from the Obama Administration. Instead, this administration has taken a more protectionist view by opposing companies who choose to outsource. The truth is protectionism has never worked throughout history and actually provides a motive for companies to outsource. Furthermore, these protectionist actions make a recession worse.

Finally, outsourcing is not easy to accomplish. There are many barriers which will always keep companies in line when they consider outsourcing. In many cases, there will be language barriers and cultural differences that will not positively impact the bottom line. There are also logistical issues with outsourced employees, as it becomes more difficult to manage and communicate. Companies also have to obey the labor and tax laws which exist in the country in which they choose to outsource. Some overseas labor laws are worse than the United States, and some companies could find themselves hiring U.S. employees for work that was initially intended to go overseas. Executing an outsourcing program requires careful planning and the assistance of many people stateside to accomplish. Many companies, such as AT&T, reconsider and scale back some or all of the work that had been outsourced. A study done in 2009 by oDesk, a company that assists with outsourcing, has found many U.S. firms have been outsourcing to American based companies using American labor instead of overseas, and wages for these employees have increased! They discovered while rates for U.S. employees tend to be higher, their feedback scores tend to be higher as well. This same study has shown work being done in the U.S. grew at a rate of 367 percent from 2007 to 2008. (7)

In conclusion, outsourcing will not destroy the American economy. These fears have been played out by useless politicians since America’s beginning back when states would outsource and move labor to other states that had a lower cost of living. We see how detrimental that was to the United States, right? History has shown us that the government’s attempts to prevent what the market is trying will only cost America more jobs and opportunity. You have a choice every day as a consumer to research and only do business with companies who minimize outsourcing. However, be prepared to pay more money and have less money to save should you decide to take on such an initiative. No one likes to see jobs go away, but our government’s attempts to stop it are just wasteful, protectionist nonsense. The market will always work in spite of what politicians do, and no one is bigger than the market itself. Our government needs to step back and let this play itself out. If our government would just assume the role intended for them by our country’s founders, then we will all be better off.

(1) http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/14/weekinreview/nafta-and-jobs-in-a-numbers-war-no-one-can-count.html?pagewanted=1
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22coke.html?_r=2
(4) http://walmartstores.com/Careers/
(5) http://walmartstores.com/careers/7750.aspx
(6) http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/telecom-outsourcing/att-brings-4000-outsourced-jobs-back-in-house.html
(7) http://www.odesk.com/blog/2009/02/freelance-job-growth-accelerates-in-the-us/

By: Jordan and Michelle

Part I: The Structure of American Government

America has always looked to Europe for guidance. During the Revolutionary Era, faction vied for power by claiming to look to Revolutionary France or Great Britain for ideas. In the early 1900s, various Old Progressives were influenced or directly taught by German Idealists and British Historicists. In fact, before he became President, Woodrow Wilson wrote volumes on the superiority of the British parliamentary system while lamenting the flaws of the American Constitution. Today, the New Progressives look to Europe's growing unity (and growing government) and feel envy. The European Union (EU) has passed sweeping environmental laws, has a large welfare system, and in most nations, state-run universal health care. To a leftist, Europe is the future. To most Americans, however, transplanting the EU's system to the U.S. would be a nightmare beyond words. To understand why, we must understand the history of the American structure of government.

The Confederation

The United States of America began under a much smaller and much weaker Constitution. The Second Continental Congress took the role of a provisional national government during the Revolutionary War and presented the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union to the states in 1777. After years of haggling and dealing, Maryland, the final state, ratified the Constitution, and the first permanent structured government of the United States was established.

Thirteen articles made up the first Constitution, and recognized the following:

• The name of the United States of America
• The equality between the thirteen states
• The assurance that the United States of America is a free and independent nation
• The union between the states is perpetual
• The freedom of movement between the states except for criminals
• The establishment of a Congress with each state having one delegation and one vote per delegation
• The central government can conduct foreign relations and war, and that no individual state can declare war nor have a state navy
• When an army is raised, all officers ranked Colonel and below are named by state legislatures
• The United States expenditures will be paid by funds raised by the states
• The job of the central government encompassed war, weights and measures, and mediation
• A Committee of the States was to be established to act as the government for when Congress is not in session
• Nine states are needed to ratify new states
• The war debt incurred by the previous Congress is now owned by the Confederacy
• The declaration that the Articles are perpetual and can only be altered by Congress with the approval of all state legislatures

While this document is quite the read, one can see the emphasis on decentralization. Each state had vast amounts of power over its own destiny. The central government was essentially a mediator and a very weak commerce regulator, as the states each had their own trade policy. There was no executive branch, no judiciary and no bureaucratic regulatory commissions. In fact, the Congress had no way to force the states to submit troops or supplies which made it difficult to prosecute the war. Many people such as John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton saw the weakness of the Articles during and after the war. Congress had no power to tax; and, therefore, it had no power to pay debts, fund roads or any other kind of basic national infrastructure. Congress had to ask the individual states for money. Unsurprisingly, the states, without having any mandatory reason to give money, were reluctant to work outside their own self-interest. A slightly similar, but more centralized version of this structure can be seen in Canada where the provinces are forced to give money to the federal government who then distributes that money back to the provinces. The rich provinces receive very little of what they gave, and the poorer provinces receive far more than their contribution. This system creates a lot of ire between the individual provinces as well as between the provinces and the federal government.

The Union

Due to the compounding problems of the Confederation, a call was made to amend the Articles to create a stronger central government that could levy taxes, create domestic and international trade policy, conduct foreign policy and war with more coordination. This process began with Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (the Virginia Legislature at the time). Following a recommendation by James Madison, the states were invited to Maryland to talk about how to simmer inter-state conflict. That convention endorsed a motion that called for the states to meet in Philadelphia to discuss ways to amend the Articles of Confederation, which became the historic Constitutional Convention of 1787. On its face, the “Grand Convention” was about amending, not replacing, the Articles; however, the delegates in Philadelphia began closed-door meetings and hashed out a new constitution.

There were several proposals on the structure of the new government. The Virginia Plan, drafted by James Madison, proposed a bicameral (two chamber) legislature (seats distributed by population or taxes) with the lower branch being elected by the people and the upper branch elected by nominations from the thirteen state legislatures. The upper house would be able to veto laws of the states if it conflicted with the national union. The executive branch would be elected by the national legislature. Both branches would be limited to one term. A national judiciary was also proposed. With the Virginia Plan and a similar plan proposed by Charles Pinckney, the smaller states were under threat of losing influence in the national government. The New Jersey Plan, or the Small State Plan, proposed a single legislature with each state having one vote. Similar to the Virginia Plan, there was a judicial branch and the single house electing the executive branch. A fourth plan, called Hamilton's Plan after Alexander Hamilton, proposed the abolishment of the states in a government based on the British government. It wasn't seriously considered.

On July 16, 1787, a compromise was proposed by Connecticut that combined the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. There would be a bicameral legislature in which the lower house (House of Representatives) would be elected by the people, and the seats would be distributed by population. The upper house of the legislature (the Senate) would be elected by state legislatures. Instead of the Congress electing the executive branch, the President would be elected by electors who in turn would be elected by the people of each state. Out of all these plans, the only consistent branch was the independent judiciary appointed to life terms. There had been a call for a bill of rights before the Constitutional Convention as a protection against government tyranny. During the ratification of the Constitution, many states added recommendations to amend the Constitution. When the First Congress met, it wrote and proposed the Bill of Rights, which was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Why It Works

The key to understanding why the United States government is shaped the way it is in its current manner is to understand why the Revolution happened in the first place. It wasn't simply about taxes, but about representation and rights of citizens of the British Empire. During the Revolutionary Era, colonists were treated as second-class citizens with their natural and legal rights under the British Bill of Rights being violated. After the victory over Great Britain, the founders had it in their mind to prevent an overbearing, centralized government from forming. The way they came to do this was to pit the government against itself while leaving room for it to progress and function.

Unlike a number of other nations who have a parliamentary model based on that of Great Britain (my second home of Canada being one); the lawmakers and the law executers are not of the same cloth. The powers of the executive branch and the legislative branch are specifically appointed to the former or the latter. This allows each branch to try to outmaneuver each other in their mutual attempts to gain more power. However, it was written not only with checks on both the legislative and executive branches, but with an originally established check on both houses of Congress. Before the Progressive push and victory for the popular election of Senators, those of the upper house were elected by state legislatures. This kept a check on the populism of the lower house with the interest of the state governments. The removal of this check has had drastic consequences, as seen with the alliance of both Senators and Representatives on many, many questionable bills that took more power away from the individual states. This would never happen if the state government had its own representation in Congress. In spite of the loss of that check, the short but dramatic history of the United States has shown that the system still works - both before and after the removal of certain checks. During the Civil War, civil rights were suspended, but reestablished quickly after its end. During the First World War, a proto-fascist state was established. However, the President that created it was voted out of office; and the government's powers were reigned in by a rightly fearful judiciary, Congress and public. The policies of the New Deal and Second World War had a similar fate with the slow dismantling of many of Franklin D. Roosevelt's giant government programs and the repeal of questionable war-time laws.

The philosophy behind our entire system, at least at the time it was created, was the idea that human nature will not change. Politicians will grasp for power, national leaders will attempt glory and have grand ambition, and the citizen mob will be moody and prone to frenzy. The founders knew of the history of republics and saw the abuses of a powerful, unchecked government in their own cities and towns. There are millions of Americans today who think we have progressed beyond what the founders deemed an eternal constant. They believe humanity is progressing towards an endgame, a final state of bliss, utopia or some kind of better world. This leads these Americans to promote or defend structural changes that do not fit into the original design and purpose of the American government (popular election of Senators being one example - judicial “first among equal branches” being another). The Declaration of Independence says "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It does not talk about progressing or advancing. It doesn't talk about modifying our views for a new age. The first document of principles by the United States talked about taking back rights from those who did not believe they existed.

Part II: An Analysis of the European Constitution

Contrasts to the U.S. Constitution

First of all, one must ask if it is possible to unite nations as opposed to individual states. Nations have different cultures, different economic structures and different ideologies. When the founders built the United States government, the nation had just been born. The attempts made by the EU to devise a constitution to bind nations that have long histories of standing on their own is a far more difficult and dangerous task. The caveat here is to question the intentions of such a document. Will such a document preserve individual freedom, or will it be used as a mechanism for regulatory control over multiple nations?

The idea of the constitution has been sold under the guise of unity and that is necessary for better trade between nations, a stronger international market presence and job growth. The Founders of the United States created the Constitution not to strengthen international presence, but to PRESERVE individual liberty and freedom from an overbearing government. Over the past century, the United States has seen power become more centralized in spite of the efforts of the framers of the Constitution to keep power decentralized. An EU constitution does not seek preserve the identity of nations, but to blend nations into one and establish a centralized law-making bureaucracy. Centralized power does not preserve freedom, and for this reason, Europeans should fear an EU Constitution.

In addition to the original intent for a constitution being dissimilar, another stark difference is voting power. The EU constitution seeks population based voting power (Article I-25), which means that nations with the largest populations would have the most control over policy making. A population-based law would violate the classical principle of local control and state equality. The founders in America realized the importance of state and local power – hence the New Jersey Plan. If a population-based policy were implemented in the U.S., then populous states such as New York and California would be making Federal policy while less populous states would have no influence. In addition, as long as there is collusion between the populous states, laws would be passed with ease and little debate.

The Dangers of Centralized Economic and Monetary Policy

Article I-13 of the Constitution gives the EU exclusive legal power to decide policy in regards to trade tariffs, quotas, monetary policy, competition rules for the international market and trade agreements to name but a few. The issue of the Federal Reserve being “constitutional” in United States is a widely debated topic. The idea of a centralized body having total control over monetary policy obviously conflicts with the idea of decentralized power. The powers of the Federal Reserve can essentially make or break the economic stability of the United States. The reasoning behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve was to reduce systemic risk; however, many have argued that such authority and the history of monetary policy have actually increased systemic risk. The Federal Reserve shares the blame for the creation and bursting of the housing market bubble.

If the EU wishes to implement their own “Federal Reserve,” it can be far more dangerous in the sense where the ultimate goal could be to abolish the currencies of individual nations. Such a move would place one institution in charge of the economic fate of several nations.

The corporatist traditions of countries such as Germany and France, whose population size would give them disproportionate influence on monetary policy under the voting system, could make “crony capitalism” the norm for all of Europe in spite of countries that wish to pursue a more classical liberal approach. Article I-4 states that Laissez-faire and economic competition based on the unobstructed movement of goods, capital and labor throughout the EU countries are constitutionally mandatory, however, this motive serves no purpose in a constitution that would bind nations together. Decentralized power seeks to preserve the principles of a free market. A binding document that would determine “fair” economic and social policy for multiple nations would have the opposite outcome.

The Power of the Lobby

The process of European integration has stemmed from socialist parties, trade unions and big business. These tenants remove freedom and give large bodies the power to impose policy with little resistance. Socialists who have not been able to transform society to their liking through the ballot box, can now have socialist policies imposed through an EU Constitution. In addition, multi-national corporate conglomerates have only one legislative body in which to lobby and negotiate. Compromise and voice from the opposition have only been possible because groups had to deal with the elected democratic governments of each nation. The difference between American framers and their European counterparts is the former sought to protect America from those who have no faith in the democratic process while the latter holds such beliefs.

Summary

If a constitution is not devised as a mechanism to preserve individual freedom and reign in the powers of government, then the creation of such a document serves no purpose. Constitutions should not be devised to band nations together to create a super-power rival to other powerful nations with the “power-elite” in control. Constitutions written with such motives lead to oppression and tyranny. If the EU wishes to follow the footsteps of America’s Founding Fathers, then the framers of the EU Constitution must recognize the importance of localized power, and adhere to the rights of the individual nations’ liberty.

The sign of a thawing frozen credit market and rising home sales was not enough to stop Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner from constructing another unnecessary big-government plan. The market may have initially reacted in favor to the announcement; however, the long-term picture does not illustrate anything nearly as positive.

Last Monday, Geithner announced a hybrid plan between the public and private sector that would help to remove toxic assets from the balance sheets of banking institutions. The plan will provide financing for $500 billion with some funds coming from taxpayer dollars from the initial Wall Street bailout and the rest from private-sector investors. The plan’s cost could expand to $1 trillion over time according to Geithner. (1)

Geithner’s plan is hardly original, as former Bush Administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had initially proposed a plan of this nature, although he never followed through. He decided to give the funds directly to the failing banking institutions. Regardless, both approaches continue to avert systemic risk because investors have a guarantee from the government.

After all that has happened, it is still unclear to our lawmakers that the government cannot fix a problem that it caused. Government guarantees are what caused the financial turmoil in the first place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed over half of the United States’ $12 trillion mortgage market, and both were among the largest lenders in the secondary mortgage market. (2) Now the government wishes to guarantee the very same assets it guaranteed in the past.

There is no talk anywhere in Washington D.C. about reviving sound lending practices, doing away with the sub-prime mortgage market or stopping government meddling in the financial sector – the very actions that were responsible for the crash. Instead, the government offers more guarantees for the same type of recklessness.

Also, absent from Geithner’s plan is assurance regarding regulator cooperation with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s willingness to change mark-to-market accounting rules. If this valuation technique is not changed, Geithner’s plan will do little to help, as it will not have a positive cash flow effect. The current rules force companies to show realized losses (“paper” losses) because the “mark-to-market” price is lower than its cash flow value. For this reason, institutions were forced to show losses in the hundred billions – hence the “toxic” asset effect.

Perhaps the most concerning issue with Geithner’s plan is the likelihood of more government control. If the government becomes both a shareholder and stakeholder in the financial sector, it could very well have the power to regulate executive compensation. Driven by populist outcries, the government has been empowered to attempt to pass unconstitutional ex post facto laws. These types of actions could very well cause the private sector to say “thanks but no thanks” to the government’s generosity. The fear of success being taxed to unprecedented levels along with negative publicity will make investors in the private sector reticent to partner up with the government. However, this could be a ray of hope that a limited non-interventional government works best for everyone.

Geithner’s plan in conjunction with the Federal Reserve’s announcement last week gives a despairing long-term picture. The U.S. dollar is on the decline, and China and Russia are calling for a new reserve currency. Both countries are among the United States’ largest debt holders. In the midst of these events, President Obama has spent this week selling his budget that will cost over $9 trillion over the next 10 years according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. If only our elected officials were half as concerned about the long-term impact of their spending decisions…

(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776536222709061.html

(2) http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/08/daily9.html

Seven weeks in to his presidency, Barack Obama has made a few mistakes. Declaring a spending bill with 8000 earmarks had none, nominating tax cheats to top level positions in his administration, and giving the Prime Minister of the UK a gift of25 Classic Hollywood Movies on DVD (about $20 at Wal-Mart). The Prime Minister had given him a pen box made of wood from a British anti-slavery ship. Oops, someone's people didn't get in contact with someone else's people.

Like any politician, our new President will have an assortment of gaffes during his presidency. God knows President Bush had his share, from his mispronunciation of words to his strange ad-lib phrases (the OBGYN one being the strangest of all) to the few times his lost his stage direction. These things happen to every president and every president has been demonized, in part, based upon the perceived image people have of them. I think presidents should be evaluated upon their actions and inactions, not their sound bite or looped news clip played over and over in comedy shows or YouTube, but one cannot ignore the great impact a president's public image has upon how people view and ultimately respond to a president and his policies.

With Presidents Reagan and George Walker Bush, it became the staple of the opposition to declare and portray these two as unintelligent, crass cowboys looking to start fights wherever they went: President Reagen because if his Hollywood background and President Bush because of his Texas background. Of course, the point of these portrayals was to make the presidents look bad in the eyes of people who already have bad views of cowboys and other such rugged individualist icons. The people pushing such views were usually, but not exclusively, city-based politicians, cosmopolitan writers and journalists, city-based peace activists and various other members of society who believe in a softer (dare I say, feminine) form of president. It was President Reagan's ever-stalwart belief in confronting the USSR with both military, covert and economic means that put fear into the Left that he may trigger a nuclear war with his “cowboy” antics. It was (and still is) President Bush's belief that we must preempt any immediate and dangerous existential threat since 9/11 proved that simple deterrence and legal hand-wringing could not protect us from people who care not for our walls or our laws. Bush's “dead or alive” comments, his liberal use of the word “evildoers” and the tough-guy talk like “bring it on” when commenting on the insurgents seemed abhorrent to the anti-rugged left. They could not abide by a president who did not have the airs of sophistication or articulation. They attempted, and in many cases succeed, in sinking Bush's popularity with smears against his intelligence.

President Obama has, for now, garnered a image of inexperience on the diplomatic front. After winning the election, Obama made a dozen or so calls to allied world leaders. One leader he missed was the leader of India[1]. Being a the world's most populous democracy, a nuclear power, a major trade partner and an close ally in Far East, I would think it deserved a phone call by the newly elected leader of the world's only superpower. The next big flub came only a few weeks ago with the returning of a British present: the bust of Winston Churchill [2]. The UK gave us the priceless gift after 9/11 and told us it was on loan as long as we wanted it. President Bush kept the bust in the Oval Office for his entire presidency as a reminder of resolve in the face of adversity. Obama decided he didn't want it. It wasn't exactly our President calling the Prime Minister a “limey bastard” or anything like that, but to conservatives and probably to a segment of the British population, it was a slight against the most loved British leader in the past 100 years. Coupled with his newest gaffe, Obama seems to have not grasped (or does not care for) the importance of symbolism in international politics.

Symbols are in every aspect of our lives. Our alphabet is just a collective of symbols we've imbued with meaning (in this case, sounds associated with speech). Numbers are symbols we associate measure amounts with. Flags, statutes, signs, animals, choreographed bill signings, military marches, and so on; they all are part of the unavoidable symbolic world we live in. Nations and international relations play heavily upon symbolic gestures. When our president goes to a conference in Asia, all the dignitaries are dressed in the local clothing. When our president meets with leaders of a religious group, he does his best to accommodate their customs. When we meet allies, we do our best to make them feel like friends. These gestures are very important in keeping the public image of a nation sanguine with the population of the country they are trying to court.

Yet, what cannot be forgotten is a nation's ability to project symbolic resolve and collective will. President Bush's impromptu speech at Ground Zero a few days after 9/11 in which he declared that “the whole world can hear you [the FDNY]” and that those who attacked us would “hear all of us soon” was an amazing symbol of American resolve and American vengeance against those who would kill our citizens. NATO's invocation of Article 5, which states that any attack on a NATO member is an attack on every NATO member, was a symbol of the Europe's friendship with the US. After 9/11, these acts, among others (like Congress singing God Bless America) worked to shore up the American citizenry's morale and have them believe their government would take swift justice to those who wronged us (even if behind the scenes there was infighting and confusion on what exactly to do).

President Obama's early gaffes, while minor and not affecting our foreign relations in any major way, are a bad omen when our president's major campaign promises was to “repair” our relations across the world. The President's supporters are claiming he's doing that, but I don't really see it. I watched him basically apologize to the Muslim world for George W. Bush and our wars of defense and liberation on Arab television in his first major interview as president.[3] That interview was quite symbolic. The positive or negative of it depends on who you ask. Secretary of State Clinton has been to China and to a meeting of NATO delegates. In her meeting with China, she publicly begged the Chinese to continue buying US bonds, something that doesn't make the US look all that sturdy economically (which affects our stock market).[4] With NATO, her (ironically) symbolic gift to the Russian delegate had the wrong translation of the word “reset”, as in reset the bad relations we've had with them. Instead, it said “overload” in Russian.[5] D'oh!

As I said before, these gaffes are minor, but they do leave a foul taste in the mouth of any American concerned with this nation creating a strong and leading image abroad. Our President wanted to mend ties with a world that didn't like us so much due to the image of our previous president. Unless Mr. Obama is purposely trying to make the United States out to be clumsy and addled-minded when it comes to other nations (as the Left accused the previous administration countless times), he needs to step up his focus on what exactly he and our diplomats are saying. We cannot afford any of these small mistakes to become a major row.

Out of all the things Mr. Obama promised during his run, the one thing I could agree with without any reservation is the mending of ties and the creation of new allies. This is one campaign promise I hope he keeps.

Sources:
1. http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence-military/16097-snub-india-obama-calls-hu-jintao.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/22/obama-returns-churchill-b_n_168919.html
3. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/27/65087.html
4. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton-china23-2009feb23,0,476137.story
5. http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2009/03/hillary-clinton-overloads-the-reset-button.html

Yup. We won:

Iraq's parliament approved Thursday a security pact with the United States that lets American troops stay in the country for three more years, setting a clear timetable for a U.S. exit for the first time since the 2003 invasion.

The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal. The haggling among the political factions highlighted sectarian-based tensions that hinder reconciliation efforts, nearly six years after Saddam Hussein's ouster.

The Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal must undergo an additional hurdle next year. It took nine months of difficult talks for U.S. and Iraqi negotiators to craft the agreement.

Under the agreement, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. Iraq will have strict oversight over U.S. forces.

Now this is something to be thankful for.

An amazing thing happened on Thanksgiving: the Iraqi Parliament peacefully agreed to a slow withdrawal of our troops that would have Americans out of Iraq by 2012. This act, above all other acts in the five years since we toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, is the victory we have wanted for so long. Despite the propaganda from the White House, the Pentagon and others about timetables, this is exactly what we all wanted. There is no greater sign of our victory that our free Iraqi allies and our diplomats hashing out a consensus on withdrawal and the Iraqi Parliament, without violence, passing the resolution by a majority. Victory doesn't mean the war is over, but that its ending faster than any of us imagined.

With our mission accomplished in Iraq (we should take that phrase back, in my opinion), we cannot be blinded to the fact that the War On Terror is not over by a long shot. A success itself, Afghanistan still requires our help in the pacification of the Taliban and Al-Qeada bandits that still throw out massive offenses each spring and summer. The drug trade in Afghanistan also requires our attention as a massive amount of funds to the terrorists come from the poppy/herion trade. All this must be looked too as our troops hold their head high as they leave a stable, democratic Iraq behind.

The biggest threat, though, is not the Taliban or even Osama bin Laden's group. Not anymore. The biggest threat is the hydra known as Jihad, as proven by the co-ordinated and cowardly attack on civilians in Mumbai, India. Since we've taken out most of AQ's command and control, the strategy has become one of ideological infection. The biggest threats are no longer foreigners crossing borders (though that tactic should not be ignored), it is home grown radicals and misguided misfits hoping for a place in history that aim their rifles and bombs at the innocent. London was an example of this. Even in my former home of Canada, several homegrown terrorists planned a massive attack upon the Canadian parliament, though their operation was very, very amateurish.

As during the Cold War, this is a war of ideas as much as it is a war of soldiers. We must not simply just fight them with guns, but with our words and our thoughts. We must make the citizens of the world totally reject that mass murder is a legitimate tool of petitioning one's government over an issue. We must also wipe out the idea that radical Islamist terror is blowback, a term the left has perverted for their own agenda. Any number of our covert and overt operations has created blowback in the Middle East and Near Asia, but that digresses from the fact that committing heinous acts of mass violence for a radical religious pan-Muslim nation is an inherent aspect of radical Islamist terror, not a symptom of our foreign policy.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

For those who follow Canadian politics (*crickets*), there is a massive political crisis brewing. The minority parties: the soft-leftist Liberals, the hard-leftist New Democratic Party and the leftist "separatist" Bloc Quebecois have agreed to attempt a backroom coup and take the Conservative Party of Canada and Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of power. The facade for this power grab by the shaky alliance is that Harper has done nothing to protect Canadians from the worldwide economic crisis.

Nothing like this has been attempted in recent history and, in all essence, is a political coup by the left wing in spite of the voters wishes. Considering only six-weeks ago the arrogant "natural governing" Liberals were slapped around like Tina, the voters wishes are pretty fresh.

The Liberals have run Canada for a majority of its existence, but in the last 15 years have ended up running it into the ground with spending scandals, nepotism, bipolar economic policy and anti-Americanism (aka the poor Canadian's patriotism). Harper, on the other hand, while being not immune from criticism, has yet to have his hometown magically get a federally funded golf course or attempt to hide taxpayer money going to friends of the party. The NDP and the BQ are just as out there.

Keep an eye on this. Having our neighbor (and my kin) enter chaos is never a good thing, especially if the Liberals are trying to override the voters' will.