Wiston Papers

Executive Authority

President Obama is clearly within his legal right to use executive powers to move the country forward.  The number of times he employs this tactic or the issues he chooses to promote may rightfully be subject to criticism.  But, as the article states, he has the constitutional power to do so.

I have long argued that Mr. Obama needed to use his discretionary authority to tackle and implement those policies when Congress refuses to act.  To his credit, the president has usually tried to persuade lawmakers through intellectual discussion and appeal to reason.  That is the correct approach. 

But when this fails, the President should take the necessary steps to advance policies that—in his opinion—benefit the nation. 

Mr. Obama, unfortunately, did not do this earlier in his administration.  When he had the mandate to force Wall Street Bankers to rollback much criticized bonuses for investors responsible for the financial crisis but did nothing, he was wrong.

When he did not move forcefully on his own to assure the release of designated mortgage relief funds to homeowners at risk, he as wrong.

And his failure to jawbone with oil executives to rollback high gasoline prices is another mistake.

Presidential candidates make many promises, but often require Congressional cooperation to fulfill them.  Americans want strong leadership in the White House and deserve it.  Unilateral Executive Authority is one tool to do that.

It’s refreshing to see that Mr. Obama has demonstrated his willingness to act presidential on some issues.

Steve Coon

April 23, 2012

Wiston Papers

The Freshman Class

Much is written about the ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans.  And there is almost equal discussion regarding intra-party bickering:  liberal vs conservative Democrats; Tea Party Republicans vs the moderate and liberal GOP.

In a Congress comprising 435 members ,a broad philosophical spectrum is expected and, in fact, should be welcomed.  The problem is accomplishment and this Congress has produced little of significance.

Despite frequent criticism of the Freshman class of Congress, they offer fresh ideas and a much-needed passion for change.

When my wife and I watched President Obama’s State of the Union address earlier this year, the cameras panned across the faces of the assembled Representatives and Senators. 

We were immediately struck with one observation:  there are too many elderly members who have served too many years.  As the cliché goes “They are part of the problem not the solution.”

In my state, both Republican Senator Charles “Chuck” Grassley and Democrat Tom Harken have been in Washington too long.  Grassley first elected to the Senate in 1980; Harken in 1984.

They are symptomatic of what is wrong with our legislative leadership.  Both are too much part of the  “inside the Beltway” establishment to  express credible creative approaches to problem solving.  And they are too far removed from the Iowans they purportedly represent to understand the contemporary problems citizens of the Hawkeye state face or to offer fresh, passionate and enthusiastic service.  In a word, they are too old and too tired for the job.

Meanwhile, Congressional redistricting in Iowa has tossed two incumbents against each other this fall.   Regardless of who may win, Leonard Boswell (D-1997) and Tom Latham (R-1995)  are veteran lawmakers who have outlasted  their usefulness for many of the reasons cited for Grassley and Harken.

There is risk in change, but given the current legislative stalemate and growing animosity across the aisles of Congress, the only solution is to start fresh.

That’s the reason that this fall I will vote against all incumbents and hope that we can begin anew with fresh faces and fresh ideas.  Only if voters in all other states do the same will we see the possibility of meaningful change.

Another Freshman class is needed this fall.

Steve Coon

April 23, 12

Wiston Papers

Dictionary compilers create endangered words list

According to dictionary compilers, the word aerodrome is one of the words vanishing from use. 

 Aerodrome and charabanc are among the words presumed to have become extinct in the past year, according to lexicographers.

 Collins Dictionary experts have compiled a list of words which have fallen out of use by tracking how often they appear.

 MY REACTION:

What!  I use these words everyday doesn’t every one? 

 My wife and I were watching a TV show the other night.  A husband was thoroughly devoted to his wife despite her numerous affairs.  My wife shouted, “Man up you wuss!" I replied, “You go girl!  Right on!  That guy’s a total wittol.”

There was a TV report last week about increasing concern among scientists and nutritionists about the potential danger of food additives on our health.  My immediate reaction was that the drysalter lobby had the ear of Congress.  But any lawmaker who would tolerate such practices should be institutionalized and undergo prolonged, intensive alienism. 

On “Leverage” last night our team of heroes was in the Cincinnati airport trying to stop the theft of a donor heart.  It was originally destined for a 15-year-old boy, but had been stolen and was to be flown to a dying Chicago billionaire. As our intrepid troupe was frantically trying to stop the flight,  I shouted in frustration,  “Hell!  Just get the  cyclogiro out of the damn aerodome and chase the SOBs!”

Whenever I make an international trip, I always call the Ames Taxi company and reserve a charabanc from Ames to Des Moines.  Sigh!  Invariably I have to repeat myself and ask for a taxi because the dispatcher doesn’t understand me.

Last year when we took my wife’s rings to a jeweler to be resized,  she asked if they could use a stauroscope to determine the value of the metal.  “Of course, we always use that,” he assured.

When dinning I always ask the waiter what succedaneums are available for some of the featured specials.  Unfortunately, the last time I said that he paused then speculated, “Uh…I’m not sure that’s in season…uh…I’ll have to ask the chef.”

Earlier this week I wrote a letter to the editors of the Ames Tribune, New York Times and Washington Post.  I complained that the problem with America today and the failure of our leaders to solve our press problems is that nobody wants to supererogate.   For some reason, the letter was not printed.  Hm… 

Steve Coon

August 22, 2011

Wiston Papers

"Senate GOP blocks Buffett Rule bill"

This headline in the mainstream media is misleading at best...and an example of biased reporting at worst.

First, this story should have included the actual final vote.  It was 51-45, but you have to go elsewhere to learn this.  It's not in this CNN story.

Second, the Democrats control the U.S. Senate so the Republicans are not to blame for the defeat.  The Democrats  needed 60 votes  to stop debate; they didn't get them.   That's the rule of the chamber.  It applies equally to all members of both parties.  But, again, you don't get that in this CNN story.

Third, the headline would have been equally misleading had it read "Democrats fail to pass Buffet Rule bill."  Again, why is it more the fault of the GOP for all but one of its members to vote against the measure than it is for all but one of the Democrats to vote for it? 

It was a straight party-line vote both sides of the aisle except as stated here "Sen. Mark Pryor was the only Democrat to cross party lines to vote against taking up the bill, while Sen. Susan Collins was the only Republican to vote with the Democrats." (Then add that “The four senators who did not vote are two Democrats Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; and two Republicans Warren Hatch of Utah and Mark Kirk of Illinois.”

One reason the media are accused of a liberal bias is because of headline above.  It states that the Republicans are responsible, when in fact it’s the fault of the rules of the Senate.  A more balanced accurate headlines would read "Senate fails to pass Buffett Rule bill."  This ascribes no blame to either party.

Then simply tell the truth without bias.  “The U.S. Senate needed 60 votes to pass the Buffett rule bill, but fell nine votes short on a virtual party-line vote of 51-45.”  

Steve Coon

April 16, 2012

Wiston Papers

Watergate Death

I have not followed Charles Colson’s career following his conviction and imprisonment for his involvement in Watergate.

It appears, however, that he turned his life around through religion and focused on helping others that way.

If so, I would argue that he redeemed himself and deserves recognition for what he accomplished in the past few decades.  That does not minimize the impact of his criminal deeds, but it illustrates that rehabilitation does work in some cases and credit should be given where it is merited.

A full account of his life demands that his good works and misdeeds should be measured fully and accurately.

Obviously, as reflected in the opinions here, some readers will choose to demonize Mr. Colson for his role in a particularly sad chapter of American history.  That is their right in a society that protects the right to free expression and opinion

I would argue, however, that to remain fixated on whatever evil he committed prior to his incarceration but ignore his positive accomplishments is a disservice to the man and reflects poorly on us as Americans.

As a nation and people, our greatness is based on a rigorous condemnation and punishment of those who have violated the values of society—as Mr. Colson did in the Nixon administration--yet combined with an equally robust defense and praise of persons who have labored for the nation’s wellbeing.

His life was a mixture of good and bad, which is true of all of us.   Regardless of  how others may judge him,  I wish him peace.

April 21, 2012