Thoughts on the Super Committee and 2012

This Congressional Super Committee was always going to fail; it literally never had a chance to get a thing done.  Why?  Liberals would like you to think it's all Grover Norquist and his pledge's fault.  Conservatives would like you to think it's all because Democrats demanded one trillion dollars of tax increases.  And the truth, as it generally is, is somewhere in the middle.

Right there is the problem, there's no working center in Congress.  Mostly because Democrats are so tied to the massive entitlements that they won't accept rational, needed cuts and Republicans are so tied to their tax pledges that they won't accept rational needed tightening of the tax code that would result in increased taxes for the richest among us, read millionaires (caveat: although I tend to think taxes are far too high I also understand that our nation's financial situation is a mess and we need to take any steps we can to cut the deficit now).  The charge of the committee was to find a compromise between these two entrenched positions, well guess what, that was never going to happen.  Not with a huge elections staring us in the face.  

Neither party wants to run to the center, they both want control of the government on their terms, something only an election can provide.  Even though it would have been great for the Super Committee to have come together, rise above politics, and put the country first.  It was never going to happen because of this irreconcilable truth.

Our governing system may be broken, but it won't be fixed from within, these guys are far too stuck in their ways.  It's going to take an outsider to shake up the system and end the failure to lead.  Both parties want to take the Presidency and Congress to just continue business as usual.  If Democrats take over, it's going to be tax hikes and continuing unsustainable spending.  If Republicans do, it's going to be huge tax cuts and cuts in government spending.  What we really need is balance at this critical juncture.  

People aren't happy with government, they're less happy than they were in 1992 when the crazy Ross Perot won 18% of the vote for the Presidency, that's why if a third party candidate emerges that is not crazy, they could legitimately win.

Don't believe me?  I might not even believe it myself wholeheartedly, but it's time to quit trying for band-aid solutions like the Super Committee.  You might think it's going to work for a while and it probably will appear to work for a while, but if there's a real wound, go see a damn doctor.  Let's shake up the whole system and find a doctor.  

The time is ripe for a centrist to lead the country, and this time let's hope that niche isn't filled by a crazy person. 

Honestly, as a conservative minded person, I see the worst-case scenario Obama getting re-elected and the best case as the Republican nominee being elected.  But even as a conservative (even if I do come from the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party) I would consider a centrist party president equally as good as a conservative because of the message it would send and the policies that would emanate.  

Policies always end up in the middle anyway, so why not elect a leader from the middle.  Forget about all the crap that's out there about why it wouldn't work; if enough people are willing to do this, then there's going to be real change in DC.  If the President is from one of the establishment parties, then there will be changes in policy based on what happens in Congress or we'll be stuck in the same muck we're in now.  Sounds great, right?  

Well, not so much to me, we don't need far right or far left, to get out of our horrendous hole, to invoke the President's words (not his actions) we really do need a balanced approach, one that a centrist candidate only can offer.

Supreme Court Ruling On Health Care Hurts Obama Either Way

President Obama and his team of advisors made a serious mistake when they asked the highest court in the land rule on the constitutionality of an individual mandate for health insurance (the court also selected a case that involves the Medicaid expansion provision in the bill).  While it’s pretty much impossible to predict how the court will swing in their decision, its pretty easy to analyze the political fallout and see that this is a lose, lose for the President of the United States.

Obamacare was and continues to be the President’s biggest political mistake, he wasted much of his early political capital on the unpopular reform and now he’s asked for the issue to be relitigated, literally.  The President took a beating in the 2010 midterms largely because of the $800 billion yet “not big enough” (just ask Paul Krugman) stimulus and Obamacare.  These two issues brought the conservative base of the country out in massive numbers, pretty much to let the President and to a lesser extent Congress, know they were no fans of these far left policies.  If you want proof that an individual mandate still isn’t too popular, look no further than Ohio where a state constitutional amendment preventing Ohioans from being forced to opt into the system passed 66-34 on a day when a provision basically banning collective bargaining came down 61-39 in favor of the unions.  This just in:  Ohio is usually pretty important in Presidential politics.  So, Ohioans didn’t like Governor John Kasich’s overreach, but they also really don’t like Obamacare.

It was a political doomsday for the President and his party, now he’s decided he wants to see one of the driving forces of this day brought up all over again?  It doesn’t really make much sense.  Some are calling it a political gamble, I’m going to call it what it is, a mistake.  Whether you’re for or against the Affordable Care Act (I happen to be for parts of it, certainly not the mandate, or most of it for that matter), it’s hard to argue against the fact that the President should leave it alone in bureaucratic hell, far, far away from anywhere that it can affect his chances at re-election.

You see, if the court rules in favor of the Affordable Care Act, with the ruling likely to drop in June, the Republicans, who as previously stated cleaned up in the midterms running against the stimulus and healthcare, are given the easy opportunity to do the same next fall.  But this time it won’t just be for the House, it will be for the biggest prize in American politics, the Presidency.  Fortunately for Romney, et al. when the Court (theoretically) drops their ruling in favor of Obamacare, the issue will be fresh, no longer just a lost battle from two years ago, or just a scar that still makes them cringe (especially Michelle Bachmann, I don’t know if you heard, but she lead the Congressional opposition to Obamacare.  Seriously, just ask her!).  And a fresh issue makes an excellent campaign issue; especially one conservatives and many moderates have a serious distaste for. 

Oh by the way, two months after the ruling, the Republicans will be having a little pow-wow known as a National Convention in Tampa, won’t it be great for every speaker to be able to rail against the liberal Court decision validating a liberal Presidential agenda.  I can hear it now, “We need to take action before its too late, before the liberal establishment takes away everything that makes this country great!”  They’ll probably let Rick Perry do that one in his nominating speech for his new best friend Governor Mitt Romney!

See here lies the only real issue for the Republicans on this one, because believe you me, Mitt Romney will be the nominee.  And if a member of the freak show (read everyone but Jon Huntsman) gets the nomination, none of this analysis matter because Barack Obama will win LBJ-Goldwater style (despite his faults, LBJ defeated the absolute ideologue Goldwater) and win like 60% of the popular vote.  You might remember that before Mitt Romney became the highly conservative Presidential candidate, he was the moderate Governor of Massachusetts, and he instituted, you guessed it, an individual mandate.  Despite the fact that Romney and his team have written this off as a state issue and have said it’s not a plan he would use nationally, it’s still pretty tough to nail a guy you’re running against on an issue when he got a lot of his ideas from one you instituted as Chief Executive of a state.  It would just ring a little hollow from an already hollow, flip-flopping candidate (we’ve already seen attacks in this vein from the Obama team, just look at David Axelrod’s twitter or see David Plouffe on Meet the Press tell America Romney “has no core”).  But I’d say some of the SuperPACs could make some nice ads hitting Obama on health care and Romney would still attack on it, just hollowly. Also, once again an unpopular piece of legislation would still be on the forefront nationally.

So, if the pieces of the Affordable Care Act up in the Court are constitutional, then progressives can cheer all they want, but it does a lot  of harm electorally to a President that already is staring down 9% unemployment and a 40s approval ratings and as we’ll discuss soon a rather vulnerable upper chamber.

Now the other side, let’s say gets Obama gets beat in court, can you say embarrassing?  And to make matters worse, it not only hurts his chances, it hurts a litany of vulnerable Democratic Senators from heartland states like, among others, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, both of whom voted for Obamacare and the stimulus.  These issues, since it was so successful to hate on them in ’10, were certain to come up in 2012 anyway, but with health care fresh, no matter which way it swung, these two and a few others certainly see their chances go down (the Republicans only need to flip four seats to take the majority). 

Why do their chances go down you may ask?  Because conservatives hate “socialized medicine” as they often call it (progressives would much rather have you call it the Affordable Care Act, so uplifting!).  So if parts of it are struck down they will be thrilled, but it’s also easy to paint the narrative that, even with the parts of it struck down, it’s still socialized medicine since, (cue the ominous voice), “Somebody has to pay for it.  And that somebody is, you!”  Sorry I was just quoting a campaign ad that hasn’t yet been made that will run in every competitive and/or conservative district and state in the country.

If you’re tracking with me here, you realize that if the court goes against Obama, it will be quite embarrassing for him and put his Congressional (not so close) friends in a bad spot, but if you have an astute political mind, you are likely thinking, “If it loses, the same rally up the troops thing happens on the left.”  I concede this point with one caveat, people just aren’t going to be as excited to vote for the President as they were when he ran on his, mean whatever you want it to mean “hope and change for the future” message.  And because of this lack of excitement for the President, the enthusiasm level on the right is going to crush the enthusiasm on the left, no matter how this goes. 

This will now just be an added advantage for the right, and even though people can slam these candidates all they want (which I am fond of doing), the President can only concede so much politically.  If you’re playing with 3 guys on the basketball court against 5, then I don’t care how good those 3 are (with the exception of a team of NBA stars like Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and LeBron James.  Oh they tried that and it didn’t work?  Nevermind.), the team with 5 is going to win every time.  Even with all of his inherent, unchangeable disadvantages in this, there are still a lot of things that could change and go right for Obama in the next year giving him a second term.  He is the incumbent after all, the number one best advantage in politics.

Health care will just be one issue in a huge national campaign, but it will be a big one, and President Obama better hope that he didn’t just make it the decisive one.  Plus with the exciting Americans Elect third party movement going on, this election and the level of the debate on issues could go well above where it’s ever been, but that’s why politics is awesome.  We don’t know, this is just one of many possibilities.

I can’t help but think that some in the White House must have cringed when they heard the court granted cert.  And either way, Reince Priebus and his pals at the RNC should be cheering. 

You made another mistake Mr. President.  And someday (possibly) soon, despite all of your rhetorical skill, your mistakes are going to sink you.

Why The NBA Lockout is Idiotic

I don’t know anything about the economics of the NBA lockout because quite frankly, I don’t care.  When I think about sports I don’t want to think about economic implications, I want to think about the game.

Basically, all I know about the NBA lockout is that a bunch of greedy rich men are not allowing me to watch the best basketball players on earth play basketball, and that is quite irritating.  In fact, we all should’ve been watching the NBA for the past two weeks.

From reading about the lockout I do understand that the economic implications are important.  Owners are supposedly losing money (although this is widely refuted) and players are making exorbitant amounts of money (irrefutable).  But honestly, these are a bunch of rich men who bought basketball teams and people men who play a game for a living. 

I whole-heartedly agree with the notion that Malcolm Gladwell introduces in a piece he wrote for Grantland recently.  In short, he argues that people shouldn’t be buying basketball teams to make money.  Sports owners in general are usually extremely independently wealthy, with the exception of the now deceased Bill Veeck type  (he’s the baseball owner who sent a midget up to bat in the ‘50s).

These owners have already made their money and now they want a toy. 

Take Dan Gilbert of the Cavs.  He owns Quicken Loans.  Do you really think he bought the Cavs to pump more cash into his already quite full bank account?  Or do you think he was like, “I’m really rich and the Cavs are for sale.  It would be fun to own an NBA team.” 

I’m going to go with the latter.  Side note:  Gilbert has been a generally good owner for the Cavs, but I do hope the “comic sans” font has been removed from his computer and he has someone filtering his access to the team’s website, for obvious reasons.

However, I digress, the real point here is this NBA lockout is one of the most idiotic situations I have ever seen.  As ESPN’s Bill Simmons has been fond of harping on lately, the NBA just had one of their best seasons ever and now they are just completely off the map; thus killing all their buzz and instead creating an angry backlash. 

Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much of a backlash yet; it’s probably the NFLs fault.  But after the Super Bowl when all we have to watch is hockey and the obviously inferior college basketball for two months, there’s going to be some serious anger out there towards these greedy old men and already rich players who are depriving us of professional basketball.  Especially in Ohio, I mean it’s not like we can go outside and do other things in February.

This kind of backlash is obviously never good for a league, in fact it can be debilitating (See League, National Hockey).  That’s why, though I do understand they are quite far apart, having this lockout is probably going to be worse for the league economically than a deal where both sides have to give something up.  In fact a comprised deal is probably much better for the league as a whole (Note:  everything that’s been said also applies to Congress).

That’s where these situations end up anyways.  Neither side is going to get an awesome deal, all this is, is some terrible PR for the league and idiotic posturing by the once great David Stern.  History may still end up calling him great, but not in the short term after this he’s risking his legacy in this situation, and for what?

A deal can’t be that hard to reach and a quick note to both sides here:  locking out because you’re not making enough millions makes you look stupid.  When unemployment is at about 9%, nobody in the country feels sorry for you.  Actually it just makes people pretty mad, especially when all they want is to watch some basketball.

That’s what the whole thing comes down to, where we started is where we will finish.  The economics of the situation is much less important to average fan than the fact that on a random Tuesday night, we can’t turn on TNT and watch Derrick Rose play against LeBron James and Dwayne Wade.  And it’s likely that we won’t see this happen at all this year.  After the great season the NBA had last year, they are eliminating all of their buzz and likely skipping an entire season.

I guess if that’s what these extremely rich men want, that’s fine.  Just don’t expect me and the rest of America to come running back whenever you greedy fools wise up.

Why Paying College Athletes is a Bad Idea

This column originally appeared on The Miami Student's website it can be found here:http://www.miamistudent.net/sports/why-paying-college-athletes-is-a-bad-idea-1.2658861#.TsA9gWAurH8

Recently, in the screwed up world of college athletics, there has been a push by many to begin paying the athletes.  Pundits, surprisingly, and players, obviously, seem to have nearly universally accepted the idea that college athletes in some way should be compensated for their service to the University, or to at least be allowed to profit off of their celebrity status on their own. 

However, in my view, the moment the rules allow college athletes to profit in any way other than a free education during their time as a student athlete will be the beginning of the end of college athletics, as we know it.

There are so many problems with the idea of paying college athletes; I won’t even be able to name all of them here.  The first and main issue is that it is inherently unfair to pay certain athletes and members of teams more than others. 

Sure the football team generally brings in more revenue for the school than the volleyball team, but that’s why NFL players make millions and there is no major professional volleyball league to speak of.  Picking one sport over another is fine when you’re working in the free market as an economic and entertainment entity, as professional sports teams and leagues do.  But there is value in an institution of higher education democratizing their athletic department.

You see you simply cannot give players a full ride scholarship, which in my estimation is payment enough, and then cut checks to certain players on certain teams just because they bring in a lot of money to the University. 

These people are already getting a free education and sure they give up having a regular college life to play the sport, but honestly, they’re already getting paid with the full ride.

Plus, the goals of a college and a professional sports team should be 100% different; pro sports teams are trying to provide entertainment and hopefully make a profit.  Colleges are trying to provide a quality education to their students.

Sports can be a legitimate aspect of the educational process.  And while this is truer with respect to lower levels like high schools, it’s still a valid point and paying athletes would make the players professionals.  When sports become a business the educational value is gone and profits truly do become king.  Which, as a side note, is why players shouldn’t be allowed to go out and sell their jerseys and the like for their own financial gain.  It’s too much of a slippery slope when amateurism is mixed with business practices.

In fact, college football and basketball already have moved too far in the business direction; some may in fact argue that profits already are king.  And this shift is used as fuel for those in favor of paying college athletes, but that’s really just giving up.  And why give up on something as an important as college sports just to allow it to become a farm system to the pro’s by giving the players a measly cut of the pie.

Really though, if you’re going to start paying college football players, they might as well not even be connected to the colleges.  They should just follow the baseball model. 

Because in baseball you can either go right out of high school with basically no chance to play in the majors right away and develop yourself with other kids your age, all while making horrible money and getting no education.  Or you can play college baseball and get an education with the intelligent foresight that chances are you aren’t the next Alex Rodriguez.

Honestly that makes sense, if players want to make measly money and spurn an education, let them eat cake.

The problem though is this, college and Triple-A baseball attendance numbers suck.  And 100,000 plus people come to see teams like Michigan and Ohio State play on any given Saturday. 

People just aren’t going to have the same connection to the New York Giants farm team the Scranton Scrappers (you may laugh but that’s the kinds of names these teams get and the type of places they go) as they do to the place that they enjoyed some of the best years of their lives.  That’s what makes college sports awesome for people.  That’s why they care. 

And ruining that system would be a shame.  Especially when the only reason people want to ruin it is out of pure regulatory laziness.  The idea that the college athletics system is so out of control that no one can save it is just not something I can accept.

The NCAA should crack down harder on the players who break the rules.  Coaches should be fired on the spot when they show tendencies towards rule breaking in any way and the fans should not accept anything else.  Because if and when they do, the games they love will just no longer be the same and that’s a damn shame.

  

The Tyrant Coach Is Not An Influential Coach

This is a column that appeared originally in the Miami Student on October 31, it can also be found here: miamistudent.net/sports/andrewgeisler

Recently Arizona fired their head coach Mike Stoops, a big reason behind this is, of course, the fact that the Wildcats had opened the season with a 1 and 5 record.  But when you look a layer deeper you see the systemic issues with the way Stoops and other coaches of his ilk handle their programs and specifically the way they handle themselves on the sideline.

   

The role of a head coach is often similar to that of a chief executive.  They rarely do much real hands on coaching, but when they do it is generally excellent because they have reached the highest point in their profession.  They are basically the overseer, making sure that their assistants are doing their jobs and holding players accountable. 

Now, there are the exceptions to this rule because some coaches consider themselves tactical geniuses and call either the defensive or offensive plays.  However, even when they take on that role, it is in addition to the chief executive role and like an executive, in order to be an effective head coach, you better be an effective manager of people. 

Managing people is no easy task; it requires a generally level head, with the ability to adapt based on the person.  However it also requires a basically consistent personality or style.  Head football coaches like Mike Stoops, Brian Kelley of Notre Dame, and Bo Pelini of Nebraska certainly have a consistent style, but is it a truly effective one?

These three have been the poster children for expletive filled tirades aimed at their players and assistant coaches over the past few years ever since they have risen to be the head men for some of the more prominent programs in college football.  And while these tirades may be accepted as a part of the game, especially at levels below the NFL, they are a poor substitute for doing the job coaches should be doing, especially when they happen with frequency.

A head football coach is using the great power he is granted at its best when his players take on his personality.  There are the fiery Rex Ryan types who drop the f-bomb like its their job, there are the business-like Jim Tressel coaches who truly resemble the CEO of a company in their dealings with players, and there are the coaches lose their heads on a regular basis.

In the real world, the first two types are often beloved and respected for different reasons.  The Rex Ryan type is because he keeps it real with his players and the Tressel type because they are so respectable that you can’t help but respect them.  Both operate off of the respect they attain from their players and their programs are often molded in that image.

In the real world men like Mike Stoops and Brian Kelley that just lose their shit and scream and yell may reach the heights of their profession, but their regime is based solely on fear and not respect.  And while fear can be somewhat of an effective motivator, the somewhat is the key.  People don’t respect angry crazy people.  They are often afraid of them or they just at some point start to tune it out and the coach is no longer at all effective.

When I see Brian Kelley screaming at his players, completely red in the face and utterly out of control, I shake my head because when the player walks away, they are completely deflated.  That’s not motivating, that’s going on a power trip and using your power ineffectively.

This isn’t to say coaches should never yell at their players.  They should.  But it should, as Former President Bill Clinton would say of abortions, be “safe, rare, and legal.”  They should only yell at the players they know can handle it, only use it when there’s literally nothing to teach or the player has repeatedly made the same mistake, and of course yelling at players shouldn’t be outlawed, it should just be used more effectively by these tyrant coaches.

Winning, obviously, drives coaches at the college level, but they should also be about teaching their players how to lead the rest of their lives well.  They have an insane amount of influence over their players because of the way they monopolize their time.

Influence is what drives everything in life.  Whenever you start to lose your influence, you know it’s time for a change.  And when players start to tune you out or you simply have shot their confidence, it’s time to adjust the way you exert that influence.  Just ask Mike Stoops; I’ve heard he’s got a lot of time on his hands lately.