Left-leaning economic populists will deride President Bush’s Mortgage-Relief plan as not going far enough to “right” the mortgage crises. Free-market supply-siders will react to the relief plan as a bailout for the financially reckless. How this will play out during the election year is already quite clear, good versus evil. Democrats will undoubtedly say that the plan illustrates republican greed, by being too restrictive on helping those in need. Meanwhile, Republicans will comeback with arguments of fiscal responsibility against poor risk decisions.
However, I feel the real point, the theory and end-result of economic fallout will be ignored. The free-market system (when left alone) will correct itself as it has here and that in-and-of itself is fundamental to the success of free-market economies. The price of risk leads to prudence and calculated investments. If bailouts become the norm (as in socialist-leaning Europe) the economy and investment market becomes unstable as Smith’s Invisible Hand is replaced by State intervention.
Its not an argument of teaching lessons to risk takers, but rather allowing the market to evolve without regulation and intervention by short-term economic policies.
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Protection design offers insight to border security
We’ve been addressing immigration policy in the national press for the past few years, trying to find a balance between protectionism and our “melting-pot” heritage. For me, understanding the complexities of our current system is somewhat mindboggling, but it does offer some intriguing thoughts.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"
Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.
As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.
Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.
So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.
To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Response to Emails About President's Speech
Whew! The emails are coming in regarding my last post on the President's Speech, "President Responds to Study Group."
The purpose of my blogs in general are to muse on business and the security industry. I am not writing a slanted political blog one way or the other (I have enough outlets for that). However, I felt that the President's speech last night was particularly important because of its historical significance.
If you can, put politics and personal thoughts of the war aside for one moment and consider the foreign relations import of the speech and what it stood for.
My attempt in the previous post was to point out that we (as a society) can avoid acting rash and emotional and rather take a strong analytic approach. Find out what the problem is, where it stems from, and try to address it from all aspects (military, policing, economics, and religion). It is a bold approach to foreign relations, to have a group (of the stature of the Iraq Study Group) propose a plan of action for the nation, and for the President to acknowledge these suggestions (in a time of war) and act upon them. History, decades from now, will view this as not a power play by a sitting President but rather an admission that other views are relevant and act publicly on this admission.
The purpose of my blogs in general are to muse on business and the security industry. I am not writing a slanted political blog one way or the other (I have enough outlets for that). However, I felt that the President's speech last night was particularly important because of its historical significance.
If you can, put politics and personal thoughts of the war aside for one moment and consider the foreign relations import of the speech and what it stood for.
My attempt in the previous post was to point out that we (as a society) can avoid acting rash and emotional and rather take a strong analytic approach. Find out what the problem is, where it stems from, and try to address it from all aspects (military, policing, economics, and religion). It is a bold approach to foreign relations, to have a group (of the stature of the Iraq Study Group) propose a plan of action for the nation, and for the President to acknowledge these suggestions (in a time of war) and act upon them. History, decades from now, will view this as not a power play by a sitting President but rather an admission that other views are relevant and act publicly on this admission.
President Responds to Study Group
For anyone who missed President Bush’s address last evening, I encourage that you take a serious look at the video or official transcript. Without getting into partisan politics in this piece, I am encouraging those following current events and modern history to take note of the next few months. Among the notable aspects of the speech, it was hard to miss the definite overtones from the Iraq Study group. The failure to “clear and hold” troubled areas was mentioned as a crucial stumbling block that requires immediate attention. Study group recommendations #26 thru #28 regarding constitutional review, de-Baathification, and oil revenue sharing were addressed almost verbatim, as was mention of the troubling attempts with training and embedding military leadership with Iraqi forces.
While everyone freely admits the answer is not clear-cut by any means, the President is showing the ability that this nation has to draw upon our resources of a qualified intellectual base. Regardless of political affiliation, Americans, all humanity, should be encouraged by the development of a process to resolve a painful and inhumane situation. While the trouble in Iraq with sectarian violence, poverty, and limited expectations may not be resolved overnight, there is hope that by analyzing the trouble openly and devoting resources globally, we may be able to provide a positive influence in 2007.
The President has used political verbiage to address a strategy; it is now up to the global society to listen to the words and respond to the actions in an attempt to move forward in 2007 and beyond.
While everyone freely admits the answer is not clear-cut by any means, the President is showing the ability that this nation has to draw upon our resources of a qualified intellectual base. Regardless of political affiliation, Americans, all humanity, should be encouraged by the development of a process to resolve a painful and inhumane situation. While the trouble in Iraq with sectarian violence, poverty, and limited expectations may not be resolved overnight, there is hope that by analyzing the trouble openly and devoting resources globally, we may be able to provide a positive influence in 2007.
The President has used political verbiage to address a strategy; it is now up to the global society to listen to the words and respond to the actions in an attempt to move forward in 2007 and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
