This Is It?  I was thinking about a title for this note and Kenny Loggins solved the mystery for me.  The title applies to the three nights of Republican Convention I have just witnessed, concluding with tonight’s Romney acceptance speech.  And…it is not meant in a disparaging fashion; rather one of disappointment.

I have read with amusement that Romney is a weak candidate.  Per the media, this must be so because the economy is historically bad and the President is tied with Romney in the polls.  A Republican of better timbre would surely be several points ahead of a sitting president with such a dismal record.  I haven’t bought into this logic and still do not.  As presidential candidates go, I find Mitt Romney quite impressively qualified.  I have often wondered how it would work out to have an effective CEO for President and see if our government might function better if it is run as a business.  Agree or not with this proposition, one must admit that it is an interesting thought.  I think that Romney’s perceived (by some) weakness as a candidate is a result of media bias and the Republican Party’s eternal quest for the perfect candidate.    But I digress; back to the topic at hand.

Anticipating a business-like acceptance speech from this recently-crowned nominee, I was frankly looking forward to a refreshingly detailed approach to setting this country’s economy back on the path to prosperity.  Instead, I heard a fairly unimpressive regurgitation of highlights from the Romney Campaign for President Organization to date.  Now, I still believe that Romney is clearly the right choice for this election based simply on Obama’s poor performance and Romney’s clear qualifications for the job, but I must express significant disappointment in not hearing Romney totally buy-in to a business-like approach to government in tonight’s speech.  I heard nationalism, personal history, swipes at an all-too-easy-to–hit Obama record, and recycled platitudes to a convention hall full of ready-made disciples.  This will be an interesting 60+ days of Presidential campaigning to come and I wait with anticipation to see how the Democrats will rebut this Republican show next week.

Panic In the (Washington) Streets?  This has got to be a very scary time for the Obama campaign.  After waves of anti-Romney advertising at a cost that ran the campaign coffers into the red for a month, after several bad hits for the Republican party (nude swimming, idiotic remarks, imminent hurricanes), and the continuing “firewall” protection of the mainstream media, the Obama campaign now finds itself trailing and/or at best, even with the Romney campaign heading into the Republican National Convention.  Additionally, polls now seem to verify that the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate has propelled the Romney candidacy ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan and closing rapidly in Iowa.  All of a sudden, the conventional wisdom that no Republican can win the White House without Ohio is being questioned.  A mid-west scenario that puts Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa in the Romney column is shifting the complete dynamic of this presidential race.  If you do the electoral math, it is indeed conceivable that Romney could win this election without winning Ohio.  Or, to put it differently, suddenly there is the notion that Obama cannot win this election without winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa.  This new urgency to protect territory that was only yesterday considered to be safely tucked away is an added campaign expense and concern that an already embattled (or battling internally?) campaign really does not need at this time.

With new found momentum following the Ryan selection, this Romney surge in the polls going into Tampa has got to be the explanation for some of the bizarre actions being taken by the Obama campaign; such as stationing Biden at the Republican Convention on opening day and ignoring the traditional principle of lying low during your opponent’s convention.  Facing the prospect of actually being outspent in the remaining days of the campaign, it will be interesting indeed to watch how the Obama campaign spreads its already-diminished financial resources to cover these new battleground states.  One can only wonder what will happen if Romney goes into his convention with a one-or-two point lead in the polls, gets the traditional bounce following his convention to boost that lead to five-or-six points, and Obama’s convention bounce is effectively foiled by the immediately following employment and economic data release.  Acts of desperation may know no bounds and we may get an up close and personal view of how they do politics in Chicago.

The Most Significant Aspect of a Second Obama Term.  Even though the first two years of the Obama administration was blessed with control of Congress, and did in fact pass major legislation during that time; it can be argued that the most significant actions taken during this administration have been the executive initiatives it has pursued since the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.  At that time, it would appear obvious that the President gave up on any further legislative accomplishments and began to focus on two things: First, getting himself re-elected, and secondly, implementing his agenda through administrative and executive fiat.

It is during this second half of his term that we have received a very clear picture of the Obama vision for America.   For some, this is a celebration of sorts and a good reason to extend his authority for another four years.   For others, it not only borders on an abuse of executive power but also provides a troubling glimpse into what an unfettered President Obama may try to accomplish in a second term.  Unfettered?  Yes, unfettered by the concern of standing for another election and having to trifle with the representatives elected by the people and, for that matter, by the people themselves.  It would present to him an opportunity to work the vision that he is so very sure of into reality.  As convinced as he is that he is the best candidate for president, he is far more confident that he alone has the clarity of sight and the benefit of extraordinary wisdom to shepherd this country to the place it should be. 

Regardless of who we elect as our next president, it is essentially guaranteed that the House will remain in the hands of the Republicans.  The Senate will either remain under Democratic control clearly or by default due to a pair of Independents who caucus with the Democrats.  If the Republicans were to gain control of the Senate, it will only be legislatively relevant if they also gain control of the White House.  If they achieve majority Senate status and lose the White House, we will essentially have the same environment of stalemate that currently exists.  On the other hand, a Republican sweep of both the White House and the Senate will indeed usher in a term of significant change in this country’s leadership and, quite likely, in its policy direction.

So it would seem that come January of 2013, we as a nation will be heading down a very different road.  Either we will have a new Republican philosophy implemented that essentially wipes the slate clean and begins anew…or…we will have an emboldened Obama administration that will test as never before the ability of the Executive branch of government to exert its influence over the way this nation does business.  Is it any wonder that our economy is reflecting uncertainly about what tomorrow holds?

Agriculture Subsidies: How Much is Too Much?  There is likely as much misconception about government support of agriculture in this country as there is about any federal program.  A lot of that misunderstanding is due to the fact that even though the Department that serves as the vessel for ag subsidies is called Agriculture, the majority of the money it spends would be better identified as belonging under another federal cabinet.  In reality, the actual farmers in this country receive a fairly small percentage of the entire USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) budget.  So, the first point I would like to submit is that when you consider the very small percentage of total federal expenditures dedicated to supporting active farmers and relate that to the fact that our country enjoys the most diverse, affordable, and abundant food supply on the planet….well, that is a bargain in anyone’s mind.  On the other hand, if you want to disagree about exactly how those limited funds are actually spent or the policy that drives the payments, then that can be fodder for a very long and worthy discussion.

The role of government in agriculture is as essential as the money we spend on defense.  The best equipped soldier in the world is subpar if they are hungry.  Food and fiber, the elements supported by USDA, are a critical part of each American’s life and our ability to feed ourselves and a large part of the world’s population gives our country strength and leverage that could be obtained in no other fashion.  The tricky part is this: It is the government’s goal to insure the survival of agriculture while not insuring the survival of each individual farmer.

While business investment is as varied as our culture, farming certainly is one of the most unique of all.  It is the only business I can think of where the owner/operator buys inputs at retail and sells their finished product at wholesale.  And even though there is some safety net available through government programs and federal crop insurance, the ability to make an annual profit is pretty much dependent on the fickle lady herself…mother nature.  It is a lonely feeling indeed to borrow on all you have to plant a crop and then have to sit back and pray for the right weather to bring in a decent harvest. 

Probably the second largest misconception about agriculture is the environmental attacks that it constantly endures.  Not to say that there is not any criticism warranted; there certainly is.  Pesticides that are absolutely essential to obtaining adequate crop yields for reasonable profit need improved research prior to commercial release.  Even though the overwhelming majority of farmers are the world’s greatest conservationists (they HAVE to be, their livelihood depends on the land), the stewardship of our natural resources requires constant vigilance.  There are certain feeding practices in the livestock industry, especially the feeder operations out west, which could use a bit more scrutiny and transparency in regards to guaranteeing a wholesome product.  But all things considered, the people who till the land to produce food and fiber and the people who manage livestock to feed so many do so in the context of a business that finds rewards hard to come by but is riddled with risks.  Most farmers farm because they were born into that profession and because they have a deep, abiding love and respect for the land and what it can produce.  They love the independence of the profession and take pride in surviving the personal trials it entails.  You have to realize this: Once we lose a farmer (once they sell out and move to another vocation), they are typically not replaced.  It falls to the other men and women in agriculture to pick up the slack and to increase production accordingly. The average age of the American farmer is not 20-something, it is late 50-something.  The 20-somethings are their children that hopefully decide to stay with the family operation rather than move out of agriculture into another sector of our economy.

Once again, I do not advocate that a farmer be guaranteed business success by our government simply because they feed our nation and much of the planet.  Like all business, farming is choice and there are inherent risks that go along with the potential rewards.  But it would be the height of foolishness to cut all support for American agriculture and run the risk of the industry failing.  You think the banks were too big to fail?  You think the oil shortage, gas lines, and high gas prices were painful?  Let this country get in a position where it is unable to feed itself and we will all quickly learn how another country’s will can be exercised when they have something you need.

So the next time sometime comments to you about a rich farmer driving a new pickup truck, living in a big house, and using all new equipment….well, just don’t buy into that.  It ain’t the real world.  Those boys are out there, but they don’t last too long. It’s the ones that have some holes in the shed walls and roof, some rusted sheet metal on their equipment, somewhere north of 100,000 miles on their pickup, and depend on their wife’s help to get the work done and her job to keep health insurance; those are the ones toting the load.  They need their kids and friends to lean on when a crisis hits through weather events or health failures.  They have to dig deep every spring and convince themselves, once again, to mortgage all they have in order to put out a crop on a promise of rain showers and sunshine.  They have to trust that if everything breaks their way and they actually bring in a good harvest, they will actually receive a fair price for their product when they sell….hopefully for more than they have in it.  Folks…farming is everybody’s bidness…and THAT is the truth.  Argue about the policies and the programs; argue about the efficiency of the government support delivery systems; argue about the balance between subsidy and free markets; but never doubt the wisdom in the small government investment that insures that each of us and our children will be able to eat today and tomorrow.    

More Gun Control?  In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre tragedy, there is new energy in the debate about laws regarding gun ownership in America. An old saying goes something like….”you can compromise on practice, but never on principle”.  There is lot of truth to this nugget, but the rub comes when we try to distinguish practice from principle.  The far left on this issue wants guns out of the hands and homes of citizens and the sole property of law enforcement and the military.  The far right demands that it is our right as Americans to own any type and just as many of any gun that we choose.  Once again, the sensible solution lies somewhere in between.

There is no question that Americans have a right and privilege, guaranteed and provided by our founding fathers, to own guns for their self protection.  This right should be further extended to the areas of hunting and sport shooting.  On the other hand, it is hard to justify exactly why any common man or woman should want to won an automatic weapon such as an AK47 or similar firearms designed for assault and attack.

I was born and raised in a rural area.  I hunted as a youth and even though I no longer participate in hunting, I allow my friends to hunt on my property and have no objection to it.  I own several guns, but none would be considered assault or attack weapons.  My home is somewhat isolated in the country and there have been occasions in my adult life when the rifle or shotgun has come off the wall when something strange goes “bump in the night”.  On the occasions when I have had to travel overnight from home, I have taken comfort in the fact that wife has a handgun within reach and knows how to use it if the need presents itself.

Obviously, I have no objections of gun ownership.  However, I do believe that it is absolutely reasonable to expect gun owners to be accountable for this privilege and deal with it responsibly.  I have no problems with outlawing commercial sales of certain types of assault or attack weapons that have no practical application in hunting or sport.  Further, I have no problem with registering my firearms and being held responsible for their control and management.  I know that many gun rights folks say that gun registration is simply a “foot in the door” and the next step will be outlawing guns entirely.   Unfortunately, there is some validity to this concern.   There are people in positions of power who will use gun registration as a stepping stone to a higher goal.  However, the issue at hand today is not that higher goal.  The issue today is trying to strike a balance between the right to own private arms and the common sense use of laws to protect society.  Even though it certainly will not solve all of our gun control problems in this country, outlawing certain types of guns and requiring responsible ownership through registration are two very good steps in the process.

The Fiscal Cliff.  Once again, our Congress is nearing an impasse on a critical element of necessary governance: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.   The common sense solution to this issue is clearly to extend the current tax rates for one year; giving “whomever” is elected President in November an opportunity to work out some type of tax reform with the new Congress.  It is difficult to understand why the Democrats do not understand the wisdom of this course.  Perhaps they have gazed into their crystal ball and see that with little or no chance of regaining control of the House, increasing the upper tax rate is the best outcome they can hope for in the foreseeable future.  On the other hand, Republicans are likely relishing the notion they will retain the House and possibly gain the Senate and White House, thus giving them relatively free reign to rewrite the tax laws.   If we accept both of these assumptions, the largest negotiation margin must lie with the Republicans.  If they now concede to an increase in the higher rates in return for continuing all others and preventing a trip over the cliff, they should have an opportunity next year to rewrite the agreement more to their liking when they assume greater control of government. 

A case can be made both to leave the rates intact until after the coming election in order to allow the “will of the people” to made evident and to pursue the Democratic position of raising the upper rates for now and dealing with the “larger” reform issue later. 

For me, rationality dictates that the simplest course is the best course; and that course is to simply extend the current rates.  It has become such an ordeal for this Congress to agree on anything that adding necessary civility to the formula does nothing more than to guarantee stalemate and likely failure. 

IMMIGRATION REFORM.  Ours is a nation of laws; so very many laws.  It can be argued that religious freedom is the founding principle of our country; perhaps so.  But equally essential is our fundamental belief that the every man, woman, and child has a right to the "pursuit of happiness" and all the other privilege bestowed by our Bill of Rights.  Adherence to law as it is properly promulgated is required for our Bill of Rights to remain vital and effective.  If this premise is accepted, there can be salient points to be made regarding immigration reform.  First, we must define and enforce the immigration law in its current form;  that is clearly one of the proper roles of Government.  Second, if that law is found wanting, we, through our Congress and President, must change that law to better reflect the will of the people.  Once that law exists, then we must allow our Judicial branch of government to independently enforce the administration of that law.  Regardless of their feelings about the wisdom or parity found in our current immigration law, the Obama administration is wrong to try and change that law via selective enforcement.  The office of the President is blessed with many powers and authorities that should permit it to work its will, to the extent permitted by the Constitution, on existing law that it finds issues with; this is the proper route for the Administration to pursue.  Once exercised, this demonstration by them of their beliefs and principles will stand the test of the electoral process and the will of the people (at least those who choose to participate) will be worked.  What the Obama administration is doing by choosing to ignore selected portions of current law is a perversion of our Constitution and the premises upon which this nation was built.  It is fair and proper to argue the merits of an issue; it is not fair and proper to change the rules of the game (when the opportunity presents itself through a sheer powerplay) in a fashion not originally prescribed in an effort to foist personal standards of  moral and ethical behavior on the people our government represents.

If the Obama administration chooses to elevate immigration reform to a high level of political contention, it is incumbent upon them (and anyone else who makes that same choice) to not only talk about the changes it desires but to properly seek those changes through the constitutional process.  It should be the course of this Administration to either allocate its legions of talent and resources to the task of authoring an immigration reform bill for consideration by Congress or work that same process through a surrogate representative on Captiol Hill.