Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Green Curtain

In his inaugural address, he told the American people to prepare for sacrifice, after they paid for a $120 billion stimulus package that didn't work, after they paid for a $700 billion bailout package that didn't work, as he prepares to spend $850 billion on another stimulus package and wants to spend even more.





He invited an openly gay Episcopal bishop to pray at the Inauguration concert last Sunday, Rev. Joseph Lowery prayed that "white will embrace what is right" during the benediction at his Inauguration, his Secretary of Labor wants to exclude white male construction workers from receiving contracts related to the $850 billion stimulus package, yet he warns Republicans against listening to Rush Limbaugh because that would be divisive.


He ordered the closure of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo without a plan to dispose of the prisoners there, could not explain the contents of his own Executive Order, admitted that some prisoners are so dangerous that they will never be released (one former detainee car-bombed the US Embassy in Yemen and has become the leader of Al Qaeda in that country) but bitterly criticized President Bush during the campaign for not closing Guantanamo anyway.


He has forbidden the use of torture when interrogating terror suspects, including the technique of waterboarding. His nominee for Attorney General has agreed, his nominee for Director of National Intelligence has disagreed, and when asked if we would torture Osama bin Laden if he fell into our hands to gain information that might prevent terrorist attacks, his Press Secretary demurred.


He signed a new Executive Order establishing sweeping new ethics rules for lobbyists and political appointees, then granted a waiver to William Lynn within 24 hours.

Only 1457 more days to go.


Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/



Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1411081/robert_reich_excludes_white_male_construction.html

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303507.html

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/23/obama-hopeful-congress-pass-stimulus-plan-despite-gop-resistance/

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481849,00.html

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/23/lobbyist-nominated-pentagon-agrees-sell-raytheon-stock/

Bear Market

When Barack Obama assumes the Presidency this Tuesday, he will face an array of foreign policy issues that will demand his attention and not in the let's-make-nice-now-that-George W. Bush-is-gone sort of way. Israel and the Palestinians are mixing it up again, North Korea continues its hysterical temper tantrums, Iran continues to foment global Islamic terror and of course, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proceed unabated. Lost in the shuffle, possibly, is a dispute between Russia, Ukraine and the European Union over natural gas that threatens NATO expansion and possibly a split in the alliance itself, and which serves as a perfect example of the problem an inexperienced and outclassed rookie President has to handle.

The rise in fuel prices has given Russia a power it never enjoyed during the Cold War as the world's leading Communist nation. Flush with money, Russia has rebuffed American designs against Iran's nuclear program, has intimidated her Baltic neighbors, has sold weapons to that socialist goon Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and has threatened Poland and the Czech Republic for daring to cooperate with America's ballistic missile defenses. Led by Vladimir Putin and other KGB alumni, Russia has cast off its post-Cold War image as a weakened and pathetic country, asserting itself as a huge, ancient and powerful nation accustomed to dominating two continents and intimidating its neighbors. Money is indeed power, they have discovered, too late to save the USSR but in time to shape a new Russia and get things done.

They started four years ago in Ukraine. In an effort to maintain control of their former Soviet satellite, they poured boatloads of money into the presidential campaign of Viktor Yanukovych, tried their best to rig the election in his favor and when that failed, tried to assassinate his rival, Viktor Yushchenko: Old habits die hard. Overwhelming popular resistance ultimately prevailed, Yushchenko survived the dioxin poisoning and was inaugurated President, but the hearts that rule the Kremlin are stout hearts indeed and the new old Russia would try again.

Aleksandr Litvenenko, a former KGB agent turned author and rabid Putin critic, became violently ill in London in November 2006 and died an agonizing death three weeks later, all the while claiming that his enemies in Moscow were responsible. He was right. British authorities determined that he had been poisoned with radioactive polonium-210, a substance produced by nuclear power plants, tightly controlled by national governments and which was used to send a very loud message that the Kremlin was not to be trifled with. British attempts to interrogate and extradite Andrei Lugovoi failed, the man suspected and charged with Litvenenko's murder. British diplomats were expelled from Russia in retaliation, no-one has ever gone to jail and more proof was provided that the Russia everyone knew and feared was back and ready for a brawl.

Next was a territorial dispute with Georgia, another ex-Soviet slave state. President Mikhail Saakashvili embraced the US and emphatically sought NATO membership in the face of bitter Russian protests, confident that his personal relationship with George W. Bush ensured American support in any potential conflict, and made the mistake of putting that assumption to the test. In August 2008, he ordered Georgian military forces to reoccupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two Georgian provinces who were ethnically Russian and who had been allowed to assume a measure of autonomy. Russia responded swiftly. In a matter of days, Russian troops had repelled the Georgian attack, seized their largest Black Sea port, cut the major east-west highway and a major oil pipeline and threatened the capital of Tbilisi while inflicting thousands of casualties before retiring, proving that handshakes and photo ops in the White House are no match for Russian tanks.

That brings us to the present. Ukraine imports Russian natural gas for its own consumption as well as for transit to Europe through a 23,000-mile network of pipes, paying about $195 per 1000 cubic meters for its fuel. Russia has demanded that Ukraine pay $450 per 1000 cubic meters, has withheld gas for Ukraine while shipping supplies meant for its European customers and refusing to supply so-called "technical gas" meant to push fuel through the pipeline. President Yushchenko of Ukraine, of course, is unwilling to allow his own citizens to freeze while he argues with the Russians and has kept the gas intended for Europe, sparking criticism from the EU since they now have to scramble for alternate supplies in the middle of winter. Russia is capitalizing on this mess as they now blame Ukraine for stealing fuel and forcing Europe to suffer unnecessarily, President Dmitri Medvedev going so far as to propose a conference in Moscow where the whole European Union can debate a solution, his own preference being to place Ukraine's pipeline network under "international control" - meaning Russia. In short, we have Russia bullying Ukraine with a view of either ruining her economically, gaining control of her pipeline network, short-circuiting her aspirations of NATO membership (most of the EU nations now shivering in the cold are also NATO members who would look at any Ukrainian request with a certain amount of, say, circumspection), cancelling further NATO expansion altogether or, in a perfect world, all of the above. This is bare-knuckle politics the way the Kremlin likes to play it, and there is real danger here. If Russia is allowed to intimidate the West and those countries who have befriended the West, if Russia is allowed to bite off those smaller countries and beat them up, if Russia is allowed to force Europe to choose between loyalty to the alliance and keeping her people warm, if Russia is allowed to dictate European and American foreign policy without heavyweight repercussions - they do, after all, need us so much more than we need them - then the effort of winning the Cold War will have been wasted and Mr. Obama will find himself facing the Russia of 1949, not 2009.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479880,00.html

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2531027/Georgia-Crisis-deepens-as-Russia-snubs-George-W-Bushs-call-to-pull-troops-out.html

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4061253.stm

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/26/ap/world/mainD8LKJSHG0.shtml

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/2547451/Russia-Georgia-conflict-timeline.html

Drinking Our Way To Sobriety, Part II

His Serene Loftiness gave a major speech up at George Mason University in Fairfax last week during which he warned us that failure of Congress to approve another "stimulus" package to assuage the currrent economic crisis could result in a recession extending for years, and urged his Democrat colleagues to present the $850 billion bill for his signature not later than 31 January. In a continuation of my remarks last week, I have several observations about Mr. Obama's plan and its supposed urgent nature.

• National governments have several ways to raise money. They may simply print more of it, they may increase tariffs on imports, they may increase taxes or they may borrow the money. Printing money is easy, it avoids increasing the public debt or risking a public backlash over taxes, but it also decreases the currency's value and risks inflation. Increasing tariffs shifts the burden to foreigners which is pretty good if you're a politician, it also avoids the dangers of public anger over increased taxes and inflation, but raising the kind of money desired might be problematic, what with treaty obligations and all. Increasing taxes carries no danger of inflation and likely results in the amount of money desired being raised, but it's extremely unpopular to the point of dangerous: See the Congressional elections of 1994 or the voters' rejection of Bush 41 when he broke his pledge not to raise taxes. Borrowing money doesn't risk inflation or voter outrage, it results in the desired amount being raised and the pain of repayment is postponed, all very attractive inducements to politicians who want to spend more money but who want to keep their seats, the same inducements that persuade ordinary citizens to live on their credit cards. But the consequences of national governments borrowing money can be catastrophic. Because there is no immediate cost to spending on credit, governments are tempted to live that way, becoming complacent, adopting a spendthrift lifestyle until there is nothing left to borrow and everything comes crashing down. As of this writing, the United States government owes $10.6 trillion or over $37,000 for every man, woman and child, legal and illegal in this country. Mr. Obama proposes to borrow $850 billion more at the very beginning of his Presidency and use that money to "stimulate" the sluggish economy. In reality, borrowing such a vast sum will act as a sedative to the economy since the government is taking money out of circulation, money badly needed in the private credit markets that Mr. Obama says he wants to help, and blowing it on its own purposes. The national debt is increased, the percentage of the annual budget devoted to repaying that debt and its interest is increased and in effect, the borrowed money amounts to a de facto tax increase that further interrupts the recovery Mr. Obama claims to be seeking, definitely not sound fiscal strategy.

• As part of the $850 billion boondoggle, Mr. Obama wants to provide $350 billion worth of "tax cuts" to lower- and middle-income families, the people who voted for him and his liberal Democrat allies two months ago. The problem is that the bottom fifty percent of American wage earners pay less than 4% of all Federal income taxes, presenting us with a logical dilemma: How can the government provide income tax relief to people who pay no taxes? That might be difficult to answer if you aren't Barack Obama, but for him, it's easy - it's redistributing income. You see, his offhand comment to Joe the Plumber during the campaign was too telling and he intends to write $350 billion in welfare checks to his friends, be financed mainly by people who voted against him. (The top ten percent of wage earners pay over 65% of all Federal income taxes.)

• The Emperor of the Americas would also like to spend $500 billion or so to repair infrastructure and clean energy projects with the intent of converting America into a Green Republic. However, 98% of our vehicles are powered by fossil fuels and 70% of our electricity comes from the same, so it seems hugely illogical to spend such a huge sum on "clean energy" when the market has largely rejected the same. But if the point is to placate the rabidly Leftist environmental lobby and to feed fat construction projects to pro-Democrat unions, then you can see why Mr. Obama finds this plan so attractive.

• The $120 billion stimulus package approved in Spring 2008 had virtually no effect. Half of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package approved in October 2008 has been spent but the country has lost over one million more jobs regardless. Undeterred by facts, Mr. Obama is prepared to throw another $850 billion worth of borrowed money at the problem, which seems illogical because it is illogical.

So what are we to make of Mr. Obama, the Democrats and the financial geniuses who advise them? For starters, their strategy has nothing to do with returning the country to long-term prosperity but everything to do with implementing liberal dogma:

• The market is fundamentally unfair and government intervention is necessary to correct it.
• Rather than allow the market to correct itself naturally which might cost hundreds of thousands of union jobs and many low-wage, bad-credit homeowners their homes, the government should spend a colossal amount of money for a temporary fix knowing that their Republican rivals will be stuck with the check.
• The tree huggers and the unions are traditional Democrat constituencies. The government should spend whatever it needs to spend to help them and screw the consequences.

And people used to ridicule Ronald Reagan for cutting taxes in the middle of a recession...like that's just plain crazy.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

Source: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/obama-speech-pushes-clean-energy/

Drinking Our Way to Sobriety

In seventeen days, President Bush will leave office as the most unpopular President in the history of our Republic, at least as far as polling can determine. After enjoying approval ratings as high as ninety percent after 9/11, Mr. Bush's support has slowly dwindled to its current level of 28 percent and settled there, the deepest funk suffered by any Chief Executive and an indication of the public's deep dissatisfaction with his performance. Certainly, Mr. Bush has had his successes, such as his handling of the Navy P-3 incident with the Chinese, the tax cuts, his appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and of course, the liberation of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. The United States homeland has not been attacked since that dreadful day seven years ago, surely the best metric we could possibly hope for and for which Mr. Bush should receive all the credit. He oversaw the expansion of NATO and our country's missile defenses and persuaded Libya to abandon its major weapon programs, a huge achievement considering Muammar Qaddafi's history of belligerence. However, the negatives were overwhelming. He allowed liberal Democrats to undermine education reform and to drive him (maybe willingly) toward establishment of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, saddling the American taxpayers with a huge new entitlement program. He mishandled the Federal responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (though Gov. Kathleen Blanco, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the culture of corrupt Louisiana politics were the main culprits), advocated clemency for millions of illegal immigrants in the face of stiff public opposition, allowed North Korea to test a nuclear weapon, test fire a salvo of missiles on the Fourth of July and repeatedly ignore its international obligations, and invaded Iraq without adequate preparations for security and reconstruction that cost tens of thousands of lives before the successful surge of 2007. But beyond education reform, new entitlements and even war, Mr. Bush's legacy is defined by a titanic increase in the Federal debt, some of which was beyond his control (the recesssion he inherited from Bill Clinton, the economic shock of 9/11) but much of which was completely controllable.







The positive results of the Bush tax cuts - relieving the burden on the Federal taxpayers, encouraging corporate investment, the creation of five million jobs and an increase of $188 billion in Federal income tax receipts since 2001 - have been more than offset by runaway Federal spending. Even before the current economic crisis, increased Federal spending was responsible for 90% of the final budget deficit between 2000-2006, according to figures from the Heritage Foundation. Stir in the bailout fever that has gripped the nation and add another $1.1 trillion to the national debt in one year alone which would be scandalous by itself, but we're not done yet. As of this writing, Congressional Democrats intend to offer an $850 billion "stimulus" package for Barack Obama's signature on 20 January that would represent the total national debt for the first 200 years of our existence and push the new total somewhere north of $11 trillion, or $37,377 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Given the Republicans' traditional aversion to this kind of fiscal lunacy and the Democrats' supposed new-found discipline, how did we then get to this point?





First, Mr. Bush and his GOP colleagues in the Congress decided in favor of political expediency very early in his Presidency. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 provided a ready excuse, like, "Spend whatever you need to spend and worry about paying the bill later." There was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Global War On Terror, disaster recoveries from California wildfires to Midwest floods to the forementioned Gulf Coast hurricanes, to the Federal bailouts of Wall Street and the Big Three Detroit automakers. All this spending nullified the benefits of the Bush tax cuts and removed a very important issue from the Republicans' traditional agenda - that they are careful with the people's money. Second, the Democrats and their irresponsible Republican fellows predicted, in their Keynesian fervor, that colossal levels of government spending would spark the economy and generate a new round of prosperity, "priming the pump" as they say. However, the Department of Labor announced recently that unemployment rose to 6.7% in the month of November 2008 and overall job losses have reached 2.7 million since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, indicating that the $120 billion "stimulus" package approved last Spring, the various Wall Street takeovers and the $700 billion TRAP package approved in October have had exactly the opposite effect as intended, deepening the economic stress rather than relieving it. But as I mentioned above, politicians want to be seen as "doing something" and government does nothing better than spend money, though in this case it is somewhat analogous to the alcoholic who tries to kick the habit by going on a binge. It's illogical in the extreme and undeserving of even a shred of respect.






There is a fundamental economic failure at work here. Liberals who complain of high Federal deficits under Republican administrations but simultaneously urge trillions in new outlays to "stimulate" the economy are actually saying that government spending is OK but only as long as they are in charge and implicitly acknowledge that simply blowing money at a weak economy does nothing but weaken it further. They also refuse to consider cutting levels of spending and taxation in order to stimulate the economy, reducing the burden on taxpayers instead of increasing it, since the whole point as far as they are concerned is to grow government, increase its power and influence and increase the people's dependence on it. They see government as a leveler of social and economic differences, taking resources from those who've earned them and giving them to others who have not, reversing the basic unfairness of life at least as they see it. But as I already observed, by proposing $850 billion in additional government spending when $820 billion hasn't worked is like the neighborhood drunk going on a binge to attain sobriety - for all you Democrats out there, aren't you glad you voted for this?























Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTVjNzIxZDhjMWNlOGM4Zjg3ODc1MDg0NTliNDhjMTU=



















Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2152.cfm



















Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2150.cfm





Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Waiter, Some Perspective, Please

The outcry from the gay rights crowd over Rick Warren's appointment to deliver the invocation at the Presidential Inauguration next month (separate from the outcry that Lord Obama's Cabinet, chock full of Leftists, is desperately short of Leftists) is certainly a sign of the times. Barack Obama, a socialist of the deepest hue, recognizes that despite his decisive victory over John McCain and strong majorities in the Congress and state legislatures, he must reach out to the Right to avoid Bill Clinton's mistakes of 1993-1994, when the Fornicator in Chief decided to govern without Republican support and paid a steep price. Thus Obama seeks opportunities to mollify his political rivals, displaying magnanimity where he can afford to do so, opportunities that include asking a well-known, amiable, center-Right pastor to speak at his Inaugural. Rick Warren is no fire-breathing battler of Satan like Billy Sunday, nor a soft-spoken but unwavering Southern Baptist like Dr. Charles Stanley, nor a towering evangelist like Billy Graham, but as Rev. Graham withdraws from public life, Mr. Warren is the closest thing we have to a national pastor. His Christianity has a distinct California flavor, flowered shirts, flip-flops and a friendly smile, but the thought of him on the podium on January 20 has inflamed the Left. Magnanimity, you see, is the last thing they have on their minds. They prefer revenge, they prefer payback for forty years of conservative resistance to the homosexual movement, they prefer to have their enemies' heads on a stick, and Rick Warren speaking anywhere is to them the most egregious betrayal imaginable. How dare His Serene Loftiness do such a terrible thing?

Beyond his tanned and outgoing exterior, Rick Warren's faith is founded on bedrock. His best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Life, emphasizes that God should be at the center of our lives, that life is not about what we can gain for ourselves, that acknowledging sin and accepting Christ as our personal Lord and Savior is integral to a happy, satisfied life. He supported Proposition 8 that established marriage as one-man, one-woman in California law, a position also rooted in Biblical principles and consistent with his overall message. This is what is so objectionable about Rick Warren as far as the homosexual lobby is concerned, that a laid-back, T-shirt and jeans preacher from Orange County won't budge from the Bible. They would prefer someone more pliable, more flexible in their interpretation of God's Word, some stooge who will tell them what they want to hear. They want someone to say that God doesn't condemn homosexuality as an abomination but rather approves of it and encourages it, that God doesn't care who marries who as long as it makes you feel good, and they know that Rick Warren isn't that guy. They see any adherence to traditional Christian values as a return to the Spanish Inquisition and anyone resisting them as Torquemada himself, and overreact accordingly - paranoid doesn't quite capture their attitude. Like the pagans of ancient Rome who hated Christians not because of any harm the Christians caused them but because of what Christians did not do - sacrifice to false gods, worship the emperor's genius, attend gladiatoral games, engage in public depravity - the gay lobby isn't satisfied if they are simply left alone. Everyone must accept them, everyone must approve of them, they must have everyone's full sanction and support, and if a Christian doesn't assail them but only refuses to yield his principles, then that Christian must be crushed, in which case I say: Have at it. Whether or not the gay community crushes Rick Warren is completely under God's power. They can crush him if it fits God's plan but they can never, and I say again, never crush His Word.

Sooner Than We Thought

The arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday on Federal corruption charges brings us the first scandal of the Obama administration, albeit 42 days before it officially begins. Now after the election, I reassured my stepson that, liberals being liberals, Barack Obama will find a way to open the door right into his own nose. There would be a scandal, it would be big and splashy and embarrassing, it would happen sooner rather than later, and voila! here it is.

Naturally, President-elect Obama was "saddened" by the news of Blago's arrest but distanced himself from the governor's nefarious activities, since His Serene Loftiness is above such stuff. I couldn't help thinking, though, that I'd heard this before. Here we have the President-elect, a veteran of corrupt Illinois politics - a redundancy, I know - who endorsed Blagojevich for governor twice, who served as a top strategist for his first gubernatorial victory in 2002, who knew him well, repudiating his buddy while simultaneously casting their relationship as almost casual, like passing each other in the hallway occasionally: "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Really? Are you sure that you didn't talk to the governor about your replacement in the Senate? Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod sure thought so when he interviewed with Fox News Chicago on 23 November, when he said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." Hmm...seems a little, well, contradictory, doesn't it?

Remember former Sixties bomb thrower William Ayers? How did the Emperor of the Americas respond to questions regarding his thirteen-year relationship with an unrepentant terrorist? "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

And Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who was Obama's pastor for twenty years, who officiated his marriage to Michelle and baptized his children, who brazenly declared, "We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God"? "Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect."

And convicted real estate swindler Tony Rezko, who donated at least $60,000 to Obama's various political campaigns, who arranged a suspicious property purchase for Obama while Rezko was under Federal investigation (Obama paid $300,000 below the asking price), who's known Obama since 1990? How did His Lordship answer the press then? "I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago. "

In technical terms, this is what we call a trend. Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has willingly associated himself with crooked politicians, America haters, demagogues and criminals and then denied the associations for political expediency. For the 58,343,671 people who voted for John McCain, this is what you were trying to stop. For the 66,882,230 people who voted for Barack Obama, this is what you elected to the White House. And this is just the beginning.

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Source: http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Jeremiah-Wright-Quotes.htm

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/index.html

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/questions-arise.html

Source: http://townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection

The Case for a Playoff

In a departure from my usual commentary on politics and foreign affairs, I'm devoting a few lines to the debate concerning a playoff system for NCAA college football. This may not be as important a topic as taxes or national security policy but the NCAA has stoked the fires yet again and it deserves some scrutiny.






For 139 years, organized major college football in the United States has steadfastly resisted a playoff to determine the national champion, relying instead on coaches' polls, sportswriters' polls, some combination thereof or, since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series. Despite conducting 91 championships for 37 other sports it oversees, the NCAA refuses to establish a true playoff system for Division I-A football, the sport that generates the highest attendance, revenue, television ratings and public interest. It seems a screaming contradiction that the NCAA's biggest sport should be left to twist slowly in controversy for fourteen decades, especially given that the public appears to favor a playoff so strongly, but as with most issues, a real college football championship can be boiled down to one word: Money:



a) The presidents of the elite football universities stoutly refuse to accept a playoff system because of the threat it poses to their income. A team chosen to play in a lower-rung bowl game like the PapaJohns.com Bowl can make $300,000 for their school while the major bowl games - the Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls - pay out $17 million to their participants, which equates to a huge incentive to keep things exactly where they are, the fans and the general public be damned.


b) The bowl games themselves make huge sums from ticket sales, merchandising, television and sponsors, and the host cities count on bowl game revenue as well. Airlines, hotels, car rentals, restaurants, nightclubs, all make money when college football comes to town.


c) The TV networks and sponsors like the present system because they can showcase each bowl individually rather than as one game of a series. A playoff system would threaten the specialness of their games and the income thereof.


Aside from the money, the NCAA likes to excuse the lack of a playoff because of "tradition." This is how "tradition" has worked before:

• 13 November 1993: Florida State, unbeaten and ranked #1 in the country, plays Notre Dame, also unbeaten and ranked #2. In an epic contest in South Bend, Notre Dame prevails 31-24 and replaces Florida State as #1. Strangely, Florida State only drops to #2 even though Nebraska (ranked #3) remained unbeaten in their game. The next week, Boston College beats Notre Dame on a last-second field goal. Florida State resumes #1 but in a departure from the previous week's precedent, Notre Dame drops to #3 while Nebraska assumes #2. On New Year's Day 1994, Florida State beats Nebraska 18-16 in the Orange Bowl to claim the national championship while Notre Dame edges Texas A&M 24-21 in the Cotton Bowl and finishes the season in second place, despite having beaten the Seminoles fair and square. This arouses suspicion that Florida State - having lost the previous two national titles - received special consideration, first in dropping no lower than #2 after their loss to the Fighting Irish and second, in not having to play them again.

• 23 November 2001: Previously unbeaten and #1 ranked Nebraska is crushed by Colorado 62-26 but is nonetheless invited to play Miami in the BCS title game. The Hurricanes easily defeat the Cornhuskers 37-14 in the 2002 Rose Bowl, casting doubt on the decision to invite Nebraska as a worthy contender for the national championship.

• 06 December 2003: In a near repeat of the 2001 season's debacle, previously unbeaten and #1 ranked Oklahoma is routed by Kansas State 35-7 in the Big 12 Conference championship game but is invited to play in the Sugar Bowl against LSU nonetheless, the NCAA citing Oklahoma's "overall strong record." The Tigers beat the Sooners 21-14 to claim at least a share of the national title. Because the decision to invite Oklahoma was driven by computer calculations of a team's overall record, strength of schedule and wins over quality opponents, the NCAA drops those considerations prior to the 2004 season in favor of more human opinion, hoping to avoid another embarrassment. It doesn't work. In the 2005 BCS championship game, the first-ever meeting of two Heisman Trophy winners (Jason White of Oklahoma and Matt Leinart of USC), Southern Cal humiliates the Sooners 55-19, once again calling the validity of inviting Oklahoma into question, as well as the BCS system itself.

• 30 November 2008: Oklahoma is selected to play in the Big 12 Conference championship against Missouri, despite having finished the regular season tied with Texas and Texas Tech with identical records (7-1 in the conference and 11-1 overall) and despite having been defeated by Texas 45-35. Texas, having defeated both Oklahoma and Missouri, is ignored, their chances for playing in the BCS championship game all but erased, raising suspicion yet again that the fix was in.

The NCAA established the Bowl Championship Series in 1998 as a means of short-circuiting a true playoff system and maintaining the status quo for as long as possible, never intending that an actual national college football tournament should ever be established, for reasons already mentioned. As awkward, confusing and stupid as it is, as unfair and unpopular and illogical as it may be, the BCS has served that purpose ably. However, pressure is building across the country to scrap the BCS - as much as I disagree with Barack Obama on nearly every other issue, we share common ground here - and the NCAA would be better served to develop a playoff scheme themselves than to wait for a scheme to be imposed upon them. In that vein, here is the system I propose:

1. Limit the regular season to eleven games, period. Start the first weekend in September and finish by Thanksgiving weekend. This would put every Division I-FBS university on an equal footing.
2. Eliminate conference championship games. They consume an extra week that could be devoted to a playoff and are unnecessary since conference championships were determined for 75 years without them.
3. Cast a wide net. Select not four teams or eight but sixteen. This would ensure a wider array of talent, it would eliminate the pressure to go undefeated since teams with one or two losses could still be chosen and teams at the lower tier would still have a legitimate shot at the national championship.
4. Copy the basketball model again by establishing an NIT-style playoff for lower-ranked teams from #17-#25. Teams with three losses could still play in the postseason, it would provide coaches with ammunition for recruiting, minor bowl games could still be used and generate revenue and fan and media interest would be preserved.
5. Divide the competition into regionals of four teams each across the country. Force warm-weather teams like Miami and Southern Cal to play in Lincoln and Columbus in December, mix it up so teams are forced to adapt and the strongest teams emerge, while leaving lower-seeded teams a chance for an upset.
6. No byes. Every team plays every week until a champion is determined. Sixteen teams equals four games with the championship game played on New Year's Day and the college football season not extended even one week longer than usual.

This plan would not diminish the value of the regular season as the NCAA has warned, as a team's performance would determine rewards like seedings and home-field advantage. The season would conclude at the same time it always has been, and the championship would be legitimate, earned on the field and not by computers, opinion polls or personal agendas. Any coach or university president who objects to a true playoff system like this one, who prefers the skulduggery of the current mess to proving their team's mettle on the gridiron, who prefers politicking their way to the national championship over winning it fair and square, is not worthy to be considered.