Campaign Like It's 1864

Political pundits looking for historical analogies to the 2012 Presidential election have offered up several ideas - for President Obama, many think he must channel the "give 'em hell" Harry Truman campaign of 1948, where the unpopular incumbent was able to make the Republican Congress his enemy and a bland, but otherwise unobjectionable opponent (New York Governor Tom Dewey) was rejected.  Republicans like 1980, where a Democratic incumbent presiding over a weak economy was drummed out of office, heralding a decade plus run of conservative leadership.  And while President Obama will never be mistaken with Truman's firebrand campaigning style and Mitt Romney is no one's idea of Ronald Reagan, precedent offers a certain facile comfort for the commentariat, which likes nothing more than linking the past to the present in an unbroken narrative chain of America's historical uniqueness. 

But let me throw out another election that featured an unpopular incumbent presiding at a time of enormous strife in the country and where the people, who elected him with great hope and optimism, had soured on his leadership and become exhausted by the circumstances they found themselves in.  Ladies and gentlemen - I bring you the Election of 1864.  Yes, I realize, the single greatest cataclysm to our society (the Civil War) is not an "on all fours" comparison to our nagging economic downturn, but follow me.  

President Lincoln was an enormously unpopular man in early 1864.  The country had been at war for nearly four years and it did not look like there was an end in sight.  A chance to seal off General Lee after Gettysburg had been squandered and the capture of Vicksburg and its importance to the overall prosecution of the war effort was not yet fully appreciated.  Rumblings within his own party suggested that Lincoln should not stand for re-election and the opposition was led by General George McClellan, the former leader of Lincoln's own army and who was openly speaking of peace entreaties with the South to end the war.  

So how was it that Lincoln, who doubted his own chances for re-election, wind up swamping McClellan, winning all but 2 of the states that voted that year and what can that tell us about ways in which 2012 might look like 1864?  In contemporary terms, Lincoln's generals delivered several "game changers" that made the architecture of the Civil War look much different in November 1864 than it did at the beginning of the year.  Grant, who had patiently laid siege to Vicksburg, finally taking it as, in a wonderful historical twist, Lee was retreating from Gettysburg, was given overall command of Union forces with a clear mandate to cut off Lee and destroy the Army of Northern Virginia.  Grant doggedly (and at the cost of tens of thousands of lives) tracked Lee through Virginia, in a long, desperate war of attrition, that, by November, found Grant within sniffing distance of Richmond.  

Meanwhile, General William Sherman was methodically rolling through the deep South, from Chattanooga to Atlanta and onward to the sea, leaving behind him nothing but razed cities and destroyed countryside.  Lastly, General Phil Sheridan and his troops in the Shenandoah Valley were able to press the advantage to close the final pincers around the Confederate Army.  In short, these three generals validated Lincoln's decision-making and helped ensure his re-election.  By November, although the war was not over, the end was in sight.  Moreover, Lincoln retained the good will of the troops he commanded and McClellan's ignoble departure from military service looked like a far greater liability as the year progressed than it did at its start.  

So how can our current President draw inspiration from one of his political heroes?  Again, I am not suggesting that our economic situation is identical to the Civil War; however, it is, by a wide margin, the biggest issue of the day, and, along with the steady drumbeat of deficit and debt that goes hand in hand with it, casts a pall over any discussion of domestic politics. Further, Congressional Republicans, who have made it sport to block every single piece of the President's agenda (not to mention political appointees - most recently, the "Public Printer," who had to be recess appointed) do not seem inclined toward compromise.  A huge piece of the President's first term legislative agenda hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court considers the Affordable Care Act and any number of foreign policy challenges including Iran, North Korea, Russia and the Middle East, could bubble to the surface and completely dominate the media narrative at a moment's notice.  

The President needs to take a page from Lincoln and go on the offensive, not just in rhetoric, but in deed and secure the game changers that Lincoln's generals produced for him in 1864.  On the economic front, he must continue to push for investments in infrastructure and other parts of the American Jobs Act, working in concert with Congressional Democrats publicly, and Republicans privately, to get through parts (if not all) of that jobs package.  For example, the President should take a page from the Republican playbook and demand votes on the Jobs Act as part of the payroll tax cut extension debate that will start just after New Year's.  Congressional Republicans claim the need for a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is required to spur job growth, why not up the ante and get needed infrastructure funding included as well? 

More importantly, the President should continue pushing for a common sense long-term deficit agreement that locks in higher tax rates for wealthy individuals and eliminates corporate loopholes with as little sacrifice in entitlement programs as possible.  While steady job growth or the complete elimination of the Bush tax cuts would do the same job of reducing our long-term deficit problem, the former is not guaranteed and the latter is not politically feasible (or advisable).  The President has an opportunity to re-make tax policy in a way that is more progressive, collects more revenue and is framed in a way that can draw broad public support, boxing Republicans into a corner of either wholesale rejection or defending the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  While some might argue that Republicans will not deal, consider that the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election.  Republicans have just as much of a stake in showing progress and movement forward to get re-elected as the President does. 

Ironically, one of the President's best friends this year may end up being the Supreme Court.  Forgetting for a minute how it might rule on other contentious issues like immigration and Congressional redistricting, no matter how the Supreme Court rules on the Affordable Care Act, the President will be able to claim victory.  If the Court upholds the law, that is the final word and implementation (which is already taking place and to great effect, another story the President will need to tell) will move forward.  If he loses, people will be harmed because they will be unable to gain access to needed care, but if anything, it will strengthen the President's mandate to find solutions to get to universal coverage and will also take a key point of contention off the political battlefield. I'm not one to sacrifice good policy for good politics, but either way, "health care" will be resolved by June. 

On the foreign front, the President will benefit if he is proactive.  Having already wracked up the killing of Bin Laden, the complete withdrawal from Iraq and support for liberation movement across the Middle East, the President should look to make an aggressive push along foreign policy fronts that can bear fruit.  Whether it is working more closely with China to address North Korea, pushing for a peace treaty in Afghanistan or squeezing the sanctions vice around Iran ever tighter, the President's free hand to conduct foreign policy is a natural place to "go big" in an effort to achieve a major breakthrough.  It's not for nothing that Nixon's visit to China occurred during his re-election campaign in 1972.  

While our country's economic footing looks uncertain as 2012 dawns, consider how the country will look like in November 2012 if the economy strengthens, unemployment continues to go down, a comprehensive, long-term deficit deal is signed that includes higher taxes for wealthy Americans, an end to corporate loopholes and ensures the solvency of entitlement programs for decades, health care is off the table politically, and some combination of the continued expansion of Arab democratic movements, addressing/dealing with Iran, drawing down in Afghanistan or (another moon shot) an actual peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians is within reach.  A President campaigning on that kind of record would make 1864, (or 1984 for that matter) look like a much closer electoral antecedent than anything currently being discussed. 

President Obama and the Congress of Doom

It is said that Steven Spielberg's model for Raiders of the Lost Ark was the short "serial" films of the 1930s and 1940s that always ended with a cliffhanger, often with the hero in peril.  Since President Obama's inauguration in 2009, and certainly since the House went back to Republican control in 2010, our federal government has run like those long ago serials, with this week's episode being the just completed payroll tax cut debate, which resulted in a two-month extension of that tax cut, along with an extension of unemployment insurance and relief for doctors who treat patients on Medicare.  

While many pundits are lining up to laud the President for standing up to Republican intransigence and calling this a victory for him, consider what was won, at what cost and what the future holds.  The President won a 60 day reprieve to try and negotiate a year-long extension to a tax cut that Republicans mandate be fully paid for (unlike the trillions in tax cuts that were signed into law in 2001 and 2003 by President Bush) and inserted specious requirements like the Keystone XL pipeline decision for no other reasons than that they can effectuate policy by other means.  Keep in mind that the only reason the payroll tax cut was even up for renewal this year is because in one of the prior episodes of government by cliffhanger (Bush Tax Cut Episode - December 2010), the President signed off on a two-year extension for all the Bush tax cuts while accepting a one year time horizon for the payroll tax cut.  

Of course, Republicans have learned that government by cliffhanger is a very effective strategy to amplify the narrative that Washington is "broken."  After all, "ordinary" Americans see a big food fight going on, often without taking time to understand who is at fault or who started the argument.  Further, each time one of these crises erupts, Republicans are able to extract enormous concessions from the President.  The only difference this time was that Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly for something they could not turn around and repudiate.  Even so, the "pay for" to offset the cost of these extensions will (ironically) fall on home purchasers, who will pay additional fees to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back the mortgages they take out to buy their homes.  

Already forgotten in the tax cut debate is the fact that Congress just last week passed the budget for this fiscal year, which started on October 1st.  Even with the total overall discretionary spending capped (thanks to yet another concession the President made in the government by cliffhanger episode "debt ceiling debate") it still took Congress almost 3 months into the fiscal year to get a budget passed.  Not only do these cliffhangers dominate the news cycle and grind everything in Washington to a policy halt, but the side effects are to slow the gears of government and punish organizations that cannot plan, hire or fund programs because of fiscal uncertainty.  Also unmentioned in these debates is that the concessions given by Democrats result in things like reducing funding to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, lowering funding to the EPA and, in myriad other small ways, make it harder for things like regulation and oversight to take place.  People tend not to notice these things until a listeria outbreak takes place or a levee fails in New Orleans.  

As Charles Pierce noted on esquire.com, at best, this agreement deserves a "golf clap" for saving par.  There's nothing stopping Republicans from pulling the same shenanigans in 60 days when the two-month extension expires, or when the budget for Fiscal Year 2013 is being debated.  In the meantime, it is quickly forgotten that the suddenly reasonable looking Mitch McConnell filibustered the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB and, in what appears to be a violation of the vaunted Gang of 14 agreement on blocking federal judges, stopped the appointment of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (20 other nominees, yes, 20, are being held up for reasons unclear).  The knee jerk use of the filibuster, or more specifically, the threat of one (ironically, the only person who was actually forced to take the floor and not leave was Senator Bernie Sanders when Congress was debating the Bush tax cut extension) continues apace and in numbers unprecedented in the modern Senate.  

Obama's "victory" was on a policy issue that is at the core of Republican philosophy and only made possible because of the enormous political cover the huge majority of Republicans in the Senate offered.  No movement on the American Jobs Act has taken place, the centerpiece of financial reform, the CFPB, is still without an appointed leader and little if anything is being done to help ordinary Americans or encouraging stimulative growth.  Make no mistake, when this tax cut is debated over the next 60 days, that combination of factors will not be in effect.  Indeed, the holiday break will undoubtedly allow Republicans to regroup and return to Congress with a more unified position.  

Further, the episodic nature of government will continue apace.  In addition to next year's budget, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire (again) at the end of 2012 and the debt ceiling will again raise its head in 2013 and on and on.  At some point, the President needs to draw a line in the sand.  This was not that fight.  The two-month payroll tax cut was a quirk and a one off, where everyone thought an agreement had been reached until a revolt of back bench House Republicans blew it up.  The President should not be sanguine about this victory, but rather, thinking about where and when he is going to show legitimate spine - be it recess appointing Mr. Cordray, fighting for the "millionaire's tax" to fund the remaining 10 months of the payroll tax cut (or better yet, extending it even longer), coordinating with Senator Reid to do nothing but focus on the movement of nominees through the Senate process, refuse to sign further extensions of the Bush tax cuts (or put forth true progressive tax reform) and continue to pound away, daily, on the need for infrastructure investment, aid to states and other measures that will reinforce the modest job recovery that is being seen in the private sector.  Today is not a time to celebrate, it is a time to, as Sarah Palin might say, reload.

2011 Year In Review - The Books I Read

I read some great (and not so great) books in 2011.  Here is my pocket review of each: 

Book of the Year: At Home (Bill Bryson)

Bryson is one of my favorite authors.  He combines a conversational style with a nerd's appreciation for historical context.  In At Home, Bryson takes readers on a tour of his English country home while stretching back centuries to source the origin of each room's purpose within the modern day house.  Along the way, Bryson takes us back to Dickensian England to discuss sanitation, the dark ages to discuss great rooms and many other stops along the way.  

Runner-Up: The Disappearing Spoon (Sam Kean)

Kean's exploration of the periodic table of the elements is chock full of fascinating little tidbits about the scientists behind the discovery of these elements, how the table is constructed and anecdotes about each substance.  You will learn about everything from how dynamite was invented to what happens if you accidentally ingest silver (spoiler alert: you turn kind of blue).  

Honorable Mention: Maphead (Ken Jennings)

Ken Jennings, best known for winning about 345 games of Jeopardy!, is also a cartography freak with a winning writing style.  In his book Maphead, Jennings's love of maps shines through, as he takes us to the Geography Bee, introduces us to geocaching, follows people who update road signs and visits the historical maps contained in the Library of Congress among many other stops along the way of explaining the importance of maps.  

Honorable Mention: Sex On The Moon (Ben Mezrich)

The author of The Social Network weaves a tale of a NASA scientist and his girlfriend, who hatched a plot to steal (and sell) moon rocks brought back by the Apollo space missions.  The amateurishness of the criminal scheme is matched by the wistfulness of the romance between the main characters.  Highly readable.

Everything else:

Tears Of A Clown, Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America (Dana Milbank)

This book seemed far more relevant when I read it in January than it does now that Beck has slithered off FOX and disappeared into oblivion, but basically, Milbank traces the complete and utter douchiness of this latter day Father Coughlin.  A truly execrable human being.

There's A Word For It, The Explosion of the American Language Since 1900 (Sol Steinmetz)

Steinmetz splits the 20th century into 10 chapters and showing when certain words came into popular use.  Marginally satisfying and not particularly challenging.

Quite Literally (Wynford Hicks)

A far better usage book that would look handsome on any reference desk or bookshelf.  Very enjoyable.

Endgame (Frank Brady)

I usually don't like biographies because I get bored with the backstory, but Brady's one volume Bobby Fischer biography is actually stronger on the early part of Fischer's life than the post-Spassky downward spiral.  This is the book equivalent of Full Metal Jacket - amazing first half, so-so second half.  Fischer is a subject who begged either for a two-volume treatment that would have allowed the author to more deeply explore Fischer's adult life, or a shorter one volume work that was more balanced between youth and adulthood.  The early chapters on Fischer's childhood and rearing are fascinating as is the (too short) meditation on Fischer's skid row years in the early 1980s.  Unfortunately, the early part of Fischer's adulthood, when his genius truly blossomed and he was the unquestioned greatest chess player in the world is given somewhat short shrift. Fischer's unquestioned genius is noted but so too is his reprehensible anti-Semitism.  If you are interested in the definitive book about the 1972 Fischer-Spassky Match, check out Bobby Fischer Goes To War.

The Lover's Dictionary (David Levithan)

This book is as slim as it is bad.  I hated it.

All Facts Considered (Kee Malesky)

I remember absolutely nothing about this book.  When I looked it up on Amazon, it appears to be a reference book of some sort.  

Rawhide Down (Del Quentin Wilber)

This book tells the story of John Hinckley's 1981 assassination attempt against President Ronald Reagan.  Wilber borrows from Dave Cullen's haunting book Columbine in flipping chapters between Hinckley and Reagan until we get to the climactic incident outside the Washington Hilton.  The behind the scenes chaos at the White House and how close Reagan actually was to death are both notable, especially since the "official" story at the time was far different than what was actually happening.

Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words (Bill Bryson)

I told you I was a big fan of Bill Bryson.  This book is a nice companion to Bryson's Dictionary for Writers and Editors, offering commonly (and some not-so commonly) used words with definitions and proper spelling.

Mad As Hell, The Crisis of the 1970s and the Rise of the Populist Right (Dominic Sandbrook)

I'm fascinated by the 1970s.  The decade is easily stereotyped as a sea of leisure suits, 8-Track stereos and shag carpets, but the political system almost came apart during Watergate, the country elected a complete unknown in 1976 and by the end of the decade, interest rates were flirting with 20 percent.  Sandbrook touches on these issues and many more, tracing the decade from Nixon's secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia all the way through how Reagan and his advisors successfully leveraged economic distress, military emasculation and religious fervor to sweep into office in 1980. 

The Eichmann Trial (Deborah Lipstadt)

I found this book much less enjoyable than Hunting Eichmann, though Lipstadt focuses more on the trial itself, whereas Bascomb's tale was focused almost exclusively on how Eichmann was tracked down by the Mossad.  Admittedly, the latter is far more provocative than the former.

The Lost City of Z (David Grann)

Fascinating story of British explorers of the Amazon in the late 18th and early 19th century, and particularly Percy Fawcett, who comes across as a stentorian Indiana Jones as he searches for the eponymous city for which the book is named. 

The Psychopath Test (Jon Ronson)

Those Ronsons are one talented group of people.  I imagine their holiday dinners are latter day Algonquin roundtable, but to be honest, I remember very little of this book's contents.  Probably not that good.  

In The Garden of Beasts (Erik Larson)

Larson probably reached his creative apex with The Devil in the White City, but this highly enjoyable story of our Ambassador to Germany at the dawn of Hitler's rise to power is really good.  Larson modifies his two disparate story signature by telling what are more like parallel stories of the Ambassador and his daughter, each of whom has unique and unconventional experiences in early 1930s Germany.  The book felt about 20-30 pages too long, but overall, a solid read.

Fraud of the Century (Roy Morris)

The shenanigans of the 1876 Presidential election do, in their way, make what happened in 2000 look mild by comparison.  Morris's telling, which is filled with the type of political minutiae that junkies like me live for, was great.  That the election itself was not certified until a few days before the actual Inaugural presents the interesting question of why there was such a rush to "select" G.W. Bush, but in 1876, the politically distant Sam Tilden was outmaneuvered by the Republican machine supporting Rutherford Hayes.  Hayes's own complicity in the actions is questionable, but the stain left by the result (Tilden outpolled Hayes nationwide) played a big part in Hayes's decision to not stand for re-election in 1880. 

The President and the Assassin (Scott Miller)

Keeping with the post-Civil War theme, Scott Miller takes us to Buffalo, New York in September 1901 to tell the story of the assassination of President William McKinley.  His murder is a major historical pivot point for the country, as he was succeeded by the mercurial Theodore Roosevelt, whose progressivism was completely contrary to McKinley's rigid protection of industry.  His killer, Leon Czolgosz, was also a man of his time, but of the masses who were disillusioned by government and flirted with anarchism.  A final thread is the still modest amount of medical knowledge and technology - sterilization, anesthesia, and x-ray machines that were not in wide use, but might have contributed to McKinley's recovery had there been greater understanding of those techniques.

Game Six (Mark Frost)

Baseball fans will enjoy Mark Frost's inning by inning (and in some cases, at-bat by at-bat) story of Game Six of the 1975 World Series between the Boston Red Sox and Cincinnati Reds.  Widely believed to be one of, if not, the greatest World Series game of all-time, Frost not only breaks down the small strategic decisions that went into the game, but layers a rich tapestry of stories about the players involved.  He's particularly fond of Luis Tiant, the Red Sox starting pitcher for Game Six and Reds manager Sparky Anderson.  Even though you know the result, reading about the myriad times where the game could have gone in a different direction still makes for an entertaining yarn.

The Last Gunfight (Jeff Guinn)

Guinn's story of "The Gunfight at the OK Corral" takes the reader back to the sometimes lawless West that was still being developed and settled in the late 1800s.  Guinn makes a persuasive case both for Wyatt Earp's self-promotion in the wake of the gun fight and its inevitability based on bruised egos and simmering feuds between the Earps and the Clantons.  Like many things related to the "Wild West," the legend was printed before the truth had a chance to come out.  

The Speech (Senator Bernie Sanders)

This is the verbatim text of Senator Sanders's December 2010 filibuster against the extension of the Bush tax cuts.  I know, you are noting the irony that the only time someone has been forced to do an "old school" filibuster, that is, speaking without break on the Senate floor, is when we want to extend tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich, but such is life.  The speech repeated itself in a number of places but the overall message of income inequality looks prescient in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  There is no denying the Senator's passion and his desire to help the middle class and poor is laudable.  That people in Vermont and elsewhere are struggling just to buy food and heat their homes is, sadly, just as common today as it was a year ago when Senator Sanders made his speech.  

The President Is A Sick Man (Matthew Algeo)

Yet another Gilded Age era tale, this time of President Grover Cleveland's secret surgery to remove a tumor from his mouth, and how the procedure was kept from the general public (spoiler alert: overlong boat trip from DC to NY).  The wrinkle in the story is that one reporter actually sniffed out the story but was mercilessly crushed by the President's men when he published it.  Along with a piece of Abe Lincoln, Cleveland's tumor (which turned out to be benign) is still in the possession of the federal government. 

A Billion Wicked Thoughts (Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam)

Two authors data mined porn searches conducted by thousands of men and women to tease out the differences between what we say we want sexually and what we crave when we watch it.  

Destiny of the Republic (Candice Miller)

Rounding out the post-Civil War presidential jag I went on is this book, which discusses the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by Charles Guiteau.  Miller makes clear that poor medical techniques directly contributed to Garfield's painful and slow death, Alexander Graham Bell makes a cameo appearance with an early version of a metal detector (his failed b/c the bed Garfield was on when Bell scanned him had metal springs - you can't make some of this stuff up) and Guiteau is another aimless drifter and neer-do-well (like Czolgosz in 1901) who did little with his life.  Miller's fondness for the President is clear and, to a lesser extent than McKinley, his death changed the course of our country's history by elevating career hack Chester Arthur to the Presidency.  The Arthur Administration was unmemorable, but one wonders what Garfield could have achieved had he lived.  I've also seen this book pop up on some "best of the year" lists. 

Snoop, What Your Stuff Says About You (Sam Gosling)

I thought I would enjoy this book because I'm a bit of a snooper myself - primarily bookshelves, and I found out that the bookshelf is one of three places where people tend to express themselves (the bathroom (of all places) and bedroom being the other two).  Otherwise, there was a lot of, "it could mean this, or it could mean nothing" observations that I find so frustrating in sociological books.  

Should You Judge This Book By Its Cover (Julian Baggini)

Baggini takes a bunch of conventional wisdom tropes and attempts to determine whether they are true or not.  Each aphorism (e.g., "no pain, no gain," "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush") is given a whopping 2 pages of discussion, so it's hard to take anything in the book (or its conclusions) too seriously.

Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State (Andrew Gelman)

This book is what I imagine Nate Silver's masturbatory fantasies look like.  Dense with data points and impenetrable to those without a PhD in statistics, my one basic takeaway was the (partial) debunking of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas as Gelman argues that rich people in "blue" and "red" state vote Republican and where Republicans win the middle class vote too (and get better turnout) in the Deep South and Midwest, they win.  Kansas poor people vote for Democrats too, they just don't make up enough of the electorate to tilt it blue.  Or something.  It's a bit blurry.  

That Used To Be Us (Thomas Friedman & Michael Mandelbaum)

See: http://scarylawyerguy.blogspot.com/2011/11/book-review-that-used-to-be-us.html

Boomerang (Michael Lewis)

This book feels like 5 overly long Vanity Fair articles embellished with enough fluff to turn it into a book-long treatment to take advantage of the superb (and 2010 Book of the Year "honorable mention") The Big Short.  While no one can doubt Lewis's talent as a writer, this story of foreign countries hit by the financial crisis (he focuses on Iceland, Ireland, Greece and Germany) and whether California portends a fiscally calamitous future for the U.S. just does not have enough weight to carry itself as a coherent whole.  Interspersed with trenchant observations that muse on what countries did "when the lights were out and no one was looking," were mindless and distracting ruminations on German shit fetishes, how odd Lewis felt arriving at a Greek abbey in a pink Brooks Brothers polo shirt (don't ask) and how a leader of the Irish parliament looked drunk (really?).  On balance, the good outweighs the bad, but this feels like a bad sequel along the lines of Caddyshack II or Another 48 Hours. 

Why Read Moby Dick (Nathaniel Philbrick)

This slim volume discusses the importance of Moby Dick in our literary canon and Philbrick's passion for the book is clear.  Having not read the book myself (and frankly, Philbrick's description of the difficulty of getting through the book made me less inclined to read it), I enjoyed Philbrick's point of view and learning about the way in which Melville put the story together.

The Professor and The Madman (Simon Winchester)

An entertaining look at the creation of The Oxford English Dictionary and how one of the primary contributors to the OED was (literally) a mental patient housed in an insane asylum in England.  Whereas Brady's Endgame should have either been much longer or much shorter, Winchester's book felt too short, that a lot was left out of the creation of the mammoth, original 20 volume OED.  That notwithstanding, this was a good book.  

Back To Work (President Bill Clinton)

See: http://scarylawyerguy.blogspot.com/2011/12/big-dog-tells-us-how-to-get-back-to.html

I am looking forward to more great reads in 2012!

The Big Dog Tells Us How To Get "Back To Work"

The timing on the publication of the latest meme on liberal discontent, Jonathan Chait's  November 28, 2011 New York magazine article, The Self-Loathing of Liberals, was fortuitous, because former President Bill Clinton's latest book, Back To Work, is an excellent rejoinder to the idea that liberals cannot be satisfied and also shows what smart, progressive government can do.

Back To Work should remind Mr. Chait, and Democrats in general, of not only what a progressive agenda can look like, but what can be accomplished when Democrats put forward, forcefully, and factually, good ideas to move the country forward.  Indeed, while Chait cites President Clinton's failure to get a modest stimulus through Congress in 1993 to disprove the thought that he (or Hillary) would have had more success than Obama did in getting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed, Chait ignores the signature piece of legislation that launched the Clinton presidency - the 1993 budget bill that raised taxes on the wealthiest and corporations, while putting in spending caps that, with the growth of the economy, led to unprecedented peacetime expansion.  He even derides the crime bill, which not only put 100,000 more police officers on the street, but gave local departments access to matching funds for equipment like bulletproof vests and new technology to more effectively fight crime.  In the balance, the idea that Democrats were "soft on crime," disappeared.  Policy and political wins, what a concept.

I recommend that Chait and others who deride the professional (or amateur) left take a peek at President Clinton's 192-page book.  In clear language that flows easily, the former President not only weaves an effective tale of how government can work with the private and non-profit sectors to encourage economic growth, but cites examples from his time both in and out of office of people and organizations who are engaged in this type of partnership. In doing so, the former President makes a compelling case for the thoughtful and judicious use of government resources to spur improvements throughout our economy.    

The President first traces the economic trajectory of our nation from the time Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in 1981.  The large budget deficits and exploding debt that ensued resulted in higher interest rates, lower rates of investment, fewer manufacturing jobs and stagnant wages.  As the President notes, anti-government's true victory was not reducing the size of government, it was to stop paying for government by borrowing enormous sums of money.  The credit binge that animated the twelve years of Republican leadership prior to his election was stanched through higher taxes on the rich, spending caps (some of which were put in place by the much derided 1990 “no new taxes” budget agreement) and improving job conditions.  Indeed, the irony of Clinton's presidency is that he delivered the government Republicans fetishize but never actually deliver - a small government work force[1], more than 22 million new jobs[2], and nearly 8 million people lifted out of poverty (as compared to less than 800,000 during Ronald Reagan's presidency).  I almost forgot, he also balanced the budget, expanded access to college for high school students, improved educational standards, broadened access to health care for children, passed an assault weapons ban and had us on a glide path to pay off *all* of our debt by 2015, the first time that would have happened since 1824.

Clinton's book is not just a victory lap for a successful presidency, it also serves to debunk some of the common tropes around anti-government talking points, particularly as they relate to budget deficits and the national debt.  For example, the President uses a handy graph to show that of the $14.3 trillion in debt we accumulated as of early 2011, even with the ARRA and extension of the Bush tax cuts, Obama's debt contribution of $2.4 trillion paled next to George W. Bush's $6.1 trillion[3]. Further, he notes that by the time the Republicans took over Congress in 1995 and a balanced budget bill was enacted two years later, 90 percent of the deficit had already been eliminated due to the passage of the 1993 budget and improved job growth.  He even digs deeply into the past to show that the common myth of Reagan's fiscal conservatism is undermined by the fact that Democratic Congresses approved less in spending than Reagan requested overall.  He also discredits common Republican orthodoxy about the evils of government by pointing out that pointing out that his Republican predecessors launched enormous public works projects[4] and created now-loathed federal agencies[5].

In fast forwarding to the political battles President Obama is facing, Mr. Clinton discredits the Republican talking point that the Affordable Care Act cut $500 billion from Medicare.  What the ACA did was lower the rate of increase in reimbursements to providers under Medicare, and particularly for those providers paid through Medicare Advantage, a private "add on" seniors are not compelled to purchase or use. He further points out that those advocating full privatization of Medicare by citing lower costs to Medicare D fail to note that the ubiquity of generic drugs has kept costs low and because there are now many more seniors with greater access to medications, manufacturer costs are lower because they are producing more pills.  Neither of those two quirks in the prescription drug benefit are applicable to Medicare overall.  Moreover, he notes that when anti-government types mention the explosion in health care costs for Medicare, they fail to note that private insurance costs have accelerated even more, a 400 percent increase since 1970 for the former, 700 percent, for the latter.  While neither number is good, the idea that we should shift from the lower cost alternative to the more expensive (by almost a 2:1 margin!) choice is foolish[6]. 

The President also effectively illustrates and compares how our country has competed and grown in the past 30 years by looking at those years when the White House was under Republican versus Democratic control.  As he shows, job growth was not only better under Democratic administrations, but wages improved across the board, not only benefiting the wealthy (who do well regardless of who is President) but lifting the real incomes of middle and lower class Americans.  Further, when job growth is combined with a growing economy that balances its budget through fair taxation, we avoid the traps of deficit spending, high interest rates and the need for people to borrow just to keep pace, all hallmarks of the economic side effects of "supply side" economics.  Moreover, and most damning, is the backward slide that took place under President George W. Bush on a host of metrics, from income inequality to life expectancy, from high school and college graduation rates to middle of the pack testing results for our high school students when compared to those from other countries.  Of course, mediocre educational outcomes saddle kids with lower future earnings and, by extension, drag down our country's competitiveness in an ever more integrated world. 

In other places too, we have fallen behind, as money that could have gone to upgrade our decaying roads and bridges or funded research and development went instead to Iraq and Afghanistan.  In years past, those investments would have led to massive breakthroughs in science and technology but dried up as hundreds of billions were diverted to the rich and our war commitments.  Even in basic areas like Internet connectivity, which is essential in our 21st Century economy, we lag well behind countries like South Korea, Japan and Denmark, among others.  As the President succinctly notes, these things matter because they are precisely the places where we can create jobs, restore our competitiveness, innovate in ways that leverage our technology, and create efficiencies that make our businesses more profitable. Finally, as Mr. Clinton says, our weakening competitive position gives lie to the anti-government trope that low taxation and minimal regulation is necessary to foster growth because countries in Europe and South America that are growing faster and spending less per capita on things like health care all tax their citizens at higher levels than we do and impose stiffer regulations.  As the President notes, if increased revenue is re-invested wisely, in places like funding education, offering incentives for businesses to re-locate and expanding research and development, they yield enormous societal dividends, not just financial gain for the very wealthy. 

But the real strength of the President's book is the dizzying number of recommendations and ideas he puts forward to show not only where money can be saved in our system, but why (and how) government can encourage and spur growth.  He notes that low hanging fruit like improved tax collection and making more government contracts competitively bid instead of no-bid, could save the government $100 billion a year.  Other improvements, like streamlining paperwork, introducing uniform medical equipment sterilization in hospitals[7] and targeting the $150 billion a year we spend treating diabetes and obesity-related illness through better nutrition and dietary habits would make a further dent in our budget deficit woes. 

On tax policy, I was pleased to see the President give attention to the budget proposal put forth by the House Progressive Caucus.  That group, unlike both President Obama and the so-called "Ryan Plan," actually balances the budget, largely through dramatic reductions in defense and a variety of tax increases.  And while the President throws some cold water on that proposal, he also lauds it for investing money back into the American economy through greater expenditures on infrastructure, a "smart" electrical grid, expanding broadband access, and providing greater funding for job training and education, all of which are precisely the types of investments that yield significant dividends down the road. 

The last 80 or so pages of the book are littered with proposals both great and small for how to get the country moving again.  The former President rightly identifies the need for resolving the continued mortgage overhang as a top priority, though I think his ideas, primarily tied to encouraging principal write downs, offering equity stakes to banks in distressed homes in exchange for reducing payments and accelerating rental of foreclosed upon homes are a good start, do not go far enough.  What I would have like to have seen the President advocate is giving bankruptcy judges more authority to reduce principal amounts and to waive re-financing fees entirely for homeowners who are current but want to take advantage of low rates.  Principal reduction should have been mandated as a requirement for receiving federal assistance through TARP or via the Federal Reserve, but that does not mean the government cannot revisit those types of obligations, as they should, particularly for those who are current on their payments and were not profligate.  Having literally spent trillions to save the banking system, the amorality of what is happening to millions of homeowners in comparison is a stain on society. 

Another enormous (and informative) block is spent discussing energy independence, not only for how it can benefit our national security but also in job creation.  This is particularly important when a government investment like the one we made in Solyndra blows up.  It's important to show that investing in green energy is a net positive for our economy but that not every investment is going to succeed.  Whether it is the return we get on investing in solar, wind or retrofitting, all of which create more employment than coal-fired plants do, the fact that clean energy employment grew by 8 percent in the 2000s while many other industries stagnated (more than 50,000 new jobs tied to geothermal capacity have been created in just the last two years), and the jobs tend to pay better too, weigh in favor of continued investment in green technology.  He also suggests coming up with creative partnerships to get utility companies to upgrade residential services while offsetting the cost by billing homeowners each month instead of asking the homeowner to pay a large up front fee for something like solar panels, encouraging pension fund investment in infrastructure banks and energy retrofitting and reinstating tax credits for green tech investment.  The President notes that one part of government aggressively looking at renewable energy projects is the U.S. Army, who has no less than 126 projects underway and has invested more than $7 billion in these initiatives because the armed forces understand that improving energy efficiency, particularly when soldiers are in the field, is an essential way to protect them and reduce the risk for those transporting supplies across the war zone. 

Finally, the former President encourages greater partnerships for expanding state exports, broadening the manufacturing base and putting greater resources into infrastructure spending, all of which will, in his view, help get people back to work, improve our global competitiveness (while opening new trading opportunities via free trade agreements), and invest in the needs of the country for decades to come.  It’s hard to argue with any of these ideas, particularly since, at least until the last few years, many of them were embraced by politicians across the spectrum and through administrations starting before World War II and stretching through post-9/11 America. 

My one quibble with the President’s tone is that he can, on the one hand, forcefully dissect the failure of Republican fiscal orthodoxy, but on the other, fall back on passive “we should try that” suggestions when it comes to implementing policy.  Indeed, part of the failure of the current Administration was (and is) its failure to be more full-throated in its support/defense of precisely the types of investments that are needed to, as they put it, “win the future.” The difficult balancing act of shish kebobing the opposition while also lobbying for reasonable and sensible government investment is a difficult one to maintain, and both the former and current Presidents seem to fall into that trap.  But this is nibbling at the edges, the overarching policy prescriptions that President Clinton advocates for are, in the main, both sensible and (I’m guessing) palatable to the broad swath of the electorate who supported him with sky high job approval ratings even as his less savory personal conduct was largely reproached. 

After reading Back To Work, I hope people like Jonathan Chait understand the difference between the faux "hope and change" that Obama has peddled and the “points on the scoreboard” that Clinton can not only brag about, but place him in a unique position to offer solutions to our country’s woes.  Obama’s continual backslides in the face of Republican opposition, almost reflexive unwillingness to truly “punish” Wall Street for its sins, the most recent example being the SEC's decision to appeal Judge Rakoff's denial of its pathetic settlement with Citigroup, and right-leaning tax policy, that has seen both an extension of all Bush tax cuts and an extension of the estate tax that was even more generous than Republicans asked for, are not progressive, and not the change people believed in when they voted for him.  Contrast those decisions with tough choices made early in the Clinton years to raise taxes, set spending caps and clearly define areas that were off limits from cuts and/or received significant new investment, and one can see what progressive change starts to look like. 

Perhaps Clinton ended up being, to some degree, a victim of his own success, that is, by raising, in a meaningful way, the incomes of all Americans, not just the wealthy, those still in need became an ever shrinking pool. Maybe they would have been aided in a Gore Administration, but we will never know.  Was Clinton’s presidency perfect?  Of course not.  He didn't get health care passed, he got a blow job from an intern, and he walked away from a couple of nominees who weren't properly vetted.  But a man who presided over a robust economy that lifted millions out of poverty, dramatically reduced crime, invested heavily in education, protected millions of acres of land, and took assault weapons off our streets has little to apologize for.  That the inheritance he left his immediate successor was largely squandered is without question, but then again, neither is the fact that Bill Clinton still h

---

[1]   Under Clinton, the federal work force, in real numbers, was the smallest it had been since the Eisenhower Administration and as a percentage of the total work force, the smallest since FDR.

[2]     More than 22 million new jobs were created during Clinton’s two terms, 92 percent of which were in the private sector.  By contrast, fewer than 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush and most of those were in the public sector.

[3]   Amazingly, we are still paying off roughly $3.4 trillion in debt accumulated during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  Clinton’s contribution is less than $1.5 trillion.

[4]   President Eisenhower launched the Interstate highway system in the mid 1950s, which resulted in the construction of more than 41,000 miles of roads – the largest peacetime public works project of its kind in our country’s history.

[5]   President Nixon signed legislation creating, among other things, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

[6]  This is something even Rep. Ryan appears to have acknowledged based on a recent compromise proposal he put forward with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), that would maintain the traditional Medicare option in a revised proposal that would also open the program up to private competition.

[7]   The Department of Veterans Affairs has instituted these standards in its hospitals to great success and cost savings.

Attack of the Resolutionists

Each year, Americans spend billions of dollars trying to lose weight and get in shape.  Of course, with New Year's right around the corner, anyone who spends time in a gym knows this means only one thing - the invasion of the "resolutionists' (sometimes called "resolutionistas") who descend on treadmills and ellipticals, new sneakers squeaking, synthetic fibers swishing, and iPods clipped securely to armbands with an environmentally friendly water bottle at the ready.  Some are long-time members who have made the resolution to spend more time at the gym, others are soft and doughy but filled with the inspiration that this year will be different, this year, they will lose the weight (or so the advertisement goes).  Gyms profit from these members - the ones who actually use the gym are loss leaders, the gym banks on people joining, using the services for a few months and then disappearing (but locked in to one of those sketchy contracts they are so famous for).  

Let me say that I don't have a problem with New Year's resolutions or people who arbitrarily decide that just because the calendar is changing, *that* is just the right time to turn over a new leaf.  I did it myself almost 12 years ago.  I stubbed out my last cigarette on December 31, 1999 and have not touched one since.  In fact, I took a similar inventory that many people do around this time every year - I did not like what was reflected back at me in the mirror, I was not happy that I got winded going up a flight of stairs and I was overweight.  Being a smoker did not help, but my diet was poor, I was sedentary and rarely got exercise.  

Fortunately, there had been a time in my life where I was more active, weighed less and took better care of myself, so I knew it could be done, but I raised the bar ever so slightly because in the time between when I did quit smoking and finally got in the gym (about 3 months), I packed on another 10 pounds.  Almost 12 years later, diet, exercise and fitness are the three-legged stool that I live my (non-work) life around and because of that, I want to save you some money and clue you in to a couple of dirty little secrets about weight loss and fitness.  These are my opinions, and I know some person will say, "No, Scary Lawyer Guy, I have done Atkins for 10 years and it works for me" or "I do not believe in weight training, and I'm skinny," and to those people, I say good for you, you are either the exception to the rule or have found a level of fitness that is acceptable to you; however, for everyone else, here are my tips: 

Diets Do Not Work

You cannot subsist for a long period of time on any of the fad (or quack) diets that get peddled around this time each year.  Severely restricting caloric intake through pre-packaged meals or eating protein-only meals are not long-term solutions any more than cookie diets or colonics.  One of the key mistakes people make is radically changing their diet THE MINUTE they decide it's time to roll out the new year's resolution.  If there was a market for lettuce futures in December, we would all be millionaires in January and poor by March.  The reason so many of these companies are profitable is because they do not work, or more specifically, are not long-term solutions for people trying to become healthy.  Paradoxically, the less they work, the more profitable they are, because there is always a steady clientele of people who line up to try again.  

You Cannot Lose 100 Pounds All At Once

I say this tongue in cheek, but if you come to the gym in January, you get the feeling some people are trying to lose 100 pounds in a day.  The downside to pushing yourself too hard/so hard when you start out is that it is easy to get discouraged (not to mention injured).  People spend a week or two at the gym and make some changes to their diet and expect to look great immediately.  It doesn't work that way folks, and depending on how deep a hole you have dug yourself, it could be months before you see any appreciable changes in your appearance.  Be honest with yourself about your level of fitness and gradually build up your endurance.  Speaking of which …

Set Realistic Goals

We all have a "magic" number that we want to see on the scale.  I think it is important to set goals, but be realistic about them and do not tie your goals exclusively to a number on the scale.  In recent years, more literature has been produced that focuses on things like body fat and body mass index.  Skinny does not necessarily mean "in shape" and losing large amounts of weight in a short period of time is not necessarily healthy.  Be realistic about how much weight you want to lose and in what time frame and also realize that you will hit plateaus along the way and that just because you get close to (or even reach) your magic number does not mean you can stop doing what it is that got you there.  In fact, in many ways, getting to a "magic number" is just the start, because once there, staying at (or around) that weight, requires great vigilance. 

Do Not Be A Slave to the Scale

There are two schools of thought about how frequently you should weigh yourself - one school says you need to weigh yourself daily.  The theory is that by monitoring your weight constantly, it serves as a disincentive to binge and also tells you whether you are seeing results.  The other school of thought (which I happen to subscribe to), is that your weight fluctuates day-to-day even when you are working out and that weighing yourself constantly makes you too focused on what the number is each day.  Instead, I weigh myself once a week - same time, same day.  It allows me to keep an eye on my weight without allowing it to dominate my life.  

How Your Clothes Fit Matters

This goes hand in hand with the scale.  I'm a firm believer in using your clothes as a barometer for whether you are transforming your body.  If your weight has yo-yoed, you invariably have 2 (or even 3) sets of clothes - skinny clothes, regular clothes, and fat clothes, or whatever you want to call them.  How do your clothes fit?  Are your "fat clothes" starting to dangle off you like a Talking Heads video or are you barely squeezing into your "regular clothes."  If you are weight training as a means of losing weight, you may not lose the weight but lose the bulk, which can be just as valuable, but may not translate to a "number" on a scale.  

Your Co-Workers Are Not Your Friends

Many offices turn into hives of activity after the first of the year.  Cookies are banished in place of healthy snacks, birthday parties suddenly lose their guilty pleasure quality, everyone is ready to power walk with you at lunch and the fridge is suddenly filled to overflowing with every form of leafy green vegetable known to man.  I'm sorry Dave from Accounting and Sally from HR, but you are not my friends.  The same people who are ready to brave the cold January air for a 20 minute stroll around the building are the same people that will be making fast food runs 2 months from now.  Think of the New Year's resolution crowd like the one I encountered in law school - on the first day of class, the Dean said "look to your left and look to your right, one of you won't be here this time next year."  There's a reason some iteration of "losing weight" or "getting in shape" is the most popular New Year's resolution going - most people fail at either or both, therefore, they just keep making the same resolution over and over.  Don't be that person and don't involve yourself with the people who, this time next year, will be dusting off the salad spinner because this year, *they swear* will be different.

You Do Not Have To Spend A Lot Of Money To Get Fit, But It Helps

There are plenty of free places to work out - your neighborhood streets may be conducive to a good 3 mile run or the local high school track may be right around the corner.  Cable companies have workouts available through their ON DEMAND menus and libraries are stocked with every kind of video and DVD to turn your abs (and buns) into steel.  Of course, it rains, gets really hot (and really cold) in most places, making outdoor exercise spotty as a primary means of working up a sweat and videos can get old or maybe you don't want to do yoga poses while your 4 year old is lapping up his Cheerios.  Personally, I've always sworn by a good, full-service gym that has a well stocked weight area, cardio equipment, a pool and a good class schedule.  It reduces the risk that you get bored with one particular routine, is likely to have flexible operating hours and even child care services.  

You Cannot Lose Weight By Changing Your Diet Alone

If you change your diet but do not exercise, the likely outcome is you will maintain your current weight, or maybe even lose a little weight, but also run the risk of just gaining weight more slowly over time.  Many people ignore the fact that exercise is just as important to weight loss and a healthy lifestyle as ditching the greasy food and not overindulging in dessert.  

That Food Did Not Get Into Your House By Itself

The good news about your diet is that you have complete control over it and what you put in your body is predicated almost entirely by what you put in your grocery cart when you shop.  Those Klondike bars don't just *appear* in your freezer, you had to put them in your basket and pay for them, so stop doing that.  I know, it is not that easy, but it actually is not that hard, either.  Changing your eating habits is one of the most critical aspects of getting in shape, and it can only be done by putting better food in your system.  For me, that means starting the day with a healthy breakfast, preferably one that includes fiber (which is filling, keeps you regular and good for you), having a light snack (usually a piece of fruit) mid-morning, a lunch that includes at least another additional fruit or vegetable, protein (usually chicken, but sometimes beef or turkey/chicken sausage), a starch (rice or pasta), and yes, a small sweet (usually 1-2 Hershey's Kisses or similar candy), a midday snack (fruit, granola, etc.) and a light dinner after the gym.  I try to front load my calories so I am burning energy all day and not loading up at night, but never feel really hungry, therefore avoiding the temptation to binge.  

But Scary Lawyer Guy, you say, I don't have time to prepare my own meals at home because I have kids or a spouse or work too damn hard to make time to cook meals.  Scary Lawyer Guy says that's bullshit.  Never in the history of mankind has more information been available to us about food, its properties, how to prepare it and with what.  Come up with some staple dishes that are nutritious, filling and taste good and prepare them all at once.  For example, I will cook 3-4 large chicken breasts at a time, cut them up and mix them with rice and just stick them in the refrigerator.  In an hour, I've made meals for the entire week.  Similarly, take 20 minutes to peel or cook vegetables.  Bananas and apples don't need anything other than to be put in your bag before you leave home in the morning and oatmeal or whole grain cereal can be prepared in minutes.  Even better, by making your meals, you will save money by not going out as much and you will get better control over your food portions.  A total win/win and a no brainer. 

Also, don't binge when you go out to eat (restaurants notoriously put far more than you need to consume on your plate), avoid soda and alcohol in favor of water and of course, stop smoking. 

Cheat, Reasonably.

Guess what.  At some point, no matter how strong your willpower, you will crave a big bag of potato chips or a bowl of Ben & Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch, I know I do.  To me, there are two ways to handle cravings.  First, I do allow myself a little "taste" of sweetness each day.  Not a lot, less than 100 calories, but enough to satisfy my craving.  Second, I designate Sunday as a "cheat day."  I know, not that original, but I do think there is something to be said for responsibly treating yourself to something once a week and not feeling guilty about it.  Note, I said "responsible," this does not mean you hit the McDonald's drive-thru for breakfast and lunch and then wash it all down with a double milkshake.  One meal, on one day, that does not double as a heart attack on a platter. Deal? As long as you are good the rest of the week and exercising regularly, please cheat.

Lift Weights A Little More Than You Think You Should/Do A Little Less Cardio Than You Want To

Cardio is the easy way out at the gym (or on your own).  Run some, hop on an elliptical, even use one of those dated rowing machines for 30-45 minutes and you figure, I'm gold.  Not so.  It took me a little while to come around to weight training, but it is essential to your work out.  You do not need to look like a jacked up bodybuilder, but find some routines (again, information is literally at your fingertips) to work the major muscle groups 2-3 times a week.  When in doubt, do a little more weight training and a little less cardio, the weight training will fire your metabolism longer after you go home, too.  

If You Are Not Going To Make Time, Don't Bother

I am not one of those people who subscribes to the idea that if you can only find 10 or 15 minutes for exercise, that is better than nothing.  If you're serious about making lifestyle changes, part of that seriousness has to be reflected in the time you are willing to put into fitness.  You make commitments to work, to your kids, to your spouse and family, you also have to make a commitment to your physical fitness.  How you spend your time is a reflection on what you value. If you cannot find 4-5 hours a week to exercise, you are not serious about fitness.  If the people in your life gripe about it, remind them that not only will you look and feel better, but exercise is a great stress reliever and will make you a more pleasant spouse/parent/child to live with.

You Are Changing Your Lifestyle, Not Dieting

If you think that one day you can stop doing the things that commit you to better health and fitness, you are wrong.  I think people fail at "resolutions" because they either do not want to or are not willing to make the changes in their lives that are needed to get in better shape.  These changes take time to take root, but you cannot allow an occasional lapse or slip-up to keep you from making these changes.  Which reminds me ...

Routine Is Boring, But Effective

At those work parties where cake is being served, if I decline, I inevitably get a "you can afford to, you're skinny."  I just laugh it off, but what I feel like saying is that I work my ass off to be SKINNY, it does not just happen.  I changed my lifestyle 12 years ago and I *still* struggle.  Trust me, when it is 10 degrees out and I had a crappy day at work, the last thing I want to do is get back in the car and go to the gym, but you know what? I do it.  I do it because I made a commitment that I would take care of myself and stay in shape.  Discipline is a difficult thing to instill, especially when so much of what we see, hear and smell is pushing us to fail, but that routine you create, that becomes part of your new lifestyle, is what will save you when you don't want to do anything other than plunge that spoon into a pint of ice cream.  

You Pay For Your Misdeeds

That pint (or even part of a pint) of ice cream is a killer.  Weight gain and loss is insidious.  You work far harder to lose a small amount of weight than you do to gain it.  The holiday season spirals out of control or a series of family events or weddings occurs, you blink and 5 pounds appear out of nowhere.  It will take you much longer to work off those 5 pounds than it took to put them on.  Consider the consequences. 

It's A Marathon, Not A Sprint

So I've sentenced you to a life of boring routine where you don't get to eat much "fun" food, are going to the gym for hours on end every week and even then, you may not get the result you want.  You're welcome.  But that's the reality and that's the dirty little secret of weight loss that the folks peddling fad diets to you don't want you to know.  Weight loss and fitness requires making very hard (and long-term) commitments to completely changing the way you live your life.  It's no wonder most people fail.  You will fight a day-to-day math battle of calories consumed versus calories burned and biology puts its thumb on the scale against you because as you get older, it gets harder.  But in all of this, remember, it is a marathon, not a sprint.  There will be bumps along the way and not every day will be perfect, but if you get a good plan together and stick to it, those little errors and mistakes will not derail you.  In exchange for these changes, you will feel better, look younger, and be more energetic, amorous and desirable.  You will sleep better, you will look forward to a warm day in spring and think "outside" - a hike, run or 2 hours of yard work - or see a "mud run" and think, I am SO doing that.  You will challenge yourself, you will look at people your own age and be amazed at the difference in how they look compared to you and you will be doing the best things to increase the chances that you will live a long and healthy life.  Not a bad trade off if you are willing to make it.