President Obama cracked wise the other day while announcing his nomination of Jack Lew to be the next treasury secretary. The object of the president’s wisecrack was Lew’s signature.

It’s illegible. An NPR reporter referred to it this morning as resembling the “swirly frosting on top of a Hostess Cupcake.” Well, Lew – the White House chief of staff – hadn’t worried about the appearance of his signature until now. You see, the signature is going to appear on paper currency once he takes office, a point that Obama made while announcing the nomination.

The president said when he learned of Lew’s chicken-scratch signature, he considered “rescinding my offer to appoint him” as treasury boss. Then Lew agreed, the president said, to “make one letter legible so as not to debase our currency.”

Everyone laughed. Indeed, the current treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, had to perform a signature makeover of his own when he took office, as it, too, was illegible.

But my wife made an interesting point when we learned of this signature kerfuffle. What about future generations of treasury secretaries – today’s elementary school students – who aren’t taught proper penmanship. The computer age has all but made handwriting a lost art.

In fact, we have young members of our family actually admit to being unable to sign their name in cursive handwriting.

How many millions of young American school children are going to come of age in the next generation or two who fall into the category of not knowing how to sign their name? And what will happen when one of them gets a call from, say, the 50th president of the United States asking them to lead the Treasury Department? Will they have to construct a signature that until that moment did not exist?

We’re laughing now at Jack Lew’s illegible signature. He can repair it quickly, given that he likely had to learn the proper way to write his name.

It might not be such an easy task down the road when handwriting becomes extinct.

Good government requires certain responsibilities of those who earn their pay from taxpayers’ wallets.

Take the case of incarcerating bad guys. Curry County, N.M., has had difficulty in recent years retaining jail administrators. The county recently fired its latest jail administrator. The job has been a revolving door the past five years. It seems the county keeps picking losers to run its lockup.

The two newest members of the Curry County commission, though, now say they want the county to consider seriously privatizing the jail. Put the operation in the hands of a private security company and let it handle the headaches associated with running the place. That’s the issue the county should discuss, the commissioners say.

Bad idea, commissioners.

Texas has privatized its own prison system at several locations. There have been no widespread cases of abuse, mismanagement or malfeasance at these lockups. But the privatized nature of these institutions doesn’t deserve the credit by itself.

I’ve always felt that state and local governments have a responsibility that accompanies the roles they embrace openly. Counties and municipalities hire police officers to arrest suspected criminals; taxpayers foot the bill for those salaries. Counties also pay judges – handsomely in many cases – for the work they do in administering justice; that money, too, comes from the public trough. Taxpayers pay for courtrooms. Moreover, they pay jurors a small stipend to listen to evidence and to deliver verdicts. The public also pays for prosecutors who seek jail or prison time for offenders.

Why, then, should the public responsibility end when the criminals are locked up?

Whatever problems Curry County is having with jail administrators probably has far less to do with the public nature of the job than with incompetent hiring practices.

Putting jail operations in the hands of private contractors is the same thing as waving a white flag of surrender, that the county cannot do anything to fix an internal problem.

I cannot let this day pass without taking note that it marks the 100th birthday of the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon.

I’ll admit to having mixed feelings about this day and the man who came into this world a century ago.

He took part in the first election in which I voted. It was 1972 and I voted for his opponent, Democratic U.S. Sen. George McGovern. I was barely home from the Army and was cutting my political teeth. I despised Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War, which I got see up close for a time. McGovern, who died near the end of 2012, sought to end that war. Nixon’s allies painted McGovern with grotesque distortions. The Committee to Re-Elect the President – with its apt acronym CREEP – waged a reprehensible campaign that turned out to be a winner; Nixon won re-election in a 49-state landslide.

It didn’t end there. The Watergate scandal that started with the June 17, 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee office in DC exploded in 1973 and ‘74. The nation learned of Nixon’s profound paranoia, of how he sicced the CIA against the investigation of what happened at the Watergate. The House of Reps sought to impeach him; the Judiciary Committee drafted articles of impeachment, setting the stage for the full House to follow suit. Nixon quit his office in August 1974.

Nixon, who was nicknamed Tricky Dick by those who loathed him, left the public stage with the disgrace he had earned.

But my feelings about him today, so many years later, have been tempered by what has happened to his Republican Party. Nixon would be seen by many GOP zealots today as the kind of liberal that Nixon himself despised. The Environmental Protection Agency came to life on Nixon’s watch; the president supported equal rights for women; he was virtually silent on issues such as abortion and marriage equality. How would he fare in today’s climate? Not well. Indeed, some have suggested he couldn’t win a GOP primary.

I cannot celebrate this man’s centennial birthday. My own memories of him remain mostly negative, although my bitterness toward him has subsided. Perhaps one day those thoughts will turn positive. Just not yet.

Scripture tell us of Jesus admonishing those who should take care of casting stones against sinners if they, themselves, have sinned.

The same admonition perhaps can be applied to politicians who cast pejorative terms against fellow pols.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, called Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada an “idiot” for comparing Hurricane Katrina with Hurricane Sandy while criticizing those who voted against sending aid to Sandy victims while scrambling to secure aid for Katrina victims.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/07/16396198-la-sen-vitter-calls-reid-idiot-for-sandy-katrina-comparison?lite

Idiot, eh? Let’s see: Wasn’t it Vitter’s name that showed up some years ago on a list of clients belonging to a high-priced D.C. call girl/hooker? And wasn’t it Vitter who issued a very public apology with his grim-faced wife standing next to him when the revelation came to light?

Yes, Vitter isn’t the first pol to toss out a hypocritical epithet against a fellow pol. Nor will he be the last one.

He’s just the latest one to earn a Bronx cheer for failing to take care when casting a stone.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/275997-white-house-confident-in-hagel

There is much to commend Chuck Hagel as the next secretary of defense. His years of service in the Senate; his work on national security issues during that time; the fact that he’s a Republican who would serve in a Democratic administration.

But most of all it is his combat experience that stands out.

President Obama noted that experience specifically Monday while nominating Hagel to lead the Pentagon. Hagel, said Obama, knows what it means to send young Americans into combat where they “bleed in the mud.” Hagel himself bled in the mud, as an Army infantryman during the Vietnam War, where he received two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.

Hagel would be the first Vietnam veteran to lead the Pentagon and would be the first defense boss with experience as an enlisted man. He knows about war and its cost. He understands the pain it brings to families. Hagel is no “chicken hawk.” These are the individuals who avoided service during time of war … only to be among the first to sound the bugle to charge into combat.

Hagel, who was elected to two Senate terms as a Nebraska Republican, served with his brother in Vietnam. They saved each other’s lives in battle.

Yes, this man has made some unfortunate comments in the past. He’s taken them back, expressing regret, for example, about comments he once made about an openly gay U.S. ambassador. He once referred to the “Jewish lobby” when referencing Israel’s long-standing support in the United States.

But my own view is that a man with his specific type of military experience and the trials he has endured while serving his country in wartime have prepared him uniquely for this critical post.

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s selection as the next secretary of defense is drawing unusual criticism.

It comes mostly from his fellow Republicans who contend that Hagel’s foreign policy views are somehow “outside the mainstream.” I’m scratching my head over that one.

Hagel is a former Republican senator from Nebraska. He’s an Army combat veteran of the Vietnam War and if he’s confirmed he would be the first veteran of that war to lead the Pentagon. He’s eminently qualified for the task President Obama has asked him to perform.

But this criticism of past statements about, for example, Israel strikes me as odd.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is one Republican who’s stated he’ll oppose Hagel’s nomination. Interesting. The hearings haven’t even started yet but Cornyn’s made up his mind. Cornyn, a former Texas trial judge, attorney general and state Supreme Court justice ought to understand the need to hear all the facts before rendering a decision, right?

But let’s understand something about the defense secretary. He works at the pleasure of the president. Hagel has spoken in favor of direct talks with Israel’s sworn enemies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. He’s also questioned U.S. sanctions against Iran. But it’s not the defense boss’s foreign policy that is being carried out. The policy belongs to the president and I’ve certain I’ve heard President Obama declare his intention to stand foursquare behind Israel.

Hagel has his Democratic critics, too. They deal with the former senator’s statements about gays in the military. He’s spoken against gay service personnel serving openly, but he’s recanted that view in the years since then.

Chuck Hagel is a dedicated patriot who has fought for his country. Let the man respond to what he calls “astounding distortions” of his record.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/010613SUNedit

The U.S. Senate is proof of the messiness of representative democracy.

Its rules are arcane, occasionally weird and at times nonsensical. Take the way the Senate allows its members to “filibuster.” Filibustering used to require senators to stand before their colleagues and actually talk a bill to death. That requirement doesn’t exist these days. Senators can just say they oppose something … and then they can vacate the chamber and go about their business, whatever that may be.

The rules ought to restored to the old way.

I kind of like the image of watching senators talk until they pass out. They can talk about anything they want once the filibuster commences. Except that nowadays none of that is required.

To unblock the bill, the Senate now requires a 60-vote supermajority. One idea being kicked around is to allow the so-called “cloture” vote to pass with a simple majority of just 51 votes.

But the best reform is to require senators to stand up and be counted. Don’t they all talk about the need for transparency in government?

The record time for a filibuster belongs to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who in 1957, blabbed for 24 hours 18 minutes as he railed – during his segregationist days – against a civil rights bill. The previous record was held by my favorite Senate curmudgeon, the late Wayne Morse of Oregon, who yakked for 22 hours 26 minutes in 1953.

Those were the days when the world’s Greatest Deliberative Body forced members to earn their pay. By golly, if they felt strongly enough about something, they ought to be forced to work for it.

As the Santa Fe New Mexican said in an editorial, senators “should talk and talk and talk, without stopping, so that the whole world sees who is gumming up the works.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2-faced-zealots-congress-kick-sandy-victims-gut-article-1.1233607

There once was a time whenever natural disasters inflicted grievous pain and suffering on Americans that the rest of the country would rally in force to offer their support and comfort in times of tragedy.

Those days are gone.

Sixty-seven Republican members of Congress – including Mac Thornberry of Clarendon – voted “no” on a bill this past week to send emergency aid to the folks in New Jersey and New York who were pummeled in October by Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy.

As New York Daily News columnist Mike Lupica noted (see link attached), these individuals “seem to have all the qualities of dogs except loyalty.”

The bill, which the House did approve, would spend federal money for flood insurance to aid the victims of Sandy. What’s especially galling is that some of the “no” votes actually came from Gulf Coast lawmakers who had their hand out when Hurricane Katrina shattered the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama more than seven years ago. They had no problem then asking for money, but when it came to delivering aid to someone else, well … that’s a different story.

This is the new age in Washington.

Remember the Joplin, Mo., tornado that ripped that city apart two years ago? Remember what House Republican Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia said at the time? He’d support aid to Joplin, but only if the House could find enough money to cut somewhere else to pay for it. Imagine if a tornado had obliterated his congressional district.

I’m still scratching my head over this. I kind of expected this kind of game-playing from the likes of Reps. Louie Gohmert of East Texas and Joe “You Lie!” Wilson of South Carolina. But not from Thornberry.

Don’t Americans rally to help each other during crises? Are we no longer a compassionate people capable of setting aside political differences when tragedy strikes?

All the individuals who said “no” to the Sandy relief money – and that includes Mac Thornberry – need to explain in detail why they have turned their backs on their fellow Americans.

A good friend and former colleague of mine was fond back in the day of reminding me that “the president proposes, while the Congress disposes.”

His meaning is simple: The president can propose laws all he wants, but it rests with Congress to enact them.

That’s the lesson that needs to be learned as the current president, Barack Obama, and the 113th Congress prepare to battle over the debt ceiling. Indeed, President Obama is beginning to make a point that ought to resonate across the nation. Congress, he said today in his radio address, must honor the debt obligation that it has run up.

At issue is whether the United States is going to increase the amount of debt it can accrue legally. The nation will reach its debt limit by the end of March. Congress has to increase it to make sure the government can pay its bills. Failure to do so would threaten the nation’s credit rating around the world.

Historically, the debt ceiling has been increased automatically with little or no debate. But these days Congress is populated by lawmakers, mostly Republican tea party types, who have taken a new tack. They won’t boost the debt limit without insisting on spending cuts. They threaten the financial well-being of the nation by digging in their heels on the debt limit. Obama says he won’t “negotiate” with Congress over the debt ceiling. Many in Congress say they won’t increase it without spending cuts.

Even the late Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of tea party Republicans, managed several automatic debt increases during his two terms as president in the 1980s.

The zealots in Congress must understand something here. They inherited that body’s constitutional responsibilities when they took their oaths of office. The Congress still disposes of laws. It, not the president, is responsible ultimately for spending government money – and for incurring the debt that now totals more than $16 trillion.

It does no good to shove the responsibility off on the White House, which isn’t responsible in the first place for the government being so deeply in debt.

Is it so wrong to boost the debt ceiling while continuing to search for places to cut future government spending?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130105/cotton-texas-am-johnny-manziel-dominates-oklahoma/?xid=cnnbin#

I thought Heisman Trophy winners were supposed to be jinxed, spooked, cursed … whatever.

Didn’t see any of that as Texas A&M dismantled Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl. Has Johnny Manziel – aka Johnny Football – broken the spell?

My friend Roy made some reference to the “Heisman jinx” the other morning after Oregon clobbered Kansas State, which had its own Heisman Trophy finalist in senior quarterbackCollin Klein. The Ducks bottled up Klein and the Wildcats nicely en route to their 35-17 blowout in the Fiesta Bowl. I wasn’t lamenting any such jinx at the time, you know?

Now comes Johnny Football. For the record, he ran for 229 yards, passed for 287 more yards. Let’s see, that’s 516 yards in total offense – from one guy alone!

The rule of thumb here is that Heisman winners go into a serious swoon after they accept the trophy, although there are exceptions. Cam Newton at Auburn won the Heisman and then led the Tigers to the national championship over the (gulp!) Ducks in 2011.

Johnny Football, though, is a seriously special athlete. Something tells me he’s got another Heisman Trophy – maybe more – in his future.