So much happening in local sports. Just a few thoughts for a Sunday morning.

Kansas City Chiefs
That was quite a pounding the Bills put on the Chiefs last week. Is there anybody left on the Chiefs bandwagon? Not many. There’s plenty of room. Am surprised at just how quickly Chiefs fans turned on Todd Haley, Scott Pioli, Clark Hunt and Matt Cassel. These four took quite a beating this week on the radio and the message boards.

If you include the preseason and the playoffs, the Chiefs have now lost seven straight, and have been dominated in many of these games. They’ve lost young stars for the season due to injury (Eric Berry and Tony Moeaki). And the offense has been ineffective since Charlie Weis bolted for Florida.

Is there reason to hope? Can the Chiefs bounce back from this?

Todd Haley has warned us that the Chiefs are not good enough yet to win when they make mistakes. He said this all year last year, to the point where the media was tired of hearing it, and the fans no longer listened. He came out this week, and like a good leader, took complete responsibility for the loss. And again explained that the Chiefs are not good enough to win when they make mistakes. They made a lot of mistakes against the Bills.

What we’ve seen from the Chiefs the last couple of years is that they don’t give up. Last year after getting pounded by the Chargers in San Diego 31-0, the Chiefs came back and dominated the Rams in St. Louis 27-13.

I seem to be in the minority, but I like Todd Haley. I don’t believe, like many, that his ego gets in the way of his coaching. I think the Chiefs will right the ship and play better over the coming weeks. I had the Chiefs going 2-2 over their first four games. This is still possible. They just need to grab one on the road against either the Lions or the Chargers to get back on track. And even if they start the season 1-3, they’re still only one game back from where I thought they’d be. The season isn’t over yet. We’ve only played one game.

One more quick comment about the Chiefs. One of my criticisms about Herm Edwards as a head coach was that his teams never seemed prepared during the first few games of the regular season. Todd Haley took a different path this year in preparing the Chiefs. It may have been the wrong choice as his team does not look prepared for the regular season. Only time will tell, but this was a unique off-season. And even if Haley made a mistake with his plan, the Chiefs should be caught back up within another week or two.

If the team falls apart and finishes with only four or five wins, then I’ll admit I was wrong about Haley.

Kansas Jayhawks
That was quite a beating the Jayhawks took from Georgia Tech yesterday. The offense has shown some flashes. They’ve got some good young talent in the backfield. The defense is horrendous. I’m rooting for Turner Gill to succeed because I love my Jayhawks, and he seems like a fine man. But I’ve said from day one that he was not my choice to lead KU. I haven’t changed my mind.

It will be interesting to see how long new athletic director Sheahon Zenger sticks with Gill. Typically schools will give a new head coach at least three years to make his mark on a program. I’m afraid that Gill has already left his mark on KU.

Kansas City Royals
Typically by mid-July I’m done with the Royals and am ready for football. Not because I’m not still a fan, but you can only watch so many losses. But this year the Royals have continued to hold my attention. This is an exciting young team currently on a seven game winning streak.

The outfield is among the best in baseball. They hit (all four have 40 or more doubles) and play great defense (more outfield assists than any other team in baseball). And they’re young. They’re all 27 years old. Which on this team makes them grizzled veterans compared to the infield.

The infield is exciting as well. First baseman Eric Hosmer looks like he’ll be a star. Catcher Salvador Perez has shown that his defensive prowess and game managing skills are well beyond his years. He’s only 21, and may be the best young catcher in baseball. And his bat has been much better than advertised. Alcides Escobar is among the best defensive short stops in the game, and his bat is improving. Mike Moustakas does not look very smooth at third base, but seems to be making all the plays you would expect him to make. And his bat is waking up. He will be able to hit in the big leagues. At second base we have Johnny Giavotella. He’s just the type of kid you want to cheer for. He’s got a decent glove, and looks like he’ll have a good approach at the plate.

The problem remains starting pitching. Most of the Royals premium talent is a year or more away from the big leagues. And the Royals will not be able to fix their staff in free agency. They may try to bolster the rotation in a trade, but that will prove difficult. Realistically, fixing the rotation will probably have to come from improvement from within. Bruce Chen has been their most effective starter the last two years. The Royals need to get him resigned. We’ve seen flashes from Danny Duffy, Felipe Paulino and Luke Hochevar. I’m hopeful they’ll give Aaron Crow a crack at the rotation. And Everett Teaford is making a case for his shot as well. Will this be enough? I hope so.

The End of the Big 12?
When we found out that Nebraska and Colorado were leaving the Big 12, it looked like the end. At the time I would have predicted that we were moving towards four 16-team super conferences. But then the Big 12 (at least the remaining ten) hung together and worked out a lucrative TV deal to keep the league together. But now things are falling apart again. Can the powers-that-be keep the Big 12 together again? I don’t know. I do know that if KU, K-State and MU end up in different conferences, college sports in the Midwest will never be the same again. And that will truly be unfortunate.

Today is going to be a rant. My apologies.

I’m not a hater, but what I deeply dislike is when politicians offer solutions that have little to do with the problems at hand. You see, I’m a problem solver. You should study a problem, and develop a solution that fixes the problem. Then implement the solution. It’s really not as tough as it sounds. And when you explain it like this, it doesn’t even sound very tough.

Example 1: In 2000, candidate George W. Bush ran on a platform of tax cuts. Why? Because at the time the federal government was running a surplus (though the surplus was created by social security payments, a topic we’ll get around to soon). Bush wanted to give this money back to the people who had earned it. Then to pull us out of recession, President Bush pushed through these very seem tax cuts and tax reforms in an effort to stimulate the economy.

Did the Bush administration study the recession and develop a solution for the problem? No. For the right, tax cuts are always the solution.

Example 2: Most liberals in this country want a single-payer, government run health care system. Is the cost of health care going up? Are people struggling to afford it? Are there problems with the current system? Then we need universal health care.

Did the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration study the problems with our health care system and develop a strategy to fix the problems? No. For the left, universal health care is always the solution. And since they couldn’t get universal health care, we got ObamaCare. A system designed to push us towards universal health care in the future.

So here we are today. Unemployment remains above 9%. Economic growth is stagnant at best. The economy appears headed towards a double dip recession. But the President has a plan. Stimulus four! Or is this stimulus five? Six? I’ve lost count.

For the President, he has two solutions looking for problems. How convenient.

One, the President wants to spend more money on creating jobs. He refuses to call it economic stimulus because that wouldn’t be politically popular. This time he wants to spend approximately $450 billion. How will he spend it? Sending money to the states to help pay for teachers. More infrastructure investment — though this time he wouldn’t call them shovel ready jobs. Extend unemployment benefits and the temporary payroll tax reductions. And some targeted tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses that will do little to create jobs.

How will he pay for it? That’s easy. Another solution looking for a problem. Tax increases. The administration has proposed that we’ll raise the $450 billion in tax revenues by cutting oil subsidies, and closing loopholes so that the rich “pay their fair share”.

Spend now and raise taxes later to pay for it. Solutions looking for problems.

The President has repeatedly said that his bill should be passed “now” because these are ideas that Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon in the past. And if the bill is not passed, it’s because the GOP is putting party before the economy.

He’s partially right. These are ideas that politicians have agreed upon and tried before. That doesn’t make them the right thing to do. Matter of fact, we have already tried most of these recommendations before. It was supposed to prevent us from exceeding 8% unemployment. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. We had the first stimulus of more than $800 billion. We’ve printed money with QE1 and QE2 to the tune of about $2.3 trillion. The President and Congress have already passed cuts in payroll taxes and extensions to unemployment. Through tax cuts, stimulus spending and monetary policy, we have injected trillions into the economy. It hasn’t worked. Keynesian economics has failed.

Why? Because it doesn’t fix the problems at hand.

We have long-term systemic problems that the President has failed to offer solutions to fix. And many of his own policies have actually exasperated these problems.

We badly need tax reform in this country. The President has discussed cutting loopholes on corporate taxes and lowering the corporate tax rate which is among the highest in the world, but has never actually submitted a plan that does this. His own deficit commission recommended this same approach for corporate AND personal incomes taxes — closing loopholes and lowering tax rates. The President won’t do it. Why? Because you can’t play the class warfare card if you fix the tax system.

We badly need entitlement reform in this country. The President has discussed that Medicare is a long-term financial problem that needs to be fixed. It’s unsustainable in its current form. He’s right. But where is his plan? I can’t find it. And he won’t even discuss fixing social security which is every bit as unsustainable as Medicare.

We badly need regulation reform in this country. The President has said that he agrees, even writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal discussing his plan to cut needless regulations. He named Cass Sunstein as his regulation czar, spent months evaluating government departments, and has come up with $10 billion in savings over the next five years. It has been estimated that government rules and regulations cost the economy approximately $1.75 trillion per year. Not to mention the mountains of new regulations being written by the EPA, and implemented by ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank banking reform legislation.

We badly need a balanced budget in this country. It’s not all Obama’s fault, but in the last few years our national debt has jumped by trillions of dollars, and our debt-to-GDP ratio has jumped to almost 100%. This is a bad number. Really bad. When you see the economies failing in Europe, that’s because their debt-to-GDP ratios have exceeded 100%. Spending is on an unsustainable path. The credit ratings agencies have warned that we must stabilize our debt-to-GDP, and that a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan is only a “good down payment”. Where is the administration’s plan to stabilize debt-to-GDP? I can’t find it.

Well, I’ll take that one back. The President’s debt commission put together a plan to stabilize debt-to-GDP. The administration just ignored it.

It has been estimated that big business has somewhere between $2-3 trillion sitting on the sidelines, much of it kept overseas. How do we get this money back in play in our own economy? By fixing our long-term systemic problems. Only then will this money be invested into our economy. And only then, will we once again be headed in the right direction.

Tomorrow the Chiefs begin their quest for a second consecutive AFC West title as they face off against the Buffalo Bills in Arrowhead Stadium. There seems to be two streams of thought about the Chiefs in 2011:

1. The Chiefs could be better, but since their schedule is tougher, they are likely to finish below 10-6 and miss the playoffs.

2. There’s a history of teams that make a big leap forward one year then slipping back the next year. The Chiefs will finish below 10-6. Possibly 7-9. Some are predicting 6-10.

On paper the schedule certainly appears tougher, especially a stretch late in the season as the Chiefs must play New England, Pittsburgh, Chicago, New York Jets and Green Bay over a five week span. However, seasons seldom unfold the way the pundits expect. For instance, in week five the Chiefs travel to Indianapolis to face the Colts. Most of us probably put this game in the loss column for the Chiefs when the schedule was released. But now that Peyton Manning has had his second neck surgery and the Colts have pulled Kerry Collins out of retirement, this game is back in play.

Six Reasons the Chiefs Are Better

1. The secondary will be better. Last year the Chiefs started two rookie safeties in Eric Berry and Kendrick Lewis. They also used rookie Javier Arenas as their nickel cornerback. They were good last year, and all three should be better this year. Eric Berry might be great. This young secondary could become one of the best in the NFL.

2. Last year the Chiefs struggled in short yardage and goal line situations running the ball. This year the Chiefs have brought in running back Le’Ron McClain. As a fullback he is a better blocker than what the Chiefs had last year. And as a running back he’s the big powerful presence that the Chiefs were missing. Converting a few more of those third-and-ones will sustain drives and improve the offense.

3. The pass rush will be better. Tamba Hali was a stud last year, and Wallace Gilberry did his part to throw in a few sacks. This year the Chiefs will be adding Cameron Sheffield and rookie Justin Houston into the mix. The Chiefs were very excited about Sheffield last year until he was hurt in the preseason and put on injured reserve. Both have shown flashes this preseason, in particular Houston who should take the starting spot away from Andy Studebaker before the season is done. Houston looks like a freak. Matter of fact, and I hate to write it, he reminds me a bit of Derrick Thomas.

4. The passing game will be better. Last year the Chiefs put Matt Cassel on a very short leash in the passing game. By mid-season, Cassel had become one of the more efficient quarterbacks in the league. He threw for 3,116 yards and had an amazing TD-to-INT ratio of 27-7. With the development of Dwayne Bowe, a new stable of wide receivers and another year of experience, I expect the Chiefs offense to be much more balanced this year. I don’t expect the Chiefs to be #1 in rushing, but I do expect them to be much better than #30 in passing. Last year the Chiefs were #12 in total offense despite their passing game. This year with better offensive balance they should crack the top ten. My prediction is that Cassel will throw for more than 3,500 yards, but he probably cannot duplicate his TD-to-INT ratio. Predicting 26 TDs and 12 INTs. Anything better than 2-to-1 is good enough.

5. The defensive line is improving. I am in the minority on this one, but I like how the defensive line is coming together. Glenn Dorsey has gotten better every year. Kelly Gregg is an upgrade over Ron Edwards at nose tackle. Wallace Gilberry brings the heat. Amon Gordon could be this year’s Shawn Smith. Rookie Allen Bailey, nicknamed “The Freak”, adds much needed depth and athletic ability to the line. And the Chiefs think they have their nose tackle of the future in rookie Jerrell Powe. (Great article on Powe in the Star recently. Read it here.)

6. Consistency and coaching. Even with the loss of offensive coordinator Charlie Weis, the Chiefs have put together a solid coaching staff. Romeo Crennel is in his second year as defensive coordinator. I love the addition of Jim Zorn to help the quarterbacks. And head coach Todd Haley showed significant progress in his ability to lead the team from year one to year two.

Four Reason for Concern

1. The offensive line. Last year the offensive line was receiving a lot of praise for the Chiefs #1 rushing attack. I credit Jamaal Charles much more than I do the line. Second year guard Jon Asamoah replaces the veteran Brian Waters. In the long run this is the right move. Waters is at the end of his career, and is not the player he once was. But Asamoah is not Brian Waters yet. Center Casey Wiegmann is old, small and has never stood up well against big, powerful nose tackles. Rookie Rodney Hudson is the heir apparent in the middle, which could come sooner rather than later. Branden Albert is serviceable at left tackle, but has not become the player the Chiefs had hoped for. And right tackle Barry Richardson struggled mightily during the preseason. If tackle Jared Gaither is healthy and can play at right tackle, that would help a lot.

2. The injury to tight end Tony Moeaki will be tough to overcome. Moeaki is a matchup problem for opposing defenses, and figured to play a significant role in the offense. Without him, the Chiefs do not have a pass catching threat at tight end.

3. The jury is still out on defensive tackle Tyson Jackson. Many have already written him off as a bust. My hope is that he makes the same strides forward from year two to year three that Glenn Dorsey made last year. I’m rooting for him, but I think this could go either way.

4. The Chiefs defense must improve. Last year the Chiefs were ranked #14 against the run, #17 against the pass, and #14 in total yards allowed per game. With improvement from the secondary and an improved pass rush, I expect the pass defense to be better. But will their run defense be better? I don’t know.

Predictions for the AFC West

This is really a two horse race for the AFC West. I would be incredibly surprised if either the Oakland Raiders or Denver Broncos surpassed six or seven wins. That leaves KC and San Diego to fight it out for the AFC West title. Who is the coach in San Diego? Norv Turner. One of the worst coaches in the NFL in my opinion. Despite having one of the most talented rosters in the league, the Chargers have grossly underachieved in two of their last three seasons. In 2008 the team finished 8-8, and amazingly won the division. And last year finished 9-7. People keep talking about the Chiefs schedule, but the Chargers have basically the same schedule. They face all of the same opponents but two. The Chiefs face division winners Indianapolis (without Peyton Manning) and Pittsburgh. The Chargers face second place finishers Jacksonville (who I expect to be better without David Garrard) and Baltimore (a very good team who smashed us in the playoffs).

Now the wildcard is not likely to come out of the AFC West, so the Chiefs must win the division to make the playoffs. So here’s my prediction:

Kansas City Chiefs: 9-7
San Diego Chargers: 8-8
Oakland Raiders: 7-9
Denver Broncos: 5-11

You might call me a homer, but just as a reminder, I did not pick the Chiefs last year. And if the Chargers had a better head coach, I would probably pick them again this year. The Chiefs roster is improving, but the Chargers still have more talent, especially at the quarterback position.

A Final Thought

So when does a team take that final step from being a good team to an elite team? Are the Chiefs ready to make that step? It’s easy to predict that the teams who were good one year will be good the next. But we know from history that about half of the teams who made the playoffs in 2010 are unlikely to make the playoffs in 2011.

You’ve heard the cliche for years — defense wins championships. And I still believe this to be true. The Chiefs were a decent defense last year. Middle of the pack. But to make a run, they must evolve into a top ten defense. My thought has always been that you need three stars on defense to be great. And then you must surround them with the right supporting cast. When the Chiefs had those great defenses in the ’90s, they had four impact players in Derrick Thomas, Neil Smith, Dale Carter and James Hasty. And they surrounded them with an excellent supporting cast.

Last year Tamba Hali was a star, but the only one on the defense. Brandon Flowers is a very good cornerback, though not sure he’ll ever be great. Eric Berry looks like he could become a star at safety. If Derrick Johnson could just hold on to a few of those interceptions, he could be a game changer in the middle. And Justin Houston looks like he could become an impact player opposite Hali. If this defense comes together, the Chiefs have a chance to become great.

In recent weeks the President has been outlining a number of proposals that he says can be enacted now that will stimulate the economy. Patent reform has been among these proposals, and figures to be a key component of the President’s upcoming jobs plan.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark office has a backlog of 700,000 applications. In 1990 it took approximately 18 months to process an application. Today it takes nearly three years to process an application. Clearly the system needs to be fixed. But will fixing the system really create jobs? Some experts think so. From IBD:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, co-sponsor of a reform bill, says it will create 200,000 jobs. Obama’s patent office head, David Kappos, told lawmakers “millions of jobs are lying in wait” for “a job creation engine (to be) turned loose.”

But no one knows for sure how many new jobs, if any, the reforms passed by the Senate and the House this year will create.

Leahy’s office could not give a source for the 200,000 number. And a White House backgrounder on patent reform only said it is “key to winning the future.”

Business economist Everett Ehrlich, in a 2009 analysis, found the reform could create 100,000 jobs over five years. Economists say the U.S. needs about 100,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with labor force growth.

A New York Times Op-Ed last year said cutting the patent office backlog could yield “at least 675,000 and as many as 2.25 million jobs,” but called this a guess.

“It’s hard to calculate the job effects of this reform,” said Philip Johnson, Johnson & Johnson’s chief intellectual property counsel and a reform backer. “Jobs related to patents are pervasive and there are a lot of ripple effects.”

But not everybody likes the proposed reforms:

But more patents don’t always mean more jobs. In the last three years, the U.S. has granted more than 620,000 patents, almost as many as in the booming 1980s.

“Will it help small businesses that create the most jobs? I think we would question that,” said Molly Brogan of the National Small Business Association.

Currently, the first person or firm to invent something is the rightful patent owner, even if someone else files for protection first. Under the reforms, the first person to file wins the patent.

Advocates say the reforms will remove uncertainties that undermine R&D efforts. The reforms also aim to cut the patent office backlog by protecting patent fees from congressional raids.

Critics say the “first to file” switch risks skewing patent awards toward large companies that tend not to be big job creators. They point to a 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which found Canada’s 1989 switch to “first to file” shifted “the ownership structure of patented inventions towards large corporations.”

Kappos says these concerns are unfounded. Of 3 million applications over seven years, he said, “Only one independent inventor’s filing would have received a different outcome under the first-inventor-to-file system.”

The Irony of Reform
While I certainly support the concept of speeding up and streamlining the patent process, I suspect these job projections are exaggerated. Patents are getting processed, and it’s hard to imagine that processing them faster will create millions of jobs that would not have existed otherwise. What I find ironic in this conversation is that many have complained that burdensome and unnecessary government regulations are one of the many things holding back our economy. And in this case, the administration appears to agree that streamlining the regulatory process would be a boon to the economy. It’s too bad they’re not willing to apply this approach across all government rules and regulations.

I had written several posts last year discussing a lack of leadership from President Obama. In particular I had been critical of his handling of the BP oil spill, but truth be told, I think we’ve seen a lack of leadership on just about every issue facing our country. The President is capable of delivering a great speech. He’s championed a number of causes that send a thrill up the leg of liberals like Chris Matthews. He’s very likable. But that doesn’t make him a leader.

Now we’re starting to see Democrats discuss this as well. The far left has been critical for some time that the President hasn’t been liberal enough, though I’m not exactly sure what they expected. I think like many, including myself, they had misinterpreted what type of liberal the President would be. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, Mortimer Zuckerman published a strong article on the President’s lack of leadership. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report, a publication that is largely considered left of center by those of us who follow media bias. I don’t know enough about Zuckerman to tell you if he’s a moderate or a liberal, but he supported the election of President Obama, and has given thousands to Democrats over the years. His op-ed is worth the read. Here are a few key parts of his article.

Zuckerman discusses the President’s position during the recent debt ceiling debate:

Since the president is the one who represents all of America and all Americans, the buck stops with him rather than with the Congress. It is the president’s job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits. But the only core issue on which he took a clear position in the recent debt-ceiling negotiations was that it would have to include new taxes on the wealthy—and he didn’t even hold to that.

He made the politically tested and calculated statement that if you raise taxes on billionaires and millionaires you could solve the problem. This is not so. Even for those who support higher taxes on the wealthy, as I do, we must remember that we have an income tax system in which fully half the “taxpayers” pay no tax at all, and in which the variety of loopholes cries out for a real reform of the tax code. Even if the government instituted a 100% tax on both corporate profits and personal incomes above $250,000 per year, it would yield enough revenue to run the government for only six months. Why? Because under Mr. Obama’s presidency, government spending has swelled to 24% of GDP from 18%.

I have made similar arguments in the past about the need for significant tax reform, not just closing a few loopholes here and there as the President has recommended. Zuckerman continues to discuss the President’s lack of leadership in developing a plan to tackle our country’s problems:

Erskine Bowles, co-chair of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission appointed by the president in 2010 to devise a plan for dealing with the fiscal crisis, put it well: “It is one that is completely predictable and from which there is no escape.” The president said he would stand by his commission, but as of today he’s remained silent on its many proposals, seemingly unable to speak honestly on the subject.

Zuckerman also discusses the disillusionment from the President’s supporters:

The president appears to consider himself immune from error and asserts the fault always lies elsewhere—be it in the opposition in Congress or the Japanese tsunami or in the failure of his audience to fully understand the wisdom and benefits of his proposals. But in politics, the failure of communication is invariably the fault of the communicator.

Many voters who supported him are no longer elated by the historic novelty of his candidacy and presidency. They hoped for a president who would be effective. Remember “Yes We Can”? Now many of his sharpest critics are his former supporters. Witness Bill Broyles, a one-time admirer who recently wrote in Newsweek that “Americans aren’t inspired by well-meaning weakness.” The president who first inspired with great speeches on red and blue America now seems to lack the ability to communicate any sense of resolve for a program, or any realization of the urgency of what might befall us. The teleprompter he almost always uses symbolizes and compounds his emotional distance from his audience.

We lack a coherent and muscular economic strategy, as Mr. Obama and his staff seem almost completely focused on his re-election. He should be spending most of his time on the nitty-gritty of the job instead of on fund raisers, bus tours and visits to diners, which essentially are in service of his political interests. Increasingly his solutions seem to boil down to Vote for Me.

Clearly the president will have to raise his game to win a second term, especially if the Republicans find a real candidate. Will voters be willing to give him another four years? Like many Americans who supported him, I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country.

Well written Mr. Zuckerman. You can read his entire op-ed here.

This comes under the heading “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”!

I have to admit that I often agree with Candidate Obama more than I agree with President Obama. Then Candidate Obama called President Bush “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible” for adding $4 trillion in debt during his eight years in office. I wouldn’t have called Bush unpatriotic, but agree that it was irresponsible. (On a side note, most of that deficit spending happened during Bush’s last two years in office while the Congress was controlled by the Democrats, and we were heading into the recession.)

And in case you’re not paying attention, the budget proposed by the White House earlier this year would have added nearly $10 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years (read this from The Hill).

And from CBS News:

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

But of course, none of this is President Obama’s fault. He continues to blame Bush. He blames the Republicans. He blames the Tea Party. He blames business. He blames the economy. He blames the banks. He blames the tsunami in Japan. He blames the Arab Spring. He blames the collapsing economies in Europe. Did I miss anyone?

I keep thinking back to the early Reagan years. He too inherited a mess from his predecessor. In November of 1982, unemployment stood at 10.8%. By the time the election rolled around just two years later, unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. Why? Because Reagan had a pro-business plan to grow the economy. And grow the economy he did.

I’ve been planning to write a post about government regulations for some time. And this isn’t it. But here are a few tidbits to chew on until we have time to talk about this in-depth. Earlier this year, President Obama in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal made a pledge to help businesses by eliminating red tape.

We’re also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money. We’re looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for—and reduce—the burdens regulations may place on small businesses. Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.

You can read his op-ed from January in the Wall Street Journal here.

Another more recent quote from President Obama:

What I have done — and this is unprecedented … is I’ve said to each agency … “look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them.”

This week the administration has announced its plan to update government rules and regulations. You can read this post on the White House’s website from Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. According to Sunstein, “Over the next five years, the monetized savings from just a fraction of the reforms announced today are likely to exceed $10 billion.”

Now a few facts to put this into perspective. From Investors.com in an unrelated article from June:

Government regulations come with costs. Compliance is a heavy burden. During a news conference in which Hartzler spoke of “horror stories” caused by rules, she referred to a Small Business Administration estimate that says government regulations cost the economy more than $1.75 trillion a year, about 12% to 14% of GDP and half of what Washington is now spending — $3.456 trillion — in a year.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been keeping up with federal regulation for years through its yearly “Ten Thousand Commandments” reports, believes the cost is closer to $1.8 trillion because agencies spend an estimated “$55.4 billion (on budget) to administer and police the regulatory enterprise.”

Let’s see, we make changes to save businesses $10 billion over the next five years, compared to the $8.75 trillion that will be spent on compliance. And that does not include the thousands of new rules and regulations that are still being written from ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank banking reforms.

And on a side note, PolitiFact gave the President a “Pants on Fire” for his claim that his approach to cutting red tape was “unprecedented”.

One of the things I’ve really come to appreciate about the Scott Pioli approach is how the Chiefs identify their needs, and find the right players to fill them. The Chiefs had plenty of holes on their roster a couple years ago, and you can’t plug them all in one off-season.

Quarterbacks
Loss: Brodie Croyle
Gain: Ricky Stanzi
Summary: The Chiefs have little experience among their backup quarterbacks. Considering that Croyle had experience but had never gotten a victory, it’s hard to imagine that the Chiefs are any worse off without him. Time will tell what happens here. Many in the media believe that the Chiefs need an experienced number two, but not much out there to sign. There’s certainly some risk entering the season with Tyler Palko and Stanzi as your options behind Matt Cassel.
Result: Unknown

Running Backs
Loss: Tim Castille
Gain: Le’Ron McClain, Shane Bannon
Summary: Despite having the number one rushing attack in the NFL last year, the Chiefs were not very good in short yardage or goal line situations. McClain should help both as a blocker and as a threat to run and catch the ball. The Chiefs have managed to improve the best backfield in the NFL.
Result: Big Improvement

Wide Receivers
Loss: Chris Chambers
Gain: Jonathan Baldwin, Steve Breaston, Keary Colbert, Jerheme Urban (back from IR)
Summary: The Chiefs have more talent at wide receiver than they’ll be able to keep. When was the last time you could say that? My warning is that rookie wide receivers seldom make an impact. Don’t be surprised if Baldwin comes off the bench early in the season. Other than Dwayne Bowe, expect to see the rest of the receivers rotate through different packages.
Result: Big Improvement

Tight Ends
Summary: No movement among tight ends is fine with me. If Tony Moeaki improves on his rookie performance, the Chiefs might have a star in the making. He put up better numbers last year than Tony Gonzalez did in his rookie campaign.

Offensive Line
Loss: Brian Waters
Gain: Rodney Hudson, Jared Gaither
Summary: Despite having the best rushing attack in the NFL, I’m glad that the Chiefs continue to improve the line. I think Jamaal Charles made them look good, not the other way around. They’ve moved second year guard Jon Asamoah into the starting lineup at right guard. They’ll flip Ryan Lilja to the left side, which is where he played for the Colts, to replace Waters. Waters was one of my favorite Chiefs, but he hasn’t played at a Pro Bowl level in years. Casey Wiegmann is back at center, but he’s only holding the position until Hudson is ready. And Gaither is an interesting pickup. If he’s healthy, he should eventually start at one of the offensive tackle positions. I’m not convinced he’s healthy. Or one of the right 53.
Result: Probably Improved

Defensive Line
Loss: Shawn Smith, Ron Edwards
Gain: Kelly Gregg, Jerrell Powe, Allen Bailey
Summary: Very happy that the Chiefs re-signed Wallace Gilberry. He was high on my list of off-season priorities. I suspect that we’ll quickly realize that Gregg is a significant upgrade over Edwards in the middle of the line. Smith played fairly well last year, and offered nice flexibility with his ability to play anywhere along the line. The key this year will be for us to continue to see improvement from Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey. Bailey and Powe will likely get playing time.
Result: Improved

Linebackers
Loss: Mike Vrabel
Gain: Justin Houston, Brandon Silar, Cameron Sheffield (back fromIR)
Summary: Vrabel provided leadership, but it appeared that Andy Studebaker was already outplaying him on the field. And it appears that both Houston and Sheffield will add some punch to the pass rush.
Result: Improved

Cornerbacks
Loss: None
Gain: Jalil Brown
Summary: Brown will likely compete with Javier Arenas in the nickel, but could be a long-term replacement if the Chiefs are unable to sign either Brandon Carr or Brandon Flowers to an extension.
Result: Unknown

Safeties
Loss: None
Gain: Sabby Piscitelli
Summary: Piscitelli was brought in to create competition. Not even sure he’ll make the team. The Chiefs are set at safety with Eric Berry and Kendrick Lewis. With each of them entering the second years in the league, we should see continued improvement from both of them.
Result: Improved with Age

Specialties
Summary: The Chiefs appear set with kicker Ryan Succop and punter Dustin Colquit. The Chiefs would like to get more production from their returners Dexter McCluster and Arenas.

So when does a great team become a great team? Somewhere they have to transition from good to great. Is there any reason this couldn’t be the year for the Chiefs?

The administration’s love for Keynesian Economics continues. This is a quote from the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

Well, obviously, it’s putting people to work. Which is why we’re going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we’re going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that’s never happened in this country — something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times.

Now if only we could provide food stamps to more people, our economy would be in excellent health!

I’ve long made the case, even before the hiring of general manager Scott Pioli, that you build a team through the draft, not free agency. In a related story from Sam Mellinger in the KC Star this morning, it appears that there’s no correlation between money spent and winning games in the NFL. I’m not surprised.

Sam starts out by explaining:

The amount of cash that teams commit to players has no impact on their success.

Not some impact. Not a little impact. Zero impact.

That’s according to documents obtained by The Star through league sources, numbers that show that today’s NFL can be conquered equally by big spenders and small. Analysis by third-party sources confirms that there is no connection in the amount of money teams spend and the amount of on-field success they have.

The Chiefs have spent time defending their approach to free agency. They have come under fire from both the media and fans for not being more aggressive in pursuing the high profile free agents and spending more money. We’ve watched teams like the Oakland Raiders, Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins commit huge amounts of money to the “best” free agents on the market, yet have little to show for it.

The Chiefs had one of the lowest payrolls in the league a couple years ago as they started their youth movement. But now as their best players become due for new contracts, the Chiefs are spending more money retaining players like Tamba Hali, Jamaal Charles and Derrick Johnson. They are now in the middle of the pack in regards to money spent, with deals looming for Dwayne Bowe and Brandon Flowers.

Sam goes on to explain:

Since 2001, the highest-spending team in each season won an average of 8.3 games. The Packers and Colts won the Super Bowl in years they spent the most money, but six other seasons the biggest spender didn’t even make the playoffs. The Giants won their Super Bowl while being ranked 30th in spending.

Over the same period, the top quarter of spenders each year won an average of 8.4 games. It’s consistent too: No year averaged more than 9.4 wins (in 2009) or fewer than 7.1 (2005).

The last 10 Super Bowl winners have ranked, on average, 15th in spending. The Super Bowl loser ranked 16th.

A connection between spending and winning just does not exist.

Keep in mind these numbers reflect actual cash spent, not the funny-money manipulation of salary-cap numbers.

Through deeper analysis and conversations with personnel men throughout the league, logical reasons for the disconnect between big spending and big winning begin to surface.

First, as Washington and Dallas and a few others have proved, free agency is an extremely inefficient talent pool.

Second, big-spending teams are often desperate teams with a coach or GM clinging to his job. Free agency is often used to cover holes or chase bad investments, so steady and improving teams are better at resisting those temptations.

And third, under the old collective-bargaining agreement, top draft picks commanded huge contracts from bad teams.

The article is worth reading, and a vindication for the Chiefs from some of their critics.