B2
EZ BD
KLMNO
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2010
81-19 yeas nays SHAH MARAI/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The late RichardHolbrooke (left) andGen. David H. Petraeus (right), shown here with Afghan PresidentHamid Karzai in April, collaborated closely onU.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.Holbrooke passed awayMonday inWashington.
My diplomatic wingman BY DAVIDH. PETRAEUS T
hose of us engaged in the Af- ghanistan-Pakistan region feel Richard Holbrooke’s loss very deeply. Richard was a central figureintheUnitedStates’over-
all effort,andhis suddendeathisasignifi- cant blow to it. However, his vision, tire- lessness and determination will inspire all ofus inthemonths ahead. Very soonafterhewas appointedas the
U.S. special representative toAfghanistan and Pakistan,Richard and I became close partners
inthemission.Thatwas the case whenIwasthecommanderofU.S.Central Command, and it continued after I took command in Afghanistan nearly six months ago. Both of us recognized from the outset that a great deal needed to be done to “get the inputs right” here—that is, to build the organizations, develop the necessary concepts and plans, and deploy
the additional forces and civilians re- quired. And we worked closely together to do
just that—with our respective organiza- tions, in the region, in foreign capitals, on CapitolHill and at theWhiteHouse. I like to think that we made an effective civil- military team. Indeed, I used to note to himand to various audiences,with affec- tion and respect, that he was my “diplo- matic wingman.” And those of us in uni- formjokedthat itwas every commander’s dreamto have a diplomatic partner nick- named“TheBulldozer.” By the timeRichardwas appointed the
“SRAP,” hewas, of course, universally rec- ognizedasbrilliant,accomplished, larger- than-life, and, above all, tenacious. In- deed, when it came to tenacity, on a scale of 1 to 100,he registered110. Most notably, Richard could boil is-
sues down to their essence, distill key policy choices, communicate themeffec- tively and provide wise counsel to the
presidentandsecretaryof state.His com- bination of talentswas truly unique, and his extraordinary qualities were further enabled by his having personal relation- ships with what seemed to be anybody who mattered at home and around the world. Richard was, in short, a diplomatic
titan — arguably the diplomatic titan of his generation. His contributions and achievementswere legendary evenbefore he took on his finalmission, and those of us engaged in thatmissionwill do all that we can to ensure that progress in it is amongthelegacies thatheleaves tofuture generations. In the days ahead, however, we will all
mourn his sudden death along with Kati andhis family, forhewas as committedto themashewas tohisdiplomatic tasks.
Gen.DavidH.Petraeus is the commander of theNATOInternational Security Assistance Force andU.S. forces in Afghanistan.
day, when senators approved the sweeping tax package negotiated by the WhiteHouse and Republican leaders. Such broad margins were the norm in decades past, when winning co-
N
alitions were built from factions within parties.However, in an era of ra- zor-thin majorities and hard party-line votes, that final tally seems shock- ing.
Shocking and rare. A survey of the Congressional Record over the past
15 years reveals only a handful of 81-19 votes—usually on relatively non- controversial matters.
March 19, 1996 Amendment to Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, to increase federal money “for EPA water in- frastructure financing, Superfund toxic waste site cleanups, operating programs, and for other purposes and to increase funding for the Corpo- ration forNational and Community Service (AmeriCorps) to $400.5 mil- lion.”
July 23, 1997 Resolution “condemning the Government of Canada for its failure to accept responsibility for the illegal blockade of aUnited States vessel in Canada, and calling on the President to take appropriate action.”
April 6, 2000 A motion to table an amendment “to express the sense of the Senate against the Federal funding of smoke shops.” (The motion failed.)
Nov. 1, 2001 Amendment “to redistribute certain funds under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.”
March 17, 2005 Amendment “to provide the flexibility to consider all available transportation funding options.”
—Ann Gerhart and Lucy Shackleford
ow that’s not something you see every day—the Senate voting 81 to 19 to pass a major piece of legislation, let alone on some- thing as contentious as taxes. But that’s what we sawWednes-
JONATHAN NEWTON/THE WASHINGTON POST
STEPHEN CHERNIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
6 years , Sam Bradford, quarterback Drafted #1 by the St. Louis Rams, 2010
6 years, JaMarcusRussell, quarterback Drafted #1 by the Oakland Raiders, 2007
$61 million
LUCIAN PERKINS/THE WASHINGTON POST
6 years,Mario Williams, defensive end Drafted #1 by theHouston Texans, 2006
$54 million
MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS $54 million 6 years, EliManning, quarterback
MARK LENNIHAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Let’s stop breaking the bank on NFL rookies $78 million
$46.75 million 7 years, David Carr, quarterback
Drafted #1 by the San Diego Chargers and traded to theNewYork Giants, 2004
Drafted #1 by theHouston Texans, 2002
Today, as the president of an NFL BY MARKMURPHY
was there once. Although not drafted out of Colgate in 1977, I was offered a rookie free agent contract with the Redskins that year — for $21,000 plus a $2,000 signing bonus. I decided to put my whopping $14,000 offer from General Electric on hold and give the NFL a shot. I was lucky enough to make the team
A
and still have vivid memories of my rookie year, as well as my full eight-year career with the Redskins, especially tak- ing part in two Super Bowls and being one of the few Redskins to play for both coaches George Allen and Joe Gibbs. During those years, I spent a good deal
of time working with the NFL Players Association on behalf of my fellow play- ers. We felt we had to change a system that was not working for us. The rallying cry was “We Are the Game.”We sought a guaranteed percentage of revenue and went on strike twice in the 1980s to force changes.We didn’t achieve all our objec- tives, but we did lay the foundation for a system that now provides players with approximately $4.5 billion a year in compensation and benefits — almost 60 percent of total league revenue as de- fined in the collective bargaining agree- ment.
s the college football bowl sea- son kicks off,many players will nodoubt begin focusingonthe possibility of playing in the National Football League. I
franchise, the Green Bay Packers, Iamon the other side of the bargaining table, but I understand the players’ views and am committed to reaching a new labor agreement that is fair to players, teams and fans. The NFL teams are united around improving a system that is not working as well as it should be. A balanced agreement is essential so we can improve the experience for fans and ensure that all 32 teams remain competi- tive. Nobody wants a lockout or work stop-
page of any kind, but we must have an agreement that addresses the concerns ofNFLownership and management. The current labor agreement expires in March, and one of management’s biggest concerns is the exorbitant and inefficient spending on rookies. Rookies should be paid fairly, but they
should not be among the highest-paid NFL players before playing a single down. Teams don’t like it. Veterans and retired players don’t like it. Fans don’t like it. And the players’ union shouldn’t like it, either. Earlier this year, Sports Illustrated published a list of the 50 highest-paid American athletes. Five 2009 NFL rook- ies were on the list, averaging nearly $21 million in total income for their rookie year. Every other athlete on the list was a proven veteran. Our current system of paying rookies
doesn’t make sense. In 2009, 256 drafted rookies signed contracts calling for $1.2
billion in compensation with $585 mil- lion guaranteed. This year the numbers increased to $1.27 billion, including $660 million guaranteed, for 255 draft choices. No other business operates this way,
and no other union gives its entry-level hires such privileges. The system is so bad that some teams no longer want picks in the top part of the first round of the NFL draft. The cost is too high, especially if a player taken that early turns out to be a bust. Our management negotiating team
has proposed to the NFLPA a common- sense wage scale for incoming players. It is similar in some respects to the fixed entry-level scale for players in the Na- tional Basketball Association and the NationalHockey League, and is a critical component of a solution that would avoid a work stoppage. We estimate that a rookie wage scale
would free up more than a billion dollars during the term of a five-year agreement, and more if it is a longer deal. That money would be redistributed to veter- ans and retired players. The new entry- level system would end rookie holdouts that damage relations between the play- er and team, and would eliminate the complexities in the current rookie con- tracts. Under our proposal, mandatory con-
tract lengths would be five years for first-round players (six years for quarter- backs), four years for second- through seventh-round picks and three years for undrafted rookies (as I was). Players and
teams would be able to renegotiate and extend the initial contracts of first-round rookies after year three, and after year two for all other rookies. Under the proposal, the first pick in
the draft would sign a five-year contract andreceive a $5.34million signingbonus and $1.5 million salary his rookie year, even if he does not play a single down. In years two and three, his salary would be set at $1.7 million and $1.9 million, respectively. His fourth- and fifth-year
college and its players, resulting in the forfeiture of games, championships, awards and scholarships. I loved my time playing in the NFL
with the Redskins, and I’malso excited to be back in the NFL in my current role with the Packers. The tremendous pas- sion of our fans iswhatmakes working in the NFL so special.We are prepared and committed to work hard to reach an agreement with the players without a lockout next season. A rookie wage scale
Rookies should be paid fairly, but they should not be among the highest-paidNFL players before playing a single down.
salaries would rise to $2.3 million and $2.9 million for a total package of $15.6 million. (If he is a quarterback, he would be paid $4.3 million in year six.) The first pick would still be paid well, but at a much more reasonable level than under the current system. By eliminating individual negotia-
tions, a rookiewage scale should have the added benefit of reducing the influence of agents on our college campuses. Hav- ing served as a college athletic director for 16 years at Colgate andNorthwestern, I know firsthand that even one unscru- pulous agentwhochooses to breakNCAA rules can cause serious problems for a
will be a key factor in striking a deal with the union, along with a revised year- round football calendar — with 18 regu- lar-season games, two preseason games, fewer off-season practices, and addition- al steps to enhance player safety. I’mconfident that this common-sense approach will allow us to reach an agreement that works for players, teams and fans.
Mark Murphy is president and chief executive of the Green Bay Packers and a member of the NFL owners’ bargaining committee. From 1977 to 1984, he was a safety for theWashington Redskins.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160