Focus on long-term solutions? I don't think so!

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.  Albert Einstein

Today POLITICO carried an opinion piece titled, “End the budget brinkmanship.”  The authors are James Carter, who served as an associate director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush and on the staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and Paul Weinstein Jr., director of the Public Management program at Johns Hopkins University, who served as chief of staff of President Bill Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council and as senior adviser to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  Their opening paragraph says:

          Members of Congress will face two acute budget problems when they return to Washington next month. Having failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Congress will need to adopt a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown on Oct 1. And to avoid any hint of federal default, Congress will also need to raise the debt ceiling. If recent history is any guide, a hyperpartisan fight will lead to a last-minute resolution that skates by these short-term problems but does little or nothing to fix federal government’s larger, long-term budget problems. And so the can will be kicked down the road once again.

The authors then emphatically state:

         The United States cannot afford this budget brinksmanship.  The terms of the debate must change.

The authors emphasize that “…Washington has focused largely on the here and now.”  And, in the short-term, deficit reduction is being accomplished: “pushing the projected budget deficit below $1 trillion for the first time since 2008.”  Good news…right?  Not so fast: “In fact, the longer term picture is devastating.”  They go on to highlight that by 2031 “mandatory spending – Medicare, interest payments and other spending not controlled by Congress through the appropriations process – will consume ALL federal revenue.”  Then they point out, “Think about that: Every penny collected in taxes will be allocated before Congress even gavels in.”

These economists know that “the real problem is not where we are today; it’s where we are going.”  They support the INFORM* act because they claim it will “serve a critical role by refocusing Washington on America’s long-term crisis.” 

Their closing comment is, “It is time for Republicans and Democrats alike to face the facts, rather than kick the can.”

Carter worked for George W. Bush and Weinstein worked for Bill Clinton.  These two “experts” cut their collective teeth in a system that created our budgetary problems.  And, here they are advocating that we look for solutions to our Nation’s budgetary problems utilizing the same thinking that was used when those problems were created.  Does the INFORM act have merit?  Probably so.  Will it serve the purpose of “refocusing Washington on America’s long-term crisis?”  No.  Will Democrats and Republicans “face the facts, rather than kick the can?”  No. 

Even Carter and Weinstein admitted that “the can will be kicked down the road once again.”

And, let’s not be fooled, deficit reduction has nothing to do with debt reduction.  It only has to do with reducing the amount of spending in the red.  The debt still goes up and up and up.      

*For more information on the authors perceived benefits of the INFORM act, please read the article at the link below. 

Carter, James and Paul Weinstein Jr.  “End the budget brinksmanship.  POLITICO.com.  August 30, 2013.

Retrieved from:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/end-the-budget-brinksmanship-forever-96043.html?hp=r15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we "see" is not what we get.

When you change the way you look at a thing, the thing you look at changes.  Raymond Farrar

What is your gut feeling about taxation?  Do you think more taxation is good and warranted, or do you think less taxation is good and warranted?    

OpenSecrets.org carried a blog entry on July 22, 2013, titled “Internet Sales Tax Fight Moves to House.”  The article refers to the Market Place Fairness Act. 

                       The battle over a proposed Internet sale tax has moved to the House, with interests on both sides pouring money into the campaign coffers of potential allies.  The bill passed the Senate in May, and the fight for votes in the House is focused on tax-leery Republicans; most Democratic lawmakers appear to be behind the measure.  Opponents argue that it’s a new tax, while supporters say it simply compels enforcement of existing local and state sales levies.*

What do you think?  Is it a new tax, or is does it merely compel “enforcement of existing” levies?

Well, it doesn’t really matter what you think! 

 

What matters is who is “pouring money into the campaign coffers of potential allies.”  In this case, the money is from the Political Action Committees (PACs) of the National Retail Federation (NRF), Home Depot, Walmart and Amazon – all supporters of the legislation. 

The article highlighted the contributions to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R.-Ala.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, “which has jurisdiction over the measure.”  Rep. Bachus’ committee is a subcommittee in the House Judiciary Committee.  Contributing to the chairman of those committees is crucial because the chairman controls the legislative action within their committees.  They have the power to advance legislation or block it.

The article goes on to describe another ploy used by the NRF to influence lawmakers:

             Last Wednesday, the National Retail Federation organized a “fly in” – an en masse visit to   Capitol Hill by executives from its member companies – to talk to House Republicans supporting the tax.  In late June, the NRF also announced an inaugural award to members of Congress for being “Heroes of Mainstreet,” specifically for their support of the Internet sales tax legislation.  Of the 24 Republican “heroes” all but two received donations from either the NRF or one of the trade group’s top members.  Home Depot and Walmart were particularly generous with these 22 House Republicans, showering them with a combined $59,500.

Republicans opposed to the legislation received a total of $54,000 from eBay’s PAC.

The “face” of conservative ideology, which the Republican Party owns and actively promotes, is that taxes are bad.  Taxes deprive individuals and businesses of money they could use to invest and help the economy grow.  Taxes are a confiscation of wealth, which allows the government to re-distribute that wealth.  That is what we “see” because that is what the Republican Party leadership wants us to see.  They promote this aspect of conservatism to win elections.

However, what really goes on with our elected officials is entirely self-serving.  As the article points out, a symbiotic relationship exists between politicians and interest groups.  Interest groups like the NRF seek to influence the legislative process, while politicians secure campaign contributions from those same organizations.  And as stated previously, those in leadership, like Goodlatte and Bachus, are especially targeted because committee chairman control legislation in their respective committees. 

On August 8, 2012, USA TODAY carried a report titled, “This Congress could be least productive since 1947.”  The article refers to the 112^th Congress (currently the 113^th Congress is in session).  The article highlighted the fact that, “Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA TODAY analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk's office.”**

The money spent to affect the legislative outcome for the Market Place Fairness Act was $113,500 as of the time of the OpenSecrets article.  For illustration purposes, let’s say $20,000 was spent to influence the legislative action on the 3,914 bills mentioned in USA TODAY article.  That equals a total of $78,280,000 funneled to candidates.  The money moves, but results are not really all that important as evidenced by the fact that only 61 bills became law.

We tend to “see” politics as a battle of party ideologies.  My hope is now you can now change the way you look at politics and can now “see” it differently.

Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”  Our Nation has the problems it does because of our political culture, which operates to maintain the political status quo.  If we don’t change that culture, we will continue to use the same thinking to solve our Nation’s problems that was used when those problems were created: an impossibility.

*Choma, Russ.  “Internet Sales Tax Fight Moves to House.”  July, 22, 2013.  Retrieved from:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/07/internet-sales-tax-moves-to-h.html

**Davis, Susan.  “This Congress could be the least productive since 1947.”  August 15, 2012.  Retrieved from:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-08-14/unproductive-congress-not-passing-bills/57060096/1 

 

The Political Status Quo Must Change: Here's A Reason Why

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we created them.”  Albert Einstein

We must change the political status quo!

In a previous commentary I quoted Doug Sosnik, who POLITICO characterized as “one of the Democrats’ most veteran strategists.”  Sosnik wrote a memorandum titled, “America…Still Looking For Change That It Can Believe In.”*

In the memorandum, Sosnik provides an excellent explanation about how politics affects the legislative process (policy making) in Congress:

            In order to get anything done, the tectonic plates of policy imperatives need to line up with the politics of elected officials.  But at this point, the politics simply don’t line up with the policy needs of our country.  That is, most of politicians’ short-term imperatives don’t line up with the country’s long-term challenges, while the decisions that are in the country’s long—term interests frequently create short-term liabilities for politicians.

He goes on to point out that:

            As we approach the 2014 midterm elections…these political needs will increasingly override policy considerations.  For Congressional Republicans – many of whom fear losing a primary more than they do a general election – the pressure will increase to deny Obama and the Democrats any wins.   For Democrats in the House there will be increased pressure to highlight the distinctions between the two parties rather than muddy the waters through compromise.  In order to take back the House, it is in the Democrats’ interest to nationalize the midterm elections by portraying Republicans as dangerous and out of touch with the mainstream of the country.

Here Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, is emphatically stating that the short-term imperative need for politicians to win the next election supersedes the need to find long-term solutions to our Nation’s problems.  The very people we have hired, through the elective process, to find long-term solutions have subverted that process to enable them to pursue their own self-serving and self-aggrandizing interests.

Will our elected officials change their behaviors?  Why should they?  They have no incentive to do so.  In fact, the incentives of a long political career all support their working diligently to maintain the political status quo.  They win, but the Nation loses. 

Einstein said: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we created them.”  Do we hope our career politicians will change their behaviors?  Yes, I believe we do.  However, I also believe we are naïve if we honestly think they will.

The “We” Einstein refers to includes us.  We helped create the problems that exist through our voting patterns.  We will not find solutions to our Nation’s problems if we don’t behave differently: vote differently.  We must change the political status quo!

* Sosnik, Doug.  “America…Still Looking For Change That It Can Believe In”  May 9, 2013.  Retrived from: http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/09/sosnik_memo_59_final.html

Have you ever wondered why...?

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”   Albert Einstein

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein

“When you change the way you look at a thing, the thing you look at changes.”  Raymond Farrar

“When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.”  Charley Reese

Our Nation faces serious challenges.

Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, regularly contributes to CNN.com’s opinion pages.  His opinion column for May 25, 2013, was titled, “Fix our tax headaches.”  Regarding the recent IRS tax scandal he stated, “While investigations to determine whether laws were violated and who should be blamed are important, it is crucial that Congress use the moments of opportunity to reform processes and laws that are broken.”*

This sounds like a call to action.  But……… 

In the column Zelizer provides a history of some reforms that were legislated as a result of previous scandals.  However, as he states:

           Tax reform is always extraordinarily difficult to accomplish, even though the issue draws support from liberals who seek to create a fairer system and conservatives who want a more efficient system.  The problem is that the status quo is powerful.

Zelizer explains why the status quo is powerful: “There are vested interests, both organizations with financial power and bureaucrats, who don’t want anything to change.”  Those interests and bureaucrats will fight to maintain the status quo.  But, vested interests and bureaucrats don’t pass laws.

Charley Reese (please see the post immediately below) provided

the following:

            Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?  Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes we have inflation and high taxes?

That can be changed to read, “Have you ever wondered why, if Democrats want a fairer tax system and Republicans want a more efficient tax system, we don’t have a fairer and more efficient tax system?  Zelizer provides an interesting insight: “Scandals such as these have the potential to change the equation, by creating political pressure on elected officials to do something to the system upon which they thrive.”  In other words, if there is no political pressure, there is no incentive for our elected officials to “do something to the system upon which they thrive.”

Above I provide Charley Reese’s comment: “When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.”  He also wrote:

            There are no insoluble government problems.  Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from which they can take it.

Zelizer states, “The more government can do to create the impression that the system is working well, the more confidence we can gain in our government on the right and the left.”  Do we want to base our confidence in government on a created impression, or do we want our confidence to be based on results?  As Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” 

* Zelizer, Julian.  “Fix our tax headaches.”  CNN.com.  May 28,2013.  Retrieved from:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/opinion/zelizer-tax-reform/index.html?hpt=op_r1 

In America We Have A Problem I quoted and commented on portions of Charley Reese's 1984 article titled "545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con."  Below is the orginal article taken from the Orlando Sentinel website:

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1984-02-03/news/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-1984073111_1_tax-code-president-vetoes-con-game

 

February 3, 1984|By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

 

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the constitutional authority to vote [o]n appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. The Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, the Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of 238 million- are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Bank because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I exclude all of the special interest and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Don't you see now the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes. O'Neill is speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

Just 545 Americans have fouled up this great nation.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted - by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical force like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. [T]hey and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”   Albert Einstein

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein

“When you change the way you look at a thing, the thing you look at changes.”  Raymond Farrar

Our Nation faces serious challenges.

For this post I have added a third quote, which is from my friend Raymond Farrar.  In order to enjoy credible change we must be able to “see” our Nation’s politics differently.  Only then will we see it for what it truly is: the mechanism by which those who profit the most from the political process work to maintain the political status quo.

As you read, please consider how the reported actions of our political leaders is in any way getting at finding solutions to our Nation’s problems. 

Lately the news cycle has been dominated by stories about the Obama administration’s involvement/knowledge of the Benghazi attack, the IRS’s monitoring of conservative groups, and the Department of Justice’s probe into the Associated Press.  The issues have provided excellent political fodder for Republicans.  Individual politicians with an “R” beside their names are attempting to capitalize by using what POLITICO characterized as “incendiary” language to support their individual political ambitions:  “It helps Republicans raise money, get on FOX and excite conservatives.”* 

However, the “incendiary” language is problematic for the party’s leadership:

Republicans are worried one thing could screw up the political gift of three Obama administration controversies at once: fellow Republicans.  Top GOP leaders are privately warning members to put a sock in it when it comes to silly calls for impeachment or over-the-top comparisons to Watergate.  They want members to focus on months of fact-finding investigations – not rhetorical fury.

Why do GOP leaders want members “to put a sock in it” and tamp down the “rhetorical fury?”  They want to frame a strategy, with its associated themes and messages, which will maximize the party’s political gain.  Reince Preibus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) provides a clue about the strategy:

         We have to be patient, but persistent.  I think where there is smoke there is fire.  If we present ourselves to the American people as intelligent, we’re going to be in a great place as far as showing that this administration is not transparent, is obsessed with power and hates dissent.  But you don’t call for impeachment until you have evidence.

Please note that Priebus is not an elected representative.  His sole function as Chairman of the RNC is to ensure Republicans beat Democrats, period.  However, here he is shaping political strategy that elected Republican representatives are expect to follow in the interest of the Republican Party.

Priebus said the strategy would help Republicans present themselves as being “intelligent.”  What does the Republican leadership want to avoid? 

         Republican leaders privately say the best way and only way to avoid a public backlash is by using their congressional powers to aggressively investigate each matter – and let the facts carry the news, rather than stunts or rhetoric.  ‘We have stuff here that is real, so you don’t need the distraction of politics to give people an excuse to say we’re being silly,’ said a House Republican leadership aide involved in the investigations.  ‘Everyone is keenly aware of the overreach risk.’

They want to ensure people aren’t given an excuse to say Republicans are “being silly.”  They also don’t want to accusations of overreaching, which ultimately equates to political risk.  The leadership is “aware of their long history of taking scandal crusades too far, and turning damaged political figures like Bill Clinton into popular victims.”

Who else is aware?  “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are banking on the GOP going overboard.”  Consequently, the Republican leadership must ensure the Democratic leadership is frustrated.

 

Allen, Mike and Jim VandeHei.  “Why the GOP thinks it could blow it.”  May 16, 2013.  POLICTO.com

Retrieved from:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/behind-the-curtain-why-the-gop-thinks-it-could-blow-it-91528.html

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”   Albert Einstein

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein

Our Nation faces serious challenges. 

On June 16, 2011, Psychology Today carried an article titled “Don’t Blame the Politicians: Why voters lie to themselves.”  In the article Dr. Loretta Graziano Breuning states:

It’s natural to like people who smile on your dreams.  Politicians win our affection [and their elections] by encouraging our dreams.  Politicians want to please us, and we want them to please us.  Democracy means being told what you want to hear.* 

However, she goes on to point out, “If voters expect politicians to fulfill all their wishes, they are asking to be lied to.”

Dr. Breuning explains that politicians “are as flawed as the rest of us.”  Consequently, we shouldn’t blame them for our Nation’s problems because “they’re just representing their constituencies.”  We want them to tell us they can solve the problems so they oblige.

When was the last time a politician was honest and told us, “Trade-offs are part of life.  A choice that brings more of X leaves less of Y.”  Why don’t they tell us?  Because we really don’t want to hear it ourselves.  Telling us such things would create political risk, which is unacceptable when your greatest imperative is winning that next election.

That is not to say politicians are totally without blame: “Of course we need to watch politicians to make sure we don’t get swindled.  Power does corrupt.”

Then Dr. Breuning offers this caution:

… if you’re just sifting for details that fit your malicious preconceptions [confirmation bias], you’re not open to the truth.  Hostile watchdogs are not good guides to public policy.  They’re against everything except their pet panacea….      

If we cannot solve our problems using the same thinking we used when we created them, what will lead us to solutions?  As Dr. Bruening points out, “The onus is on us to have reasonable expectations.”

*Breuning, Loretta Graziano.  “Don’t Blame the Politicians: Why voters lie to themselves.”  June 16, 2011.  PsychologyToday.com  Retrieved from:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201106/read-my-lips-politispeak/don-t-blame-the-politicians