POLITICS: who benefits the most?

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.  Wayne Dyer

Please take a look at this slide:



On the left is us, the voters: 126+ million of us voted for Obama or Romney in the 2012 Presidential election.  On the right is a much smaller group representing the media, campaign professionals, lobbyists, interest groups, think tanks and pundits. Please note that in the center of it all are career politicians.

Every two years we elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives and approximately 1/3 of all Senators.  Every four years we elect a President.   

Each Congress meets for two years and consists of a first and second session.  Currently, the 113th Congress is in session.  So, what happens during those two years?  POLITICS!

Who benefits the most from politics, and subsequently from maintaining the political status quo?  Not surprisingly, the group on the right.  The divisive language foisted on us by the Democrats and Republicans is parroted by their biased media allies for ratings and revenue.  The media and campaign professionals benefit from costly campaigns via advertising revenues and large salaries.  Lobbyists are paid fees to pedal influence on behalf of interest groups.  In addition to hiring lobbyists, interest groups also contribute to candidates' campaigns to secure legislation favors.  Pundits, a subset of the media, profits from their following.  Think tanks attempt to influence policy through their biased positions on issues.  And again, at the center of it all are the career politicians who obtain positions of power as they advance their careers.  The group on the right operates in a perpetual cycle of: attempting to influence policy on behalf of narrow interests, making policy based on that influence, and reporting on the process. 

Money drives the cycle and is the incentive to perpetuate the cycle.  Maintaining the political status quo ensures the cycle continues to enrich and empower the players in the group on the right.

What is the result?  More POLITICS!        



  

               

A collective sigh of relief...not so fast!

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

What a relief!  It looks like Congress will avert a default and the government will open again.  I feel so much better.....NOT!  This Congress has once again done what it seems to do best, kick the can down the road.  What really makes me nauseous is the fact they claim their short-sighted action is a victory for "the American people."  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said such today, "This compromise we reached will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs." 

For how long?!  Assuming the House passes the Senate version of the bill, and the President signs it, the government will be funded through Jan 15th and the debt ceiling will be raised until Feb 7th.

Will our elected representatives magically transform into selfless servants between now and then?  I don't think so.  History tells us their self serving interests will again supersede the need to find long-term solutions to our Nation's budget problems?

I am tired of being one of "the American people" our career politicians love to invoke as supporting their shoddy work.  They do not speak for me.  Harry Reid said the current "deal" will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs."  I reject his message, and I reject the political status quo that has gotten us where we are today.

I have seen it written that we get the government we deserve.  That seems like a reasonable claim given the fact that we do still hold elections.  However, as President Obama himself has said, we deserve better.  But, we will never get better without breaking the political status quo.  In spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, it is not in the interest of Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid or McConnell to be better .  They thrive in a system that rewards them for the dysfunction and the short-sightedness they actually propagate through their leadership.

If, as Obama says, we deserve better, we must break the political status quo by changing our voting behaviors.  We must break the stranglehold the two-party system has on the governing process.  We must reduce the incentives that promote political careerism by forcing rotation in office. 

Also, we must demand a change in the slate of candidates offered, and then vote our convictions.  There are independent and third party candidates with good ideas, but they don't get an honest electoral vetting because everything associated with the political status quo works against them. 

         
    

"It's time to give rank amateurs a chance."

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

Rick Newman, The Exchange, wrote an article yesterday titled: “4 Things Congress Can Get Away With but You Can’t.”*  He puts the “4 Things” in a business context:

“Congress, for better or worse, is not run like a business, which is why we’re once again confronted with the spectacle of a needless government shutdown. No viable company would arbitrarily shut itself down, leaving customers, suppliers and employees in the lurch. To members of Congress, however, these are minor inconveniences compared with the urgent national need to draw attention to themselves. When companies are forced to shut down, it’s usually dire. But when Washington shuts down, it’s a tactic.”  In other words, it all boils down to one thing: politics.

Democrats in the Senate, and the current Democrat that occupies the White House, blame the Republican controlled House for the shutdown.  House Republicans blame the Democrat controlled Senate for the shutdown.  As I stated in an earlier post, they’re all right!  They’re all to blame!

In 1984 Charley Reese stated: “…do not let them con you into the belief that there exist[s] disembodied mystical force[s] like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation’ or ‘politics’ that prevent from doing what they take an oath to do.”  One of the most fundamental functions of the Congress is to complete a budget process that funds the government for the next fiscal year no later than September 30^th of each year. 

The current shutdown exists because they want it to exist.  They alone are personally, morally and legally responsible for its existence.

Our problems will not be solved with the same thinking that was used when they were created.  But, there is hope.  As Charley Reese said, “There are no insoluble government problems.” 

I will close with the following from Newman’s article: “If the sorry performance we’ve been getting is the best that seasoned professionals can offer, then it’s time to give rank amateurs a chance.”  Think about it.

*Please find the Newman article posted at:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/4-things-congress-away-t-174904899.html

History repeating itself...I guess we haven't learned

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

From the Gallup polling organization:

“September 30, 2013

More in U.S. Say Shutdown Is About Politics Than Principle: Attitudes similar to those in November 1995

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are more likely to believe the current budget debate between President Barack Obama and the Republicans in Congress is an attempt by both sides to gain political advantage (47%) than an important battle over principles and the future direction of government (37%). These views are similar to Americans' attitudes on the day the government shut down in November 1995 as a result of that year's political impasse when 52% said the budget debate was political, while 37% said it was based on disagreement about principles.”*

In 1995 we recognized that politics trumps principles, and really all other considerations, for the political ruling class.  In 2013 a majority of those polled, albeit a smaller one, recognize the same thing.   We are now 18 years removed from the last shutdown, and nine election cycles. 

What has changed?  Absolutely nothing has changed!  Why?  Because we help to maintain the political status quo through our voting behaviors. 

How many of the same players that are involved in the current shutdown debacle were in office in 1995?  And, it doesn’t really matter if they are Democrats or Republicans.  What matters is they have grown up in a system in which they have not been held accountable.  Based on their past experience, they now feel it is ok, in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary, to employ tactics that bring the government to the point of shutdown merely for political gain.  Congress cannot do its most fundamental job, passing a budget, because the people in leadership have grown up in a system that has an abysmal record of doing so.  There has been no consequences for their bad behaviors, so why should they change them?

We, you and I, must change the political status quo by holding our elected officials accountable through the elective process.  However, it is not enough to continue to vote for candidates with Ds and Rs beside their names.  How well has that worked out for us?  We must seek out and elect independent and third party candidates in order to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans that will force them to think and behave differently.  They will not do it on their own. 

If we continue to use the same thinking, and subsequently engage in the same voting behaviors we have in the past, we will never arrive at solutions to our Nation’s problems.      

*http://www.gallup.com/poll/164708/say-shutdown-politics-principle.aspx

They unite in a common con

545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con.  Charley Reese, 1984

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.  Charley Reese, 1984

The country faces another government shutdown on 1 OCT.  WHY?  Please read the second quote above again. 

One con the 545 engage in is the blame game.  Democrats blame Republicans for being obstructionists, engaging in partisan politics, and not looking out for the interests of “the American people.”  Republicans blame Democrats for being obstructionists, engaging in partisan politics, and not looking out for “the American people.  The really sad thing is, they’re both right. 

So, is it the Republican majority in the House that is being obstructionist or is the Democratic majority in Senate and the current Democrat that occupies the White House that are being obstructionists?  Or, is it all just political gamesmanship?  As Charlie Reese said, “they unite in a common con.”

The blame game is all about the message.  The party that does a better job of convincing “the American people” that the other side is causing the problem wins!  And after all, isn’t that what really matters.

Here is some Democratic messaging reported by POLITICO today: “Democrats are portraying support for the House language [which defunds the ACA] as a vote for a shutdown.” “House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) pushed back, explaining that Democrats have been trying to negotiate for months.  He pointed to the Republican refusal to convene a conference to come to a compromise between the House and Senate passed budgets.  Instead, Van Hollen said, Republicans intentionally stalled budget negotiations so they could attach an attempt to defund Obamacare on a last-minute spending bill.  ‘Drive the country to the cliff and then say give us what we want,’ Van Hollen said.

Here is some Republican messaging from Senator Ted Cruz: “’If we have a shutdown, it will be because Harry Reid holds that absolutist position and essentially holds the American people hostage,’ the Texas Republican said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’  He says, ‘I’m not willing to compromise, I’m not willing to even talk. His position is 100 percent of Obamacare must be funded in all instances. Other than that, he’s going to shut the government down.’”

 What’s at stake?  “That message could carry huge political implications for Republicans. The GOP took the blame for the government shutdowns in the 1990s and polling suggests the same could happen now.  Republicans acknowledged as much, with Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador telling ‘Meet the Press’: ‘I think everybody agrees that this is a loser for us.’”  The Republicans must do all they can to counter what appears to be successful Democratic messaging.

Will there be a shutdown, or will there be an eleventh hour short-term, shortsighted compromise for which the two parties can declare a victory “for the American people?”  We’ll have to wait and see. 

Just 545 Americans have fouled up this great nation.   Charley Reese, 1984

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million [300 million today] cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted – by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.  Charley Reese 1984

And, if you please indulge me, just one more from Charley Reese:  Those 545 people and they alone are responsible.  They and they alone have the power.  They and they alone should be held accountable by the people [us] who are their bosses – provided they [we] have the gumption to manage their [our] employees.

To read the POLITCO article please go to
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-2013-gop-narrative-97521.html#ixzz2gKV5AA8H

Are we angry enough?!

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.  Wayne Dyer

Authors note: My friend Raymond Farrar said, “When you change the way you look at a thing, the thing you look at changes,” which I have been using in my writings.  Now that I know the original quote, and the source of the quote, l will use the original and attribute it properly in the future.

That being said, the meaning is the same.  We must change the way we “look” at the political process in our Nation to understand why we have the problems we have.  More importantly, we must change the way we look at it, or we will never be able to rely on those elect to find long-term solutions to those problems.  Only by “seeing” things differently can we bring about credible change.

What is the most pressing problem our Nation faces?  Is it the debt?  Is it the budget?  Is it the economy?  Is it tax reform?  Is it immigration reform?  Is it race relations?  Is it gun control?  Is it the farm bill?  Is it the environment?  Is it campaign finance reform?  Is it…?

The answer is, none of the above.  Our Nation’s most pressing problem is the fact that the political status quo is perpetually maintained.  All of the above are important, but they are really only byproducts: merely the results of the political status quo being maintained over the past several decades.

Politics is about the calculus of winning elections.  Governing is about policy making through the legislative process.  We have allowed, and continue to allow, politics to serve as a poor substitute for statesmanship.  Consequently, the short-term imperative need for career politicians to win elections supersedes the need to find long-term solutions to our Nation’s problems.  Remember, in our republican form of democracy, we elect those who are empowered to exercise control over the government.

To enjoy credible change in our Nation’s governance we must break the political status quo.  We must begin to, borrowing from an oft used cliché, literally "think outside the box."  Continuing to accept the lie that must only vote either "D" or "R" will ensure we never achieve credible change.  Subsequently, we will continue to get the same "politics as usual" that is bringing about the slow demise of the Untied States. 

 

We say we are angry about how Washington operates?  However, are we angry enough to do anything concrete about it.

 

Demand alternatives to Ds and Rs in 2014!     

 

   

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