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