Today POLITICO.com carried a report entitled, "Poll: 81% unhappy with government."* The article states:
"A record-high number of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, a new poll says.
An overwhelming majority of respondents, 81 percent, said that they are not satisfied with the governance of the country, compared with 19 percent who are satisfied, according to Gallup."
I read through most of the 50 blog comments provided by readers in response to the article. The majority were the typical bashing of one party or the other and playing the blame game. We must wake up to the fact that by engaging in these behaviors we are contributing to our own frustration and feelings of dissatisfaction.
We can play the blame game all we want. However, if we want credible change we must take a look in the mirror and face the truth that we are to blame. Politicians behave like they do, and the governing process unfolds like it does, because we let it happen. Every two years we can vote out every House member and 1/3 of all Senators. But, we don't, then wonder why we are dissatisfied with Congress and the governing process.
As long as we validate career politicians' behaviors with our voting patterns, they will not change those behaviors. It is only logical that they feel justified in acting the way they do when we re-elect them time and time again.
Only when we change our patterns of thinking and behaving will politicians change their behaviors. Only when we make elections the means of achieving accountability will we restore confidence in the governing process.
*The article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64390.html
Monday, September 26, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
We're Conflicted
Today Yahoo carried a blog entry on its "The Ticket" page by Rachel Rose Hartman titled, "Poll suggests 2012 change in power in Washington." *
In the entry Ms. Hartman sites a USA Today/Gallup poll:
"Only 24 percent of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election 'the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991' the newspaper reports."
The entry also states, "However, the poll shows that 56 percent of adults believe their own representative deserves re-election."
Something doesn't seem quite right. A fairly substantial majority thinks most members of Congress should go, yet, albeit smaller, a majority also thinks their own representative deserves re-election. The attitude seems to be, your guy is the problem, not mine. You vote your guy out because I'm going to keep voting for my guy.
So who has the courage to follow their convictions and vote their guy out? Apparently not enough people to make any real difference. Consequently, we continue to help perpetuate a dysfunctional political process that serves the interests of career politicians to our own detriment.
* The blog entry can be retrieved from:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html
In the entry Ms. Hartman sites a USA Today/Gallup poll:
"Only 24 percent of all adults surveyed in the USA Today/Gallup poll said most members of Congress deserve re-election 'the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 1991' the newspaper reports."
The entry also states, "However, the poll shows that 56 percent of adults believe their own representative deserves re-election."
Something doesn't seem quite right. A fairly substantial majority thinks most members of Congress should go, yet, albeit smaller, a majority also thinks their own representative deserves re-election. The attitude seems to be, your guy is the problem, not mine. You vote your guy out because I'm going to keep voting for my guy.
So who has the courage to follow their convictions and vote their guy out? Apparently not enough people to make any real difference. Consequently, we continue to help perpetuate a dysfunctional political process that serves the interests of career politicians to our own detriment.
* The blog entry can be retrieved from:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-suggests-2012-change-power-washington-131541841.html
Monday, August 8, 2011
What China has to say. Does it matter? You be the judge.
On August 6, Yahoo carried a Reuters report by Walter Brandimarte and Melanie Lee titled, "China tells U.S. 'good old days' of borrowing are over"* The report states:
"China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the 'good old days' of borrowing were over.
Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.
China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.
'The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,' China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.
In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling.
'China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,' it said.
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.
'International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,' Xinhua said."
I take one exception to this article. The authors state that China is our largest creditor. That is not true. According to the US Treasury, in May 2011** all foreign investment in US securities equaled $4.514T. China owned the largest share of that amount at $1.1598T. The total national debt is over $14T. China's amount represents about 8.25% of that total. Significant, yes, but that does not make them our largest creditor.
However, that being said, should we just ignore what the Xinhua agency said. No, because they make some very valid points. Like, "The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone." Is this just rhetoric? Perhaps, but even our own elected officials agree we cannot continue to support all our programs by borrowing. I find it most interesting that the Chinese are able to recognize that the messes are of our "own making," but we can't.
I think this comment is very telling, "China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling." Do we have a debt addiction? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I like their use of the term "wrangling" when they describe our political process. Webster says wrangle is a verb meaning "to argue; quarrel, esp. noisily." Clearly, on important issues like the debt ceiling debate the parties like to quarrel noisily.
"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country." This is perhaps the most profound contention China makes.
Debt is a form of bondage; it limits one's ability to act and makes one more susceptible to be acted upon. What does China mean by stating the dollar should be subject to "international supervision?" It means losing our sovereignty and the ability to control our own destiny. Greece lost its freedom to act and instead was acted upon by the European Union's demands for austerity measures.
We must not allow ourselves to be complacent and think it could never happen to us.
* The Reuters article can be found at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/crisis-idUSLDE77504C20110806
** The Department of the Treasury data can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
"China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the 'good old days' of borrowing were over.
Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation's budget deficits and climbing debt burden.
China -- the United States' biggest creditor -- said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency.
'The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,' China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.
In the Xinhua commentary, China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling.
'China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,' it said.
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure. Further credit downgrades would very likely undermine the world economic recovery and trigger new rounds of financial turmoil, it said.
'International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country,' Xinhua said."
I take one exception to this article. The authors state that China is our largest creditor. That is not true. According to the US Treasury, in May 2011** all foreign investment in US securities equaled $4.514T. China owned the largest share of that amount at $1.1598T. The total national debt is over $14T. China's amount represents about 8.25% of that total. Significant, yes, but that does not make them our largest creditor.
However, that being said, should we just ignore what the Xinhua agency said. No, because they make some very valid points. Like, "The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone." Is this just rhetoric? Perhaps, but even our own elected officials agree we cannot continue to support all our programs by borrowing. I find it most interesting that the Chinese are able to recognize that the messes are of our "own making," but we can't.
I think this comment is very telling, "China scorned the United States for its 'debt addiction' and 'short sighted' political wrangling." Do we have a debt addiction? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I like their use of the term "wrangling" when they describe our political process. Webster says wrangle is a verb meaning "to argue; quarrel, esp. noisily." Clearly, on important issues like the debt ceiling debate the parties like to quarrel noisily.
"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country." This is perhaps the most profound contention China makes.
Debt is a form of bondage; it limits one's ability to act and makes one more susceptible to be acted upon. What does China mean by stating the dollar should be subject to "international supervision?" It means losing our sovereignty and the ability to control our own destiny. Greece lost its freedom to act and instead was acted upon by the European Union's demands for austerity measures.
We must not allow ourselves to be complacent and think it could never happen to us.
* The Reuters article can be found at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/crisis-idUSLDE77504C20110806
** The Department of the Treasury data can be found at:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
In their own words.
Today, CNN carried a report by Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen titled, "Obama signs debt ceiling bill, ends crisis."* The article states, "Obama praised the deal as 'an important first step for ensuring that as a nation we live within our means.'"
The article also states, "...the American economy 'didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis,' the president noted. 'It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government,' the president said."
The last paragraph says:
"'I think all of us need to reflect on how these institutions are conducting themselves, how members are conducting themselves,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who has announced he is not seeking re-election next year. 'We need to think about why are we really here. We're here to solve problems. We're not here to worry about the next election, and unfortunately there's too much focus on pure partisan politics and not enough focus on solving problems confronting the country.'"
I have italicized statements for emphasis. They are not italicized in the article.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
In his own words Obama admits that the debt ceiling crisis was "manufactured." To what ends? Then he admits "it was something that we could have avoided entirely." So why didn't they.
To know why, re-read Conrads comments above.
In his own words Conrad acknowledges that career politicians are more interested in their long careers in public service than they are in "solving problems confronting the country." I find it interesting that Conrad is willing to speak so candidly now that he is retiring from the Senate after serving for 25 years!
To stop the political insanity WE must put a stop to political careerism.
*The CNN article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/02/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
The article also states, "...the American economy 'didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis,' the president noted. 'It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government,' the president said."
The last paragraph says:
"'I think all of us need to reflect on how these institutions are conducting themselves, how members are conducting themselves,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who has announced he is not seeking re-election next year. 'We need to think about why are we really here. We're here to solve problems. We're not here to worry about the next election, and unfortunately there's too much focus on pure partisan politics and not enough focus on solving problems confronting the country.'"
I have italicized statements for emphasis. They are not italicized in the article.
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
In his own words Obama admits that the debt ceiling crisis was "manufactured." To what ends? Then he admits "it was something that we could have avoided entirely." So why didn't they.
To know why, re-read Conrads comments above.
In his own words Conrad acknowledges that career politicians are more interested in their long careers in public service than they are in "solving problems confronting the country." I find it interesting that Conrad is willing to speak so candidly now that he is retiring from the Senate after serving for 25 years!
To stop the political insanity WE must put a stop to political careerism.
*The CNN article can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/02/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn4
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Disappointed? Yes. Suprised? No.
Our ship of state is still off course. Am I disappointed? Yes. Am I surprised? No.
Today Yahoo.com carried a Reuters report by Tim Reid and Emily Kaiser titled, "Debt deal set to pass but what were the costs?"* Their report provides valuable insights into the outcomes of the debt ceiling debate. They wrote, "While the immediate crisis over a threatened default seems to have been averted by the eleventh-hour deal between the White House and Congress, the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process...." They also stated, "The long, tortured debate exposed toxic partisanship and legislative dysfunction in Washington just when judicious efforts at reform were most needed, shaking the faith of international investors and ordinary Americans alike."
The authors quote economists Christina Romer, formerly on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, and Stephen Roach, a Yale lecturer and non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley. Romer states, "If we don't deal with these deficits there is no way we won't eventually default and become a much weaker country."
Roach stated:
"Make no mistake, we are not getting a major breakthrough in America's fiscal dilemma out of this deal. Talk about kicking the can down the road - this is probably the biggest can that's ever been kicked."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
Our career politicians behaved just as expected; they avoided political risk and instead did what was politically expedient by "kicking the can down the road." They then had the audacity to fawn all over themselves about what a great job they did for "the American people." What do you think? Did they act in the interests of the American people?
My hope is that as Reid and Kaiser pointed out, that "the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process," is true. That would be the most beneficial result from this latest insanity from our career politicians and the two parties that support them. The problem is the process itself.
We hope for change. We vote for change. But, nothing really changes. To enjoy credible change we must begin to question the process.
* The Yahoo.com report can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-set-pass-were-costs-045917154.html
Today Yahoo.com carried a Reuters report by Tim Reid and Emily Kaiser titled, "Debt deal set to pass but what were the costs?"* Their report provides valuable insights into the outcomes of the debt ceiling debate. They wrote, "While the immediate crisis over a threatened default seems to have been averted by the eleventh-hour deal between the White House and Congress, the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process...." They also stated, "The long, tortured debate exposed toxic partisanship and legislative dysfunction in Washington just when judicious efforts at reform were most needed, shaking the faith of international investors and ordinary Americans alike."
The authors quote economists Christina Romer, formerly on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, and Stephen Roach, a Yale lecturer and non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley. Romer states, "If we don't deal with these deficits there is no way we won't eventually default and become a much weaker country."
Roach stated:
"Make no mistake, we are not getting a major breakthrough in America's fiscal dilemma out of this deal. Talk about kicking the can down the road - this is probably the biggest can that's ever been kicked."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
Our career politicians behaved just as expected; they avoided political risk and instead did what was politically expedient by "kicking the can down the road." They then had the audacity to fawn all over themselves about what a great job they did for "the American people." What do you think? Did they act in the interests of the American people?
My hope is that as Reid and Kaiser pointed out, that "the debt-limit drama has left behind crucial questions about the American political process," is true. That would be the most beneficial result from this latest insanity from our career politicians and the two parties that support them. The problem is the process itself.
We hope for change. We vote for change. But, nothing really changes. To enjoy credible change we must begin to question the process.
* The Yahoo.com report can be found at http://news.yahoo.com/debt-deal-set-pass-were-costs-045917154.html
Saturday, July 30, 2011
"For the American people."
Today Yahoo.com carried an Associated Press (AP) report by Andrew Taylor titled, "Dems, GOP still at loggerheads as clock ticks."* The article quotes President Obama:
"'There is very little time,' President Barack Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. He called for an end to political gamesmanship, saying 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'"
Obama claims "there is very little time." His administration's messaging has been that on August 2nd the government will begin to default on its obligations. So, based on that messaging there is indeed very little time. We're almost there, so he says, 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'" And, what is his solution to reach a compromise, end "political gamesmanship."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
To reach a compromise he called for an end to "political gamesmanship." Why did he say that? Because it makes him sound presidential. He is attempting to build the perception that he is above the fray and is displaying leadership. But, what he is really doing is acknowledging the fact that the political games the parties and their leadership (of which he is one) have been engaged in have precipitated the very crisis we now face. My question is, if the games must now be ended as he contends to reach a compromise, to what ends have they been pursued up until this point?
I find it so disingenuous when politicians invoke the interests of "the American people" when they speak.
Has it been in the interests of the American people for the parties and their leadership to engage in their political games? Obama stated that, "the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now." Think about that comment for a moment. Why now? Why not months ago? If our politicians really cared about the interests of the American people wouldn't they have reached a compromise much sooner and avoided a crisis? Now the administration scares the old and infirm by threatening their Social Security payments. Doesn't that constitute political gamesmanship?
Political careerism creates a conflict of interest for our elected officials. Political gamesmanship is a euphemism for the actions and behaviors they engage in as they pursue their long careers in "public service." We elect them to serve us and represent our interests. However, their natural tendency is to act and behave in ways that enhance the chances of advancing their careers. Consequently, their self-serving interests supersede the interests of constituents and the imperative need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.
*The link to the AP story is:
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-gop-still-loggerheads-clock-ticks-074111936.html
"'There is very little time,' President Barack Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. He called for an end to political gamesmanship, saying 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'"
Obama claims "there is very little time." His administration's messaging has been that on August 2nd the government will begin to default on its obligations. So, based on that messaging there is indeed very little time. We're almost there, so he says, 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'" And, what is his solution to reach a compromise, end "political gamesmanship."
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
To reach a compromise he called for an end to "political gamesmanship." Why did he say that? Because it makes him sound presidential. He is attempting to build the perception that he is above the fray and is displaying leadership. But, what he is really doing is acknowledging the fact that the political games the parties and their leadership (of which he is one) have been engaged in have precipitated the very crisis we now face. My question is, if the games must now be ended as he contends to reach a compromise, to what ends have they been pursued up until this point?
I find it so disingenuous when politicians invoke the interests of "the American people" when they speak.
Has it been in the interests of the American people for the parties and their leadership to engage in their political games? Obama stated that, "the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now." Think about that comment for a moment. Why now? Why not months ago? If our politicians really cared about the interests of the American people wouldn't they have reached a compromise much sooner and avoided a crisis? Now the administration scares the old and infirm by threatening their Social Security payments. Doesn't that constitute political gamesmanship?
Political careerism creates a conflict of interest for our elected officials. Political gamesmanship is a euphemism for the actions and behaviors they engage in as they pursue their long careers in "public service." We elect them to serve us and represent our interests. However, their natural tendency is to act and behave in ways that enhance the chances of advancing their careers. Consequently, their self-serving interests supersede the interests of constituents and the imperative need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.
*The link to the AP story is:
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-gop-still-loggerheads-clock-ticks-074111936.html
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Today, POLITICO carried a report entitled, "Obama: 'Do what's right for country,' highlighting comments from his weekly address to the Nation.* In his comments about the debt ceiling debate he stated:
"We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars,” he said. “We need an approach that makes some serious cuts to worthy programs – cuts I wouldn’t make under normal circumstances. And we need an approach that asks everybody to do their part.”
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
What on earth does Obama mean? What are the "normal circumstances" he is referring to? What am I being asked to do? After all, he says everybody should do their part. This is a great example of the same tired rhetoric we get from our political leaders. Rhetoric intended to pacify us and make us think our career politicians are really working on our behalf. But what is really going on?
Let's not forget that Obama has an election to win in 2012. Saying things like "cuts I wouldn't make under normal circumstances" is all about political cover. He wants us to know that he wouldn't change a thing except for the current crisis engulfing the Nation over the debt ceiling limit. Next year he will campaign on the fact that he made the "tough choices" to steer the country out of the crisis. Being the consummate politician he knows he must build expectations now to support his re-election bid next year.
That being said, rest assured that the same calculus is going on with the Republican leadership. Boehner wants to remain Speaker of the House in 2012. He must figure out how to maximize political gain for his party to ensure they remain the majority party in the House to retain their hold on power.
Politicians love a crisis. What we must understand is that the debt ceiling crisis has been foisted upon us by the very political leaders that are attempting to exploit it for their personal benefit.
* Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59702.html#ixzz1Sxke7mSj
"We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars,” he said. “We need an approach that makes some serious cuts to worthy programs – cuts I wouldn’t make under normal circumstances. And we need an approach that asks everybody to do their part.”
Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on.
What on earth does Obama mean? What are the "normal circumstances" he is referring to? What am I being asked to do? After all, he says everybody should do their part. This is a great example of the same tired rhetoric we get from our political leaders. Rhetoric intended to pacify us and make us think our career politicians are really working on our behalf. But what is really going on?
Let's not forget that Obama has an election to win in 2012. Saying things like "cuts I wouldn't make under normal circumstances" is all about political cover. He wants us to know that he wouldn't change a thing except for the current crisis engulfing the Nation over the debt ceiling limit. Next year he will campaign on the fact that he made the "tough choices" to steer the country out of the crisis. Being the consummate politician he knows he must build expectations now to support his re-election bid next year.
That being said, rest assured that the same calculus is going on with the Republican leadership. Boehner wants to remain Speaker of the House in 2012. He must figure out how to maximize political gain for his party to ensure they remain the majority party in the House to retain their hold on power.
Politicians love a crisis. What we must understand is that the debt ceiling crisis has been foisted upon us by the very political leaders that are attempting to exploit it for their personal benefit.
* Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59702.html#ixzz1Sxke7mSj
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)