Your Representatives, Your Choices, Your Fault

The House rejected extending the payroll tax-cut, and why because they insist it was not to their liking, it didn’t suit their preferences or sensibilities. Just another in a long line of partisan ready-made disagreements over which to demonstrate their vigorous support of the American public. The House Republicans have once again seized this position despite the fact that the public doesn’t support their position, their reasoning or their self-aggrandizing posturing on this minor issue. I don’t mean to put forth the Republicans as the singular pathetic and foolish members of Congress, they are simply the morons of the moment. I am sure that they will be displaced or joined by Democrats as they collectively stumble along seeking the next opportunity to show their addlepated incompetence.

But surely the logic of the House and its leadership makes sense and justifies their present unproductive resistance to progress. In examining the Republicans stance the public would, I am sure, rush to Congress’ defense as being exactly what the public would think Congress should be doing. This sympathy for Congress would be regardless of the persistence in poll after poll on Congressional effectiveness that the public generally reviles Congress and holds them in abject contempt.

The Republicans do not think that the payroll tax cut extension should only be extended two months. They want it extended for a year. Of course the Republicans want a few other things added. But extending the tax-cut two months is just unreasonable, because as they say: “It just kicks the can down the road.” Now you might question their logic on this point and I am sure that they have some compelling answer and rationale for this view. But really, rather than accepting a two month extension; their choice is to not extend it at all! Because if they extend it two months then they don’t get any future chance to present a plan that is more thought out and widely supported; except the one they could spend between now and two months from now justifying to the public. Well, perhaps their staffers might explain to them that in two months Congress will be presented with the same issue.

The Republicans are also insistent that the payroll tax-cut extension include a deadline for a Presidential decision on the Keystone pipeline. I suspect that the Republicans are under a tremendous amount of pressure from campaign contributors to get the pipeline approved. So leveraging the payroll tax-cut issue to help force in a comingled decision on this completely independent, unrelated and exceedingly more controversial issue is the type of disingenuous and duplicitous strategy that members of Congress have found so useful to force the public to accept something that they cannot secure on its own merits.

Americans may be disgusted with Congress, they may find them loathsome individually and collectively but they choose them and so have only their selves to blame. Instead of fighting over a minor, trivial and unproductive issue, like a two month extension; why don’t the Republicans do something positive? Why not demonstrate your intelligence and brilliant insight by putting forth a bill to fix Social Security? They could restore Medicare and Medicaid to fiscally sound programs. Why don’t they? Well, because just like the Democrats, they don’t know how. They all have their policy positions that they contend will solve these national problems, but their policies are as toothless, ineffective and misguided as they were when they set up the policies that got us here in the first place.

You picked them, and you are probably going to keep them. So when you think the country is going in the wrong direction, what the hell are you still doing sitting behind the steering wheel?

Kicking Cans or Not Kicking Cans – Congress’ Idea of Strategies

You have to wonder just how stupid the American voters are.  They elected the current collection of crackpots and kooks. And their opinion of Congress is that they don’t approve of their performance. And I don’t mean just a little bit don’t approve. The public doesn’t approve by an overwhelming majority so large that it is inconceivable that they could win a re-election if they were running against a brick or even unopposed. But as much as the public doesn’t approve of Congress, they will blame the failure, the stupidity, the incomprehensible ineptitude, and the disingenuous disregard for the nations’ interests on every other politician but their own. This of course is a reflection of the intellectual deficiency of the electorate. If Congress were seen as just slightly out of favored or regard then the odds would be perhaps good enough to let a large segment of the voters to be satisfied with their man/woman. However when the disaffection and dislike of Congress reaches the extremes of negativity that this Congress has achieved (never has the work ‘achieved’ been used in a context where its generally positive connotation is so inappropriate) there is such a small likelihood that their representative is not part of the tainting malodorous cancer on the legislative body that they have certainly elected from amongst their best and brightest; and that is absolutely a blight upon our nation.

This Congressional cesspool of closed-minded cretins has yet again managed to demonstrate their ineffectiveness in handling an issue that the majority of voters are clearly eager to have them support. The voters may or may not be right on the issue, but their politicians are fighting over the question of whether the issue should be addressed on a longer-term basis or just ‘kicked down the road’ a couple of months. The net result of their grand strategy is to ‘not kick the can at all’. Rather than vote for it or against it, they are voting to do nothing because they want to do it differently. Of course, they are not actually doing anything.

If Congress is satisfying only one in ten people then the voters should have a simple and obvious strategy that they should follow. Voters should tell pollsters, reporters, campaign supporters, candidates, and everyone that they can what they will do in the next election. If you want to get an effective and engaged Congress then you have to put people in office that are smart enough to take steps to address the nation’s problem. Voters cannot return representative who only engage in obstructionism for no better reason than that they are against the person or party that is proposing the legislative action.

The public is getting the rewards and results from Congress that they deserve. It may be true that Congress doesn’t have the intelligence of a brick, but how smart could the people be who put them there? Did you really think a brick was smarter, wiser and more competent than you? Do you really admire the accomplishments (if you can think of any) produced by Congress? If you think it’s all the fault of everyone else’s politicians but not yours, then I think the brick just out scored you on the intelligence test.

A Pipeline for Christmas: Candy or Oil in Your Stocking?

The Keystone pipeline is another litmus test for the current American political system and more pointedly to the current members of Congress. Of course they are unlikely to understand the true nature of the test, since that would require them to comprehend the real problem before them. The Keystone pipeline issue is not a simple pro or con issue, it is not for jobs versus for environment question, it is not an energy independence or national security issue, and it is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. Now that is not to say that these factors don’t have significance, rather that those who are representing the interests of the citizens of the country should be assessing what best serves those they serve. These same representatives should not of course be looking for their best opportunity to do what politicians do best, look to their own self-interests and selling out to special interest groups.

The issue of the Keystone pipeline is a multi-facetted dilemma, including the items referenced above; it is a challenging and thorny problem for a legislative body to contend with. The chore for Congress is to not simply to vote for or against the pipeline, but to insure that they structure any approval in a manner that serves the public. Do any of the Congressional minions realize that their duty is to deal with establishing the legislative environment and legal conditions under which the pipeline, if approved, should be required to be built, operated and the really important part Congress doesn’t even appreciate is holding the industry fiscally accountable and liable for damages with guaranteed assurance that there is no escape from this responsibility. This is the responsibility and duty that Congress is neglecting in their quest for pandering to their respective special interest contributors.

Why is this a partisan or a bipartisan issue? If the pipeline will benefit America then it is worth doing. But Congress is not responsible for that benefit being that the pipeline serves the oil companies. The companies will do the pipeline if they can profit from it. It’s what companies do. But to benefit America, the pipeline has to let the oil companies not only make their profits but to do so without risking that the public is left saddled with the consequences of poor, risky and negligent actions by the companies that build and operate the pipeline.

This is the test for Congress, to serve the country and the people. This is where Congress fails. Congress does not look at issues, like the pipeline, through the lens of national interests. Instead, Congress lines their positions up based on a political philosophy that has nothing to do with understanding an issue but with wanting the country be their way they want. Nothing wrong with a vision of what you would like. But we should expect Congress to be ready and able to deal with issues and the reality of those issues, not with their own belief that reality will bend to their will. Congress makes the laws of the nation, but they are powerless to make the consequences of their laws affecting us all be what they want them to be. Just like everyone else, Congress and the nation will reap what they sow in our fields.

We Want to Eat Our Cake, and Have It Too!

Members of Congress seem to understand polls, well some of the time. A recent poll evidently indicates that the vast majority of Americans support perpetuating the Obama Social Security payroll tax-cut. Wow! Isn’t it fortunate for these political heavy-weights to be able to find out that the nation’s wage earners are in favor of keeping more of their salaries? Obviously comprehending this fact is not something that anyone in Congress could have determined without a poll sample of the public.

It thus comes as no surprise that Congress is getting near to passing an end-of-year government funding bill that will include extending the payroll tax-cuts. I think that this really means that our Congressional representatives must have some staffers who were able to understand the poll and then (here was probably the hard part) explain it in terms clear (simple) enough for the Congress-men/women to be able to get it.

But here is the confusing part! A significant portion of these politicians are not able to make a similar connection between public opinion on the issue of increasing the tax-rate of millionaires. The new media seems to indicate that there are both Republicans and Democrats who oppose this view. The Democrats in opposition are significantly fewer than the Republicans who do. Perhaps their staffers have not bothered to explain this to these masters of the legislature.

It may not matter as long as the voters don’t translate their views of what is a fair, balanced, prudent and reasonable approach to help the country deal with the nation’s deficit. If the majority of American’s really believed that the tax system and Congress are treating the 1% more equally then the 99%, and the 0.1% even more equally then the 99.9%, and even more equally the 0.01% then the 99.99% isn’t there an clear and present option for this majority? Yes, but it is becoming clear that the same pool of intellectual competency that produces our politicians is the pool populated with the voting public. We don’t elect folks who are on the smart side of the scale.

If everyone who thinks the 1% should contribute a ‘more fair’ share were to make it absolutely clear that they will not vote for anyone who doesn’t understand that then the problem to Congressional obstruction is resolved. Come the election where will the resistance come from? Of course I will still be worried about the intelligence of the folks elected into Congress regardless of this issue. I don’t put much faith into the inept idiots who run for Congress for either party or on any issue. None of them has shown a aptitude for solving problems with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense spending, Homeland Security, the tax code, federal budget planning, …

Supreme Equal Justice, A Fool-Fight at the Court

Since both the Democrats and the Republicans think that their antithetical Supreme Court justice, respectively Thomas or Kagan, should recuse their self from the case; I am surprised that neither side has made the obvious recommendation. I suppose that neither side tends to think reasonably or logically, or at all for that matter; but really isn't it self-evident what should be done?

Maybe they could go on that "Do You Think You're Smarter" show and get inputs from some adolescents on how to handle this riddle: How do you get a rational and fair hearing without the potentially biased justices participation? This is truly a thorny conundrum. It would probably take the wisdom of a Solomon or an Oliver Wendell Homes jr. to find their way through this thicket. Of course it could be that it is really, really simple. That simplicity doesn’t prevent it from being beyond the ken of Democrats and Republicans, but they might stumble upon the answer if they recast the question to an even simpler context. They could ask themselves: “If we have two people with diametrically opposed perspectives, read this as die-hard fans of opposing teams, being asked to make a fair ruling on a sports situation that occurred between the two teams as members of a nine-person adjudication panel how do you resolve their conflicting inputs?”

Spoiler alert! If you haven't figured it out and don't want to know (you know just like the Republicans and Democrats) don't read any further.
Solution: When faced with the question of who should recuse themselves, the answer for Thomas and Kagan is - "Just-us". Each should be willing to recuse their self conditional on the other agreeing to recuse their self.  It’s a modified version of “You cut, I chose.”

An Unnatural Marriage in Congress over Medicare

Paul Ryan (R) and Ron Wyden (D) have formed an unholy alliance to corrupt American health care. I am surprised that a Republican would engage in such immoral anti-family value policies or that a Democrat would embrace a corporate subsidy program to the detriment of the public. I suppose these two men were tempted by the extreme liberal and the radical conservative views that they could fix the system that Congress created and have modified periodically to repair the defects that began to way it down. They have deceived themselves into thinking that they are proposing an innovative approach that will address all the concerns that permeate the political spectrum. Having succumb to this evil and misguided belief they are now out proselytizing to turn other upstanding and morally righteous members of Congress (or some close approximation thereof) to their debased lifestyle position.

This pseudo-fix for the Medicare system is of course a compromise which speaks well for both men as it demonstrates that they possess enough flexibility in their philosophical views to comprehend the merit of understanding a view other than one’s own. Further it shows that they are able to find the greater value in a common solution serving both views’ needs. But strive as they might, they came up with just another weak-minded approach based on a simplistic understanding of the issue. The solution is the old “let’s do both” and somehow this will fix it plan.
Why not step back and you know do something never done by Congress before: actually understand the problem, and design a solution that will correct the flawed aspects of the current Medicare system and include new features that will improve the American health care system? Now I wouldn’t actually expect them to do this, come up with the solution itself. They would have to have someone put together the new American health care policy for them, and then let them present it as their solution. If they don’t know where to find someone who can do this, some advice; don’t turn to special interest groups. They are blinded by their motivation to insure that they secure a large share of the budget. It’s not that the special interest groups can’t be involved, they should be used by the plan crafters to play one interest off against the other; but they cannot be in the lead.
Also, politicians should be excluded from providing the framework, the details or any aspect of the plan. Their role is more aligned with their capabilities. They would vote for or against it, but nothing more.

If this couple would pursue this life-style choice instead of the unnatural union they are practicing, they could save themselves from being that abomination to the nation: being nothing more than just another member of Congress.

A Honey of a Problem That Congress Can’t Solve

Foreign honey producers, read this China, are threatening the domestic US honey producers. The honey industry claims that China is dumping honey into the US market. The industry convinced Congress that China was dumping honey on us and decided to extricate the US from this threat by imposing a tariff on Chinese honey imports. So a decade ago the tariffs went into effect and “Ta-Da” the problem was solved. Well, not really solved but resolved in the manner that Congress usually fixes things. The problem moved and the threat remains. China and other exporting opportunists just routed the honey via other countries and sent it to America through these backdoor routes. But not to worry, Congress and government agencies supported US honey industry representatives to extend restrictions to nations engaging in this deception. Of course where there is money to be made there is a way; and China adapts to regain their revenues.

So the back and forth of block and evade continues with Congress’ supportive ineptitude in full swing.

But why doesn’t Congress take a different, an innovative, an effective, and an intelligent approach to dealing with this problem?

Is it because there is no better way to deal with the dumping problem? No, their effort to continue to react and improve their monitoring and curtailment of dumping is an implicit admission that they already believe there is a more effective way to stop the honey. So why then don’t our big, bold representatives shelve the century old approach for something that would not only solve the problem, but would provide an unassailable preventative method for Chinese or any countries’ dumping? The reason is simple, there is no one in Congress that can think outside the box (or perhaps even think inside the box).

What we have here ladies and gentlemen, friends and neighbor, fellow citizens is the phenomenon of ‘elected intelligence’: the presumption by our representatives that because they won their respective election that that win was evidence and assurance that they were adequately intelligent to deal with any issue. Some even come to believe that they are more intelligent than anyone else. I think we can all agree that they are simply just more intelligent than their constituency, which apparently is no strong recommendation for solving national issues.

If Congress really wanted to solve the problem rather than secure some contributions from special interest groups they would seek out someone who could show them how to deal with the problem instead of just dealing with the symptoms. They will still be faced with the test of intelligence problem, to recognize a better solution they have to be smart enough to recognize a better solution when it’s given to them. Their current endeavors do not promote much confidence in their ability to do even this.

Perhaps they could pay China to have someone over there tell them how to solve the problem. Although I am not sure anyone in China has seen the solution, since they should have proffered it already if they had.

Just Another Can’t-er In Congress

Eric Cantor (R-VA) is attempting to work a bi-partisan plan to avoid the agreed to consequences of the Super-committee’s failure. There are three things that Cantor is doing wrong:

1.       He is illuminating the disingenuous and duplicitous nature of the cliff-hanger strategy that the Republican and Democratic parties engaged in when they crafted and agreed to the consequences of failure. Isn’t this the very definition of waffling, flip-flopping, not having the courage of your convictions? If you can’t accept the results of failure, perhaps you should have shown the Stupor committee how to succeed; crafted a better agreement to start with; or not supported it.

2.       He is engaging in the same ‘tried and failed’ methods that the illustrious professionals in Congress have been using for decades, and attempting to achieve different results than those that have been produced in the past. In other words, he is operating in an insane manner. Add a little extension here, a small benefit there in exchange for a reduce cut here and there. A pushing the problem down the road strategy.

3.       He is persisting in working on the problem as framed by the political parties, rather than stepping forward and showing the American people that the political leaders of both stripes are failing them because they just don’t understand what the problems are and more importantly they don’t have a clue about how to effectively, meaningfully and creatively change the mind-set that is preventing the public from being served by their representatives instead of being served to their representatives.

Eric needs to operate counter to his name. He must become a Can-er and not a Can’t-er. The moment for Cantor to seize the day and emerge as a new political leader for America is perhaps upon him. If only he can glimpse a part of the vision for national salvation, he may be able to lead America into a new and saner future. He only needs to be able to free himself from old, antiquated, and ineffective views.

An Uncompromising Failure, It’s Super-Committee to the Uhhh! Nothing

Twelve Congressmen and Congresswomen, stout-hearted and true, have officially announced that they failed to develop a debt reduction proposal. The singular task that they were commissioned to perform. And even before they had certified their failure, the Washington do-nothings were out and about proclaiming how their side had tried mightily to provide a plan, but the other side had worked their evil strategies to obstruct and defeat their valiant efforts. Yes, our politicians were being the best that they can be. They were acting exactly as the people who elected them would have and more importantly as the pubic deserved to be served.

Perhaps the public has had enough. The polls indicate that Congress has attained its lowest approval level ever, despite my not being included in the sample. So what is the public going to do?

Just like the Stupor committee, the public is going to fail. The electorate will not act to show the power of their dissatisfaction, the force of their anger, or the drive of their wrath. Voters will return the members of the Stupor committee to their offices. Why, because the public doesn’t understand the basic physics of politics. If your elected officials don’t accomplish the tasks placed before them then the voters need to separate them from their office even if their opponent is as big a nincompoop as they are.

When asked why they failed, you will hear lots of explanations, but none of these excuses matter. They failed, and they did nothing to prevent it. They only knew how to operate in the mode that Congress has come to operate in. Not one of the members thought of anything else that they could do. Not one of the members produced or provided any useful approach to addressing the impasse or lighting the way forward. Just more we said/they said bickering.

It can’t be left to the Democrats, it can’t be left to the Republicans; the nation’s Independents have got to stand up and make it clear that you go to Congress on the basis of Independents’ decisions and not that of whichever party the morons are affiliated with. As a member of Congress you do not talk about why the other side is wrong until after you have presented a plan of your own and a reasoned and rational argument for that plan. If the other side’s plan cannot hold up to your plan on the basis of that rationale then they are not ready to be your representative nor worthy of your vote. Simply put, no member of Congress today should have ever been elected.

That is the reason their approval is so low. People are beginning to recognize the magnitude of their mistake in voting for incompetent ideologies that are bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

The Stupor Committee (or The Ditzy Dozen)

The brain-trust of Congress is just over a week away from their dead-line to place before their brethren and the public their solution to the federal deficit reduction problem. That is, they would be expected to present their proposal if they have managed to achieve an actual joint proposal that they agree to endorse. However, given the moronic state of contention that the Republicans and Democrats insist upon sustaining as their unique version of a perpetual non-motion machine, I suspect that we will not see a “super committee” plan. At best, they will have devised two or more “plans” which different permutations of the committee membership will favor and advocate or will reject and deride. In other words, the stupor-committee will dysfunction in the manner that Congress uses at every opportunity. Why do something intelligent, public service oriented or worthy of American leadership? Hell, they’re in Congress, they aren’t supposed to work for the American people’s interests.

So if the appointed twelve do in fact punt on their duty and miss their chance to do something meaningful and important for the country, if they fail to seize their carpe diem moment, and if they forgo the opportunity to cast an enduring legacy then what is the American public supposed to do? Well the Democrats will rail against the Republican members, and the Republicans will harp on the Democrats; so nothing different there. But what is it that the Independents should do? They hold the key after all to all these politicians’ futures. They decide the elections that each Congressional hack will be facing in the future.

The failure of the super committee to act in a responsible, inspired and courageous manner should cost them their seat of privilege at the Congressional trough. The price of their inaction is to transform them into a beacon of enlightenment, a super nova in the firmament of politics, a shining example of the consequences of their ineptitude, cowardice, and stupidity. Their bonus for nonperformance is a ticket home.

This is the strategy that Independents need to adopt. Just as the stupor committee should do their job of formulating a plan of action to guide the nation through the deficit, Independents need to step up and hold the political process and parties to account for their inactions. Who knows, perhaps if Congress-men/women were motivated to attend to national interests and values rather than divisive partisan distraction, one or two of them might actually see how to solve some of national problems through creative, innovative and inspired approaches to government. It certainly can’t hurt given they do not appear to have a clue about how to address the economy, jobs, education, health-care, defense or well anything.

The Front-Runner Reduction

The, or maybe a, front-runner in the Republican Party has come forth with the “solution” to Medicare and Social Security. Well, at least yet another regurgitation of a solution re-packaged and re-advertised as the path to salvation. Is it a solution? There is really only one way to tell, and let’s be serious it is not by listening to the politicians. Neither group appears to have a clue nor more pointedly neither side has demonstrated that they understand the cause-effect of the system they created, fund, manage, and (God, I hate to say this) are responsible for finding a way to secure. Our front-runner is going to use his business acumen to save us all from the folly of the past.

How does this comparatively (relative to his competition) mental giant propose to perform this miraculous feat? He is going to reduce the cost of the system of course. Is this just his easy solutions to incredibly complex problems; or just a good sounding ‘sound-bite’ for a catastrophically stupid plan? Given he is a politician the statistical bet would surely have to go to the less desirable option. Now don’t get me wrong, none of his compatriots have any better idea, and none from the Democratic party has shown any more insight or comprehension of the problems than he has. But really, the solution that we are going to be asked to vote for and then swallow is another idiotic and ill-conceived approach to addressing the problem.

The merits of the plan, more the faults actually, are: he is going to gradually raise the age of retirement. He is going to let participants choose to stay with Medicare or use a government-support voucher to purchase a plan from the market. Medicaid funding responsibility would transfer from the federal government to state governments. Federal spending would be capped at 20% of GDP, and he would cut spending by some amount. Well these certainly solve the problems, right? I mean you can judge the quality and level of intelligence represented by his and most Republicans reading from their nationally approved play-book. The Democrats are no better being equally incapable of seeing and taking the eight-lane freeway out of the disaster area and instead insisting that the steep ascent through the mountain path at the start of winter is a safe route.

Raising the age of retirement on Social Security – this eliminates more recipients so that will lower costs. The elimination is obvious right; nothing more needs to be said on that. This is similar to paying more if you retire later, which we do today. We could stop COLA that would work also. These are the same old methods that have been used over and over. Takes a real brainy type to think of these now doesn’t it. “Same old, same old.”

Now using Government supported vouchers (or any marketing researched advertising terms that polls well with the public) will certainly reduce the costs of the Medicare. Because instead of running a big government bureaucracy, the plan that solves the problem will be to have the government run just a large bureaucracy and also pay insurance companies to make up the difference. Once again, let’s not see the obvious solution that Americans have been taught over each generation will solve the problem; let’s go with a politician’s approach to diddling the public.

And think how much less it will cost when we transfer the cost of and responsibility for Medicaid from the federal government to state governments. The states will have two basic choices, the same ones the federal government has, pay the bills for what is covered or cut what is covered/delivered. It’s not likely the states will see the efficient approach that reduces costs, improves coverage, and help the economy.

And capping federal expenditures to 20% of GDP is just another way to say, I don’t know how to solve the real problem but surely if we reduce the value delivered and the benefits provided and cut more and more the problem will be solved. The consequences of the approach are not reflected in this approach, but yes it is true that if you spend less money you will in fact spend less money. I think I learned that in some elementary school math class, probably around third or fourth grade or even earlier. Why cap it as the method, why not have it reduce itself as the consequence of a smart plan? I guess he/they haven’t thought of that.

If you want to solve the health-care and safety-net problems in America, you should look to someone who can present a plan that doesn’t just do less, shift costs, pretend to provide a difference, and more importantly addresses the underlying dynamics of the cost causing principles that the currently flawed policies and plans are based upon.

Have you seen any politician who has shown even the slightest indication that are even modestly intelligent, let alone smart enough to trust with setting the direction for the nation on any of these issues?  Perhaps what we need here is another ‘stupor’ committee to produce a bipartisan plan.

American Intelligence Test #12 – Fair Tax, Equitable Strain, Just Burden

One of the divisive debates distracting the American people today is the nature of a fair tax system. The Democratic and Republican parties are predictably programmed to respond in their respective views on how to tax their constituent bases more fairly than everyone else. It’s a shame that the public and the media don’t recognize the pointlessness of these hard-coded inflexible stances the parties insist are unfair to the majority of Americans. So let’s look at what the tax system characteristics are and what would be fair. From there we can determine if the tax system is fair or not; and if it benefits the wealthier upper class, the middle income class or the lower income (poor).

So unlike previous American Intelligence tests, you don’t have the same latitude of deciding what the correct answers are. In this test, you are just wrong whether you agree or not with the answer. You will still have the opportunity to fulfill Lincoln’s paraphrased adage:

• Some of us can fool ourselves all of the time, and all of us can fool ourselves some of the time, but all of us can not fool ourselves all of the time.

Question 1:   On a dollar for dollar basis of earned income, who pays more taxes under the underlying structure of the current tax plan? Who pays the higher rate?  Someone who earns:
A.      $20K       B. $40K     C.  $100K   D. $500K    E. $1M   F. $5M   G. No one

Context: One view of fair is that the burden is equal. The question you need to ask is not: Is equal the same; but rather you should ask: Is equal unbiased?

Question 2: Companies and investors cannot grow and expand under high tax conditions.
True  / False

Context: Wealth in the US has not been created during high tax-rate periods. Employment levels decline when taxes are raised.

Question 3:  Tax credits, deductions, tax exemptions, tax deferrals, and other special tax treatments reduce taxes paid by the public.
True  / False

Question 4:   Americans are overtaxed and should have their tax-rates reduced across the board.

True  /  False

Question 5:   Which of the following resulted from over-taxation?

A.      Current recession
B.      Banking financial crisis
C.      Housing-bubble
D.      High unemployment
E.       National debt
F.       All of these
G.     None of these

Question 6:  What is the most damaging aspect of the current tax system?

A.      Redistributes wealth to the wealthy
B.      Redistributes wealth to the poor and middle class
C.      Discourages investment
D.      Over taxes the public
E.       Rewards harmful financial behaviors

Question 7: The wealthy do best when:

A.      Taxes are low
B.      Regulation is limited
C.      Taxes are high
D.      Middle class wealth increases
E.       National debt is zero

You’ve crossed the finish line, now we just need to see if you were in the right race.

1:  G       2:  F        3:  F        4:  F        5: C         6:  E   7: D

Q-1: You need to see what a progressive tax rate actually entails. And progressive does not reflect the political semantic context.

Q-2: The tax-rate does not predict the success or failure of companies or individuals unless it is so extreme that it prevents the public from being able to physically survive. The problem with the US’s present economic situation is not caused by taxes or government spending, but rather by the irresponsibility of Congress to connect the two.

Q-3: These selective tax-relief items do not reduce taxes, they simply redistribute the burden to those who cannot take advantage of them.

Q-4: Before taxes should be reduced, the public needs to be responsible for what they have allowed Congress to do as their direct representatives. If you don’t like what they did, kick them out; but you still are socially, philosophically, morally, culturally, ethically, … obligated to be accountable for what was done in your name. You must fix the problem, before you can have things the way you want them to be.

Q-5: Taxation did not cause any of these, they were all caused by the lack of a requirement of taxation that accounts for the policies that did cause them.

Q-6: It’s a classic case of unintended consequences, and it’s not because the rich are taxed to much.

Q-7: The American economy is robust, dynamic, vibrant, and healthy when the broadest range of the population does economically well. The concentration of wealth is a symptom of rot and corruption; it’s as un-American a condition as its antithesis. In other words, it reflects the status of our political parties.

I:DEA 4 – Why Are Politicians Taxed, Burdened and Straining for a Sane Tax Policy?

Taxes are the cornerstone issue in the current national political contest for party dominance in the up-coming elections. There will be plenty of other issues: jobs, jobs, jobs, defense & security, social safety net areas (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Health-care); but interwoven into all these issues will be the heated core issue of taxes. This is not really surprising if you step back and consider that the entire concept of government is based on an understanding that there is “no such thing as a free lunch’. If there is to be a function of government then there has to be taxes to pay for it. So for the radical few that contend that the government has no right to tax people, they need to resolve two things; first: you need to get everyone else to agree that they don’t need anything from the government, second: you need to clarify what the Founding Fathers meant by tax in the Constitution.

So if you acknowledge the necessity of taxes, you are also smart enough to move to the next step concerning the taxes issue. The tax issue is presented by the various interested Parties as the government overtaxing the country, the government has allowed special interest groups to bias the tax code into benefiting the few to the detriment of the many, the government’s tax policies are discouraging/preventing businesses from investing and creating jobs, the tax code is not fair and equal, the big government-types want to redistribute wealth in the country, the government can’t create jobs, or ya-da-ya-da-ya-da. And oddly, none of these are a good, intelligent, informed, prudent or worthwhile representations of the tax issue. That probably explains why our politicians relate to them so well.

The tax issue is: what is an appropriate tax policy that enables the government to fulfill its multitudinous roles and responsibilities and simultaneously promoted a vibrant and robust society and economy? To answer that issue and to present a candidate specific (or Party-specific which is more the norm) approach requires your candidate to develop a detailed plan. Have you seen an actual plan that is well, a real plan, and a real policy?

If the current tax system works for you, then the candidate doesn’t have to do anything except say: “It’s working fine, don’t change a thing.” Not hearing a lot of that now are you? So we need to start hearing their alternatives.

This means that the proposal will have to explain what it means to tax the public fairly, equitably and beneficially. At the same time the tax plan proposal should explain how it will reward the creation of jobs and protects the viability of the private sector. And the tax approach will have to account for all the obligations that the government is intending to deliver, and what it is not going to deliver.

Independents should not expect too much here, since if politicians really had any good ideas they would hardly be waiting around to be elected to fix the country. They would present a rational plan that people would see the merits of and then see that it got implemented. Then getting elected would be a piece of cake. But politicians don’t know how to create a tax plan that is fair, because fair doesn’t make sense to them. The problem is that fair isn’t a simple and easy concept here. Fair requires an understanding and appreciation of any obligation of the poor in America. Fair needs to account for protections and privileges given by the government to one group but not to others in a free and equal society; so saving businesses at the cost of taxpayers is not equitable just because it is claimed that everyone benefits from it. Being saved imposes an obligation of returned value to the public. Fair has to accounts for the fact that an increasing concentration of wealth is dangerous to our freedoms, corrosive to our society and values, and injurious to the health of the nations’ economy. Being fair will have to go way beyond who pays more and who gets exemptions and credits. Being fair must accommodate the relationship that taxes have on how wealth is created and how a proper tax system would promote and maximize the creation of wealth within our society. Fair makes the nation stronger, more productive, safer, and preserves our freedoms. If you think this is easy, then either the politicians are really stupid or clearly it is not. Although I do have to admit that politicians are really stupid, despite the difficulty of developing a sound and fair tax system for the county.

Independents should be pressing and seeking better, clearer and smarter details on a candidate’s tax strategy and policy. When the answers you get don’t convince you that their plan shows you why it is fair and reasonable, you have to say that their plan is just another weak politician’s answer.

I:DEA 3 – I Swear I’ve Never Pledged

Independents have another unique position in the electoral process besides being independent. They don’t have to drink the Kool-Aid that the party faithful eagerly consume as if the tenets of party ideology were the essence of life that you can’t survive without. So when candidates come forth to compete for the favor and endorsement of the party’s core, Independents can see if a candidate steps forward eagerly or reluctantly kowtow to the imperative of signing some moronic pledge to one insipid concept or principle or another.

It’s not that taking a position or stance on an issue or policy is a bad thing for a candidate to do. Having a position would actually be expected of candidates. The problem with ‘taking the pledge’ is that it demonstrates a weakness of mind and leadership. Not exactly what you want in your elected officials. The problem with ‘the pledge’ is that it is defined by someone else, not the candidate; it is established to constrain and confine the thoughts and actions of the candidates, to make them conform; and here is the really bad part, it implies that the candidate is less qualified to use their judgment on an issue than the person who crafted the pledge. The reason for the candidate to sign the pledge is obvious. What it says about the candidate’s principles and values is inconsistent with and unworthy of an American leader, particularly one that the nation needs to rely on to address the difficult and thorny problems confronting us. Clearly the Edmund Burke sentiment applies here.

So Independents should be looking for a candidate that does not relinquish their ability to have the options of using their judgment after engaging in thorough and informed discussion of an issue. Someone who hasn’t pre-judged the answer to a problem before they even know the question and the consequences of applying that answer to the specific issue presented by the world and reality. A candidate that is deserving of an Independent’s votes ought to be someone whose judgment you would trust as being rendered from their intelligence and wisdom. Independents are hopefully looking for someone who is smarter than they are. Who would elect someone less intelligent than their self? History doesn’t give us a lot of comfort here.

When offered the option to pledge, what should a smart politician do? Well, they should lead for one; and then they should ask the obvious questions. Now it seems to me that the politicians don’t seem to know the obvious questions; which incidentally is not a good sign. Don’t you think it’s time that Independents started asking the candidates these questions though?

Independents! Rise up and demand an explanation of why a candidate thought signing a pledge was a sign of leadership, and why they didn’t see the fallacy of their pledge? Then follow-up and ask the questions that illustrate the imprudence of their decision.

Congress Helping the Needy, Uh – Corporations?

Praise the Lord! Finally, Congress is doing something to help the average American; and this is a bipartisan effort. Yes, both Republicans and Democrats are stepping up hand-in-hand to offer some relief to those who need it most. What are they planning and who does it help? Well, American corporations that have oodles and oodles of profits stashed away in banks holding profits that are from foreign corporate divisions and entities where the profits are claimed to have been created. The corporations want Congress to grant them a tax-exemption (or tax holiday) where they are permitted to bring the profits home and pay a small tax on them; 5% is a probable target. And of course they are telling your Congress-persons that if they do this that the tax break will stimulate the economy; and that is how we will all benefit.

Now this all makes sense of course. The last time that Congress did this, it might not have worked to do anything to create jobs. But this time of course, it will because this time the corporations are truly intent and serious about doing something that would help the economy. If I were an officer of a corporation, I would want to encourage Congress to do this because I am going to get a lot more money out of it. So it won’t bother me that I hire and pay lobbyists, who use to work for members of Congress or for the current or former Administrations, to solicit the support of the folks that they worked for.

The corporations aren’t doing anything wrong here; because it’s Congress that set-up the tax code that produces and encourages the results that produced both the corporations’ overseas profits holdings and that discourage investment in American business infrastructure. As usual, Congress in their complete ignorance of what they are doing have masterfully allowed the Corporations to make the bulk of their revenues in the United States and then transfer this wealth to foreign countries to the detriment of America. Why Republicans and Democrats are so eager to rob America of its strength and vitality I don’t understand; but it must be something that the majority of Americans want. They put these folks in office and support their insane and insipid policies and principles.

You would think that the politicians would see how to address this problem. As it most often is, the solution is simple and direct. It would benefit the corporations, the economy, and the American job market. Who am I kidding? Congress, do something to solve a problem! Wouldn’t they have to see it as a problem rather than as just another opportunity to get campaign donations?

Perhaps the electorate should be asking the candidates for the up-coming offices to explain why they don’t fix the problem rather than reward corporations who took advantage of the staggeringly stupid tax code for multi-national corporations that the Republican and Democratic parties put in place to start with.

I:DEA 2 – A Healthy Attitude

Health Care is certainly a key issue in American politics today. Whether it’s Medicare, Medicaid or general health coverage for Americans the political parties and contending candidates are sure to have a position, a policy and a plan. Their positions are most likely party-centric; their policies are polished and thus devoid of substance; and their plans are, well let’s be honest ill-conceived, ill-defined, and ill-advised. This is not a criticism of any one candidate, one party, or one vision for health-care. You can be assured that every political entity seeking to place its/their stamp on health-care is currently misguided and off-track. What then is the Independent voter to do?

There are at least three dimensions that Independents should focus upon. By examining these facets of the health-care issue, Independents can bring to bear their power to force change on the ineffectual approaches and politicians flailing about for success as they guide us to failure. Individual Independents don’t have to necessarily press candidates on each of the dimensions; since there are a sufficiently large number of Independents, it is more effective if candidates physically and mentally see the importance of the numbers behind the questions and issues. The politicians and policy-wonks can be annoyed at one or two questioners, but they will be frightened and prone to flee from the torrent of risk that their simplistic and moronic stances are fomenting; and there is nothing more amusing than a politician running scared from an issue when their towering citadel to health-care is shown to be built upon swamp land.

The health-care dimensions which Independents should thrust into the political arena include the key questions (getting to the facts), the American vision and values to be served, the social choices to be made, and the killer issue – responsibility.

Questions are the easiest and most informing area where Independents can exercise their political influence. Plus just by asking simple questions and listening to the quality of the answers you will get is sure to illuminate the depth (or lack thereof) of the candidates’ personal understanding (or not) and competence (incompetence) on health-care issues. Don’t be surprised if you come away disappointed, it’s difficult to come away with a sense confidence in the candidate given not one has put forward a rational or workable solution to handling health-care even though the facts about health-care provide pretty good guideposts to what needs to be done. So Independents ought to ask:
What is driving up the cost of health-care, and what do you do about it? What role do the federal, state and local governments have to play in America’s health-care?
What should universal health-care appropriately provide (assuming universal health-care were a majority voter-supported policy)?
What is the cost to the country today for the uninsured, and how do you propose to address that cost without a basic health-care coverage policy?
Does the “promote the general Welfare” clause of the U.S. Constitution convey any obligation on the federal government to play a part in insuring that all Americans receive some level of health-care?

The issue of America’s vision and values regarding health-care comes down to an expectation that among America’s goals are insuring that American’s have access to health-care, that there are societal consequences affecting the viability of America from health-care policies and actions, and that the American people are better served if its health-care policies support the economic vitality of the nation rather than erode it. No American thinks it is bad policy to help the sick, injured and infirmed; they are just rightly concerned that health-care is a resource like any other and must be managed and maintained intelligently, effectively, and responsibly. Independents should be seeking some insights into the candidates’ perspectives and philosophies regarding their views and understanding of America’s vision and values for health-care.

Along with the above, Independents need to look for the candidates’ recommendations on the societal decisions that they are proposing America and Americans need to make. To explicitly state what the candidate envisions as the choice/s that he/she is asking the voters to make. To make it clear, Independents should demand that a candidate express what the choice means will happen and what the choice means will not happen; what the public would receive as part of general health-care versus what they would not. Independents need to understand that they are not making a choice of what they want; but rather they are choosing what they have a right to expect and what they do not have a right to expect from just being a citizen of the United States.

Lastly, Independents have to look at how the candidates represent both America’s responsibility and more pointedly the responsibility of each citizen in the approach and policies that the candidate would erect in their personal/party vision of American health-care. For Independents this may be the key to assessing the various views espoused by the would-be leaders of America’s future. This is usually where candidates completely ignore or evade any discussion of their plans; either they don’t comprehend that this is the crux of a health-care plan or they don’t care about reality and viability, only about getting elected and then letting whatever comes come.
Independents have to force this level of discussion out into the public debate for only they will question the party line, only they will turn the light of reason onto the proposals and plans offered by politicians.

The fortunate thing that Independents have going for them in this area is that there is a general course of action that any plan must include. And, once this facet of a proposed plan is presented in a clear, concise and straight-forward explanation of the plan, voters would immediately see the logic of the proposal and their own part in the responsibility requried.

I:DEA 1 – Independent Thought

One of the first things that Independent voters need to do is to remain independent and uncommitted. Whether during the Democratic or Republican parties’ primaries or the general election, Independents should refrain from providing any overt or implied support for one party’s candidate over the others’.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

The influence and power of Independent voters is at its greatest when no one can depend upon it or even assess which direction it is likely to go. The candidates are forced to contend with the orthogonal forces of retaining their core party constituencies and providing some reasons for the Independents to choose them over their rival(s). This creates more opportunities for the candidates to exhibit some sustentative aspect of their philosophy of government and society, and the true nature of their positions and policies on issues that are important in the public or the private arenas.

Independents should be asking themselves, “Why are they wrong?” This is important because as an Independent you should not be bound to any ideology of the candidate’s party. If you buy into the ideological concept then you are prone to fall into thinking that their positions and policies are the right ones just because they appear consistent with the ideology. The ideology might sound good and have all the trimmings you expect of an American value, but it may also be a directionless compass that provides no guidance what-so-ever to establishing a position, policy or goal in the service of the American society. If you ask why they are wrong and can’t find or think of reasons that support that contention then you are more likely to find a candidate who has not just found some popular ‘button phrases’ to push. But remember even here if you find the answer acceptable, don’t commit. As an Independent you want to find individuals who can make you understand why the country should pursue a particular course, and you want it to be based on information and facts that are relevant to the real world.

When you are polled about your opinion on political issues, candidates and choices you have to not accept the premise of the question. As an Independent you should consistently indicate that you would not be persuaded to vote for or against someone because of a statement make by them or about them. You wouldn’t agree or disagree that a position on one issue is critical to your decision. You should indicate that no candidate or party has adequately presented a clear and well explained position on how they would implement and fulfill their proposed solutions. You can indicate that you like what someone has done on some issue, but that that is not sufficient to determine your choice. So generally you don’t want to provide pollsters with useful information. You do want to take the poll/survey, you just want to make sure your answers are unsupportive of anyone. It’s not in an Independents’ interest for the parties and candidates to find ‘sound bites’ that seem to win over voters. You want candidates to struggle to provide you with a demonstration of their ability to understand and explain how their actions will result in positive outcomes for the nation.

Independents should also tell any friends, neighbors and relatives who tell you why their candidate is the one to vote for and support that you don’t see their favorite candidate as being a sufficiently moderate voice and force for the nation. Independents are the only group who can make moderate candidates stronger candidates. Any party that wants to survive will have to find candidates that can work with like-minded individuals of any political orientation that can find a common ground to accomplish the tasks of government. Independents, I suspect are not generally individuals who think that all-or-nothing solutions are in fact solutions to the problems facing our pluralistic society. If’s if very simple, it’s probably actually very simple; and complex problems are rarely solved by people with simple solutions. Those solutions are simple for a reason.

Independents should discuss and offer opinions about issues; provide assessments of why a proposal, plan or policy of a candidate is worth consideration; and present questions and concerns that the candidates are not addressing. But it should be clear that no candidate has sufficiently satisfied the Independent with regard to these issues or questions.

A last thought here for Independents is a condition for supporting a candidate; even if you won’t tell them that you support them. If you don’t think that candidate is smarter then you, why would you vote for them?

Now to have an impact on the candidates and parties, Independents don’t want to wait until the election and convey their choice through their vote. A month or two before the election, but not sooner, Independents should feel free to indicate their preferences. This will focus the candidates and parties upon the views and requirements of Independents as surely as your execution day focuses your mind.

I:DEAs - How Have We Come To This?

Perhaps you’ve heard Einstein’s pithy saying: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Most people think this is one of those obvious and well understood pieces of wisdom. Most people would be wrong.

We are currently witness to a long standing example of an American insanity. America is expecting that the electorate can choose political leaders, especially a President, who will solve their problems, vanquish their fears, and insure their future security. And certainly we have a great deal of evidence and confidence from having elected our present and previous presidents, senators, representatives, governors, mayors, ya-da-ya-da-ya-da to be proud of the obvious success of our proven judgments. Why these must be some of the most admired people in the country today. These officials must be role models that we hold up to our children and others as individuals who are doing exactly what we need and would want. And the country must be in the best condition anyone could hope for. Are you starting to see the insanity yet?

Because we have a first term Democratic president, we are only able to watch the Republican Party’s struggle to find their presidential candidate. Well, you can’t expect to have everything you would want readily available just to make a point. Fortunately, the Republicans’ are making up for the lack of another group politicians aspiring to the position of the most incompetent bunch of fools in history.

How has this happened? How have we come to this?

How, it’s the inevitable consequence of the electorate’s evolutionary breeding program of politicians of course. No one would be disrespectfully enough to place the blame for these people on God. No! We are responsible for these people. So there is only one solution to this dilemma, only one thing that Americans can do. Americans are going have to do the things that they resist and avoid at every turn. Americans are going to have to think and make sacrifices.

Now not all Americans are going to be able to do this. For instance, the core Republican and Democratic parties’ bases are not likely to be able to engage in one or the other, certainly not both. Fortunately, we are not at an impasse like the ones’ we are persistently seeing in Congress and with the President. There is still a group of Americans we can turn to that can step up and do the heavy lifting that is necessary in these turbulent times. Since this aggregate of Americans is as culpable as any other group in allowing our country’s situation to have progressed to this untenable state, it is only fair that they must carry this burden.

Who then are these people? They are known in the colloquial political nomenclature as Independents. The best hope for America rests with the Independents, because only they can act in the interests of the nation and the people. Independents are not bound to the inane pathological positions and philosophies that have racked and degraded the two dominate political parties.

So having identified the source from which America’s salvation can spring, what is needed is to engage their power to alter America’s political courses from their current trajectories to paths that will lead us to a vibrant and vital future. What we need then is I:DEAs (Independents: Determining Elections in America).

These I:DEAs will follow in subsequent submissions.

Recognizing a New State, or Just Another Reflection of the Old One

Today, Mahmoud Abbas - Palestinian President, formally requested the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a member state. And, of course, the leaders of the world are all abuzz about what to do. There are those who support it, and those who oppose it, and surely there are those who are seeking how best to find the opportunity to profit from it. So naturally amid the chaos and confusion about how to proceed, we get the chance to see the intellect of nations at work. Although I am not sure that it is apropos to use the term intellect from all that has been demonstrated and portrayed by the principle actors on the stage up to this point.

We hear why it is important that the Palestinians should be granted a state of their own. We hear why statehood cannot be achieved by fiat through a United Nations decree. But we don’t hear about the substance of the request. This is not because this would settle the issue which it would not, but because we are talking about the competence and understanding that world leaders both possess and rely upon. Surely, at least one world leader is almost smart enough to have noticed something important is being missed. It’s not possible, is it; that world leaders haven’t figured out that there are bigger issues related to this request than the question of whether there are sufficient and legitimate grounds and reasons to grant a statehood status to Palestine.

Apparently, it is. We are about to witness yet another illustration of the depth of vision that the collective wisdom and knowledge possessed by this assembly of the specially anointed leaders of our world and all their advisors and backers. The world will reap the bounty from the seed that is planted by their decision. While the seed will be different for whichever decision they make, they cannot avoid the inevitable consequences that once sown the harvest is sure to come. Although the world may find that as the tree produces the fruits of their intellect; it may not be sweet to the taste, nourishing to the body, or desirable for the soul.

If the United Nations can solve the Palestinian problem by bestowing statehood upon them, aren’t there any number of world problems that the United Nations can solve as simply? And if not, what are the questions that should be exposed as central to the Palestinian issue that are not being asked and certainly not discussed? What hasn’t even occurred to these smart individuals?

Well, the fruit of that tree is plentiful indeed. Thus explaining why the path to Palestinian statehood has evaded the effort of world leaders for such a short period of time.

Idiot Power – Not The US’s Solution to Energy

A solar-panel manufacturing company – Solyndra, now in bankruptcy is about to be yet-another political issue between the Republicans and Democrats. So we can anticipate a plethora of diatribes explaining why it was another failed governmental effort that illustrates why the government should not try and create jobs or why it was the right thing to do but unfortunately did not succeed. The political ping-pong ball will be batted back and forth and here and there across the media misinformation networks until something more irrelevant and titillating surfaces to distract the attention span deficient professionals. But what won’t surface or even be recognized is the true failure. Neither the Republican nor Democratic political leaders, think-tanks (an oxymoron if there ever was one), or either parties core constituents have noticed the governmental failure that occurred or would occur from the policies and theories that each advocates.

It’s not hard to understand why the Republicans and Democrats don’t see the real problem; first they are focused on their own interests (but not the country’s), and second they don’t understand that they don’t understand. The first problem is just unfortunate but expected given the voters elected them without any expectation that they would serve the overall needs and interests of the country. The second problem is that they are willing to delude themselves and anyone who supports them that they are capable of dealing with problems confronting the nation.

So rather than recognizing this as an opportunity to begin fixing the problem and for seizing the moment to help move America forward towards a more successful economic and vital nation, these politicians will squander another chance to make a difference for the good of America. Instead our political leaders will make another choice that suits the tastes of the ill-informed and follows the direction of the random winds of chaos.

Where is the Republican or Democrat that is ready and able to stand up and present to the American people the light that will illuminate the path forward? Is there no political leader anywhere that can place before the public a clear and understandable approach for what America should do to address the issue exemplified by the Solyndar situation?  And remember, the answer doesn’t even require you to be any smarter than the average person. Oh, would you vote for someone who you didn’t think was smarter than you? Really! That’s a very disturbing question isn’t it?

Whom Is The Middle? A Taxing Question

Mitt Romney has an idea to create more saving by Americans. He proposes to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital-gains (hereafter: savings’ earnings) from middle class savers. This obviously has two advantages: first, it reduces the middle classes reliance upon a governmental program like Social Security for their retirement needs; and second, it adds to the financial resources available to help stimulate the economy. Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? But if a politician proposed it, doesn’t that mean that there is something inherently wrong, stupid and untrustworthy about it?

Well, let’s not go to the typical extremes that politicians go to and start judging things based on some ideological basis without any need to think, understand or evaluate. Let’s not be a Democrat or Republican; rather let’s be intelligent just to try something different.

To make such an assessment there are a couple of things that we would need to know. For example, what is the middle class? What is the income level that qualifies someone for not having to pay taxes? This is important because who and how much someone can benefit from this depends upon simple things like what the cut-off point is, or what counts in setting that cut-off: wages only, rental income, royalties, all the varieties of income forms that will allow for the unanticipated and unintended consequences of what seemed like a good idea at the time.

I assume that anyone below this middle-class upper limit would be qualified to get the no-taxes on savings’ earnings. So even those who don’t earn enough to get by can save and reap the bounty of this idea. Ok, it doesn’t do anything directly to help the poor; but it’s not a program aimed to help the poor so being criticized on that is not really fair.

For those that do manage to have some money that they can prudently set aside for some other purpose than subsistence that they could choose to save it. So we can imagine that there is a population of individuals that range from those who can save very small amounts each year to those who can elect to save considerably more up to the limit of income or some fixed limit that may be imposed upon the program. The tax benefit thus derived from this program will be proportionately larger for those most likely to be able to save the most, those at the upper middle income level.  Assuming I am one of these high-end beneficiaries, this makes perfect sense to me. It does of course seem to do this at the expense of those less fortunate than myself, but again I am better off so that is clearly the socially responsible thing for a constitutionally structured democracy would intend. I think that I lack a sense of why the government should be implementing a program that preferentially benefits me more than those of our nation that are unable to take advantage of it. Well we do that a lot already, like for the very wealthy which I would like to become one day, so it is a consistent approach to serving citizens unequally.

Now what about those poor hundred people who just missed the middle-class savings’ limit by one dollar? They get classically screwed! So I guess we will have to find a way to adjust the program so that it is somehow progressive. There are at least a half-dozen variations on the theme that could be adopted here, so I am sure that Congress will find a way to pick an approach that is really bad or at least the most inequitable form that can be made to sound fair and balanced.

I can hardly wait for this proposal to make it way through the corridors of Congress and into law. The opportunities for fraud and abuse are already percolating in my head. Well, what has Congress ever done that wasn’t fraught with greater problems and harm than the imaginary benefits that it would provide?

Leading an Economic Recovery – Not Hardly

President Obama is going to give a jobs speech to Congress at some point next week once our elected officials can find a way to stop screwing around with politics before country. I suspect that a major part of the speech will include a proposal to undertake a number of infrastructure initiatives. Given the uncompromising fixed-position driven decision process in vogue in politics today, there will an immediate insistence that before any spending can be agreed to that budget cuts will have to be identified before it could even be considered. So we will see more of the pre-election political posturing and posing that takes precedence over serving the nation’s interests. I am not sure that it will really matter how our politicians finally decide to reach an agreement or impasse, but I am sure of one thing. Not one politician from either party will have done any creative thinking about what the government should do that is any different than what has been tried and attempted in the past. Not one will have demonstrated that they have an idea or a vision that isn’t just another run of the mill version of their party’s standard mantra.

Is it because there aren’t any new or creative approaches to stimulating jobs in the US?

No it’s just that our legislative and executive branches are either incapable or incompetent at developing new ideas and insights into how to affect change in the economy to the benefit of the citizens. When the economy is hurting the country, it is the government that is in the best position to take actions to reduce the harm done and advance the time-frame of a recovery. Economists often cite various actions taken by governments in the past that have either hindered and prolonged a recession or have created a rapid and sustainable recovery. The problem for many economists is that they can’t necessarily identify what will work for the situation that the US is currently in versus what has worked/not worked in previous and different conditions.

Is the reason no politician has presented a new idea of a plan to recovery and job growth because they are following the party’s ideology of what will work; and they can’t find anything insufficient in those views?

Well if this is the reason; then besides being morons, they are relegating their responsibility to the party, they are accepting a following mentality not a leadership mentality, and they are demonstrating their poor judgment and lack of initiative on behalf of their constituents and country.

Now no one would expect every elected politician to be capable of conceiving or working to have a vision developed for aiding the US economy; but not one politician is also hard to understand. Even if only one politician from each state had some aptitude for leading then we should see fifty plans. If one out of a hundred politicians were capable of this challenge then there should be at least five or six proposals. But there are none! Are we back to the ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ vision of leadership? If you meet with 500 people from your state do you think that not one of them might have a good idea for helping the economy recover?  If you picked ten people that you believe are smarter than you, to you think none of them would have an approach to do something that is not the simple, bland and uninspired same-old/same-old things that our best and brightest political leaders are presenting today?

The public is unsure that things will improve. What they lack is leadership; and we have seen no leadership in government, no leadership in our parties, no leadership in our businesses, and no leadership in our society. So we will arrive at the destination that non-leaders can get you to.