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.

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.

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?

Who Do You Trust? – A Ranking Business

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Apparently this is the cool, calm and calculated professional assessment by the keenly knowledgeable financial markets experts of the downgrading of the US’s long-term sovereign credit rating by S&P. So we have heard from every possible source the different assortment of explanations and assessments of this action to make sure that there are plenty of directions and targets on which to place the blame. But here’s an interesting question: What nation do all these experts think is safer and more secure then the US? Is it the UK and Germany? So the rest of the world can turn to them to insure the stability of their own financial stability?

I am not disagreeing that the US’s financial condition is riskier than it has been in a long time, but I am not sure I think that there is any other nation that is less risky. So isn’t the downgrading, justly deserved or not, a relative event? Didn’t the economic future of every other country become a little more risky along with the US’s? So, why is the financial market in such a panic? Because the panic is not a rational behavior, it is well a panic. So who do we trust?

The credit rating agencies, we must be able to trust them. They have nothing to gain by being wrong, and have never failed us in the past. That is if you overlook things like the US’s housing mortgage and collateralized debt catastrophe or the tech bubble or any of the other financial melt-downs of smaller note. I am not saying that they miss such events intentionally, just that they are not showing any signs of being actually better than anyone else.

How about the financial market itself? Oops! Right, they didn’t do too well with the housing crisis, the tech bubble, the savings and loan disasters, unforeseen risks with computerized trading, or ya-da-ya-da-ya-da. Not a trustworthy group there either.

The US Government, now here is a group we can put faith in. Hmmm!  Congress? I think not.  The President/Administration? You can’t be serious. Let’s just move on.

America’s Corporate businesses, now here is a group that we can rely upon. We don’t see CEO and other corporate executive letting us down, taking advantage of their positions, draining enormous sums from the companies’ coffers and leaving ruined wrecks in their wake. Well, maybe sometimes or actually a lot of times.

The answer is you don’t trust. You’re not supposed to trust. What you are supposed to do is pay attention, be responsible, be realistic, and demand value for reward. And there is the heart of the problem. If you don’t act this way, and the politicians you elect don’t act this way; what exactly do you think will happen.

What will happen now is that the American people will be taxed at a higher rate, and so will most of the rest of the world. It isn’t the kind of tax that many American’s are so irrational about, it much worse. It the kind of tax that you don’t have someone to blame for, but you probably will anyway. It’s an increase in the cost of everything. With a US debt at $14 trillion and the downgrading to a double-A rating, if that downgrade were to cost only 0.1% more in interest then the US government is looking at only $14 billion more on that total amount; hardly a nickel per person. But that nickel, it is not the impact that will hurt us; and if it cost a whole 1% more it still is not debilitating. Here is where it’s going to hurt: The cost to business will be higher for their loans, the cost to consumers for credit will be higher, the cost for students for tuition will be higher, and on and on. Some businesses will benefit from this in the immediate view, and it may be impossible to prove that they would have been better off if the downgrade didn’t happen. But you will pay. You will be less well off. And you are also heavily invested in the responsibility for this.

Mostly because the folks that are leading our nation are neither prepared to deal with the complexity of such issues nor are they capable of acting in intelligent, rational or serving the public-interest ways. There is a simple principle here: Don’t go to the butcher for medical advice. Don’t go to the plumber for legal advice, and don’t go to the lawyer for a plumbing problem. Don’t hire a banker to herd your cattle, nor an English teacher to fix your car. Sure you may get lucky and find someone who can actually assist you, but the odds are not in your favor. Oh, yeah. Don’t go to the casinos to invest your retirement funds.

You should start looking for someone who is more intelligent to send to Congress. If you’re lucky they might even be more intelligent than you.

Congress: Will They Save Us or Screw Us?

A couple of people have noticed that something is amiss in our government. It appears that there is this budget problem that could be a little troublesome for the economy, the country and even the public. I don’t know why everyone is worried; we have Congress on the job to deal with it. And who could be more capable than the members of Congress in dealing with it? After all, half the responsibility rests with Congress. It’s Congress that created the problem. Perhaps their concerns stems from the fact that it’s Congress that has not just refused to deal with the problem; but Congress has actively and knowingly sought to go out of their way to make the problem larger, more difficult and destructive to the American way of life. Now yes, it is true that Congress is not totally alone in being culpable for this egregious failure; the public has been woefully negligent in stepping up to our own responsibility for ignoring simple and basic fiscal reality. Well the chickens have come home to roost; and surprise, surprise the economic zero-sum game has turned up the pay your bills card. So now that the debt ceiling question has reached the point where even the politicians are forced to actually step forward and do their jobs.

Let’s assume for a moment that the members of Congress are at least smarter than their village idiots; although I think that that was their qualification for being elected so it is a stretch assumption. If Congress finds some half-assed, mediocre, weasel worded, unimaginative, kick-the-can down the road solution to extending the national debt-ceiling then the crisis will appear to be avoided. If Congress doesn’t find a way to raise the debt-ceiling then we didn’t even get the village idiots elected; and America will pay a far greater price then should have been required.

But at the end of the day, Congress will not have done three things that are critical to the future of America. Congress will not have solved the problem, Congress will not have understood the problem, and Congress will not have served the American people. And there is virtually no one in Congress who is even aware that this is the case. The TEA Party right-wing ideologies want to solve the problem by cutting spending, but no increases in taxes. The liberal left-wing ideologies want to cut spending and raise taxes on the wealthy and insure the entitlement programs are preserved. The unheard (or perhaps non-existent) moderates are well, unheard; presenting no vision or plan for how to move the country forward in a sane and reasonable manner.

The Republican and Democratic parties with their own internal supposed spectrum of moderate to right or left ideological views have misused the nomenclature of moderate, liberal, progressive, conservative, hawk, dove,  or centrist. Both parties are more alike than they advocate; they are both ‘know-nothing’ / ‘do nothing’ advertising campaigns. They both spend their time, energies, and resources in simply achieving and prolonging their tenures in office.

So will Congress save us or screw us? Congress will tell us that they saved us from the brink of the abyss and are now working on restoring America to a sound footing. But deep in your head and heart most of you know that you just got screwed again. They haven’t done anything to restore our economy, at best they have managed to keep it from a precipitous decent into a truly catastrophic economic quagmire; and have left the public, the economy and the nation lost in the wilderness of leaderless politicians. And not only will Congress have not lead, they will persist in hindering any progress toward solutions and establishing any momentum for achieving the American vision of a secure future with freedom and liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

It is time for those Americans who are independent of these two parties to recognize that they are the only force that can restore America, that they must not only value the American dream and principles; but that they must be the responsible and accountable voters for choosing those sent to Congress and the Presidency. It is time to stop the failed ideologies that have corrupted the Democratic and Republican parties from within and find individuals who are worthy of the offices that they seek.

How Obama Could Save America: A Three Step Plan

Since Congress cannot navigate the complexities of, well legislating by themselves; and they can’t competently negotiate legislation in concert with the President, they have remarkably exceeded the expectations of most Americans and demonstrated a higher level of ineptitude and stupidity than we have come to depend on from them. The national debt limit crisis seems to have illuminated sections of the vast and empty craniums in Congress that had gone heretofore not known to even exist. How can the American people keep finding such vacuous individuals to represent them? Alas, there appears to be an ample source of lesser minded, morally devoid and spiritually deprived souls to fill the office seeker ranks of the political parties. And the voters seem content with accepting these insipid and vapid choices. But let’s leave the dilemma of the voters’ psychotic and dysfunctional behavior for a later time.

The important question at this moment is: What should the Executive do in these times of pending economic disaster when confronted with the best and brightest talent provided by the Congressional leadership and backbench team? The answer is: Save America.

Now I am not being quixotic or flippant, I contend that there is a simple three step plan that the President should elect to use as a recovery campaign to return America to a solid footing. It’s unfortunate that he is constrained by the advice and input of generations of the tried and true political wonks that orchestrated the creation of the colossal governmental abomination which wrought the pending economic Armageddon. But that is not a valid or acceptable reason why the three step plan should not be put before the American people. And who knows maybe something will penetrate the extremely dense barriers to innovation and creativity that are the bulwark of our government.

Step 1. The President should exercise his executive power via executive orders directing various government agencies to curtail the rapidity with which they are expending their authorized budgets. In essence, the President will cut government spending by simply slowing it down. The execution of these orders will necessitate find unique approaches and solutions that will apply to and work for different departments, agencies and organizations. But slowing government spending which is an Executive Branch function is under his authority, so he can affect the change without requesting Congress to do anything. And since Congress doesn’t do anything useful anyway, this won’t interfere with their normal activities.

Step 2. The President must explain to the American public, and the world, why he has taken these actions. It is imperative that he makes it clear that he has only taken these steps because Congress has utterly failed to step up to the challenges confronting the nation, refused to deliver on their promises of “making the hard choices” in service to America, and dishonored their Constitutional oath to fulfill their responsibilities defined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. The President must convince the public that they need to look to Congress when it cannot deliver an affordable budget, explicitly approve or reject an authorization of the national debt limit, and establish a fair tax system. The American people then need to understand that it is up to them to find representatives who can deliver on these responsibilities. This is not a question of political party; it is an issue of sending people to Congress who can do their job.

Step 3. The last step is the most crucial, and thus the hardest to accomplish and to understand. The President needs to establish some select commissions to prepare strategies and plans to restructure the methods and operational procedures to be used to manage and improve the execution and administration of governmental agencies and programs. One aspect that makes this difficult is that the individuals that you need to perform these tasks are neither typical of political and policy advisors, nor found among governmental, lobbyist or special interest groups; and they are likely to view popular political ideologies as narrow-minded and shortsighted. A second aspect that may be an insurmountable hurdle is that even though they could develop superior and more efficient approaches to deliver the government’s functions, Congress would be required to eventually accept their plans and more pointedly to restrain themselves from creating their own required plans for implementing government policies.

Three steps to save America. They are not easy steps. They would not be popular steps initially, but would gain recognized value with time. And they would require the acceptance of political leaders that they are not qualified to achieve the goals and objectives that they set for the country. They may be qualified to represent the American people’s interests, desires and aspirations; but being the CEO’s of government doesn’t mean you can do the work of government, only that they can set the direction and vision of government.

Hard Choices: American Intelligence Test #11

Beware America! We are approaching the precipice of economic disaster. The nation is about to fail to have an adequate amount of money to pay its bills and obligations. Our political leadership has been unable to find a way to make the hard choices necessary to prevent the damaging consequences to inaction. These are the same politicians who vigorously campaigned and then blusteringly declared to any open microphone, visible camera or public forum that they were here to make the hard choices that the people of America sent them to Congress to make. With such illustrious personages representing the American people, one has to wonder why they have been unable – no incapable and inadequate to the task of setting the government on a rational and reasonable path to fiscal responsibility. The answer is of course simple, but first the obligatory questions; the opportunity to partake in an exhibition of societal competence.

While scoring your answers is a personal assessment responsibility, my answers are provided as a counter-point for your consideration. As always a willingness to deceive yourself, as to the correctness of your answers or beliefs, is a measure of actual intelligence demonstrated. To paraphrase Lincoln:

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.

And we begin.

Q-1:   Who is responsible for ensuring the US has an adequate budget to handle its obligations?

A.      Executive (President)  
B. Electorate (voters)  
C. House of Reps.  
D. Senate    
E. OMB (Office of Management & Budget)

Context:  Before you choose to blame someone, it is reasonable to know if they’re responsible.

Q-2:  What do we require of our elected officials’ decisions in representing us?

A.      Adherence to political ideology and party position
B.      Holding to campaign promises or pledges
C.      His judgment even in opposition to your opinion
D.      Nothing
E.       Consideration of how his/her constituency alone is effected

Q-3:  When confronted with an impasse on an issue, what is the hard choice?

A.      Hold their ground and remain unyielding
B.      Seek an acceptable compromise among other parties that serves the public’s interests
C.      Present an innovative solution that addresses the problem better than the intractable alternatives
D.      Agree to some delaying tactic that avoids a hard choice
E.       Do something stupid and claim victory

Context: Don’t consider what our politicians actually do, think Founding Fathers’ judgment or what an intelligent person would do.

Q-4:   What caused the economic dilemma that confronts the nation?

A.      Democrats excessive spending
B.      Republicans excessive tax cuts and credits
C.      Partisan political intransigence
D.      American public’s irrational expectations
E.       All parties failure to understand the problem

Q-5: The media’s role in the national debt crisis and the debt-ceiling has been:

A.      Fair and balanced
B.      Insightful and informative
C.      Hacked and pedestrian
D.      Irrelevant and pathetic
E.       Up to the standards of the American public
F.       Wasn’t aware the media covered this

Context: Your assessment should be an aggregation of and inclusive of as many media sources as you experience.

Q-X (Special/Bonus):  Which options provide the best solutions to the national debt?

A.      Cut the federal budget
B.      Raise taxes
C.      Cut taxes
D.      Reorganize all government programs and operations based on delivery of value
E.       Curtail Congress’s involvement in implementation of federal programs

Your ordeal is over, and I suspect that you are confident in your answers. While likely of no value, my answers are:

1:  C  [See users-manual]

2:  C  [a Founding Father’s principle]

3:  C  [unfortunately requires intelligence, so B is a back-up for the ill-equipped]

4:  E  [the problem is not the debt ceiling nor government spending (budget); and no one group is to blame]

5:  E  [If the right questions aren’t pursued the answers are of no value]

X- Bonus:  D  [E is a poor second, and A,B,C are all just necessary levers and not solutions]

While the individuals in Congress are the showcase morons that we identify with such problems, and they are truly extremely culpable for a significant level of responsibility; in reality the absolute responsibility rests with the American people. Your representatives were only able to be as damaging and useless as they are because you chose them. The physics of politics and government are no less cause and effect driven than the law of gravity. Obviously a large mass of ignorance attracts other ignorance.

Potential Energy and Independent Power

The obvious and evident failure of the Democratic and Republican parties to recognize their responsibility to represent their constituencies, not their special interest campaign backers or their core party ideologies, but the American citizens within their respective political districts has been showcased in the current national debt ceiling debacle on display for the last six-plus months. Now I enjoy watching the ineptitude and stupidity of our political leaders as much as anyone, but I am getting tired of having to increasingly pay more and more for the consequences of their collective incompetence. Consider a recent statement that indicated that ‘no solution that put the burden of new taxes upon those who cannot afford them, will be tolerated’. Unless I missed something, isn’t there a logical inconsistency somewhere in this statement when the proposals for ‘new revenues’ are targeted on high-income (wealthy) individuals? Can you really be wealthy, and not be able to afford a tax increase, that is still less than historic levels? Well, the statement does play well in the media; I suppose it doesn’t matter that it’s demonstrates an idiotic premise. I would have recommended staying with one of the other fallacious statements that doesn’t look so stupid when a simple question is raised.

 And don’t be fooled by either side that throughout the entire ranting exercises (I cannot in good conscience even allude to their debating the issue) of each partisan mob that they understand or even attempted to inform anyone about how and what you will pay under their varied and respective proposals. Whether it’s the extreme right-wing Republicans or extreme left-wing Democratic, these tunnel-visioned party fanatics have deluded themselves and they hope fooled most other Americans that their approaches would address the nations fiscal problems.

The conventional wisdom (what a misused concept for the political wonks who spew their sage detritus about the workings of our elected partisan automaton) is that the Republicans and Democrats will be unable (I think incapable and inadequate are more apropos) to reach a compromise agreement on dealing with raising the debt ceiling and coming to grips with government spending and revenues. So rather than a carpe diem moment, the great and grand political leadership of America are kicking the can down the road in hopes of perpetuating more self-centered, self-serving campaign sound-bites to keep the addle-pated core , well addled and foaming at the mouth.

What recourse for America is there? The answer is that you have to look at the physic of the political reality. The Republican and Democratic parties are only in control because the true power brokers in America are not focused or organized. Elections are determined by the nation’s independent voters. Voters who cannot bring themselves to aligning themselves with either party because those parties are ideologically, intellectually and ethically bankrupt. Independents are the potential power in America. Their choices represent the energy that can power the movement of our governmental and societal systems to productive and responsible solutions.

The challenge for Independents is create an independent communications medium to provide a lens through which their energy can be focused and brought to bear on the issues and choices that need to be made. It is in this context that future topics will be presented on sowing the seeds of political innovation for raising a crop of American leadership that is not stunted and deformed by the inbreeding of the lesser of bad choices, and improper culling of the evolutionary viable members of the herd.

Not All Self-Interest Is Equal

Some American concepts are far more complex than the casual observer would expect. The American confidence in the free market is such a concept. It entwines elements of capitalism, freedom, democracy and self-interest in a complex fabric that has woven the most formidable economic power ever achieved to date. And we Americans tend to believe that we are guaranteed to remain in the forefront of economic powers because it is our rightful place in the world. But our economy, our market system and our societal framework did not achieve its success simply because of these structural elements. It has at times been more and less capitalistic than others, it hasn’t always been free in the same way that is it free today, and it isn’t always a democratic operation. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the principle of self-interest hasn’t always been a constant in the marketplace, the economy or our society.

Recognizing and grappling with this complexity is part of the challenge that America must confront to be successful in the competitive global arena. In that regard it is incumbent upon us to know and understand the difference between: Self-Interest and Enlightened Self-Interest.

Self-interest is the term that you will usually hear. It is one of the forces that drives the efficiency and competitiveness of the marketplace. People, groups, companies, states, countries, and multi-national are all considered to work better and receive greater results when they operate under the principle of self-interest. Much of the free enterprise system stems from this mode of operation. A free market doesn’t guarantee that you will succeed; in fact, it is generally indifferent to your success or failure. The free market only assures you that in a level playing-field market that the better, more cost efficient and need fulfilling products and services will win out over their lesser competitors. But self-interest also can drive actions and behaviors that are anathema to the benefits expected of the free market operating in a democratic society.

Self-interest can represent a selective provision place in the law that thwarts a fair and open competition. Self-interest can lead to corruption and abuse that erodes and rots the power of a free market. And in one of its most devious incarnations self-interest can lead individuals, groups, and entities to seek local and/or near term benefits that are actually destructive to those that sought the benefits as well as those that were disadvantaged originally.

The problem with thinking that self-interest is an American principle that has produced the benefits that our economy and society have achieved is that it has produced some of the worst conditions in America also. There is nothing inherently wrong or misguided about self-interest, rather you have to understand that it does not guarantee a positive outcome for you, for others or for anyone.

America is best served when the principle of self-interest is an “enlightened self-interest”. This requires that decisions and policies are examined in terms of the self-interests that are involved. And you have to understand what the self-interests are, and whether they are reasonable, rationale and prudent interests to be served. For example, the America economy benefits enormously when the middle-class (and the lower-class) incomes grow. The reason is that a robust consumer economy increases the flow of money in the nation’s economy, it increases the private sector’s opportunities to grow, and provides for more profits.  The wealth of the country expands the most when it expands for all members of the society. Otherwise, the simplest way to a sound economy would be to place all the wealth in one individual/corporation, which we in America know is just stupid.

What issue confronting America today, illustrates the difference between self-interest and enlightened self-interest? You might as well ask: What issue doesn’t? If you don’t see it yet, one of the biggest is the national budget and its little sister the debt ceiling. And there doesn’t appear to be any comprehension on the part of Congress that understanding the issue is an important part of addressing the country’s problems.

The US Budget: Three Errors Americans Keep Making

America and Americans are desperately seeking solutions to their economic woes. As is typical of our citizenry, they persist in looking for the quick, the easy and the effortless fix. Doesn’t matter whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or any of the lesser marginalized cults. They seize upon the particular orthodoxy, beliefs and tenets of their political theology to answer all issues, questions and problems. It doesn’t matter if their partisan faith is irrelevant, flawed or useless; their personal political beliefs provide them with an internal comfort that all will work out fine because they believe that they are in the right. From this unfounded confidence in their ideology, Americans guide their political judgments and decisions; and thus predictably we get the inevitable consequences from ill-informed, ill-intended and ill-defined legislative and administrative efforts. What is wrong with the political decisions that Americans are making?

Well, we don’t have the space to go into everything that the electorate is doing wrong, but we can at least identify three mistakes that they make over and over and over.

One: Many voters, particularly those aligned with a formal party, are sufficiently moronic to believe the political rhetoric and theater that is played out in the media, meetings and campaigns. Instead of engaging in any assessment and analysis of what the country’s needs and interests are, what the society’s needs and interests are, and what the people’s needs and interests are. They abandoned their responsibility to their countrymen/women agreed to in the country’s contract. Instead they believe the words and speeches of their partisan leadership without asking whether there is any substance to the text. Failure one is not noticing that the same answer, the same sound-bites, the same posturing stances on principles cannot be an informed, intelligent and appropriate solution to any issue brought into the public forum. If you don’t question and demand an explanation that makes sense and informs you then you just aren’t trying.

Two: When a politician is elected, you can choose to trust them or not. This one is really easy. If you trust them, then you must never have met a politician before. You must never have read or heard about what politicians do, or who politicians cozy up to. In short, you cannot trust a politician. So mistake number two is that voters put their preference into a special category of honest, different from the rest.

Three: Politicians can fix our problems. The simplest way to clarify your error on this one is to ask: “What problem have you ever actually seen politicians fix?” They follow, they don’t lead. They are not informed or intelligent enough to solve problems. This is why their legislative and administrative efforts always define how something is to be done or solved. That is not a solution, it is a dictate. It only says: “This is how I want it to be”, and has nothing to do with dealing with the physics of government and society. So mistake three is voters accept the premise that politicians have the ability to solve the country’s problems. They accept this without any evidence that politicians have any understanding of what the underlying conditions of the problem are, nor possess any notion of what actions can influence the situation to produce the results that are desired.

Is it any wonder that politicians have spent the last two plus years failing to do anything to correct the American economy? They talk about cutting budgets or taxing the wealthy. These of course are not solutions to the problem, and more importantly, they just talk about what is to be done. They do nothing. The definition of Congress: They do nothing

Connections: The Missing Factor

The lack of jobs growth in the US’s economy is perplexing the experts and the not-experts (the politicians). Republicans have their pat-answer: lower corporate taxes and the jobs will come. While that has its ever popular consumer attraction appeal, it is an answer that is not really based on any statistical or historic evidence. Democrats have a less monosyllabic and more varied approach with their guesses: tax-credits, more stimulus/investment, infrastructure, training, and the list goes on. There is a reason that the politicians are clueless, aren’t they always clueless! The economists on the other hand have N*(N-1)/2 possible theories on what is preventing slow or no job growth under whatever circumstances exist at the time; where N is the number of economists questioned. The problem is that the economists are almost as bad as the politicians when it comes to guidance on what to do to turn the job situation around. If one of them (or a small group of them) is right there is unfortunately no way to figure out which one it is.

As for the politicians, since they don’t know what to do anyway; they fall back on their preferred decision making method: do what their respective special-interest contributors tell them to do. This may benefit the special-interests, but these special-interests are not concerned with jobs or anyone else for that matter. They are just seizing the opportunity to gain some monetary advantage at the expense of everyone else.

The nation’s problem is that unless the politicians begin to understand just a little about what is causing our jobs problem and what needs to be done to effectively do something about it that the economy will continue to limp along and suffer from the drag that unemployment puts on all facets of our economy.

Let’s take a look at the “tried and true” adage that small businesses create most of the new jobs in the economy. Even if you look at that in a simple-minded manner, you know like a politician, the data is questionable on that ‘fact’. In ‘fact’, it may be that small businesses hinder job creation. The real fact is that size of company is not the determining variable. Newness of company is much more salient, as both a creator of jobs, and as a destroyer of jobs (almost half don’t last five years). So using the big “small” word is one of the many ways that politicians miss the ‘fact’. All in all, politicians shouldn’t get the job based on their interviews so far.

But even if politicians and policy-makers began to appreciate this part of the equation, they still wouldn’t be able to do the math required to impact job growth. Just knowing that new businesses create new jobs doesn’t really tell you what to do that would actually help get more new businesses started; and one might ask “why is the government trying to create jobs” shouldn’t the market place do that? Just another political-economic concept that the politicians don’t know what they’re talking about.

What do politicians need to start learning? Thought it is beyond their innate abilities, we can hope that they have someone on the staff and advisory committee that is sufficiently competent to find some expertise to train the politician to stop making political plans and start supporting plans and policies that are prepared by more knowledgeable and accountable people. The accountable part is critical.

First lesson, jobs are created due to a number of factors in any economy; but in our economy there is more than just the number of factors. While each factor contributes to or detracts from job growth, there is also a higher math facet to the equation; in addition to adding its own contribution to the equation different factors may influence the effectiveness of other factors. So it can get very complex, very fast. So in the real world it is important to understand the most powerful factors, particularly those that you can influence, and construct your “influencing” policies and programs around them. You also want someone monitoring the one’s you can’t and looking into the impact that the middling and minor factors are having which may undermine all your good intentions.

Now here is a thought provoker: Big businesses create jobs (B-jobs), which cause middle-size businesses to create jobs (M-jobs), which cause small businesses to create jobs (S-jobs). The number of S-jobs is typically going to be greater than the number of B-jobs and maybe M-jobs. The number of M-jobs is likely to be as great as or greater than B-jobs. Now before you jump off the cliff that your political leaders have already flung themselves over, while they are shouting that you should jump now before you are left behind, don’t conclude that is therefore best to emphasize S-jobs. You know why of course.

Yes, that’s right; the majority of S-jobs and even M-jobs are created because of the B-jobs. This is one of those intertwined relationships in the jobs creation equation. Now please, don’t go running off thinking that all you have to do then is create B-jobs. You would be right if you could just go do that, which you can’t without understanding many of the other factors. And, you would also have to make sure that you were creating B-jobs that were; well, valuable. This is not a job for politicians; you need a group of people of at least modest intelligence for this and you need to set up your economic systems to support and not inhibit beneficial results.

So yes, you don’t want to tax businesses beyond rational levels; but equally important you don’t want to be rewarding businesses to do things that are disadvantageous for our economy but benefit the business. You know, exactly what politicians do.

A Treatment Plan for Healthcare

Both Republicans and Democrats want to fix America’s healthcare system. Both want to reduce the rapidly rising cost of health care, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. And both want to use their view of how healthcare should be provided to defeat their opponents in their election campaigns. But neither has shown any ability to actually provide a plan that actually provides a plan for accomplishing it that would serve the public. How is this possible, if healthcare is an important issue to the public?

The easy answer is that politicians are as woefully ill-equipped to grapple with the healthcare system as they are with pretty much anything else. Yes, our politicians are an incapable lot. But while it’s an easy answer, and it is true that the politicians are in no position to develop or craft a viable healthcare plan; they are unfortunately in the position of having to agree to whatever plan would ultimately be adopted. So they are a player at the table, we just need to find a way to put them at the kiddy-table and remind them that they should be quiet while the adults are discussing serious matters. Once the adults are done, they will be allowed to go play in the family room (Congress), but will have to do what they’re told.

The more important part of the answer is that the public is once again caught in their wishful thinking mode about healthcare. Most people are satisfied with their medical care. This satisfaction is of course disconnected from an appreciation of what they are paying for. Either they are covered by a medical play that covers all or most of the costs, or their deductable is not outrageously bad and the co-pays are relatively small. What they are not accounting for is that they are paying for other medical costs that are not part of what they think of as their expense. Local, state and federal taxes that go to support medical systems like hospitals; the Medicare and Medicaid programs that are not adequately funded and which are increasingly consuming more and more in public funding. The public doesn’t see the increasing medical costs that are outstripping any salary increases or inflation rates anywhere else in the economy as part of their medical expense problem. The public thinks that an unsustainable healthcare system doesn’t mean they will be affected in the future. I am not saying that they’re stupid, but Forrest Gump had a philosophy about intelligence that comes to mind.

What the public needs to do is not delude themselves into thinking that things are generally ok with healthcare, they are not. The public must reject the notion that the political parties or factions within a party are even more clueless then they are about how to fix healthcare. The first step as with most problems is to admit that you have a problem and then to find someone who can help you find your way. The problem is that as the healthcare system collapses under the weight of unaffordable costs, your personal healthcare will suffer through either increased costs, reduced available providers, or altogether unavailable healthcare services.

The solution is for the politicians to remove themselves from being the agents that design the healthcare system, they must be restricted to only agree that whatever is funded under a government budget is paid for with non-borrowed revenues. If the public cannot pay for it, then they cannot get it.

Now while neither the Democrats nor Republicans can design a governmental healthcare system that will provide more care at lower costs then the mess we have today, it can be done by people who know how to solve problems that are constrained by the requirements that define what is to be delivered as the end product.

Second Law of Budgets

After attempting to digest the First Law of Budgets, I suspect not many politicians or members of the public would have much stomach for the second course. How annoying it must be to be told that you have to pay for everything. But for those of you who do, the Second Law is more esoteric and insidious. The Second Law of Budgets deals with the principle that in managing money the system is imperfect, you cannot attain a perfect conversion of a quantity of money into an exact equal value of whatever you equate it to. In other words, with every financial transaction there is an inequality of the exchange. Now the bookkeepers will contend that they can and do balance the books; that every penny, rupee, yuan, or pound is accounted for and that the ledger balances. But that is accounting, not money or value. The natural law that we are dealing with here, with regard to budgets, is that as money (value) flows from one region to another, or within the total system itself, that every movement includes a small (or not so small) loss to the parties engaged in the transaction. This loss can come from many factors and there can be more than one of these incremental losses nibbling away at the value of the exchange.

An example would probably be helpful. If you spend a $1,000 to buy a flat-panel TV and the value of the TV was agreed by all to be $1,000 then the exchange seems equal, balanced and exact. Except that there are additional costs that the buyer has to account for. There is typically going to be a sale-tax (both local and state), there is a cost to have it delivered or to transport it back to you abode, there may be an installation/set-up fee, and there is an immediate loss of market-value once you take it out of the box. You might even want to account for other value factors. If you gave the delivery person(s) a tip for their service then that was an additional value for the TV that is neither in its inherent value nor recoverable.

This gradual but continuing erosion of value within the exchange process is simply the operation of the Second Law of Budgets. Whatever you establish as your acquisition target there will be more and more cost bites added on to the value of what you desire or need with every person, action, and stage that the transaction encounters as you move closer to completing the purchase. In the end, you will possess the goal object but you will have spent more money for it than it will be worth at the moment of ownership/possession. As C. P. Snow would say about the Second Law: “You can’t break even.”

Now this should provide our budgetary heralds with some intriguing insights into the difficulties that Congress has to include in their reasoned and unbiased deliberations on what needs to be done by the government and what will be cared for by the private sector. I am sure that they will appreciate that every calculation of value that they think they are making will be reduced more and more by the little but persistent nibbles. The nibbles will come via the Second Law through each individual exchange along the chain of purchases, acquisitions, and trades that are the magic of the economy. Congress will learn that the best and most efficient exchange process is not in fact determined by simple and ideological approaches. The free market nor the government program set in any fixed relation to one another, and neither will ever perform as expected by the masters of the budget.

Let’s turn Medicare into a voucher/premium-supplement supported market-based insurance program. Nibble, nibble. Let’s raise the age or retirement. Nibble, nibble. Let’s reduce taxes on the wealthy to create jobs. Nibble, nibble. Let’s stimulate the economy with tax-credits and bailouts. Nibble, nibble.

What Congress doesn’t comprehend is that they are mostly a nibble, just another aspect of the Second Law of Budgets. Not only can you not get as much out of what you’re taxed as you pay in, but Congress insures that you get less. And they do so in the most inefficient manner. Democrat or Republican, they just keep nibbling and nibbling. Even when they tell you that they want to do less and tax you less, they haven’t figured in the non-government nibbles. Maybe you’re taxed too much, maybe you are not. That’s the wrong issue, it always has been. It’s just another one of their nibbles, it’s not like they have figured out that there are other nibbles out there that if not understood are worse than the one’s they want to try and change.

The national debt is in part a Congressional nibble. The deficit is a Congressional nibble. The declining entitlement programs funding is a Congressional nibble. Defense spending adds its own nibbles. Nibble by nibble the nation’s problems grow because Congress doesn’t understand the Second Law which leaves them vulnerable to it. It’s not that they make mistakes; they don’t even know the rules. They don’t make mistakes, they make actual bad decisions.