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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Field of Schemes

America has recently raised a new hybrid variety of genetically modified politicians across a number of the nation’s political fields. This domestic crop of representatives has yet to be valued in the public marketplace as to whether they are to be a productive and useful commodity, or just another field of weeds that will have to be up rooted in order to plant another variety in the next political season that might bear some nutritious fruit. We only have to hope that if they are indeed weeds that it doesn’t turn out that they destroy the land and leave it unsuitable for productive use or worse, lethal to the public.

New Jersey has given us one particular example in Governor Chris Christie. He has made some headway in becoming one of the new conservative poster boys and hard-nosed players on the national political scene. Certainly there is a lot of huffing and puffing, and then there is the occasional decision and its corresponding justification. Or, in more cases than not, these rationalization just sounds like a reason though they are in fact really not. You’ve all heard the proclamations that almost ring true, but upon examination of what the decision was you are left wondering if you might deserve a teaching moment or more pointedly a visit to the shed. You know the quotes: “I was sent here to make the hard decisions.”, or “This is what the American people expect.” After hearing these, it often occurs to me that I didn’t find the decision hard, but rather just stupid or wrong; or that it wasn’t what I expected of a leader but rather that of a politician as we have come to know them.

In this season of the crusading conservatives who have come to save the profligate states from their foolish ways, Christie has stood up and challenged many opponents. Some he has vanquished, others he has pronounced “Mission Accomplished” proclamations against even if he has somehow not actually managed to confront or defeat them, and there are always the battles that he fights and loses which then aren’t talked about because it would tarnish his prodigious armor. But sadly today, this is the way of politicians. It’s more how you say it looks than what it actually looks like. Given the fiscal disaster that he had to grapple with in New Jersey, he has taken actions which he has had no choice but to take. Given a knife to cut the budget, he cut the budget. Of course, was he a skilled and knowledgeable surgeon cutting away the tumor, or the quack recklessly maiming the patient? Fortunately for him, more often than not the quality of his decisions will not be determinable or attributable to him even long after his is gone.

But there are moments when the world presents an opportunity for the public to demand that such politicians stand and deliver. When the decisions that they are going to make for the ‘public good’ can be tested against the man’s/woman’s character, judgment, intellect and wisdom. Such a moment exists now for the citizens of New Jersey with regard to Governor Christie. This same moment also exists for many other Governors in other states, both Democrat and Republican.

What an opportunity! These political leaders can stand up and be counted. They can directly show the public and the nation their personal integrity, their own confidence in their judgment, and their willingness to be responsible and accountable for their decisions in office. How fortunate to be a politician in such a time. How lucky to be able to stand before the public and show them right here and now, that they ‘put it all on the line’ in their service to the people. Surely history will remember them for being the type of statesman/woman who epitomizes the American values and ideals. How could they shrink from an opportunity like this, unless they were not really conducting themselves as public servants?

What is the opportunity? Well, one case is the natural gas fracking issue. Governor Christie has indicated that New Jersey needs to proceed with gas explorations and the use of the fracking process for the good of New Jersey. He may not be a scientist, engineer or particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but he believes that providing affordable and domestic-sourced energy is vital to New Jersey and the nation; and if the process of fracking will provide that then he believes that the state should support and encourage the business. Many New Jerseyians agree and support this view, and many do not; that is why it’s a political issue. And here is where Christie can move to the forefront, here is where he can be the leader that New Jersey and the nation needs.

All that is required is that Governor Christie pledge to accept the consequences of his decision. He only needs to take a simple and easily accomplished promise; and then he must do what so many politician always fail to do, he must abide by his promise and fulfill his oath. Now if the Governor or no one else has figured out what the pledge is, I would only ask that you take a moment to think what would be an obvious, direct and immediate action that he or any other governor or politician could take. And now that you’ve thought about it, I am sure that you see it as clearly as I do.

If you don’t recognize it, well perhaps you might seek assistance from your friends and neighbors, from your colleagues and party members, or from those whose opinions and judgments you respect. And if this fails, I am sure we can find a way to provide the answer. The ‘ah ha’ moment will be well worth it.

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.

The Thermodynamic Laws of Budgets:

One of the reasons that politics is always so contentious is that politicians lack a common set of natural laws that they can use to explain their positions. Thus unlike the scientific laws that have allowed the productive members of society to have advanced the human race and in our instance the America condition to the high level of achievement that we prize so much. Politicians are left adrift and forced to use their own intellect to explain why their positions and policies are the more deserving of support. Given their dependence upon their own cognitive resources, is it any wonder that they are so inept and incapable of accomplishing even the very little that they do? Even more depressing is the public’s acceptance of the drivel that these same self-appointed paragons of pomposity spew in endless torrents of opinion.

To better serve both the public and our government there appears to be an urgent need for someone to lay before the public and politicians some of the natural laws that apply to the political realm and the real world that our elected officials dabble in daily with disastrous results. To that end, the following offering is presented to help raise the level of understanding of the politicians and the public alike. In the case of politicians this may be more challenging; but given their abysmal awareness, knowledge and understanding of almost anything important any infinitesimal incremental increase in comprehension will be a tremendous even astronomical gain for them.

As the nation’s budget is much talked about as a highly charged political topic, it seems apropos to examine the budgetary equivalent to the scientific Four Laws of Thermodynamics. In this discussion I will at appropriate times cite C.P Snow’s interpretation of the primary 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.

First Law of Budgets: Conservation of Money

Money is Money. It doesn’t matter who has the money, it only matters how much they have. It doesn’t matter what form it comes in, in the end the money in the system always equals the same amount of value. This principle applies to the total system (globally) or to regional segments where the proper accounting is maintained. The general rule is that within a specified region (including the whole) money is equal to ‘all value’ (money) transferred into the system minus ‘all value’ transferred out, plus all value retained in the system. Think, there is no other source of funds that can be magically tapped when you need it. If you need more money, you have to have it or find someone who is willing to exchange something of theirs with value for something of yours with value that nets out to you having more than when you started.

What does this mean for Congress, the Administration, or even the Supreme Court? It means that they have to abide by the First Law. It’s not that it’s a good idea, it’s not that it’s the right thing to do, it’s the physics of monetary reality; try and resist or ignore it and you will face the consequences of the power of the universe marshaled against you. According to C.P. Cook this means, “You cannot win.”

Some things that politicians and the public need to become comfortable with because of the First Law are:

• The public pays for everything. No one except the public has any money.

• Whatever the public wants the government to do, they have to pay for from their money (wealth); they have to be taxed by the government.

• Everything required by the government, everything prohibited by the government, everything encouraged or discouraged by the government, and everything that the government does to achieve some goal requires the public to be taxed. It doesn’t matter if you support or oppose what the goal(s) is, the public pays.

• When you borrow, you create a condition where you eventually transfer more money out of your region into the one you borrowed from. You are transferring your wealth to them, and the public’s wealth will be diminished.

• Here’s a tricky one. The conservation rule sounds simple, but the recognition of how this applies to something as big as our modern economy is not simple. Comprehending the implications of every budgetary decision will not be obvious, self-evident, or even within the grasp of most politicians or the public. But understood or not, the First Law will rule and it will have its way. No force on earth or the universe can prevent it; and if you want to pray to God to intercede then you should know that he created the Three Laws of Budget.

No one reading this should assume or conclude that the obvious meaning of the First Law is that Congress should cut or raise taxes, or cut or reduce spending. Those are just actions, they don’t account for the consequences; but the actions will operate according to the Laws of Budgets.

Next up, the Second Law of Budgets; until then start looking for the operation of the First Law in the world about you. It runs through everything you do. That’s why it’s a natural law, it’s part of the fabric (the physics) of the universe.

Weak Tea, Weak Knees, Weak Grip, Weak Willed: Just Weak

The nation’s political forces remain aligned along the same old fronts: Republicans / Democrats, left-wing / right-wing, progressive / moderate / conservative, and low / middle / upper / uber-rich income groups. Every issue is cast in terms of which forces support it and which opposes it. And these forces are confronting each other aggressively, and never more so than with America’s fiscal fiasco. The most strident entrenchments seem to be entangled with every issue and effort that Congress and the Administration attempt to address. Add to this the media’s exploitation of the political harangues as nothing more than grist for their ratings opportunities. As a result, we get a positive feed-back process that achieves only the distortion and confusion of meaning and substance on the issue.

In this turmoil of leadership, the positions and policies espoused by all parties, all allegiances, all constituencies are enfeebled, anemic, and inane attempts to deal with the issue that they purport to resolve. Do the American people really think that the way to solve complex problems is to limit the tools and methods that can be used to attack it? This is not the approach that successful and market leading businesses employ in handling the problems that confront them. They seek a thorough and knowledgeable understanding the problem, and explore all possible solutions and options that will enable them to successfully overcome the problem and emerge a stronger competitor in the market place. Is looking for simple and easy answers the goal of the education system that you would want for yourself or your children? Do you want your doctor choosing the simple diagnosis because it’s quick and easy; who cares whether it provides a course of treatment that cures the ailment! So if it doesn’t make sense to pre-judge and pre-determine what our acceptable options are for most other areas of life, what in the world would lead us to think that the best solutions for our nation’s political and economic problems can be dictated by the philosophy of “this is the way I want it to be”?

What is the logic that to believe that the chant “Stop Government Spending” or “Cut the Budget” is the answer? These may be reasonable and sound goals, but they are not being presented as goals, but rather as solutions. And as in any other endeavor, applying a rule or strategy without understanding what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what will happen when you do it; you will almost assuredly get a result that is vastly different than what you expected, desired and are willing to accept. Of course as in real life, you are forced to accept the consequences of you past actions. If you don’t believe that, then just ask how we got to where we are right now and why are you so desperate to change things to ‘fix’ the problem.

Is the absolute public position that we can’t touch Social Security, or we have to guarantee that the elderly continue to be covered by Medicare (and its ilk), or Defense spending must be increased, or pick your own personal insane no-compromise, no-retreat, no-sacrifice, no-change issue.

It’s this inept mind-set that prevents politicians from even comprehending that they are not qualified to solve these problems. They are responsible to get them addressed for sure; but that doesn’t equip them with the skills, information or capacity to solve the problems.

A worthy politician, if one exists in our system today, would look for solutions that can be explained to the public in terms of what the consequences are: who benefits and who sacrifices, why it is reasonable and just, why it is better than other proposals, and why it requires whatever action it requires. If you limit your choices, then you are just limited. America was not build by people who limited themselves.