The Stupor Committee (or The Ditzy Dozen)

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

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

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

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

The Front-Runner Reduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True  /  False

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

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

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

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

Question 7: The wealthy do best when:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I:DEA 3 – I Swear I’ve Never Pledged

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Helping the Needy, Uh – Corporations?

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

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

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

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

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

I:DEA 2 – A Healthy Attitude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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