Debasing the Debates: Lowering the Bar

A plethora of stories have permeated the media over the last week about how both Democratic and Republican parties, pundits, and partisans have been lowering the ‘expectations’ for their favorite son. This political tactic is based on the premise that if the candidate doesn’t do well that their side will be able to point to the proffered expectation that no one expected them to do well. A second factor contributing to this ‘claim the low ground’ mentality is that if will create the impression that the candidate rose to the challenge and outdid themselves in whipping their opponent.

Now I don’t object to the implication the parties are presenting, that they think the American public are complete idiots and that this positioning is inherently consistent with the very notion of someone being a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. In part this acceptance of both parties’ attitudes is to some degree confirmed by the fact that about an equal proportion of the voters are registered Republicans and as Democrats; thus prone to believe idiotic things. But is it really something that a candidate’s supporters should be proclaiming and championing this level of competency about their standard bearer?

Shouldn’t the standard be that the candidate is a competent, capable and a candid communicator who can present their views and plans to the public in a compelling and informative manner? Shouldn’t the expectation that the candidate is someone who provides the public with a reason to decide that the candidate’s positions are well thought out, demonstrate an insight and understanding of the nation’s issues and problems, and who would inspire the public to support the efforts and sacrifices that will be required to achieve the vision and goals set before the voters? If the candidate cannot do this then perhaps it’s not the case that the candidate is not a good debater, but rather that this candidate is not a viable candidate for the presidency.

I suppose the politicians that the country has today are a reflection of the parties’ lower values and standards, of their focus on ideology over substance and intelligence, and of their conversion to a monetary theology of campaign funders over a belief in American values. If you were to ask yourself, “Would I want a President only equal to the level of politicians that we have in Congress or the states that we have today?”, would your answer be yes?

So when I hear the ‘voices of the parties’ touting how enfeebled and inept their man’s going to be, I think I don’t want them to be president. I start off with my radar tuned into looking for confirmation that they are not viable contenders, for mistakes that add more bricks on the moron side of the balance, and to determine why they are so wrong for this job. If they do something that appears to be good, I assume I must have missed something in their answer that negates that interpretation. Yes, we remain in the land of ‘choosing the least of the worst’.

If you can’t raise the bar, then you are just letting your opponent appear to be in the contest rather than showing that they should have just remained a spectator who should have been watching someone else more qualified.

The Mislead Majority (or Why Everyone Misses the Issue)

Now that the primitive, reactionary, lizard-brain response to the latest Romney ‘place foot in mouth’ self-inflicted disclosure of his thought processes has revealed yet again that neither party knows what they are talking about, the media is possibly more clueless (as impossible as that would be given the significant nonexistence of intelligence in party die-hards), and the public is complacent and uninvolved in even attempting to think about the salient issue at the core of Romney’s “47%” faux pas. So yet again we have the bulk of the public attention span misdirected to nonsense, nuance, and nothing of import. All this off-point commotion directed at an important issue that is not being discussed meaningfully, because not one person has understood the right question or the enlightening answer that goes to the heart of Romney’s sentiment.

Now I have come to expect to be disappointed by Congress and politicians of any other stripe, and I have become immune to the debilitating insight shown by news entities, and I am confident in the public’s attention to the magician’s misdirecting movements while missing his picking of their pockets. So in an anti-Borgian attempt to fight for a futile endeavor to provide a view that has not surfaced from this gaff or from many preceding ‘sound-bites’ from all sides and in every conceivable context where America’s tax system and policies are supposedly discussed. The words you hear in these discussions would lead the casual observer to actually believe that someone is talking intelligently about taxes despite the fact that they are so far away from intelligent that we are dealing with the knowledge level found amongst rocks.

In opposition to that trend, I am presenting a puzzle for you to solve. It’s not a difficult problem, and it’s not going to require any complex knowledge or in fact any information that anyone who went through an American high-school would not have had explained to them.

Puzzle: Imagine two Americans, one “L” who earns $25,000 per year and the other “M” who earns $1,000,000 per year. Both, oddly enough, have equivalent deductions. As a result of these deductions, “L” owes $0 in taxes by the federal tax table. Now consider “M”, after working about 6.5 days “M” will have earned the same $25,000 as “L” did for the entire year. How much tax does “M” owe the IRS for that same $25,000?

Once you have figured out the answer you are ready to answer the puzzle. The puzzle is: Who was treated unfairly?

Do not read any further unless you have your answer, when you’re ready did you arrive at: Neither?

They were treated identically. The American tax system does not tax anyone at a higher or lower rate given comparable applicable tax situations. For the first $25,000 earned each party owes exactly the same tax liability. Each was given the same government “hand-outs” and “entitlements”. Why then are both Republican and Democratic leaders unable to understand this? If they are going to take a position on an issue, you would think that they would at least try to be informed about the issue.

American Intelligence Test #15: How To Create Jobs?

What with it being Presidential campaign season and with both parties issuing loud and frequent assertions that they will create jobs while their opponents will eliminate or cause jobs to decline, now is an appropriate time to put another American Intelligence test to the test. You don’t have to be afraid to take the test for fear of failing, since you can easily deceive yourself and no one will know. Besides the usual dissembling about what you have thought through is no more detrimental here than in other areas of life. On the upside taking the test does provide an opportunity for self-discovery and broadening the scope of your thinking. Not that that is necessarily a good thing if you’re an eager partisan of either party.

Just to irritate you the correct answers are provided below, but don’t cheat getting the answer right is of no value whatsoever if you haven’t gotten then based on your own cranial processing power.

Engage the grey-matter and begin the trial by a jury of your own imagination.

Question 1: Which of the following would the most capable of creating more jobs?

                A. Obama   B. Romney   C. Both   D. Neither

Question 2: Which of the following are essential to creating jobs?

                A. Low taxes   B. Minimal regulation   C. Infrastructure Investment
                D. Government spending   E. None of these

Question 3: Which of the following are essential to creating jobs?

                A. Customers   B. Employees   C. Resources   D. Profits   E. None of these

Question 4: Which of the following creates the most wealth?

                A. A wealthy upper-income group that provides investment capital
                B. Large private sector job base and small public sector job base
                C. Broad and affluent middle class income levels
                D. Unregulated free-market economy
                E. None of these

Question 5: Which of the following suppress the creation of jobs?

                A. Government spending
                B. High cost of healthcare
                C. High national debt
                D. Welfare programs
                E. None of these

Now that was painless, right? Of course that was painless; it didn’t require you to confront any conflict between your view of the world and reality. That part comes when you don’t like the answers. The answers are:

Q 1 = D;  Q 2 = E;  Q 3 = A, B, C, D;  Q 4 = C;  Q 5 = E

Given you are unsatisfied with these answers, you should take comfort with your own view as long as you can explain what the physics is that links your answer to the creation of jobs. If you can’t you are in the realm of well – “I believe that this works, but I don’t know that it works or how it works.” On the bright side, you might be qualified to be a politician.

Are You Better Off Now? How To Answer A Simple Question

I was surprised when I heard the question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? I was surprised that the Republicans asked it. I was surprised that the Democrats had such a hard time answering it. I was surprised at how inept the media was at comprehending the potential of the question. I was surprised at how the public didn’t sense the importance of the question; particularly with regard to how powerful it could be if even remotely understood correctly.

I wasn’t really surprised; surprise would be if even one of these groups did something that wasn’t inept. So with the question out there and being bantered about in the media, and used by both parties as a bludgeon trying to hammer out a meaning that suits their purpose: one offensively and one defensively.

What then is the answer to this question?

The answer is – Noooo, I can’t tell you that. How could you learn if someone just gave you the answer? It’s not the American way to be given things. You’re supposed to earn them for yourself. Besides the value comes from what it takes to attain something. So here are hints to the obvious that lead any thinking person to the right answer.

First, think of the question in the context of a scientific or engineering problem, or if that’s not your bailiwick then perhaps as a business-person, a financier, a manager or a production worker with regards to how you figure out what is going to happen next? That should be pretty simple, we do it all the time. We plan our day, our week, our year, our career, our lifetime. Planning is just part of being alive. Humans are just more active and engaged in planning in more areas of their life than your run of the mill lab rat. Thus one dimension required for properly answering the question is to set the question as a planning exercise and not answering it with just an emotional response to your fears and anxieties.

Second, the question contains within itself a comparison that not the one that everyone see immediately. So you have to see deeper into the question and ask what you are comparing, what ruler you are using to gauge your measurement, and against what situation and conditions applies to the assessment.

And the third hint is to define whether you get the same answer for yourself, your friends and associates, other people in your state and region, and the people across the country as a whole.

Given the hints you should now be ready to see the hazard in asking the question. The Republicans should have considered these facts prior to using this as a political theme, if they think they did and the assessed the intellect of the public correctly then it may be a winning move; if they did not it could be the card played that loses the hand. The Democrats should be assessing the question and responding with an assessment that either supports or guides their strategy; haven’t seen an evidence of that yet. And the media should be using the question to put political contenders and supporters of either stripe under the bright light of being capable of dealing with much better phrased questions then they are to date.

The public needs to engage in their individual assessments to determine what it informs them about the qualifications of each side.

The last thing you should know is that the answer is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ but requires much more than that to answer it. If you think it’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ then you must be a registered party member.

Swimming Upstream: Tax Free Medals?

Clearly these thoughts will provoke, agitate, rile and annoy most people because they have already emotionally and viscerally committed and connected to the idea the American athletes who win medal in the Olympic Games should not be expected or made to pay taxes on the monetary prize that accompanies the medals themselves. Surely it is fundamentally and essentially American to not have anyone who is representing the nation to the world in these international competitions to have to pay taxes on such awards.

But while it is clear and obvious that Americans think it is patriotic and American to not make our country’s athletes pay taxes on the Olympic prize money, it is worth a minute’s worth of consideration for the basis in logic, principles and fairness. So let’s take a minute and consider.

The athletes represent America voluntarily and in the spirit of serving the nation as our ambassadors to the world. They have spent years training and competing to attain their status as the best in their sports. This dedication and drive is exemplary of American values: working hard, struggling against the odds, and let’s face it succeeding. Often these athletes pursue their ascent to the top positions in their sports in relative obscurity where only those intimately knowledgeable about the sports know who them, to the American public they are not household names. [Note: there are some exceptions like NBA stars and women beach volleyball players. Who make decent money and really need the help from the political brain-trust.]

Are athletes in some way truly unique in representing America to the world, and thus warranting of a special exemption? We don’t want to consider the military personnel that are deployed in both larger numbers and in more countries? They represent America every day in situations that are substantively more important and centric to American values than sports. Should we tax them for fighting and protecting our nation because it’s not entertaining and the medals often won are not for things that anyone would strive to have happen to them? Surely this is more aligned to our American values; and thus the tax exemption is not justified on the basis of representing America. What about scientist and Nobel prize winners? Do they represent American values less honorably, less importantly or less meaningfully?

So it’s hard to come up with the specialness that makes the exemption so appropriate here?

Now if the politicians wanted to show their recognition of the significance of the athletes’ accomplishment and believe that the athletes deserve the full value of their prize money, they could be (what do you call it? Oh, yeah!) smart. They could think, perhaps for the first time, about an issue before they choose the simple-minded and good old political answer to everything: let’s pass a half-baked, half-considered, half-assed law that creates an opportunity to look like they are doing something good (a rarity in itself).

Why not insure that the athletes get to keep their prize money by making the solution a true American approach to solving the dilemma? If they can’t think of any, they could consult with people who could show them how to handle the problem. They could turn the solution not into a government mandated solution but into a patriotic recognition consistent with American values. This doesn’t require the politicians to do anything, so they could continue to do what they are good at – doing nothing. They could tell the public how the athletes could keep the prize money without them having to take credit for it, but then they couldn’t take credit for it.

So why do I think it’s wrong for our politician’s to rush into this issue which they seem ill-equipped to handle? Because the politicians should be true leaders and just try and take credit for charging to the rescue when they are just seizing the spotlight.

American Spartacus Moment: Contempt of Congress

Congress is poised to hold Holder “in contempt of Congress”. Yet again, neither the Republicans or the Democrats, neither the executive or legislative branches, or the media have demonstrated any competence in handling or addressing this program and the proper determination of accountability and responsibility. Why should Congress bother to put their efforts into managing the investigation of this program in an intelligent, responsible and ethical manner when they could have used this opportunity to serve the interests of the American people?

I guess you can’t expect better of them. They are rewarded for acting irresponsibly. Congress wins their position by acting in self-serving and self-aggrandizing ways. Their respective parties only provide them with recompense if they tow the party line and do the party’s bidding.

So do I expect Congress to find Holder in contempt? Yes. Do I expect the consequences to be the same as it has been when previous Republican and Democratic public servants have been cited with the same contempt? Yes. Do I believe the public interest will have been served? No.

What I am waiting to see is whether there will be an “American Spartacus” movement.

What is an American Spartacus moment you may ask? It’s exactly what you should have reflected it to be. We should start seeing people standing up and declaring, shouting and demanding that “I am in contempt of Congress!” I am willing to be the first, because there is no doubt that I have contempt for Congress; and perhaps I am an American Spartacus.

Recovery: Sluggish, Steady, Studied, or Surprise!

A big, if not the biggest, political campaign issue for this election season will be the economy. Whether the issue is cast directly in terms of the US economy as an all encompassing concept or in other conceptual terms related to the economy – tax rates, unemployment, inflation, consumer confidence,  government spending, et cetera; it will be the central issue essential to determining the outcome of the election Thus the political parties, pundits and provocateurs will inundate the media, masses and muggles with innumerable claims and accusations based on nothing more than their belief and opinion that they know anything relevant to the issue when in actuality they possess no useful or substantive insight into anything germane to the causal factors that drive the US and the global economies.

The public will be desperately seeking to find some reason(s) to believe that any of the candidates: Presidential, Congressional, and state level, have an answer to their fears, needs and aspirations.  But of course this is not a reasonable expectation as the politician, parties and industries that make their living, careers and vast amounts of money by serving the interest of special-interest groups who may care of the economy but it is strictly their economy and not anyone else’s. Unfortunately for them, and more so for us, the US and global economies are not real world systems the politicians, their owners, their controllers, or their parties have the ability to control.

The US economy, like any other, operates under governing “laws of physics” that are not controlled by the wishes or desires of foolish people who think they can make the economy operate according to their dictates and rules. These bumfuzzled clowns persist in presenting to the American people the ‘promise’ that they will fix everything. They are persistent buffoons however, they continue to expel their simple-minded drivel and pledge to make all thing right; knowing that when it all doesn’t work out that they can blame the other side for having thwarted their valiant attempt to win through for the good of us all but alas they could not. But “think how much worse” it would have been “if I hadn’t been here to prevent disaster!”, or “if only I had been here to avert disaster!”.

The economy is recovering slowly. So this is a good sign or a bad sign, just spin it to meet your needs. Unemployment would be much higher/lower if our policies had been followed/not hindered by the other side. You’ve heard them, you’re going to hear them again and more. Previous recoveries have been stronger/weaker, shorter/longer, or broad/narrow; so American would be better/worse if we just do what I say.

Where are the questions that demand that the candidates provide answers that inform and demonstrate their understanding and competency to lead? Questions of this type aren’t asked, and if somehow someone comes close to a question of this type, they are never answered.

So before you pick the office holder of your choice, insure yourself that they have provided an answer to the question: What will you do for the country to make up for the consequences of your policies, if you are wrong?