Sometimes election outcomes are exquisite. This time voters resuscitated republicans and slapped democrats on the side of the head – needed actions I'd say – putting professional politicians on notice. Nearly perfect! (If only a viable, organized, third party had emerged, but alas no.) Because both parties are not yet honorable, I don’t believe much of what their principals or media reps have to say. At the federal level, I view the vortex of fiscal (taxes, budgets, debt)—policy (government overreach) – and vision (individual liberty vs. state-mandated “freedom” and “equality”, aka “fairness”) as the central problem of our time. Just what did the 2010 voting do? You have to step back and look at the big picture.
Don’t waste time considering whether tea and republican parties get along, or whether conservatives and moderates survive as democrats. These are distractions used to fill television time and print space. Resolution will come with time. Rather consider this. Federal government is stalled for a couple of years. There will be a lot of flailing by participants practicing their posturing, but not much will occur in this vortex. Actions will occur on the periphery and the central paralysis will have its greatest impact in the states, particularly California and New York and states similarly comprised.
In CA and NY voters achieved a sublime accomplishment at precisely the right time. They left in charge the principals who created the highly unstable budgetary situations existing therein. It’s perfect karma. In California and NY, voters stuck with what got us here (perhaps the democrats successfully demonized opponents.) Perfect. Now democrats are responsible for cleaning up the messes they have created – as it should be. If I were a republican strategist in these two states, I’d leave state governance to the democrats until the state fiscal problems were solved. I’d concentrate on city, town, village and county politics and build the grass roots in the stinking manure spread everywhere by hapless state machines. If republicans (or a third party) act honorably at the local level, in a couple of generations, there would not be a democrat left in these states.
Voters elsewhere have said to residents of CA and NY, go for it, but don’t come to us for help, because we chose a different path. This week Arnold called an emergency session because the CA budget crisis is worse than anticipated. I’d bet the actual figure is worse than the stated $25B. In CA and NY states we’ll see what democratic control delivers to “fix” the problems. These are two experiments that I will watch with almost morbid fascination. High income families are already leaving, taking incomes with them, so higher taxation will only increase the flight. Here’s a solution progressives in CA might consider – a state takeover of the entertainment industry – it’s a big cash cow and those actors make way too much money. NY could do a similar thing to the financial industry. That’s a joke. I reject state control of any business but my cynicism has reached a level at which it would not surprise me to see these fanciful actions seriously considered.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
An Independent's View
Because democrats and republicans are sure to impose their story line on the election results, I hope some of them will read this, and spread the word. Neither party appeals to me. Parties are legal conspiracies to gain electoral and regulatory power. That democrats and republicans have locked up election processes in every state is a sign of how far we are from free and open elections – it’s a lot easier to win elections and gain power if you only have one opponent. That’s why I vote for third parties and will keep doing so until there are viable alternatives to democrats and republicans.
I am hopeful about the tea party movement (TPM) – I see it as an organic, self-organizing, response of the people to current political choices: I too favor free markets, low taxes, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and constitutional governance. The TPM perspective is about integrity of federal government processes, not specific policies except as they violate the integrity of the process. In a real sense the TPM is apolitical, relative to democrat and republican perspectives. There are so many examples of a lack of integrity in federal processes, it is hard to know what to address first. I think TPM members focused a lot of energy on taxes, overspending, and debt and deficit because their lives are shaped by family income, balancing debt and income, and making hard choices about what to buy – and they know the consequences of bad management of these processes. Deep down I think we all know that our country is on the cusp of an unpleasant future if we do not exercise credible restraint. On this, it is interesting to note that the federal government has some of the toughest accounting standards, as any business that has federal contracts knows. Yet these standards are not imposed on federal budgeting processes. It’s a case of do as I say not as I do. Let’s stop this by adopting commonly accepted accounting practices to all federal programs and federal budgeting processes. This will immediately reveal the true state of our deficit and debt problems. Because the problems that we have created for ourselves have come into being over time, we have to work ourselves out overtime. The incoming Speaker of the House has called for spending to be capped at 2008 levels. This is admirable, but insufficient. The federal budget must be balanced. There are two parts to process. First, federal income has to be capped at a fixed percentage of GDP (20% is a good figure because it permits support for national defense [4-5% of GDP] and popular social programs like social security and Medicare – if these programs are constructed and run properly). Second, spending must be limited to income. Both of these steps have to be instituted via statute or via constitutional amendment to ensure their effectiveness. These steps create the mechanism by which undesirable government programs are defunded and eliminated, and will incentivize efficiency – the only way to increase spending on a program is to find or create savings elsewhere. I have been fortunate in this recession and I am thankful. This good fortune makes me willing to endure too high taxes for a while to help those in need, but not to expand the entitlement state -- there is a difference between helping those in need in hard times and permanent, coerced, transfers of my income to others.
At the same time, I am also angry, and I trace my anger to two aspects of the health insurance reform process. First and foremost, I did not elect a congressional representative to put into law a mandate to buy health insurance. I communicated this to him, but he disregarded me and the will of the district. We just fixed the representative problem in the past election, but it will take years to undo the damage his vote has created, because nearly as odious (as the individual mandate) was the use of reconciliation to pass the health insurance reform bill. This abuse of legislative process will come back to haunt those who used it so, and I know in my heart the outcomes of such future abuses will not be pleasant. Somehow the legislative branches must preclude all future uses of reconciliation for such purposes. There is a reason the Senate is constructed as it is. Senate processes force deliberative and consensual decision making among the major forces at play in any issue. In the end, Senate processes offer the best protection of the rights of minority interests. Sometimes the minority interests are objectively correct, and their protection is important for the health of the nation.
I consider myself a thoughtful person, and my thoughts run this way. There is a new Congress coming. They have been sent a relatively clear signal. The country wants the Congress to engage in meaningful, fiscally responsible discussions about what to do to put the country right. I personally am able to be patient as long as I see steady progress in the right direction. At a minimum, the Congress, the Senate, and the President should know I will keep my eye on them and make my choices accordingly.
I am hopeful about the tea party movement (TPM) – I see it as an organic, self-organizing, response of the people to current political choices: I too favor free markets, low taxes, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and constitutional governance. The TPM perspective is about integrity of federal government processes, not specific policies except as they violate the integrity of the process. In a real sense the TPM is apolitical, relative to democrat and republican perspectives. There are so many examples of a lack of integrity in federal processes, it is hard to know what to address first. I think TPM members focused a lot of energy on taxes, overspending, and debt and deficit because their lives are shaped by family income, balancing debt and income, and making hard choices about what to buy – and they know the consequences of bad management of these processes. Deep down I think we all know that our country is on the cusp of an unpleasant future if we do not exercise credible restraint. On this, it is interesting to note that the federal government has some of the toughest accounting standards, as any business that has federal contracts knows. Yet these standards are not imposed on federal budgeting processes. It’s a case of do as I say not as I do. Let’s stop this by adopting commonly accepted accounting practices to all federal programs and federal budgeting processes. This will immediately reveal the true state of our deficit and debt problems. Because the problems that we have created for ourselves have come into being over time, we have to work ourselves out overtime. The incoming Speaker of the House has called for spending to be capped at 2008 levels. This is admirable, but insufficient. The federal budget must be balanced. There are two parts to process. First, federal income has to be capped at a fixed percentage of GDP (20% is a good figure because it permits support for national defense [4-5% of GDP] and popular social programs like social security and Medicare – if these programs are constructed and run properly). Second, spending must be limited to income. Both of these steps have to be instituted via statute or via constitutional amendment to ensure their effectiveness. These steps create the mechanism by which undesirable government programs are defunded and eliminated, and will incentivize efficiency – the only way to increase spending on a program is to find or create savings elsewhere. I have been fortunate in this recession and I am thankful. This good fortune makes me willing to endure too high taxes for a while to help those in need, but not to expand the entitlement state -- there is a difference between helping those in need in hard times and permanent, coerced, transfers of my income to others.
At the same time, I am also angry, and I trace my anger to two aspects of the health insurance reform process. First and foremost, I did not elect a congressional representative to put into law a mandate to buy health insurance. I communicated this to him, but he disregarded me and the will of the district. We just fixed the representative problem in the past election, but it will take years to undo the damage his vote has created, because nearly as odious (as the individual mandate) was the use of reconciliation to pass the health insurance reform bill. This abuse of legislative process will come back to haunt those who used it so, and I know in my heart the outcomes of such future abuses will not be pleasant. Somehow the legislative branches must preclude all future uses of reconciliation for such purposes. There is a reason the Senate is constructed as it is. Senate processes force deliberative and consensual decision making among the major forces at play in any issue. In the end, Senate processes offer the best protection of the rights of minority interests. Sometimes the minority interests are objectively correct, and their protection is important for the health of the nation.
I consider myself a thoughtful person, and my thoughts run this way. There is a new Congress coming. They have been sent a relatively clear signal. The country wants the Congress to engage in meaningful, fiscally responsible discussions about what to do to put the country right. I personally am able to be patient as long as I see steady progress in the right direction. At a minimum, the Congress, the Senate, and the President should know I will keep my eye on them and make my choices accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)