Chaos and voting behavior

13 Mar 2011. Today, as I drank my coffee and home-grown orange juice and smoked a cigar, I watched the news on Fox, read the Sunday paper and checked out news and blogs on Real Clear Politics. I do it daily. Today is typical – consensus is that the world is a mess and someone ought to do something. The urge to do something is a part of human nature (Here I sit writing about it). What emerges in my mind as I write this is the notion that urge to do something needs to be tempered with some calm reasoning (Although I disagree with Obama’s political perspective, I find his willingness to reflect on issues a very positive trait). Calm reasoning requires that benefits, costs, and consequences of actions be examined with honesty and without passion. Among the costs and consequences of any political action are its effects on future generations. One reason I believe the deficit/debt issue has become so intense is that a majority of citizens now realize how onerously previous and current choices affect their own children and grandchildren – a once abstract concept has reached the stage where the consequences are real for those in our immediate families. Usually people are not energized by special taxes on other minorities (for example, expressed with humor, luxury taxes hit the evil rich, cigarette taxes punish stupid smokers, and fast food taxes will soon punish those with unhealthy life styles). Now that irresponsibly designed and funded programs like Social Security, Medicare (all parts, but especially part D) and Obama Care are going to make paupers of their own children and grandchildren, more people are willing to examine the dishonest aspects of these programs. That is, debate about these programs is starting to become more honest and dispassionate. That’s good. Being on the cusp of the wave of boomers, I am in the most advantaged position with respect to these programs. So much so that I feel guilt and think about what I would be willing to give up in order to help make a higher quality of life possible for future generations in perpetuity (not just the 75 years currently being thrown about in talking points about Social Security). Actuaries and insurance companies are really good at determining the balance between current inflows of funding against the outflow of future benefits. I have argued in other venues that each new program should be required to be revenue neutral in the sense that it not depend upon future tax raises in order to fund future expenditures. For example, Social Security fails this test because in order to meet future obligations at current benefit levels, taxes must be raised. All other fixes reduce benefits in some fashion either by increasing the number of working years or eliminating some from eligibility (those evil rich again 8-) ). A dispassionate and honest analysis at each point of past modification and extension of the Social Security system would have revealed this. Among our national politicians, here and there we are beginning to hear some dispassionate and honest assessments of the way forward. So here’s what I urge (after all I am a member of the human race and suffer from the same trait of thinking something must be done) : in the next election, disregard party affiliation, consider every candidate running for each office, and listen carefully for honest and dispassionate appraisals of the issues – that’s the person to vote for. That person might be from a Green or Libertarian or Tea party, or an independent candidate. If the candidate just keeps repeating talking points, you can be sure they are taking big money from the Democratic or Republican national organizations, or affiliated organizations. Talking points and taking big money don’t eliminate candidates, but it sure is an indication that they are not thinking about needed changes in a serious way.