Legislative Agenda Priorities

In another 'staged for TV event', President Obama stood in front of the cameras yesterday at the White House and clearly stated for the record, that the "time has come to fix once and for all" the broken system, according to an article in the UK Guardian.  Now many of you might have suspected that the leader of the free world was finally accepting his responsibility for failing to deliver a budget to Congress on time, as mandated by law, in five out of the last six years in which he has served; and to finally broker a budget passed by both Houses of Congress during his tenure in office.  The President's budget proposals have became rather famous (some would say instead notorious), not only for their consistent tardiness; but for being so out of line with political thought in this country that he has been unable to get even one of these proposals passed.  More telling though, is that he has yet to receive a supporting vote from even one of the legislative members of his own party, let alone that of his political opposition, during this same period.  If this was your assumption of his message however, like me, you would have been wrong.

Oh sure, you might have instead been looking at the President's statement as a goad to the United States Senate, a legislative house which his Democratic party has been in control of prior to and during his entire tenure in office.  The Senate, for those of you who might have missed it, is the only group in Washington that's done worse on the subject of the national budget than the President.  In violation of federal law themselves, Senators have consistently failed to pass a budget in each of the last four years, a record which they may finally be prepared to break.  This failure, aside from allowing next to no control over the national spending process, has lived on a consistent diet of 'Continuing Resolutions' in the last few years, which does little other than continue the business as usual of automatic increases to 'Baseline Budgeting'; with annual increases and no effective limits.  Budgets passed by the Republican (once known as the party of no) in the House of Representatives have been completely ignored and refused a vote by the very party that once so named them.  Sorry again folks if that's what you thought though, for this laudible goal likewise had nothing to do with the President's statement.

Perhaps the President was speaking to a broader financial situation in the nation.  It is once again after all, approaching another fiscal crisis as the National Debt Limit is about to be exceeded.  Now the Senate budget proposal is one that seems to ignore this situation, and instead looks to increase taxes another $1 trillion dollars over increases that have already occurred either at the expiration of the Bush tax rates and the imposition of the taxes that are beginning to take effect as part of the "Affordable Health Care Act"; while never once addressing the amount of the budget that's in the red.  The Congressional Budget proposal proposes no new taxes and seeks over ten years to instead balance the budget through the reduction of spending.  Strangely there are actual points of agreement between the two offerings that the legislative branch is working to make larger. 

Despite the claims by candidates on both sides of the aisle for both the executive and legislative branches in the last election that 'jobs are going to number one', nothing has yet been done or appears to be imminent in the budget plans in Washington DC to stimulate any other part of the economy than 'green energy'; and most of that has turned out to be throwing good money after bad to companies that only manage to provide a few temporary jobs before going bankrupt.  The government has yet to come up with anything that addresses that it's spending 30% more than it's taking in, that it's paying for the debt incurred by printing money at a furious pace, selling the debt that foreign countries don't want to The Fed, and lending money to big backs at what is effectively 0% interest.  Of course all of this will eventually lead to Inflation, but in the meantime the current batch of politicians is able to fiddle while the nation begins to burn; and continue to beat the dead horse of 'Sequestration' as the nag to blame for no better reason than it provides political cover for all the things that they're either too dense to recognize or too cowardly to address.

Oh, by the way.  I may have forgotten to tell you what the President was talking about during his recent public event instead of what he wasn't.  At a time when the President is late producing his own budget and doesn't expect to produce one until long after both the House and Senate have voted on their own proposals.  At a time when fiscal cliffs pop up more often than three-day holiday weekends.  At a time when the national debt has reached a level higher during his administration than at any time in its 237 year history, a debt that this President's Administration is responsible for accumulating faster than any other in its history; the President was instead looking at something entirely different than what should be the most important subject of his second term.  

This President was once again changing the priorities of his legislative agenda (and that of Congress), and castigating that legislative branch for not addressing a completely different subject to his satisfaction; in spite of the fact that both Houses are working to come with a compromise for it that will pass both Houses.  Instead of finally addressing an economy that the President has often called the worst since the Great Depression, the chief resident of the White House was instead attending a ceremony held instead to address something completely unrelated to the nation's economic malaise ... Immigration Policy.  

Bravo Mr. President, for keeping your eye on the ball ...

 

        

Unresolved

It remains rather quiet here at the 'Just Blowing Smoke' headquarters with most of the staff still out on holiday; and being the end of the year, that would seem to make it an ideal time to pause for reflection on the year past and create some of the time-honored resolutions for the year ahead.  While there's certainly been time enough for proper pondering, such continued contemplation has in fact left me more unresolved than ever.

As it is for many around the nation, my attention instead continues to be drawn to so many things left unresolved in 2012.  Based on the quantity of press coverage if nothing else, the twin dooms of the Fiscal Cliff and the second coming of the Debt Ceiling probably top this list, though quite frankly I've long since grown tired of hearing about them.  For despite the protestations of some of our political leaders, this stopped being about 'regular Americans' some time back and has become (like far too many other decisions turned over to government) little more than a pissing contest between the members of two political parties who seem ill-equipped to compete in such an event. The current two-party system in our national legislature has become a warning sign that perhaps term limits once again deserves serious consideration. (Though I'm still more in favor of abolishing the Congressional Pension System, which would not only force legislators back into the public sector fairly quickly, but has the added benefit of putting them into Social Security.)

How Harry Reid can stand in the well of the Senate and complain about the obstinacy of anyone, when the legislative house that he's in charge of hasn't passed a budget in over three years is quite beyond me.  Despite his protestations to the contrary, partisanship in the Senate was not created in 2008.  Other Majority Leaders have faced it as well, and managed to find common ground and do their jobs.  If you can't Harry, man up and step down.   Instead of displaying the wisdom and experience that the longer six-year terms were supposed to grant them, they're instead used to put on 'secret holds' and find ways to dodge existing responsibilities on 'advise and consent' (when the President isn't using every bathroom break to shove in recess appointments). 

As for John Boehner,  his fawning and whining approaches at leadership are probably what should be expected after his teary-eyed acceptance of the leadership position.  I don't question his heart or even his courage, but a leader praised for his experience must ultimately be judged by the success of his strategies.  Boehner's strategies have produced a level of consistent strategic failure that hasn't been seen in this country since the War of 1812. (US troops lost almost every battle in this war and Washington DC was sacked and burned ... not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas.)  Having won the House in 2010, Republicans gave two years of lip service to those who carried them into the majority, but failed to make substantive gains, which undoubtedly played some part in their lack of progress to reach a majority in the Senate or win the White House two years later.  While they retained that majority in the House this year, they have yet to demonstrate the fiscal responsibility that actually know what to do with it or how to sell their efforts to an increasingly angry voter.s

Like the Majority Leader, it seems strange too that the additional 'experience' of the President should once again prove him to be a poor winner.  Apparently our commander-in-chief has not only the innocent nature of a child, but the selective memory of one as well.  In fact, it might be said that he holds the vindictiveness of a petulant child whose only willing to point out that he won re-election in 2012 and that his party kept control of the Senate when discussing his bargaining position (my ball, my game).   All of the talk of compromise is merely paying lip service to the concept however.  He he seems incapable of remembering that the election of 2010 turned control of the House over to his opponents (though he did when it first happened), and left it in their hands after this most recent on.  His current 'campaign style negotiating' is done in public speeches, and in fact seems to ignore the opposition party unless he's looking for someone to blame his own lack of negotiating skill on.  How can anyone call what President Obama offers compromise when his proposals are unanimously voted down by his own party in the Senate.  

And so we look at the last days before going off the Fiscal Cliff; most seem to have forgotten that this 'Thelma and Louise' ski jump was created by the very people who ignored it for months while campaigning, and now see it as a Doomsday Clock ticking while saying that they're dead set on avoiding it.  Citizens in this country likewise seem perfectly willing to trust that the same leaders who created this no-win game of financial chicken are capable of solving it for longer than the next congressional election cycle (which none of them has actually proved in the last four years).   

Haven't the past so-called victories of these three leaders in fact turned out to be Pyrrhic ones, cutting a path or devastation that we're still dealing with.  Isn't anyone else tired of the 'Three Card Monties' and proposals where immediate tax increases (and I don't care who they're on) are to be followed someday by budget cuts or savings that never actually come about (or that appear insignificant unless added together for ten years)?  Does no one else understand promises agreed to by either house of the current Congress doesn't even obligate the one that takes its seats in a couple of weeks to follow through on? 

If taxes need to be raised however (as many are convinced of on the left), then so be it!  Let's not pretend however that raising what slick politicians now like to call 'Revenue' (rather than taxes) that don't even keep the government from running deficit spending are anything more than a symbolic gesture however.   (Hell, they're barely enough to run the govt. for eight days.)  While we're at it, let's recognize that increasing taxes on those who pay most of them is little more than punishment for success.  Let's also agree on the simple logic that spreading any these revenue increases over a greatest number of people makes them less of a burden for each to carry in a struggling economy.  The "E Pluribus Unum" printed on our currency doesn't translate to 'Let Government Pick'.  The burdens and benefits that are our lot were meant to be shared by all; and spreading the tax burden over the whole leaves everyone with some skin in the game.  I find it interesting, for example, that the tax cuts we're arguing about continuing were created to expire in the first place (Why is that by the way?), but the increases we're considering are to become permanent.  Why couldn't any of those finally agreed upon also have a built-in expiration date, forcing legislators to re-evaluate them again in the future based on what happens with the economy.

Of course the bone of contention for many is that while tax increases are being discussed for implementation immediately, spending cuts are only being hinted at eventually and are to be taken up later.  Plans that included both taxes and cuts that Republicans recently proposed, are being rejected out of hand now by the same Democrats who proposed the same thing eighteen months ago. Is this an honest effort to keep us from a fiscal cliff, or a political gamesmanship more interested in punishing an opponent than serving an electorate.  Apparently for the President and Majority Leader, contentment means tax increases (and apparently spending increases to go with them) now and any form of fiscal responsibility 'manana'.  Many of us are tired of the continued 'Wimpy Economics', long scorned by anyone not part of the Paul Krugman school of economics, and most recently perpetrated by government.  We're tired of the fact that this nations needs to borrows forty-six cents of every dollar it spends; a process which only continues to work as long as the Fed cranks out fiat currency 24 hours-a-day, in the hopes of inflating some part of that debt away.  Inflated or not however, this debt takes us right into the next of the unresolved issue, the Debt Ceiling.   

Yes, from the same leaders that brought you the Debt Ceiling of 2011, we now have the Debt Ceiling of 2012-13.  Making no attempt at living with their means and having kicked the can down the road some 17 months ago during a previous deadlocked budget debate (and for no better reason than the cowardly reason that they didn't want to deal with it while running for re-election), the financial geniuses of both parties in Washington tried to rig their last agreement so that the issue wouldn't come up again until the new Congress was seated in 2013.  Of course our government is about as good as understanding how fast they spend money as they are about what they spend it on, so the government credit limit is about to be exceeded a little early.  Not to fear however, as our Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner (who has some experience with not paying bills .... tax bills) decided he could get us into 2013 by using some accounting tricks that he'd probably have you put in jail for using.

Of course 2013, like 2011, will kick off another in never-ending re-election cycle in the House of Representatives and widen the yellow streak of our elected representatives (especially those most vulnerable for re-election).  Already faced with a Fiscal Cliff negotiations that will not make any of them look good and that points rather dramatically to the fact that we spend more than we take in, you would think that sufficient imperative would finally exist to seriously address the root problem.  Such thinking would not get you elected however, and would therefore make you wrong.  Congress is quite content to ignore Social Security running out of money, as long as it doesn't do so before the election of 2014.  Consideration of Medicare and Medicaid budget reform pretty much falls under the same category, which means that as long as the 'Social Safety Net' remains intact for now, nothing substantive will be done to reform their bloated nature or prevent their impending doom.  Besides, members of Congress rely on none of these plans themselves, and their cushy pensions and medical plans (also funded by taxpayer dollars) will not be affected; so there's certainly no rush to interfere with seeking re-election contributions.  But these are just the entitlement programs.

Corporations who get money to drill for oil or mine coal might see some reductions in their subsidies (after all, what do we need with energy products) as the budget negotiations ramp up.  Corporations that get their money not to plant crops or that use those they do plant to produce bio-fuel to replace the coal and oil (creating even greater pollution in the process) will retain theirs however.  So too will wind and solar panel farms that can never pay their investments back, and research on things so obscure that even the people doing the research aren't sure they care about.  Congress will at least consider reductions in military spending, but not very seriously, and certainly not in ways that will affect influential Congressional districts.  We may cut back some equipment orders that are important only if we continue to believe we must poke our nose into the internal disputes of every nation on the planet, but that won't stop us from poking anyway.  We will not consider however, whether to remove or even reduce funding to countless military bases that we have around the world.  (Can anyone tell me who else has so many worldwide bases?  Buehler .... Buehler ...)  But of course such bases are vital to the protection of our interests, property, and citizens around the world; unless of course, you're one of the citizens working for the State Department on our property in Benghazi.  

Which takes us to yet another unresolved situation.  Over three months have passed since the 9/11 attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and the State Department's report has recently been issued, but we still know little more than we did the day after it happened.  Why the US outpost remained manned in Benghazi long after everyone else considered it too dangerous (like the British and Red Cross) and pulled out has been made clear.  Neither have we a clue of why, if we were going to remain, upgrades to the defensive levels of the facility and to the size of it's protection staff were not made; especially after the Ambassador (one of those killed in the attack) sent multiple requests for such improvement after attacks had occurred only months before.  We don't even know who made the decision for a security contingent already in-country to be pulled out a month before the attack.  Sure, a couple of people resigned after the report was issued (no one of importance and no doubt all of them managing to keep their pensions), but no one in real authority has yet to speak officially before Congress or the media.  When there's a oil spill, we demand that the president of that company appear before Congress; and they had better be properly remorseful, penitent, and contrite when they speak.  In this case however, we've not heard from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the President; all of whom evidently had some real-time knowledge of events (or should have), about what decisions were made and why, while four other government employees died in a hours-long gun battle. 

So forgive me if I find that I have no desire to make self-serving attempts at self-improvement (no matter how badly they might be required) for 2013.  While I could certainly win a bit of approbation for listing a few New Year's Resolutions that I'm probably as likely to fulfill as our elected national representatives are their elected obligations, I choose instead to remain silent at a time when so many are seeking just such praise while leaving so much unresolved.

Fiscal Cliff or Debt Ceiling - Confusion of Terms

It seems like everyone is talking about the country going over the Fiscal Cliff; and most of them like to use the same "Thelma and Louise" movie reference for this December 31st event that I've often used for the entire process of how the government deals with borrowing and spending money.  Of course I would have thought that going over a cliff was a bad thing (since both Thelma and Louise attained room temperature as a result of this last drive), but maybe I'm just a little confused.  Silly me.  It appears that both sides preaching their share of doom and gloom only do so they could steal my Hollywood reference to describe what would happen if the country were forced to plummet into the depths of the horrible, the evil ... "Sequester".  (The Bastards!  I mean geez, it's not like I get a lot of original ideas, and the one I do get they steal.)

Now Sequester, for those of you who have buried your heads in the sand for the last couple of years and don't understand it (which is apparently quite a lot of you), is the agreement to automatic tax increases and budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans consented to when they discovered that they didn't have the testicular fortitude to come up with another piece of duct tape to hold on the budget band aid that holds on the actual band aid that holds in place the government budgeting process.  Sequester was meant to be the Armageddon which no one wanted, but which would be required of the nation if the D's and R's once again could not agree on how much money the nation should take in and how much it should spend.  This horror would involve the end of previously agreed to tax cuts (you know, passing a tax increase without actually voting on one) and across the board spending cuts (which can be overruled by new legislation passed as soon as possible after the Sequester occurs).  This way, legislators of both parties can tell you that Sequester is bad (in spite of the fact the they created it as an alternative in the first place), that higher taxes are bad (in spite of the process letting tax cuts expire), and that spending cuts are bad (in spite of the making them automatically part of the Sequester).  

By the way, can anyone tell me why tax cuts are always temporary, but tax increases are permanent?  It almost seems that legislators are saying that increasing taxes is good, hence their permanence; and tax cuts are bad and should only be allowed to exist temporarily and when no other alternative exists.  Of course, we all know that this can't be the case.  After all, they've told us so.

Not surprisingly, much of the current budget jury-rigging came about not because of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations currently stalled; but because of the fact that the annual budget process and the  Debt Ceiling have failed to reach any effective conclusion for the last couple of years.  The Debt Ceiling, lest we forget, is the credit limit on the ability of the government to borrow.  The Annual Budget of course, is the money that the government spends each year.  Since we continue to spend more each year than we take in through tax revenues, the need arises regularly to raise the limit of the amount of money that the government is allowed to borrow in order for it to write the checks on money that it doesn't have.  

Interestingly enough, the only things that the two parties of experienced legislators (perhaps too experienced, if you know what I mean) were able to agree on during previous Budget and Debt Ceiling debates was to go ahead continue to spend more than we were taking in for a while longer (called 'Kicking the Can'), and to let the country borrow more money than it ever had in the past. (Though curiously these days, most of that debt is not purchased by the Chinese as politicians on talk shows would like to have you to believe; but by the Federal Reserve, which simply goes out and prints more money in inflationary spiral that makes that debt worth less in a process which it also ignores.)  After years of intransigence. obstinancy, and belligerence, these same legislators decided to threaten themselves with the formidable prospect of Sequester in the future in order to convince us that their continue lack of serious action in the present was a plan and not simply a failure failure of leadership. 

The result of this lack of fiscal responsibility going into the 2010 election was that Republicans took back control of the House; I suppose in the hope that such Armageddon could be avoided (and scrubbing the Bruce Willis / Ben Affleck shuttle mission).  Since then, the House has regularly passed budgets bills that at least attempt to address the reining in of the expansion and out-of-control spending of government, mostly to no effect since the Senate refuses to vote on the House proposals.  Of course their efforts at responsibility are performed in so timid a fashion as to be unrecognizable as such, but they should get credit for at least trying.  Instead however, its members are pilloried for sending the Senate weak-kneed spending reforms that are demonized by the majority party in the Senate as 'draconian cuts' and attempts to throw mom off a cliff. 

Meanwhile, in what is supposed to be the more deliberative Senate, no actual deliberation takes place, mostly because the Senate Majority Leader Reid won't allow it to.  (The Senate in fact has failed to pass an annual budget for almost four years, in spite of requirements that it do so.)  Out-of-hand rejecting the ideas of the House (too far to the right) and the President (too far to the left), the Majority Leader is apparently incapable of coming up with anything of his own that might be 'just right'.  He instead appears content to sit quietly with his gavel and mumble to himself "My Precious" while not Rome, but the entire nation burns around him.  (My personal belief is that Senator Reid's stubbornness may be part of an advertising contract in which he receives a fee for using his manner and appearance to draw attention to the upcoming release of  "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Adventure", which opens in theaters on December 14th.  Unfortunately, this may be a long running contract, as the movie is expected to have two sequels.)  Some say in Harry's defense that budgets coming from the House Republicans couldn't be voted on because the R's have thus far refused to compromise by replacing their own ideas with those of the D's; but that seems a rather lame excuse when a bi-partisan effort in the Senate rejected the last proposal of the leader his own Democratic party by a vote of 99 to 0.  

So if all of this appears confusing, don't feel bad ... it actually is.  You're not alone in having difficulty understanding this confusion of policies, described by terms that tells us that we are now going to go over a cliff in part because we are unable to agree on a budget that keeps us from hitting a ceiling.  You're likewise far from alone in confusion over the fact the end of the year will see us being forced into mandatory tax increases and spending cuts by two political parties who will tell you that both of these concepts, singularly or together, are an anathema not to be tolerated and the last thing that they want to see done in this country (except of course, for reaching agreement on any sort of alternative).

                                        

Days of Bread, Circuses, and the Budget Supercommittee

 .
For those of you who didn't pay attention in ancient history class, let me be the first (OK then, the second) to let you know that the Roman Empire was not in fact brought down by the barbarian hordes  (or even the World of Warcraft Horde for that matter).  In fact the Roman Empire had already brought itself down, its moral and intellectual foundation having so crumbled that the first strong wind would bring it down.  It was there waiting for a tipping point, when a group of people who had once been in the service of the Empire, had the vitality and the drive that Romans once had, and were willing to earn what they needed to keep from starving (by fighting if necessary), reached the center of this empire to pick at the remains of the carcass that was once the greatness of Rome.

That greatness began to fade when the politicians (in this case the Emperor and Senate), continued to try to maintain power by giving the citizens what later became known as 'bread & circuses'.  It was Government at that point, that provided food made from the grain confiscated (taxed) from subjugated lands and peoples, and entertainment to keep them distracted from how bad things had actually become and unaware of the storm growing around them. 

Like many throughout history, the Romans soon enough discovered that the strength required to maintain an empire exacted far more than gaining it. They also learned the tragic lesson of empire that eventually the producers begin to resent those living off their labor, a resentment which will sooner or later boil over.  Unfortunately for most empires, by the time they realize these facts, they also realize that once you give citizens something that they have not earned for themselves, it's ever more difficult to withdraw it and stay in power.   Like every government before and since, they failed to learn the lesson of history that 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'; and that eventually all things must be paid for. (Of course this is a much simplified version of ancient history, but one with no factual errors that should stand up to fairly close scrutiny.)

Step forward some 15-18 centuries (depending on where you wish to begin the fall of Rome), and view now the 'empire' of the United States. (Anyone who says it's not an empire is kidding themselves. But look at a map of the location of these united 'States', and the 'territorial possessions' of this country and make your best case.)  We too are seeing our 'bread and circuses' in the form of entitlement programs handed out by a ruling elite to a common man.  (I make no comment here about the desirability of such entitlement programs, but many will be able to draw the comparisons.)

Now we see a nation just passed the $15,000,000,000,000 mark in national debt (and yes, that's 15 trillion and those are 12 zeroes).  The nation is functionally bankrupt, except for its ability to print money and functionally reduce the 'value' of the debt owed.  The upper house of Congress, the Senate, controlled by Democrats since 2007, has failed to pass a budget (good, bad, or indifferent) since April of 2009.  The House of Representatives (or lower house) , controlled by Democrats from 2007-2011 and by Republicans from early 2011 to the present, has recently passed budgets, but ones which they knew would never pass in the Senate.

In the most recent 'kick the can down the road' confrontation, the two parties once again managed to accomplish next to nothing.  No agreement to cut spending (or even significantly reduce the automatic annual increases in spending was achieved). Neither was any realistic look to increasing revenues as an offset made by closing some of the gaping loopholes in the tax code that they themselves had previously created under pressure from lobbyists and well-to-do contributing constituents.  Instead they managed to defer the jobs for which they were hired and sent to Washington for (regardless of party) to a 'Super Committee' which would, because of its smaller numbers, supposedly be able to do the heavy lifting that this larger and politically fractious group of apparent Statesmen could not.  

Not surprisingly, since most of those appointed by both parties were firmly entrenched in the political posturing of their masters, this so-called 'Super Committee also failed in its task; a failure which supposedly will lead to drastic and unsupportable cuts in the government across the board, to the tune of $1.5 trillion over 10 years.  Setting aside the trivial number involved, considering the size of the government budget and that of the debt, we find that most of these cuts are a twisted form of "Wimpy Economics" at best, where cuts are made tomorrow for tax increases imposed today.  Any actual cutting however, is usually pushed out far enough that by the time it's must be done, no one remembers it's there; making it easy for those in power to conveniently forget about it and never make the cuts.

But this is OK, according to those in power, because it allows the politicians to enter the 2012 election year with clean hands and not being directly responsible for either the raising of taxes on those contributing to campaigns (or many of those voting).  Neither are they responsible for any cutting part of the unsustainable entitlement funding that many of those not paying much in the way of taxes (also a significant voting bloc) have come to count on as part of their fair share.

Congress and the Super Committee have once again provided us a valuable lesson in ancient history, and as we see them continue to provide the modern form of 'bread and circuses' we cannot help but wonder if it will turn out better for us than it did for the Romans.  I doubt it ....
 

Ideological Inconsistency

.
I am becoming increasingly frustrated by what is apparently the most widespread epidemic in the world today, ideological inconsistency.  From the pundits to the electorate, few have managed to escape a malady afflicting the nation.  While I don't consider myself above occasional bouts that must be treated, I do try however to give myself regular inoculations of the cold, hard facts in a largely successful prophylactic effort.  Perhaps that's why the dissonance of arguments on both the left and the right seem so confusing to me these days.

Conservatives want to remove subsidies from farmers (something long overdue), solar and wind technology, and ethanol producers.  They claim that industries and technologies that are marketable do not require government assistance in order to survive.  How then do we explain the inconsistency to their wanting to continue subsidies to oil companies and defense contractors?  Is the oil industry not profitable without government assistance?  If such assistance were removed, would they not maintain their profit margins through the market?  And how much has been and is still being poured into corporations developing technologies that this country will never deploy in its own defense?  How much treasure is wasted in contractor malfeasance and featherbedding for projects woefully behind schedule or those that will never succeed?  

Progressives for their part, want to pull the financial plug on any form of energy coming from oil and coal which are already in place and generating inexpensive power much needed for potential economic growth; leaving in place supports for energy sources that will never be more than marginal ones incapable of supplying current, let alone future needs, in anything like their present form.  They somehow manage to forget fact that according to their ideology, subsidizing corporations is inherently evil (especially when any of their manufacturing is done overseas), apparently capable of setting aside such ideology in the name of 'green technology'.  Ideology likewise seems irrelevant when it's pointed out that ethanol produces more pollution (and less energy) than oil; or the concept that while mercury pollution produced by the burning of coal is unforgivable, that released when an energy-saving light bulb is broken is OK.

Meanwhile Congress continues pointless ideological discussions of how to cut the growth of spending in the future instead of the actual spending in the present that's behind our runaway debt. In a perfect example of conflicted dogma, the left and right simultaneously debate how to raise revenue (taxes) without raising taxes (except on those paying most of them already).  Naively believing that this time they can tax the hideously rich (some of whom are already in Congress) without having them lobby their way around it or move their money out of the US to avoid such taxation entirely (and further hurting the economy); they ignore the elephant in the room that even if they were capable of such a monumental feat of legislative legerdemain, the sum taken in wouldn't come close to balancing the government's books (paying 1-2% of the current deficit by most respected estimates).

While they wrestle with this insubstantial demon, the unmistakable monster of government bureaucracy before them continues its reign of terror, absorbing more money and power with each passing moment.  In this government-approved version of "Oliver Twist", the young orphan attacks the grown-ups with his plate, and beats them about the head and ears while taking whatever he determines is his fair share. Ideologically weak legislators on both sides of the aisle, intimidated by this unruly juvenile delinquent, seem unwilling or unable to curb his monstrous appetite; nor can they deny him the increasing authority he takes without asking.  Regardless of Ideology, everything be damned when the business of 'government as usual' is at stake for these unelected courtiers of an increasingly corrupt system.

And of course what discussion of distorted and duplicitous ideology would be complete without touching on the choosing of a Republican challenger for the sitting President that's so much in the news and on the minds of 'those who know'.  USA Today for example, talks recently about non-candidate Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey never entering the race as a governor who after all, "has held office for less than two years" (a crime that they consider Sarah Palin equally guilty of).  True enough as far as it goes, unless one wishes to look at the time before Christie entered office, when in 2008 we elected a junior Senator from Illinois with 'less than two years experience' (and who spent most of that time campaigning for the office he currently holds), to the highest office in the land .

Not to be left out on capricious and incoherent thinking, those on the right still talk about a movement to draft this man of relative inexperience during the national convention where they hope to pick a replacement for one that they complain does not have a proper background and experience of leadership required to perform this function.  

Herman Cain is likewise attacked for a lack of experience from the left and the right, but no one asks whether the experience of running a profitable business is better that of leading an unprofitable government, or why the experience of being a professional politician is a good in and of itself.  We've had experienced politicians in the White House much of the 20th and 21st Century after all, and what have they gotten us except into the mess we now find ourselves desperately seeking a way out of.

Strangely, the only candidate with a consistent ideology is the one most disregarded and demonized.  One cannot help but wonder that if consistent ideology is sought by Republicans, what clearer choice could they have?  Who has more knowledge of what caused the financial disaster we stand on the brink of or spoken more clearly on its solutions?  Who has likewise spoken more often and plainly on a return to a Constitutionally limited government that so many claim as their ideology? 

Instead of praise for such ideological purity however, Paul has been marginalized.  In spite of the fact that he has more experience at working with Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress than any of his counterparts, he's seen as unable to do so.  In spite of apparently standing for exactly what the Republican electorate claims they want from the next candidate for the highest office in the land, the argument continues to be over which of the other candidates is the most electable lesser of evils.  

Like Alice down the rabbit hole, the whole concept of consistent ideology has become 'curiouser and curiouser'.  At a time when we most need an outlook based on an objective analysis of the facts before us, what we get is anything but. The facts today don't seem to count except in how they are capable of being edited into soundbites that fit a pre-existing ideological vision more twisted than the Red Queen. We've so lost sight of what it means to hold firm to anything like the tenets of a consistent personal philosophy that we may soon use H G Wells instead of Charles Dodgson to say that, 'in this country of the blind, the one-eyed man will soon be forced to have government mandated and paid for Lasix surgery'. 

.

Partisan

As I watch the final negotiations going on about turning the "Bush Tax Cuts" into the "Obama Tax Rates", I cannot help but be amused at the maundering of many of the political pundits going on out there. While recognizing many of them as probably better educated and certainly better connected than I am, I find that they appear to be suffering from compromised thinking ... about compromise. As we once again are regaled with the very public 'sausage making' of the legislation under negotiation, like many I find myself more than a little disgusted with what these media pundits find laudable in the process. 


We are told that President Obama has somehow given in without a fight to the right (though not without calling opponents some names) by granting tax breaks to the rich, to the detriment of his left-wing base and his potential re-election in two years. We are likewise told that the Republicans in both Houses of Congress have sold out their fiscally conservative principles in the name of no longer being seen as the party of no. 


On top of the unemployment insurance that was always part of the deal (and which admittedly both sides wanted anyway), they have allowed the left to add extraneous nonsense to enter the negotiations on legislation for such things alternative energy and ethanol subsidies; seriously jeopardizing voter support they received in the recent election. Mostly what we are told however, is that both sides are showing a return to a bi-partisan spirit in crafting this legislation, and that this is indeed a beautiful thing.

But what is the value of such compromise? Are elected representatives to be applauded for giving up on what they told us were fervently held beliefs in the name of compromise? Did we elect them to abandon what they told us were core values, or were they sent to Washington to represent those beliefs for us? How are we to trust them in the future, or the very concept of our representative republic itself, if so many are willing to compromise in such a way? What is wrong after all with a little partisanship. 


In spite of what we have been told recently, partisanship is a part of this country's history. Since the Revolution, this country has reveled and suffered through partisan debate. Many did not want to make the break with Britain in the first place, even as battles were being fought. After winning our freedom, many did not want to replace the originally passed Articles of Confederation with the stronger federal government of The Constitution. 


That founding document in turn could not be officially ratified by the States without a serious partisan debate over the addition of the Bill of Rights. And after all the dust had cleared, the Hamiltonians (followers of Alexander Hamilton) and the Jeffersonians (followers of Thomas Jefferson) bitterly debated what they considered at the time to be the encroachment of the federal government into areas that it had no business for decades afterward. Why then should we be surprised that Federalists and Statists continue to debate such issues in this country to this very day? 


This is not to say that one philosophy or the other should rule the day (much as I would sometimes wish it), nor is this an endorsement of a particular political party. It is however to say that bi-partisanship is not a good of itself, nor should it mean that each side can have something bad for the country if the other can have one in turn; a practice which sounds more like adding insult to injury than it does like meeting in the middle. As far as the general lack of bi-partisan thinking and compromise slowing the wheels of government down, my question would be: "What's wrong with that?" 


In spite of what they would like us to believe, the two major parties have proved themselves equally unable to govern and not so far apart in the direction they would like to steer the country. The argument now more often appears to be about the speed we are driving on an unsafe road rather than the direction we are going. 


The out-of-control ride is becoming increasingly more difficult to watch from the back seat. If such partisan wrangling slows the pace of government attempts at encroachment of personal freedom in some way, then I'm all for it. If standing by principles should in some way slow the runaway train that government has become in any way, it has my full support. 


Compromise is defined in Dictionary.com as "a settlement of differences by mutual concession". It is also defined as "an endangering, especially of reputation". While I might be in favor of some of the former when required, I find that I am increasingly disgusted to discover far too much of the latter going on these days. Far from applauding such bi-partisan back slapping however, I would prefer a little partisan backbone in my elected officials.