August 31, 2005
The Foundations of a Nation At Risk
This is not the time for half-measures.
You know the places, you know the situation. Major U.S. Cities are flooded, in ruins, and that is no exaggeration. These are the kinds of disasters that make history, and not always in stories that yield happy endings.
Let me make one thing clear- This situation could not be graver, nor the need for leadership greater.
I have folks living up that way, family that lived and still lives in Lousiana. Happily, no one in my immediate family lived in the worst hit regiions, but still, things were too close for comfort for my family.
This is not a situation that's going to take care of itself, that the market will recover from. This is a situation that carries with it grave consequences.
First and foremost, we have a humanitarian crisis on our hands, people stranded and trapped in the flooding neighborhoods, and a major U.S. City quickly turning itself into the lake. Earnest measures are not enough. Heroic measures are necessary.
Second, there is a major infrastructural crisis at work here. The cities are obiviously the primary centers of this crisis. Major highway arteries have been compromised, gas and electric power completely nonfunctional, and expected to be as such for periods that are being measured by months. All the things we take for granted are not working, and this failure will have serious consequences. The Secondary problems of this particular part of the crisis will be felt by us. New Orleans is a major port, a major industrial center, a hub for transportation, and one of the major centers for refining. Additionally, a large number of the Gulf oil exploration has taken place off that part of the Gulf Coast. The expectation, as I hear it, is that we might see gas prices head up around four dollars a gallon.
Third, this has the potential to become a major economic crisis for the rest of the nation. The Destruction carries with it costs, carries with it bankruptcies, defaults, losses in income, unemployment, and many other costs. The widespread nature of this disaster makes it even worse.
What does this all mean? We cannot afford to wait around, we cannot afford to be cheap or lazy about reconstruction. This is going to really kick the hell out of this country, and if we fail to get our act together on this disaster, we will be feeling the consequences of our inaction for some time to come.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 01:00 PMYup, it sure is a big disaster. And where the hell are all the countries WE are always helping out when THEY have a big disaster? Do I hear anybody volunteering to send help? NOPE. Not a whisper. I seem to recall places like Puerto Rico after hurricane Georges crying for us to go assist them. Let’s remember that when they all come whining to the US for aid. We will by gosh rebuild and stand on our own two feet…let them do likewise.
Posted by: capnmike at August 31, 2005 02:54 PMStephen,
Fuel prices jumped $.30 cents a gallon here in Arizona yesterday.
The appalling devestation that we are all seeing cannot be measured in money.
I have the pundits asking if we will receive relief from the countries that we helped after the tsunammi. That kind of bullshit is just too over the top to comment on any further.
With any luck this disaster will help close the gap of polorization that is dividing this country.
Posted by: Rocky at August 31, 2005 03:01 PMUm, Capn, Puerto Rico is part of the US.
Posted by: Brian Poole at August 31, 2005 03:03 PMRocky-
It cannot be measured alone (or mainly) in terms of money, but the economic situation is about more than money. There will be human consequences for the problems that this situation creates for our economy, as there were with the great depression.
Economics is about how we deal with scarce resources, not simply whether we make a lot of money. The ripple effects of this disaster, not to mention it’s main effect could be the source of much ruin.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 03:19 PMStephen,
“It cannot be measured alone (or mainly) in terms of money, but the economic situation is about more than money.”
Sorry I was so cryptic, that was my point.
Posted by: Rocky at August 31, 2005 03:35 PMThis is one of my “kick people in the ass” posts, which I intend to get people motivated to seek that the efforts go above and beyond just what has to be done- We need to be all calling our senators and Representatives and let them know that this is a priority here, and that we cannot let the response on this lag.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 03:43 PMI think we are now seeing the part of economics called GREED.
Gasoline prices are up all over the country for gas that has already been bought, paid for and delivered before the storm.
I fail to see (other than it will grow in short supply soon) why that gas has to cost more at the pump. IMO the Federal Government should have frozen gas prices at the level they were at prior to the hurricane.
Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 04:05 PMWell, increase the cost now to reduce demand and keep more reserves in the system.
I don’t know if that’s the cause of the increase or if it would really work, but it might explain it, but it might just be gouging.
Fuel prices always react immediately to current events. I know that gouging investigations have happened in the past, but I don’t know what the results were.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 04:08 PMcapnmike:
From Yahoo News Link
VIENNA, Austria (CP) - From papal prayers to telegrams from China, the world reacted with an outpouring of compassion Wednesday for the victims of hurricane Katrina in messages tinged by shock that a disaster of this scale could occur in the United States.
Islamic extremists rejoiced in America’s misfortune, giving the storm a military rank and declaring in Internet chatter that “Private” Katrina had joined the global jihad, or holy war. With “God’s help,” they declared, oil prices would hit $100 US a barrel this year.
Venezuela’s government, which has had tense relations with Washington, offered humanitarian aid and fuel if requested.
—-
More compassion and aid will follow. Aside from the predictable, black-hearted Islamic extremists, real people from all over the world do care.
Thank you for posting this, Stephen.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 31, 2005 04:20 PMDidn’t realize helping someone with expectations of receiving something in return was a Christian value, which the wingnuts have claimed to be exclusively in possession of, but I suppose when one is feeling the effects of the kool-aid, values, like a lot of the pseudo-conservative nonsense, is something that seemingly changes as needed to accommodate the hypocrisy.
And if hypocrisy is a measure of the depth of one’s ignorance, the previously mentioned are up to their asses with the latter.
Posted by: dtom21 at August 31, 2005 04:46 PMdtom21-
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what you mean. This about Americans helping each other, both for the absolute good of it, and the relative good that will benefit all of us to rebuild New Orleans and the lives of those who live there.
Stephen, I have to oppose some of your cheerleading for rebuilding there. New Orleans is subsiding more each year and will continue to for a very long time since we have extracted so much from under it which was holding it up. This is insane to rebuild a metropolitan area there with taxpayer dollars.
Second, I oppose rebuilding any structures at costs to the taxpayers or insurance consumer rates which do not conform to statndards capable of withstanding tornadic winds and storm surges. To rebuild Gulf Coast structures that don’t meet these standards is stupid, unfair, and ultimately wasteful of human life and suffering, for it will happen again.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 06:25 PMMy posting was in response to the first comment by capnmike and his “And where the hell are all the countries WE are always helping out when THEY have a big disaster”?
And from his tone, I made the assumption he was a typical wingnut with questionable values.
Hopefully I was wrong.
Specifically, I know America offered significant help to the Indonesians after the tsunami and living in Indonesia as I do (where it’s 5:00 on a Thursday morning)the Indonesians were extremely grateful for that help in spite of the corporately manipulated American media reports to the contrary, but to expect a developing counrty such as Indonesia to come rushing to the aid of America after a disaster wrought by the recent hurricane as capnmike expects them to is totally ludricous.
And Indonesia didn’t go whining to any one, because when 150,000 Indonesians die in less than two minutes, the world responded without request, including America.
Most of these people do not even know there has been a hurricane in America and even they did and expected their government to respond to same, it wouldn’t happen because just like the American government, it no longer serves the interest of the people very well.
Stephen:
Third, this has the potential to become a major economic crisis for the rest of the nation. The Destruction carries with it costs, carries with it bankruptcies, defaults, losses in income, unemployment, and many other costs. The widespread nature of this disaster makes it even worse.
The latest cost estimate I have seen is somewhere around $25 Billion. Tax revenues this year are up and unexpected $80 Billion. As a country we can afford to help out a great deal.
1. We can “loan” refineries all the crude oil they need from the strategic oil reserve.
2. We can expect short term supply disruptions. I wouldn’t be surprized to see fuel costs spike well over $3.00/gallon for a few months.
3. Unfortunately this should be a net plus to the economy because of the repair work that will need to be done.
My own take is:
1. Pray for the recovery efforts, and for those who have lost so much.
2. Give to our favorite charities. Be wise about giving in three ways: Check
administrative expenses, and make sure the non profits have assets to help with the problems at hand, and finally think long term. Give three or six months from now, after we are all back to fighting over politics.
Economically there should be a temporary slowdown because of disruption in supplies, and then a net plus as reconstruction begins.
By the way Stephen, this place could do a great service by checking out non profits and point all of us with checkbooks open in the right direction.
My favorite has been the Salvation Army. Not so much because of the religious part, but the low administration cost part.
I am thinking about Habitat for Humanity as a place to give later on in the crisis cycle.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 31, 2005 06:35 PMDavid:
Second, I oppose rebuilding any structures on the cost at taxpayer rates or insurance consumer rates which do not conform to statndards capable of withstanding tornadic winds and storm surges. To rebuild Gulf Coast structures that don’t meet these standards is stupid, unfair, and ultimately wasteful of human life and suffering, for it will happen again.
This sounds like common sense to me. According to this website, hurricanes are neither increasing in intensity nor frequency.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
I don’t think that is the point. Why should we help twice? If we can rebuild it to withstand reasonable risk then do it, if not then move inland.
Craig
P.S. from a math point of view it would seem to me that the dollar figures, and the suppies needed should be very predictable. For instance, it appears that we are going to get hit with a major hurricane about every other year. By simple math we should be able to calculate the average damage per year, and the amount of relief effort we should put in place.
If you look at the statistics on the website, I am uncertain as to why this is such a mess. For instance, it is only a matter of time before Miami gets nailed. We should even be able to predict the frequency. (Once every 40 years or so???)
Those disasters seem to be “fixed costs” of doing business near the gulf. Shouldn’t North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, etc etc, have a pooled fund that they put money into? Shouldn’t they have disaster relief supplies at some common point already purchased and ready for the next hurricane?
Just thinking about the future.
Craig
I think moving some of the refineries and what not upriver might not be a bad idea, but big ideas about moving things must deal with the reality of the expense of such rebuilding, and the viability of other locations for such construction. If New Orleans does recover, they might consider something like the Dutch have near their low country.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 08:19 PMHow about buying repeatedly predictable catastrophe zones as national parks. The purchases by the government could pay for relocation, add new recreational and wildlife preserves, and limit future economic devastation in perpetuity not to mention saving lives. Looks like something to consider before throwing a quarter trillion dollars into rebuilding to await the next occurance.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 09:47 PMWhat about all the bases that just got closed? Why can’t we house the Gulf coast people in the closed bases?
We need also to freeze the cost for 16 wheel truck drivers the amount they pay for their fuel.
And whats with the weatherwars.com guy? Scott Stevens? Like does the next slavik named Hurricane take out the refineries on the Texas Coast?
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday 10 to 12 foreign governments have offered general assistance to the United States to deal with the hurricane aftermath. No decision has been reached about accepting the offers.
Venezuela’s government, which has had tense relations with Washington, offered humanitarian aid and fuel if requested.
Throughout Europe, concerned citizens lamented the loss of life and the damage caused to New Orleans, often described as one of North America�s most �European� cities.
The U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, a capital at the foot of the Alps hit by flooding last week , said calls were rushing in from Swiss individuals and institutions looking for a way to donate to relief efforts.
“We are getting calls from the Swiss public looking to express their condolences, (and) people are also asking for an account number where they can make donations,” said spokesman Daniel Wendell.
Shouldn’t North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, etc etc, have a pooled fund that they put money into?
Theoretically, that’s what insurance is for.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 02:12 AMThe American people have been shaken deeply. Is it possible that Katrina will be enough to unite our people once again? Or will we descend back into the back-biting and in-fighting that has caused us so much damage already?
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 03:03 AMThere will be unity in helping Gulf Coast victims.
There will never be unity between political adversaries on other issues as a result of this tragedy. I will point to myself as an example. I hold Bush and the GOP, and Clinton directly responsible for our NOT having a national surplus from which to draw on for this tragedy, instead of 8 Trillion national debt to which we are now going to have to add another trillion dollars or so.
That is inexcuseable. And I urge Americans who want real problems to get solved permanently and changes made to secure our future, to vote bi partisanly anti-incumbent in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012. By then, thick headed politicians will have finally gotten the message, they won’t get reelected making America’s problems worse or not dealing with them at all.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 05:56 AMDavid:
Perhaps the biggest problem in voting anti-incumbernt is the gerrymandering of districts. By design, this gives incumbents the huge direct advantage of having more supporters in their districts.
Even if more people plan to vote anti-incumbent, this philosophy gets overwhelmed by the numerical advantage obtained by gerrymandering.
This applies mostly to the House, as opposed to the Senate, so we could expect a more anti-incumbent Senate, although many voters really don’t focus on the Senate as much since it isnt perceived to be as “local”. That is their own damn fault, but nonetheless part of the reality.
I have no solutions to this problem, since the people who vote on the districting are the very people who benefit from it. Seems to me some kind of bipartisan committee might work, but there would be intense wrangling over who was “bipartisan” enough to work on it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 1, 2005 08:01 AMjbod, the hoped for anti-incumbency movement, I call it Vote the In Guy Out campaign, is not designed to change parties holding power. Therefore gerrymandering is not as big an obstacle, though, you are very astute to point out gerrymandering will have some dampening effect on politicians reflection that they must solve problems or lose. That is a variable I had not considered, and I very much appreciate your bringing that up.
The goal of the anti-incumbency movement is to throw politician’s projection models and campaign strategies for a loop and making them unpredictable for the purpose of getting reelected. If that happens, even marginally, 1 to 2% of the vote, many politicians will shift their agendas from current priorities to consumer and voter issues as insurance toward being elected.
I have written what I consider one of my best articles on this anti-incumbency movement which is not new, but whose time has come. It was written for another publishing site, and when it is published on line, I will provide the link.
Thank you JBOD.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 08:29 AMThe answer to the problem is ________.
I hear this so often, but when I study things in depth, the real world is so much more complicated. If we eliminate incumbents, we may just throw out the experience, the principled, and the moderate. In there place we would get people we could not guarantee would be the best candidates for the job.
In my opinion, these are things done best on a case by case basis. Our system is not merely one that functions by punishing errant politicians, but one that also rewards those who successfully represents the interests of their people.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2005 09:42 AMDavid R. Remer wrote: That is inexcuseable. And I urge Americans who want real problems to get solved permanently and changes made to secure our future, to vote bi partisanly anti-incumbent in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012. By then, thick headed politicians will have finally gotten the message, they won’t get reelected making America’s problems worse or not dealing with them at all.
Yes, that may be the one last thing that might actually work (and peacefully too).
The main point is that our many problems and crushing debt may never be resolved without first resolving the root cause: irresponsible and unaccountable government
If we deal with that, then perhaps, many other solutions will begin to be implemented, once the nation knows it is on a better path to recovery.
Some people are starting to suspect we have problems that need to be addressed soon. If our many problems (below) are allowed to grow much longer in number and severity, this country will learn that it isn’t invincible:
[01] Medicare shortfalls; it’s currently in big trouble;
Greenspan has told Congress that “Social Security and Medicare entitlement benefits must be adjusted to ensure their long-term solvency”; but Democrats and Republicans haven’t done anything about it, except promise more entitlements (prescriptions, which will cost a few hundred billion more per year….more debt);
[02] S.S. and Medicare require 9% (about $1 trillion) of GDP (about $11.5 trillion);
[03] GPBGC & pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole; tax payers will get this bill, just like the Savings & Loan scandal/bailout;
[04] National Debt = $8 trillion (has increased every year of last 45 years and all but a few years of the last 70 years);
[05] borrowing $1 billion per day; $1 billion per day interest on National Debt;
[06] energy vulnerability; increasing probability of shortages; no new refineries; Oil just reached $67 per barrel;
[07] cost of war, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. ;
[08] the tax system probably won’t be fixed; too many in power like it the way it is; or won’t tackle a tough problem for fear of risking re-election; the current tax level is oppressive (12.4% (S.S.) + 2.9% (Medicare) + upto 35% (8% to 12% for median family of 4);
[09] the falling U.$. dollar; inflation (designed to shrink National Debt);
[10] aging population; 78 million baby boomers will start drawing benefits in 2018 ; a pay-as-you-go system won’t survive that;
[11] increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care and health insurance;
[12] crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, ports, air ports, buildings, water treatment, etc.);
[13] declining quality and increasing cost of Education; property taxes are becoming oppressive also;
[14] globalization (global village, or global pillage? It’s a race to the bottom, and we can’t stop it as long as we have an oppressive tax system and discourage competition);
Some people are having less and less trouble seeing how these growing problems will at least lead to a gradual and steady decline of the U.S. , and at worst, an economic meltdown in the form of recessions or a depression.
Lately, there are more and more economists now starting to warn us that our problems are growing so big, that they will take decades (or many decades) to resolve, if we start now.
But, there’s little hope of that when politicians are reluctant to tackle tough problems for fear of risking re-election. They’d rather play the blame-game or petty-partisan-bickering-game and distract voters with other nonsense.
We are growing more and more vulnerable everyday. And our options are growing smaller and smaller, exacerbated by disasters like Katrina and 9/11/2001, energy vulnerability, and $8 trillion in National Debt (representing $50 trillion (in 2005 U.$. dollars) in interest payments).
The problem is (if it hasn’t already) getting out of control, we are selfishly destroying our childrens future with astronomical debt, and backing ourselves into a very tiny corner, with little room to move one way or the other, to get out of the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.
Also, the idea of voting only for non-incumbents is to balance power between the people and government (not to simply shift it).
The government will still have all the powers to do it’s job.
The people would merely be exercising their right to vote, which may peacefully force government to police their own ranks, and start working on our many problems before it’s too late, in which case, none of this will matter.
Also, a key point to the strategy is to address the problem in which politicians are reluctant to address tough problems for fear of risking re-election. This strategy (i.e. vote only for non-incumbents and non-main-party candidates) will hopefully take away that reluctance to deal with problems, because they’ll be voted out if they continue to ignore our many pressing problems.
And, even if this strategy didn’t work (i.e. vote only for non-incumbents and non-main-party candidates), what harm has been done ?
It will simply mean that government continues to do what it’s doing now (aside from the fact that we will be closer and closer to going over the cliff on either side of our current path).
If we continue to ignore these problems, we are flirting with potential disaster. It’s not any one problem by itself, but it’s the many problems culminating simultaneously that have potential for disaster. It may no longer be a question of if…it may now only be a matter of when. One or more of the following could be the catalyst that triggers a recession (or depression, or worse):
[01] energy crisis; long lines; high prices; price gouging;
[02] black outs; riots; looting; destruction;
[03] an aging U.S. population falls into poverty due to bankrupt S.S. and Medicare;
[04] another war or police action;
[05] another devasting terrorist attack;
[06] wide spread foreclosures; falling real estate values;
[07] natural disaster(s)
[08] a recession, with widespread job loss;
[09] The U.S. government is unable to borrow enough or tax enough to fund Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, etc.;
[10] inflation; or run-away inflation, as government prints more money to cover debts;
[11] The U.S. government defaults on the interest payments owed (currently about a quarter of every tax dollar)
[12] and during all of that, the federal government continues to tax and spend irresponsibly, like they do now, as if they didn’t have a care in the whole world (except their next raise, of course).
But, David like you’ve said before (and perhaps this shouldn’t be said), the people won’t do anything until it’s probably too late. The people won’t resort to simply and peacefully voting for non-incumbents, they’ll probably resort to other less constructive solutions.
Still, I hold on to the small hope and chance that Americans, some day (soon hopefully) may try to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable with nothing more than their vote, but wisely used to only vote for those that will tackle tough problems, and not ignore problems (or blame the other party) for fear of risking re-election.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 1, 2005 09:43 AMDavid:
We agree? We actually agree?? :)
You see, there IS room for optimism. If you and I can agree about something in the political realm, then certainly other piddly things (such as the national debt, health care and world peace) cannot be far behind.
I’m in favor of the anti-incumbency movement, but I think gerrymandering is preventing it. Consider if a Democrat runs in a district that is 75% Democratic by nature. Even if the incumbent Democrat is a bum, he will be reelected.
A challenger must overcome such a huge disadvantage—it would be like racing an Olympic sprinter in a 100 meter dash, but getting a 50 meter head start. The Olympian is the better runner, runs faster, but just has too much ground to make up.
I’ve said often that govt would work better if we got rid of the whole lot of politicians and started over from scratch. I’ll support almost any plan to get rid of the incumbents, because they are simply too beholden to the system, rather than to the people.
While I value free speech, I’d vote for term limits in a heartbeat. After all, we have term limits for the Presidency, so why not for Congress? I dont see the unconstitutionality of it, as some say.
Anyway, David, our agreement is cause for raucus celebration and genuine optimism. The sky has become cloudless, the birds have begun chirping, and a new day has dawned. :)
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 1, 2005 10:43 AMThe answer to the problem is ________.I hear this so often, but when I study things in depth, the real world is so much more complicated. If we eliminate incumbents, we may just throw out the experience, the principled, and the moderate. In there place we would get people we could not guarantee would be the best candidates for the job.
In my opinion, these are things done best on a case by case basis. Our system is not merely one that functions by punishing errant politicians, but one that also rewards those who successfully represents the interests of their people.
Stephen Daugherty,
Respectfully, I hear too often:
[X] It’s not that simple.
[X] It’s more complicated than that.
And that is what helps stand in the way of any progress.
But, don’t worry, because voters will probably never organize to vote for non-incumbents.
But, consider this. If some good politicians are voted out, so what ? That’s the price they pay for not policing their own ranks better, and for government, as a whole, is irresponsible and unaccountable.
Besides, since government is irrepsonsible, they’re all responsible (as a whole).
But they love for us to keep considering each politician individually, instead as one team or entity, because they can then continue to do what they do: be irresponsible and unaccountable.
Government will not reform itself.
The problem is not that we’re simply always voting badly.
The problem is the system
Politicians won’t tackle tough problems for fear of risking re-election.
That’s why we must do something to give them a new incentive to tackle problems, or be voted out every election.
JBOD, yep, there is hope.
You said: “Consider if a Democrat runs in a district that is 75% Democratic by nature. Even if the incumbent Democrat is a bum, he will be reelected.”
Sort of. There will be other currents that will come into play. I grant you an incumbent in a district with 75% support is not going to be threatened by a grass roots anti-incumbency movement anytime soon.
But there are a vast number of races every two years which could go either way, and when those races are calculated into the makeup of and balance of power in Congress or a Presidential Electoral College vote based on popular votes, those politicians will respond to an anti-incumbency movement and they in turn will pressure the other politicians in their party with more secure incumbent seats to respond to the people’s agenda, or lose in party support as non-team players.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 11:01 AMjbod,
;-) Certainly a day to celebrate…but for the destruction that brought it about.
I too agree with the anti-incumbency movement. Perhaps peaceful change is yet possible.
David,
You are not the only one who’s concerned with how New Orleans is rebuilt.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 11:22 AMNew Orleans Mayor has just given a desperate SOS to the news media.
Just heard on the news that they don’t expect enough buses at the shelter, and they have run out of supplies for the THOUSANDS of people there.
They say they are going to let them march to something called crescent circle for relief. Reporters are wondering “what relief will be there?”
We don’t have, and haven’t sent enough resources to control ANY of the lawlessness or get supplies in to the people or do all the needed rescues.
Bodies are lying in the streets and elsewhere.
And the National Guard and equipment is in Iraq.
People are still dying in New Orleans, by the minute apparently.
Bush is right now on TV talking about gas supplies.
Posted by: womanmarine at September 1, 2005 02:59 PMD.A.N., et al.-
I’m not sure how this topic came up here, but let me give you my simple answer. Everybody says “Throw the Bums out”. It’s not a new nor an innovative notion. Everytime we’ve done it, you know what happens in short order? We get new bums to replace them.
The truth is, any positions this powerful will attract those who want power. Tautological, really. Many of those who want that power, want it for it’s own sake, and to get in the position where they could get it, they’ve already lead corrupt political lives.
There’s no avoiding it. Power has it’s own gravitational pull, and (in the form of their charisma and power) so do those people who have what it takes to be put up for candidacy in those areas. We cannot expect human nature to change. We cannot defeat this with some broad campaign.
Three things would make it a pyrrhic victory- 1)exhaustion. These things are not easy. If the results are not satisfactory, you have 2)disappointment. And even if you get all these things going right, you will, at some point, have 3)Complacency. All Revolutions stop their turning at some point. What happens then?
What I ask for is no big revolution, but a simple awareness of what the people you have elected to your offices are doing. We can’t reward or punish on ignorance without encouraging corruption. If the information tells us this person hasn’t done their job, then we can be anti-incumbent. Otherwise, we can vote or not vote for these people as our beliefs would dictate.
That’s the key there. What we need isn’t some broad brush panacea, but something like we’re doing here- research, debate, and other means by which folks can be persuaded. We can’t afford to trust to ideologies, no matter how well intentioned.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2005 03:31 PMWhen writing about our national debt we seem to forget the last tax cut that gave the wealthy most of the surplus we had accumulated before Bush was elected. Rescinding that tax cut and stopping congress from making that cut permanent would go a long ways towards reducing our debt. A review of the energy bill just passed shows that we will be giving billions in subsides to the huge oil companies that are showing profits of 29 to 59%. Rework the energy bill and promote ways to immediately reduce our reliance on oil and rescinding the billions in subsides would also greatly reduce the debt. Congress plans to cut out all estate taxes this month which will give the wealthiest 2% of our population another 70 billion dollars. Recognize that we are in debt and have to borrow money to pay for all our giveaways to the wealthiest people in America that don’t really need the money.
The administration is right now ready to ask congress for 10 billion for aid to Katrina victims and before we are through it is going to cost billions more.
E. Litteer,
Actually, The entire tax system, and entitlements need a serious overhaul ( and ASAP! ).
Yes, the wealthy really got the biggest tax cut.
But, higher taxes aren’t the solution. Fair taxes are part the solution.
But, rescinding that tax cut will not go a long ways to resolving the $8 trillion National Debt (which represents at least $37 trillion (or more) in interest on principal (i.e. $8 + $37 = $45 trillion)).
If the federal government stopped borrowing $1 billion per day, and started paying back $1.00333 billion per day (which is slightly more than daily interest accrued), it would total:
2 x $365 = $730 billion per year
= one third of current federal revenues of $2.2 trillion,
and it would take 127 years to pay off the national debt.
National Debt = $8 trillion
PeriodsPerYear = 12 (months)
Interest Rate % = 4.5%
Payment = $1.003333 billion per day (must exceed daily interest, or the total debt continues to grows bigger each day)
_______________ Accumulative_________ Accumulative_________ Scheduled
_______________ Finance______________ Payment On_________ Remaining
_______________ Charge:______________ Principal:____________ Principal:
Pmt# MM/DD/YYYY
0001 01/01/2006 $30000000000 $100000000 $7999900000000
0002 02/01/2006 $59999625000 $200375000 $7999799625000
0003 03/01/2006 $89998873593 $301126406 $7999698873593
0004 04/01/2006 $119997744369 $402255630 $7999597744369
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
1517 05/01/2132 $37891131133766 $7770568866233 $229431133766
1518 06/01/2132 $37891991500517 $7799808499482 $200191500517
1519 07/01/2132 $37892742218644 $7829157781355 $170842218644
1520 08/01/2132 $37893382876964 $7858617123035 $141382876964
1521 09/01/2132 $37893913062753 $7888186937246 $111813062753
1522 10/01/2132 $37894332361738 $7917867638261 $82132361738
1523 11/01/2132 $37894640358095 $7947659641904 $52340358095
1524 12/01/2132 $37894836634438 $7977563365561 $22436634438
1525 01/01/2133 $37894920771817 $8000000000000 $0.00
TOTAL INTEREST= $37.8949 Trillion
… Notice, that the total interest paid is almost $38 trillion !, which is almost 5 times the original $8 trillion debt (principal). Tax payers are currently paying about a quarter of every dollar on interest alone. And, what happens if the debt continues to grow ? At the current rate, it will only be a few more years, and it will exceed GDP which is currently about $11.3 trillion.
If the federal government simply stopped borrowing, the national debt would still continue to grow by about $1 billion per day ($365 billion per year).
Perhaps you can now see how ridiculous the problem has become ?
We’re not going to be able to grow enough, tax enough, immigrate enough, cut waste enough, or print enough money to spend our way out of this problem. It’s more and more looking as though we might have already passed that point.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: D.A.N., et al.- I’m not sure how this topic came up here, but let me give you my simple answer.David said something about anti-incumbent voting, and I couldn’t resist agreeing.
Everybody says “Throw the Bums out”. It’s not a new nor an innovative notion.I never claimed it was my idea or a new idea, and have said so many times.
Everytime we’ve done it, you know what happens in short order? We get new bums to replace them.That’s because we only do it once. We need to keep doing it until they quit ignoring problems for fear of risking re-election. The system is broken, which is why it doesn’t seem to matter who we vote for. It’s like they’re suddenly stricken with jelly-brain-disease soon after election.
The truth is, any positions this powerful will attract those who want power. Tautological, really. Many of those who want that power, want it for it’s own sake, and to get in the position where they could get it, they’ve already lead corrupt political lives.That’s another reason you have to keep voting them out, repeatedly, until they finally get the picture, and realize people want problems solved and some transparency. Only when transparency is achieved, and things start improving, voters can keep the good politicians, which will be easier once there’s increased transparency and accountability.
Also, this may be the only way to peacefully force a restoration of the balance of power (not simply shift it) between government and the people. I’m not sure we have time or luxury to contiue with your approach, which isn’t working, which is why government is becoming increasingly irresponsible and unaccountable.
There’s no avoiding it. Power has it’s own gravitational pull, and (in the form of their charisma and power) so do those people who have what it takes to be put up for candidacy in those areas. We cannot expect human nature to change. We cannot defeat this with some broad campaign.Well, you don’t really know that. I don’t know either, but I believe it could work. The hard part is convincing enough people that what they’re doing now isn’t working, and they’re missing an easy way to get the attention of government, and force it to be transparent, responsible, and accountable.
Three things would make it a pyrrhic victory- 1)exhaustion. These things are not easy. If the results are not satisfactory, you have 2)disappointment. And even if you get all these things going right, you will, at some point, have 3)Complacency. All Revolutions stop their turning at some point. What happens then?The loss of a few good politicians is the unfortunate price of not policing their own ranks better. When transparency has been achieved, and things have improved drastically, many improvements and abundance will probably follow. But, the day may later come again when we all need to start voting out the incumbents … if they again become too irresponsible, arrogant, and unaccountable.
What I ask for is no big revolution, but a simple awareness of what the people you have elected to your offices are doing. We can’t reward or punish on ignorance without encouraging corruption. If the information tells us this person hasn’t done their job, then we can be anti-incumbent. Otherwise, we can vote or not vote for these people as our beliefs would dictate.Sorry, Stephen, we’ve been doing it that way and it doesn’t work. We need to view government as one entity or one team. Afterall, they are, as a whole, irresponsible and unaccountable.
That’s the key there. What we need isn’t some broad brush panacea, but something like we’re doing here- research, debate, and other means by which folks can be persuaded. We can’t afford to trust to ideologies, no matter how well intentioned.Can’t trust to ideologies? That’s questionable. What’s wrong with ideologies? As long as they’re sound.
But, I do agree about the research, debate, etc., which has led to several changes of my opinions, conclusions, and solutions over the past few years. But, I’m a proponent of voting out all incumbents, until I hear of a better system. Any suggestions, other than doing what we’ve been doing, which IMO isn’t working ?
David,
House Speaker Hastert is already getting political heat for essentially agreeing with you:
It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that’s seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.
It’ll be an interesting debate. I hope the deabte also includes people who build their dream houses in old growth forests overdue for a fire.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 05:34 PMd.a.n.
How long before people resent it? How long before real problems and real strong disagreements start with this program? The system is human In a way it will always be somewhat broken, somewhat troublesome.
Transparency is a necessary goal, but it will always be an imperfect one. No matter how hard we try, we can neither absorb all information, find all of it, nor properly understand all of it. It’s not that we have the luxury of taking my approach, but in the end, it’s all we can keep going.
Your troubles in getting people on board now should be a taste of what’s to come if you can even get past this stage. You’re telling people the solution is to vote out all the incumbents, and that way we can eliminate all the vested interests and whatnot. Except that’s what you’d have to defeat to get your movement going. It’s not the easy way to get their attention. You have to solve your problem before you solve your problem!
It’s rhetorically convenient to see the government as one entity or team, but that’s not how it works in practice. It practice, you have many different places and philosophies represented, and you’d have to raise your hand against every one of them. This is the sheer complexity of this political game that you’d seek to defeat with your simple plan.
Ideologies, I’ve observed, are always insufficient to describe the real world, They work best as guides to behavior rather than road maps.
What my approach deals with here is what you might call the path of greatest meaning. We don’t make kicking out the incumbent an arbitrary thing, a slippery idea with little for people to grab hold of. We make it a solid necessity. We show people what a candidate has done wrong. This strategy won’t always win, but that makes it little different from your strategy which won’t win either, even by your admission. In the end this is about separating the wheat from the chaff, rather than just changing out the grain in the hopper.
I just think my approach is more practicable and meaningful. In dealing with the crises of this country, we have have plenty of opportunities to test our public officials, and find them wanting if that’s the case. I say don’t waste your time and effort kicking out folks who do their job. Take out the folks who have made themselves vulnerable by betraying the interests of their own people.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2005 12:44 AMLawnboy, thanks. I never would have dreamed Hastert and I could agree on the time of day. I will never again underestimate the ability of a Leader of the House of Representatives to learn and grow with the rest of us.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2005 01:02 AMGreat defense with Stephen, D.A.N. OK, that’s 2 of us. Now, let’s work to make it 4. No wait, JBOD is on board too. That’s 3, let’s work to make it 6.
That is how grass roots initiatives begin… we are on a roll… I have an entire article devoted to this very topic to be published shortly elsewhere. Let you know when I have a link.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2005 01:08 AMD.A.N, Just saw Stephanie is on board for Voting the In Guy Out. The 2 we started with now is 4. Let’s bypass 6 and work to make it 8. Hell if we doubled our numbers in just a few hours, I am excited about tomorrow.
I just finished watching a Discovery program on the wetlands south of New Orleans.
According to the studies used to make this program, in the last 50 years the distance to the gulf from New Oleans has been more than halved. From over 50 down to 20 miles. These wetlands were once protection from the storm surge assiociated with hurricanes. The loss is due to the flood control system on the Mississippi River upstream from New Orleans.
Go figure.
Louisiana State University has been running experiments in these wetlands, and has found that they are dying off as a result of the encroaching salinity in the waters from the Gulf. Also the river no longer delivers the silt to the wetlands that built up the buffers that helped the wetlands grow.
The area fishermen are also seeing less oysters and white shrimp, both staples of Cajun and Creole cooking.
Man has once again triumphed over nature and shot himself in the foot.
Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 01:29 AMStephen said he wasn’t sure how this topic “Vote the In Guy Out” began in the thread.
My Baddd! The movement has increased its support 400% in this one thread. Care to join. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2005 01:30 AMGive me some I might actually vote for and we’ll talk.
Posted by: Rocky at September 2, 2005 01:33 AMRocky, Pat Paulson. Micky Mouse. Inuyasha! Doesn’t matter, just Vote and when you do, Vote The In Guy Out with another name, any other name, regardless of party, regardless of qualification, the more wierd, the more remote their chance of winning. It is not about who to vote for, that comes later. In the beginning, it is who to vote against, ALL Incumbents!. That will serve the multiple purposes.
1) It will cause statisticians jaws to drop. They in turn will relate to candidates they can’t accurately predict outcomes anymore.
2) The Vote The In Guy Out movement will be discovered, after a cycle or two, and nervous politician incumbents will want to figure out how to get those votes.
3) After enough predictable races are shown to have been totally unpredictable altogether because of the Vote The In Guy Out minority but significant movement, what incumbents are left will realize, as challengers will, that the only future for an incumbent is to make America’s problems go away, instead of creating ever more of them.
Voila! That will take probably 5 or 6 election cycles, or 10 to 12 years, and we the people will finally have politicians working for us again and working bipartisanly again, knowing full well if they don’t, they can kiss their dreams of incumbency good bye!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2005 03:17 AMDavid, if you like this concept, please make your own posting about it, and take this debate off this thread. I’m not trying to be mean, but this has gone on too long.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2005 06:59 AMStephen, you outlined a set of problems that need to be dealt with. I am offering a method by which these and similar problems can be solved not just now, but in the future as well.
You asked “What does this all mean? ”
I am talking about what it means and what voters can do about it. Look Stephen, there is no damn way our government should be failing in the response to Katrina. We have had 4 years since 9/11 to prepare for dealing with the next catastrophe that came our way. It has come, and 100’s of billions of dollars later, we are no more prepared than on 9/10/2001, and one only need to listen to the Mayor of New Orleans or watch the TV news of what has NOT been happening to see this is true.
Politicians have put us 2 plus Trillion dollars further in debt since 9/11, and created reams up reams of talk on paper since then. But when the test of whether all that time, money and talk produced anything, we are seeing with our own eyes it was all an utter waste of time, money, and now lives.
Vote The In Guy Out is the only answer to insure that in the future when polticians take our money and indebt our children’s work lives with national debt, that we voters actually get something back for it all. If you want to close this thread, go ahead. But, don’t try to tell me that my comments are not relevant to the subject of your article. Nothing could be more relevant.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2005 10:21 AMStephen, what David Remer wrote was entirely appropriate here.
Stephen, you brought up a lot of problems dealing with government irresponsibility, unaccountability, and dysfunction, and the idea of voting a particular way to resolve it is completely on topic.
David Remer wrote: … my comments are not relevant to the subject of your article. Nothing could be more relevant.
I agree David.
After all, the title of the thread is: The Foundations of a Nation At Risk
What could be more important than addressing the fact that government is unresponsive, irresponsible, and unaccountble?
Rocky wrote: Give me some I might actually vote for and we’ll talk.Well, once we knock down the barriers that the main parties are creating for independent and third party candidates, you’ll probably have plenty of good choices that won’t need a lot of money, and won’t be bought and paid for. Unfortunately, we’ve got a very serious problem in which independent and third party candidates are being prevented from participating in elections and debate. If that persists, we won’t have but one or two choices at any election. Our choices are already much too limited now (by design). That’s not very democratic is it ?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n. How long before people resent it? How long before real problems and real strong disagreements start with this program? The system is human In a way it will always be somewhat broken, somewhat troublesome.How long before people resent what we have now, and have disagreements? Also, because something is imperfect is no reason to despair, resign to futility, declare it too complicated to resolve, and refuse to strive to make it better.
Transparency is a necessary goal, but it will always be an imperfect one. No matter how hard we try, we can neither absorb all information, find all of it, nor properly understand all of it. It’s not that we have the luxury of taking my approach, but in the end, it’s all we can keep going.Stephen, the problem now is there is way too little transparency. For instance, one big improvement in transparency would be to implement a new rule/law that limits BILLs to only one purpose. All items on the bill must be related. That will prevent politicians from sneaking in pork-barrel (like McCain who sneaked in a $1 million item in the military appropriations bill, for the brown tree snake in Guam)
Your troubles in getting people on board now should be a taste of what’s to come if you can even get past this stage.Stephen, you have no idea how much support and agreement I’ve received, which is why I’m not giving up on it. Especially, since it may be the only way to peacefully force a restoration of the balance of power (not simply shift it) between the people and government. It’s the potential alternative that may occur that worry me. Your approach may be exactly what may eventually lead to a less savory solution to our many pressing problems.
You’re telling people the solution is to vote out all the incumbents, and that way we can eliminate all the vested interests and whatnot. Except that’s what you’d have to defeat to get your movement going. It’s not the easy way to get their attention. You have to solve your problem before you solve your problem!The government has no power except the power that the people give it. The people, once they realize the opportunity to achieve their goals peacefully, will do it (hopefully). The word is spreading. The internet is helping. Just run a search on “One Simple Idea”. Besides, if my idea doesn’t work, what harm has been done, if government is simply still irresponsible and unaccountable ?
It’s rhetorically convenient to see the government as one entity or team, but that’s not how it works in practice. It practice, you have many different places and philosophies represented, and you’d have to raise your hand against every one of them. This is the sheer complexity of this political game that you’d seek to defeat with your simple plan.No Stephen, what One Simple Idea proposes is very simple, is very easy to understand, is very easy to do, doesn’t need a lot of money, doesn’t even need a party, and utilitizes the one simple thing we still have (at the moment): our vote
Ideologies, I’ve observed, are always insufficient to describe the real world, They work best as guides to behavior rather than road maps.I disagree with that completely. Sound ideologies are based on science, psychology, and facts.
What my approach deals with here is what you might call the path of greatest meaning. We don’t make kicking out the incumbent an arbitrary thing, a slippery idea with little for people to grab hold of. We make it a solid necessity. We show people what a candidate has done wrong. This strategy won’t always win, but that makes it little different from your strategy which won’t win either, even by your admission. In the end this is about separating the wheat from the chaff, rather than just changing out the grain in the hopper.Sorry Stephen, your approach is the one in place now, but it isn’t working, which is why people are complacent, apathetic, and resigned to futility and despair.
I just think my approach is more practicable and meaningful. In dealing with the crises of this country, we have have plenty of opportunities to test our public officials, and find them wanting if that’s the case.We’ll have to simply agree to disagree. But, I’m still waiting for a really convincing argument or a better way. Until then, “One Simple Idea” sounds like a good idea.
I say don’t waste your time and effort kicking out folks who do their job.If they’re doing their job, then why do they avoid tackling tough issues for fear of risking re-election? Why do our pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity? Why are entitlement systems plundered and facing bankruptcy? Why is there $billions in pork-barrel in almost every bill? Why does Congress get to vote itself raises? Why didn’t FEMA and other government agencies respond sooner to the disaster in New Orleans? Why don’t we have a better Energy Plan for this nation? Why do we have all of these pressing problems that grow worse every day?
Take out the folks who have made themselves vulnerable by betraying the interests of their own people.Who’s that? Can you tell me one senator that hasn’t voted for pork-barrel? The problem is the system is broken. That’s why it no longer seems to matter who we vote into office. Posted by: d.a.n at September 2, 2005 12:08 PM
David Remer wrote: I have an entire article devoted to this very topic to be published shortly elsewhereI’d love to see your article when it’s ready. Posted by: d.a.n at September 2, 2005 01:08 PM
David-
My article was basically about the necessity to get quick action about this natural disaster, not to discuss a political movement that is at best years in the future. That’s the problem- we focus on big movements now, and ignore the fine details of policy that really matter.
I agree we need to change the current situation. But I don’t think changing the politicians in terms of personnel will really change the politicians in terms of how they behave. After all, look at what happened with Contract with America. Do you think that ten years down the road, things are as Republican voters thought they would be? Political movements are good and necessary, but sometimes it just requires a change in attitude.
There are no quick fixes, no “only answers”. There’s what we expect to work, and what actually does. The Republican said that the solution to our budget problems was not to spend as much, rather than raise taxes. Unfortunately, cutting things to the bone often means cutting the muscle and sinew that allows the government to do its job. The perfect solution turns to a perfect problem. I don’t trust ideology because I know it’s limits.
d.a.n.-
I was talking about infrastructure, civilizational issues. The necessity of third parties is to work up from the grassroots. Without public support, there will be no pressure on the Election committees to be more fair to those who aren’t Republicans and Democrats. Elect at the lowest levels and work your way up.
The problem is one of information overload. You can hide a lot if you bury it under tons of B.S. It is the discernment of the truth that is important. Otherwise, NO strategy will work.
Additionally, you forget that one method of dealing with the fear of being exposed or turned out is to take the fight to the people trying to put them on the spot. It won’t be long before it all gets swallowed again in a corrosive spin cycle of useless debate.
That’s why an insistence on the facts is so important. Facts limit successful interpretations, where ideologies can be spun out into na-na land indefinitely. Even your one simple plan. Human beings are talented as changing their minds, and the ideas contained within with them. This has created a rich ecosystem of thought in America, one that has various justifications for existing.
Image politics is what is in place right now, and the simple idea does nothing to address it. It ignores it entirely. All you may end up doing is destroying all the incumbents but the ones who know how to manipulate people the best. Your plan could just end up putting the most ruthless in power, instead of quietly sucking the sand out from under the folks who deserve to get washed away.
Don’t concentrate on an elusive abstract. Find the real offenders, and start frogboiling them. Turn up the heat on useless politicians, change the climate gradually. Don’t try and force it, you’ll never succeed. Lead people in the direction they need to go. Forget simple ideas, try good ones.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2005 02:08 PMSorry Stephen,
Also, our crumbling infrastructure is 21 on this list of 25 pressing problems (not exactly prioritized by importance).
I agree, that the infrastructure is an important issue. However, this and many other problems will never be resolved without ever resolving the root problem: the system is broken
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I don’t see it as complicated as you claim, and I’m familiar with complexities of nature and psychology.
Also, if it didn’t work, we no worse off than before. Government will simply continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable.
I don’t know if one-simple-idea will ever resonate with enough people, but I care, I have children, and I may soon have grand children, so I’m not giving up on it, until I hear of a better way, because what we’re doing now isn’t working, and we don’t have the time or luxury to wait for a economic meltdown, which is almost certainly in our future, if we stay on this current path with cliffs on each side, and very close to the edge.
Stephen, you seem terribly worried about unseating a few good politicians (if there is such a thing in our broken system), but if a few good politicians get unseated, that’s too bad. That’s the unfortunate price of not policing their own ranks better; or, for not being able to police their own ranks because the system is so dysfunctional.
Government created the problem and voters have tolerated it too long. So, why shouldn’t government finally be held responsible?
If people do someday choose to vote out all incumbents, are you going to say they are wrong or shouldn’t have the right to vote as they see fit ?
You say frogboil them (politicians)?
But, unfortunately, it’s the system that’s broken. Treating each politician individually is how we inadvertently continue to empower them to continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable, and why it doesn’t matter who we vote for. That’s why we must treat Congress and the Executive Branch as a single entity (i.e. one team). If 1st string ain’t cuttin’ it, let’s put in a 2nd string. They really can’t do much worse.
You can take almost any person, put them in that system, and they will soon succumb also to the temptations, graft, waste, pork-barrel, and influence by a few with vast wealth and power, and they also will not tackle tough issues for fear of risking re-election.
I’m merely promoting a peaceful way to resolve the problem of dysfunctional, irresponsible, and unaccountable government. Not frogboil anyone.
If government is irresponsible, unaccountable, and refuses to reform, why shouldn’t voters vote them all out? That’s the voters right if they do ever choose to do so.
And if voters do vote out incumbents, they’re not stripping the government of their power to do their job. They’re simply removing them for not doing their job and not providing sufficient transparency so that the voters can really see who is or isn’t responsible. If anyone (government included) don’t do their job, they should be fired, just like the rest of us, and rightfully so.
Stephen Daugherty,
Do you think the federal government is:
[X] getting better ?
[X] sufficiently responsible ?
[X] responsibly managing Social Security and an aging America and 77 million baby boomers about to start expecting entitlement benefits ?
[X] responsibly managing Medicare/Medicaid?
[X] responsibly managing FEMA ?
[X] responsibly addressing our crumbling infrastructure ?
[X] responsibly addressing election / campaign finance reform ?
[X] responsibly addressing restricted access to ballots and debates for independent and 3rd party candidates ?
[X] responsibly addressing the health care crisis ?
[X] responsibly managing our energy vulnerabilities ?
[X] responsibly managing our $8 trillion national debt ?
[X] responsibly reforming our severely abused and ridiculous tax system ?
[X] responsibly addressing election fraud ?
[X] responsibly addressing the decreasing quality and increasing cost of public education, and subsequent sky-rocketing property taxes ?
[X] responsibly adhering to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution ?
[X] responsibly addressing our vulnerability to terrorist attacks ?
[X] responsibly addressing our ability to adequately deal with natural disasters ?
[X] responsibly addressing the abuse of eminent domain laws to seize private property ?
[X] responsibly addressing legal plunder of entitlement systems; filling them up with I.O.U.s ?
[X] responsibly addressing illegal aliens and prosecuting those that illegally employ illegal aliens ?
[X] responsibly addressing corporate/investor fraud, and insufficient law enforcement and prosecution of violators ?
[X] responsibly addressing the problem of alienating our allies ?
[X] responsibly addressing these many pressing problems facing the U.S. without regard for risking re-election ?
No. I doesnt’ even remotely appear so.
IMO, one-simple-idea is a good idea, and it’s simplicity is one of it’s strengths, along with the following:
(1) THE CURRENT SYSTEM HAS A FLAW: The people within it are only human. It’s quite likely that many of us too, in the same situation, would succumb to the temptations. Thus, some changes to the system are required. Transparency is the key. But there’s still the problem of how to make that happen.
(2) TREAT GOVERNMENT AS ONE ENTITY: Simply voting for different people may not help much. And, it’s very difficult (for most voters) to know and measure the performance of over those in the Executive branch and the 435 in Congress. Many just pull the single-party lever (all Republican or all Democratic), but they’d probably get rid of it fast if people started voting only for non-incumbents.
(3) TRANSPARENCY: One must learn the rules to know how to break them. Over time, in any system, the rules become abused. So, some changes or new rules are needed. Some more may be needed later. Rules that create more transparency would is key to a more responsible and accountable government. One good place to start to eliminate pork-barrel is to allow only ONE-ITEM-PER-BILL, because the inherent lack of transparency in the current method allows bills to contain too many items, and thousands of pages that too few scrutinize. Thus, few really know why a politician voted for or against the bill. The over-complication of the process allows pork-barrel (abuse) to sneak into bills.
(4) BALANCE OF POWER: It may be the only way to peacefully balance power (not simply shift it) between government and the people. Elected government, once elected, still has all the same powers as before. They may simply now have an incentive to do a better job.
(5) PEACEFUL FORCE: It may be the only way to peacefully create peer pressure among those in government (i.e. force politicians to police their own ranks), implement new rules to create more transparency (the key to accountability and responsibility).
(6) PEER-PRESSURE: It treats government (i.e. Congress, Executive Branch) as one team (or a single entity), and they win or lose together, which helps reinforce the incentive for politicians to police their own ranks.
(7) SIMPLICITY: Understandably, many believe enough voters would ever be convinced to do it. They may be right. While this is certainly not a new idea, it’s not an idea incumbents want to become popular. But, if the people understand that, due to the system and it’s one major flaw (see above), the people need to treat government as one entity, it may create the peer-pressure required to make politicians police their own ranks and act more responsibly. Like a cancer, what good does it do to just cut out a small part of it? Too many exceptions defeats the simple purpose. It is not realistically possible to vote out 100% of all incumbents, But, even 20% could have an enormous impact. 30% could have a huge impact. 40% or more could have an overwhelming impact, and send a loud and clear message to government to immediately implement reform changes to create more transparency, accountability, and responsibility).
(8) REDUCE APATHY and COMPLACENCY: It may help the people (voters) become less resigned to futility and despair. And, the people are merely doing what their supposed to do. Vote for more responsible government. The only difference is that they’re now going to hold the entire Congress and Executive branch responsible too.
(9) MORE CHOICES: It may create more choices at the voting polls. Currently, main parties are restricting access to 3rd parties and independents to voting ballots and debates (e.g. Ralph Nader). This is a serious problem. Our choices are being severely limited.
(10) TERM LIMITS: It could eliminate the need for new term limits.
(11) TIME FOR SOMETHING NEW: Well, you know what they say about doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. Maybe it’s time for the people to try something else. If there was a way to make government more accountable and responsible, shouldn’t it be investigated? Perhaps voters should also be responsible and peacefully encourage government to be more transparent, accountable, and responsible government? And, if government continues to be irresponsible, what was lost? With record level deficits, pork-barrel spending, mismanagement of Social Security, Medicare, and entitlement systems, perhaps it’s worth a try?
(12) FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE: It’s possible that other subsequent improvements would naturally follow a few fundamental change. Like a step to the next higher level ? Perhaps the nation would flourish and prosper knowing it has a plan, and is on a better path. Perhaps, the nation would be safer, stronger, better care for the truly needy, have less unemployment, and maybe have all of that with lower taxes too? It could be a first in history.
_______________________________________
NOTE: It doesn’t last forever. When does it end ? When is it OK for voters to vote for incumbents ?
Only after:
[a] government implements some basic changes to provide voters transparency to quickly and easily identify the responsible politicians to keep (such as ONE-ITEM-PER-BILL, reform campaign finance, reform the abused tax system, end mismanagement of entitlements, etc., just to name a few).
[b] government produces measurable proof of steps to resolve problems (not simply ignore them for fear of risking re-election), which allows pressing problems to grow worse in number and severity.
________________________________
Stephen, We’ve already tried your approach for a long time. It’s not working. Things are not getting better. Potential economic disaster is looming, and time and options are running out, the longer we ignore these problems.
