Reforms for Good Government

David Brooks argues effectively today about the decline of liberalism in a country and at a time when the forces should be gaining strength. The problem, of course, is that as much as Americans are outraged at Wall Street excess and the rise of oligarchy, they don't trust government solve the problem. Despite favorable opinions of many parts of government - such as Medicare, Social Security, Public Safety and Health - Americans don't see it as a force for positive change in society. In essence, Brooks argues:

There is no Steve Jobs figure in American liberalism insisting that the designers keep government simple, elegant and user-friendly. Sailors scrub their ships. Farmers clear weeds. Democrats have not spent a lot of time scraping barnacles off the state.

However, there are some voices in the wilderness. And one who could provide this leadership is currently the governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper. The Denver Post reports today that Hickenlooper is trying to do just that with a plan to remove a lot of the red tape that bogs down job growth in the state. This is just good policy, as the Post reported when Hickenlooper was asked about supporting a tax increase for the strapped budget:

"Before you turn around and put your hands out to voters and say you want more resources," the governor said recently, "you better be able to demonstrate that you're running your ship as efficiently as it can be run." Hickenlooper for months has said citizens have to believe government is operating as efficiently as possible before that could happen.

So, hopefully there are some leaders on the horizon who can preserve the value of government without exercising the unnecessary vitriol unleashed in the GOP primaries.

Waiting for the Huntsman Surge

So, it's now official. With the quick rise and fall of the Ron Paul campaign, and the recent rise in the polls of Rick Santorum, every candidate on the official GOP stage has surged to the front with the exception of Jon Huntsman. What gives?

Why are GOP primary voters so completely opposed to, or uninterested in, a strong conservative governor from one of the most conservative states in the union. Is it really about his two years as an ambassador to China under the Obama administration? Would it be that petty?

It can't be that they find him boring or un-engaging because even Tim Pawlenty was topping the polls for a while.

Strange.

Perception vs Reality

Isn't it strange that as of last June, the United States has become a net exporter of oil. We're exporting more oil than we import. Kind of challenges that idea of more drilling ending the country's dependence on foreign oil. Cause it doesn't stay here, regardless of what people want to think.

And, isn't it strange that the yen is so strong right now, yet Japan's debt has been downgraded for years, its economic growth is in its second decade of stagnation, and its top company Toyota is scaling back profit projections and production.

That's the essence of complex systems and public mis-perception.

Politicians Fail Econ 101

While people are quick to criticize college professors as living in the Ivory Tower, it's hard to dispute the criticisms they make of our current presidential aspirants. In a recent piece for CNN Money Magazine, Charles Riley reports from the college campuses where many economics professors argue the presidential candidates - including President Obama - would flunk a basic course in economics.

For example, America's Econ 101 professors say yes. In their view, the candidates continue to offer ideas and policies that wouldn't pass muster in their classes -- populated by 18 year-old college students. "There are so many economic 'misstatements' being made," said Jonathan Lanning, a professor at Bryn Mawr who is teaching two introductory economics classes this semester. "And it isn't confined to any one candidate." Michele Bachmann promised to bring back $2 gas. Tim Pawlenty suggested sustained 5% GDP growth was a realistic target. Rick Perry would balance the budget with lower tax revenues.

Another professor who teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Michael Salemi, was able to identify statements from six candidates that "would earn failing grades in my Econ 101 class." Salemi called Ron Paul's rationale for returning to the gold standard "one of the most dangerous ideas put forward by a politician in recent years." And the idea of waging a trade war with China that was bandied about by Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney at a recent debate? "If we learned anything from the Great Depression it was that starting a trade war by passing new tariffs leads to reprisals," Salemi said. "In the end there are no winners, only losers."

And it's not just Republicans -- the Democratic candidate is slipping too. Neither "side" has a "truly comprehensive understanding of even basic economics," Lanning said. Nelson pointed to President Obama's green jobs initiative, which he said is an attempt to wed job creation and energy production in a way that is unlikely to produce real results. "They should either concentrate on a policy that aids job creation or a policy that creates more green energy; attempts to do both with one policy means they do well on neither goal," Nelson said.

Certainly, we see politics through an ideological bias. But numbers don't lie. And the criticism from econ professors of many political soundbites is accurate.

Samuelson Busts Budget Myths

While I don't feel good about any options for repairing the budget - and I'm still torn between which party I think is more screwed up - I do know what I think about the current budget mess and the shameless campaigning that is going on regarding it. Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post voices my sentiments exactly on this catastrophe today in the Washington Post

Among Samuelson's many - and obvious - insights:

... Many government programs deserve the ax. I’ve railed against some for years: farm subsidies (food would be produced without them); Amtrak (it is non-essential transportation); public broadcasting and culture subsidies (these are unaffordable frills); community development block grants (they generally don’t enrich poor communities).

Entitlements — mainly Social Security and Medicare — should be trimmed. I’ve also made that a crusade. We need higher eligibility ages to reflect longer life expectancies. Wealthier retirees should receive less Social Security and pay more for Medicare.

But plausible savings don’t match conservative rhetoric. All the suspect “discretionary” programs come to tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Culture subsidies total about $1 billion annually; community block grants in 2010 were $4 billion. Meanwhile, total federal spending was $3.5 trillion. Do conservatives really want to eliminate the national parks? The FBI? Highways? Food inspections?

And, of course, this:

Contrary to liberal dogma, the rich already pay plenty of taxes. Indeed, they pay for government. In 2007, the richest 1 percent of Americans paid 28 percent of all federal taxes; the richest 10 percent (including the 1 percent) paid 55 percent.

For most millionaires, federal tax rates — the share of income taxed — exceed 30 percent. Some rich have lower rates. Raising these rates is justified but wouldn’t balance the budget. The plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a 5.6 percentage point surtax on incomes exceeding $1 million would raise an estimated $453 billion over 10 years. Deficits over the decade are realistically projected at $8.5 trillion.

As for the Pentagon, the military was cut sharply after the Cold War. Combat forces are half to two-thirds of 1990 levels. Defense spending as a share of national income is headed toward its lowest level since 1940.

What liberals don’t say is this: Unless Social Security and Medicare benefits — the bulk of the budget — are reduced, we face three dismal choices. Huge, unsustainable deficits. Massive tax increases on the middle class, as high as 50 percent over 10 to 15 years. Or draconian cuts in the discretionary programs that liberals accuse conservatives of wanting to gut.

And, so, we are left with a super-committee that will, by most accounts, accomplish nothing. Where have you gone Tip O'Neill/Ronald Reagan?

Occupy Voting Booths

The Occupy Wall Street - and Occupy [name city] - movement seems to be pretty motivated and pretty angry about the GOP and the conservative position that the White House - not a finance industry meltdown resulting from mortgage industry malfeasance - is responsible for the continuing economic doldrums. This is clearly a liberal, progressive, and moderate/independent response to the Tea Party, and they seem motivated, if not exactly clear on their goals.

However, as this article very clearly explains that progressives would be much more successful and have less need for these political demonstrations if they'd simply bothered to vote. Rather than occupying Wall Street and other city/state governments, the protestors should simply go home and make sure they are registered to vote - and then file their ballot. Rather than banging the drums of protest movements, they should be banging on the doors of their friends and fellow progressives and make sure these people are registered and voting.

The numbers on progressive votes are shocking. In 2008 65 million Democrats voted, a full 13 million more than the GOP. Yet, in 2010, thirty fewer million Democrats voted and that simple fact may have handed the US House of Representatives to the GOP. Certainly, independent voters have shifted as well. But the drop in progressive voting is hard to ignore. The 18-24 year old voting block dropped by a staggering 60%. That's the difference in the Democratic Party right there. So, the protestors ought to head home and do something that actually works - vote.

My mail-in ballot came today for city council and mayoral races, as well as a significant state revenue bill and several initiatives on open space. My wife will drop our ballots by City Hall tomorrow. Because, rather than get all hyped up in a tent across from the capital, I actually bother to participate in my republic. I actually understand how my government works. I vote for goodness sakes. In every election.

So .... get a clue, Hippies.

Partisan Politics

So, Henry Reid unilaterally changes Senate rules this week in a power grab, eliciting cries of the "nuclear option" and the GOP vowing retaliation.

And then across the aisle, Colorado's Secretary of State Scott Gessler said this week - at a GOP fundraiser - his goal is not to encourage voting or conduct fair elections or maintain accurate records "but to further the conservative viewpoint."

Crazies to the left of me, nut-cases to the right ... "I'm stuck in the middle with you."

Cain is Not Able

As Mitt Romney recovers from the Rick Perry flash-in-the-pan and the Chris Christie tease, he appears to be poised to once again take the nomination ... and very likely the presidency. However, one critical decision could secure or derail that trajectory - the choice of vice-president.

Herman Cain's candidacy will never succeed, and lets hope Mitt knows that when he thinks about running mates. For, mark my words, Herman Cain will be Mitt Romney's "Sarah Palin."

Romney needs a running mate with experience ... and Herman Cain needs to go run for city council somewhere.

Elizabeth Warren for Senate

Though I am a proponent of lower tax rates because it makes sense, I still have a hard time with the platitudes and bromides and diatribes and snake oil that the GOP is selling. For me, it's about common sense. And Elizabeth Warren who is running against Scott Brown for Teddy Kennedy's seat tells it like it is:

Warren's simple truths are opposed by only the most rigidly ideological. However, I have to say, I am not happy about Warren running against Scott Brown - because I actually find him to be a rational Republican. And we need all those we can get.

But given the choice between Warren being in Congress or not ... I have to say bye-bye Senator Brown

Govt Excess - or Private Sector Corruption

Here's an interesting thought, though:

I've been listening to people harp about the Dept of Justice wasting taxpayers money for paying $16 per muffin and $8 per cup of coffee. Certainly, a foolish oversight.

But where is the press criticism and coverage of the private contractors who charged this? What about the military contractors who literally cheated the taxpayers out of $400 for an ashtray?

Certainly, a failure of govt oversight. But why is no one calling out the corrupt companies who are literally the ones screwing the taxpayers?

Obama's Recovery

David Brooks offers a pretty clear and critical analysis of the "recovery" that is being defended by Obama and criticized by the Republicans. Ultimately, the return of job growth after a recession always lags by years - and government policies rarely have the immediate impact of generating growth and returning economies to sound footing. Clearly, not all agree, as evidenced by Investore.Com in this analysis. As an independent voter, I'm not happy with Obama's leadership - especially on the economy as well as basic "politics."

However, this recession seems different. Obama didn't have an inflation problem that the Fed could just break, and there wasn't an oil shock that could be relieved. Downsizing of companies and increased productivity haven't existed like this before either, and Obama simply couldn't count on a tech boom or a housing bubble to grow the way out. That sums up the post-recession growth for the past several decades. So, I'll cut him some slack there.

Additionally, I'm of the mind that there's not a lot Presidents and DC can actually do to create jobs - other than infrastructure, public service, cash rebates, and tax credits for actual hires. That's why I won't give Perry too much credit for jobs in Texas, nor will I knock Romney for stagnant growth in Massachusetts. Thus, Obama has been pretty weak in terms of national leadership - that is no doubt. But Perry and Boehner are full of it on cutting taxes for "job creators" as a guarantee of creating jobs and generating economic growth.

So, we'll see. I think Brooks pretty much nailed it. And he may be the only one.

Douthat on Obama's Do-Over

Ross Douthat offers one of the most clear and insightful breakdowns of the hopes and shortcomings of the Obama administration in his piece The President's Do-Over in the New York Times today. By focusing on a targeted stimulus without guaranteeing recovery, working on the deficit sooner rather than later by reforming entitlements, and focusing on the Recovery Act rather than attacking the health care issue by both horns, the President could have been that moderate voice of steady guidance in the storm of the 2008 recession's wake.

My most recent articles on GatherNews:

GOP Offers No New Ideas After Dismal Jobs Report

Douglas County Voucher Plan Hits Wall

New Postings on GatherNews

I've got a new forum for some of my writing. At this point, they're featuring articles for me in the areas of news and politics. The platform is called GatherNews - it features news/commentary on trending topics. Currently, I have four pieces published, and you can find them here.

Huntsman and Perry Battle for the GOP

GOP Opposes Tax Cuts for the Middle and Poor

Paul Ryan Won't Run for President

Perry Surges Despite Troubling Texas Truths

Huntsman for GOP Presidency Nod

Watching the Republican debate last week, I was - like many voters - profoundly disappointed in the field .... with one exception. John Huntsman was the one candidate who came across as honest, forthright, and genuine. Unlike Michelle Bachman who "wished the United States had defaulted" or Newt Gingrich who was offended by questions about his record or Ron Paul who (God love him) simply misunderstands national economics in the twentieth century or Mitt Romney who seems to be running from his record and confused about who he is, John Huntsman is the one man who presented a practical and clearly stated philosophy and who is "standing by his record" and "running on his record."

Huntsman can honestly defend his support for the deficit reduction bill and TARP and the stimulus plan. He can openly acknowledge his support of cap and trade legislation on climate change - especially because he can point out it was the Heritage Institute's idea. He can stand by his position on civil unions - because even that should be seen as conservative. He can look at conservatives and say, "Hey, this was our idea" and it's still a good one even if the Democrats embraced it. That's the same thing Mitt Romney should have said about the individual mandate. Instead of running from it, he should have stood his ground and said, "Hey! This is a conservative idea. This started with the Heritage Institute. It's still a good idea - even if Obama adopted it."

So, as an unaffiliated independent - one who is moderate with a strong fiscal conservative foundation who has much to criticize about the Democrats at the federal level - I will say this: In a contest between Huntsman and Obama today, I would be likely to vote for Huntsman. In a race between Obama and anyone else on the stage, my vote would go with Obama running away. If the GOP really wanted to appeal to the independents, they'd go with someone like Huntsman - or Johnson out of New Mexico.

But they won't. So, at this point I am stuck with the Democrats.

Scarborough Tells It Like It Is

Whenever people wonder how I can claim to be a conservative - or how I could vote for the GOP - I could simply point to someone like Joe Scarborough. The amicable, pragmatic, and wise host of the show Morning Joe is precisely the type of moderate conservative that I support - and he represents the GOP I used to believe in. If Joe Scarborough were running for office in my district, I'd campaign for him, and if he were running for President, I'd feel great about the future. Joe Scarborough is quite simply a pragmatic and rational conservative who puts the American people above politics. He did it in Congress, and he continues to promote that view as a commentator. And he's got moxie to go with his political insight. Here's a little of that Joe Scarborough snap:

"Michele Bachmann's first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost--some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way...they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines...Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke...Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again."

Tell it like it is, Joe.

Debt Ceiling Referendum

Well, I did my part.

Yesterday I called my senators and congressman and informed them of my desires as a voter in regards to the debt ceiling hike and deficit reduction plans being debated in Congress. At heart, I am worried about a government default and the loss of our AAA-rating - which is probably a lost cause at this point. Thus, like a majority of Americans I simply want a deal done, and I expect that it include a plan for long-term spending cuts. At the same time I am not opposed to revenue increases - though I would prefer them to come through the end of some deductions and subsidies, rather than any rate increases. In fact, the 2001/03 tax cuts will expire next year anyway, so there is no need to do anything with rates right now. The one thing that needs to be done is the debt ceiling needs to be raised - and it should be raised by at least $2 trillion to prevent another crisis just around the corner.

One idea that I proposed to my representatives is that a deal should simply be made to increase the debt ceiling devoid of any other plan. This plan would be intended to simply alleviate the immediate fiscal crisis and then set up the debt ceiling issue as a referendum in 2012. Make next year's election a referendum on the debt ceiling. I am sure President Obama and the Democrats would be willing to accept this deal. And many pragmatic Republicans probably would, too. The problem is GOP members who fear such a compromise in their next primaries. That is really sad. They believe that absolute rigidity on taxes is the only way they can survive challenges from their own party and their own voting base. Reagan would be saddened by such intransigence.

The reality is that the debt ceiling absolutely and unequivocally must be raised, now. And any sort of crisis is being created by people who refuse to accept that reality.

Freedom from Pledges

Have to admit I heard a valid point from Bill Mahr the other night.

Politicians who sign pledges are sacrificing the very freedom they tout as the foundation of this country. Thus, the pledge that Grover Norquist and his gang have used to tie the hands of GOP candidates in Congress over taxes has actually stripped them of their freedom to vote their consciences or adapt to each and every unique situation.

Pledges are for wimps who are afraid to stand on their own.

Debt Ceiling Absurdity

OK, now I am officially nervous about this impasse on raising the debt ceiling.

A majority of Americans in countless polls want debt and deficit reduction. A similar majority want it without cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And a similar majority want the deficit and debt reduction to come from a mix of spending cuts - though where is the question - and, AND, tax increases. Yet, we are at a stalemate because the GOP leadership appears just crazier enough to risk worldwide economic calamity and a staggering unprecedented default on the most trusted debt in the world simply because they won't agree to any, ANY, tax increase. Even a tax increase that is matched three-to-one on spending cuts. A majority of Americans want this as the plan, a majority of Americans simply want the deal done, nearly all interested parties from the Chamber of Commerce to the ratings agencies say this is the only answer. And, yet, the GOP balks.

I am nervous, and this is a damn shame.

Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional?

This week's edition of Time Magazine posed some interesting issues for discussion about the wording of the Constitution. Perhaps nothing was more interesting than a rather simple comment about the national debt, the debt ceiling talks, and the 14th Amendment. Now, it seems the issue is gaining some serious attention. In a few words, according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, "The validity of the public debt, as authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

The Constitutional scholars could - and probably will - analyze this for years. But, the members of Congress better start wrestling with it now. For, if the administration suspects in any way that these debt ceiling talks are putting the country's fiscal integrity at risk, they may decide the conflict necessitates bold action - that is, declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and proceeding to finance the debt without congressional approval. For those who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution - and yes that means the Tea Party - it is tough to argue that the government should be limited in any way to accumulate and finance existing debt. Period. Thus, in one reading of the Amendment, this debt ceiling discussion is over.

Time posed the idea that the United States defaulting on its debt is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. The Atlantic Monthly argued last month that the entire concept of the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. The Huffington Post has picked up on the story, and provides some interesting historical context - especially the Supreme Court case of Perry vs. the United States in 1935. Then the Court ruled - setting precedent - that Congress does not have the authority to default on the government's debt. Thus, they have no Constitutional choice but to raise the debt ceiling.

The discussion and threats and posturing and hullabaloo about the debt ceiling need to cease. The government needs to pay its bills, and if doing so requires borrowing more money until revenue goes up or spending goes down, the Constitution seems clear. Pay the bills. Eliminate the debt ceiling.