President of Ohio

          Our national fixation on Presidents continues as Mitt and Barrack contend to become President of Ohio. They have outlined two murky but distinct roads forward: investment (Government spending) vs. Reagan lite (tax code reform, close loopholes, deregulation). Both are newly born-again middle class populists and indistinguishable from each other on many policy points. And for Republicans, another time before the cameras is another opportunity to promote a tax cut.

          Speaking of tax cuts, who will pay for the hot fudge sundae diets these guys are proposing? Bearing the burdens to keep the country running is more than about revenue. It is about fairness. Fairness is a big portion of the mandate people give a President. It answers the question “So what Mr. Big Shot now that you’ve won?”

          There is a clear distinction made as far as fairness. The Democrats want to tax rich people. Their reasoning is that they’ve benefited in recent years when most of us suffered and they should contribute from this abundance. The Republicans are more fuzzy with their math...and equity.

          Since I have a memory, I point out that the sacred budget Ryan initially proposed gets 62% of its revenue from cutting programs to poor people. Since our working families are quickly becoming our working poor, this may be of some interest. It becomes about us and not about those other people.

          I note that the Republicans still impose no additional burden on the luckiest, the most advantaged, and the most privileged among us. I simply make the point that who will pay is a clear distinction between the Parties. The “bear any burden” sentiment of previous statesmen apparently does not apply to campaign donors.

          Social equity goes beyond an ethical imperative. As previously stated, it becomes part of a Presidential mandate. When you have mostly agreement between these guys, what does it mean when one or the other wins? What is the mandate the people are expressing and conferring? What is the mandate when the country is evenly divided?

          While we fixate on Presidents, because its easy to do so, the important race is actually for Congress. I have heard MUCH talk of debts and deficits of current and past Presidents, of bad policy choices made by one side or the other. I remind gentle readers that Presidents don’t create budgets (other than a symbolic one), spend money, don’t create debt, and don’t make laws. Congress doses.

          So while one guy is easy to blame for social ills, it is inaccurate. Presidents have very little ability to actually fix or create anything. They can influence and persuade, but they can’t order. They’re not the boss of Congress. Ask any Congressman.

          So while we Twitter about the latest Presidential “Big Bird” comment, we need to actually be focusing on fixing our broken Congress. I don’t care which candidate gets your Presidential vote. They have large made themselves indistinguishable and their job is marginal anyway. And we know they would never say one thing and do another. So vote for whomever.  

          Bottom line - We need to fix a broken Congress and need a simple clear criterion for electing Congress-folk. I have one. Can they work together? Can they reach an understanding and move forward and actually craft imperfect but actual legislation? That is the governing process our nation was founded on...pass laws and fix them later. If you can’t pass laws or fix them, if you don’t want to work together, if things gets reduced to enemies and traitors, go back to the cracker barrel, Clem. As the Donald says, “You’re fired!” (while poking with the finger).

          As a People, we need one or two clear criteria and red lines to keep or fire Congress-folk, since they work for you. I propose the desire and ability to work together. What single criteria would you recommend?

          Once we decide on a single criteria, we can start a political movement. Use the criteria to hire and fire and you will quickly put the fear of God into these career-fixated squabbles. Remember the Tea Party and their single issue of lowering the debt? They are putting the fear of God into the Republican Establishment. They are also putting the fear of their extremism into the general public. Parties with a single policy issue are myopic and largely destructive. However, people understand and got behind a single issue Party. That’s why I advocate a PROCESS rather than a policy issue as a criteria.  

          What could we call a movement based on working together? Collaborationists? Sounds very old school....maybe have a logo with a snake or something? How about the Work Together Party (WTP) or Work Together Congress (WTC)? Hmm...they sound like programs from the Great Depression. Well, you guys will think of something. Let us all know what we are called and we’ll start a national political movement using social media. We’ll have that Congress fixed in no time.