Crisis Governance: The New Normal

Gentle readers, have a great Halloween. You might consider going as the scariest thing out there, the Federal Health Insurance Website. I find it interesting that the House Republicans are expending a great deal of energy being upset at what they didn't want to work because it doesn't work.

 

            Is governing by crisis the new business as usual? Can we look forward to a sanctimonious soap opera and knife fight every six months? Probably. Bear in mind that the Tea Party declared a cease fire, not a surrender.

            There are four elements contributing to this new normal. The first is ideological entrenchment, i.e. your belief is right. and their belief is wrong.  Ideological entrenchment is not new in American history.

            The second is viewing the opposition as the enemy rather than as fellow Americans. This is relatively new in American history. The only other time this occurred was around the Civil War. Throughout most of American history, the opposition was viewed as concerned patriotic fellow Americans who had their heads up their butt.

            The third factor contributing to crisis governance is an appalling lack of leadership, mainly from the President. Obama has always adopted an aloof stance with Congress, even during his first term when the Dems ran Congress. He has failed to build relationships even within his own Party. Leadership is grounded in trust, relationship, persuasion, a perceived respect. Without development of these elements by the White House, there is little chance of compromise and leverage. It will be up to Congressional coalitions to moderate extremist elements.

            Some gentle readers may disagree that Obama has abdicated his influence on policy creation. It is easy to blame one guy for the failures of the System, but not accurate. I remind you that even when the Dems ruled the roost, Obama requested very few pieces of legislation, and received nothing that he personally crafted. The Affordable Care Act derisively bears his name, but Obama only requested two policy points in the Bill, and received neither when the Law was passed. Contrast this to relational Presidents such as Johnson, who were intimately involved in crafting legislation. So blaming the President for orchestrating Congressional outcomes is based in fantasy, in my view. He doesn't have the power, and apparently never wanted the power to do so.  

            The fourth factor of the new normal goes to the heart of the matter. Legislators want to keep their jobs. Big Money enables them to keep their jobs. Super-PACs, corporations as persons, and no caps on "free speech" by such corporate persons has created a new political landscape and options for keeping jobs. Think about it. If you had to spend forty to sixty hours of your week begging for money just to keep your job, what would you do? No wonder these guys aren't working on legislation.

            While it's true that the Tea Party shutdown pissed off Republican traditionalists and business folk, but with Super-PAC dinero, Tea Party members can say screw you and access the money to keep their jobs. See, even Tea Party people aren't crazy enough to give up their jobs. There's gold in them there halls.

            The nature and definition of "Republican", "conservative", and "freedom" is being rewritten and redefined by unelected special interest groups with millions of donated dollars. Such redefining is seen in the vote of the rank and file Republicans facing re-election primaries. 64% of House Republicans voted against re-opening the Government and paying our national bills. Leaders within their own Party are gutless to stand up to this handful of bullies. 

            The conjuncture of the four factors above appears to me to make crisis governance inevitable. Change from this model will require either a new President who can actually lead and build relationships, or a new Congressional mix and dynamics.

            Also at the heart of crisis governance is the distinction between politics and governance. The differences may appear subtle but are important. Politics essentially is "our side wins". Governance is about sustaining and directing public institutions and policy for the common good. The shutdown represents a perspective that blurs the line between the two and lacks both prudence and calibration. It also lacks a higher historical perspective. The late House Speaker Tom Foley once described himself as a steward of institutions which transcend generations. Creating a framework for governance was the focus of the Founders and Constitution. Madison may well have predicted the current legislative mess when he wrote "sometimes deliberative wisdom will be conspicuously absent when it is most needed."

            How are politics and governance walked out? The Democrats could test the willingness of the Reality Caucus to follow the Tea Party into oblivion by going full tilt on immigration. Immigration reform is very popular in the country and very needed for the survival of the Republican Party. If the Reality Caucus passes a reform bill similar to the Senate's, the Democrats win a substantial governance victory. If the Tea Party intimidates their colleagues and immigration reform is not passed, the Tea Party marginalizes themselves even more with the American People and the Democrats win a substantial political victory.  

            For over two hundred years, politics has permeated civic life. Only recently, a nihilistic anti-governance ideology has taken root in Congress. This trend is probably another iteration of the nihilistic revolutionary ideology of the 1960s, echoed expressions of an obsolete social legacy.

            Tonight I was listening to a forum of average Joe and Jane Tea Party people discussing the recent shutdown. Don't ask me why I continue to do such things. They enthusiastically supported the shutdown and believed their side "won" because we sent "a message". We need to strengthen our economy. I note that our economy lost $24.1 billion from the shutdown.

            We are sending a message for Government to spend less money. Ok, now their "logic" has got me riled up. Let's break this down logically, shall we?

            We have three branches of government. Who exactly is spending too much money? I think we could all agree that the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) isn't throwing a lot of wild parties and overspending, although those robes look expensive. So we have the President and we have Congress left, right?

            Presidents don't spend money. Civics 101. Presidents are given money by Congress to spend and may indeed spend their given money unwisely. But....Presidents don't spend money, regardless of what is heard on Fox News, the radio, or public opinion. Barak Obama has not raised any debt or spent any actual money. No Presidents ever do. The debt incurred under a Presidential administration is simply a figure of speech. Congress is always the branch of government that spends money and  creates debt. But Presidents don't ever spend money. Hope that spoiler alert repetition gets the point across and provides the answer. When Congress votes not to pay our national bills, they're the people that created the bills in the first place.    

            Ok, so Congress passes laws and spends money. It's kind of in the Constitution. So let's keep going. Congress is composed of the House and the Senate. Who specifically is overspending, Tea Party people? Is the Republican House overspending? If yes, then why? You have no control over the reaction of another person. You always have control over your own reactions or responses. Your own reactions and choices determine what type of world you create. So if yes, get your own House in order.

            If no, we are great and our spending is great, the way it's supposed to be....you must be saying the Democratic Senate is the naughty group of people overspending, right? You do realize that the Senate alone can't create laws and spending bills? The Senate can't be the only ones overspending. Government doesn't work that way. Civics 101. So YOU, Tea Party people in the House, are directly responsible for any overspending which may be occurring. To fail to take responsibility and create reforms is hypocritical. To blame another group in Congress is hypocritical. To blame the President, who can only spend the money Congress gives him, is the height of obfuscation and hypocrisy. Do I believe that Congress overspends, you bet. Do I believe that YOU, Tea Party people, are directly responsible for that spending, you bet.

            What pisses me off, Tea Party extremists, is that you won't step up to make things right. Fight your own bloated pig of a Party to reduce spending. Don't just vote for budgets cutting benefits of the poor and middle class. Go after the REAL money. Fight for serious structural reforms such as closing the corporate welfare loopholes in the tax laws and make it flatter and fairer for all Americans. Fight for fast tracking business entrepreneurship and streamlining conflicting and miring regulations. Fight the predatory practices of Wall Street ($13 billion dollar penalty on a bank yesterday) which is undermining the faith, confidence, and trust of the American People.

            If you are different and want to fight for the interests of We the People over the interests of keeping your job, take on the huge Big Money interests that keep the whole machine running. Fight against corporate welfare and demand accountability for "national security" spending. These expenditures and potential savings/ revenues are far larger than "entitlements" to the needy. Don't like ObmaCare? Put an alternative health care bill on the table. Fight for what you believe, Tea Party people. If you're serious about taking the country down a different course, finding common ground to cut waste and spending across ALL of government is a good start. Washington gets paid if THEY DO NOTHING. They keep their jobs when business as usual goes on. You're just providing the entertainment, Tea Party people, in a system designed not to change.              Are you willing to take on the Big Money breaks and welfare that keeps your colleagues in their jobs? If yes, then you have my support. If no, you are simply incompetent fools, perpetuating the system running the show. You are the campus radicals occupying the ROTC building and thinking you can stop the War. You can't get there from here.  

            Tea Party people, I want you to be focused channels of effective change, but what I'm seeing is a very loud and unpredictable crowd not grounded in reality, and not likely to accomplish anything related to the word effective. In both politics and governance, it is crucial to be realistic in goals and actions. There is no realistic way to accomplish an objective such as defunding an existing law. Why don't you get off your ass and propose alternative legislation to what's not working or what you don't like? Proposing actual alternatives is the foundation of both politics and governance.

            I'll tell you why you don't. Because you're not grounded in reality, tactically or strategically. I actually do listen to alternative views and have been hearing about doomsday scenarios and predictions since Obama took office. No concentration camps, national Sharia law, death panels, or other dire predictions have come true. So now I'm not interested when you repeat what you just heard on Fox News or the radio. I'm not interested in your clarion call warnings about what you're afraid of and are "certain" will happen, but never does. Your future is as grounded in fear and fantasy as your politics. And you refuse to actually govern. Why are you here?

            Whether touting a doomsday liberal future or mooning misty-eyed over mythic bygone days, it is clear that the Tea Party finds the reality of our diverse, evolving, messy democracy distasteful, a reality existent for over a half century. But...you can't love America in theory and hate America in fact.

            I don't care what you think will happen in the future. I don't want to hear that tense from you. I care about what actions you are currently taking on our current problems. If action (rather than obstruction) and the here and now become part of your mindset, we'll talk again.      

 

 

The Devil Made Me Do It

            So what is the price for the House's current political course? The answer is proving surprising. As State resources are cut off, numerous State services are going offline. An you thought trickle down economics didn't work.

            So who is being trickled down upon? Certainly the 9 million women and children receiving medical and food care. Less obvious is every home buyer. Dodd-Frank requires that income be verified by the IRS, which is closed.

            So one could argue that the "slimdown" is affecting very few people and causing little overall pain. If the "burn baby burn" crowd had their way and pulled the plug on Government, it might illuminate the reality that pretty much every American is a taker. Whether "assistance" is received in the form of health care or other personal "entitlements", or whether in the form of tax breaks and the jobs programs of corporate welfare. Cut off these funds, and you'll hear some real screaming. It won't just hurt "those other people". We're pretty much all addicted to some degree to the Government dole. [A Micro-Rant: I note that Verizon raked in $20 billion in profit but paid zero dollars in taxes last year. Strippers pay more taxes....and they get paid in cash...in the dark...but I regress] The bottom line is that Americans want much more government than they are willing to pay for.

            Stretching the social fabric of the nation seems to be brining out some new irrationalities, as evidenced by last weeks polls. They show that more than half of Republicans are Ted Cruz haters, the fellow that got them into this fine mess. The polls also show what they're calling a boomerang effect, i.e. whatever the Tea Party extremists are against, the rest of the country is now taking a shine to...like Big Government, and ObamaCare. So the Tea Party is turning out to be the ultimate beer goggles. They make everything look better.

            As an aside, I'm not clear why the ObamaCare rollout was deemed a failure by Fox News. The servers crashed when 8.7 million people tried to access them in for first 12 hours. When Apple rolls out a product and can't handle the flood of orders, that rollout is called a success. Moving on...

            The Values Voter Convention held last week featured Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and Rick Santorum. Cruz was heckled by some in the crowd during his speech. Cruz accused them of being "paid political operatives helping President Obama." Ted doesn't yet realize that he is a paid political operative helping President Obama.

            I point out that the reason sane Republicans are acting nuts because of a few dozen extremists is why other organizations such as the NRA take extremist positions is there is a very loud and aggressive lunatic fringe to the right of the Tea Party waiting to overturn the established order. Look for the verb "primaried", as in "you just got primaried, you surrendering Tea Party scum."

            On the other side of the reactionary coin, there is a group of legislators, your elected officials, who call themselves debt limit deniers. For them, it would be wise to not pay our national bills. That's what voters get for electing someone without a background in law, economics, or history.

            For example, Florida Representative Ted Yoho, a former large animal vet, stated "It would increase the stability of international markets if we defaulted." And you know this how?

            When asked why he would adopt a position contrary to every domestic and international economist in his advocacy of default, Iowa Representative Steve King (the scarier Stephen King) replied that he didn't believe in international and domestic economists. I guess they're kind of like Santa Claus. When asked how he estimated the global economic impact of a default, he stated "Hey, I raised a family." Defense rests...

            Political extremists don't want to cut deals because those who don't think like them are the "enemy". They don't share our "values".

            This last week Values Voter Michele Bachmann advocated shipping arms to Syria. When asked if she was concerned they would fall into the hands of extremists. She replied that would simply hasten the end times and the return of the Lord Jesus.

            A similar mental conflating was apparently also practiced by Justice Antonin Scalia during an interview. Scalia called the devil a person and wondered why we don't see him all that much anymore. I point out that a corporation is also a person. Many people would regard Bachmann's views as loony but consider Scalia a serious intellectual. Not seeing much difference.

            Scalia went on to say, "the devil is all over the New Testament. What happened to him? He got wilier." There's a lot to be said for self-improvement.

            Scalia stated that people might consider him simple minded for his traditional views. He is "a fool for Christ". Whether one is a fool for Christ or coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs, we might keep them away from shaping public policy....or interpreting laws.

            I don't like this trend of bringing the devil into political discourse. Currently, people holding differing political views are not seen as fellow citizens, fellow Americans, the People. Opponents have become a dehumanized enemy, committed to destroy everything we hold dear. When opponents also become agents of evil, any evil act against them is justified.

Beginning of the End?

            The numbers are in...Gallup, Wall Street Journal and other polls indicated historic low support for the government shutdown and debt ceiling brinksmanship. Currently, only 28% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. Within the Republican ranks, only a handful of extremists support the current failed course of the Party. The next fight we're likely to see played out is the one between the survivalists and the suicide contingent within the Party.

            A large part of the disconnect of Republicans to the People is that Republican legislators return home to gerrymandered districts with over 80% Republican support. That's fine for keeping your job but lousy for connecting to the big picture. When the people you talk to agree with you, you're likely to think you're right and that many more people agree with you. When you insulate yourself in the current "us and them" framing and only talk to the "us", you're likely to create a lot more "thems".

            The Party extremists, who are there to obstruct rather than actually govern, fail to realize what their job is. Politics forges a way forward for beliefs and policies. The delusional element of the extremists is they never had a path forward, currently don't have a path forward, and really don't care about creating a path forward. Politics involves expressing the passion of your beliefs while exercising the prudence needed to shift of political realities.  

            The polls and public sentiment may mean a tipping point historically for the Republican Party's survival. While the current entrenched and irrational course is meant to impact the functioning of Democrats, it could well trigger the demise of extremism within the Republicans. Prominent Republican billionaires see their empires threatened have ordered a course change. When your billionaires turn against you, you lose guys. Big money runs this game. You can tick off the People, but you will lose if you tick off Big Money.

            One might think that the Democrats would really benefit from this business. They might if people vote against Republicans, but people are not likely to choose to vote for Democrats. With a vacuum of leadership across the board, people have lost their faith in Government and collective action over the last few generations. Government has intruded into every aspect of life without improving the quality of that life. We are more deferential towards institutions and less trusting in general as a society.  The American People are the real losers in this shutdown affair as Government loses its ability to empower upward mobility, promote social justice, and stimulate economic growth.

            In all the talk of ideological "truth", purity, hostages, enemies, and surrender is a lack of talk about progress and national competition. The media shaping political realities is fixated on failure and blame, rather than promoting successes and responsibility. And there are many successes forged by the concerted action of Government. For example, the US has hundreds of land grant colleges. The EPA has removed 95% of lead from the air. We're not likely to hear what has been done well, as that doesn't divide, anger, terrify, or justify, the drivers of political media. Whatever happened to a nation divided against itself?

             

 

O Che Can You See

            I haven't commented much on much as of late. And there is so much to comment about around this newsworthy world. My bad. I guess I hadn't been prodded sufficiently to emerge from my exegetical seclusion. I emerge tonight after a profound poking with the stick of Tea Party polls released a few days ago.

            I have much sympathy for the Republicans during this shutdown, a bit nostalgically as I used to be one. Their Party appear to have lost its course after the reign of Bush the First. Without a compass, or a soul, depending on who you talk to, this Party is always being taken over. Recently it was the Party of corporate shills, K Street incarnate. Remember Tom DeLay? The Neocons had their turn at the helm, until the Party rewrote that sad history. Now, the Tea People, around 34 of them in my reckoning, are scaring the bejezus out of the other two hundred or so House Republicans. Another day, another Party take-over. All the fun of rejecting European-style health care while gaining Italian-style governance.

            So the Republican Party is conquered and the Government is shut down. What do our new overlords want? I'm not quite sure. I don't know if they're quite sure either. It seems to be a bit of a Seinfeld shutdown.

            Indiana Tea Person Martin Stutzman said "We're not going to be disrespected..." Is that what all this is about...respect? You guys realize the economy is losing millions a day. The last government shutdown cost the economy over $2 billion. If you just want respect, we'll  give you a plaque that acknowledges your terrific hair and prolific sexual prowess. Anyway, that's why a lot of guys get sports cars.

            Representative Stutzman continued, "We have to get something out of this, and I don't even know what that is." That's a truly remarkable negotiating strategy. You know, when my six year old throws a tantrum, at least he is clear that he wants Cocoa Puffs.

            Other overlord spokespeople said they are fighting for "principles". I'm guessing  reducing government spending might be one of these principles. Do they realize the shutdown doesn't reduce spending, but rather increases spending? The government employees are on back pay and the money will be spent when sanity again prevails. However, tariffs, fines, and fees, i.e. revenue, will not be collected during the shutdown, and thus lost. Then again, reducing government spending might not be one of their "principles". In that case, never mind.

            I note they have introduced targeted bills to keep essential services running, like the Border Patrol...fully funded. I also note they don't fund pussy agencies like the EPA or NOAA, the agencies that track hurricanes. It seems we have a hurricane currently forming and heading this way. New Orleans is reverting to traditional storm tracking practices by throwing beads at drunken college girls. At least one can tell if it's cold outside. So I guess one of their "principles" is that it's more important to keep a nanny from crossing the border than a hurricane? Better name the next one Consuela.  

            There is some certainty in the Tea People agenda. The current focus of their ire is ObamaCare. Wouldn't it really piss these guys off if over time people came to actually like this Law and it became knit into the fabric of American life like Medicare? Think about it. What a fantastic tribute these guys paid to Obama by actually calling the Law by his name. We don't have RooseveltCare or JohnsonCare, other Presidents weaving the social safety net. But the Tea Party ensured that generations to come will laud President Barak Obama for their great health coverage. So the Tea Party is fervently praying to Jesus (who is after all a Republican) that this Law crashes and burns. If it doesn't, that's ok guys, somebody else will just take over the Republican Party when you're gone. 

            A major Tea Person objection about ObamaCare concerns the erosion of personal liberty, which is what that naughty Obama likes to do. Nobody should be between you and your doctor. Obama and his regulations are putting the Government between you and your doctor. Hmmm...since the insurance industry wrote the Law and ObamaCare directs you to private insurance coverage, it seems to me that insurance companies are between you and your doctor (which is my major objection to the Law). Tea People, it would be great if you and your doctor could stroll hand in hand and you could actually pay your own health care costs. But....for a hip replacement, the hip costs $350 to make. The company sells it for $13,000, and insurance company bills you $30,000. These numbers are accurate. Have a good stroll. But I digress as my train of consciousness visits many stations.

            Ok, to the point of why I'm writing.....A poll of Tea Person beliefs indicate that about half 44-53% depending on the question believe that (1) Obama wants to usurp the laws of the land and remain in power when his regime is over, (2) believe that armed revolution might be necessary, (3) believe that Obama is foreign born and illegitimate to hold office, and (4) that defaulting on our national debt would be a good thing.

            It seems to me that I have heard these Tea Party beliefs some years ago, espoused by leftist radicals. Let's see....don't trust the Man, conspiratorial, advocating armed revolution, power to the people, crash the corrupt system and the corrupt economy. Yep, it's all in there. A similar message then and now, but the haircuts are shorter these days.      

            Also similar is the uncertainty of what the Tea Party is creating. What does a Tea Party America look like? We know what Marxist radicals were against, In like manner, the Tea Party gives us a good idea what they are against, but what are they for? It seems these new radicals are an obstructionist Party, not interested in governing or reforms, or even cutting deals. They are ideological purists and view opposing ideologies as the enemy. Why obstruct? They believe the government is too big, spends too much money, and is out of control. It is their patriotic duty to obstruct and oppose. The Tea Party folks love to invoke the language of the Constitution. I point out that the authors of that document set the common good as their legislative criteria. The Tea Party takeover moves us all onto uncharted ground within our democratic experiment.  

            The two Parties are using the shutdown and debt limit (again) to gain political capital for the 2014 elections. Democrats are hungry to take the House. Republicans want to survive their civil war. The new radicals are chanting "Burn Baby Burn".

            All of this nonsense spotlights the profound lack of leadership across the board. The Parties are trying to "win", but both sides are fighting on the edge of the cliff. This precarious position may produce unintended and unforeseen consequences. Bygone Marxist radicals could never have imagined how to create the potential economic and political chaos we now face. This situation is a holiday gift brought to us all by our dysfunctional elected officials.

I See Rich People

The top 3% or Americans continue to concentrate wealth and most pay a tax rate of 20%. This leads some people to ask, “Should the rich pay more?” The rich respond by saying to the States, try and get more money out of us and we’re moving to another State. How many of these rich folk actually move away? How much will a State benefit as far as revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthy?

          Two studies released last month from Stanford and Princeton addressed these questions. Turns out very few affluent folk actually move away. The studies analyzed the impact of a 2004 tax increase on top earners in New Jersey. Wealthy people threatened to move away. The studies found that the State lost $16.4 million from people actually moving away.  New Jersey increased its revenues by over a billion dollars because only a few actually made the move. You can argue with the policy and the ideology, but the results speak for themselves.

          Now I’m not advocating running out and taxing rich people. I advocate that any tax increases on the wealthy only occur at the State level. The wealthy should have the freedom and option to move and live in a State with lower (or no) income taxes. Changing the Federal tax code to increase revenue limits personal choice & the exercise of personal freedom.

When We're Number Two

When We’re Number Two

 

          I predict this will be a very unpopular and controversial post, as by definition the US must be number one. Oh no, is this going to be another lefty dissing American exceptionalism? Not really. The central message here is, quite optimistic concerning our national prosperity.

          The US and Europe are currently going through some tough times. Spirits are sagging. I guess everybody in the world is going through tough times, right?

          In spite of our current situation, the world is in great shape, when viewed macroscopically. The chance of international war between the major powers is the lowest since statistics were kept. There were fewer deaths in international conflicts now than ever before. The global poverty rate has been cut in half, and this decline is accelerating. Huge strides are being made in reducing global hunger and childhood & infectious disease rates, mainly through private/ public partnerships.  

          So where’s the growth? Pretty much everywhere, but Asia is the fastest growing economic block on the planet with 500 million people living in middle class standards. Within seven years, the Asian middle class is projected to be 1.75 billion, a 350% increase. This will be the greatest economic shift in human history. I guess that’s why Hank Kissinger is camping out in China.

          By 2020, it is likely that Asia will dominate global markets and relegate the US to number two status economically. Hey, it had to happen sometime. We can comfort ourselves that it took a bijillion Asians to take our title. In addition, we’ll probably always be the world’s biggest ass kicker and innovator.

          So how will we respond to these economic, political and social trends? Do we live in denial (USA #1 whoo!). Do we long for Mayberry and the good old days, which is kind of like living in denial? Do we try to block and contain these global changes to preserve our current status? It is important to conceive of an inevitable change in status in order to wisely respond to that change.

          I point out that in history, there is a season for all empires to decline and be eclipsed. There is a season to be another a player and not the spotlighted star of the team. We have been the star for so long we think that we’ll always be the star, that we’re entitled to be the star, that Jesus personally picked us to be the star.

          Athletes know that you become and stay the star by working your butt off, by working harder and smarter than all the other players who are driven to become stars. We don’t seem to be driven much as a nation these days other than to sit our fat butts on the couch, squabble and gaze lovingly at our trophies. We’re the star. People, have the Rocky movies taught you nothing?

          I am reminded of the medieval view of the cosmos in which all creation revolved around the earth, and thus around humans. We are the purpose of creation. Who are we if we’re not the center of the universe? Who are we if we just become another nation among other nations? We can still be a global leader and innovator. Our values and character can still be the light, inspiration and hope of the world. However, this requires us to get our lazy butts off the couch and back into the game…with a purpose.   

          It might be wise to begin NOW to craft a new world order where a dominating Asia can be leveraged and managed. This would involve creating foreign and domestic policies which enhance the lives of ordinary Americans down the road, rather than work for partisan interests of the next election cycle. We need to quit bemoaning how our nation is a victim to naughty globalization. Those bad foreign men took our jobs away. Now we can’t buy our stuff. No, we ALLOWED our jobs to be taken away and cut our corporations from the national tether so they could range far and wide, feeding on the krill of emerging markets. We might consider anew what it will take to take our jobs back, to innovate new undreamt of jobs, to become a world class competitor again, how to bring home some of the profits in the bloated multinational, former-US corporation bank accounts.

          Middle classes are consumer classes. They also tend towards democratic governance. These positive trends could be derailed as this new economic wine strains old political wine skins. Wise partnerships and leadership by the US could help steer emerging nations through unfamiliar waters. Wouldn’t authentic leadership be a great projection of strength? However, providing this leadership will require new global coalitions and institutions.

          I recommend reversing our trend of weakening multinational political organizations and instead leverage these alliances. For example, the present UN Security Council is predictably intractable. The Council could become more functional by adding seven additional seats. These seats would be guaranteed to emerging nations based on a four year rotation. Currently, minor powers spend millions of dollars and in-fight politically to obtain a seat and voice at the table. If emerging nations were guaranteed a seat every four years, this would enable new coalitions to be built. A reformed Security Council would be an equitable and functional win for the great powers and the smaller powers alike, and this arrangement breaks up the logjams of the current status quo.

          Another way we could address the ascent of the East is moving forward with the proposed free trade treaty with the EU. This agreement would immediately create the world’s most powerful commercial block, providing goods and services to tap into emerging mega-consumer markets.

          One major reason our economy is currently so weak is that global markets are soft. People aren’t buying our stuff. This changes as millions globally become consumers. A bigger pie is a better pie.

          Throughout the 20^th Century, the US was socially engineered to be the world’s leading consumer nation, as well as a dominant global producer of goods and services (we were all that was left standing after WWII). Emerging mega-markets would provide the opportunity for  the US to reinvent and repurpose itself as a dominant global export economy. Our extreme efficiency, innovation and automation would enable the US-EU to become a preeminent global competitor and really rake in the cash once again. Such repositioning would require domestic policy reforms to tax codes, corporate regulations and business entrepreneurial incentives. These won’t reform themselves….get off the couch!

          While economic and cultural power shifts towards the setting sun, the rise of the Asian middle class will be an amazing opportunity and an amazing time for the world as a whole. We can rethink and reposition ourselves as a vital part of an amazing whole. When we are number two, will the glass be half empty or half full?

Responsibility in the Land of Shadow

          Benghazi is much in the news these days. One legislator called the affair the worst cover-up in our nation’s history. This serves to demonstrate a profound ignorance of history.

 

Responsibility vs. Blame

          The Beltway is a land of blame, not a land of responsibility. Responsibility seeks out the decision makers and the facts for what actually transpired, what went wrong, and how to prevent a repeat performance. Blame is simply the intent to wound the political enemy. There are no solutions or progress in the land of blame.

          There are legitimate and important inquiries to be raised in the Benghazi affair. Was there a cover-up? Sure. Washington is filled with them….hundreds of them. Most of these you will never know.

          Could the Benghazi deaths have been prevented? Nope. Double the security….triple the guard…..against an estimated 100 attackers…..now you have 12 dead instead of four dead. Most Embassies have two security pros and a few Marines. They are not designed to withstand multiple assaults. Were requests for more security unheeded. Yes. If they were heeded would it matter?  No, other than someone was competently doing their job. Can we learn from the mistakes made that day and not make them again? Absolutely.

          On a political level, the Benghazi cover-up illustrates an ass-covering protective reaction in the land of blame. Most cover ups and behavior causing those cover ups usually stem from incompetence or selfish opportunism.

          In the land of responsibility, Benghazi illustrates a broken system. A broken system within the State Department, as well as a lack of leadership and accountability shared by all. A broken system within the Administration, who clumsily handed political opponents the building blocks of scandal. Benghazi revealed a failed system within the military, who had no field-able assets to protect the consulate. It illuminated a broken intelligence system, in which most of the “consulate” personnel turned out to be CIA agents. Benghazi pointed out the broken system within Congress, which denied the State Department security funding, and subsequent failure to be accountable for such choices.

 

A Larger Picture

          The Benghazi affair resonates with deep ideological national trends. Government is too large and intrusive. Government does not act in the interest of the People. Government is incompetent and dysfunctional. Popular belief in the perspectives is a major contributor to our national decline. Americans have historically been skeptical of Government intrusion, but until Watergate, over 70% of the People believed that Government was working towards the common good. Currently, only 19% of people believe this.

          This erosion of public trust and belief in the ability and efficacy of Government is underlying the intractable dysfunction we are currently seeing in poublic life. Government has lost social connection and context. Should this crisis of confidence continue, social isolation and factionalism is inevitable.

 

The Legacy of Watergate

          The turning point in breaking public trust was Watergate and Vietnam. A group whose sole purpose was to perform repeated criminal acts was housed in the White House. A President was forced to resign. Twenty nine of his top Administration officials faced criminal charges. It was a traumatic spectacle of regime change.

          The nation has never recovered from the trauma of these events. In many ways, we still run from the pain of Watergate. Watergate created a scandals culture in Washington, a way of settling policy differences by other means. Scandal became a template, a handy tool, a vicious weapon used to destroy the enemy and gain a political edge. Our media and public is now addicted to scandal. Scandals have devolved into acts of reverberant cynicism, largely devoid of underlying corruption.   

          It is important now more than ever for the President to demonstrate active leadership and attempt to restore public trust and faith that Government can work towards the common good. Government is like fire. It can do great good or great harm.

          It is up to the values, vision, integrity, and leadership of the men at the helm to demonstrate responsibility, to hold this Government accountable.  Many people now feel that our system impedes such leaders to participate on the public stage. Many Americans have lost hope.  

          This nation needs responsible leadership and is suffering from a lack thereof. Without vision, the people perish. Restoring public faith that collectively (which is what Government is) we can make things better is crucial to the future of our national prosperity.

          Obama falls short as a leader in many ways. Although he is an affable public speaker, Obama’s cool and detached leadership style is easily interpreted as aloof, uncaring or disconnected. He seems to work towards minimizing political damage rather than step up to accountability and inspiration….rather than aggressively respond to challenges by putting structures, policies and cultures in place to build and safeguard the public trust.

          Contrast Obama’s style to that of JFK. Kennedy hated the idea of invading Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was Eisenhower’s plan, executed by the CIA. After this humiliating rout, Kennedy immediately took responsibility, since he was at the helm. He stated, “Victory has 100 fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”

          Public officials should remember that power corrupts and concentrated power promotes over-reach and abuse. To promote the common good, a disciplined culture of restraint is necessary. Restraint is evidently lacking in Washington’s current culture. Restraint was lacking in the Justice Departments over-reach in their AP News investigation. Restraint was absent in the IRS recent discrimination and over-reach which violated the public trust. Washington’s current climate is a failure of values. Benghazi is a symbolic failure of values.    

 

Reasons for a Cover Up

          Now let’s shift our thinking. Consider why would Obama, knowing immediately that the Benghazi assaults were an Al Qaeda affiliate attack, deny this or point things in another direction? Did he love Muslim “terrorists”? He had Bin Laden shot in the head. He’s proven himself to be no buddy of extremists, regardless of the views of persons drawing a paycheck at Fox News.

          Why would Obama deny an Al Qaeda affiliate attack? Political opponents contend the admission would hurt his re-election chances. He was making the case that Al Qaeda was no longer a national threat, and would be embarrassed by an attack. That’s why he intentionally removed references to the attack.     Factoid-  Al Qaeda Prime, as it’s known in the Company, is no longer a national threat. Four out of five of their top leaders….dead. The other is hiding too deep to be an operational threat, but remains in the cross-hairs if that groundhog sticks his head up to see his shadow. The top 20 senior leaders and innovators….all dead. Al Qaeda Prime are now ghostly images on the internet. What about their affiliates?

          There can be no reason to deny that Al Qaeda Lite (not what the Company calls them), the Dairy King opportunists of political vacuums and sectarian discontent, are very dangerous…if you camp out in their back yard and wave a flag. If you stick your hand in a hornets nest you might get stung. Obama has a strong anti-terrorist record and Al Qaeda affiliates not being dangerous are not a logic for a cover up.

          Was the US Embassy in Libya in Benghazi? Well, kind of. We had some buildings there. US diplomats live in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Benghazi was the dangerous Wild West of that country.

          This Benghazi compound was a “consulate” complex with a bunch of buildings, not a palatial edifice you might see in downtown New York. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi with such light security? A more pertinent question which sheds light on this affair is, “What was really going on in the compound?” Answer- An ongoing CIA operation.

 

The Real Story Behind Benghazi

          After 9/11, we tasked the CIA with assassination of Enemies of the State. The White House determines who is an Enemy of the State.” The CIA then sends killer drones in on covert operations all over the world. Bear in mind, fifteen years ago the President couldn’t tap a phone without a court getting involved. Man, is this slope slippery. You might be cool with such covert unaccountable killing. Bear in mind that these killings are done in your name.

          When you enter the shadow land of “national security”, cover up is the nature of the beast…..thousands of them. Most of these you will never know.  

          So let’s now enter the shadow land of “national security”, which appears to me to be at the heart of this affair. The scenario presented here may be disclosed, or it may not. Either way, it is another potential facet of complexity.  

          An ongoing covert agenda of this Administration is the overthrow of Assad in Syria. The CIA was tasked with this mission. This is reminiscent to the CIA mission during the 1950s and 1960s before the Church Commission.       Benghazi was a marketplace and hotbed for extremist fighters in Libya. Sucky place for an Embassy. Great place to recruit fighters. A great port to ship weapons bound for Syria.

          The Benghazi compound was a CIA operation, recruiting fighters, interrogating bad guys, and shipping Libyan weapons to Syria. This “Embassy” held prisoners who were being interrogated. This attack was an inside job, likely aided by some of the fighters we were recruiting to destabilize Iran and Syria. We hired them as “security” for the Embassy. These guys knew precisely the secret safe house everybody bugged out to. That may have been their target. The attackers released the prisoners, so these may have been their target. Bear in mind that the personnel killed in Benghazi were CIA, other than Stevens and his aides. This was a CIA operation that went south. These operations are still ongoing in the region.

          Why was Ambassador Stevens in this compound at that time? He was secretly brokering an arms deal, meeting with a Turkish diplomat in order to arrange Libyan arms shipments to Turkey bound for Syria. We’ve been shipping weapons and recruiting fighters for years through Gulf State countries, primarily to destabilize Iran. Do you think these chickens might eventually come home to roost?

          So the main reason, in my assessment, for the Presidential cover up was to obfuscate ongoing CIA counterinsurgency practices.  Are these legal? Probably not. Never stopped them before. I have lots of examples. The Company will carry out their mission, until that mission changes.

          Presidents should be willing to take political heat to preserve national security operations and secrets. After Sputnik, Eisenhower took massive political heat since it appeared the Russkies were ‘ahead”. He took the secret that we had satellite launch capability to his grave for the sake of national security.

          In the real world, situations are complex and interdependent. We once waged a Cold War. Now we wage a Shadow War. Things are not as they appear.

          There are many lessons to be drawn from Benghazi to improve our national security. These will be found in the land of responsibility…..or one could remain side-tracked in the land of blame.

Stating a Path Forward

          In the midst of the non-starters called the State of the Union, I heard a few possibilities for a way forward strategically (although not politically).

Critics of our economic policy contend that we may end up like Greece. Not a chance. We are too vibrant and innovative a nation for this outcome. However, we certainly are becoming like Japan. In the 90s, Japan was poised for economic dominance in the electronics and finance sectors. But they have slipped from the world’s second largest economy to 24th, and their debt ratio to GDP is 230%. Why did this vibrant economy tank? Their government seized up and refused to make the tough choices needed to reform and move them forward. For Americans desiring their “side” to win at the expense of the other “side”, knock it off. If we don’t all move forward, we all lose.

It is unclear what direction Obama will actually devote energy towards, but he could jump start the economy with a few focused directions in structural reform and human capital investment. Since the Pope is quitting, I’ll put on his hat and provide some “if I were king” recommendations to the powers that be:

1. Energy- Convert the country to natural gas, since we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas production now. Might as well use it. Bring in the oil from Canada and shoot for energy independence from people who hate us. Build more refineries. Why the hell do we have to send oil to Texas? Those refineries are knocked offline during every hurricane. Put more Americans to work in the energy sector until decentralized solar disrupts the whole damn thing in around a decade from now.
2. Tax reform- Get off the tax rich people bandwagon and onto the major overhaul the 73,000 page tax code bandwagon. Think Ronald Reagan. Lower the corporate rates and close the special interest loopholes. Create a new taxation category for small business to separate it from personal taxation and provide incentives for business creation. Fast track and incentive-ize business start-ups, hiring, and investment.
3. Infrastructure- We need to move away from infrastructure projects funded with taxpayer money. An infrastructure bank would create private/ public partnerships and toll-based building projects which could efficiently create thousands of new jobs, as well as keeping our bridges from collapsing.
4. EU trade agreement- A little recalled and less understood point was made concerning next years EU free trade agreement talks. This announcement is a blaze rather than a glimmer of good news. This trade agreement represents the consolidation of 50% of the planets production capability. Goods and exports could be manufactured and transported at per unit costs rivaling China. If handled wisely, this agreement could make the US-EU the most powerful economic zone on the planet and add millions of new jobs to supply emerging markets.

 

 

The Message on Medicare

            The upcoming sequestration will force automatic spending cuts in two large areas of government spending: defense and discretionary spending. While reducing spending might seem a lovely thing, across the board cuts will mean contracting the economy into recession, laying of over a half million people (who will want “benefits”) and reducing government services and capabilities.

            I’m not sorry to see cuts in “defense”. An internal audit under Gates concluded $300 billion in waste, fraud & redundancy. That’s just in the Pentagon. Since 9/11, the  “national security” infrastructure has grown beyond the size of eight Pentagons. Most of these agencies still get blank checks in the name of “security” against Abdul with a bomb in a backpack.

            While these issues may be rant-worthy, the point of this blog concerns the popular consensus on health care. It is clear that Medicare is unsustainable. It is also clear that the People don’t want their Medicare benefits reduced. People want far more government than they are willing to pay for.

            The People don’t want reductions in Social Security or Medicare. Democrats are riding that wave. The People don’t arrive at this position in a partisan manner. They have a longer memory than polls and pundits.

            Social Security was passed in the midst of the Great Depression in 1935. This was the first social safety net at a time when most Americans were falling off the fiscal cliff of the day. When Social Security was passed, less than 5 million Americans had any type of health coverage. Most health care was provided by small town doctors and care was administered in the home. When it was your time to go, you went. The People remember that level of health care.

            Medicare was passed in 1965. At that time, health insurance cost on average $1.65 a month and only 140 million Americans had it. Although medical care had advanced, urbanization made home care less of an option. The sick and elderly were packed off to relatives, much as had been done during the 19th Century. Hospitals were where you went to die. The People remember that level of care.

            Now we have whiz-bang Star Trek super-expensive medicine. An aspirin costs $50 in the emergency room. We can keep Gramps alive whether his brain is working or not. It only costs a bijillion dollars. We have more and more Gramps coming online all the time. Hence the unsustainable part of Medicare.

            I think that what the People are saying is they remember what life was like before Medicare and they’re not willing to live that lifestyle or quality of life. It’s just that simple. So in the sea of conflicting political messages, they’re saying “Find something else to cut. Get your Government hands off my Medicare.” I still love that one. Anyway, I think this is the heart of the message and it might be wise for politicians to reduce costs without reducing care.

Legal Stances

Some interesting stories in the news this week:

          The Big Banks have pretty much settled with the Government (State & Fed) to avoid further prosecutions for fraud and predatory lending, mortgage, and foreclosure practices. Slap on the wrist   , got off for pennies on the dollar.

          Yesterday, the Federal Justice Department announced a suit against Standard & Poor's. This is the first federal suit brought against a credit rating agency. Such agencies enabled the Great Recession by rating very risky mortgages as AAA, i.e. they lied. Sixteen state Justice Department's have also filed suit when internal documents emerged showing that they lied (allegedly). Standard & Poor's is accused of defrauding investors to increase profits and market share. We’ll see if anyone actually goes to jail. Hold no breath. S&P's defense? Everybody was believing and doing the same thing as they were. If everybody jumped off a cliff...wait a minute, they did.

          For persons desperately concerned about our federal deficit and the burden it will place on future generations, the CBO projected yesterday that the deficit will fall to $840 billion. Last year's deficit was $1.1 trillion.

          For persons desperately opposing investment in infrastructure because the spending will burden future generations, Texas A & M University released a study yesterday on how much time commuters spent in their cars. Largely because of gridlocked roads, commuters were found to spend 5.5 billion hours more in their cars in 2011 than they did in 2010. I would assume that since infrastructure does not magically repair itself, the 2012 numbers won't look much better when released. The study estimates $12.1 billion was wasted in time and fuel. All that sitting around released an additional 56 billion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere.....which might turn out to be a burden on future generations, if you think about it.

          Professional bloggers tell me that blogs should focus on only one subject, and be no more than 500 words long. They misunderstand that I am Lord of my Writing Realm, and as sovereign, I make up the rules as I go along.

          In a similar manner, the Justice Department yesterday released their logic and legal reasoning for targeting and killing Americans living abroad who may be or might become a “terrorist” enemy mastermind. Tips for your next vacation: drones only travel at 89 mph. Drive fast.

          The leaked document was an internal Justice Department memo, and Administration officials scurried to clarify, justify, and cover bottoms. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder stated that the Administration’s policy of lethal force was based on a Congressional statute permitting combat against Al Qaeda and related groups. The Administration policy is to take “these kinds of actions” when there is “an imminent threat, when capture is not feasible, when we are confident that our actions are consistent with federal and international law.” The Justice Department white paper was prepared for a Congressional committee last year, and calls targeting senior enemy leadership “lawful acts of self-defense and not illegal assassinations. ”The White House Press Secretary called such actions “legal, ethical and wise.”  

          It is certainly wise strategically to eliminate enemy innovators. Israel tested and repeatedly demonstrated this model. When key innovators were eliminated, enemy cells dissipated. I absolutely agree with removing the heads of Hydra.

          My caution concerning this policy is not based on a defense of our enemies, but rather the threat posed to our civil liberties. The stated legal rationale is sketchy and incomplete. The leaked White Paper was based on Justice Department memos, which continue to remain classified.

          The leaked document demonstrates that this Administration is continuing the fine 21st century tradition of expanding Executive branch power. The lethal force decisions made by the Administration are not subject to any judicial review, and would appear to deny American citizens their right of due process. The Administration solely determines what constitutes an “imminent threat” and whether the American citizen/target is an enemy of the State. This “threat” may not reflect any actual plot, need not be based on clear evidence, or place the target near a battlefield. Did I mention that these decisions and executions are not subject to any other review, before or after. The target may represent a future          rather than current security threat. For example, the 16-year-old son of an operational leader was killed while having dinner with friends. I guess he looked suspicious, or the White House crystal ball was working that day.

          Such “limits” on Executive power appear rather subjective, like Dick Cheney with a dartboard. If the administration can “make up”their own limitations, they would appear not to be limitations at all.

          On the other hand, this is an incomplete summary document, leaked without permission. It does appear to be an effort at creating a narrow, restricted rationale for limiting Executive power. It also appears an attempt to reconcile Constitutional and international law with the changing realities of war. The drafters of this document point out that current armed conflicts present limited facts and require real-time decision-making. In addition, while due process accountability is usually experienced within our domestic legal system, it is not limited to the courts. Historically, Presidents been accorded latitude to exercise coercive force on American citizens during wartime. The document attempts to balance these key issues.

          While Executive latitude may appear realistic, the “limitations” on Executive actions expressed to date, such as imminent threat, are so broad and subjective that no other nation endorses the legality of this position. The assertion of power is expansive, a global reach. It is troubling that the Administration will not release rationale or criteria for vetting decisions concerning the use of lethal force. They are also strongly resisting any congressional or judicial oversight or accountability for these decisions.

          While strategically justifiable, the ability of the Executive branch to execute Americans abroad appears to me as much an overreach legally as torture and secret prisons. It is outside our values and ethical tradition. I have heard such language before, during the Cold War. Anything was justified in the name of stopping Communism, our existential enemy. We tend to define ourselves relative to our enemies. “Terrorism” is our new existential enemy, although a rather ragged and toothless one.

          A person may put great faith and trust in the decision-makers of the Obama Administration. Another person might not. It seems obvious how a precedent for subjective executions might be manipulated and abused. As in the Cold War, the question lingers: Who will watch the Watchers?