Pages

Friday, November 09, 2012

How do we introduce truth into national politics?

Our government was set up in 1789 based on political theories that had been discussed in the hundred years leading to the American Revolution.  They were concerned with the abuse of power but no one had any real democratic experience as the previous democracy fell to Macedon almost 2000 years earlier.

The founders realized this and put in the amendment process to fix issues as they arose.  The first ten amendments passed almost immediately and also go by another name - The Bill of Rights.  Since then we have used the Constitution to govern the country.  No one can argue the world hasn't had massive changes since but we've only had additional 17 amendments and two of them offset (Prohibition).  These amendments include some really fundamental changes especially around voting rights but I think the founders would be disappointed that their creation hasn't changed much.

That isn't to say the document has huge flaws.  It is an amazing considering its age but the government has struggled since the beginning with banks and financing.  More specifically I am talking about how we fund our government and how we control the people in power who control those funds.

We were lucky to have Alexander Hamilton as the first Treasury secretary.  He pushed through the  Bank of the United States and this set the country on sound financial footing that allowed our quick expansion.  Jefferson and his allies had good reasons for hating the bank but even they realized the positives outweighed the negatives during the War of 1812.  They extended it and it lasted until Andrew Jackson killed it during an anti-bank frenzy in the 1830s.  American monetary policy had no central authority until 1862 when the Republicans realized they needed an easier way to finance government projects during the Civil War.  They gave certain private banks national status but required higher standards than state banks and mandated these banks use a common currency.  In turn these banks were required to use federal treasury bills to back their bank notes.  This gave the government and the public access to money which helped fuel the economic boom after the war ended.  This worked well during the next sixty years though financial panics were common and required the intervention of bankers like JP Morgan to keep the economy from crashing.  When the US economy expanded rapidly at the start of the 20th century, the system was too complex for private bankers to control.  That lead to the creation of the Federal Reserve System which is essentially 12 banks directly controlled by the federal government that lend money to all other banks in the country.  This has worked reasonably well but as the world continues to get more complex, we are faced with crisis.  Monetary policy is one of the best economic innovations in the last century but there are limits and the Fed has made mistakes.  A prime cause of the Great Depression was due to bad Fed decisions made worse when it stopped the flow of money into the economy.  The housing bubble of the early 2000s was driven by the Fed who kept interest rates too low for too long.

Back in 1789, monetary policy was simple.  The rulers had the ability to tax and if they needed more they went to the banks/merchants to get a loan.  If the banks didn't feel that loaning the money was wise investment they refused (This was the first real check to absolute rulers.  Some early monarchs took the head of their obstinate subjects but soon learned it was better to work with the banks as threatening them only spooked the market and worsened conditions in their country).

The United States government has three branches of government and as every kid is taught in school it is based on the philosophy of checks and balances.  The Congress passes laws, the president enforces laws, and the supreme court interprets laws to decide if Congress has overstepped their bounds.  

The question over the last century is now that the government run Fed leads the banks, how does monetary policy fit into the three branches?  This wasn't an issue for the the founders.  The Bank of the United States wasn't perfect institution but today we intermix government debt with the banking industry in ways the founders would find unbelievable.

Where is the constitutional amendment that account for this massive change?   The truth is it doesn't exist.  The only amendment to the constitution that has any link to the financial markets is the 16th amendment passed in 1913 which allowed the government to tax the income of its citizens (ironically the same year the Federal Reserve Act passed).

From my previous paragraphs you might think I'm a conservative Republican but I recognize that our country is better in the last century because of the government's ability to reallocate money to fund things like food safety, the building of roads/bridges/etc, and supporting things like public TV and the arts.  These started small at the start of the 1900s with Teddy Roosevelt but really got going during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the social strife of the 1960s.  We created huge programs that could only be supported if our economy continued to boom.  It was impossible to sustain and by the late 1970s the Democratic party had earned the reputation as the 'tax and spend' party.  Ronald Reagan promised to end that but faced with a Democratic Congress he cut taxes but did little about spending as it continued to balloon out of control.  Politicians from the suburbs, rural areas, and from conservative parts of the country realized they could get reelected by promising to fight for lower taxes.  Politicians from the inner city, locations with older voters and liberal parts of the country realized they could get re-elected by talking about protecting government programs.  Meanwhile the government debt continued to rise.  The politicians only cared about the promises they made to get re-elected and the electorate got increasingly angry as gridlock overtook Washington.

So what needs to happen?  I hinted about it in a previous chapter about checks and balances.  Who controls spending?  Congress.  Who controls congress?  No one.  The Supreme Court only is a check to the constitutionality of the laws Congress creates.  If you asked a founder whose responsibility it was to keep congressional spending in check they would say it was the responsibility of the good moral men we elected and if they didn't, the white landowners (who were the only ones that could vote) would vote the scoundrels out of office as they knew it would eventually affect the value of their property.  Things have changed a lot since then.

This country desperately needs a fourth branch of government to control government spending.  The appointments to this branch would be similar to the Supreme Court and its purpose would be to track government spending, set borrowing limits, and review budget proposals.  The key is independence.  My first thought was it should also include the Federal Reserve but realized that is probably too much power and it certainly would freak out people looking for Illuminati conspiracies.

How would the organization work?  For starters, last summer's budget crisis would have been taken out of Congress' hand as this new office would have clearly stated long before what needed to happen and forced Congress to act much earlier.  The debt level would be determined by these men and their mandate would be to find a debt number that ensured the longterm interests of the country.  In times of war - borrow.  In time of peace - pay back.  In times of plenty - tighten.  In times of trouble - loosen.

They would constantly be in meetings with Congress to let them know their annual targets so serious conversations would happen between parties.  Every mature business in America has a conversations like this every year.  Can we afford that?  What do we need to cut?  What can we do to raise revenues? 

So how difficult would it be to create this organization?  The truth is it already exists in part and is called the Congressional Budget Office.  They create reports that few Americans know about unless they hear a snippet as they change channels.  This organization would be given independence and senior 'partners' appointed.  They would continue to create the reports they do today as they chart the financial future of government policies.  Additionally, any political candidate that wants to attain an office in either the Congress or as President would submit a detailed plan of their ideas and how they plan to play for them.  All plans would be reviewed by the office and they would then publish true cost/review estimates.  Any bill that would go before Congress would need to have an economic study done.  Anyone that wanted to run a political ad would need to get certification that their claims were valid or else the ad would not be certified.  If it someone decided to run an ad that wasn't certified using 1st amendment protection, they would be required to purchase equal time following their ad for a budget office response.

This office would be non political and employees would be forbidden from making any public statement.  The appointees would speak with one voice and after stating their official opinions it would be expected they would remain silent and let the political process run its course.  Independence and accuracy would be the prime concern of the office.  You might think it would be difficult to find people for this office but there are thousands of people who could fill this role tomorrow in the field of accounting, in the SEC, and already working for the CBO.  

All American are frustrated.  There is too much nonsense flying around in politics and voters have no idea what is true so they have stopped questioning.  We need to change that.

There is been an abdication in Congress about taxes and spending.  Everyone has different ideas about the perfect level of taxation but whatever it is, our spending needs to match it in the long run. The battles that happen when we do this will be difficult but we elected our Congressmen for this very purpose.  You've put off giving us bad news for too long and Americans are tired of the cut taxes - spend more routine.  We need to change that.

Congress has proven it is not accountable and it is time that we give them a baby sitter.  We need to add another check and balance to the US Constitution and I propose the 28th Amendment - The United States Budget Office.

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Delusion and the American Political Bubble

Back in 2004 I was addicted to reading the Daily Kos and listening to Air America.  I got most of my information from those sites and we were all convinced that John Kerry was going to be elected president and save us from the disaster caused by George Bush.  We were also certain that the American people saw this too and the election wasn't going to be close.

The day of the election was an emotional roller coaster.  The early voting showed Kerry doing better than expected and the exit polls looking in his favor.  I listened to Air America as I got ready for work that day.  We were sure Kerry's win was a lock.  I made frequent checks of Kos between meetings that morning to read the self congratulatory posts.

I left work in mid day to vote and afterward stopped by my house to check the web.  One thing I remember is at the time was there was a website that sold 'stocks' in presidential candidates.  Intrade does something similar now.  As there could only be one winner, a candidates stock usually rose and fell with the polls or events like the debates.  Everything changed on election day.  When the rumors started, Kerry's stock went from around 49 to around 70 in a few hours.  I went back to work listening to Air America sure that a Kerry victory was hours away.

When I left work warning signs had appeared.  Air America wasn't as positive as they had been but I rationalized their evening guy was a pessimist.  When I got home I checked the political stock market, I saw that Kerry had peaked around 80 but had fallen below 50 during the afternoon.  I decided to ignore that warning sign and spent the rest of the evening on Kos where the posters explained away the bad news I was seeing on CNN.

I don't remember when the election ended but by 10pm I was sick to my stomach as it was obvious the blowout I expected was not going to happen.  By midnight they had called Ohio and Florida for Bush which ensured him the presidency.  I tossed and turned all night and set my alarm for 6am to listen to Air America to listen to their explanation.  It didn't help much as the announcers were in as much shock as me.  The Daily Kos was depressing as we all searched for answers to the question - "How could we be so wrong?"

The truth was right in front of our face that someone on Kos termed called the political news bubble.  All information sites fight for readership and people like to hear good news so that's what they gave us.  We didn't want to hear any other answer and Air America and Kos fed our addiction as we ignored everything else.

The day before the election my boss asked me who I thought would win and I told him I thought Kerry would win in a landslide.  He laughed at me.  The next day when he was proved right he asked me why I thought Kerry would win when all the polls favored Bush.  I didn't have an answer.

The election was actually quite close in the electoral college.  If Florida or Ohio chose Kerry he would have won but both states followed the polls.  Florida went to Bush by 5% and Ohio by 2%.  Leading up to the election everyone knew these were the most important states and I guess I thought I knew the people living around me better than a silly poll.  Air America and Kos reinforced that belief until it all came crashing down on election day.

Since then I have tried to broaden my information sources.  It isn't fun to hear things opposite to what you want to happen but ignoring the truth only hurts you in the long run.

Last night I spent much of my time on an Ohio State website called the Ozone.  It's a site full of rabid Ohio State fans and posts on the main site is limited to Ohio State news.  The off topic forum is open to anything you want to discuss.  I have ignored it since the beginning because many of the posts I have seen there remind me of Kos from 2004 only with an extreme conservative bias.  The other reason I don't look is I have grown to respect many of the long time posters as Buckeye fans and know my opinions of them would be affected negatively if I got involved off-topic.  I prefer to think of them as Buckeye fans only and nothing else.

Yesterday, I ventured over to the off topic forum and it was like I'd been taken back in time to Kos circa 2004.  90% of the posts expected a Romney landslide and I just couldn't believe what I was seeing.  The worst offender was a guy I used to respect by the name of 'buckeye in georgia'.  Last year he was the leader of a group of Buckeye fans that felt Jim Tressel was a spy for the FBI which is why he had to lie to the NCAA.  I found it hard to believe this was true but he writes with such passion that he gives the impression he knows something you don't.  Eventually most realized the guy was a fraud and I thought he'd left the site but yesterday I found he only posts in the off-topic forum where is seems to be one of the leaders.

Once I started reading the off topic forum I couldn't stop.   They were so sure Romney was going to win.  I checked other websites online and didn't see anything to support their beliefs but their confidence confused me as no reliable news source was making statements either way.  Did these guys know something they didn't?  Buckeye in Georgia is the worst example of what I saw.

  • All of these last minute polls have done nothing but solidify my prediction and sealed Obama's fate. Romney will win - buckeye in georgia [21:50:47 11/05/12] (3)
  • This might end up being more than 340 EVs for Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [17:28:15 11/06/12] (16)
    • I don't even think that's close to mathematically possible * - duke_buck [17:46:46 11/06/12] (1)
      • My guess was 340 +/-, not 340 exactly. I was guessing on the - side, now I think it will be on the + side. * - buckeye in georgia [17:49:24 11/06/12] (0)
  • PA, OH, MN, MI, CO, IA, NH, FL, VA, NC, WI all going Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [17:47:24 11/06/12] (23)
  • This is going to swing hard for Romney. I might be able to hit the bed by 10! * - buckeye in georgia [19:49:07 11/06/12] (14)
  • LOL...you all are NUTS! Romney wins this thing big! Relax! * - buckeye in georgia [20:16:33 11/06/12] (11)
    • Can't wait to hear the excuses. I'm sure they're already prepared * - Cloud of Dust [20:19:51 11/06/12] (0)
    • what are you smoking, they want some in OR & Cali * - Y-Town Buck [20:19:07 11/06/12] (3)
      • Just watch those numbers move. I'm from the same area as you, so hard to believe. But, the numbers are going to move. * - buckeye in georgia [20:21:20 11/06/12] (2)
  • Hang out for another 2 hours. About to blow up for Romney! * - buckeye in georgia [20:26:29 11/06/12] (1)
  • Dude, Ohio is breaking big for Romney - anyone got some Doritos? * - buckeye in georgia [20:26:38 11/06/12] (3)
  • So.....VA looks promising, OH looks like a train-wreck and FL looks like 2000 * - Buck Weaver [20:35:21 11/06/12] (3)
    • Not what I see at all! All three are Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [20:39:01 11/06/12] (1)
  • Not worried, kicking ass, actually!--->>> * - buckeye in georgia [20:55:33 11/06/12] (0)
  • Obama lead in Ohio now 175K * - BCSBuck [20:56:02 11/06/12] (1)
    • His lead will be -200K by midnight. * - buckeye in georgia [20:57:09 11/06/12] (0)
  • Chuck Todd says FL is surprisingly close....I still don't buy it. * - FanO'theBUCKS [20:15:11 11/06/12] (2)
    • Closer than 7 pts would be a surprise, I think. * - buckeye in georgia [20:17:34 11/06/12] (0)
He had over 107 posts in 24 hours on election day.  His post that said PA, OH, MN, MI, CO, IA, NH, FL, VA, NC, WI were all going Romney made me break my promise to myself not to post.
  • I don't come to this side often but I see you are consistent in fringe thinking like your FBI/Jim Tressel posts 
Not my finest hour but after seeing what he was posting I couldn't help myself.  As it turned out Romney won only North Carolina.  As late as 8:55 he was calling for a Romney landslide.  He wasn't the only one to post things like that but he was the loudest.  When things started to solidify he didn't post for a while and the forum started to turn on him.  He had promised to pay something like $10 for every electoral vote Romney trailed Obama and the people that believed him didn't let him forget.
  • Get out the checkbook BIG. You owe a BIG check. * - idiot_boyfriend [21:35:35 11/06/12] (5)
    • It was a schtick. Anyone who thought otherwise is way out of it * - Cloud of Dust [21:37:23 11/06/12] (3)
      • yep... half the stuff he says is BS * - the outsider [21:39:13 11/06/12] (2)
        • LOL at "half" * - Solomon Dangerfield [21:45:54 11/06/12] (1)
          • Not at all. GFY if you think otherwise. I'll honor my obligations. * - buckeye in georgia [21:48:30 11/06/12] (0)
  • Buckeye in Georgia... where are you? you were SO #%^* sure... * - the displaced Buckeye [23:23:01 11/06/12] (5)
    • I'm shocked, and I'll pay. * - buckeye in georgia [23:24:04 11/06/12] (4)
At 11:12pm, the election was called for Obama which by election standards is an early night.  Right now it looks like Obama has Florida which would give him a 332 to 206 electoral college win.  If the $10 is right it was a very expensive night for the poster named 'buckeye in georgia' and I can be thankful that my delusion from 2004 only lost me a some sleep.

In hindsight the 2004 election was important but I doubt Kerry would have been much better than Bush.  Every time I see him it reminds me of group think and how it can make even the most rational person believe something that deep down they know is not true.  It is something we all should guard against.


Tuesday, November 06, 2012

Ranking the presidents in my lifetime

I was born in 1967 and on election day I thought it might be fun to rank the presidents of my lifetime.  The interesting thing about presidents is they are tough to judge when they leave office as their decisions have implications long after they are gone.  The role call is as follows:

Lydon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
Barack Obama

All these names bring out distinct feelings and here is the first word that comes to my mind when I think of each:

Crude
Liar
Clueless
Naive
Actor
Boring
Impeachment
Overmatched
Embattled

Looking at these words you might get the impression that all of these men have been a disaster for the country.  I think all of them have done what they thought was best but in an age where the United States is the leader of the world combined with unending media attention they all have faced daily difficulties that make the issues facing Washington and Jackson seem minor in comparison.

So how have they done?  Here's my ranking from worst to best:

#8 - George W Bush - He got us into an unnecessary war while reducing taxes to take a government surplus he inherited to a $1 trillion deficit.  The American people will paying for his lack of vision long into the future.  Fans of US Grant especially like him because many lists have replaced the Union General with Bush as the worst United States president of all time.

#7 - Lyndon Johnson - He is similar to GW Bush in that he started an unnecessary war but instead of tax reduction he added many programs that have proved to be unsustainable in the long run.  The difference is at the time he was in office the United States had a robust economy and was at the height of its power so some of the hubris from his administration is understandable.

#6 - Gerald Ford - Many still hate Ford for his pardon of Nixon but I dismiss him for the lack of action during his 2 years as president.  He has the distinction as the only person to become president without being voted into office as either president or vice president (Nixon replaced his elected vice president in 1973).

#5 - Ronald Reagan - Many conservative blogs rank Reagan in the top 5 of all American presidents.  I've always considered him highly overrated.  His main contribution were the tax reform act in 1986 and making Americans feel good about themselves again.  Unfortunately he also set the trend of reducing taxes while allowing Congress to ignore the out of control spending from Johnson's reforms.  You can do one but not both and he put the United States on the path of deficit spending that continues to plague us to this day.

#4 - Jimmy Carter - I've always felt Carter's heart was in the right place but his passive communication style turned off most Americans.  He preached moderation and that we needed to accept that the days of America's post WW2 dominance was over.  There was sharp contrast between him and Reagan in the 1980 election and the American people chose Reagan's message of hope vs Carter's stark realism.  I have often wondered how America would look today if Carter had Reagan's ability to turn a phrase.  The Iran hostage crisis, long gas lines, and an economy struggling to adapt to the huge influx of baby boomers into the work force didn't help either.

#3 - Richard Nixon - History remembers him leaving office in disgrace after Watergate but many of actions he took in office were forward thinking.  Working with China to open dialog was the first step in thawing the cold war and helped stop the worldwide trend towards communism.  He proposed the EPA, OSHA and even government health care for low income families.  At the time he was demonized by the left for his policies mainly due to Vietnam but he eventually got us out of the conflict and would be considered a moderate in today's America.

#2 - George Bush Sr - He was considered a wimp and a poor communicator but as time passed I came to appreciate his presidency.  His reversal of his "no new taxes" pledge  killed his reelection chances but his policies were moderate and he did what he considered to be best for the United States in the long term.  He set the stage to get the budget in order though he never got away from the shadow cast by Reagan.  If Carter had beaten Reagan in 1980, it is likely Bush would have won the 1984 election due to Reagan's age and conservatives today would look to him as the herald of new conservatism.  Perhaps then his level headed approached might have had more influence on his son.

#1 - Bill Clinton - His presidency was gridlocked by a sex scandal but his policies combined Bush's moderate conservatism with liberal ideals to find a middle ground.  Baby boomers were in their 40s during his presidency and America definitely moved to the right during his time in office.  Despite that he passed legislation that helped get the spending from Johnson's policies under control while raising taxes to get government to balance its budget for first in my life.

Unranked - Barack Obama - It is unfair to give Barack a rank at this time.  He inherited a government deep in debt and an economy in crisis as the banking industry was near collapse.  He signed the largest spending plan in American history knowing it would hurt him at the polls four years later.  He said at the time he knew proving to the American people that the economy would be worse without this package would be difficult.  He did it anyway as he thought it was the right thing to do.  He has a bit of Carter's naivety in him as his repeated attempts to work with the conservatives in Congress were rebuffed and they took advantage of him on quite a few occasions.

My last comment on Barack Obama is a hurdle all these men faced.  This is the sad state of American politics at this time and it has only gotten worse during my life.  No matter what happens in today's elections, my hope is that the Congress learns to represent all of America better in the future.  Most of what is wrong with American politics occurs in their halls but the men listed above get the blame.  As President Clinton once said, he thinks all president have the good of the nation in their hearts and we all need to keep that in mind when we consider their actions.  They need to learn to win over the minds of the nation with our reasoned words and stop with hateful soundbites.  It isn't productive but I don't think it is going to change.