A Planet Or A Universe?

A Planet Or A Universe?  The government of our country is locked inside of an ever-escalating cycle of partisan gamesmanship.  As many have noted, this has served to render our government ineffectual, sophomoric, and on occasion, utterly ridiculous.  Both parties have contributed to this devolution in democracy and neither shows any sign of putting forth an individual leader capable of rising above it.  It would seem we are doomed to this cycle of petty politics, self aggrandizing, and constant finger pointing.  This is not a new phenomenon; it has been coming on for awhile.  But I think I know what, at least a partial, solution might look like.  Try William Jefferson Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

It is hard to conceive of any person aspiring to the presidency without an abundance (excess?) of ego.  As a matter of fact, it is likely a necessary ingredient for success, as long as it is managed.  Bill Clinton began his first term as president with similar visions to Obama, although presented more modestly.  Rather than boast about slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet, Clinton and Gore simply rode in to the sound of Fleetwood Mac promising a new age of prosperity.  Think what you will of Mr. Clinton; the fact is that he delivered.  But that delivery of promises came after he was humbled by a devastating defeat in mid-term elections.  Following that epiphany, Clinton came to the realization that his light could still burn bright, but did not necessarily have to be the only light in the sky.  He saw that he could be a planet, while not being the entire universe.  He began to appreciate that good government must first and foremost function.   He still gave his ego free reign, but he consciously understood that the folks in the Senate and the House also had egos and there had to be room for others in the solar system.  While ensuring that his was the most brilliant and most watched, he accepted the fact that other planets would co-exist.  This embrace of reality and pragmatism made possible some extraordinary accomplishments in government, not the least among them a balanced budget.  It created the possibility for remarkable achievements by a flawed president who, in spite of his destructive appetites, managed to become an effective and accomplished chief executive.

And this is where we find the distinction between a past Democrat and a current Democrat.  Obama is not willing to share the sky with any other planets.  Obama is not willing to orbit, either alone or in partnership, with any other bodies.  The epicenter of all being must begin and end with the One, and he is the One.  Obama is not willing to accept the role of a planet; he must be the universe. 

At this point in his presidency (one year into his second and final term), it is hard to see any prospect that Obama will experience any epiphany similar to Clinton’s.  And even though there are without a doubt many Senators and Representatives of both parties who see themselves as a universe also, the fact is that only the President can lead this government back to a place where it actually works; to some semblance of effective and efficient administration of our nation’s business.  As much as I would like to begin 2014 with some degree of optimism, I fear we are in the throes of a tedious and partisan game that will last another three years.  We are in the Obama universe and there is no room for any other planets.

Republicans...Get Your Ish Together.



Republicans…Get Your Ish Together!  One of the great ongoing mysteries to many thinking people is how can poll after poll show that the majority of voters agree more with Republican policy than with Democrat policy and yet we continue to see what is essentially a balance in power regarding the House, the Senate, and the Executive?  I am not making a value judgment as to which policy bent is right or wrong, but simply noting reality.  To put it differently, why is it that many folks think like Republicans and vote like Democrats?  Let us discuss some the possibilities.

I think one of the primary reasons would be the Republican penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Specifically, they have a long history of selecting candidates that are clearly not their strongest options.  Democrats do this also, but not nearly to the extent that Republicans do.  This is best illustrated by the 2008 election cycle, which carried Obama into the White House.  It is open to debate among sincere people, but the Republicans had up to six Senate races in which they had very good chances of winning but ended up running someone other than the strongest candidate and instead lost.  This particular election cycle is the one that created the environment that allowed the passage of the Affordable Care Act.  It can certainly be argued that had the Republicans run stronger candidates in a handful of Senate races during that cycle, Obamacare would not have become the law of the land.   Now once again, to be fair, Democrats make this same mistake, but I submit there are many more Sharon Angles than there are Elizabeth Warrens.

Republicans weaken themselves by conducting their family arguments in the most public ways.  It can be argued with merit that internal Republican disputes get more media play than internal Democrat disputes, but that is not the complete explanation and might, in fact, illustrate a Republican marketing weakness and lack of discipline.  A perfect example is the current feud between Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party.  Have you heard more about this than the Liz Warren-Hillary Clinton battle shaping up on the Democratic side?  Of course you have.  Somehow, Ted Cruz is simply more appealing to the mainstream media than Elizabeth Warren, yet he is no more a Republican-radical than she is a Democrat-radical.  It is good that there is internal debate within each party and each party needs the radical fringe to cling in an uncompromising fashion to that party’s principles.  But if the party is to be successful, the argument occurs, the mess is cleaned up, Uncle Joe and Cousin Larry end up hugging each other, and leave the party as friends.  Republicans have a very difficult time burying the hatchet sometimes and that puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes down to counting votes.  When one party faction picks up its toys and goes home, refusing to even participate in the game, then that party loses when the national split is as close as it is between the Republicans and the Democrats.  I don’t know if this Republican tendency is systemic or just personal in nature, but it is certainly foolish and counter-productive.  The choices within a party are degrees; the choices between parties are universes.

And finally, as I have addressed before, Republicans too many times insist on bringing knives to gun fights.  Democrats are married to their positions heart and soul and do whatever is necessary to put them in motion; the ends justify the means.  They play to win.  Republicans, on the other hand, while just as dedicated to their principles, can’t decide whether to get down and dirty or play nice.  They do a very poor job of recognizing the difference between the two and when one is required.  Would Al Franken be a U.S. Senator today if the Republicans had brought a Colt instead of a Bowie?  I do not mean to imply that Democrats have a franchise on “win at all costs” tactics; both sides are ethically and morally challenged when it comes to politics.  But the Democrats have clearly mastered that get down to the business of winning much quicker and in a more serious fashion than Republicans.  While promoting the current 2014/2015 budget deal, Paul Ryan recognizes this.  If the Democrats control the Senate and the Executive, the range of possible Republican legislative wins is greatly reduced.  Republicans must do a better job of choosing their battles and once chosen, fighting those battles from day one with their best winning strategy.  The strategy to shut down the government to defund Obamacare was in dire need of a reality check.

I am a strong believer in the two-party system; but I am certainly open to the discussion of a third party.  The recent abject failure to accomplish a meaningful and efficient government has left both parties open to that idea.  But in order for parties to survive, there must be liberal factions that tend towards socialism and conservative factions that tend towards Libertarian positions.  These factions guarantee the survival of the parties.  But these factions cannot be permitted to rule the party; to drown out and override the sentiments of the moderates in each party.  I am not implying that the squishy result of bipartisan moderate compromise is preferred; simply that compromise must occur at some point in order to continue.  I think I am trying to say that the different meats of the Republican and Democrat parties must be seasoned by the moderates of each side before going into the pot that will yield the stew.  If the meat never gets to the pot, we all go hungry.

The Budget Deal...Good Or Bad?

The Budget Deal…Good Or Bad?  Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, each representing their respective parties and the leaders from the respective legislative bodies they control, announced this week a two-year budget deal.  I think the two most important immediate indications regarding the quality of the deal is (1) Most good compromises leave both sides unhappy and complaining and there are several on each side of the political spectrum doing just that, and (2) It would appear that the vocal detractors on each side considered, there are sufficient votes in both bodies and both parties to pass the budget agreement.  I reluctantly endorse this agreement and here is why.

My biggest objection to the deal is that it expands federal spending beyond the already agreed to, already established in law figure of $967 billion that was the result of the sequester agreement.  This budget will expand 2014 spending to $1.012 trillion and 2015 spending to $1.014 trillion.  Time after time, I have watched Republicans deal away a bird in the hand for two in the bush and end up bird-less; I fear this may be occurring once again.  I feel the sequester level of $967B should have been chiseled in stone and not open to negotiation; that battle had already been won and it was hard-earned.  Ryan indicates that at the end of two years, thanks to increased or revised fees and various other cuts in spending, we will realize the same spending level as dictated by the sequester. Perhaps we will, perhaps we won’t.  To a common person like myself, an increased or revised-upward fee looks a whole lot like a tax; which Ryan repeatedly claimed there was none of in this deal.  The new cuts are supposed to amount to about $85B, are supposed to target some heretofore untouchable programs, and are to be mandated by baseline spending levels in each body.  We’ll see if those birds end up back in the nest.

On the positive side, it is apparently obvious, based on complaints from both sides of the aisle, that the $20B in 2013 defense cuts were far too great and this agreement essentially replaces them, bringing 2014 and 2015 pentagon spending up to pre-cut 2013 levels.  I am no expert in defense matters, but this seems reasonable to me and apparently has wide, bipartisan support.  It is also true that although the sequester deal could be celebrated for its achievement of spending cuts, it is without debate that those cuts, due to their arbitrary “across the board” nature, were not distributed across the government in an intelligent fashion.  This deal supposedly brings a bit more reason to the cuts in spending, whatever they may be. 

If Ryan is correct that at the end of 2015, government spending with this deal will be at the same level as it would have been with the sequester in force, then his arguments hold water.  If, on the other hand, the promised spending cuts that have not yet been passed into law and the new fee revenues do not meet expectations, he has been hornswoggled.   Being somewhat a fan of Ryan’s past pragmatic approach to government budgeting and spending, I am disappointed to hear him using loose language to disguise mandatory increased consumer spending as fees.  It smacks of that old Washington argument that a cut is not necessarily a cut in this year’s spending level over last year’s spending level, but simply a decrease in the anticipated increase in this year’s spending level over last year’s spending level.  Lipstick on a pig is still bacon and ham.

The one aspect of this deal that makes it palatable to me is the fact that we could now have not one, but two fiscal year budgets on paper.  It has been years since we’ve had a single year’s budget, not to mention two.  The government has lurched from one budget crisis to the next, continuing resolution after continuing resolution, with each side posturing and playing their cards for the most political gain.  This has adversely affected the efficiency of our government, the credibility of our elected leaders, all of our federal employees who have no clear direction on the programs they administer, and the people who rely on those programs to get by on a daily basis.  There will be plenty of battles between the Democrats and the Republicans over the next two years regarding spending and how to split up the whole pie, but the overall size of the pie has now been determined in this agreement and that has always been the single biggest bone of contention.  It is hard to imagine, and perhaps wishful thinking, but this agreement offers the real possibility that Senate and House Committees can get back to actually legislating spending guidelines for their respective areas of responsibility.  The prospect, however great or small you may see it, for a better functioning government might be improved.  That, my friends, is a reason to celebrate and reason enough to support this budget agreement.



For Mr. Boehner...How Much Is Enough?



For Mr. Boehner…How Much Is Enough?  As the Obamacare farce continues its agonizing premier, a very important question is emerging.  Having seen the damage to the Republican label resulting from the government shutdown be erased and surpassed by Obamacare’s damage to the Democratic and administration labels, it is obvious why Mr. Boehner is not anxious to discuss steps to improve the viability of Obamacare.  Given the methods used to pass the legislation, the freeze out of the Republican positions on health care, and the chest-thumping, end zone-dancing that Democrats joyously participated in upon its passage, one can hardly blame Boehner’s willingness to let the Dems stew in their own juices.  But the reality is that even if Republicans retain control of the House and somehow manage to seize control of the Senate in 2014, it is incredibly unlikely that they will do so at a level sufficient to override any Obama veto of an Obamacare repeal initiative.  That means that we, the American people, are saddled with this accursed legislation for at least another three years.  Therefore, the pertinent question to me is this: When does the utility of doing nothing to fix Obamacare become a bad investment for the Republicans?

It is difficult to believe that Republicans will do anything other than continue to remind the public of how Obamacare came to be, how they had nothing to do with it, and how they repeatedly predicted the very flaws in the law that are now becoming painfully evident.  Given the fact that Obamacare is the Democratic present to the Republicans that keeps on giving, revealing chapter after chapter of bad consequences, it would in fact be politically foolish for the Republicans to join in the effort to retool it.  In behaving this way, they have the legitimate defense that Obamacare is 100 percent Democrat, period.  It is also a good faith defense that the law is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be amended sufficiently to create any reasonable prospect of success.  It is not an unreasonable position to say that it must be repealed to cure it; it is just unrealistic.  Now reality has never been a burden to our elected officials in WDC, but it will eventually become evident to the point that the public recognizes it.  That is when the game must change.

Once the 2014 mid-term elections have come and gone and the Republicans have deservedly milked every ounce of partisan benefit possible from Obamacare, logic tells us that some type of bi-partisan effort must be undertaken to seal this leaky vessel known as Obamacare.   It is difficult, and frankly frightening, to estimate the damage that will be done to our society by this legislation between now and January of 2015, but we are likely condemned to a constant stream of executive actions, administrative fixes, individual horror stories, and unfounded propaganda about the law until that date.  Perhaps there might be a few, a small handful of thoughtful individuals huddling together over the next year in preparation for that opportunity….Nah, what was I thinking!

The Incredible Lightness Of The One.



The Incredible Lightness Of The One.  How wonderful it must be to have spent a lifetime in a world where you live, work, and play in an ideal world where just thinking makes it so.  Apparently, this is the world that our president resides in.  With his bearing of airy narcissism, he blithely goes from day to day without the burden of responsibility and accountability; that is what his minions are for.  Think about it; have we one single time heard him utter a sincere and succinct apology or admission of error?  Now think about how many times we have heard him blame others for what has occurred under his watch….five years under his watch.   In Obama’s world, he operates under the true liberal creed that “the end justifies the means”.

Obama has no desire to empathize with the regular citizen.  In fact, he is likely incapable of doing so.  When examining his writings, his speeches, his political ladder-climbing, and his record as President, it becomes clear that he is anything but your everyman.   There are two distinct traits about our president that become obvious when looking at his body of work.  First is his ruthlessness in pursuing what he deems the noble cause.  He has never won an election or conducted a campaign based on his merit or his accomplishments.  Every political race he has ever run has been based on the destruction of his opponent.  Secondly, he has never allowed himself to become troubled by the details; he is a big idea guy.  Yeah…he is full of big ideas.  When you go up to the white board and sketch out the broad outline, leaving the task of filling in the details to others, you always have an out by blaming someone else for any failures or shortcomings. 

All of this is exemplified in Obamacare.  Obama has recently been chanting that we should not get caught up in the troublesome details of implementing Obamacare because…wait for it…the product is good.

Never mind the carnage that might occur between the beginning and the end, the end justifies the means.  This is a colossal failure of any reasonable analysis that would logically consider the cost versus the benefit. 

Obama and the Democrats, ignoring long established wariness of passing major legislation on a party-line vote, forced Obamacare into law through extraordinary means.  The folly of this push is only now becoming crystal clear to them; especially a few Senators who are looking ahead to next fall.  Once again, they knew best what was good for us; better than we knew for ourselves.  In their minds, they would be vindicated by the infinite wisdom of the final result.  As Nancy famously (infamously?) said…”we have to pass it to find out what is in it”.  How incredible is it that a President would be so aloof and disengaged as to allow his signature accomplishment, his legacy, to be introduced to the masses in the clusterfluk fashion of Obamacare?  Few would do this.  Only a man who dwells in the nether world of ideals and not reality would act this way.  Only a man whose style is to construct a firewall of denial between himself and real accountability would do this.  Only a man who is so full of himself and shallow to the point that you could read a newspaper through him goes there.  Welcome to the incredible lightness of our president.