Our Government’s Fiscal Insanity is Immune to Vaccine

My wife and I have a modest income and we donate to charities in a similar modest fashion.  Like most folks, there are certain causes that are near and dear to our hearts and that is where we direct our limited charitable dollars.  What might somewhat distinguish us among most donors is the fact that I make a sizeable effort to research the entities that we donate money to.  I utilize the large amount of internet information about charitable organizations and try to match up the cause with a solid record of efficiency and effectiveness.  I look for the outfits that deliver 90 cents or more out of every dollar to the cause which they claim to serve.  There are simply too many solid organizations out there doing good jobs to throw your money at one that will line their own administrative pockets with your donation.

Our elected representatives in the Senate and the House also have to make spending choices.  And since it is not their own money they are spending, it is not unlike donating to charity.  Politicians are oftentimes motivated to run for public office because of a sincere concern they hold for a public cause.  It might be health care; it might be immigration; it might be national defense; or it might be agriculture.  There is one thing it will not be and that is deficit consciousness.  They seem to lose their enthusiasm for their beneficiaries once the money is appropriated; they don’t do the heavy lifting to monitor exactly how the money is spent.

This last week saw both President Trump’s Administration and Democratic leaders in Congress doing end zone dances about reaching a two-year fiscal budget deal.  They each spun the agreement as a compromise in which they dutifully protected their personal interests; Trump with his defense dollars and the Democrats with their domestic spending.  What they don’t talk about is the idiocy of claiming a compromise when no one gave up anything at all.  Each side dramatically increased the amount of federal spending for their own priorities.  When we see both sides in a negotiation get all they want in the final agreement; that is not a compromise.  That is capitulation on principle. 

The agreement must now pass Congress and go to the President’s desk for signature and that appears to be quite likely.  Fiscal sobriety has fallen out of fashion in WDC.   This particular agreement pegs federal spending at $1.37 trillion in fiscal year 2020 with an increase of that figure to follow in FY21.  It goes without saying that our leaders in WDC have totally lost all awareness of what additional zeros at the end of a number mean.  Now I understand that Trump and the Republicans are sick and tired of spitting into the wind every time a budget bill comes up.  In today’s political culture, there is simply no reward for being a deficit hawk and trying to curtail the outrageous spending habits of the U.S. government.  It was likely foolish to think that a person of privilege like Donald Trump would bring any sense of fiscal responsibility to the table; he has never had to deal with doing without anything at all.  But it still stings to see how quickly the Republicans folded in this latest deal and how they so easily agreed to throw away the spending sequester and cap arrangements that had been so difficult to achieve.

I think a large part of the problem that deficit-conscious members of Congress have in selling fiscal accountability to their constituents is the fashion in which they approach it.  First off, let us understand that in WDC a spending cut is not really a cut at all.  If a federal agency or program has been realizing an annual spending increase of 10 percent, our elected officials consider anything less than a 10 percent increase in the coming fiscal year a cut.    This type of arithmetic would be ruinous to us as individuals; but it is the discipline du jour in WDC.  The real crime of this approach is its exploitation of the fact that we have all become quite desensitized to these huge federal expenditure numbers.  This philosophy allows departmental and agency waste and inefficiency to become institutionalized.  Most of us deal with thousands in single digits, tens, or maybe hundreds.  Take that up to the next level of millions, billions, and trillions and those additional zeros begin to lose their significance.  However, what most people do understand is waste, corruption, and inefficiency.  These are concerns that we each have to live with every day of our lives in order to buy food, have a place to live, and provide for our families.  If the negotiation focus is simply on the numbers and not on what drives the numbers, few people actually get the point.  That point is the abysmal duplication and irresponsibility in how our government administers its business.  If that was the focus regarding runaway federal spending, more people would be concerned about it.

Nothing on this planet comes closer to achieving immortality than a government program.  So many times we see a government program created and designed to meet a temporary need; only to see it continually renewed and eventually become a permanent fixture in the federal budget.  There are many problems with this approach; but not enough time or ink to address them.  The one most prominent that I will address is that when a government program is replaced by another government program (a new and improved government program, of course), the old program that is supposedly being replaced does not go away.  It continues to be funded into the future and we end up with multiple government programs all addressing the same concern.  Now they (the government) will sometimes play rhetorical games and claim that the different programs address different aspects of the same problem.  This is nonsense.  It is far more efficient and effective to place the entire problem under one departmental or agency umbrella so that a firm grasp can be achieved and maintained on the remedies.  This phenomenon is not really dissimilar to the personal finance trap that many consumers fall into with multiple credit cards.  For various reasons, people will accumulate debt on two, three, or more credit cards when one card would serve just fine.  At some point, the cumulative debt simply loses its relevance.

The federal failure to address these inefficiencies is even more regrettable due to the fact that the government is uniquely designed in a way that makes these improvements quite achievable.  The federal workforce has many, many people who retire every year; these people do not have to be replaced.  Attrition can work wonders over time…if it is ever initiated.  The government has a myriad of personnel and budgetary tools that it can use to begin a serious process of establishing some measure of transparency and accountability in the operations of departments and agencies.  It simply lacks the will to do it.  After all, it prints it own money and writes it own budget.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

The federal budget was once balanced in my lifetime.  During the Clinton Administration in the nineties when President Clinton was promoting a centrist Democratic philosophy and a Republican-controlled Congress was promoting hyper budget-consciousness, a booming economy and a muted federal spending appetite combined to actually balance the federal budget for a year or two.  Since that time, both national parties have pretty much run up the surrender flag on doing battle with the federal deficit and it seems that nobody really cares about it anymore.  The fact that we now have such a robust national economy makes it all the more tragic that in this time of relative prosperity, we are making no effort whatsoever to examine ways to decrease our federal spending deficit. 

As we continue to celebrate without reservation those rare times when our U.S. economy is hitting on all cylinders and all is well; it would serve us well to consider the burden we are passing on to our children and grandchildren who will someday deal with the debt we are so selfishly piling up.  We don’t need the simplistic plans about balancing the federal budget in five or ten years.  We don’t need to know how great this or that cause is and how wonderful it is that the government can take our tax dollars and rectify it.  We don’t need to hear about how big a sacrifice it is that federal agency XYZ will only grow at a rate of 7 percent next year instead of the 12 percent that it has been accustomed to.  What we need is a sober, deliberate, accounting of how we spend our federal largesse.  With tax dollar revenues now reaching historic high levels, it is time to carefully examine exactly what government should pay for and what is better left to the private sector.  It is about time that federal agencies return to zero-based budgeting and submit detailed, transparent, and justified projected budgets for upcoming fiscal years.  It is time that somebody, somewhere, takes the time and makes the effort to analyze the duplicative nature of our government and begins to consolidate and eliminate agencies based on the areas of their overlap. 

Over the last few decades, there have been occasional efforts by both national parties, either separately or collectively, to address the waste, duplication, and inefficiency in our government.  But these efforts were doomed to failure from their inception.  They lacked sufficient broad-based political support and suffered with insufficient authorities and resources to achieve their missions.  In an ironic way, they were in fact symptoms of the very illness they purported to address.  They were a new government entity created to address a problem that already had multiple government entities addressing it.  We have permanent, standing Committees in both Houses of Congress whose explicit duty is to oversee the fiscal operations of federal departments and agencies.  We have a government agency, the General Accounting Office, whose primary purpose is to support and assist these members of Congress in this effort.  The point is that there is no need to create any new entity to address profligate federal spending; those entities already exist.  What we need is for those entities, and the people who comprise them, to get serious about getting our federal fiscal house in order.  We don’t have to have an epiphany or miracle cure; we just need to get moving in the right direction. 

This is what makes the debacle that is federal spending so infuriating.  The system is there to address it.  The consequences of failing to address it are very obvious and indisputable.  We certainly have the ability to do something about it; especially now with a good economy.  All we lack is the will and the discipline to deal with it in practical, realistic terms.  Of all the misguided, hypocritical, nonsensical, deceiving, and irresponsible things that our Congresses and Presidents do, chief among them might very well turn out to be their idiotic denial of a federal budget deficit crisis and the unholy visit that it will someday pay on our future generations.

Could the 2020 Presidential Election Really be this Simple?

The memories from the last presidential election are still fresh in my mind.  Like most every other American, I watched the election returns with the certitude that Hillary Clinton would be our next President.  As we all know, things did not quite work out that way.  As the night wore on and the stark realization begin to sink in that Donald Trump would be our next President, the talking heads on television media exhibited raw emotions ranging from sheer jubilation to absolute paralysis.  That election has been analyzed over and over by far greater minds than mine; I shall not repeat the exercise.  I am not sure that anyone, regardless of their credentials, has a firm understanding of exactly how the perfect political storm came to blow across America on that fateful day.  But I will venture a salient observation about the next fateful day that will arrive in November of 2020.

As has been observed by many of the professional writers and journalists who are paid to do such things, we are a nation bitterly divided down party lines.  One can quibble about exactly what the respective percentages are; but there is little debate that there is a hard core of Republican support that hovers around the 35 percent figure and a similar solid center to Democratic support in the same range.  It may very well be the case that these percentages are even larger than 35 percent; perhaps even as high as 40-45 percent.   Wherever the correct figure lies, it is likely accurate to state that very little movement has occurred on either political side since November 8 of 2016.  It is difficult to dispute that if a person supported Trump in the 2016 election, they likely continue to support him today.  Estimating the Democratic center is a bit more challenging due to the fact that their 2020 Presidential nominee has yet to be determined.  However, it is reasonable to consider how many of the 2016 Hillary Clinton voters will vote against Trump regardless of who the Democratic nominee turns out to be.  In 2016, that total was comprised of both Hillary Clinton enthusiasts and anti-Trump individuals.  I fully expect that those Hillary enthusiasts have quite smoothly transitioned into the anti-Trump camp.  Therefore, let us consider that we begin our 2020 Presidential Election prognostication with a baseline of the vote totals from 2016.

No two elections are the same.  The only thing that the 2020 Presidential Election will have in common with the 2016 version is the fact that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee.  But if there is any validity to the suppositions from the previous paragraphs, then predicting the 2020 Presidential victor might be as simple as predicting the outcomes of the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania votes.  I will generously borrow some data from John McCormack’s Weekly Standard article of 11/10/16 linked here: https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/the-election-came-down-to-77-744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated .  In the 2012 Presidential Election, Obama carried Michigan by 9.5 points, Wisconsin by 6.7 points and Pennsylvania by 5.2 points.  In the 2016 Presidential Election, Trump carried Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes) and Pennsylvania by 0.7 points (44.292 votes).  Had Hillary Clinton carried these three states, she would have been elected President by an electoral count of 278 to 260.  These numbers should give any sober Republican pause.  It drives home the point that Hillary Clinton was one of the weakest presidential candidates in history.  No matter who the Democrats put up to oppose Trump in 2020; they will likely not be as flawed as Hillary Clinton.  The 2016 Presidential Election was decided by a margin of about 77,000 votes out of a total vote count of 136 million. 

It is quite possible that the aforementioned handful of voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will largely determine our next President.  The big question is how do these people view President Trump in the context of today’s political landscape?  If the Clinton votes go to the Democrat and Trump retains his 2016 votes…and…if the turnout numbers are similar…then we are likely to see a second term for Donald Trump.  On the other hand, if the hard core on the right stays Trump and the hard core on the left stays Democratic (quite likely); can we be so certain that this small group of voters who keep their rationales to themselves and shun the pollsters behave the same way they did in 2016? 

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

The idealistic warfare that will be Presidential Election 2020 is going to be epic; many informed people feel it will be a clearly defined choice between liberal policy and conservative policy.  It is entirely possible that this ideological choice will overshadow even the candidates themselves.  If the Party candidates continue to preach the political gospel they expect their base constituencies want to hear (stoking the fires, tossing the red meat, preaching to the choir), they are likely to hold the conflicting cores together.  But how will this rhetoric that is so far removed from the center sound to those few in the middle who might very well decide the 2020 winner and perhaps even the direction of our nation for generations to come?  The stakes for this election could not be higher and the energy and resources that will go into the campaigns will undoubtedly be unprecedented. 

When we compare 2016 to what may occur in 2020, it would be foolish not to expect that some blue states may turn red and some red may turn to blue.  But it is perhaps just as likely that the political tilts of 2016 have only been strengthened by our country’s hyper-partisan environment and the outcome of our next Presidential Election will be decided by those folks in the middle…those few souls in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania…who last decided in 2016 to break towards Trump.  They are now sitting in judgment on AOC and her squad, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, open borders, Medicare for All, eternal investigations of the Presidency, idiotic tweets by the infant in the White House, the continued trade war with China, unsettled and eternal disputes with North Korea and Iran, and apparent chaos in the Trump Administration regarding personnel and policy. There is an abundance of good economic news and there are other positive developments in our nation.  There is also a wealth of ridiculous material from both Parties that is worthy of high scorn and disappointment.  This President does not know how to sit on a lead; he has an infuriating aversion to good fortune.  It is not an overstatement to surmise that the fate of the world’s greatest nation rests in the hands (or the ballots) of these few thousand voters.  What…are…they…thinking?

High Noon Approaching in the House of Representatives?

The media has moved into an almost apoplectic state in their coverage of the House drama involving Majority Speaker Pelosi and the Squad led by AOC.  Pelosi is learning the lesson that haunted her Republican predecessors; herding cats is easier than herding two-year-term Napoleons in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Perhaps the defining moment in this drama has already occurred and passed beneath the radar.  I am referring to the coalition of House Democrats and Republicans that passed the Senate version of the Border Relief Bill. 

Although it had previously passed a House version that typically would have gone to conference and been reconciled with the Senate bill, the House instead succumbed to the rapidly closing window of time to pass the necessary legislation.  They chose to swallow the distasteful bite rather than choke on the public relations disaster of obstinance.  This decision by Pelosi infuriated many of the more liberal Democrats in the House, generating derisive and critical remarks about her leadership.  Many referred to it as essentially abject surrender to Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the Republicans in Congress.  In her defense, Pelosi simply stated that it was an imperfect bill that had to be passed due to circumstances.

Let’s look at the bill for just a moment.  I love it when the old gray lady herself has to cover a Democratic legislative episode that runs counter to its ultra-liberal agenda; let us examine their approach https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/border-funding-immigration.html .

As stated in their article, the vote was 305 to 102 in favor of the bill that was passed over from the Senate.  That vote reflected that 129 Democrats joined with 176 Republicans…in the HOUSE.  The very House where the Democrats hold a 235 to 197 advantage over the Republicans (there is 1 Independent and 2 vacancies) and the Democrats routinely spend the bulk of their time investigating all things Trump.  The bill that was approved in this reluctantly-bipartisan effort had previously passed the Senate by an 84 to 8 margin; an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.  To complete the picture, remember that the party count in the Senate is 53 Republican, 45 Democrat, and 2 Independents (both of whom caucus with the Democrats).  One can argue with the provisions in this bill and the wisdom of what is in and what was left out.  What was obviously not up for argument was the critical need for the $4.59 billion piece of legislation to be sent to the President in order to address the crisis at our southern border.  This is the point I would like to emphasize. 

I have generously heaped criticism and scorn upon Congress over the life of my blog.  The sophomoric and ludicrous manner in which our legislators often conduct their business is a large and simple target to shoot at.  The House in particular is a bubbling cauldron of arrogant opinions held by self-aggrandizing characters who have been elected to two-terms in a House of 435 members by, at most, a handful of counties.  The logistics of the challenges faced by a House Majority leader are so intimidating that it is a marvel to me why anyone would seek the position.  If anything supports the self-affirming quest for political power and wealth that drives American politicians; the quest for House Speaker is right at the top of them.  But in this particular instance, as we witness all too rarely, the Senate and the House responded to a very real need in our government and they did so in a bipartisan and effective way.  Even though the House completed the process with a gun held to its head, I celebrate the accomplishment of the deed.  At the end of the day, the process worked and the necessary legislation was passed.  Pelosi made a hard decision; the right decision; and she deserves credit for it.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

I was recently working on a building project with my son-in-law and eight-year old grandson; we are adding a shed addition to a cabin.  At some point in the proceedings, the conversation led to a discussion of my grandson’s behavior and how impressive it could be…on selected occasions.  He had been spending a few days with us and had been on one of those exceptional good behavior trips.  The talk naturally covered those times when he did not quite behave up to expected standards.  I commented to him that he had tipped his hand when he demonstrated the capacity to behave in a responsible and mature fashion; demonstrating his clear ability to fulfill that expected role.  I tried to express to him that these impressive episodes only made his moments of infantile actions seem even more disappointing and undesirable.  The point being that one is expected to be the best person they are capable of being for most of the time they are living.  I believe this is what we, as citizens, expect of our elected officials.  It is what infuriates us when we witness the partisan bickering that paralyzes the legislative process.  It is largely the source of dissatisfaction with our President’s personal behavior when he lowers himself and his actions to those of his critics. 

                                                                                             

I dare to hope that this moment of accomplishment (not to raise it to a seminal level) will somehow serve to clarify and crystallize the potential in a poisonously-divided House to actually perform the duties for which they were elected.  For all of its imperfections and glaring misjudgments, our government can function in a responsible and substantive manner.  Our nation's framers did an ingenious job of designing a resilient system; if we will only adhere to their plan.  Even though the explanation for the passage of this border legislation lies largely in a rapidly-expiring legislative deadline and the desperate need to pass something; perhaps the fact that a few House Democrats peeled off of their strict Party ideology to join with Republicans in this effort will demonstrate the potential for future legislative successes.   The next time around, it might be a few Senate Republicans crossing over to join Senate Democrats in the passage of some legislation.  The point is…it is possible. 

If President Trump can somehow minimize his flamboyant personal behavior, he might be less involved in the daily fare of the media talking heads and more involved in the necessary legislative efforts that are critical to the function of our nation’s government.  If he can somehow cease fighting fire with fire, his detractors might stop throwing flammable bombs at him and instead turn their attention towards doing their jobs.  As is the case with my grandson, once one has demonstrated the heights to which they might rise, we can reasonably expect them to perform at that level on a consistent basis. 

The Chaos Theory in Life and Politics

In general, The Chaos Theory puts forth the argument that a small, seemingly minor change in a system can ultimately result in dramatically major changes for the overall system.  Tangentially connected to the Law of Unintended Consequences, I think the real life application of this Theory puts us on notice that all actions result in reactions; which are often unknown, unintended, and not always positive.  Now the terms small and minor are certainly relative and open to interpretation; what is minor to one can be major to another.  But for the purposes of this post, I will choose to place the emphasis of the discussion on Chaos rather than the more expansive meaning of the term.

My daughter is in her mid-40s and is married with two children.  She lives nearby and my wife and I are significantly involved in her life, as well as those of her ten-year old daughter and eight-old son; they are the Lord’s blessing to us and absolute joys in our lives.  Her husband being away for work quite often, she has assumed a dual-role in parenting that is so common to our society.  I constantly marvel at the challenges faced by single mothers who sacrifice so much for their kids and demand so little for themselves.  My wife and I are retired and my part-time job is managing a small cattle operation on our farm; our schedules are pretty flexible.  But being flexible does not mean that we don’t stay busy or have locked-down times for certain things.  There are doctor’s appointments, social occasions, and things on the farm that demand immediate attention.  Having said all of that, my wife and I both yield our schedules to our daughter’s when she asks, because that is what parents do.  Besides that, we are retired and she is trying to get to where we are at. 

The situation I am highlighting is likely a common one.  Grandparents in America today are, I believe, far more involved in the lives of their children and grandchildren than ever before.  But the interaction of two or perhaps three generations in the typical lifestyles of this nation is a recipe for chaos.  My wife and I are old school.  We have always been fairly deliberate with our activities and place a good deal of importance on planning.  We were raised to understand that being on time meant showing up early.  And if you can’t get there on time or have to reschedule, it is a cardinal sin not to advise the others involved of the change in plans.  My daughter’s generation goes to the beat of an entirely different drummer.  Her typical warning on a kid pickup or delivery is about twelve hours or less.  And it is very likely that there will be additional non-related kids involved and likely an additional stop or two added to the trip.  As grandparents, we love spending time with the grandkids; especially as we are approaching that time in their lives when the world is becoming more prominent and the grandparents are becoming less prominent.  But as much as we love the opportunities to help out, we have to admit that it drives us nuts to operate in her universe according to her rules.  Multi-tasking, scheduling on the fly, changing agendas at the drop of a hat, co-coordinating with other parents and kids…these are things that are normal to our daughter.  They are not normal for us. 

I have to believe that part of the madness that is President Donald Trump derives from the fact that he is not what we have come to expect from our Presidents.  Much as our daughter’s and grandchildren’s cultural concepts and lifestyles blend awkwardly but effectively with our’s, so does President Trump’s modus operandi have trouble meshing with the traditional bureaucratic nature of WDC.  I was struck by the recently leaked private messages of the United Kingdom Ambassador to America regarding his descriptions of the Trump Administration as inept and incompetent.  Whatever else one might say about President Donald Trump; he is not your typical politician.  The character flaws that drive his resistors insane no doubt exist in many other politicians.  His arrogance cannot be considered unique among WDC elites; his ego, large as it is, is in good company on Capitol Hill.  His crude behavior and rhetoric is really nothing new to government and hardly qualifies as even being the most outrageous we have ever witnessed.  The personal traits of our President that we repeatedly see criticized are simply not that rare among the political animals that prowl our nation’s Capitol.  He might very well be top tier; but he is not rare.

I tend to believe instead that the forces driving the Resist Trump movement ever closer to the suicidal cliff that they are approaching is two-pronged.  Digress and distract as they will, there is a huge chunk of the Democratic Party populace that has not yet, and likely never will, fully accepted the fact that novice candidate Trump beat the prematurely-inaugurated Hillary Clinton.  They simply cannot wrap their minds around this incomprehensible occurrence and they continue to flummox about seeking any type or semblance of bizarre rationalization that might somehow explain this anomaly.  The second part of this Trump Conundrum is the same thing that I am experiencing with my daughter and her children; it is the forced union of two entirely different concepts that must somehow find a way to co-exist and function. 

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

I have waited over two years now for President Trump to mature; to somehow normalize his operations and tendencies and become a more traditional President.  I have clung to the notion that so many things might be possible if we could only pair up his policy instincts with a more effective leadership model.  It has become quite obvious to anyone who is paying attention that I was on a fool’s errand.  Trump is what Trump is and what Trump will continue to be.  Now I do not in any form or fashion intend to convey the notion that we should accord the same sort of affection towards our President as we do towards our family.  I am simply saying that it is not entirely dissimilar in how we accept the faults and incongruities of our loved ones while continuing to hold them close and how we might embrace a personally objectionable President because he happens to be pretty good at his job.  From a traditional and historical point of view, the comments of the UK Ambassador are probably spot-on.  In his conception of the world order, the Trump Administration appears disjointed, inept, confused, and perhaps incompetent.  But the UK Ambassador is not an American; and the USA is not the UK.

As uncomfortable a choice for some as it may end up being, it is hard to imagine a Democratic Presidential Candidate arising from their current pool of nominees that would be a more effective President than Donald Trump.  Furthermore, I daresay that there is no other past or present Republican Presidential Candidate that could have accomplished what Trump has accomplished thus far in his first term.  Just as I err in viewing my daughter’s lifestyle and decision processes through the prism of my life experience; so does the electorate, the media, and the global community err in viewing the Trump Administration through the lens of traditional American politics.  The circus that is Donald Trump came to WDC with a splash and a bang.  It continues to splash and bang.  Its accomplishments are likely due to its splashing and banging.  I am thinking we make a mistake in judgment if we condemn said splashing and banging simply because it is not the political fare we have become accustomed to.  With Trump, more than ever before, the verdict must be based on the results.  As long as his splashing and banging is legal, ethical, and moral…the Trumpian Circus du Jour is likely to continue in WDC.

Revitialized SCOTUS and Skin in the Game

As the SCOTUS has wrapped up its 2019 season, several opinions have flowed out over the last few weeks.  Considering these decisions, the right and the left have both had cause for grief and celebration.  Much of the attention has been focused not on the substance of the decisions, not on the most recent member named Kavanaugh, but on the new “swingers”…namely Roberts and Gorsuch. 

Conservatives thought that when Roberts and Gorsuch were confirmed, the right was well on its way to putting in place a solid conservative majority on the SCOTUS.  In spite of historical lessons that begged caution when trying to predict the future opinions of SCOTUS members, the conservative movement felt confident that with one more strategic nominee forthcoming (Kavanaugh),  future SCOTUS decisions would exhibit a strong bend to the right and quite possibly unwind some of the liberal decisions made over the last few decades.  Needless to say, those expectations have come in below the bar. 

I view myself as a conservative Independent.  I admit to an affection for SCOTUS decisions that reflect a conservative point of view.  However, my primary concern regarding the business of the SCOTUS is that they adhere to what I perceive to be their rightful place in the hierarchy of our government; that being the pinnacle of the Judicial Branch.  Being a non-lawyer, a quasi-literate civics scholar, and certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I oftentimes have difficulty analyzing SCOTUS decisions.  I read reports from varied sources that I respect, try to understand the intricacies of stare decisis, and attempt to make some semblance of sense out of the political element that has become part and parcel of all things SCOTUS.  But for most of us common folk, even these minimal efforts leave us far short of having a valid appreciation for the impact that SCOTUS decisions have on our everyday lives and the complexities built into each one of them. 

Therefore, I view most SCOTUS decisions in a broader sense rather than a detailed sense.  I look for the basic issue, the precedents that may apply to the case, and the ways that the issue might relate to my life and the lives of my family and friends.  I readily accept the fact that these SCOTUS Justices, both conservative and liberal, are among the best and brightest at what they do and I try to refrain from questioning their qualified wisdom.  What I have come away with from this recent SCOTUS season is a reaffirmation of my faith in their self-concept and the ongoing adjustment of their role in our tripartite government. 

I am encouraged to see that both conservatives and liberals are complaining about SCOTUS decisions.  If both are having issues, then the Court is obviously not conducting business in a monolithic fashion.  When Roberts and Gorsuch have determined to side with the four liberal Justices in forming a majority, it has more times than not been on the basis of principle and not on process.  We have a President and Congress to come up with process; leave the principles to the SCOTUS.  To a layman, I see these occurrences as an effort to re-establish the proper role of the SCOTUS as the arbiter of a law’s validity consistent with the constitution.  I see the SCOTUS as making a gradual and determined effort to remove itself from its activist role of recent years and re-establishing a more traditional examination of constitutional adherence.  I find this refreshing and, in my humble opinion, a return to normal.

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

There is an old saying about “skin in the game”.  The most general explanation for this term is one that implies that when a person has some degree of personal risk in a proposition, they are more prone to be actively involved in its execution than they would be in the absence of said personal risk.  In my life, I have found this to be true.  I and my family have been truly blessed, but we are people of modest means.  Nonetheless, I can assure you that when my resources were involved, I paid a lot closer attention to a matter than I did when the results were simply gratuitous.  When considering the many ways and systems of today’s society, we as a people have lost an appreciation for this tried and true premise.

I am truly amazed at the number of employee benefits programs that are based on the employer accepting the total cost of the benefit.  These benefits might range anywhere from a fixed pension plan to health coverage.  Our federal government has, to my knowledge, always insured that the civil service employee had, to varied degrees, some skin in the game when it came to employee benefits.  Now you might argue about the proportionality of that skin…whether it was sufficient or not compared to the employer’s share; but the point is that it was a shared expense.  The old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was believed by most to be an overly generous gift to federal workers.  It was, in fact, a fixed pension plan that required a contribution from both the employee and the employer over the course of their career.  When the CSRS was replaced in the mid-80’s by the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), that sharing of the benefit expense was maintained and even broadened to place a greater proportionate share on the employee.  It was responsible, it was transparent, it was flexible, and it was fair.  Federal employee health benefits are much the same proposition.  The expense is a shared effort between payroll deductions from the employee and a supplement from the employer. 

This same principle can be applied to government social programs such as the workfare provisions that are occasionally discussed.  There is reason to all things and changes must be carefully considered prior to implementation; but there is no doubt that it is far easier to support those who will readily help themselves than those who will not.  There is, and always should be, a place for compassion in our government.  But there should also be a companion parcel of accountability and personal responsibility.  As imperfect as it is, our government gets a lot of things right.  As I previously mentioned, their FERS is a model that should be used a lot more by others.  We have a MediCare program that requires a monthly premium from its beneficiaries; but we also have a MediCaid program for those with limited resources and special needs.  It does not, and should not, have to be an either/or proposition.  There simply must be some sense of fairness and rationality in the legislative process that creates these programs. 

Over the last decade, we have witnessed numerous retirement plans enter into crisis because the commitments made to the retirees could not be supported by the active employee contributions to the system.  To put it bluntly; promises were made that could never be kept.  There was more money going out than there was coming in.  These retirement systems have ranged from teacher plans to state employee plans to municipality plans.  The overwhelming majority of the plans feature a common trait…no skin in the game.  The pension is furnished with either no employee contribution or an unrealistically low amount; the health benefits are paid solely by the employer; and the plan is far too generous when compared to the plans that most workers in the marketplace participate in. 

The first litmus test that should be applied to a benefit plan is fairness.  Exactly what benefits should be offered and at what level should they be set.  The next requirement should be skin in the game.  The financing of said plan should be a shared expense with both the employee and the employer helping to pay the bills.  And finally, the plan should be sufficiently flexible to allow individual employees to contribute according to their own personal inclinations.  Of course, there should be minimums and maximums applied to help guarantee the viability of the program; but an employee should have the discretion of contributing more or less, based on their desires.  And most importantly…the employee must be held accountable for that decision and not be bailed out by the system if they err in judgment. 

Once a benefit program is established based on this premise, it can reasonably be adjusted in future years to reflect necessary corrections due to economics and other future developments.  The adjustments can have a beginning date that makes the new deal effective for any employee entering on board after that inception (change) date.  This is imminently fair to those employees who have spent a career under the promise of the original arrangement.   We could call this a mid-course correction option.  I am astounded by both the ridiculous generosity of some of the imperiled retirement plans and am equally shocked by the refusal of the plan beneficiaries to even consider fundamental and equitable adjustments to the programs.  At some point in the discussion of a retirement plan in crisis, a binary choice becomes imminent.  You can either let the train continue careening down the tracks out of control and risk the loss of benefits (cents on the dollar) for both retirees and active employees…or…you can make common-sense and rational adjustments to the existing plan that will make it feasible for both the employer and the employee.  A plan that provides that everyone involved has some skin in the game.

Bonus Time!  Imagine combining the talents of Steve Winwood, Will Jennings,  and Whitney Houston.  Something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTYOkcRH220.  Oh man…she left us far too soon.