Pay for Performance in Politics

Here's a way to break the logjam in U.S. politics: pay for performance.

The U.S. government can't or, more accurately, won't pass any meaningful legislation, whether the topic is gun control, spending bills, same sex marriage or immigration.   So hit 'em where it hurts: their paycheck.  Pay them only when they pass legislation on important issues such as these.   The rest of the time, don't pay them a cent.

The U.S. government is like a constipated patient that needs a strong laxative.  Withholding compensation until senators and congressmen actually earn it is a good one.

Republicans Gone Wild, Again

John Boehner (pronounced "Bainer", not "Boner") is a good man, an emotional one, even, who cries like a fountain in public over tragic things, and who is a genuine believer in faith and God.   But he is an odd duck, indeed, to be leading his party at a time when the real power mongers within it are fighting like the devil to prevent the government from raising taxes, especially for the upper classes.

The president of the United States and his Democratic party have tried to prevent the massive and callous budget cuts, the so-called sequester, from happening, by negotiating a more intelligent and balanced approach to budget balancing, a combination of smaller cuts and some tax increases.   The Republicans, with spokesperson and House majority leader, Mr. Boehner, will not agree to any tax hikes or revisions to the tax code to close "loopholes".   That's funny because closing loopholes was a key plank in Mitt Romney's campaign to become president.

When you think of crazy politicians gone wild, an obvious example has to be John Boehner and his posse of school-yard bullies, called the Republican party of Washington.

When ordinary people are hurt by the callous budget cuts because Republicans refused to authorize a rise in rich people's taxes, that will certainly give Mr. Boehner something to weep about in church.

 

Congress Passes Limited Spending Cuts; Cliff Averted

No, you're not reading tomorrow's news today.   But I do think President Obama will get his way with Congress and will get a slimmed down version of the draconian spending cuts prescribed under the so-called Fiscal Cliff (Obama Urges Congress to Act to Stave Off Cuts).   Why?

With the trickle of good news -- increased housing starts, lower unemployment, healthy auto sales -- showing signs of sustained momentum, stocks have understandably gone up.  The S&P 500 is up 3.4% year-to-date, and it's only February 5.

Congressmen and senators are getting rich, not just because of their substantial trusts and other "blind" investments, but because many of the companies that support them are actually prospering as the economy picks up steam.  That makes those companies happy.  And happy American businesses return the favor to their representatives.

The strategy to overthrow Obama by obstruction and pig-headed stand-offs has run its course, now that Mr. Obama has been elected president for another term.   Most Republicans have sensibly decided it's time to help juice the markets and make some quick gains for themselves.  And, at the very least, they have decided not to do anything that will hurt stocks.

So they will not take the nation over the Cliff.  They will go along with the president and keep this bull run going.

And that, folks, is how government works.

What America Needs Now

Americans are going over the fiscal cliff.  But all is not lost.  Obama will work out a compromise wherein middle class Americans will not end up paying higher taxes.   This will buy time and good will.  Enough to defuse the automatic spending cuts, perhaps two weeks after they begin.

On a deeper level, what is it about American politics that prevents the winner of the U.S. presidential election and his party from implementing the majority will of the nation?   Why is it that the Republicans can still wield so much power?   The answer is, because America does not have a third party.

The advent of a third political party would mean that Democrats could woo such a party to overcome the rich, white old men of the GOP to effect what a majority of Americans want.

What America needs now is a third political party.

Presidential Campaign Spending

I just read in the Globe and Mail that six billion dollars will have been spent on all the campaigns during the run up to today's U.S. elections (Six Billion Dollar Campaign).  Six BILLION.   And for what?   The presidential campaigns were so fiercely fought, it was like watching a tug of war between two teams of strong men, each huffing and puffing and jockeying to and fro, only to end at a stalemate; with neither side having won a convincing victory.  In the end you could have decided it all with a coin toss.

Six billion dollars is enough to allocate a hundred dollars to each of the bottom 20% of Americans.  That buys a lot of groceries for a family of four, who would get $400; or a pretty decent Christmas.

Instead, that money went primarily to TV ads that will pay media and advertising executive salaries.  The money gets recycled high up in the food chain.   I guess that's okay because most of it came from even higher up the food chain.

But think about it: Wouldn't it be better if all or substantially all of that money could be used to feed the hungry?

Not only does it seem unconscionable that so much money is being wasted on U.S. elections, even more of an issue is that U.S. democracy is being hijacked by big money, the so-called Super PAC's.

Six billion dollars.   With nothing to show for it.   Except, perhaps, a numb if not embittered public that struggles to make sense of it all.   What a waste!

Romney Wins First Debate

Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate, by all accounts.   Mitt appealed to the plain Americans in the middle, the undecided Geralds and Gladyses of Ohio, and the Rustys and Britneys of North Carolina, the ones who are not necessarily inclined to go to the president's campaign website, as president Obama, ever the intellectual, in contrast, implored them to do, to study his economic plan or anything else.   No, Mitt appealed to their yearning for a strong America, where jobs are once again in abundance, where its citizens are prospering and where the Chinese are being beaten back.   In fact, Mitt sounded a lot like Ronald Reagan (save for the remark about PBS and Big Bird), with the same straightforward, folksy way of communicating and bonding with the television audience.   In fact, he even stole Reagan's economic plan, it seemed to me.   Here was Mitt describing trickle down economics -- voodoo economics to some -- the way Reagan did in 1980.   Where did this come from all of a sudden?

The one thing you can count on with Shifty Mitt is that he will tell undecided Americans what he thinks they want to hear because his only goal is to win.  Unfortunately for those undecideds it makes it tough for them to determine what Mitt Romney really stands for.   Is it what he officially says in public debates, for instance, or is it what he does, such as pay as little personal income tax as he can get away with.  Is it how he acts in public, all smiles and hugs, or is it how he dismisses non tax-paying Americans -- the so-called 47% -- like he did behind closed doors at one of his fund raisers?

And why did Mitt change his explanation so many times about that damning "47%" comment?   Why didn't he and his campaign team craft a smarter response soon after the fund raiser video was leaked that fateful Monday night in September?   Why didn't Mitt say, right from the start, that what he meant by his remark was that he was focused on capturing the votes of the 53% that pay taxes, given that so much of his campaign revolves around tax relief for America, and not that he was disinterested in helping the other 47%?   I have to conclude that, either Mitt's team let him twist in the wind, or Mitt didn't listen to them in damage control sessions, or that Mitt hadn't yet truly latched onto trickle-down economic theory.

Anyway, Mitt has been so inconsistent, so devoid of details, so hypocritical in his actions, that most Americans, including the Geralds and Gladyses in Buckeye country, will remember what another former president, one George Dubya, said (or at least tried to say): "Fool me once, shame on you...."(Fool me twice, shame on me!).

They won't be be fooled by Romney's latest attempted incarnation: that of the late Ronald Reagan.  Which is why the polls are still on Obama's side.

It's Game Over For Romney

Despite the fact that Romney was the best of a bad bunch running for president among the GOP candidates, and couldn't hold a candle to Barack Obama, he still had a shot at the presidency because of the sorry state of the U.S. economy.   Until Monday night, that is.

Monday night is when a leaked video displayed Romney's true colours -- yet again.

The man was caught on video declaring that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, that they basically sponge off the other 53%, and that they will vote for Obama because he'll keep the gravy train rolling for them.

This kind of statement is offensive and egregious on so many levels, especially coming from such a privileged man who grew up in a privileged family, and who scarcely knows what economic hardship is.   It hurts especially badly because this man has admitted to paying less income tax than most middle class Americans (what's left of them, anyway).

Romney has just thrown away the presidency.   It's game over for him.   What an idiot.