El Cerdo Ignatius, a blogger I admire immensely, called me to task for my political rant of yesterday. He is an avowed conservative who I respect not just for his attitudes about Life in general, but believe it or not, his political views also. I will admit that my rant was chock full of pent up emotion finally being spewed onto the uncaring world. But his comments made me pause. He fell into the trap so many of us fall into and made assumptions based on no evidence found in the post. I do not fault him for this, he normally is way more measured. I am guilty of making assumptions also and should allow most anyone some slack when it comes to making assumptions about me. I chose to not correct many of his assumptions because well, it just doesn't matter. Political differences do not go away by pointing out the mistaken assumptions of others. Political differences disappear only when both sides agree or one caves to the other. It would seem that in today's super charged political arena, caving is not an option for politicians and for politically opinionated boneheads such as myself. I often have said that I am willing to listen to reason and have actually changed my mind when the right argument came along. And it has happened. But sitting here after reading ELC's comments, I realize that I have become dug in when certain topics are discussed or argued. I am as unwilling to alter my view as it appears the opposing side is unwilling to alter their view. I can only imagine this type of attitude is even more pronounced in the halls of all the law making institutions around this nation. It would seem that the first knee jerk response for everyone now is to say no when the other side says yes.
We are so set on the idea of "they" being wrong and "we" being right, there seems to be no room for "us" and "them" to even think of coming to an agreement. It is as if we want to fight for the sake of the fight rather than winning the fight or resolving it in a manner that mollifies both sides. Anything short of beating the other side to a bloody pulp is a hollow victory.
This no quarter mentality in DC has to change. Both sides need to bury the hard feelings. It is imperative if we expect reasonable and well thought out strategies with which to bring us back from this economic chasm we find ourselves in.
This idea that politics has now become all about the fight and not about the solutions is one of my unshakable opinions that has developed from watching the process for 40 plus years. I am also positive who owns much of the blame for what we have today. I blame the Republicans for turning what used to be a somewhat civilized and consensus ending process into the knock down drag out take no prisoners atmosphere where a solution is almost accidental and often surprises everyone involved. Yes , the Democrats bought into it. But it has been the Republicans who have led the way.
The fact they want to continue this way is understandable. After all it worked for 28 years. What I find amusing is the Right seems to not understand how to handle being on the receiving side of the type of politics they developed and honed to the level of today's acrimonious charged political culture. They are reaping what they sowed and not handling it very well. And because they have no plan other than the same tired policies that helped set the table for this current mess, all they seem able to come up with is obstructing the process.
Take for instance, our man from Texas, Senator Cronyn. Depending on who is evaluating his performance, he is either the new standard bearer for all the God fearing Republicans, or he is a party hack who also happens to be an idiot. I lean away from deifying him but stop short of calling him an idiot. A party hack is probably close. Works for me anyway. His continued obstructionist crap during the appointment hearings for Sec/State and Attorney General are classic partisan stupidity 101. Get in the way just to get in the way. He contends that he was not being obstructionist because he eventually voted for Hillary, but only after holding up the appointment for a day so she could hold his hand and answer questions that did not change from the answers she had already given.
El Cerdo asked me why was it wrong for a republican to oppose Obama's plan. As I told him in my response in the comment box, it is not wrong. I would expect it. But if the Republicans expect me to take them seriously here, they need to offer up counter plans that are not based on failed policies of the past. Our current economic woes are way beyond having tax cuts alone resolve them. And don't even bring up deregulation again for a very long time. But these are the types of strategies or variations of the same old themes I see popping up as some of their alternatives. More of the same that got us where we are now is not going to do it. You don't pound your head on the wall for the hundredth time and hope this time for a different result.
Our goals should be short term and long term. Our plans should take both into account. For too many years both sides have only dealt with short term solutions to long term and long building problems. Basing solutions on election cycles and not looking beyond them is counter productive to creating a healthy society down the road. And because our leadership has lived on short term solutions for these problems that have been building for decades, we find ourselves in dire need of both types of solutions now. If we only look to resolve short term than this nightmare will be back sooner than later. We also need to address long term solutions as soon as possible. And I don't see the Republicans looking beyond the pages of their own bankbooks.
8 comments:
You're certainly prolific these days. After todays vote on the stimulus package with not a single Republican vote in the House, I'd say your last sentence is a safe bet.
Another excellent post!
I'm not sure the Republicans have ever looked much past the pages of their own bankbooks, or in the case of some of today's Republicans, beyond the pages of their own holy books.
We all make assumptions, and in the aftermath of eight years of political Hades, we might be more inclined to make assumptions than usual. Maybe not, who knows.
But I definitely agree with you about it being too much about the fight and not about solutions. This is why I am also frustrated and angered by the complete refusal of the Republican House members to offer any support. Sure the Dems may have never offered much support to Bush, but was Bush a new president or starting a new term under such dire circumstances as Obama faces now? The GOP would play the "9-11" card in regard to 2004, but the key words there are "playing" and "card".
The country needs help. I know there are some things I would rather see the stimulus monies doing than what they are maybe going to do, but I think Obama is generally on the right track. The unwillingness of any House Republican to support Obama this time suggests little more to me than a sore-loser syndrome. They're mad because they lost the election, mad because they have nobody in their party with as much charisma as Obama has in his little finger, and mad because he has a mandate. And they are afraid of becoming marginalized in their current configuration, afraid of Obama being successful and making the Democratic party stronger, and afraid they will have to retool their message and their whole party.
And when they are mad and afraid? Well, we saw what happened with to the Clintons and we had to see it in the news every day for most of Bill's eight years in office.
Tsk, tsk.
The Republicans got into the position they are now in the old fashioned way... they earned it.
Would it were that they could find themselves willing to give Obama at least the shadow of the benefit of a doubt, but no... the fight is much more important to them right now.
He fell into the trap so many of us fall into and made assumptions based on no evidence found in the post. I do not fault him for this, he normally is way more measured. I am guilty of making assumptions also and should allow most anyone some slack when it comes to making assumptions about me. I chose to not correct many of his assumptions because well, it just doesn't matter.
And from the comments section of your previous post: El Cerdo Ignatius - First of all you make assumptions not in evidence. I mention neither support nor opposition to Obama's recent plan. My complaint is that instead of giving the nation a new look, the Republicans are continuing to posture and chest thump like bad school children. They want to oppose the plan, fine. I am not so keen on it from what I know of it. The plan is not the issue. It is the manner of engagement I hate to see.
I will take you at your word when you state that you are objecting in much greater degree to the Republicans' attitude than to their opposition to the Obama economic stimulus plan. And while it is true I may be usually more measured, I really don't think you can fault me too much for making this assumption based on the subject of your post and the way you wrote it.
I believed you were taking issue with the Republicans' opposition to the Obama stimulus plan for the following reasons:
- The purpose of the president's meeting with the Republican congressional leaders, as both the President and the Republican leaders have described it, was the discussion of the plan.
- You wrote [Obama] ignored the slap in the face of the two leading Republicans publicly coming out against his plan before he even had a chance to pitch it in person. I suppose I should have paid more attention to the "slap" comment than to the fact that two leading Republicans had come out against the plan. Obviously it was the manner in which they came out that was more objectionable, because that is what you are saying now. But as you wrote it, I don't think I was off-base in interpreting that their opposition per se was objectionable to you.
- You wrote Man up and do what you were sent there to do, govern the country. Not push your party's agenda. My reading of "govern" and "agenda" intones legislative and executive action based on policy, not attitude or whining.
Anyway, Crum, I take your criticism thoughtfully and I agree that a more careful reading of it should have led me to ask the question as to whether it was the opposition to the stimulus or the attitude on display to which you were reacting. But I don't think you can say my assumptions were based on "no evidence" found in the post.
Anyway, I'll shut up now and next time I'll be sure to flush you out entirely with clarifying questions before I rebut.
But if the Republicans expect me to take them seriously here, they need to offer up counter plans that are not based on failed policies of the past. Our current economic woes are way beyond having tax cuts alone resolve them. And don't even bring up deregulation again for a very long time. But these are the types of strategies or variations of the same old themes I see popping up as some of their alternatives. More of the same that got us where we are now is not going to do it. You don't pound your head on the wall for the hundredth time and hope this time for a different result.
I agree that we shouldn't be looking for more of the same. If you want my honest assessment ... listening for reaction ... [CRICKETS CHIRPING] ... well, whatever - here it is - I support neither party's plan. What got us here was a combination of factors:
- Government overspending during the Bush years, leading to unnecessary deficits and increasing the national debt.
- Consumer overspending since 1980, leading to unjustifiably high levels of consumer debt.
- Improper regulation of the financial sector. Please notice I didn't say "deregulation". The financial sector is regulated out the ying-yang, but the problem is not so much that there is too much regulation, but that the system is a hodge-podge of rules that permitted the mortgage and banking crises to occur. There were many problems, but if three of these could have been foreseen (which wouldn't have take a rocket scientist, if you know what I mean), then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now: 1) Debt instruments (like bundled packages of mortgages) were permitted to be re-sold again and again to the extent that it was difficult to quantify their risks; 2) Initiatives taken under the Clinton administration and accelerated during the Bush administration permitted under-qualified borrowers to take out mortgages without assuming enough of the risk (because they had little or no equity) - the US taxpayer assumed the entire risk; 3) the Securities and Exchange Commission permitted, starting in 2004, five large Wall Street firms to overleverage their capital (meaning they permitted them to carry much more debt than the amount of capital in reserve suggested they should. For approximately 30 years, broker firms were permitted to carry debt up to not more than 12 times the amount of net capital held by the firm. The exemption given in 2004 to the five biggest firms permitted ratios of up to 40 to 1. Want to hear which five firms? Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Now, count how many are still in business.
- Too easy credit (i.e., too cheap) caused by the monetary policy of the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks of western countries.
What is the over-arching theme here? It is the four-letter word known as DEBT. If everyone, including the government, borrows until their eyes bug out, who is left to lend to them? The capital has to come from somewhere. Once everyone is up to their eyes in debt, there is insufficient capital to fund it.
And that's where we are now.
That's why I hold the Republicans responsible for much of the current mess, and that's also why I do not support the Obama plan. If the USA incurs more debt AND prints more money, it will be like throwing gasoline on a burning fire. I know to some extent it is counterintuitive, because the feeling is that people don't have enough money, so why shouldn't the government provide more? Well, my worry is that the Obama plan shall lead to very serious inflation.
Do you want to see mortgage rates increase, perhaps double? Bring on some inflation. Do you want to see your retirement savings shrivel? Bring on inflation. Do you want to have a harder time making ends meet? Bring on inflation. Do you want to see the banking sector lose more money? Bring on inflation. Do you wish to see the private sector's ability to create and provide capital, which creates jobs and provides taxes to all levels of government, hamstrung for years? Bring on more government spending, and bring on some inflation.
Over $700 billion has already been thrown on the fire. Can you understand why I think it's a bad idea to add $815 billion more?
I certainly see no hope in more wasteful tax rebates that only end up off shore quickly.
There are two ways for rebates to end up "off shore": recipients save them, and hold the money off shore, or they spend it on imported crap.
But getting back to the point, you did say you thought hearing an alternative plan is in order. MY plan, if I were dictator, would include the following single change in the income tax system: I would mash the second and third tax bracket together at a rate of 15%. And that's it. It would be designed to put money in the pockets of the middle class. There would be no adjustment of any tax brackets for taxable income higher than $82,000. My plan would include the hard and fast rule that every securities brokerage hold to a debt-to-net capital ratio of 11-to-1 or less. No exceptions. Any representative from any brokerage, no matter how large, coming to see the dictator to request an exemption would dangled perilously over a pit of crocodiles for 48 hours. My plan would kill no down payment mortgages - the minimum equity requirement would be 7.5%. My plan would prohibit the resale of bundled mortgages to third parties. My plan would include a path to a balanced budget within four years. My plan would include a suggestion to the several states that they make financial management education mandatory in high school. My plan would include federally-sponsored radio and TV ads encouraging people to save money regularly and to minimize the carrying of credit card debt.
You make an interesting point about deregulation. I saw it written a few months ago - not sure by whom, but it may have been Ben Stein - that deregulation was an intelligent move to a point, beyond which the only possibility, knowing human nature, was calamity. I have to agree.
Anyway, forgive me again for rambling, but I did wish to illustrate to you and to the other commenters here that opposition to Obama's stimulus plan can be rooted in principle, and that the repeated imperative that "WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!" is a dangerous path itself. For too long, Americans and others in the West have lived beyond their means, and this stimulus package is, at best, only going to put off the day of reckoning. Better to emerge slowly from this recession and to weather the hardship now, because the alternative is a more severe crash later, and greater hardship in the long run.
If we only look to resolve short term than this nightmare will be back sooner than later. We also need to address long term solutions as soon as possible.
Exactly. Couldn't agree more.
I have to disagree with all that El writes. The deregulation started with Reagan and was put in high gear with Bush and Co. Even the agencies that were responsible for overseeing this mess had their budgets cut. The FBI who was looking into the mortgage mess were cut and the remaining agents were told to focus on national security.
I personally have seen what the republicans do every time they take office. Rules either tend to be removed or overlooked when it comes to business. Like Obama said during the campaign. If there's a problem the republican approach is to say too bad you're on your own. A company dumps toxic waste in the river or ocean and it's too bad we'll pay a small fine and leave the mess for somebody else to clean up.
As for the current economic mess it should have been addressed years ago but the FBI was told to look the other way by their director. There was fraud in the mortgage markets and the FBI knew it.
So here we are in a house with a burst pipe. Would you have us just sit here until the first floor fills up with water and we all die? You can't work on the long term problem until the present emergency is fixed. The only alternative would be to let the entire system collapse. And I know none of us wants that.
As per the usual republican approach is tax cuts for business. What good would that do when business income is down? 25% of nothing is still nothing. Nor would it create jobs.
You also don't seem to understand the it doesn't matter if you were one of the ones who borrowed foolishly or not. This situation will take us all down if something isn't done post haste.
Demeur: So here we are in a house with a burst pipe. Would you have us just sit here until the first floor fills up with water and we all die? You can't work on the long term problem until the present emergency is fixed. The only alternative would be to let the entire system collapse. And I know none of us wants that.
I think it's clear by now that I disagree with analogies like these and with the premise that without a second, massive intervention in the form of $815 billion in new borrowing, the entire system is going to collapse. I don't want that either, but I'm not going to repeat my reasoning. It's there in my previous comments and I still believe it. To use the burst pipe analogy, I believe that staying on the course of massively increasing government spending and the money supply is going to make the inflow of water worse, and make it tougher to eventually get it all cleaned up.
You also don't seem to understand the it doesn't matter if you were one of the ones who borrowed foolishly or not. This situation will take us all down if something isn't done post haste.
Why would you draw this conclusion? Of course I understand that the current situation affects everyone. I was simply offering the reasons I think the situation came about. And I'll repeat just this point: I do not agree that we are near a catastrophic collapse without massive government intervention. I respect the fact that you disagree.
As for the deregulation issue, I agree that it started with Reagan, but that does not change my point one bit about the mortgage market being thrown open by additional deregulation about ten years ago. Nor does it change my point about the non-regulation of derivative instruments. Clinton took a pass on regulating it, but I cannot fault him terribly for it, because it was completely uncharted territory in the 1990s, and besides, the SEC should have acted on its own. And I acknowledge that the Bush administration ignored the derivatives market, too. I get that. But all this talk about "the Republican approach" being responsible for the whole mess sounds like oversimplification.
Oh, well - the world would be a boring place if we all agreed.
I very much admire your ability to see both sides, and still land on the right (Left) side.
The polarization of politics reached a fever pitch under "I'm a uniter, not a divider" G.W. Bush. In the Old Days, there was more respect from both sides. Barry Goldwater, as Right as they come, had friendly relations with all the Democrats, and that was the norm then.
All politics are bullshit, that is why this country is failing, if I had the bombs I would take this country over and be the monarch.
Mankind isn't mature enough to govern itself, this is just further proof of it.
On the bright side it's 53 degrees and the sun is shining, it's pretty damn nice out.
And I'm getting excited about some inventing again. I suppose that if I ever do anything to help better the world it will be with some invention.
Post a Comment