Getting Started

I have only barely begun reading Republic, Lost:  How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It by Laurence Lessig, and I am astonished at how the author’s understanding of the current political and economic problems is so much like my own.  I know I should finish the book before commenting, but I can’t wait.  Just from the Preface and Introduction (the only two parts I have read), I find echoes of what I have written in this blog and elsewhere. 

The first thing Lessig mentions in the Preface is the need for campaign finance and how crucial that is to the problems we face.  I couldn’t agree more.  In fact, I bought this book hoping that campaign finance reform would be a central issue.

In the Introduction, he begins by describing the national sense of despair and hopelessness.  I had taken note of that as well, and while I think his writing is clearer and more focused than my ramblings, the sentiment is the same.  His focus is on the Republic and governance, but there was a sentence that reminded me of a Photoshop image I made.  The quote is “We inherited an extraordinary estate.  On our watch, we have let it fall to ruin.”  My artwork, intended to metaphorically show what is happening to our government, entitled “Capitol Ruins”, looks like this:

He describes the gridlock and futility of attempting compromise, also a favorite subject of mine, one that is upsetting to a large number of Americans if we can judge by the recent polls on the approval rating of Congress at 11%, the lowest it has been since such measurements have been taken.  Lessig is much more sympathetic towards the people that are creating or perpetuating this gridlock, but I did at least express some understanding of how a person can be influenced without understanding that he or she has been influenced.

The influence of money, which lies at the heart of our discontent, and how that has come about and why it is non-partisan are subjects that I’m sure he will discuss in great detail in the subsequent chapters judging by the following quote:

“We have created an engine of influence that seeks not some particular strand of political or economic ideology, whether Marx or Hayek.  We have created instead an engine of influence that seeks simply to make those most connected rich.”

I have spent a great deal of effort on a subject that Lessig touches upon towards the end of the Preface, the lack of response of our government to the will of the people.  My solution, a National Poll, is probably impractical, perhaps even impossible, but the problem remains central to the issue of a lack of trust in government.  Measuring this Will has never been a priority, and our will has been replaced with the will of special interests.  Lessig presents this problem as one of two elements of corruption.

“This corruption has two elements, each of which feeds the other.  The first element is bad governance, which means simply that our government doesn’t track the expressed will of the people, whether on the Left or the Right.  Instead, the government tracks a different interest, one not directly affected by votes or voters.  Democracy, on this account, seems a show or a ruse; power rests elsewhere.”

Finally, at the very end of the Introduction, he uses a metaphor dear to my heart as a physician.  This is the metaphor that guided my choice of URL for my blog, prognosisforus.blogspot.com.

“The prognosis is not good.  The disease we face is not one that nations cure, or, at least, cure easily.”

The more that is written about the issues we face and proposals for resolving our problems, the better.  Despite my enthusiasm, I am still ignorant about much of the underlying history and the solutions being proposed, but I plan to educate myself.  Starting with this book, Republic, Lost.

Common Cause, Common Goal

The plethora of concerns of the people protesting around the United States and the world seems to confuse some commentators.  “What do they want?”  “They’re disorganized!”  As one blogger put it, “If you are still scratching your head trying to figure out Occupy Wall Street’s aim, you are not alone; the three-week-old movement has remained stubbornly resistant to stating clear demands.”

A closer look at the problems that concern them shows that, at some level, they all stem from a single source:  Money influence in politics.  That single realization also provides a pathway to solving the problems as well.

It would be natural to be skeptical of such a broad generalization, but I think that, for many, if not most, of their complaints, the comingling of money and politics is a major underlying factor if not the single factor that must be addressed in order to address the concerns of the 99%.

Consider a few of the issues mentioned on signs that you might see at one of the rallies.  I’ll start with some of the less obvious concerns.

1.    War protests

The burden for fighting the wars fall on the soldiers, and the benefits accrue to the corporations.  Government contractors, manufacturing interests and energy companies have a cozy relationship with politicians, and the Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about and the perpetual wars that Orwell warned us about have come to pass.  Our representatives take contributions from “the complex” and support their corporate boondoggles in return.  When John Boehner supported an engine program that the Pentagon wanted to have scrapped, the scheme was revealed in all of its ugliness, but the United States War Machine is vast and, well, complex.  Many think that resources spent on endless wars could be better spent helping Americans.

2.    Unemployment and wage stagnation

The factors driving wage stagnation and unemployment come from measures taken by corporations to enhance their profits.  These measures are encouraged by current policies of the government which acts favorably on behalf of their corporate sponsors.  With corporate and high end earnings skyrocketing and everyone else struggling to keep their job or find one, there is a sense that the money saved by reducing wages, reducing employment and employing overseas is being taken from the workers and given to the corporations who don’t need it.  They aren’t even using it.  It’s sitting in banks when it could have been used to improve the lives of their employees.  The attacks on unions by governors and representatives allow companies to unilaterally demand decreases in salaries and benefits, and the politicians are amply rewarded for their efforts.  If efforts to eliminate the minimum wage are successful, corporate domination of the political system will achieve a new low in government “for the people.”

3.     “Corporations are not people”

Mitt Romney famously stated that “Corporations are people too!” on the campaign trail.  The Supreme Court, with the support of the justices that have attended the luxurious affairs sponsored by the Koch brothers and others has given corporations unfettered ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to politicians who invariably return the “favor” with positions supportive of corporations and antagonistic to workers.  Special tax breaks for corporations effectively shovel money into the corporations while simultaneously leaving a deficit in the budgets that is made up by cutting programs that benefit real people.  Politicians give money to corporations that donate to politicians who then give more money to corporations – and that money comes from the workers.

4.     “Tax the Rich”

Tax breaks on capital gains and deductions for things that pertain only to the wealthiest 1%, combined with soaring incomes for the wealthiest Americans, leave the average citizen feeling that they are subsidizing the wealthy – and they are.  No one expects that the wealthiest should pay so much of their income that they would be poor or middle class, but with disposable incomes exceeding 6 figures there seems to be little reason to grant special tax breaks when they could easily afford to pay at least as much as the middle class.  Previous generations of wealthy have, in fact, paid a higher percentage of their income than the middle class.  The progressive income tax with its “tax brackets” has served us well for more than a generation, and the current system is essentially regressive.  Combined with a realization that giving money to the wealthy does not generate more jobs, the middle class is calling for a return of what has always been considered a fair tax schedule.  The politicians are resisting this because they get donations from those who benefit from a regressive tax.

There are many other causes that can be traced to a system that favors the wealthy over the rest of the country.  Foreclosures despite bailouts, the expectation that the debt accrued from the easy credit of the past will be paid while banks get a pass, and the privatization of the benefits of risky investments with socialization of the downside of risk all burden the “rest” of the country while freeing the wealthiest of responsibility are all possible because of the political system that takes money from those that are benefiting the most from these measures.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see signs about pollution or global warming since the companies that pollute are donating large amounts of money expecting, hoping for or demanding relaxation of pollution standards.  The EPA is under attack, and the citizens are in danger of losing protection against polluting industries.  The oil industry is fighting against “green” technologies and in many respects they appear to be winning, and that strikes many as shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating.

Even the “fringes” are expressing a basic feeling that runs across the political spectrum:  distrust of government.  A government that is unresponsive to the people and catering to the extremely wealthy is not worthy of trust.

There is one more thing. 

The genesis of the TEA party, and many of their concerns, have similarities to those of “Occupy Wall Street” despite the perversion of their message and the misdirection of their cause by the wealthy who have usurped their energy for their own benefit.  The bailouts in particular “tea-ed off” a lot of people who saw the government take their taxes and give them to the extremely wealthy – banks, corporations and individuals.

The ire was expressed against government, perhaps appropriately.  The solution that seemed to make sense was to take power from the government.  The wealthy took this movement and focused attention on government power through regulation.  Regulations that limit pollution, protect consumers from fraud and prevent risky investments with customers assets have nothing to do with bailouts.  Such regulations protect people from corporations and removing them allows corporations to circumvent safeguards and screw the citizens.  Unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare keep the jobless and elderly from being destitute.  The TEA party protesters message became confused with the interests of corporations, and the result is that the TEA party has been supporting measures that will, in the long run, harm them while increasing the bottom line for the corporations.  The TEA party congressmen have supported measures that would even eliminate minimum wage laws despite many in the TEA party that live on low wages.

How can one tell that the TEA party has been misdirected?  Just look at the donations for members of Congress that the TEA party supported.  Examine the measures supported by the Republicans and see how they affect people (real people) and how they affect corporations.  The final nail in the coffin for the grassroots members of the TEA party was to convince them that “what’s good for corporations is good for everyone.”  It is 180 degrees from “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” to a bill that effectively eliminates Medicare.

No one wants to see corporations disappear or even become unprofitable.  Neither should anyone (other than the extremely wealthy) want to see Congress and state government acting only in the interests of the corporations and against the interests of the citizens. 

Absent hyperpartisanship, there is common ground between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the TEA party.  Money in politics is something that both sides should agree is anathema to American democracy.  It is time to pull together instead of pulling apart. 

Fairness is an American value.  The current system isn’t fair.  The solution will need to address the unfair nature of the influence of big money in politics.

Now that we have cleared that up, let’s get to work.

Losing My Republic

I am going to buy a book.  The book is Republic, Lost by Laurence Lessig.  I am buying this book because it addresses an issue that I think is the most important problem threatening American democracy now and for the foreseeable future.

It may not be a threat, but a fait accompli.

Money and Politics should not be mingled to the extent that money becomes more influential than votes.  As it stands now, money is necessary to win elections, and only a few people (or corporations) have enough money to finance the increasingly expensive campaigns on every level of politics.  This is a reflection of the disparity of wealth in the United States, and it is at the heart of the protests ongoing called “Occupy Wall Street.”

I have looked long and hard for a key, some essential factor, in political finances that has both caused the problems we see and that would provide a path towards resolving the problems.  This key has proven elusive, but there may still be a way forward that will preserve our system of government.

Before considering solutions, I would like to discuss the nature and extent of the problem because it affects and infects everything in government.  Money has become a contagion that threatens the health of our country.

The consequences of dealing with a political system that is dependent on donations are not hard to recognize.  If a few people can make or break a politician’s career, then those few people will need to be catered to.  Their wishes will take precedence over any other concerns.  The stronger the politician’s advocacy of the issues of his donors and the more effective the legislative efforts to fulfill the desires of their donors, the more likely they are to receive donations for their reelection campaigns and the more likely they are to be able to raise money for other politicians (or their party).  Rigid political posturing is one result.  Gridlock.  Strategies to defeat their opponents take on a new intensity and compromise is tantamount to treason.  The Constitution and the rules in our legislatures have held the tools for obstruction from the beginning.  They are being used in novel ways now for purposes that were never envisioned by the people that crafted the documents and rules.

Our government is not made to withstand self-destructive or even suicidal legislative maneuvers, but filibuster rules, exclusionary rules, and even government shutdown threats are now almost commonplace.  Rigid adherence to dogmatic positions demanded by financiers have introduced a new rhetoric of inflexibility and resolve that makes compromise impossible and gridlock almost inevitable.

Many of the policies proposed and laws that have been contemplated are clearly intended to benefit the donors who are all, by definition, wealthy.  These policies have been divorced from the Will of the People and even from what would be best for the country by verbal contortionism.   Rich people have been redefined as “Job Creators” in order to entice those who are job seekers to vote for their interests while the majority of these wealthy people and corporations have no wish to create jobs.  Many don’t even have the ability to create jobs for anyone but their maids, butlers and gardeners. 

One might think that the vote would quickly quell any tendencies of politicians to enact legislation exclusively tailored to the wealthy, but the vote itself has been coopted by money – not by purchasing votes directly, but by the use of money to purchase advertising.  This advertising plays on our desires and fears, our prejudices and preconceptions, to present a narrative that is false but persuasive.

A lot of people are, by nature, conservative in the United States.  With a few rhetorical twists, these conservative people, who are not themselves wealthy or mean, cannot see anything wrong with increasing the taxes for the poor and elderly, keeping the “rabble” from voting, eliminating social safety nets for the jobless, poor, mentally disabled, elderly, homeless or hungry.  The money saved, they believe, could be better spent on tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations who would then, they believe, spend this windfall creating jobs.

The fact that this was tried with the tax cuts during the last decade with negligible job creation or business expansion does not seem to persuade them of the futility of this approach.  The plight of the less fortunate does not seem to matter to them since they are not homeless, poor or elderly and can not see the possibility that they may need such help themselves some day.

The reason this strategy has been effective despite the naked self-interest of the wealthy and the detriment of the average American, and indeed the country, is targeted advertising and biased political punditry.  If advertising were not so effective, people of average means would not vote for those who would take more from them to give to people and corporations that are overflowing with cash. 

But advertising is very effective, and advertisements are a commodity that can be purchased, which takes money, which drives the politicians to get more and more money, and so the monetary donations from the extremely wealthy open the door to politicians. There is a mutual attraction between politicians and donors, each seeking something from the other, each willing to give up something in exchange for their needs.

Corporations and the wealthy see their expenditures as investments.  Even small changes in their favor from a bill or tax incentive can mean a “profit” several times the amount of their donation. 

Politicians, on the other hand, have only their votes, their principles, their dignity and honor to offer in exchange for money.

In a way, I can understand how a politician might not even realize that his or her political views have been influenced by money.  I would think that it would be hard to live with the knowledge that one is harming the country and its people for personal gain otherwise.  Sinclair Lewis wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

There is another relatively unsavory aspect to this.  Politicians don’t have very large salaries.  Even with the perquisites of office, from travel to fame to health insurance and retirement, the salaries are, at best, “modest” with respect to the donors.  And yet most politicians, and particularly those with connections to those of great wealth, manage to leave office with their finances greatly improved.  The methods are not always obvious, and even when there are obvious methods of reimbursement (like hiring by a company), there is never any contract that delineated the specific actions the politician was to have performed to receive the reward.  That would be illegal.

Many would like to blame the Supreme Court for their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  While this is a big part of the problem and helps to augment and perpetuate it, it is not the source of the problem.  Still, by allowing unlimited donations from people and corporations, the ruling enables the wealthy to “buy” influence.  Money talks.  Even to Supreme Court justices.  And that is sad.

Many would blame the Wall Street brokers that wreaked havoc on finances and then “socialized” their debts by taking money from the Federal Government, but that is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  We do need a financial system that functions.  Their influence doesn’t stop with “bailouts” though.  They seek complete deregulation in order to continue to take unprecedented risks or charge extraordinary fees or even defraud consumers with impunity.  Still, this isn’t the source of the problem.

Digging deep into the stinking pile of sewage and refuse, we can start to make out the key to the problem.  It is a simple thing, but crucial to the influence of money in politics.  It is the success of advertising and orchestrated punditry that can make people vote against their own interests and for the interests of those that have only their self-interest at “heart.”  The advertisers and pundits are just “doing their jobs” when they sell their talents at influence.  If their speech were not influential, their services would not be in demand, but in large part it is their talents that transform money into votes.  That is the engine behind the influence of money in politics.  The only other possibility would be transfer of wealth to the candidates themselves.  But that would be illegal…

Unfortunately, knowing that does not suggest a solution.  It isn’t possible to make advertising less influential in changing the opinion of the public.  A solution must be fair and democratic.  It must eliminate the undue influence of moneyed interests and favor the broad interests of the constituents. 

One solution is campaign finance reform.

The cynic in me can see that the extremely wealthy and corporations will fight tooth and nail to prevent meaningful campaign finance reform with every trick in the book, and every legislator that is bought and paid for by these interests will try to jam the works to prevent this, even if it means that the country ceases to exist.  Previous efforts at campaign finance have been rendered ineffective.  Future efforts will be blocked. 

If there is no way to change the way our government works, then our republic is indeed lost.

But I’ll buy the book, and I will read it, and I will continue to hope that the solution will find a way, but I can say that the American People will need to see through the advertising that distorts the truth, but that may only happen when it’s too late.

The extent to which people can be led to vote against their interests, or even to accept a bad solution to a problem, by advertising creating a false vision of reality reminds me of the movie “The Matrix.”  There is a truth; there is a reality.  Seeing it will require a vision that can recognize when one is being manipulated, and that is hard when we have convinced ourselves that we are not, and cannot be, manipulated.

We need a Red Pill.

There are modern historical precedents that illustrate the use of effective advertising, also known as propaganda, to persuade people that the desires of the few will satisfy the needs of the many.  These examples illustrate propaganda playing on the patriotism, prejudices and preconceptions of the people while simultaneously crushing their hopes and dreams.  Knowledge of these precedents is not helpful however because the very words that describe such political movements have been corrupted, and each side will accuse the other of using the same methods.  Both sides can cry “Extremism!” “Fascist!” “Racist!” or “Fooled!” and in the moment it may be impossible to recognize the truth. 

George Orwell saw the dangers of propaganda and the corruption of words by authoritarians, and he expressed those dangers (as well as many other concerns) in his book 1984.  What we see today isn’t what he described, but rather the prequel, the forward, the preface. 

To borrow from T.S. Elliot, this is how the Republic ends, not with a bang of drums or guns, but with a whimper of surrender to the power of money.

A Loss of Will

Does anyone else have a sense of national hopelessness?  It seems we have lost our will to, as Barack Obama put it, "do big things."  For that matter, it seems that we have lost the will to do anything.

The list of things we can't seem to do grows almost daily, although to be honest, the list is not universally agreed upon.  Can we explore space?  No shuttles, renting space from the Russians, abandoning planned missions, postponing others indefinitely, and some wonder if there is even a place for NASA in our future.  Want a satellite?  Build and launch it yourself.

Welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, homeless shelters and unemployment insurance are being slowly defunded or dismantled even as more and more Americans are in need of this kind of assistance.

Even the major safety nets for our elderly are under attack in ways that would leave millions of the elderly destitute.

For all the talk about "crumbling infrastructure", there is little effort to actually engage in major public works programs that would be required to even maintain the infrastructure we have in place now, much less build new systems of transportation.

Public education, which has enabled us to compete in the world's economy, create medical breakthroughs, and create innovations that can transform the future is withering on the vine.  Decreased funding federally and by states leaves major institutions unable to fulfill their educational responsibilities, and the dearth of financing trickles down to local school districts that are not only laying off educators, but allowing the literal disintegration of the schools.

There are even indices of hopelessness that show this.  "Consumer confidence" and "manufacturing confidence" mirror "economic uncertainty."  Measures of inventory, purchases, capitalization and other similar measures of economic activity all seem to be lagging, and our trade deficit continues to climb.  The big number that everyone knows is the "unemployment index" which everyone seems to acknowledge is improving so slowly that some think that if we are not in a recession, we might be close to one.

Perhaps the picture is even bleaker than this.  One blogger wrote, "The bottom line is that it's not "uncertainty" that's causing these problems at all. Precisely the opposite: banks aren't lending because, while they don't dare admit it, they are quite certain that they are fucked."

And it appears that the jobs are not coming back; at least the ones that have been shipped overseas or replaced with automation.

On top of that, our credit has been downgraded.  This is perhaps a meaningless gesture, and it certainly hasn't hurt bond purchases, but psychologically it is devastating.

Of course, there is good reason to think that we cannot afford to fix things, or do things, or buy things.  We are borrowing 44 cents on every dollar that our government spends.  Not only does that not inspire confidence, it suggests that we are living beyond our means, and we can't afford all of the "extras" of civilization, like clean water, breathable air, a functioning electrical grid, streets that don't have potholes, sewage, police, firemen or teachers.

If we don't fix the aqueducts, they will stop functioning.  If we don't repair the buildings, they will crumble.  If we don't clean up after fires, tornadoes or earthquakes, we lose everything damaged. 

How do we dig ourselves out of this economic and psychological rut?  Keynesian economists think government spending is the answer to stimulate the economy.  Conservatives think that tax breaks for the rich are the answer. 

Personally, I think that government spending is like beating a dying horse.  The effects are short-lasting, and everyone knows that it can’t go on forever, so we don’t take any measures for the long term based on the temporary uplift offered by a government stimulus or work program.  This is especially true as we attempt to deal with a growing debt and deficits that are alarming in themselves.  Tax breaks for the rich are already proven to be ineffective because the rich simply put the money away for a rainy day that they can tell is coming.

No, it will take something drastic.  I am neither a government employee nor an economist, but I do read.  It seems we need jobs.  We need them here in the United States. 

It can be done but it will take a literal “act of Congress” to move the country in the direction of employing US citizens.  Tariffs are not the answer, but incentives and disincentives are.

For the time being, it looks like we have curled up against the cold winter.  This provides a temporary respite, but we can’t avoid freezing to death by simply curling up.  The cold is paralyzing, and we don’t have long before we will be unable to act, but we will have to take risks again, as a nation and as individuals.  

We either get moving, or we die.

A House Divided

We have a house divided against itself.  Disagreements on policy may be commonplace, but the level of animosity and the strategies being used in the struggle for control of this country are harmful, and unnecessarily so.

Although it makes a good story to call both parties equally responsible, it should be clear that the party known for saying “No” deserves it’s reputation.  They have vowed to pass no major legislation, and they are doing what they threatened.  Their actions have deliberately blocked trade agreements, appointments to the executive branch, and infrastructure projects.

By keeping the United States from doing things that both parties agree need to be done, the Republicans have harmed the economy of the United States.  It is no coincidence that their intransigence and the difficulty they have in achieving compromise has contributed to the recent downgrade of the credit of US Treasury debt.

Just one example is necessary, but there are numerous others.  The best example is the recent standoff regarding raising the debt ceiling.  Both parties agreed that it was necessary (except for some Republicans that refused to understand that the reason for raising the debt ceiling is to pay the debts that Congress has already authorized), but the Republicans decided to use the debt ceiling as “leverage” to accomplish their political agenda.

In order to do this, it was necessary to threaten not to raise the debt ceiling and cause the Treasury to not be able to pay all of the obligations that this country has.  Is there any doubt that the refusal was because of the Republicans?  No, and this was clearly stated by the Standard and Poors in their statement regarding lowering our credit rating.

“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.”

And they have said that, given the opportunity, they will do it again.  Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said this about the actions and intent of his own party:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming.”

“Taking the country’s debt limit hostage” is not just a metaphor, it is a description that fits, and McConnell has embraced.

From the debt-ceiling crisis, to the FAA shutdown, to the refusal to vote on appointments to executive branch departments, and the efforts to make enforcement of the laws passed by Congress impossible, the Republican Party has adopted a policy of intransigence.  We have had trade agreements with several countries, South Korea, Columbia and Panama, that the Republicans have attached strings to in order to pass.  Even the Heritage Foundation has objected to this tactic for these agreements.

“The Obama Administration—after allowing U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to languish unapproved for nearly four years—lately appears eager to push Congress to ratify all three soon. The problem now is that some in Congress are trying to make their approval contingent upon an extension of the Trade Adjustment Act (TAA).
 That would be a mistake. The three FTAs are intrinsically worth passing without any strings. Congress should act on them without further delay.”

Domestic projects that could at least stabilize the job market are also languishing because Republicans refuse to consider them or seek to defund them.  Their whole agenda has been to do nothing about anything, or to undo things that have already passed.  They are earning their reputation as a “do-nothing congress.”

As a strategy, it has been effective.  It is a morally bankrupt strategy however.  When there are things that both parties agree in principle could be done to help the economy, but one party (lest anyone forget, the Republican Party) steadfastly refuses to do (and takes steps to deliberately block), that party is clearly acting not only irresponsibly, but contrary to the best interests of the United States.  And they know it.

It is therefore not surprising that Standard & Poors chose to downgrade the credit of the United States regardless of the ability to pay the outstanding debts owed.  Whether it was the right thing to do is another question, and, according to Robert Reich, they got it wrong.

“If we pay our bills, we're a good credit risk. If we don't, or aren't likely to, we're a bad credit risk. When, how, and by how much we bring down the long term debt -- or, more accurately, the ratio of debt to GDP -- is none of S&P's business.”

When there is legitimate concern about whether a policy will be beneficial or harmful, virtually any strategy might be condoned – even obstructionism – but when there is uniform agreement regarding the necessity of legislation, legislation that must pass or legislation that will clearly assist the function of government, it is insanity to block said legislation or to even threaten to vote against it solely for political gain.

Republicans have been relatively transparent about their ultimate political goals, but we must question their methods.  Is the goal of the Republican Party to damage the economy in the hope that a damaged economy will assist in the defeat of President Obama in the next election?

That would be beyond the pale. Self-inflicted wounds should not risk economic suicide.  It is pure insanity. 

This democracy can certainly withstand political shenanigans when the stakes are high, but there should be some common sense involved.  If the results of political brinksmanship are harmful to the economy, it’s time to stop and reassess the risks and benefits.  Congress should be united in their efforts to improve the economy if both sides are already in agreement that a particular measure will be helpful. 

The economy has had enough problems without having Congress poking holes in our delicate boat.  Staying afloat should be the first priority even if steering the boat is the ambition of both parties.

In my humble opinion, changes in how congress operates are necessary, and these changes have been necessitated by the actions (and inactions) of the Republican Party.  It’s time to take the knives away from the minority party (be they Democrats or Republicans) before they injure the institution of government itself.

Failing that, we can only hope that the serious threats currently faced by the economy will be addressed seriously and logically.  If politician says “I will not compromise”, he or she should be placed in a metaphorical penalty box for the remainder of his or her term in office.