I hate politics and politicians! What have they done for you lately?
We need balance - not extremes. Our government is supposed to represent its citizens and "provide for the common good" - not focus on special interest groups that try to influence legislation and regulations that support their unique agenda. Libertarians have a lot of good points - such as smaller government - but not their extreme view of gun and drug "freedoms". Progressives also have some good points - such as social "protections" - but not the extreme views on abortion and gay "rights." Politicians often pay attention to irrelevant issues. Like when we are at war (2 or 3!) and have debt that our kids and grandkids will never be able to pay off, and 10% unemployment, etc., etc. What do they focus on? Trivial stuff - like when Congress considered banning shopping bags that are purchased to save plastic and paper bags - that were found to have some lead in them. Did anyone ever ask Congress to do something about the lead in the solder in your copper water pipes?
But we have a kind of system of government that, in the long term, seems to work. Some things are bad and some are good - about the "greatest democracy in the world." Winston Churchill once said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." The U.S. is considered by many to have an ideal model of democracy, but it is imperfect and democracy itself has its own inherent problems and limitations. Some things are necessary - like Defense, Environment, Health and Safety, Civil Rights, etc. - which we need to do right at the national level because they can't be done effectively at the individual or state level. The U.S. federal government's organization and processes are archaic and inefficient - but sometimes it seems to work - for example, the "Stimulus Package/Bill" in 2009 actually did help the country recover from a serious recession (despite some its shortcomings and problems). Others don't seem to work well or belong at the national level - like the unbelievably complex, convoluted and inequitable tax code (more on that separately).
There are lots of examples of stupid, unproductive, and irrelevant political actions. Here are just a few of my favorites:
• Earmarks - those projects for specific congressional districts or states that are funded by tacking them onto unrelated congressional bills in exchange for votes - so called "pork barrel." So, if you look at a major funding bill - that may be essential, such as the Defense Department budget - you will find hundreds of earmarks attached to it to fund a lot of strange, arcane, and sometimes useless projects (like the famous "bridge to nowhere" or local airports with almost no passengers, etc.). These projects may bring some federal money back to their districts, but they are in many, if not most cases, funding pet projects of political contributors. The individual requests in many cases are relatively small (at least by Washington standards) - perhaps a few $ million - but there are thousands of them every year. Collectively they can amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. And without a line item veto by Congress or the President, these projects get funded automatically when the major bill passes. How's that for representative government spending your money?
• Political Priorities - The Congress and the President are often involved in the absurdities and travesties of what they view as political priorities - at our expense. For example, pursuing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage while passing a law exempting gun manufacturers and dealers from all potential liabilities - including illegal sales to criminals! That's just screwed up!! Who thinks up this stuff - and who do they think they are representing?
• Gerrymandering - Our elected Congress works very hard to get re-elected - on our dime. From Wikipedia: "Gerrymandering is a practice of political corruption that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected, and neutral districts." With the manipulation of election districts, it is possible for minority parties to win a majority of districts in an election - or neutralize a strong district of a majority party. This is a process that is facilitated by the mandated re-assessment of congressional representation after every 10 year census - and it can neutralize your vote! There are no uniform electoral districts. Your representatives design the election districts to protect incumbents. For example:
o "In 2004, not one of California's 173 state legislative and federal congressional seats changed party-hands."
o "No House member from Tennessee ever lost a bid for re-election during 1980-2005."
Other developed countries have established processes for "defining constituency boundaries" by objective third-party organizations. But politics in the U.S. is not that progressive - so much for "one person, one vote."
• Subsidies - Our government, which we pay for, thanks to our politicians, provides substantial subsidies to some very profitable industries - at our expense. Here are a couple of examples:
Agriculture - Agriculture is obviously very important to an economy, so what is wrong with federal programs to support it? First, a few facts (from The Cato Institute): "The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year... More than 800,000 farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers... Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms. For example, the largest 10 percent of recipients have received 72 percent of all subsidy payments in recent years. Numerous large corporations and even some wealthy celebrities receive farm subsidies because they are the owners of farmland... In 2008, Congress overrode a presidential veto to enact farm legislation that extended existing supports and created new subsidy programs... The 2008 farm bill added a new sugar-to-ethanol program under which the government buys excess imported sugar that might put downward pressure on inflated domestic sugar prices. The program defends domestic sugar growers' 85 percent of the U.S. sugar market, and it provides for the government to sell excess sugar, at a loss if need be, to ethanol producers... Since 2000 the USDA has paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming." Agricultural subsidies in the U.S. comprise 11% of farm production.
So, why are subsidies to farmers bad? Simply, because they don't achieve the intended results. Most of the money goes to large, profitable farms and corporations. They can upset the natural balance between supply and demand - by facilitating over-production - which can unrealistically affect the prices of food commodities and farm land. "Perhaps the biggest scandal with regard to farm subsidies is that congressional agriculture committees are loaded with members who are active farmers and farmland owners. Those members have a direct financial stake whenever Congress votes to increase subsidies, which is an obvious conflict of interest."
Other countries have experimented with eliminating agricultural subsidies - with some success. New Zealand is one example. "New Zealand's farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought nonfarm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit... New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms."
Oil - The largest, most profitable industry in the U.S. - and worldwide - receives federal subsidies! Why?? Technically they are tax breaks, but only because of the way our Congress writes the rules and defines the terms. The subsidies/tax breaks to the U.S. oil industry amounts to about $4 billion each year. This includes a "depletion allowance" that treats oil reserves as capital equipment - in addition to very favorable terms for writing off exploration costs. But the major oil companies have been making more than 10 times that in profits each year. Do they really need incentives to explore for oil - when the world market price for oil has been in the neighborhood of 3-5 times the cost of production for decades? And what is the attitude of our politicians? - "we're only talking about four billion dollars."!!
• Social Security - One of my pet peeves has been the most sacred of all federal government programs. For over 70 years, Social Security has been "an insurance program for everyone". But up until 1984, government employees, including Members of Congress, did not pay into the Social Security program - when all of us "citizens" were required to by law. The Social Security program, which has been going broke for decades, was good enough for "the people", but not for the government employees and politicians who are supposed to be serving them. So now it is an example of how a political abuse can be fixed. However, the benefits for federal employees are still very attractive - and not typical of industry jobs. In addition to now participating in Social Security, federal employees have a defined benefit pension plan (which no longer exists in most of industry today) as well as a "Thrift Savings Plan" - the equivalent of a 401K plan - with up to a 5% match. Members of Congress are eligible for full pension at age 62 after only five years of service - and they are eligible at age 50 if they've served 20 years. So our "public servants" have more rewarding benefits than most taxpayers receive.
And there is more - much more!!
So, how can the "greatest country in the world" be so screwed up (at least at times)? I blame it on the politicians and the uninformed/uninterested electorate. Other countries must just be worse. Part of the problem is that the public is often not well informed - or just doesn't care. How do you communicate important political issues so that the general public really understands - the complete facts and truth? Most news and views are at too high a level (e.g., small "sound bites" - or talk show opinions) so that they leave either a limited or wrong impression. For example, issues like abortion and stem cell research are highly controversial and emotional and don't really get covered objectively.
Is there a solution? It would be nice if we could focus on real/important issues and attract intelligent, sincere people into politics. What kinds of people want to run for political office? - ego-centrics, power hungry, self promotional - are these the type of people we want to represent us?? Why would you trust a politician with your life and welfare? But that is what we have - at least in many cases. And what are the financial implications? How can really good political leaders afford to be politicians? Even with the elevated salaries and benefits for politicians (at least at the Congressional level), the cost of the life style in Washington, DC is far too expensive to be covered by federal payments. So, they must either be independently wealthy - or seek an opportunity to capitalize on their political position - either during or after their term in office. What would make a constituent think that their representative is working in their best interest?
I don't have a solution. That's why I hate politics and politicians.
We need balance - not extremes. Our government is supposed to represent its citizens and "provide for the common good" - not focus on special interest groups that try to influence legislation and regulations that support their unique agenda. Libertarians have a lot of good points - such as smaller government - but not their extreme view of gun and drug "freedoms". Progressives also have some good points - such as social "protections" - but not the extreme views on abortion and gay "rights." Politicians often pay attention to irrelevant issues. Like when we are at war (2 or 3!) and have debt that our kids and grandkids will never be able to pay off, and 10% unemployment, etc., etc. What do they focus on? Trivial stuff - like when Congress considered banning shopping bags that are purchased to save plastic and paper bags - that were found to have some lead in them. Did anyone ever ask Congress to do something about the lead in the solder in your copper water pipes?
But we have a kind of system of government that, in the long term, seems to work. Some things are bad and some are good - about the "greatest democracy in the world." Winston Churchill once said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." The U.S. is considered by many to have an ideal model of democracy, but it is imperfect and democracy itself has its own inherent problems and limitations. Some things are necessary - like Defense, Environment, Health and Safety, Civil Rights, etc. - which we need to do right at the national level because they can't be done effectively at the individual or state level. The U.S. federal government's organization and processes are archaic and inefficient - but sometimes it seems to work - for example, the "Stimulus Package/Bill" in 2009 actually did help the country recover from a serious recession (despite some its shortcomings and problems). Others don't seem to work well or belong at the national level - like the unbelievably complex, convoluted and inequitable tax code (more on that separately).
There are lots of examples of stupid, unproductive, and irrelevant political actions. Here are just a few of my favorites:
• Earmarks - those projects for specific congressional districts or states that are funded by tacking them onto unrelated congressional bills in exchange for votes - so called "pork barrel." So, if you look at a major funding bill - that may be essential, such as the Defense Department budget - you will find hundreds of earmarks attached to it to fund a lot of strange, arcane, and sometimes useless projects (like the famous "bridge to nowhere" or local airports with almost no passengers, etc.). These projects may bring some federal money back to their districts, but they are in many, if not most cases, funding pet projects of political contributors. The individual requests in many cases are relatively small (at least by Washington standards) - perhaps a few $ million - but there are thousands of them every year. Collectively they can amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. And without a line item veto by Congress or the President, these projects get funded automatically when the major bill passes. How's that for representative government spending your money?
• Political Priorities - The Congress and the President are often involved in the absurdities and travesties of what they view as political priorities - at our expense. For example, pursuing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage while passing a law exempting gun manufacturers and dealers from all potential liabilities - including illegal sales to criminals! That's just screwed up!! Who thinks up this stuff - and who do they think they are representing?
• Gerrymandering - Our elected Congress works very hard to get re-elected - on our dime. From Wikipedia: "Gerrymandering is a practice of political corruption that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected, and neutral districts." With the manipulation of election districts, it is possible for minority parties to win a majority of districts in an election - or neutralize a strong district of a majority party. This is a process that is facilitated by the mandated re-assessment of congressional representation after every 10 year census - and it can neutralize your vote! There are no uniform electoral districts. Your representatives design the election districts to protect incumbents. For example:
o "In 2004, not one of California's 173 state legislative and federal congressional seats changed party-hands."
o "No House member from Tennessee ever lost a bid for re-election during 1980-2005."
Other developed countries have established processes for "defining constituency boundaries" by objective third-party organizations. But politics in the U.S. is not that progressive - so much for "one person, one vote."
• Subsidies - Our government, which we pay for, thanks to our politicians, provides substantial subsidies to some very profitable industries - at our expense. Here are a couple of examples:
Agriculture - Agriculture is obviously very important to an economy, so what is wrong with federal programs to support it? First, a few facts (from The Cato Institute): "The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year... More than 800,000 farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers... Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms. For example, the largest 10 percent of recipients have received 72 percent of all subsidy payments in recent years. Numerous large corporations and even some wealthy celebrities receive farm subsidies because they are the owners of farmland... In 2008, Congress overrode a presidential veto to enact farm legislation that extended existing supports and created new subsidy programs... The 2008 farm bill added a new sugar-to-ethanol program under which the government buys excess imported sugar that might put downward pressure on inflated domestic sugar prices. The program defends domestic sugar growers' 85 percent of the U.S. sugar market, and it provides for the government to sell excess sugar, at a loss if need be, to ethanol producers... Since 2000 the USDA has paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming." Agricultural subsidies in the U.S. comprise 11% of farm production.
So, why are subsidies to farmers bad? Simply, because they don't achieve the intended results. Most of the money goes to large, profitable farms and corporations. They can upset the natural balance between supply and demand - by facilitating over-production - which can unrealistically affect the prices of food commodities and farm land. "Perhaps the biggest scandal with regard to farm subsidies is that congressional agriculture committees are loaded with members who are active farmers and farmland owners. Those members have a direct financial stake whenever Congress votes to increase subsidies, which is an obvious conflict of interest."
Other countries have experimented with eliminating agricultural subsidies - with some success. New Zealand is one example. "New Zealand's farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought nonfarm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit... New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms."
Oil - The largest, most profitable industry in the U.S. - and worldwide - receives federal subsidies! Why?? Technically they are tax breaks, but only because of the way our Congress writes the rules and defines the terms. The subsidies/tax breaks to the U.S. oil industry amounts to about $4 billion each year. This includes a "depletion allowance" that treats oil reserves as capital equipment - in addition to very favorable terms for writing off exploration costs. But the major oil companies have been making more than 10 times that in profits each year. Do they really need incentives to explore for oil - when the world market price for oil has been in the neighborhood of 3-5 times the cost of production for decades? And what is the attitude of our politicians? - "we're only talking about four billion dollars."!!
• Social Security - One of my pet peeves has been the most sacred of all federal government programs. For over 70 years, Social Security has been "an insurance program for everyone". But up until 1984, government employees, including Members of Congress, did not pay into the Social Security program - when all of us "citizens" were required to by law. The Social Security program, which has been going broke for decades, was good enough for "the people", but not for the government employees and politicians who are supposed to be serving them. So now it is an example of how a political abuse can be fixed. However, the benefits for federal employees are still very attractive - and not typical of industry jobs. In addition to now participating in Social Security, federal employees have a defined benefit pension plan (which no longer exists in most of industry today) as well as a "Thrift Savings Plan" - the equivalent of a 401K plan - with up to a 5% match. Members of Congress are eligible for full pension at age 62 after only five years of service - and they are eligible at age 50 if they've served 20 years. So our "public servants" have more rewarding benefits than most taxpayers receive.
And there is more - much more!!
So, how can the "greatest country in the world" be so screwed up (at least at times)? I blame it on the politicians and the uninformed/uninterested electorate. Other countries must just be worse. Part of the problem is that the public is often not well informed - or just doesn't care. How do you communicate important political issues so that the general public really understands - the complete facts and truth? Most news and views are at too high a level (e.g., small "sound bites" - or talk show opinions) so that they leave either a limited or wrong impression. For example, issues like abortion and stem cell research are highly controversial and emotional and don't really get covered objectively.
Is there a solution? It would be nice if we could focus on real/important issues and attract intelligent, sincere people into politics. What kinds of people want to run for political office? - ego-centrics, power hungry, self promotional - are these the type of people we want to represent us?? Why would you trust a politician with your life and welfare? But that is what we have - at least in many cases. And what are the financial implications? How can really good political leaders afford to be politicians? Even with the elevated salaries and benefits for politicians (at least at the Congressional level), the cost of the life style in Washington, DC is far too expensive to be covered by federal payments. So, they must either be independently wealthy - or seek an opportunity to capitalize on their political position - either during or after their term in office. What would make a constituent think that their representative is working in their best interest?
I don't have a solution. That's why I hate politics and politicians.
By Henry P Mitchell
