What Are They Thinking?

The prudent inquiry, in all cases, ought surely to be, not so much FROM WHOM the advice comes, as whether the advice be GOOD. - James Madison, Federalist 40

Amidst all of the pressing issues which Congress must address, it would appear that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are more interested in staking out their campaign territory many months before mid-term elections. In moves designed only to galvanize their base, each has chosen once again to put their own interests ahead of those of the country. Nowhere was this display of such poor character more evident than in the Democrats cheering over the failure to reform Social Security during the State of The Union address this year.

Following last year's SotU address, President Bush called on Congress to form a bipartisan commission tasked with proposing ideas to reform Social Security. One of those ideas was to create personal retirement accounts. Rather than approach the task like responsible adults, Congressional Democrats immediately chose to intentionally mislead the American public by continuously referring to the idea as “privatization of Social Security” and tossing about with malice the claim that such a move would result in a $10 Trillion (yes, with a “T”) in unfunded obligations. That disingenuous pandering to the AARP crowd succeeded in derailing any meaningful dialog on the subject.

Social Security and other socialist entitlement programs already account for the lion's share of federal expenditures. As President Bush noted in his SotU address this year, with the retirement of Baby Boomers these entitlement programs will grow to over 60% of the total federal outlays in the coming years. Outside of the fact that this level of spending is unsustainable is the fact that there already are nearly $5 Trillion (same “T”) in unfunded obligations which the government cannot pay now. The same Democrats who scared the Boomers into rejecting outright a debate on the merits of individual accounts have yet to explain just how they intend to pay for an already broken system.

As I explained in a previous posting (“Social Security – A Radical Proposal,” June 2005), the gap in funding comes from the fact that the federal government has been taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund for years. The Trust Fund was created at a time when payroll tax revenue far exceeded the monthly payments for Social Security. Congress, unfortunately, saw this bank account as a virtual free-for-all to pay for whatever pet projects happened to cross their eye-space. Both parties have seemingly taken an “it's not my fault” attitude towards reigning in this voracious appetite for spending our money. The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, there is no way to pay for Social Security as it exists today. Since it is not my intent to discuss Social Security here, I will dedicate a future article to expand on my “Radical Proposal” idea.

The Republicans this year have not comported themselves much better. Against the backdrop of a $6 Trillion budget, the Congress managed to eliminate a whopping $27 Billion in pork. They then proceeded to congratulate themselves on “cutting spending.” That amounts to 0.45% of the total government spending for next year. To put this in perspective, imagine if you will someone who makes $50K per year. If he were to increase his savings by that same 0.45%, he would save an additional $225. That is about $4 per week, or the cost of one gourmet coffee at his favorite establishment. What a remarkable success for the Republican Party.

Even more egregious, however, was their ridiculous attempt to defraud the American public by “cutting” earmarks for “specific” projects, while still allocating the money to the state or municipality where the project was to take place. Clever usage and word smithing aside, these “cuts” did not save the taxpayer any money. When questioned by the Democrats about such tricks, the Republicans promptly responded with attacks on the Democrat's penchant for attempting to socialize programs that were historically the responsibility of the States or individuals. Once again, rational discourse fell before the powerful force of sound bite politics and electioneering.

Even the President got in on the act during this year's SotU address. He applauded Congress on the fact that they reduced the rate of increase in federal spending. This statement was greeted by a standing ovation from the Republicans. They actually believe that there is some merit in increasing spending at lower rate. The party of small government has become the party of an increasing at a decreasing rate government.

Both sides talk about bipartisan measures to fix the problems facing this country. As admirable as that is, when push comes to shove, each side thinks it is the sole depository of the correct answers. This (non)approach to legislation works great when the main goal of a Congress critter is to be re-elected in his artificially engineered district, but fails miserably when the goal of Congress is, as Constitutionally mandated, to improve the general welfare. And although SCOTUS has consistently ruled since 1912 that Congress is to decide what qualifies as “general” and what does not (in other words, the clause is non-justiciable), there is nothing stopping Congress from construing the clause narrowly, as was intended by the Founding Fathers.

Strict adherence to traditional party-line positions is a barrier to effective government. Both sides need to recognize that good ideas can come from either party. The order of the day, however, is to use a system of rewards and punishments in order to keep members toeing the line. Statements and positions meant to appeal to the “core supporters” or the “base” of a party seek not to educate Americans on the issues and a potential range of solutions, but rather to keep them dutifully lined up with their $250 donation checks. Little critical business gets done and the problems continue to exist, providing fodder for both parties at the next election cycle. The only effect is to create a self-sustaining system of ineffective government.

This is not a problem inherent in a two-party system. It is an effect both of the complacency we as voters have with respect to our elected officials and voting rules that require registration in one party or another. Voters ought to choose a candidate from a particular party because on balance that party's principles align with their own thinking. This should not preclude someone from voting for someone from the other party who happens to have a good idea on fixing an issue that is important to the individual voter. This also should not preclude either party in Congress from debating in good faith the ideas of other party members rather than rejecting them out of hand simply because the ideas came from the other side of the aisle.

It's not rocket science. We must demand better of our elected officials. When an employee does not meet the expectations of the job, companies have a choice - they can fire the employee or they can implement a plan to raise his performance. We, the employers of the United States Congress ought to do the same.