This week's papers and blogosphere are all abuzz with the findings of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) led by Lee Hamilton and James Baker. While the group's evaluation of the Bush Administration's performance and recommendations for an Iraq exit strategy are certainly newsworthy, what has us buzzing is its bi-partisan composition -- 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans. It has us thinking about other critical issues that would benefit from bipartisan cooperation.
Although the Bush Administration has put up a defiant front in the face of the ISG findings, we’d like to take a minute to applaud the effort of folks reaching across the aisle to address the critical issues facing America today. The ISG demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans can put aside party politics to provide hard-hitting analysis and pragmatic solutions on a most critical and divisive issue. Now, some critics may argue that the ISG consists of high-profile has-beens who don't have as much political capital to lose by telling it like it is, but these men and one woman (that's worthy of another blog!) have, for the most part, invested their careers in service not only to America but their political parties. These are not people who take party allegiance lightly. If they can transcend political party to unanimously approve recommendations on Iraq, then others - at all levels of public service - can certainly do the same to tackle critical issues.
What issues do you think would benefit from a bi-partisan approach and who should lead such efforts? Ruth Marcus, a Washington Post columnist, recently proposed a Clinton-McCain commission to address Social Security. Who would be on your dream team to tackle Social Security, health care reform or other pressing issues?
Subscribe
Have you heard the one about the Yuppie who shows up in a BMW in the middle of a pasture, pulls up a satellite image and tells a shephard exactly how many sheep he has - then tries to take a lamb as payment for his "services"?
The Shephard says: "You must be a consultant. You turned up here although nobody called you. You want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked, and you don't know anything about my business.... Now give me back my dog."
My point is that we already HAVE a bi-partisan body of people who we ELECT to make decisions for us - and are supposed to be ACCOUNTABLE to us for their actions - it's called CONGRESS!!! Having to appoint panels to solve the nation's urgent problems is a tacit admission that our money-corrupted system DOESN'T WORK! It's depressing.
"Bi-partisan panels" are also a lot like consultants in that they just come in and write a report about what management wanted to do, anyway.
At best, panels are band-aids on a hemorrhaging political system.
I agree with you wholeheartedly... I was feebly trying to make this point (that the systems in place are not working) on another topic...
The fact that we need to utilize other avenues to get things done because of the current systems are so bogged down by partisanship is indicative of a major problem. I agree that initatives and referendums are out of control, but my point is that if the system worked properly we wouldn't need to utilize them in the first place.
It is depressing Erik, I agree!
-Keely
I think the whole idea of referendums to set policy is totally against the intent of the consitution... however, it does provide a way of registering public opinion. If we can find a way to employ current technology (like this) to document and organize these same opinions, we provide a voice outside the ballot box to communicate to our politicians in some structured fashion. Writing letters is the old-fashioned way and doesn't get at those who are less than fanatical about their cause. Then again there are hired "pollsters" who I think are supposed to provide this kind of feedback to the politicians.... what am I missing?
Mziethlow,
Intrigued by your Constitutional question, I have started a National Referenda topic on the "Campaign Reform" forum.
I agree with you that such an idea wouldn't be in line with the Founders' thinking about who can/should vote. They set it up so only white male land owners could vote, and even they couldn't directly elect their own U.S. Senator - that was given to each state legislature to decide.
However, that has now changed. Another thing that has changed is mass media and the Big Money it brings to politics - and how that money is shutting out everyday Americans. The Constitution is a "living document" so that it may keep up with the broad changes in our society.
In that spirit, I'd like to invite you and others to join the discussion over there. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Cheers,
Erik
"...My point is that we already HAVE a bi-partisan body of people who we ELECT to make decisions for us - and are supposed to be ACCOUNTABLE to us for their actions - it's called CONGRESS!!! Having to appoint panels to solve the nation's urgent problems is a tacit admission that our money-corrupted system DOESN'T WORK! It's depressing."
Here here.
Trombone Erik: All I can say is I can't say no more, you nailed it.
A Schooner Independent
The transformation is upon us. No longer look backwards and listen. The real truth is trillions upon trillions will be saved and spent on social security, feeding and caring for the needy as well as higher education will now be based on need and not earnings or eligibility ever again... For it is this Modern Progressive movement that now knows it is time to burn down the institutions of bureaucracy and replace them with secure video conferencing, send the politicians home for national security reasons and finally provide human services at no charge to all citizens... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
For more polices visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
There are cases where such "Commissions" can give political cover and inform to grease the skids for Congess and the President compromise. The Greenspan Commission in Ms Marcus Post article pointed on the Social Security compromise in the 80s is an excellent point in case. Congress was totally incapable jump starting temporary resolution of that issue. That worked for 20 years at least. These "Third Rail" issues such as Iraq and Entitlements might need Commissions to jump start (not overrwrite mind you) the whole process. The biggest deficit in this town of DC is Political Courage and until we get a whole lot more of that we will continue to rely on these "Commissions" to frame the issue beyond the political partisan palp and provide some decent implementable alternatives. Not my first choice. But given the alternative of kicking the can down the road on these looming Nation-Buster issues coming down the pike and continued sad Congressional abdication of resposibility, accountability, and lack of political courage then I'm just fine with it.
In theory Trombone Erik is absolutely right. In the real world of a gutless Congress John's take on commissions will have to do for the real gut wrenchers. It's sad, but the real world often is.
A Schooner Independent
I dislike study groups, I didn't vote for them, indeed no one did!! The individuals we elect should do their jobs. Why else have them?
I dislike overreliance on Study Groups also, and should only be referred to in the pinch. The elected officials can take their recommends or leave them ultimately. The elected are ultimately the ones who need to be held responsible/accountable by the electorate. So there is no harm in such Commissions to me if not over used. They have, can, and do provide some insightful implementable valid options(not tinged by Lobbyist/PAC/Party blinders and money)for the electorate and the elected. As with all recommends by outside groups they must and should be carefully examined and taken with a grain of salt, but maybe salt is what we need to get the train on the tracks and the show on the road!! It is still up to the elected to engineer the train if they are responsible. It's up to the electorate to vote them out if they are not!.
Apologies for my grumpiness on my earlier post. I am generally an optimist (and a realist) who will look for "safety valves" and would much rather go over, around and even under a brick wall rather than repeatedly running head-long into it... (Also, apologies to consultants in general - I know most of you do valuable work!! - outside of K-street - HA!).
But the results of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) clinched it for me on the ineffectiveness of "Bi-partisan panels." While Iraq is a dire situation, and there is no "silver bullet" out there, the group produced a pandering political report that completely ignored the security realities on the ground. General after General - even the retired ones - I've heard interviewed have said that the ISG plan will NOT work on the ground. Using U.S. troop withdrawal as a "lever" to incent the Iraqi's to "get their act together" is like trying to pry mud out of a puddle. The study group's solution is politically palatable to the public and the new Congress, but does not even "study" real solutions that actually work - it's really a continuation of the same failed strategy that has been used over the last 4 years.
I have always had a huge amount of respect for Jim Baker, but this report was a turkey.
***
So - in search of another safety valve to get politically difficult things done at the national level (domestic stuff - not military or foreign policy!), I propose the following:
National Referenda - (analogous to the voter initiatives used in many states right now.)
And my first issue would be:
Public Campaign Financing for Congress Critters.
This is not a panacea because - as California demonstrated with Prop 89 - BIG MONEY can and WILL influence the outcome of these proposals thru TV ads that confuse and turn off voters. But citizens have a new public education weapon: The Internet - which also uses vehicles like Unity '08 and MoveOn.org. Since our nation's situation is so dire right now, I'm willing to risk it. We might not even succeed on the first try - but maybe on the 2nd or 3rd try.
***
I'm through with the institution of the Bi-partisan Panel. It's just like the wood-grain stuff you tack up on your wall - a cheesy imitation that only covers up the real problems.
I like the idea of national referenda but I suspect that these will be used by the monied power brokers. A national referenda should have rules as to information and misinformation passing. Unless and untill we provide some liability for telling lies and spreading misinformation to voters, it will continue. Paying for the disemination of misinformation is nothing less than election tampering and should be prosecuted as such.
I am sick and tired of lies and misinformation that is put out there. To many on both the left and right, it seems to be one big game to see who can tell the biggest whopper and make people believe it. These same people have the attitude that people with other opinions are "the enemy" and therefore anything goes. I am not sure what happened to sanity, but I think the road back to a rational and reasonable discourse is to require honesty in regards to information.
A fight on the ground is a waste of money and life as we are outnumbered in huge ways. If we stay and fight it must be with destructive force from the air. It is time to get it done and I'm sure the military advisors will tell the president. As this rediculous policy of not removing the women and children from these areas is about to end so that we can isolate the enemy by removing the human shields that are preventing us from victory. For this policy will immediately turn the tide in Iraq, Palestine and around the world. - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
For more polices visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Social Security terms we need to understand before we debate the issue.
1. Entitlement a program Congress will decide who and when a person receives government support. Congress can award or take away benefits as it see’s fit.
2. Social Security is not an insurance or pension plan, it is an entitlement.
3. Unified Budget. In 1965 President Johnson wanted to fight a war, build the Great Society and not raise taxes. He asked congress to put all the tax money into one fund, the general fund, he unified the budget.
4. Trust Funds Congress establishes trust funds where certain tax goes to pay for one function or one program. Example 6.2% tax of all wages from
first $1.00 to $97,500.00 from employee matched 6.2% by the employer go to the
Social Security Trust Fund. Medicare is 1.45% tax on all wages, no cap, matched
1.45% by the employer goes to the Medicare Trust Fund.
5. Non Marketable government securities are IOU’s the Federal Governments puts in the trust funds as it sweeps the cash out of every month, and spends the cash.
6. Public Held Debt is Federal Bonds, Notes, and Bills, held by Central Banks, Pension Funds, Individuals, University Endowments, State, and Local Governments.
7. The total debt of the US Government is $8.3 trillion dollars. $4.15 trillion is public held debt and $4.15trillion is non marketable securities, held in federal trust funds and federal pensions.
8. Debt Ceiling, Congress sets a limit on how much the US Treasury can borrow.
When the treasury goes over that amount, Congress must vote to approve higher debt levels. The trust funds hold debt that has been voted on, when S.S. wants to cash in the IOU’s it owns, it will convert to” real debt” and not have to ask Congress to raise the debt ceiling.
9. President Roosevelt started Social Security in Aug 1935.
It would have been better to have a national pension, because politicians can not think in terms of 50 and 75 years, the money would not be part of the Federal Budget.
10. If we changed to a national pension the average reciptant would have an income 3
4 times what they get today and have to right to leave an inheritance. If you combine the SS Tax and Medicare Tax it equals 15.30%. For a person who makes $25,000 per year, the payroll tax is $3825.00 for 49 years. All 18 years old today, will work until 67 to get full benefits. The money earns 5.75% in Government
Bonds, per year, no stocks, they will have a total of $1 million dollars.
The power of compounding over long periods of time will make you rich.
This idea would start for someone who is not born, or is not over 15. We must get the Baby Boomers out of the picture before we do this! All money would stay in the Social Security Fund until 67 and then you would be issued a 33 year annuity policy. You spend for drugs, senior citizen home, travel what ever you want. If you do not live to 100 you can leave balance of the annuity to who ever you want!
11. We will have a higher savings rate as a nation.
12. We are debasing the US Dollar because there are to many dollars in the world.
13. We have a model, Colo. PERA. The state did not join Social Security and it’s Public Employees Retirement Association invests real dollars, and teachers, judge
Highway Patrol etc. draw livable pensions
The big question is how to pay for a generation of Americans who are in the private fund and those in the public fund.
There will be a need for some kind of tax increase and fewer benefits for the baby boomers to receive a check for the next 25 years. I would have a means test, why should Bill Gates get Social Security. Small gas tax of 5 cents a gallon per year increase will hurt the poor the most but change peoples ways on gas consumption. After the baby boomers are out of the picture SS goes back in surplus and the money goes to a real pension fund.
There are assets the federal government can turn over to the SS Pension Fund.
There is 147 million ounce of gold at Ft Knox at $650 an ounce = $96 billion.
There is an equal amount of gold at the US Mints, Federal Reserve Banks,
and the US Treasury. Sell gold for good of the pension. TVA, US Postal Service,
Federal Lease on Ski areas, oil gas overrides on Federal Lands, could all be source of funds for the SS Pension. Privatize them; give the stock and sale of stock to SS Fund.
I would make the Federal Government get its house in order by passing an amendment to the constitution requiring a balance budget other than war time and national emergency.
Congress will not cut spending to start a SS Pension fund, but it will never be a reality if we do not have balanced budgets, Congress will always want the money from SS Fund.
I would let all funds earned and paid out, be tax free. At the end of ones life I would let your heirs inherit 50% of the balance in each persons annuity account. The remainder 50% would go back into the SS Fund as your share of income tax.
The age of SS has been raised to 67 to receive full benefits. I would drop the 62 year option for early retirement and make 65 early retirements. People live longer they will have to work longer to get their benefits.
The nation’s savings rate is very low; our balance of trade deficits grows worse every year. The nations of the world are starting to diversify their central bank reserves away from the dollar. And thus a falling value of the dollar. The world’s central banks own so much of our national debt the standard of living of the USA will decline as more and more dollars are required to service our debt held abroad.
A national Social Security Pension Plan can solve these problum’s.
People in public life cannot think in terms of 75 years, to remove Social Security form the Federal Budget is the only way to change our pension.