Why Congress Doesn’t Work: Undermining Self-government

This article makes a lot of sense. Can we citizens work together to regain local control of politics despite our different policy views?

Why Congress Doesn’t Work: Undermining Self-government

Government Bailouts - Iceland's Approach

I saw this article posted on facebook a few days ago and thought that Iceland's approach to ending the recession mirrored my own opinion. So, take what you can from this. The link to the site from where the article was posted is at the bottom of the article.

Iceland got over the recession fast—by jailing the banksters, and bailing out the people

From Jack Gordon:

The current manufactured “financial crisis,” which goes under several names (e.g., “fiscal cliff”) is nothing but wild derivatives casino gambing by the elite, using your 401K, your mortgage, and your pension, after they’ve slyly re-structured financial “laws” so that they take all the winnings from the casino gambling and you take their losses. Ergo, all the “debt” we owe is phony. Period. It’s a beautiful system for the elite as long as the people allow it. Well the people of Iceland reversed it. Turned it around. As the article below says, Iceland made the “creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses.” Gee. You’d think this would be huge news. Why aren’t we hearing anything about Iceland from the MSM? Gee, take a guess why. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/top-economists-iceland-did-it-right-everyone-else-is-doing-it-wrong.html Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right … And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong Posted on August 25, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog Iceland Shows the Way Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz notes: What Iceland did was right. It would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes: What [Iceland's recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses. Krugman also says: A funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver. Krugman is right. Letting the banks go bust – instead of perpetually bailing them out – is the right way to go. We’ve previously noted: Iceland told the banks to pound sand. And Iceland’s economy is doing much better than virtually all of the countries which have let the banks push them around. Bloomberg reports: Iceland holds some key lessons for nations trying to survive bailouts after the island’s approach to its rescue led to a “surprisingly” strong recovery, the International Monetary Fund’s mission chief to the country said. Iceland’s commitment to its program, a decision to push losses on to bondholders instead of taxpayers and the safeguarding of a welfare system that shielded the unemployed from penury helped propel the nation from collapse toward recovery, according to the Washington-based fund. *** Iceland refused to protect creditors in its banks, which failed in 2008 after their debts bloated to 10 times the size of the economy. The IMF’s point about bondholders is an important one: the failure to force a haircut on the bondholders is dooming the U.S. and Europe to economic doldrums. The IMF notes: [The] decision not to make taxpayers liable for bank losses was right, economists say. In other words, as IMF put it: Key to Iceland’s recovery was [a] program [which] sought to ensure that the restructuring of the banks would not require Icelandic taxpayers to shoulder excessive private sector losses. Icenews points out: Experts continue to praise Iceland’s recovery success after the country’s bank bailouts of 2008. Unlike the US and several countries in the eurozone, Iceland allowed its banking system to fail in the global economic downturn and put the burden on the industry’s creditors rather than taxpayers. *** The rebound continues to wow officials, including International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, who recently referred to the Icelandic recovery as “impressive”. And experts continue to reiterate that European officials should look to Iceland for lessons regarding austerity measures and similar issues. Barry Ritholtz noted last year: Rather than bailout the banks — Iceland could not have done so even if they wanted to — they guaranteed deposits (the way our FDIC does), and let the normal capitalistic process of failure run its course. They are now much much better for it than the countries like the US and Ireland who did not. Bloomberg pointed out February 2011: Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product. *** “Iceland did the right thing … creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.” Ireland guaranteed all the liabilities of its banks when they ran into trouble and has been injecting capital — 46 billion euros ($64 billion) so far — to prop them up. That brought the country to the brink of ruin, forcing it to accept a rescue package from the European Union in December. *** Countries with larger banking systems can follow Iceland’s example, says Adriaan van der Knaap, a managing director at UBS AG. “It wouldn’t upset the financial system,” says Van der Knaap, who has advised Iceland’s bank resolution committees. *** Arni Pall Arnason, 44, Iceland’s minister of economic affairs, says the decision to make debt holders share the pain saved the country’s future. “If we’d guaranteed all the banks’ liabilities, we’d be in the same situation as Ireland,” says Arnason, whose Social Democratic Alliance was a junior coalition partner in the Haarde government. *** “In the beginning, banks and other financial institutions in Europe were telling us, ‘Never again will we lend to you,’” Einarsdottir says. “Then it was 10 years, then 5. Now they say they might soon be ready to lend again.” And Iceland’s prosecution of white collar fraud played a big part in its recovery: [The U.S. and Europe have thwarted white collar fraud investigations ... let alone prosecutions.] On the other hand, Iceland has prosecuted the fraudster bank heads (and here and here) and their former prime minister, and their economy is recovering nicely … because trust is being restored in the financial system.   http://markcrispinmiller.com/2012/12/34714/

Why I'm Anti Government Bailouts

As we headed into recession during our recent economic crisis several banks went "bankrupt" and had to close their doors. The economy was so bad that many large banks and corporations needed government loans to help stave off financial failure. Here's a list. 

Adding to the crisis were looming balloon mortage payments for millions of Americans. For decades financial institutions offered risky loans to marginally qualified individuals seeking to purchase a home. Because of the balloon payments and the economic crisis many of these homeowners lost their homes. Short sales and foreclosures abounded; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae tottered.

Then the government thought they should do something to help stave off the economic disaster. So, what did they do? They helped the banks and other corporations and let the small-time homeowners to flounder by themselves.

Part of the money given to the banks was to be invested in new loans to prop up businesses and to foster new growth. Some of the money could have been used to give relief to the beleaguered homeowners. What did the banks do? They deposited the money in their vaults and sat on it.

The banks used the government's money to earn interest so that they could get out of the red. Then they paid back the loans to the government without ever using the money to benefit anyone but themselves.

So, the banks are fine, but business still is slow to recover, and the creation of new jobs is even slower. What about the homeowners facing foreclosure? Only several months later did anyone in Washington try to help them out.

Now, the goverenment could have taken a completely different approach in the beginning of the crisis. The government could have given the money to the beleaguered homeowners, who then would have paid their mortages to the banks, thus, stemming the bleeding by the top financial institutions.

But, once again, our government "of the people, by the people, and FOR the people" caters to the rich and powerful at the expense of the average worker.

And, that's why I am against Government Bailouts

5 Reasons Why I Am Pro-Labor

1.      I Grew Up in a Working Class Neighborhood

I grew up in a large northern rust-belt city. My father worked as a pipefitter for the railroad, my friends’ dads worked for the steel mills and in the auto industry. About 80% of the parents of my high school classmates were blue-collar workers.

 Thanks to unionization and collective bargaining these workers were able to live the American Dream by making payments on mortgages and purchasing late model cars. One by one the houses in my working class neighborhood began sprouting television antennae.

 2.      Working Class People are Heavily Invested in their Communities

These workers coach youth sports teams, lend muscle on community projects, and continually deposit money in the emergency needs jars found at convenience stores and elsewhere. They volunteer for EMT and Fire Department duty. Their volunteerism includes local churches and community groups, such as the Lions and Kiwanis.

 3.      I Believe in Collective Bargaining

Through union lobbying and government regulations the work week was lowered from 12 hour days/6 days a week to 8 hour days/5 days a week. Pension funds were established to help retired workers subsist. Through OSHA dangerous and unsanitary working conditions diminished.
 
One has only to read about the nineteenth century robber barons or the living conditions of the meat packing plant workers in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” to understand the many positive contributions of unionization and collective bargaining for the American worker. It seems that Big Business rarely establishes wages, benefits, and working conditions in the interest of its workers. But, business seems much more interested in the bottom line, the percentage of profit, and its stockholders.

 So, it seems that I am pro-union. In spite of the fact that we still don’t know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, I am. Unions provide protection for the individual worker against abuses of the employer. Unions require the employer to abide by the negotiated contract when good will breaks down.

 4.      Capitalists Constantly Attack Workers Salaries & Benefits

The only voices advocating abolishing unions are capitalists. Often they disdain the worker as lazy. Some suggest that workers start their own businesses if they want to bring home more income.  And we are supposed to emulate these people?

I find it even more disturbing that republican led state governments, such as Wisconsin, are also attacking public service employees unions. Their employees are the ones that make state offices and agencies run. Isn’t this policy short-sighted at the least?

 5.      Working Class & Lower Middle Income Families Comprise 60% of American Society

Working class Americans and those from the lower middle class comprise 60-65% of society. Their household income is $75,000 or less. However, they are the largest segment of society. Look at the Dennis (2002) and Thompson & Hickey (2005) models in the Wikipedia article "American Middle Class".

When the US was a manufacturing economy these workers were invaluable to Big Business. Now, it’s this group that suffers the largest number of job cuts and has the hardest time finding new positions with roughly the same wage and benefits packages.

Because working class and lower middle income comprise over 60% of the economy, because their wages are not rising at the level of inflation, and because proposed tax plans don’t favor them, they feel particularly squeezed.

 

Both state and federal governments need to provide relief for working class and lower middle income families and not place the burden of subsidizing government programs on their backs.

 

Why I Am A Centrist

Having just voted in the United States Presidential Election and having viewed countless hours of grating political ads and having viewed countless political ads by facebook friends I'm just fed up!

I feel like the democratic party has been captured by liberal activists and wants the federal government to financially support any and all minorities and special interest groups.

I feel like the republican party has been captured by the capitalists who only want the government to free them from paying any taxes, and limit government benefits in order to raise their bottom line.

Neither party is willing to work with the other to actually accomplish any meaningful legislation that takes all Americans into account. If the democrats are in power they enact some new social legislation sure to benefit the lower class at the expense of the middle class, and if the republicans are in power they enact legislation that benefits big business and their own pockets.

In all of this maneuvering, both parties lose sight of the reason they were elected--to represent the interests of their constituents, not the lobbyists.

Unfortunately, I find that even state legislatures have become equally divisive and that they often enact legislation that benefits utilities and insurance companies while forgetting about the citizens' economic situations.

Now, I find that I agree with some--not all--of the democrat's social agenda, and I agree with some--not all--of the republican's economic agenda. I favor the libertarian's smaller, less intrusive government, and agree with the statist's use of limited government regulation of industry.

My leadership style also fits well with centrism as I am a consensus builder, recognizing good points on both sides of issues and seeking for the common ground. I also value history and established procedures, so I don't jump at every new idea and want to hold on to that which has proved helpful and useful.

I think government works best when the various law makers can work together to solve a problem, rather than stubbornly insisting on following their own (or their lobbyists) interests and ideologies. we used to call this STATESMANSHIP. It is this kind of working relationship that created the US Consitution.

I believe the best answers, and the best hope for our nation, is at the political center, and so, That's Why I Am A Centrist.

Rules for Craftsmen

by David Brooks

Published: October 15, 2012 

Voters have been astonishingly clear. In 2000, they elected George W. Bush after he promised to change the tone in Washington. In 2008, they elected Barack Obama after he promised to move the country beyond stale partisan debates. In this year’s first presidential debate, surveys show that viewers loved Mitt Romney’s talk of professionalism and bipartisanship.

In other words, primary campaigns are won by the candidate who can most convincingly champion the party’s agenda, but general election campaigns are won by the candidate who can most plausibly fix the political system. So let’s think carefully about what sort of leader it would take to break through the partisan dysfunction and make Washington work.

First, it doesn’t take moderation. It’s important to distinguish between moderation and pragmatism. Ted Kennedy was nobody’s definition of a moderate, yet he had the ability to craft large and effective compromises on issues ranging from immigration to education and health care.

Second, the governing craftsman has to have a dual consciousness. He has to be able to distinguish between a campaign consciousness and a governing consciousness. The campaign consciousness involves simplifying your own positions, exaggerating your opponent’s weaknesses and magnifying the differences between your relative positions. In governing mode, you have to do the reverse of all these things.

Third, it does require the ability to count. The governing craftsman has to be able to know how many votes each side possesses. He has to avoid the narcissistic question: What do I want? He has to ask instead: Given this correlation of forces, what is the landscape offering me?

Fourth, the craftsman has to avoid the trap of thinking that right makes right. He has to avoid saying to himself: My position is objectively the correct one. Therefore, all I have to do is get the facts out there, win the debate and then I’ll get everything I want.

The craftsman has to accept the hard reality that the other side also believes these things. It is extremely unlikely that one side will convince the other, or the country. The craftsman can hope for some final ideological victory, but he can’t realistically expect one.

Fifth, the craftsman has to distinguish between existential issues and business issues. Winston Churchill would have made a terrible mistake if he had compromised with the appeasers. On the other hand, Dan Rostenkowski and Robert Packwood were absolutely right to compromise to get the tax reform of 1986 passed.

The craftsman has to understand that in the middle of the fight almost every issue will feel like an existential issue, though, in reality, 98 percent of legislative conflicts are business issues.

Sixth, the craftsman has to be able to read a calendar. It is psychically painful to move away from your heartfelt position. It is easier to say to yourself: I can’t get what I want now, but, if I just wait, I’ll win the next election and get everything after that. Participants in the Middle East peace process do this: They postpone their dreams while maximizing their demands.

The craftsman has to understand that these distant fantasies almost never come true. It is usually better to make a small step next month than do nothing in hopes of a total victory next generation.

Seventh, the craftsman has to be socially promiscuous. Deal-making is about friendship. The craftsman has to work on relationships all day every day. It’s not enough to talk to your adversaries in negotiations. You have to talk to them when nothing is happening. You have to talk to them when they are up, when they are down. You have to celebrate their anniversaries and birthdays.

Eighth, the craftsman has to betray his side. It is relatively easy to cut a deal with the leader of the other party. It is really hard to sell that deal to the rigid people in your own party. Therefore, the craftsman has to enter into a conspiracy with the other party’s leader in order to manipulate the party bases. The leaders have to invent stories so that each base thinks it has won.

Ninth, the craftsman has to understand that stylistic pragmatism has to be accompanied by substance pragmatism. Barack Obama really wanted to move beyond stale battle lines. But he offered a conventional Democratic agenda. If you want to break the partisan stagnation, you have to come up with an unexpected policy agenda that will scramble the categories. You have to mix proposals from columns A and B.

Finally, a craftsman has to be tough inside and soft outside. It hurts to cede ground. The craftsman has to be gritty enough to endure the pain that always accompanies compromise, yet sensitive enough to recognize and sympathize with the other party’s pain.

Voters are right to demand craftsmanship, given the brutal trade-offs that loom ahead. But, boy, it’s hard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/brooks-rules-for-craftsmen.html?_r=0

Name Some Centrist Candidates

I don't endorse any of the candidates in the linked article, I just thought we ought to have an idea of possible choices.  Discuss and Disagree.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/opinion/avlon-centrist-candidates/index.html