Morning Fog

Should Our Government Be Topplable?

Just lately we've seen that even to get the President's nominees for his cabinet -- eminently qualified nominees like Chuck Hagel -- may be difficult because of political objections.  This is symptomatic of the political situation we find ourselves in.  It's pretty well established, I think, that extreme partisanship has made our government almost, if not entirely, unworkable. 

I "credit" Newt Gingrich in particular for having decided, in the 1990s, that unforgiving partisanship should be the new order of the day.  He knew not what he wrought. 

We in the U.S. have generally, until recently, prided ourselves on political pragmatism.  We have effectively a two-party system, but that always tended to work because each member of Congress was first and foremost an individual, a thinker-for-himself, so that our leaders could build consensus across party lines. 

It seems now that we have abandoned that tradition, so my modest suggestion is that in order to restore functionality to our government, we need to switch to a parliamentary form of government, such as they possess in the United Kingdom (whose political system we are fond of admiring) and in many other far-flung lands.   In such a government, as we know, one party holds the reins of legislation and when they can't make headway, the government falls, and a new one must be formed. 

Maybe we could eliminate the logjam if our "government" (more often referred to here in the U.S. as the "administration") could be toppled if it failed to deliver.

How could such a wrenching change be effectuated?  Well, that requires a bit of thought.  No harm in thinking about it!

NASA's "Earth As Art"

If your local paper has not alerted you, as mine did me, to the book of photographs taken from space that's just been published by NASA, you owe it to yourself to have a look.  They are absolutely stunning.  The physical book itself will cost you $44 plus; but on the NASA website you can see the photos, or even download a free pdf of the entire book plus an iPad app for it.  Amazing!

 

 

Hagel For Defense

Today's news is that Obama will nominate former Senator Charles Hagel as Secretary of Defense.   Before that nomination could be formally made, however, also came the news that many Republicans in the Senate plan to object to the nomination.  One said he "couldn't imagine" himself voting to confirm Hagel; another, that the nomination was a "slap in the face" to pro-Israeli Senators. 

The objections seem to arise from several different sources:  First, that Hagel was nominated by Obama, and anything Obama does is "a slap in the face" to certain diehards.  Second, that Hagel has voiced doubts in the past about some elements of what Israel believes U.S. policy toward Israel should be, while most Republicans have fully bought into (or been bought into) that construct.  Third, that Hagel, who has served in the military, has suggested the military budget could be cut.  Fourth, that Hagel is a Republican who has committed the contemporary political sin of thinking for himself rather than blindly espousing the party line.

This is standard political posturing, to some degree, and both parties play the same petty game in approving candidates for cabinet positions.   But I always wonder what thought process (if any) goes into such gripes about a nominee's expressed views that may happen to differ from what some in the Senate think.   After all, it should be assumed that any nominee for a cabinet position is likely to hold views different from those of the opposition party.  And god forbid a cabinet member should have demonstrated the capability of independent thought and analysis!   In the end, his views really don't matter, since he will ultimately be expected faithfully to implement his President's directives (if they differ).

As for the objections stemming from Hagel's Republican Party dis-orthodoxy, these have some implications for our system of government which I'll discuss in a future post.

Personally, I'd prefer the President not nominate Hagel, because I believe nominating Republicans for this position in a Democratic administration simply reinforces the false perception that "Democrats don't do defense."  The Democratic Party needs to build its own base of competent, knowledgeable defense experts who may be called upon.  But once he is nominated, the Senate's role is to judge his abilities to perform the duties, not his policy opinions.

 

Surprising Facts About Government "Entitlements"

It's easy to buy into the conventional wisdom we're hearing these days about Medicare and Social Security, i.e., that we have to make changes before these funds "go broke."   I have done so myself, on this weblog, suggesting that in our late-December political tussle over the fiscal cliff, Democrats needed to be more prepared to countenance fixes to these large government programs.

James Surowiecki of The New Yorker, who I have found can often be counted on for original insights on economic matters, points out that "It Ain't Necessarily So."  Why?  Because both Social Security and parts of Medicare were designed to fund themselves, with excess contributions in early years going into "trust funds."  If the trust funds threaten to run out of money, there's nothing to prevent the government from stepping in to fund them.

Well, that's a little disingenuous on Surowiecki's part, but having led us down this trail of crumbs, he uses the occasion to note that what we really ought to be discussing is not tweaking the funding in minor ways, but the philosophically broader question of "how much we are willing to spend to ensure that the elderly have affordable access to medical care and some financial security."  

Frankly, I think we've had that discussion, and the answer offered by many conservative politicians is "not much, if anything."  Certainly, some of the tweaks they suggest -- such as Medicare vouchers or privatizing social secuirty -- could (again, as Surowiecki notes) weaken or destroy the programs rather than save them.  But even so, I don't think it can be denied that less drastic fixes could reduce the costs of these programs, particularly Medicare, without significantly reducing their effectiveness. 

 

 

Related articles

James Surowiecki: Can Social Security and Medicare really go "bankrupt"?

New Year's Cliffs, Political And Personal

Precisely as my wife and I rolled up to the house last night, returning from a New Year's Eve party, the odometer ticked over to 100,000 miles.  Checking in on my computer this AM, I found a message saying the item I had returned to Amazon only yesterday had already been credited back to my account.  I won my first game of spider solitaire of the year.  All these little things augur a great year in 2013, right?

Maybe. Maybe not.  On the national level, I suppose we can draw optimism from the fact the U.S. Senate reached a political deal on the "fiscal cliff;"  yet the House may or may not approve that accord, and even if it does, the "deal" reached is more a failure than a success, in my view.  If the cliff was designed to force our elected representatives to deal with the larger issues of tax policy and spending reforms, it failed utterly, while leaving us open to several bouts of acerbic political wrangling as different deadlines approach in a month, two months, three months, ad infinitum.  The underlying policy issues may not be dealt with until after midterm elections in 2014, and perhaps not even then.

Oh, and by the way, our infrastructure is crumbling, but we already knew that, so maybe that's a neutral.

As common sense tells us, of course, the mere fact the calendar flips over from 2012 to 2013 is seldom a defining event except to the extent we make it so, for example, as we schedule big legislative changes to take effect on this date, or make "new year's resolutions."   Reading tea leaves to predict at the outset what our year will be like can be fun, but isn't likely to pan out the way we suppose. 

That's why I so enjoyed the tale of Alex Fraser, the fellow who in 1999 took drastic measures to prepare for the Y2K disaster he was convinced was coming.  He sold his house, bought guns, and stocked up on non-perishable food.)  Does anyone remember Y2K?