Bad policy and the politics of fear: The New New Deal

   (photo from Wall Street Journal)

So this is the new change ushered in by Obama's mandate? Repeated reminders that "he won" followed by a hyper-partisan, lavish, Democratic retreat in Virginia -- during a time when our economy is supposedly on the verge of a catastrophe mind you. The speech itself amounted to nothing more than a sarcastic-laced, glib and polarizing pep-rally by President Obama. He used his slot to reinforce what has been the Democrat approach all along and that is, of course, spending -- any kind of spending. Obama obviously stopped short of any details about the items in the bill and how exactly the government proposed to come up with the money. He should really take Bill Clinton's advise in the future.

It became apparent that once the Republicans were not on board and the American public saw a one sided bill so crammed with goodies that few seriously mistook for anything less than an orgy of mass government spending, he resorted to the very thing he railed against for nearly two years on the campaign trail. He trumped up fear. He took to the airwaves about it. He addressed Congress about it. And he made sure along with VP Biden that the American people got the bleakest picture imaginable. He used terms like "catastrophe," "devastation," "grave consequences" and "serious threats" if Congress did not act now in passing the proposed bill. He painted a picture that the Republicans were escalating the dangers by refusing to play ball.

So this is the New New Deal? Well if it is, it is a far cry from "The only thing we have to fear...is fear itself!"

And despite the Presidents repeated calls for bipartisanship and a refreshing hands-on approach, he allowed his House Democrats to write the bill and fill it full of waste. The result was a hallmark of sorts that illustrates wonderfully to the American people exactly what is wrong with our government. Obama could have interjected and allowed for cuts in payroll taxes and corporate taxes. But, he didn't and he allowed an already despised Congress to hijack the bill and run it through to the Senate.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn't do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They've acted because they can't justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done. (Wall Street Journal: "The Stimulus Tragedy")

Recessions have historically lasted 16 - 18 months. Depending on the severity, government has acted to spend where there are shortfalls and apply tax relief to consumers and businesses. This isn't something new or unique to Obama's presidency. But he is choosing to handle it much differently than anytime before.

Not very long ago President Reagan inherited a far greater mess. When he came into office in '81 there was double digit inflation and unemployment. The interest rates were over 20 percent. He didn't change this and turn the economy around by endorsing social spending/engineering projects that are designed only to create patronage and offer something to point to during reelection time. In fact, he would be appalled by the very idea, and would probably announce every name responsible for the pork to the press.

Another thing he didn't do was try to scare the public into near hysteria in order to enact his policies. When so many saw eminent collapse and were predicting the end of the American dream -- namely President Carter and the majority of Washington pundits (sound familiar?)-- Reagan only saw America's strength and believed in its spirit. He cut taxes, he lowered the marginal rates and made it possible for people to invest and buy. He restored confidence in the American system. He led. He didn't bother with grave diagnosis or broadcasting the dark and stormy weather. How can you have time for both?

He was optimistic. That was his vision for recovery. Simplistic? Lack of imagination? Hardly. He freed the American people from the heavy hand of government, removed its restraints and got out of their way. Reagan created ways to raise incentive for innovation, competition and production. All things he knew were needed for success and prosperity in our American system. He understood this when few even believed it.

Now, that is what you call a real stimulus package.

Continue reading ...

Perspective on the Bush Presidency, from the Right and the Left

There are many takes on why President Bush was either a bad President or one of the best ever. Here is an offering of two of the fairest assessments I have found on the Left and the Right.

From Dissenting Justice, an open minded Progressive weblog that is actually a very good read. The author, Professor Darren Hutchinson, usually gives a poignant and well thought analysis on politics and current events. You don't have to agree him, but at the least, his writings are not full of vitriol and hubris, as can be seen in his opening statement.

Get a Grip People: Bush Is not the Worst President in U.S. History

I have always found surveys that ask people to rank presidents a little silly. People who complete these surveys often fail to look beyond their own reality and consider figures from the past. Also, even when people look to the past, they usually employ contemporary standards to judge historical conduct. But many political positions that are suicidal today, were perfectly acceptable in the past (and vice versa). Not taking this into account can cloud our assessment of historical actors. Finally, in order to determine a president's place in history, we might have to wait until long after the person leaves office before we can accurately ascertain the longterm impact of the individual's term in office. read more...

WithBias, is a little spitfire of an online Conservative activist. BiasedGirl, the author, tends to use great sourcing to back up her posts and opinions. Links are abundant to viable sources, and her conclusions, sometimes with a populist draw, follow a reasoned line of logic that she ferociously backs up with hard evidence. At the bare minimum, all she can be accused of is being passionate about her movement. Definitely a good read if you want some great debate.

Presently, she has an ongoing series about the Bush II years versus the Clinton years.

Shocker! Bush Not the Worst US President

With Tuesday's looming immaculate inauguration, we will see the conclusion of the Presidency of George W. Bush. A man maligned by the media from the beginning of his first term when they demanded recounts until he won then called it a "stolen election". To the final days of his second term, when Everyone is trying to define the Presidency of W as one of, if not 'the worst in history'. read more..

Facts Reveal: Bush Actually A Good President!

In yesterday's post I revealed why George W Bush has been a superior President to the Liberal hero Bill Clinton, on matters of Civil Rights, Protecting us from Terrorists, and the Military, regardless of what you might have heard. Today I'm taking a look at what Karl Rove would call the "kitchen table" issues. read more...

While I may not personally agree with the totality of either of their conclusions, they're at least making an attempt to think about their positions. In turn, hopefully their readership will draw the proper judgments about the out-going President and the historical ramifications of his governance. Judgments that are based on reality and not mired down with ignorant memes and talking points.

Both blogs are highly recommended.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Potential Prosecution of Bush DOJ Officials

In an interview with Chris Wallace, Nancy Pelosi, has indicated her willingness to investigate former Bush DOJ officials for "warrantless wire-tapping" and "torture" of known terrorists.

From the Politico,

The Politico-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she was open to pursuing investigations of abuses by the Bush Justice Department.

“I think that we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing, for example, of the Justice Department, to go unreviewed,” Pelosi said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Past is prologue. We learn from it.”

Pelosi told host Chris Wallace she thought the Obama administration would be open to scrutinizing the Bush White House, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has urged. read more...

Last Sunday on "This Week," Obama spoke with George Stephanopoulos about a question posed on his website, www.change.gov, concerning the prosecution of Bush administration official's "gravest crimes."

Obama's response,

This Week- "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to look at past practices. And I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up. read more...

The key point here is the relentless Democratic pursuit of revenge against the Bush administration and its officials. Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a 500 page report supposedly detailing the egregious offenses the Bush DOJ supposedly committed. The report calls for a "blue ribbon panel" to fully investigate administration activities, and independent criminal probes.

The Department of Justice fired back with detailed documentation, of their own, recapping the President's Constitutional authorities and responsibility to protect the nation when it is threatened at home and abroad.

These people, especially in Congress, are dangerously naieve about the world they live in. Glad to know we have elected officials, whom I thought were sworn to protect us, willing to sacrifice the safety of the American people for their pitiful quest of political vengeance.

Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Partisanship, Special Interest Groups, and Why Voters Accept 2nd Rate Legislation

CT

Analysis Online, published an article How Leaders Make Policy Decisions. In an ongoing study Professor Max Bazerman, Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, quantifies why policy makers lack the ability to “ make wise tradeoffs, or to give up small losses for much larger gain.” as well as the voters’ willingness to accept their poor decision making processes.

This is particularly interesting due to the climate of this election. Numerous special interest groups, media outlets, and political parties have ambitions that they are promoting. Messages will be distorted and lacking significant facts in order to shift the judgment of the voting public. Not to mention the sweeping atmosphere of “change” both sides in this election are promoting.

Bazerman offers two reasons for this irrational judgment process: "proliferation of special interest groups" and a host of “judgment biases.” He sees these two factors as the most important for guiding constituents to accept middle of the road policies that inevitably do more harm than good for the country.

“The problem comes when actions designed to strengthen the political power of the special interest are misinterpreted as providing greater benefits to individuals who identify with the group, when the reality is to the contrary, Bazerman explains.”

Special interest groups and self-seeking individuals have promoted many worthless causes, this goes for both sides of the aisle. In their current strategies, most use facts are considerably generalized or try to generate fear to reinforce their preferred outcome. A good example is the current economic crisis, yes had to slip this in. Bother parties have adopted this mentality, implying the rival group was the causality of the situation. This is simply not true, evidence is supporting that a host of bad decisions, made by both parties, throughout a fifteen-year period led to it.

With judgment biased, he lays out four reasons that people will tolerate fundamentally flawed policies.

• The Harm of Omission – People (including policy makers) are more fearful of the harms that could result from action than the harms of inaction even when the harms of inaction are greater.

• Status Quo Bias – Connected to the bias of omission is the bias exhibited by many people of preferring the status quo. “People are more likely to be concerned about the risk of change than about the risk of failing to change, and will be motivated to preserve current systems and beliefs,” notes Bazerman.

• The Fixed Pie Pitfall – Hefty, black-and-white generalizations about situations and policy decisions dominate this judgment bias, which is strongly exhibited in negotiations and partisan fervor, notes Bazerman. This bias is built on the assumption (when opposing sides battle) that what is good for one side must necessarily be bad for the other side.

• The Winner’s Circle Curse– This one is highlighted by the high-dollar bidding for sports franchises and stadium improvements that has become trademark with modern day sports. Bazerman says taxpayers are ill-served by this type of competition because the winner more often than not is the party that has most overestimated the benefits of winning.

Again, with the economic crisis, partisan biased is driving poor decision making. So far we have been offered nothing but bail-outs and stimulus packages. The psychological aspects of this are particularly important. Neither side wishes to be perceived as the cause of the problem, but both want to be recognized as the one with the solution. This promotes each party to rush, trying to beat the other, which leads to poor solutions that become policy. Thereby exacerbating an already bad situation. They are more concerned with the political outcome than the well being of our nation. Partisan minded voters are more than gladly to back up these decisions, regardless of their value or product.

Voters have a responsibility to see beyond party motivation and tactics. Fundamentally understanding the issues is imperative and it's quite alright to understand those issues based on personal political philosophy. But, what is as equally important is to understand the motivations of the people supporting those issues. Reshaping the way we make policy is just as important as reshaping the policies themselves. If we do not, we are dooming this country and its population to years of flawed legislation supporting the self-serving needs of individual groups, which will only continue fracturing our society.

-CT


“Happy Hunting!”

Continue reading ...