Well.  It’s official.  Not only do we have an economic crisis, but now we have an economic debate crisis…. apparently that is.

Why is it so important?

Easy… because without being able to spend more money than we can realize in revenue through taxation, we’re all going to die.  Just look around, this theoretically historically unprecedented permanently damaging possibility is sure to end the Republic as we know it:

President who tells us our senior citizens and military members will not get paid….

Bernake warns of catostrophy…

For others, our national security is at stake…. in fact, Al Qaeda itself might attack just because of this!

& on and on….

 With all of that looming, it’s not wonder someone has to be at fault….

There are alternative answers to defaulting itself, for instance let’s get rid of the ceiling altogether.  Or maybe, since a five dollar treasury bond and a five dollar bill are virtually the equivalent, why not give out more IOUs in a different form thereby removing the need for the ceiling in the first place?

But those ideas are centrist, so largely ignored and with a problem this large… someone has to be to blame.

So who is at fault?

Maybe the Tea Party’s fault?  Or maybe, like much of everything else, it’s Bush’s fault?  How about Governor Norquist?!?!

Or maybe there is no maybe.  Ask the brilliant policy minds over at The Rolling Stones, and they’ll tell you, that without question it’s the GOP’s fault.

For the logic minded, one might contend that the President, who refused to pass this perfect budget a year ago when his party controlled both legislative houses shares some blame.

But what do I know…. according to some Barack supporters, his only problem is being too much like the Big Gipper, the famous “let’s raise taxes” President…

The issue is, when you push predictions of doom and gloom for some scenario, blame has to be affixed quickly and preferably without relation to actual facts as that just muddies the waters.  Nope, the goal for almost every writer, seems to be scare tactics followed by blame.

There are a couple who have offered advice.  HBR for one had an interesting post about needing a moderator, perhaps Adam Smith.  It’s not an unpleasant thought and certainly a brilliant economic mind serving as moderator cannot help, but what most struck me about their advice is the same thing that struck me about most of those pieces blaming this or that: it misses who is truly responsible.

For when HBR states the Debt Ceiling Debate needs a moderator, I have to stop and say, they already do: the American public.  Certainly one could make the argument that the current moderators are abdicating their responsibilities and I might agree, but as much as one can delegate tasks, authority and responsibility cannot be delegated.

So sure, the public collectively can give moderator powers to Adam Smith or someone similar but alive, however the responsibility for the consequences of that process will still be the American people.

So…. is there a debate crisis?

Maybe not… as while many of us individually and seemingly ever single writer might view this whole process as out of control; seeing the whole thing as a demonstration in nothing more than the problems with this country, these are just mere opinions.

In all honesty, I’m sympathetic to that view.  However, the market place of ideas is free.  & If you analyze politics like one does the market, with the idea being the result cannot be wrong as the market is not wrong…

Then I think based upon the current political result I would submit a large enough percentage of voters have already cast their vote to continue the political infighting, applaud Pyrrhic victories, and any number of other actions which are designed to benefit their collective and not the average individual.

As proof of this reality, see incumbency rates, or polls which say cut things, but say no to all questions about what to cut, the current press articles being created because people are buying them, and more.  But even without those facts, the logic is simple: the current debate has to be ok with society at large because a free people is watching it happen and doing nothing, in a concerted effort, to substantially change anything.

So by virtue of its mere existence, it is the correct debate needed at this time.

& if it’s not?

Well, as Lincoln stated <paraphrased here>  ”As a nation of free men, we will live forever, or die by suicide.”

As depicted in the movie Blood Diamond, many diamond deposits around the world only function through government/militia oppression, slavery, violence, children soldiers, and really some of the worst actions on behalf of humans anywhere.

Enter the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme; which is an international process which is designed to certify the origins of raw diamonds as conflict free diamonds.   & they’ve been doing so well with this process, that UN member states have voted, less than a month ago, to extend their power in order to give them a better ability to halt non-certified diamonds.

Which all in all seems like a good thing.  It’s certainly a noble effort to try to prevent oppressors from making money off of violence and slavery.

Today’s announcement by the Kimberly Process however, should give reasonable people reason to question whether they are truly acting towards their stated goal (article here):

…The Kimberley Process has granted Zimbabwe permission to continue conducting supervised sales of diamonds….

With of course two sides to the story (article con’t):

…The issue of Zimbabwe selling the Marange diamonds has divided the KP along political lines with Western countries led by the United States, Germany and Australia as well as civil society groups that are members of the organisation calling for banning of the gems…

But African and other countries, including Russia, have opposed the calls to ban the diamonds, appearing to buy Harare’s claims that calls for banning of the Marange stones are driven more by the West’s dislike of President Robert Mugabe than by concern for human rights….

Theoretically two sides… assuming you ignore Zimbabwe’s constant chaos and conflict at the hands of their leader for more than 30 years Robert Mugabe.   He has taken a country and almost completely destroyed it all while singing songs of revolution and owed dues from those responsible for Apartheid.

(more…)

An excellent publication overall, the Economist, is using their online debates to ask a question which doesn’t seem to have any useful answer (here):

This house believes that America’s political system is broken.

The current debaters are Matthew Yglesias, defending the motion and Peter Wehner arguing against.   In their second round of the debate, the house is winning with a full 75% agreeing to a broken US political system.

I say it doesn’t seem to have any useful answer as the most likely result from such a poll will be based mainly upon emotions.  Since most lay people don’t typically sit around and try to analyze political systems, the answers from the majority of respondents will have to fall back on other knowledge and human behavior demoonstrates this is likely to be emotions.  IE – if I like what’s going on, no fixing.  If I don’t like what’s going on, it needs fixing.

Reminds me a little of an argument I’ve seen a number of times in the health care debate.  Invariably, someone will put up a poll telling me how many people think their health care costs are too high.  & my retort stays the same, with some variation of Socratic questioning like… ”So?  Did you expect to see a poll that said most Americans want to pay more for anything?”

But I digress, the question has been asked and for Mr. Yglesias, things aren’t going well.  His baisc argument starts something like this:

American political institutions are in a period of crisis. The source of the crisis is relatively simple. Our institutions work only when leaders can reasonably expect broad bipartisan co-operation, but the emergence of more ideologically rigorous parties makes such co-operation extremely unlikely…

Which might make for a good thesis, assuming you can prove that broad bipartisan co-operation is indeed a requirement (hell, prove it’s useful…) as well as proving that more ideologically rigorous parties have come into existence.

His proof?  In the short, yet varied history of the US, he points to the last few election cycles – excluding all information about 9/11 and two wars and the nominal fact that the higher the consequence of any legislation the more ferocious the public debate – he starts his historical research by going all the way back to President Bush the younger; who entered the presidency with:

…an unprecedentedly weak electoral mandate. More voters marked their ballots for Al Gore than marked their ballots for Mr Bush. The median voter in the election supported Mr Gore. But thanks to a combination of litigation, stubbornness and the perversity of the electoral college, Mr Bush succeeded in prevailing and becoming president….

Just a quick note here – is it a little odd to start an arguement to theoretically prove that idealogically rigirous institutions are harming us, by being idealogically rigid… but whatever.

He contends that the result of the weak mandate  and an inability to overcome a Senate fillubuster worked well:

…This led to a fair amount of legislative co-operation in the first Bush term. A series of important changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act were approved; an extremely costly new prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare; income taxes were steeply cut—all on an at least somewhat bipartisan basis….

Somewhat bipartisan?  Like idealogically rigirous, “somewhat bipartisan” is undefinable in any concrete terms, but a quick look on just the tax cuts seems to indicate consistent partisan fighting.

What we know?

The cuts themselves were passed in two bills.

1. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 &
   1. Senate vote here, House vote here
2. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
   1. Vote totals here

In 2001: only 1 Republican voted against it in the Senate out of 33 nay votes (the other nays were Democrats), and in the House, all but one of the 154 nay votes were cast by Democrats.  & of course out of the yea votes, while less one sided, still doesn’t appear to be bipartisan.  In the Senate, 12 of the 58 yea votes were cast by Democrats and in the House 28 votes our of 240 yea votes were cast by Republicans.

& 2003?  I guess Mr. Yglesias would also be surprised to learn that in the 2003, the tax debate was even more lopsided (more…)

It’s a truism of real leaders since the dawn of time; they find themselves, not from true success and stable times, but rather from adversity and chaos. When faced with those seemingly insurmountable odds, it’s the strongest who remain calm, read the landscape, and discover new answers from which they can seek out continued success.

Though under great stress, we humans tend towards the flight or flight response. True leaders however, can use these difficulties against themselves to provide both motivation and a sense of urgency to gain the ingenuity required for such challenges.

This is understood well in society. Like business leaders who understand innovation can be helped significantly by design constraints (here):

Great designers understand this. Charles Eames says design is all about innovating around constraints. And it’s the constraints – the scarcity – that fires the designer’s creativity. Smart business people “get it” too. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos embraces self-imposed scarcity saying, “One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out.”

They understand that principle of economic scarcity. As do military leaders. Sun Tzu notes in the Art of War:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

For President Obama, the Tea Party & the Republicans taking back control of the House of Representatives could give him the opportunity to display true deft.

Assuming it does happen as predicted (here via the Philly Inquirer) however, the President is accorded a tough task ahead.

He would now have the body responsible for appropriations bills (all spending bills much start in the House & they are very important. For instance, they can kill health care by simply not funding it….) mainly in place due to running against him. Secondarily, while they don’t wish to be seen as obstructers, their willingness to work with Obama will be small even without their election strategy. Because any bill passed, regardless of how/why, if it turns out to be a good or well liked idea, Obama will naturally take credit to further his chances for re-election in 2012.

& the Democrats know that neither the President nor health care is a selling point for this election, even if they are communicating differently. The facts are that se hasn’t really made many direct candidate speeches, just backyard BBQs in key districts in key states. They are essentially, and correctly, playing against their weakness – his popularity.

Not a bad strategy in the short term, but I think people have heard him speak enough and any celebrity (yes, while the President is certainly more important and more powerful than any normal celebrity, s/he is still a celebrity) runs the risk of over saturation.

Irregardless, with Obama, the question is can he live inside those constraints?

What we know is given a new landscape, the answer for tomorrow’s question will not be the same answer as today’s. I think if he can push himself with a sense of urgency, surveys the landscape to see what he has and what he can accomplish with what he has. Then uses both the sense of urgency and strategic thinking by changing his game plan when the field of battle changes…. well, then we’ll see a real leader who may live up to his Nobel Peace Prize (here).

Or said more succinctly, it’s a crappy state of affairs you might find yourself in Mr. President, but challenges is how leaders prove themselves.

Honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to do it. I think he’s too insecure (here) about himself and his handlers seem to know little more than an approval ratings drop equals time for Obama to give more speeches. & I don’t honestly think that’s likely to change…. but predictions are better left to Ms. Cleo.

What is likely however is the people around him understand exactly this point.  They do know it. The question is whether their emotions towards their beliefs (see: Confirmation Bias here & here) combined with the difficulty of telling a President who gives great speeches to shut up. Not to mention game theory predicts leaders to surround themselves with “yes men”.

All of that makes significant and required change seem unlikely, but I’d never count out someone who made it to the Presidency, nor, the team that helped him get there.

So Mr. President, here’s your chance.

As most know, late last week, smaller health insurance companies sent out press releases detailing a simple fact – when mandates increase, so will premiums (via WSJ here):

…Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators….

To most, this might seem an obvious consequence of the legislation.  The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers (WSJ continues):

…Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates….

…Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada…

…Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan…

…In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates….

Not only should this seem obvious, but in a free country, any company should be able to set their rates for their services.

This of course assumes you don’t work for the government – then the news is shocking (WSJ continues):

…The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

“I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you’re quoting… are justified,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House’s top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was “already their modus operandi before the bill” passed. “We believe consumers will see through this,” she said….

Not only shocking – but so wrong that even more force is needed.

Enter the Department of Health and Human Services threatening private business, for making private decisions, solely because those decisions disagree with the government’s predictions (via HHS website – bold added):

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases….

…We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent….

…Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act.  Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections….

Think carefully about some of  these words/phrases used by government officials against private businesses in a free country: zero tolerance, misinformation, not tolerate, unjustified….all for raising theirs rates at a greater rate than the government assumed.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the government threatens people for fishy emails, then moves forward to threaten private business for deciding what to charge for their services…. well, it certainly doesn’t appear to be a free society.

As Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Just 9 short years ago & I can still vividly remember every detail.  Where I was, the helplessness I felt, the drive to NYC to help on 9/12…. 17 hours straight.  The cloud of smoke hovering over the city from the smoldering rubble, clearly visible @ even 3 AM.  The posters of missing loved ones everywhere, the spontaneous candle light vigils, the make shift memorials on street corners, at buss stops, at fire & police stations, pictures hung up from school children outside of one while a cop lit the candles as nightfall descended…

But as that month drew closer to an end, my mind still asked the question “I wonder how long all this fellowship will really last?”

The reality? It lasted about two months, then back to politics as almost usual.

Which was bad enough, but then there came this week, the 9th anniversary of those attacks and all I heard was election year squabbling.

It’s strategic, one of the required steps in any war is to define your enemies clearly.  This not only helps your side focus, but also helps draw people into a common cause.

So here we are…. Mosque building here, Koran burning there….all politics.  All attempts to rally a base of voters, on both sides, my trying to paint the other side as “those people”, trying to connect them to unpopular ideas, trying to change your vote.

What a shame – so many heroes lost, so much more blood to be spilled in response, many more being asked to do very difficult things, many more heroes yet to die, many others returning, some with disabilities from which they will never recover, some with injuries, unseen by looking at them, the mental stress…. all who returned, changed forever.

& yet still…. election politics.  Strategic positioning, rhetorical maneuvering…. just politics.

For those who, like me, think it should mean much more than this, a solemn reminder (here):

Friday last week, I posted random links including a short story about the current Senate race between Carly Fiorina & Barbara Boxer (here):

…In what has to be either a sign of the end times or a sign of our bright future, Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tight race against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina…

While the true impact of the 2010 midterm elections is still ultimately up to a vote which hasn’t happened, the signs seem to all be pointing to good news based upon selectorate theory (DA post here):

..the theory is also powerful due to its simplicity.  It states that leaders will pay back those people that helped them become leaders in order to stay leaders.  This seems fairly intuitive and agrees with most understanding of incentives, but from here they can make predictions based upon the ration between what they call W, the Winning Coalition, and S,the selectorate or those who can affect who the leader is….

…The corollary with W/S is that when W is small as compared to S, the revenues spent will be mainly private and conversely if W is large compared to S, expenditures will be mostly public….

The basic idea is that the leader will use their power to pay back those who helped them get elected and the larger that coalition is, the less likely that money can come in the form of direct payoffs.

Now theoretically, in a free election system, W is 1/2 of S + 1.  IE – in order to get elected I need 50% of the votes plus one.

What happens however, if the voters through their actions artificially limit W?

How can they you ask?  Easily actually.

Every 10 years post census, each state will redraw district boundary lines based upon population numbers.  The problem is this “redrawing” isn’t done based on some objective science or even just basic math, but based on politics.  The way it currently works is the party in power redraws the districts.

Typically, the only ones who argue against these plans are the parties out of power.  Historically, the minority party would go to court, but courts have answered these challenges by stating that unless specific acts of discrimination or such can be proven, political redistricting is not something the court will actively change.

The reasoning is that voters have recourse already, so legally speaking the point is moot.  Their recourse is to elect those who redraw the district boundaries.

Now in states that change majority party from time to time, there are incentives for politicians to not gerymander individual districts too badly, least they be on the receiving end next time.

However, in states like CA or TX, where one party dominates, there are no incentives for the party in power to do anything but draw district boundaries in such a way as to ensure they can maintain power.

This is how we end up with politicians like Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi, who win their individual districts in landslide elections, but whose national approval rating is slightly higher than the IQ of a prune.

This is also the reason (here) “polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings.  The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.”

But his only works through voter ignorance.  The reality is voters are free to vote for whom they want.  Just because a district is redrawn to include mostly Democrat supporters, doesn’t mean those voters must vote for the Democrat.

We know the truth however for many voters is party loyalty and party identification are much stronger forces in their life than political analysis.

There are reasons for this as well, including the sheer complexity of the government itself.  This level of complexity means for a voter to be truly informed, a good deal of time is needed to sort through the information.  Time most people would rather spend with their families after work.  But I digress…. (read more about The Myth of the Rational Voter here via Cato)

The point is that while voters don’t have to vote party loyalty, the evidence is very strong to suggest they do.

Therefore - back to W/S as a ratio – if voters allow a district to always put a Democrat (or Republican) in that seat, they are effectively making the general election a formality whereas the real election is during the primaries.

This combined with the facts that primary voters represent a very small percentage of total voters & primary voters tend to be true believers, results is an artificial reduction of W in our ratio of W/S, ultimately reducing voter power.

While I tend to stay away from any predictions, the current trending of certain national Senate and Congressional races is showing a promising sign of reversing this trend for at least one election cycle.

Of course for now, these are only polls.  They only tell us what people think during a given time period and nothing more.  The true test for voters will be on election day:

Will voters stand up against incumbents?  Or will they do what they’ve done for the past couple of decades; complain about the worthless government while simultaneously voting to keep the same government?

Boxer might lose?!?!  In what has to be either a sign of the end times or a sign of our bright future, Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tight race against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (via the Atlantic here):

The latest Field poll looks a bit troubling for Sen. Barbara Boxer: she leads her Republican opponent, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, by just three percentage points (47% to 44%)…

San Fransisco’s City Council, in an attempt to prove themselves the absolutely dumbest people on Earth, might ban the sale of pets (via Huffington Post here):

…If the ordinance passes San Francisco could be the first city in the nation to ban the sale all pets except fish….

The IMF tells the US to slow down on spending (via the Hill here):

The United States must rein in its deficits sooner than President Barack Obama wants, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said Thursday.

In an annual report on the U.S. economy, the IMF said the U.S. faces a “central challenge” in implementing a “credible fiscal strategy” to ensure that public debt is put on a sustainable path without putting the economic recovery in jeopardy….

The NSA responds to the WSJ article (posted here yesterday) concerning the “Perfect Citizen” program (via the Atlantic here):

Today’s Wall Street Journal article by Siobhan Gorman, titled “US Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies,” is an inaccurate portrayal of the work performed at the National Security Agency. Because of the high sensitivity surrounding what we do to defend our nation, it is inappropriate to confirm or deny all of the specific allegations made in the article. We will, however, provide the following facts: PERFECT CITIZEN is purely a vulnerabilities-assessment and capabilities-development contract. This is a research and engineering effort. There is no monitoring activity involved, and no sensors are employed in this endeavor. Specifically, it does not involve the monitoring of communications or the placement of sensors on utility company systems. This contract provides a set of technical solutions that help the National Security Agency better understand the threats to national security networks, which is a critical part of NSA’s mission of defending the nation. Any suggestions that there are illegal or invasive domestic activities associated with this contracted effort are simply not true. We strictly adhere to both the spirit and the letter of U.S. laws and regulations….

I’m not saying I automatically disagree that their statement is completely accurate, but we should not forget the NSA is the same agency who for years denied even having something like Echelon.