A Balancing Act

When we look at the structure of government, we all must realize that it is not about some idealistic set of principles, it is about mutual or common interest.  Balance of powers is just that -- a balance of the interests of the powerful against each other in a manner that no one of them can gain dominance.  Otherwise, there develops a dominant ruling entity -- whether it be a king, autocracy, plutocracy, or whatever.

The U.S. system was designed for a balance of powers -- Executive vs. Legislative vs. Judiciary.  In theory it is a great design although in practice it is in constant search of balance. 

There is one piece of the balance of powers that is little discussed -- or at least has been examined very little since the Civil War.  That is the balance of power between the states and the federal government.  Until that relationship is returned to balance, we will continue to see the growth of government at the federal level at the expense of the states.  The states must come together in mutual self-interest to preserve that power.  The Constitution has a provision for that, it is the power to amend.  I don't think the Constitution needs amending.  I do think that the states must elect members of Congress who will vote to return that balance.  Or, better yet, let's see a President who will push to return that balance.  There are a few potential candidates out there.

Decision Points

I am certain that the left-leaning of this country will believe that it is nothing but a lie -- propaganda -- but, George W. Bush's book, "Decision Points," is one that I would highly recommend to all.  It provides a great deal of insight into the events of the eight years of his presidency and in my opinion, distills them down to a comprehensible level.  Some might believe that the crucible of the Presidency shapes a man.  I think instead that it reveals the man.  It is undoubtedly true that the account is from the perspective of the former President, however, that in itself is the most telling of all.  His view of himself is one that is worthy of emulation.

What Perspective?

Obviously, the author of this post hasn't been keen to offer his perspective on things lately.  The elections sent a message to Congress, but, we have yet to see how well they got the message.  So far it seems to be mostly rhetoric.

Since I last posted, I made a trip to Kenya.  That's one way to put things in perspective.  When you see that the country has been ravaged by poor governance, corruption and the HIV pandemic, you can quickly be thankful that the U.S. isn't in that kind of shape.  I guess I shouldn't complain about Congress.  Their kind of corruption hasn't stopped the U.S. economy from continuing to move ahead -- yet.

I think the unrest in the Arabic speaking countries is another thing that helps put things in perspective.  Maybe they are getting fed up with corrupt governments that turn a blind eye to terrorists.  I just hope we don't see radical Islamist governments replace them.  We certainly don't need another Iran in the world.  Here, in the U.S., we just have an election.  It's hard to imagine the turmoil that comes with a change in government leadership in other countries.  I suppose we should be thankful -- no, I don't suppose -- I know we should be thankful that we can still have a peaceful transition of power.

OK, enough rambling.  Maybe I'm getting some perspective back......

Politics as Unusual

After putting the title on this piece, I wondered if it was true, was it truly an "unusual" election night?  It was certainly historic, but, I think in many ways it was a very predictable election.

In spite of the efforts by many to remake the U.S. into the Euro-model, we remain uniquely our own.  We don't carry the baggage of the Medieval kingdoms in our makeup, nor do we carry the ethnic hatreds of Europe.  Yes, there is certainly ethnic tension, but, it is uniquely our own -- the product of a slave system that was divided along racial lines rather than that of the conquered and the conquering except possibly along our Southwestern border where the racial tensions may be traced back to the war with Mexico (Texas Independence).

We are a nation of fiercely independent people who sought to re-make the world in a better image.  An image in which a man could overcome obstacles by the efforts of his own hands in order to reach a level of success rather than to be born into a caste where his options were limited merely by the circumstances of his birth.  If royalty is in our blood, it is tempered by the blood of countless victims of the political whims of the "Great Houses" of Europe.  It is a uniquely American makeup that will resist subjugation at every turn -- whether it be at the hands of a conquering invader or at the hands of those who would elevate themselves to a ruling class.

There are exceptions, however.  In many of our larger cities and along our Southwestern border, are people who feel as if they are a subjected class.  They are people who feel an inferiority due to their racial background and due to their economic situation.  They are the ones who look to a "benevolent ruler" to have mercy on them through a welfare state.  They, along with the centers of power (i.e. the Northeast and the West Coast), cause the political map of the U.S. to exhibit significant splashes of blue on a map that is otherwise red.

The winners in yesterday's election must realize that the results are the product of resistance to overreaching government, not an endorsement of a political party.  They are a clear message that we do not wish to be ruled by the elite, we wish only to be left alone to rule ourselves.

The secondary message is one that has been ignored for a large part of the history of this nation.  That is the message that the poor and economically subjected areas of our country -- i.e. the inner cities and the poor laboring classes -- must be elevated to the status of full participants in the greatness of this country.  They can no longer be treated as problems or as cheap labor (virtual slavery), but must instead be brought into full economic and social participation.  When that occurs, they will no longer be subjected to the machinations of those who would become a ruling elite.

How can those groups be lifted from their misery?  Get them employed in meaningful work that is economically rewarded at a level sufficient to lift them from their poverty and feeling of helplessness.  The best stimulus would be to provide tax breaks to companies who would create jobs in our inner cities that would erase the need for dependence on a welfare state.  Many will need to be educated in order to perform those jobs.  We should provide additional incentives for private educational initiatives by those same companies in order to improve the basic skills of those workers and their families.  We must quit relying on a "nanny-state" to provide such things, but instead provide incentives to the private sector to step up to the challenge.  It is in all of our best interests.  Prosperity comes when individuals are rewarded for their efforts.

Quantitative Easing

I'm a little slow sometimes in catching up to what is going on in the economy.  The fact is, I don't pay that much attention to the news and most news coverage is of all the wrong things anyway.  The things that truly impact us tend to stay below the radar of most of the media.

Tonight a friend asked me what I thought about the Quantitative Easing Policy of the Fed.  It was a new term to me, so, I did some research.  At risk of being raked over the coals for doing so, I am going to link (here) to the Wikipedia definition.  Yeah, I know, there is definitely risk associated with using a Wikipedia definition, but, after a good deal of research of other sources I concluded that it does a pretty good job of explaining it.

I also am linking an MIT article that is another attempt at explaining it.  Interestingly, the conclusions of the two definitions are somewhat at odds.  The MIT article seems to think it will do no harm, the writer of the Wikipedia entry sees a good deal of risk.

I not only see risk, I see definite harm to the average citizen.  The impact of the policy is an increase of the money supply while forcing interest rates to artificially low levels.  The result is a deflated dollar.  That means that the average citizen is losing wealth because his money is worth less and he can't get a reasonable return on most investments that he would make.

The problems with the economy are not going to be fixed by Monetary Policy.  The real issue is uncertainty created by wrong-headed Fiscal Policy.  Until Congress and the current Administration get their house in order, the economy will remain stagnate.  While there is plenty of money in the system, no one is willing to risk it to create new jobs.  Banks aren't lending without Federal Guarantees and businesses aren't expanding in the face of huge tax increases on the horizon. 

The Season of Mud

The campaign rhetoric of the mid-terms is turning nasty as usual.  Such a turn is emblematic of our society in general.  We have come to tolerate incivility to the point there are few limits on behavior short of breaking the law.  That is frequently done as well because the consequences are usually light or non-existent except in the most heinous cases -- and then only if caught. 

It is also a manifestation of the loss of moral guidance.  In a society where people are taught that there is no ultimate moral law, how can we expect civil behavior?  The most vitriolic attacks seem to come from the left which is made up primarily of those who do not believe in God.  They may tell you they are Christian, or whatever, but, a lack of belief in God makes such a statement merely a political expedient.  I think that is the case of our "dear leader" in Washington.  Political pragmatism as the guiding principle for leadership means getting the job no matter what it takes (lying, back-stabbing, etc.) and then holding on to it by the same methods.

The American people need to learn to recognize such individuals for what they are -- power-hungry and morally bankrupt.  Sadly, it has become accepted by nearly all political aspirees that not responding in kind is a sign of weakness and a sure-fire way to lose.

It's About the Economy

The Administration doesn't get it -- still.  It's about the economy.  They think the American public is a bunch of idiots.  The money they are throwing at "stimulus" packages is just designed to buy votes for another few years of power.  It certainly won't stimulate the economy.

Money is being tucked away by businesses who have the power to create jobs.  Why would they invest it with such an environment of uncertainty in Washington?  Or, perhaps, why invest when there is such certainty in Washington? -- certainty that those in power are out to take what isn't their's and throw it to those who would keep them in power.  Either way, the economy suffers.

It isn't something that is popular to mention, but, the War in Iraq was actually a stimulus to our economy.  Spending on military equipment and supplies created lots of jobs, as did troop recruitment.  It also cost less than the Obama Administration's "stimulus" spending to date -- which, by-the-way, did nothing to stimulate the economy.

I'm not much on "ranting" about every little thing that goes on in the world -- whether politics, economics or whatever.  There are just a handful of fundamental issues anyway.  They come back to differences in world-view.  Right now, mine is at a polar opposite to what I see in Washington.  Fortunately, mine includes a faith in something higher that sustains me through the valley of the shadow.......