Opinions expressed on the Whig Blog, in the Forums and in comments are those of the individual authors and do not necessarilly represent positions of the Modern Whig Party. The ability to post opinion pieces and comments is not restricted to Whig members (although blog entries are by invitation.) These items are not pre-screened but are subject to our Terms of Use. Please Contact Us or Ask a Question if you have concerns about the content.
I wonder if Americans understand why our government is gridlocked. Few 'big' solutions are offered and when one is, such as the Simpson-Bowles Debt Reduction proposal, they are never enacted and put in place.
The reason for this is that for both R's and D's in office and running for office, the 'wiggle' room they've always enjoyed and used is no longer available.
With a debt of 15 trillion dollars and rising and deficit spending every year, small proposals are useless and most people, inside and outside government know it.
R's have always proposed tax cuts, often for large portions of the population and especially for the wealthy. Their rational is that tax cuts end up providing more tax revenue through increased economic activity over time. Deficits might be created but they would be temporary.
D's have usually wanted to raise taxes, but only on less favored groups, like the wealthy and big business, to fund government programs that they argue stimulate the economy and create more jobs, again over time.
In the past, both parties had this 'wiggle' room because our debt wasn't so large and our economy was so large and dynamic. Now that isn't true anymore and both parties are at a loss to know what to do without doing things that are going to be highly unpopular.
In the past, for the D's, our deficit and debt were much smaller so they could use 'targeted' higher taxes (mostly on the wealthy) to bring in extra revenue and then they would not have to 'cut' any government spending and could actually provide even more government services.
In the past, for the R's, they could offer tax cuts because our debt was much smaller and if the tax cuts added to the deficit, it would only be temporary, until economic activity picked up and brought in more tax revenue.
Today, if the D's want to use tax increases to bring in more revenue and avoid spending cuts, the debt and deficit numbers are so big that tax increases must hit all Americans, not just the wealthy, to bring in enough extra revenue to attack the debt and deficit in a large enough way to make a difference.
Today, if the R's want to use tax reductions, they will make the debt much worse and do it very quickly, which is very dangerous given the debt we already have.
Not surprisingly, now that anything the R's or D's might do that would really be big enough to help, cannot be done without alot of pain and would also be highly unpopular, both parties blame the other and basically 'punt' the problem down the road.
It's a mess and unless a visionary leader comes along that is willing to tell the truth and make the unpleasant choices that must be made in the areas of increased taxes and reduced spending, we will remain on our current glidepath toward fiscal ruin.
WTPLV
You call it "wiggle room". I'd call it "the opaqueness of their gross malfeasance has dissipated". And now EVERYONE should see that the emporers have no clothes.
How DARE you wish for a visionary leader!?. Why be followers? WHY? ARE WE NOT "MEN"!?* The key to this "visionary leader" is right here, right in front of you.
You are the leader. I am the leader. WE ARE THE LEADERS AND MWPh* IS OUR MANTRA.
I get a little "nazi" about this visionary leader crap because, there is way, way too much room for demogogery in that type of scenario. I do not beleive the U.S. electorate, as good as we are, are sophisticated enough to choose the right person thru all the noise. Deeper yet, I dont beleive we, as a species, have developed to the point of seeing truth as we are still blinded by ego. The Dalai' Lama maybe has, but not the rest of us mopes.
So the risk becomes this "visionary leader" is characterisitc of the visionary leaders we've seen emerge even in the last century, whose ascendancy is the product of frustration leading to demogougery and almost inevitably some form of political violence.
Hitler is the most gross example. And as someone with a wee-bit-o- Aryan blood in my veins ( allegedly), that demoguoge can kiss my Yankee arse. ( I wish I could say my BLACK YANKEE arse 'cuase thats the kind of stuff this funky freak dreams about!)
Seriously, lets be very mindful of the fact that this visonary leader you so crave may fall under the "be careful what you wish for" category.
I prefer a mass movement , thank you very much. A mass movement typified by INCLUSIVENESS, via a renewal of our social contract with each other, and a new contract with the government which places emphasis BACK on the human spirit, not its control. But that has to start from within ourselves, doesnt it?
A mass movement committed to being visionary by very deliberately SEEKING NEW TRUTHS. By questioning authority, by questioning precedent, and by questioning assumptions using logic, reason, truth and perspective.
So I might submit, STOP looking for this visionary leader, as it is YOU. And YOU can start right at home as I did. I have completly brainwashed my 14 yr old! And everyone I have mentioned it to ( including a former candidate for NYS governor) "sees" something new in our MW Philosophy ( MWPh). Something they hadn't thought about; a key, a visionary key.
Try and harness the Zen of a modern whig. And then apostalize it. Preach it. Not the truth, but the admission that we see very little truth in today's political society, so we must seek new truths. And we have a toolkit to help. And it requires a broad and open mind. And a new social contract. Can you dig that?
Your "visionary leader" is the mind trust of us, the MWP. Please dont lose sight of that. We are ALL potential visionary leaders. Dont look for "someone". Make your observations, form your decision rules and new political philosphy and apply it.
** "Are We not Men" is sexist and I appreciate that, yet it had the desired effect as a quote. Apologize to all our "non-male" readers and willingly admit that I would PREFER to see more women in leadership roles. And I could go on and on about why females might be generally better fit for leadership at this juncture, but please ladies, The Republic REALLY needs your help specficially!
And as a methodological one liner, " Easy solutions are hardly ever best solutions".
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
