Congress is Useless

So, sequestration starts today.  Maybe this will be the necessary step that leads us to vote every last incumbent out of office next election.   Lets create a completely artificial problem to force us to deal with a larger actual problem and then be so dysfunctional to not even deal with the artificial problem we created which, oh, by the way, is barely a drop in the bucket anyway.

I'm sick of the Senate Democrats not putting forth a budget.  I don't care if it gets voted down, filibustered, whatever, DO YOUR JOB AND COME UP WITH A BUDGET!

I'm even more sick of the Republicans living in bizarro world where the federal government isn't a massive economic engine.

Bear with me here because whether or not you are a Keynesian, there is some truth to what I'm going to say.

Like it or not, the Federal government, directly, through Federal employees, or indirectly through secondary industries like defense, employees or helps pay for hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees.

Randomly cutting 10% off the budget, does not fix any problems, it just puts less money into the economy.  All those people getting furloughed every so often?  That's less money they can spend.   All those companies relying on gov't contracts?  That's less money coming in, less hiring, and less money getting spent on good to make products and goods purchased by employees.

Am I predicting a return to recession because of this?  Not necessarily, though I could see it happening if it goes on long enough.   I am saying that our economy, for the average person, is not overly strong.  Our wages aren't going up and prices are.

This stupid "sequestration" isn't solving the debt crisis but it certainly could set back the slow recovery we've been having.

Brilliant Congress.   Brilliant.

Great Read

I love it when smart people reinforce the things I've been thinking (and saying to friends and family who listen to me...)

Here is a great read by a Harvard Law prof.

"Big" Government

So, my brother has an interesting post on cutting government spending. Its interesting, and here's some of my thoughts on it.

Going off of the Havoc Pennington post, I suppose I'm more in the "cut government by 10-20%." I like the general ideals of libertarianism, but since I view man as naturally flawed, not naturally good (and very distinct from naturally evil) I can never truly support libertarians because I don't trust people enough.

I don't trust the government much either, but they tend to slow things down enough that nothing totally insane happens that often.

It would seem that 21% of the budget going to Defense/War on Terror is high, I personally would much rather see that at 10-15% with no Iraq war, but you can't turn back the clock.

But, as my dad points out, that's only about 1/3 of what is going to programs that only suck more money out of the system. That is the underlying problem of socialist styled programs. France is going broke over its healthcare/welfare/retirement system. Sarkozy has all but said that they can't afford to keep doing things the way they have been.

The problem with entitlement systems or government funded programs is as people live longer and longer, you get more people getting payed out and fewer paying in. It also doesn't help that Congress can't help but raid the "surplus" for things like Social Security as extra spending money. That it hasn't been legislated illegal is only proof of how completely screwed our government is.

Case in point. Listening to NPR the other day it was a story on how the SEC missed the AIG mess. Well, the SEC along with the Commodities watchdog have overlapping duties. But, they don't/didn't communicate well so AIG just played them off against each other. They were interveiwing an excongressman who said he tried to combine them, but the Agriculture committee chairman didn't want to give up the power (and money) from the position.

Why do I share this story? Because the system is broken. Since both parties get elected mainly to stay elected (and attempt to push through what their lobbyists pay them for) real change isn't going to happen.

Our political system, and many of the rulings on "free speech" pertaining to politics almost insures that any plans the government comes up with will eventually end up broken, bloated, and pandering to the rich and or corporately connected.

Don't get me wrong. We spend far too much money in this country as citizens and government. We're going broke. This isn't just our leaders fault.

What IS their fault is they are too interested in getting reelected and/or getting cushy high paying lobbying jobs down the line to do what is right, not what is politically convient or expedient.

The statement both sides want to spend 105% is true. And its going to bankrupt us and slowly push us to 2nd nation status.

I guess I don't get it.

Been awhile since I took (or had) the time to post here. Anyway...

In this article here, its talking about a bill allowing for shareholders to have more of a say in executive compensation and golden parachutes.

The Democrats are for this, the Republicans against.

The Republicans are saying this is yet another example of the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

This quote from the article summed up the Republican response:
"Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), in a comment echoed by fellow Republicans, assailed the measure as "unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system."

I attempted to read the bill (there is a link in the article) but, from the way my poor brain understands it, it doesn't look like the government is doing any more than giving the shareholders a bit of say in what companies do.

If I own stock in company X. And the CEO is getting paid 1 million, AND another 10 million in options AND has a golden parachute where he gets another 10 million if he's fired, of COURSE I would want a say in that. CEOs have long made sure boards were stocked with friends that vote on insane pay packages.

I don't see how giving the people that technically "own" the company a say in what the CEO and other executives make, is a bad thing. OR is excessive government meddling.

But, that's just me.

EDIT:

After a bit more reading, yes, it looks like regulators can say that "incentive-based pay" is too much or too risky. I SUPPOSE, this could lead the the government stepping in too often. I doubt it though. These incentive based things were a joke because the people got payed no matter what!

"My division helped sink the company, but I still got a 6 figure bonus!" That's not "incentive-based" that's gambling based, only without any of the risk.

You go to Harvard, you get an MBA from their business school. Now, instead of making 200k with 1 million in bonuses, you'll make 200k with 200k in bonuses. The American dream is truly and indeed dead. Unfettered greed has been reigned in. A moment of silence please.

Honesty with Deficits

I feel posty today I guess.

I was having an interesting discussion with my dad the other day on such things as the budget deficit, the bailout, etc. He was pointing out how with the deficits we will be running, added to the debt we have, there is pretty much no hope of ever getting the country out of debt.

I pretty much agree. But I might have a more fatalistic view then some people. Currently the talk is of how this debt will bankrupt our children and grandchildren. HAH! I laugh at you! I'm 29 and I fully expect to never see a penny of what I pay in social security. I just don't. I'm not planning for a future that relies on it. I just don't expect it to be there.

That is why I am not overly concerned with the massive deficits Obama's budget will be running. He's honest about it. He says we have to spend now to get out of this crisis. He might be wrong, but at least he is being honest that its going to cost a lot now.

A problem I have is the Republicans have now reared up and are whining about how much this is all going to cost. Now, I'm pretty sure they had the majority Congress AND the Presidency for 6 of the previous 8 years. During that time a modest surplus was squandered into the largest deficits we had seen until now.

Now, don't think I'm letting the Democrats off the hook because the previous 2 years they did nothing to stem the flow besides whine. And boy did they whine.

So, I guess what I'm saying is this: I believe we as a nation have been financially screwed for about the last 5 years. Do I hope to be proved wrong? Yes. But at least I'm expecting the worst to come.

And at least Obama is saying he's going to spend like a drunk sailor to "fix" this mess.

Baseball and Congress

Ok, Clemens is a cheater. Lots of players were (are?). It has tainted the game. I hate it, but its a fact. And I wish more people would point the finger where it needs to be pointed. Bud Selig. Its been under his watch that laughably lax drug testing standards have been abused. Does that exonerate the cheaters? Not at all. However, if a stringent testing program such as pro cycling has, with severe first time penalties, had been implemented it would have helped.

Note I say helped, not solved. There will always be cheaters no matter what the penalties. But it would have helped and it wouldn't have tarnished the game like it has been. Oh, I'm a fan, but I look at most things with a skeptical eye now. And, I think Bud Selig is one of the worst things to happen to MLB, as a sport, not a business, in a long, long time.

All that said, what is Congress doing? I mean really, people cheated, bought drugs illegally and used them illegally. Don't they have anything better to do, say, help run the country? They are pushing back the latest hearing until February now. But, so what? Because of a he said/he said between Clemens and a poor ex-trainer? Good grief! The government is a mess and some of our representatives still have time to worry about this?

Why not just do what they did with the NFL. Tell MLB to shape up our we'll start looking at if you should have anti-trust protection or not. MLB has implemented testing. Its a joke system, but its still something. Congress needs to stop dwelling on things that happened a number of years ago now at this point and go about their business.

Hey, maybe with the freed up time they could accomplish something useful. Dealing with healthcare costs, Social (in)Security, energy issues possibly? Oh wait, that would require original thinking and the ability to not be bribed, er lobbied. Sorry....