Now and then Common Sense finds some, well, common sense. Perhaps the rest of Congress could take a lesson in how to govern from these senators. Perhaps, just perhaps, the political fringe could be interested for a bit in the welfare of US citizens. At least Common Sense hopes so.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
‘Gang of Six’ in the Senate Seeking a Plan on Debt - NYTimes.com
‘Gang of Six’ in the Senate Seeking a Plan on Debt - NYTimes.com
Saturday, April 16, 2011
In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com
In Budget Debate, Democrats and Republicans Reassess Government's Role - NYTimes.com
This is an interesting and thoughtful article that's well worth reading. It has Common Sense thinking about the issues we face today and into the future.
This is an interesting and thoughtful article that's well worth reading. It has Common Sense thinking about the issues we face today and into the future.
Conservatives have made much of adhering to the founding principles of the United States. While these principles have served the US well they are not entirely fixed. Indeed, national constitutions are by their nature living documents that must evolve to meet changing conditions in the governed society and the world as a whole. That this is true is abundantly clear when one considers the history of nations.
Consider that when the US was created society and the world were much different places. Gigantic organized capital didn't exist in the way it does today. Neither did multinational corporations, or enormous financial institutions. There were far fewer people to govern. International trade was far different. Communications and travel far more difficult. Warfare not nearly as massively destructive. These and other changes in society and the world have, of necessity, lead to changes in the role Government should play in a just society.
Common Sense believes that the only justification for government is to provide for the welfare of the governed society. It's worth remembering the preamble to the US Constitution
This perspective has real implications in current debates about the role of government. It provides a guiding principle that cuts through ideological purity to focus government action clearly on the needs of the governed. It rejects the notions of a "nanny government" while recognizing that safe food, safe drugs, clean water, healthy air, and many other government programs in fact clearly address the general welfare. Likewise, it rejects the notions of "minimalist government" and recognizes that it is a proper role of government to protect the govern from the abuses of powerful forces and events well beyond the capacity of an individual to confront.
Common Sense believes that the only justification for government is to provide for the welfare of the governed society. It's worth remembering the preamble to the US Constitution
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Those that call for adhering to founding principles should keep the preamble foremost in mind. They should note that the basic motivation for the US government is clearly rooted in the welfare of the governed as a society.
This perspective has real implications in current debates about the role of government. It provides a guiding principle that cuts through ideological purity to focus government action clearly on the needs of the governed. It rejects the notions of a "nanny government" while recognizing that safe food, safe drugs, clean water, healthy air, and many other government programs in fact clearly address the general welfare. Likewise, it rejects the notions of "minimalist government" and recognizes that it is a proper role of government to protect the govern from the abuses of powerful forces and events well beyond the capacity of an individual to confront.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Common Sense's philosophy
What values inform Common Sense? Here's some.
Common Sense is a pragmatist and believes that real problems need real solutions. Adopting a rigid stand and applying it unthinkingly to all problems is not simply naive and foolish, it is often silly and preposterous to the point of being stupid. Dogma doesn't solve problems. Pragmatism does.
Common Sense is not a Democrat nor a Republican but thinks that neither of the two major political parties does a very good job of representing the American center.
Common Sense is not anti-business but believes that over the last 50 years or so big business has entirely abandoned social responsibility for America and its wellbeing. To often business has become simply about profit not just as a necessary business goal but as the only goal at the expense of employees and often investors. Big business, in particular, seems to have forgotten that without a healthy society business has no customers.
Common Sense is neither pro nor anti government but believes that government is absolutely necessary to insure the wellbeing of society there being no other justification for government. Governments that fail to insure the wellbeing of their citizens don't last as the governed society doesn't last. One need only look at the second and third world to understand this reality.
Common Sense believes that less government is almost always better than more government. That said, it is a proper role of government to ensure that large organizations, ether businesses or social, do not abuse their power to the detriment of society as a whole. As ever larger entities have become ever more common in American society it is increasingly necessary for government to engage this role.
Common Sense believes in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Social welfare programs are not inherently bad. Indeed the evidence for their benefits is compelling. But, social welfare programs need to be paid for. The alternative is not simply an implicit tax on society, it is the diminishment and possible destruction of society.
Common Sense believes that it is an entirely appropriate role for government to act to create and insure a just and equitable society for societies that are not both just and equitable simply do not survive. They fail, often by disruptive violence.
Common Sense believes in Democracy. Common Sense also believes that when a majority tramples on the fundamental rights of minorities they are nothing but a mob. Democracy and pure majority rule are not the same thing.
Common Sense believes in free market economies. The ability of such economies to generate goods and services for their customers is unequaled. But, Common Sense also recognizes that not all issues can best be addressed by free markets. Some issues, particularly social justice and welfare, do not admit to profit oriented market driven solutions. Creating inexpensive shirts is not the same sort of problem as providing universal education.
Common Sense believes that facts are facts and as such are not malleable to support some position. Distortions and half truths do not help civil discourse particularly when difficult issues are involved. While there are gray areas and complexities to be sure they are far less common than political discourse would have the public believe.
Common Sense believes that we are all in the American experiment together. Shared goals, shared work, and when needed shared sacrifice is a central value in American society. Those who forget this value do great damage to American society. They diminish it and make America far less than it could be.
These values inform Common Sense's comments.
Common Sense is a pragmatist and believes that real problems need real solutions. Adopting a rigid stand and applying it unthinkingly to all problems is not simply naive and foolish, it is often silly and preposterous to the point of being stupid. Dogma doesn't solve problems. Pragmatism does.
Common Sense is not a Democrat nor a Republican but thinks that neither of the two major political parties does a very good job of representing the American center.
Common Sense is not anti-business but believes that over the last 50 years or so big business has entirely abandoned social responsibility for America and its wellbeing. To often business has become simply about profit not just as a necessary business goal but as the only goal at the expense of employees and often investors. Big business, in particular, seems to have forgotten that without a healthy society business has no customers.
Common Sense is neither pro nor anti government but believes that government is absolutely necessary to insure the wellbeing of society there being no other justification for government. Governments that fail to insure the wellbeing of their citizens don't last as the governed society doesn't last. One need only look at the second and third world to understand this reality.
Common Sense believes that less government is almost always better than more government. That said, it is a proper role of government to ensure that large organizations, ether businesses or social, do not abuse their power to the detriment of society as a whole. As ever larger entities have become ever more common in American society it is increasingly necessary for government to engage this role.
Common Sense believes in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Social welfare programs are not inherently bad. Indeed the evidence for their benefits is compelling. But, social welfare programs need to be paid for. The alternative is not simply an implicit tax on society, it is the diminishment and possible destruction of society.
Common Sense believes that it is an entirely appropriate role for government to act to create and insure a just and equitable society for societies that are not both just and equitable simply do not survive. They fail, often by disruptive violence.
Common Sense believes in Democracy. Common Sense also believes that when a majority tramples on the fundamental rights of minorities they are nothing but a mob. Democracy and pure majority rule are not the same thing.
Common Sense believes in free market economies. The ability of such economies to generate goods and services for their customers is unequaled. But, Common Sense also recognizes that not all issues can best be addressed by free markets. Some issues, particularly social justice and welfare, do not admit to profit oriented market driven solutions. Creating inexpensive shirts is not the same sort of problem as providing universal education.
Common Sense believes that facts are facts and as such are not malleable to support some position. Distortions and half truths do not help civil discourse particularly when difficult issues are involved. While there are gray areas and complexities to be sure they are far less common than political discourse would have the public believe.
Common Sense believes that we are all in the American experiment together. Shared goals, shared work, and when needed shared sacrifice is a central value in American society. Those who forget this value do great damage to American society. They diminish it and make America far less than it could be.
These values inform Common Sense's comments.
Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected - The Washington Post
Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected - The Washington Post
So it seems that after much sound and fury and almost shutting down the Federal government that the actual money saved in the fiscal 2011 budget was $352 million dollars! That's right million not trillion, not even billion! When pressed both the House and Senate Congressional leaders argued that the cuts were real in that they set a lower base for future spending, more precisely by reducing spending authorization previously approved.
As the article points out, the Federal budget isn't a simple thing and spans multiple years. That's all good and well, but fails rather badly a common sense test. The Federal government has to continue to borrow very heavily to pay current bills not money appropriated but not yet actually spent! Not money in the future, but money today.
So it seems that after much sound and fury and almost shutting down the Federal government that the actual money saved in the fiscal 2011 budget was $352 million dollars! That's right million not trillion, not even billion! When pressed both the House and Senate Congressional leaders argued that the cuts were real in that they set a lower base for future spending, more precisely by reducing spending authorization previously approved.
As the article points out, the Federal budget isn't a simple thing and spans multiple years. That's all good and well, but fails rather badly a common sense test. The Federal government has to continue to borrow very heavily to pay current bills not money appropriated but not yet actually spent! Not money in the future, but money today.
As of January 31, 2011, Treasury was $215 billion below the debt limit of $14.294 trillion. Now we're about to have to raise the Federal debt ceiling again. So in the last three or four months the Federal government has spent $215 billion more than tax revenue. OK, so while Congress almost shuts down the Federal government and saves a real $352 million in fiscal 2011 the Treasury borrowed $215 billion, some 600 times as much money in three months!
Common Sense wonders are we suppose to believe Congress is actually doing its job? While Common Sense doesn't think much of the Tea Party's extremest position to reduce spending while leaving taxes alone, they are entirely right that there is a real problem. Spending is certainly part of the problem, but so are taxes. A tax code that over $1 trillion in deductions and credits just doesn't pass the common sense test.
Common Sense thinks it's time to reform both real spending and real taxes. Common Sense thinks that it's time for Congress and the President to deal with Federal spending and taxes realistically. Claiming billions of savings when the actual number is millions while the Treasury borrows billions is not simply deceptive, it's a disservice to voters! It's also simply put a lie! Common Sense thinks that Americans deserve better, much better, from our employees.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Liers, dam liers, and pollsters
Common Sense is often troubled by some of the "polls" and poll results bandied about as support for one or another position. Here's a classic case of a poll so biased as to be meaningless.
So how is the poll biased. Consider:
1) America, do you support the full repeal of President Obama's healthcare plan Congress passed in 2010?
| ||||
2) Should Congress restore $500 billion in Medicare benefits for seniors that the Obama plan cut?
| ||||
3) Do you support President Obama's desire to give 12 million illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship?
| ||||
4) What do you believe Congress' top priority should be in 2011?
| ||||
5) Do you plan on voting to re-elect President Obama in 2012?
| ||||
6) America, who did you vote for in 2008?
|
- Repeal of health care plan - There is no option to say "don't repeal it at all". Nor is there any option to say "add a single payer option" or any other enhancement to the plan. All you can say via the poll is "repeal" some or all of the plan.
- Medicare benefit restoration - The question doesn't recognize provision of the health care plan that allowed the cuts without effecting Medicare recipients. It's not possible to say "leave the plan along and let the cuts stand."
- Amnesty for illegal aliens - Since there is actually no such plan the question is entirely bogus. The so called "plan" is a figment of the radical right in the blogosphere and nothing more.
- Congressional priority - No "other" choice. Moreover the choices are drawn from the radical right agenda. Additional no way to prioritize choices.
- 2012 vote preference - Actually a fairly reasonable question.
- 2008 vote - Another reasonable question.
Finally, the poll respondents are entirely self selected. Without some sort of representative sample the poll is entirely meaningless! Additionally, the "poll" is sponsored by a clearly partisan web site.
Common Sense thinks that when considering any poll result you ought to take a look at what the questions were, how the poll was conducted, and who conducted the poll. Absent that poll results are just numbers masquerading as facts. Far to often, in Common Sense's view, polls are little more than deception boarding on lies.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Republican presidential hopefuls - really Common Sense isn't kidding.
Latest CNN poll of Republican presidential hopefuls has Common Sense wondering. Really?
Huckabee 19% OK, so you remember Mr Huckabee from last round where he couldn't get nominated. But hey, perhaps he's the little engine that could. In case you forgot here's some of what he had to say last time:
Trump 19% (+9) Now thanks to The Donald we all know this character: sometime successful businessman, reality TV show, tireless self promoter, and, lets not forget, zero experience in government and birther. OK, so he's not as extreme as Huckabee, excepting the birther nonsense, but mostly his positions aren't known and, did I mention it, NO EXPERIENCE! It might be worth recalling that former actor Ronald Regan had been governor of California, one of the largest economies in the world, before running for president. The Donald is no Gipper! There must be someone better surely.
Palin 12% Momma grizzly and former governor of Alaska is yesterday's news. Couldn't get elected last time. Someone had to explain to her that reading was a good idea. Thinks "creation science," now there's an oxymoron, should be discussed in schools; opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion including in cases of rape, supports off shore drilling including the the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and is skeptical of global warming. While Ms Palin is a more or less reliable source of amusement and does, in fact, have previous political experience she's hardly what one would call a bright policy light.
Oh, I almost forgot, she's a leading Tea Party member. You know the Tea Party, that's the mob that wanted and almost succeeded in shutting down the Federal Government and is setting itself up for a repeat with the Federal debt ceiling. Oh, she also applauded The Donald's birther initiative. Perhaps it's time for the Republicans to just say no to Sarah.
Gingrich 11% (-3) By comparison not such a bad notion. But only by comparison to some truly bad potential candidates. Opposes EPA regulation of carbon emissions (never mind global warming), supports a no tax energy policy, pro flex fuel, pro drilling everywhere, opposed Wall Street bailout, opposes health care reform and favors market based health care, and actually has real substantive experience with government.
OK, Common Sense has to admit that Mr Gingrich isn't anywhere near as bad as the leaders. But, his positions are clearly well right of center. Common Sense isn't comfortable with that.
Romney 11% (-7) Tried once and didn't get elected. Actually a closet centrist with right leanings. Has real experience in politics as the former governor of Massachusetts but no federal experience. Still and all a fairly reasonable candidate on the facts. But he's 61 points down thanks to the Tea Party's influence so it's not at all clear is he can get nominated. If nominated we'll all enjoy a truly interesting election cycle.
Paul 7% (-1) Twice failed presidential candidate. An even better source of news than Ms Palin though, sadly, not so much in the news these days. Principled but extreme and clearly can't get nominated.
Bachmann 5% (+5) If ignoring facts and just plain lying would do it Ms Bachmann would win the nomination handily. Even so this Tea Party favorite is completely and utterly unelectable, as well she should be.
Daniels 3%, Pawlenty 2% (-1), Santorum 2% (-1), Barbour * (-1) OK, I know these folks are running but much as they think they may be real presidential material they're clearly not real presidential candidates. Perhaps they are running for VP?
So there's the current Republican field with two candidates that might be electable, three that are so far to the extreme radical right that it's not clear that even the Tea Party activist can get them nominated and if they were they couldn't get elected, and five also ran candidates that aren't serious candidates for anything but VP.
But here's the puzzling thing, in an environment where Mr Obama is almost certainly vulnerable why is the Republican party spending so much energy on so many potential candidates that are almost entirely unelectable? Why have moderate and progressive Republicans ceded conservative control to the extreme radical right?
Common Sense believes that absent a centrist political party there needs to be a reasoned balance between conservatives and liberals in Congress. It's important that the Republicans don't let their party be overrun by the Tea Party extremest.
Huckabee 19% OK, so you remember Mr Huckabee from last round where he couldn't get nominated. But hey, perhaps he's the little engine that could. In case you forgot here's some of what he had to say last time:
- My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. ... Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. - Really? Do we need a faith/religious based president? Oh, and isn't there something about church and state!
- Huckabee teams with Chuck Norris - OK, so I like Chuck Norris but what does this have to do with governance?
- Mr. Huckabee wanted an AIDS quarantine and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk!" Never mind the reality that AIDS is NOT contagious unless you manage to exchange body fluids and, really, homosexuality isn't ever contagious.
- Wanted to get rid of the IRS! OK, Common Sense is almost tempted to agree as I don't like the IRS any better than anyone else. But really, how are we supposed to pay for government?
Trump 19% (+9) Now thanks to The Donald we all know this character: sometime successful businessman, reality TV show, tireless self promoter, and, lets not forget, zero experience in government and birther. OK, so he's not as extreme as Huckabee, excepting the birther nonsense, but mostly his positions aren't known and, did I mention it, NO EXPERIENCE! It might be worth recalling that former actor Ronald Regan had been governor of California, one of the largest economies in the world, before running for president. The Donald is no Gipper! There must be someone better surely.
Palin 12% Momma grizzly and former governor of Alaska is yesterday's news. Couldn't get elected last time. Someone had to explain to her that reading was a good idea. Thinks "creation science," now there's an oxymoron, should be discussed in schools; opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion including in cases of rape, supports off shore drilling including the the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and is skeptical of global warming. While Ms Palin is a more or less reliable source of amusement and does, in fact, have previous political experience she's hardly what one would call a bright policy light.
Oh, I almost forgot, she's a leading Tea Party member. You know the Tea Party, that's the mob that wanted and almost succeeded in shutting down the Federal Government and is setting itself up for a repeat with the Federal debt ceiling. Oh, she also applauded The Donald's birther initiative. Perhaps it's time for the Republicans to just say no to Sarah.
Gingrich 11% (-3) By comparison not such a bad notion. But only by comparison to some truly bad potential candidates. Opposes EPA regulation of carbon emissions (never mind global warming), supports a no tax energy policy, pro flex fuel, pro drilling everywhere, opposed Wall Street bailout, opposes health care reform and favors market based health care, and actually has real substantive experience with government.
OK, Common Sense has to admit that Mr Gingrich isn't anywhere near as bad as the leaders. But, his positions are clearly well right of center. Common Sense isn't comfortable with that.
Romney 11% (-7) Tried once and didn't get elected. Actually a closet centrist with right leanings. Has real experience in politics as the former governor of Massachusetts but no federal experience. Still and all a fairly reasonable candidate on the facts. But he's 61 points down thanks to the Tea Party's influence so it's not at all clear is he can get nominated. If nominated we'll all enjoy a truly interesting election cycle.
Paul 7% (-1) Twice failed presidential candidate. An even better source of news than Ms Palin though, sadly, not so much in the news these days. Principled but extreme and clearly can't get nominated.
Bachmann 5% (+5) If ignoring facts and just plain lying would do it Ms Bachmann would win the nomination handily. Even so this Tea Party favorite is completely and utterly unelectable, as well she should be.
Daniels 3%, Pawlenty 2% (-1), Santorum 2% (-1), Barbour * (-1) OK, I know these folks are running but much as they think they may be real presidential material they're clearly not real presidential candidates. Perhaps they are running for VP?
So there's the current Republican field with two candidates that might be electable, three that are so far to the extreme radical right that it's not clear that even the Tea Party activist can get them nominated and if they were they couldn't get elected, and five also ran candidates that aren't serious candidates for anything but VP.
But here's the puzzling thing, in an environment where Mr Obama is almost certainly vulnerable why is the Republican party spending so much energy on so many potential candidates that are almost entirely unelectable? Why have moderate and progressive Republicans ceded conservative control to the extreme radical right?
Common Sense believes that absent a centrist political party there needs to be a reasoned balance between conservatives and liberals in Congress. It's important that the Republicans don't let their party be overrun by the Tea Party extremest.
Common sense and the Federal budget
What's wrong with spending cuts? Nothing really. But, when you think about budgets there's another side - income. If all Congress and the President does is look at spending then they ignore one of the most valuable budget balancing measures - taxes.
Think not? Here are the facts.
According to the President's Debt Commission reforming the tax code by 1) lowering tax rates for individuals and corporations, and 2) reducing or eliminating tax breaks in the tax code would yield over $1 trillion, that's right TRILLION, in additional tax income! Depending on which version of the numbers you like the 2010 deficit is $1.3 trillion. Simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax breaks by itself solves way more than half the problem! Even if all tax breaks were not eliminated, say the mortgage interest deduction, tax rates could still be reduced, though not as much, and still yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue!
Adopting President Obama's proposed increased taxes on individuals making over $200,000 and couples over $250,000 would yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO! Perhaps the most well to do Americans should pay a bit more.
Letting the Bush era tax cuts expire would yield over $3 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO. You remember the Bush era that lead up to the near collapse of the US financial services industry and trillion dollar Federal bailouts that contributed to ballooning Federal deficits. Perhaps they weren't all such a good idea.
Common Sense's point is that balancing a budget and reducing debt is about BOTH controlling spending and generating revenue. To try and solve the budget deficits by focusing only on spending will lead to gutting programs that benefit many, often the most vulnerable, Americans like your parents on Medicare or the single mother that can't afford to feed her children while working a minimum wage job and needs food stamps. Common Sense thinks America is better than that, much better.
Making changes to the tax code that eliminate corporate welfare, reduce or eliminate excessive and irresponsible tax breaks for everyone, and have more reasonable rates for everyone is just plain common sense. Not doing so because it offends the purity of political dogma is not only irresponsible but clearly leads to devastating social outcomes that ultimately are bad for all Americans. It's time for some common sense discussions about taxes.
Think not? Here are the facts.
According to the President's Debt Commission reforming the tax code by 1) lowering tax rates for individuals and corporations, and 2) reducing or eliminating tax breaks in the tax code would yield over $1 trillion, that's right TRILLION, in additional tax income! Depending on which version of the numbers you like the 2010 deficit is $1.3 trillion. Simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax breaks by itself solves way more than half the problem! Even if all tax breaks were not eliminated, say the mortgage interest deduction, tax rates could still be reduced, though not as much, and still yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue!
Adopting President Obama's proposed increased taxes on individuals making over $200,000 and couples over $250,000 would yield over $1 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO! Perhaps the most well to do Americans should pay a bit more.
Letting the Bush era tax cuts expire would yield over $3 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years according to the CBO. You remember the Bush era that lead up to the near collapse of the US financial services industry and trillion dollar Federal bailouts that contributed to ballooning Federal deficits. Perhaps they weren't all such a good idea.
Common Sense's point is that balancing a budget and reducing debt is about BOTH controlling spending and generating revenue. To try and solve the budget deficits by focusing only on spending will lead to gutting programs that benefit many, often the most vulnerable, Americans like your parents on Medicare or the single mother that can't afford to feed her children while working a minimum wage job and needs food stamps. Common Sense thinks America is better than that, much better.
Making changes to the tax code that eliminate corporate welfare, reduce or eliminate excessive and irresponsible tax breaks for everyone, and have more reasonable rates for everyone is just plain common sense. Not doing so because it offends the purity of political dogma is not only irresponsible but clearly leads to devastating social outcomes that ultimately are bad for all Americans. It's time for some common sense discussions about taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)