Republican self-destruction, Part 2

Posted by Shyam Moondra

On Friday, under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner, the House passed the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill that will fund the government through November but, at the same time, de-fund Obamacare. The vote was largely on party lines. The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, said that this CR bill is "dead, dead" in the Senate. President Barack Obama has said that even if the Senate miraculously passes this bill, he will veto it. So the question is why would House Republicans push this bill, knowing full well that it could never become the law, and unnecessarily risk a possible government shutdown in ten days. Also, the House Republicans are refusing to increase the debt ceiling unless Obama agrees to additional spending cuts, setting the stage for the government to default on its debt. Last time, when Republicans tried this approach in 2011, the government debt got downgraded from AAA to AA+. Now we are on the verge of another downgrade from AA+ to AA, which will dramatically increase the interest payments due on national debt, and thus sharply increase the budget deficit. It is clear that the House Republicans have no strategy beyond passing the CR bill or refusing to increase the debt ceiling; they have not really thought through the consequences of their actions or figured out the endgame.

The Republican approach is so wrong at so many different levels:

• First, they want to reduce the budget deficit, but their actions would actually put upward pressure on interest rates and thus lead to higher deficit because of increased interest payments on debt. 

• Second, de-funding a program, which was approved by the Congress, signed into law by the president, and subsequently upheld by the USSC, is not the proper way to get rid of that program. If they really think that Obamacare is a bad idea, then the correct way to get rid off it is to offer amendments or an alternative health care proposal, get it passed in the House and Senate, and have the president sign it. That's how democracy works. You cannot threaten to shut down the government (which means military personnel fighting in Afghanistan will not get their paychecks and elderly people will be denied their monthly Social Security checks) unless you get what you want. Republicans cannot use blackmail as a tool to achieve their political goals. If this blackmail worked, could Republicans use it again to de-fund other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, or any other program that they didn't like? What we will have then is not democracy but chaos.

• Third, the Congressional Republicans have an approval rating of only 12% compared with Obama's 45%; so the question is why would Republicans threaten to shut down the government and end up paying a huge price at the ballot box? Last time, when Republicans played this game in 2011, they failed to win the presidency and lost seats in House and Senate in the 2012 election - so why would Republicans play the same game and hope to achieve a different outcome in the 2014 election? The chances are that they will actually lose the control of the House in 2014.

• Fourth, in 2011, Republicans' threat to shut down government crashed the stock markets and reduced business confidence, which led to corporations putting their capital expansion plans on hold. These ramifications led to reduced job prospects and slower economic growth. If Republicans shut down government this time, the people, with their decimated 401(K) and IRA accounts, will again blame the Republicans for their losses.

On the question of increasing the debt ceiling, Obama is right in saying that Congress passed the spending appropriation bills and they alone are responsible for making sure that the United States does not become a dead beat on its debt. The Congress must pass a clean bill increasing the debt ceiling so the government does not default on its debt and become a laughing stock around the world. However, in the long-term, reducing budget deficit and debt is of paramount importance to preserve and enhance our prosperity for the future generations. Therefore, Democrats and Republicans must urgently work together to address the dislocations caused by unwise across-the-board cuts under sequestration and hammer out a balanced plan that would increase revenues via tax reforms and also cut spending through meaningful reforms of the entitlement programs. The voters desperately want the Congress and Obama to work together and reach a compromise on the issues of budget deficit and national debt.

Democrats: Either exercise power and govern or get lost

Posted by Shyam Moondra

The White House, Senate, and House of Representatives are all controlled by the Democrats and yet they are unable to move forward on a number of defining issues such as health care and regulatory reforms. The Democratic Party lacks discipline and unity. They have wasted so much of their time bickering on health care that other important issues including regulatory reforms, executive compensation, Afghanistan, energy independence, climate change, and education still remain to be tackled.

Most of the blame for non-performance of Democrats, of course, lies with their leaders:
· President Obama has not done much to unify his party. He lacks strong leadership skills. He is way too conciliatory (President Lincoln once said, "Be sure you put your feet in the right place, and then stand firm"). Being the president means you listen well, but it also means you lead based on your convictions and twist some arms if you have to. So far, on health care, Obama has been more of a follower of a chaotic process characterized by Democrats going in thousand different directions and there is no one with a strong personality to bring them together. Obama shouldn't hesitate to withhold money for states (or threaten to close military bases in those states) whose senators and congressmen have been creating obstacles in the passage of his agenda in the Congress.
· The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is a total disaster. He is very weak and he has almost no control of his senate caucus. Reid should immediately step aside. The Senate Democrats need to elect a new leader, someone with the hardedge political skills of the late President Lyndon B. Johnson, who became the Senate Majority Leader in 1955 when Democrats had a majority by just one vote.
· The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is one of the most polarizing political figures in the country. She is extremely disliked not only by the House members but also by the population at large, as is evident by her very low approval rating. On most issues, Pelosi tends to be far left of the center where most of Americans are. It's no coincidence that many Democrats and almost all of Republicans in the House mostly vote against her. If Democrats elect a new Speaker, it will help them immensely to unify the Democrats and also win over at least some of the Republicans in the House.
· DNC Chairman, Tim Kaine, is the most invisible Chairman in the history of the Democratic Party. No one really knows where he is and what he is doing. Kaine needs to be more proactive in playing a leading role in bringing in the strayed senators and congressmen to the fold by using campaign money and other prerogatives as bargaining chips.

With the Democratic control of the White House and both houses of the Congress, they should be able to move on most issues simultaneously with a lightening speed, especially when Republicans are bogged down with their ideological tendencies (that most Americans don't agree with) and they have nothing new to offer. Unfortunately, every Democrat is playing his or her own tune - that's not the way to get things done. The so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" may get self-gratification by showing off their power but they should remember that they can't govern if they are not united. And if they can't govern then the American people are less likely to put them in power the next time around. The Democrats have a golden opportunity to get big things done but only if they could unify and work together for the good of their party and country.

The Congress should scrap the seniority system and older congressmen should retire

Posted by Shyam Moondra

President George Bush's approval rating has been the lowest compared to that of all other presidents in the modern history. However, the Congress fairs even worse in the eyes of the American people. The Congress, as an institution, is lethargic; it's like an over sized, old, and tired elephant that can hardly move.

While many of our problems are a direct result of Bush's ideology driven governing style, the Congress has failed to provide checks-and-balances as envisioned by the nation's founders. Bush's belief that the government should get out of the way of the private sector led to lax regulations that, in turn, led to the devastation of our free-market economy. Just as crime goes up on the Main Street if the police is not cruising the streets, it was not unexpected that Wall Street will engage in deception and manipulation if the regulators just looked the other way. Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike led him to blunder in invading Iraq that led to enormous costs in terms of lives and money. Bush's mantra of "lower taxes," led to disproportionately higher benefits to the rich at the expense of everybody else who are now stuck with a huge national debt that next generations would have to repay. Bush's spiritual belief is that there is no global warming and if there is something going on with our environment it's God's doing and not man-made, and, therefore, we don't really need to do anything. His recent push for health provider's conscience based denial to provide health care is rooted in his firm belief that abortion is a sin and not a woman's right. Bush's ideology driven agenda has brought nothing but ruins that now President-elect Barack Obama has to undo by pursuing more pragmatic ways of governing.

The Congress' record is even bleaker. The senators and congressmen failed to question faulty intelligence on Iraq, they authorized Bush to go to war but failed to provide oversight, they did not properly watch over the regulators who were supposed to regulate the financial sector, and they kept authorizing Bush to spend money that we didn't have. The government of checks-and-balances, as envisioned in the constitution, did not materialize.

One of the reasons why the Congress has turned in such a poor performance is that too many senators and representatives are old and they have been at the Capitol way too long. The median age of senators is 63 years compared with 36.7 years for the entire U.S. population. Most of the committee chairmen are in 70's and 80's, who are not in tune with the needs and thinking of the much younger and more dynamic population.

While older people bring experience and wisdom to their jobs, they generally have less energy and passion to accomplish big things. They tend to be comfortable in their jobs and thus have no zeal for any change. Resistance to change also means that novel ideas and solutions are not easily accepted. The older people are always behind the curve and in reactive mode; they almost never anticipate problems and they are rarely ready with proactive actions to prevent problems from happening in the first place. It's like a slow-motion movie running in reverse, very painful to watch.

Our country faces many difficult and complex problems that would require vigorous schedules and innovative approaches to solve them. The present mix of senators and representatives is out of step with the young and vibrant President-elect Obama, whom the American people chose over the aging Sen. John McCain. Obama has already outlined his ambitious agenda that includes a huge stimulus package to generate 3 million jobs, achieve energy independence during his tenure as the president, stabilize the housing market, tackle the health care crisis, win the war on terror in Afghanistan, and improve our educational system. The real question is if Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and these tired committee chairmen are the right people to keep up with Obama in achieving grand things for our country. I look upon these old lawmakers as an obstacle in our path to progress.

I think the time has come to get rid of this unwritten rule of seniority in the Congress when deciding who should lead what committee (the House has already begun that process but the Senate has not). The selection of lawmakers for the major leadership positions should be based on who has the capacity, drive, and passion to partner with the young Obama in getting things done. And to those in the Congress who are over 68, it's time they consider retiring and letting the younger generation take over, as was made abundantly clear by the American people who elected the young Obama as the next president. Perhaps, the time has come to also consider term limits for the U.S. senators and representatives.

Pelosi, Reid, Frank should resign and Bernanke and Cox must be replaced

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Given the credit market turmoil and the stock market crash that led to people losing their jobs, homes, and half of their retirement savings, it's imperative that people who were in a position to prevent this catastrophe step aside to bolster the confidence of the people in the government. As President-elect Obama assembles his new administration, it's important that we have new leaders in the Senate and House as well as new committee chairmen.

I call upon Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and other committee chairman to take moral responsibility for the major government failure to protect the people and step aside so that we have new leaders and a new beginning.

FED Chairman Bernanke should also be replaced. He unnecessarily increased interest rates, at a time when inflation was not a problem, which precipitated housing foreclosures. He continued to insist that sub-prime was not a problem. He waited too long to address the problem once it became clear that it had the potential to become a major crisis.

SEC Chairman Cox and his key people should be fired. He allowed hedge funds and investment banks to manipulate the markets and failed to enforce the laws. He eliminated the "up-tick" rule for short selling and naked selling became wide spread under his chairmanship that made it easier for hedge funds to manipulate the markets and make money at the expense of small investors. Cox did not serve his country well and he must be removed immediately.