Authored by: William Robert Barber
On January 20, the Republican old is giving way to the Democratic new. As the transition of the new replaces the former the once daily accusations (by media and Democrats) of how poorly the former administration is managing the nation’s challenges has stopped; in its stead, the Obama administration is constantly acknowledging how tough it will be to legislate the correct policy be it domestic or foreign.
The global economic malaise has stymied all solutions, less the commonly held consensus, of throwing more cash at something, be it an institution, a business sector, or yes, of course, public works and anything green. Surely, they who know all things must think that increasing the federal deficit will enable the proper economic remedy; this is the same logic that prompted Senators Dodd and Franks to enact their sponsored mortgage finance relief initiative. Naturally, despite the experience and profound persuasive warrantees of these two legislative veterans, the intent was never served; the entire initiative failed flat on its face.
If the unemployment percentage is 10% then 90% is working. The tax base is as secure and in direct proportion to government expenditures; in other words, as the tax revenue decreases lower the cost of operations. Is this not fairly basic home grown economics? The problem is that the liberals will not cut the federal budget because of their interpretation of what they consider essential public services and the conservatives, as well as, Blue-Dog Democrats not only lack the intestinal fortitude to enforce their beliefs but aside from some reference to a philosophical subjective or two (always timidly presented) they have no solution. Therefore, in the interest of not looking particularly inept the political factions band together so that neither is outside the box of public scrutiny.
Banks will loan money when the collateral and interest is in line with risk. If banks do not lend money the banks will not harness interest bearing deposits; without deposits, banks cannot qualify to borrow. If enterprise is left unmolested by congressionally inspired stupid regulations and laws, commerce, by means that always adjust to present economic conditions will continue; continuance insures success.
When government decides to further their Helter-skelter methodology of throwing more money around some consideration should be given to seriously lowering (by half) the corporate tax rate, it should also eliminate the compliance with non-effective bureaucratic regulations, one such example is that draconian nonsense known as Sarbanes-Oxley.
Another real-world effectual that will negate the rising cost of goods and services is to prohibit the incredibly stupid operating-rules sponsored by unions that require three persons to do one person’s work. Sensibility should prevail over the ever-corruptive result of union’s special interest incentives.
Because the US Congress has such a poor grade on the subject of: Ability-to-get-the-job-done. An issue that legislators refuse to rectify, or even address, (less some rhetorical impulsive referenced to reform delivered around the reelection cycle) the market has a tough time accepting as factual any positive reflection on the future. Imagine; legislators, with little hesitation, over a long period of measure have shamefully lied, deceived, distorted, and misinformed its constituents-no wonder there is a credibility stigma attached to congressional effectiveness. Think of the unforeseen damage done by these legislators when they decided to enact the minimum tax initiative upon the nation’s middle-income economic class; a perfect example of an unintended consequence perpetrated under the liberal guise of fair.
Withstanding the history of poor legislative result at the solving or anticipating the nation’s problems; government, is an institution managed by the elected, appointed, staffed, employed, and the curiously mysterious inertia of some indescribable anonymous engine that functions often with unpredictable anomaly in spite of its intrinsic presumption of governess. As long as congress continually feeds its policy of governmental expansion; government will, symbiotic with congressional feeding, substitute its power over the freedoms of all individuals and all forms of organizations. Government, as if in a shark feeding frenzy, will even feed upon itself, it will subjugate, curtail, enhance, abnegate, and ignore. Government is as much a living breathing contradiction to its original intent, (a righteous agreement among willing citizens) as it is a representative of mankind’s best efforts at self-governing. Government is behaviorally amoral; conclusively, government is not trustworthy-government has no conviction to righteousness nor does government have a heart.
Now, or very soon, government will change its face; but, will this new Democratic Party government change its DNA? Can this new face of governing service the interest of the people? Or will it continue to feed instead of master?
I am most eager to witness the clash of Obama the candidate with Obama the president. Is there going to be a difference with Obama the want-a-be and Obama the President of the United States? Will the values of the liberal agenda adjust to the point of being indistinguishable from the Bush administration’s ‘so called’ conservative principles? Or will the square of Liberal principles fight to enter the circle of realities’ terrain and situation?