Governing only by finding common ground is irrational and disserves the public interest

Reform Party of California Commentary

Sometime in 2006-2010 the Republican party apparently decided that for congress at least, compromise was no longer an acceptable way to arrive at legislation or to govern. With the relatively complete ideological polarization and separation of the two parties, the concept of compromise was seen as capitulation with evil (the comments on good and evil are at 7:00-8:30 of the 47-minute taped segment). Because of that, compromise was not an acceptable way to govern. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) made that very clear in a December 2010 interview on 60 Minutes (his comments on compromise are at 8:16-8:50 of the 14-minute taped segment; a transcript of Boehner's comments is here).

It is now common for republicans and the press to describe legislation as resulting from finding common ground, but not from compromise. The recently passed budget bill, the first in several years, is an example of how politics is now being conducted. The "common ground" that the new budget is partly (mostly?) based on comes from slowed military pension growth, which is apparently something that both sides were willing to accept as the price for increased spending elsewhere in the legislation.

The new governing profile as presented to the American people by the two parties and the press raises profound questions. This new way to govern is irrational and it does not serve the public interest particularly well. In the context of American history, compromise has always been a key factor. Without it, congress' already feeble capacity to govern is further weakened because, as Mr. Boehner put it "I made clear I am not going to compromise on -- on my principles..." Since there many principles out there, there are many things that cannot be compromised.

Not compromising on principles means not compromising on ideology and that means rejecting out of hand policy compromise-based policy options that just happen to be the best. The Founding Fathers had to make many compromises on various principles to create the U.S. constitution. The Constitution is sometimes referred to as "a bundle of compromises." If there had been no compromise among the founding Fathers, there would have been no Constitution and probably no single country as we now know it. There likely would be two or more smaller countries that may or may not include America's current land mass.

From the Reform Party of California's (RPCA) non-ideological, pragmatic point of view, what the republicans have unilaterally declared and the democrats have accepted is a new form of governance that elevates principle or ideology to a sacred, inviolate status. Since democrats in congress generally refuse to compromise on reductions in entitlement spending, their ideology on at least this point is basically the same as the republican's stance. In essence, the American congress has transitioned to a governance style that takes compromise off the table as a tool and relies instead on the much less flexible and nuanced exercise of "finding common ground".[1] That change has occurred in the face of a U.S. history of compromise, with compromise having been universally accepted and employed in governance right from the start.[2]

This transition represents major changes, unfortunately they are all for the worse. It puts ideology in politics on the same plane as ideology in religion. With that mindset, it is pointless to argue for policy options that require compromise, even if it is obvious that the best option for a given issue requires compromise. That is irrational. It sacrifices and subordinates service the public interest at the alter of service to sacred ideology.[3]

The arrogance of it all is impressive. Today's towering self-righteous ideologues feel so highly about their ideology that they shield it from the evil of compromise. By contrast, those ancient fumblers and fuddy duddys, the Founding Fathers, never took that step. Think about that. Ideological differences between various Founding Fathers were just as deep and sincere as today's differences but they compromised nonetheless.

Other questions about congress' new operating system leap out and scream for answers. If this kind of governance does not serve the public interest well, then what interests are being served? In the RPCA's opinion, this new way serves the status quo first and foremost, particularly including the two parties grip on power. People in congress know full well that most Americans want political compromise if that is what it takes to get things done. Again, there is more than just a hint of arrogance here. What the American people appear to want is secondary to what ideologues in congress demand. This is just another example of how and why ideology in politics is undesirable and generally ineffective, which is a point the RPCA continually makes and will continue to raise.

The only way to inflict meaningful change on an intransigent and arrogant two-party system is to simply walk away from it and work within a new political framework that offers meaningful, common sense options focused on service to the public interest. The non-ideological pragmatism the RPCA offers is an example of that kind of politics. Without that kind of a shift away from the status quo, we will continue to get weak, constrained governance from common ground instead of creatively and flexibly using all tools at our disposal.[4] Put another way how do you want your politics served, your way or theirs?

Footnotes:
1. The distinction between finding common ground and compromising is arguably unclear. Common ground can be described as a foundation of common interest or comprehension, as in a social relationship or a discussion. A compromise can be defined as a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. Although the recent budget deal is characterized in the press as resulting from finding common ground, it looks an awful lot like there was more compromising that common ground finding. Specifically, democrats compromised on their larger goal of increasing spending to protect the narrower priority of protecting entitlement spending, while (ii) republicans compromised on their larger goal of reducing spending to protect their sacred no new taxes ideology. Those compromises are why some on both sides complained about the budget deal. Regardless of the mix of factors involved, the budget bill arguably is weak because it is largely grounded in a mind set that rejects compromise. In other words, we got second or third best, not the best that could be attained from a mind set more open to all governance tools, including compromise.
2. Edmund Burke said this in 1775: "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise." There are at least two viewpoints from which compromise can be viewed, forward to what compromise will create and backward to what was conceded to get it. Despite that, the RPCA is not aware of an earlier widespread rejection of compromise as a valuable tool in intelligent governance.
3. Sacrifice in service to ideology might not be so bad if (i) the ideology happened to coincide with service to the public interest, which it sometimes does but usually does not and/or (ii) ideology did not have such a poor track record of performance. We have had decades of ideology-dominated politics and that has not yielded impressive results, to say the least. If ideology had been so great then why are we in the messes we are in?
4. The budget deal is an example of the weakness and constraint that finding common ground imposes. Since neither side was willing to compromise on their key ideological positions (entitlements for democrats and taxes for republicans), the budget bill puts us in a holding pattern. It does essentially nothing to get at the long-term fiscal problems we now face. That is another example of the two-party system's failure to efficiently govern in service to the public interest.

Nuclear option senate rule change

Reform Party of California Commentary

On November 21, 2013, democrats in the U.S. senate voted 52-48 to prevent filibusters of most presidential federal court and other presidential nominees. The rule change does not apply to supreme court nominees. The prior rule had been in effect for over 200 years and was a means the senate used to prevent the majority party from simply ignoring the minority party, as the House of Representatives routinely does.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the rule change was to eliminate the routine republican practice of "deny and obstruct" of judicial and executive branch nominees and return constitutional "advise and consent" to its proper place. The rule change is referred to as the "nuclear option" because it will fully poison the already hostile relations between senate democrats and republicans. The projected upshot is that nothing will get done because enraged republicans will, from now on, simply block everything they possibly can as retaliation for the loss of their power to block presidential nominees. Senate bipartisanship, which is nearly nonexistent will likely become fully extinct.

Although the republican leadership urged its members to not talk about retaliation, it is obvious that retaliation against democrats is exactly what is in store. Senator  John McCain (R-AZ) stated that Democrats would "pay a heavy, heavy price" for changing the Senate rules for judicial and executive nominees. Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-AL) said: “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

In the recent past, republicans tried to institute this same rule change, arguing that senate democrats were obstructing republican presidential nominees. In 2005, republican Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had this to say in support of the nuclear option and the practice of democratic blocking of republican nominees “It’s time to move away from … advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.”

What planet are we on here?

What goes around, comes around. Good grief, what is this two-party nonsense?
When the minority party in the senate blocks (filibusters) nominees of a president in the opposite party, the majority party tends to want to impose the new rule to eliminate the 60 vote super majority needed to override the filibuster. At the same time the minority party tends to oppose it. The party opposing it always calls this rule change bad. Outside observers generally agree that the senate's capacity to legislate will drop from feeble to essentially nonexistent. One bit of fallout is that the second round of the universally despised sequester is presumably more likely to take effect in January of 2104, although it probably was going into effect anyway.[1]

From the Reform Party of California's (RPCA) point of view, it is easy to see what the fuss is about. However, there is absolutely no possible justification for any adverse consequence to the public interest or to governing. When republicans retaliate, they aim their poison at the democrats. The question is how does that help the public interest? Are the republicans saying that the people who voted democrats into power deserve punishment? If so, how does one punish that group without hurting the entire public interest, including republicans? The whole uproar makes no sense at all. None.

As far as the RPCA can tell, there is nothing wrong with the rule change, particularly in light of the fact that (i) republicans had been blocking essentially all presidential nominees (that impairs governance) and (ii) the arguments used by each side to support or oppose the rule change flipped depending on who was in power and who was trying to block whom. Simple logic says that neither side has any compelling reason to oppose or support the new rule. Given that, the RPCA is comfortable with the new rule and justifies that by arguing that (i) the new rule simply reflects the consequences of who wins and loses elections, i.e., its just the will of the people, and (ii) neither party will do anything differently when they are in power in the senate than they otherwise would have with the rule in place, i.e., are the republicans really going to consent to bad or unqualified nominees when their turn at "revenge" comes? It sounds like kids fighting on the playground over not much of anything.

If anyone would argue differently, they need to first think very, very carefully about what they are saying and what it means.[2]

What this sorry mess shows is the profound, blinding hold that the two-party system and its bitter, constipated thinking has on its partisans and politicians.[3] Both sides honestly believe what they argue today, while completely ignoring the fact that they argued the opposite side's points when the shoe was on the other foot. The whole thing is sheer nonsense.[4] No wonder many or most Americans no longer trust the two-party system. There is no solid basis for trust.

Footnotes:
1. Democrats and republicans in congress universally despise the sequester as inefficient and stupid. Although that is true, the sequester is probably the only way to to begin to address spending given the profound hatred the two parties hold for each other. Even before the new rule went into effect, there was no basis to expect that the two sides in the senate could intelligently legislate any longer. The new rule may put another nail in that coffin, but the lid already was pretty much pounded into place. It is therefore not clear how much worse the new rule makes things.
2. The best argument to leave the old rule in place is that without it, the president in power and his party controlling the senate will nominate and approve nominees that are even more ideologically extreme than the ideologues that dominate now. Most or all democratic and republican ideologues strive for ideological purity in themselves and view for reality. However, if that is a bad thing, why? This is why: Ideology doesn't solve problems, it obscures facts and issues and distorts thinking. That might serve ideology but its effect on problem solving is a crap shoot. Pragmatic non-ideological problem solving solves problems. That potential problem is counterbalanced by the actual problem of too many nominees being held up for political reasons. The U.S. senate itself characterizes the advice and consent requirement as largely political in practice: President George Washington "had asserted that he would consider political loyalty as a factor in selecting key officeholders, but he vowed that subordinate posts would be filled only on merit." In other words, nominating federal judges and office holders always was and still is is based as much or on more on party or ideological loyalty than merit. In RPCA opinion that is unacceptable. It doesn't have to be that way. However, basing nominees on merit instead of politics requires political action to be public interest focused instead of focused on self-interest, i.e., political. That will not happen in our self-centered two-party political system because loyalty and ideology trump everything else.
3. This situation is just like the old General Motors vs. labor union fights of the 1960s and 1970s. Both side were so intent on strangling each other to death that they failed to see what they were doing to the business as a whole. It all ended a few decades later with bankruptcy and a public bailout. Management and the unions blindly went right over the cliff with their hands wrapped around each others' throat. The situation for congressional democrats and republicans today is basically the same.
4. Republicans complain that the new rule will cause the senate to be a worse institution and/or less-fettered majority rule will be a bad thing. If that happens, the RPCA and reasonable people would assume that once republicans gain control of the senate, they would correct the error and restore the prior rule by a simple majority vote. If they didn't do that, then whose interests would the republicans be serving: The public interest or their own emotional needs? Based on the rhetoric, it sounds like the republicans want revenge but that doesn't sound anything like service to the public interest. Once again, the two-party system displays one of its fundamental traits - self-service before service to the pubic interest.

Pork spending & unintended consequences

Reform Party of California Commentary

Pork barrel spending: Is the cure worse than the disease?

After years of complaints, congress reluctantly curtailed the practice of earmark spending. That policy shift occurred a few years ago. The practice, sometimes referred to as pork barrel spending, had been criticized for years as wasteful. However, as with most things in politics, the story was not as simple as just eliminating wasteful spending. It now appears that there probably have been unforeseen consequences from reducing earmark spending. One apparent consequence is the disintegration of the power of majority leadership in the House of Representatives. On its face, that assertion would seem to be nonsense because there is no obvious connection between earmarks and House caucus cohesion. Nonetheless, a good argument can now be made that earmark spending was part of the glue that held a majority caucus together. There probably is a strong connection between earmarks and cohesion.

Specifically, when House majority and committee chairpersons cannot earmark spending in legislation they have less leverage over rank and file members. Those leaders cannot insert spending that is targeted to restive legislators' voting districts as the quid pro quo for supporting legislation they might not otherwise support. In short, pork was the reward for cohesion. The pork gave legislators something to use in their reelection campaigns, which is the overriding priority for any incumbent. Elimination of most earmark spending stripped away the powerful self-interested incentive that used to hold dissidents in line.[1]

The issue of political self-interest influencing politics is something the Reform Party of California (RPCA) repeatedly raises.[2]

Once earmarks are understood in context, good arguments can be made that responsible earmark spending is a very useful tool in efficient governance. A potential example of "good pork" is the recent law that reopened government and raised the debt ceiling. That law contained a $2.8 billion earmark for a dam in Kentucky and a smaller earmark for the widow of a former democratic U.S. senator.[3] Conservatives jumped on the dam earmark, calling it the "Kentucky Kickback". The rationale for and defense of inserting the earmark was that it was needed to avoid waste of $160 million tax dollars that would occur if the earmark was not present. Assuming, the $2.8 billion project actually best serves the public interest, there should be nothing wrong with it and no complaints. However, if the project was simple payback for Mitch McConnell's support in the senate for avoiding a debt ceiling debacle (the RPCA's suspicion), then the $2.8 billion is arguably waste to some degree or another. Whether the $160 million is worth saving at that or any price is a separate question. It may be that the $160 million should never have been committed in the first place, or, maybe it was sound and unobjectionable all along.

In the weeks leading up to the deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling, House Speaker John Boeher tried but failed to get his caucus to support legislation to avoid both the shutdown and breach of the debt ceiling. He failed because Tea Party members, refused to compromise. Would things have played out the same way if House leaders had been in a position to give out pork in exchange for votes? That is hard to know. But if pork was available and successfully used to get enough republican caucus support to change the course of events, that outcome could have been less costly than the real outcome. The situation raises an obvious question. Is it better to have the waste associated with pork or the waste associated with the new gridlock and conflict norm? Specifically, which is the least wasteful - a world with pork or one without it?

Economists are now calculating the cost of debt and budget gridlock dramas of the last couple of years. The U.S. GDP has taken a hit, maybe 0.6% for the 4th quarter (0.15% decrease for the year), and there are real costs associated with the new normal of uncertainty, gridlock and brinksmanship.[4] If you accept the notion that part of the new normal arises from the loss of earmark spending, then logically that has contributed to at least some of the damage and waste that political conflict has inflicted in the last year or two.

Of course, the problem in all of this is how to calculate the costs and benefits in a with pork world compared to the relatively pork-free world we now reside in. Maybe the cure is worse than the disease. It was never the case that all earmark spending was pure waste. The problems arose when people in congress acted like spoiled brats and tried to build fun things like former Alaska senator Ted Steven's bridge to nowhere.[5] That is the problem with earmarks - it feeds political self-interest and the innate urge to abuse it is very powerful. On the other hand, if the absence of earmarks facilitates gridlock and waste[6], we just might have one situation that is better than the other.

The problem with the two-party political system is that it is not capable of honestly assessing the situation. Conservatives will rail at earmarks, even if it turns out to be less wasteful to have it than doing business without them. Congressional leaders would likely welcome earmarks back because it makes their jobs easier. The analysis should be objective, rational and focused on the public interest, but two-party politics isn't objective, rational or focused on the public interest. Two-party politics is, for the most part, subjective, irrational and focused on self-interest. This is why, to a significant extent, status quo politics so broken.

Footnotes:
1. This is an excellent example of the power of self-interest in politics. Self-interest is an innate part of human nature. As such, criticizing it may not make a lot of sense. Politicians, many of whom have massive egos, simply are not going to just "rise above" the powerful self-interest instinct. Regardless of how strenuously politicians deny its relevance to themselves personally, it is probably more intelligent to simply acknowledge the fact that self-interest is a powerful driver of behavior for most or all politicians. If you have that mind set, one can readily see that the power of self-interest can be manipulated in service to the public interest, in theory at least. The trick, of course, is figuring out how to align incentives so that they reward service to the public interest as much as, or preferably more than, service to personal political career (re-election). Because of its complexity, that is a topic for another time.

A final point. A good recent example of a self-serving vote was that of Barack Obama against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 when he was in the U.S. Senate. Now, as president the president characterizes that vote as political. In his own words: “That was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it,” (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/10/obama-defends-2006-vote-against-raising-the-debt-ceiling/). When the president calls his vote "political", but one can reasonably argue that is another way to say it was a self-interested vote. This sort of thing happens all the time in politics and that has to be acknowledged before the issue can even begin to be addressed.

2. Link: (http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-self-interest-vs-public-interest/).
3. Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361462/shutdown-deal-includes-pork-barrel-spending-eliana-johnson.
4. Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/business/economy/high-cost-to-the-economy-from-the-fiscal-impasse.html?_r=0; http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/shutdown-cost-120000-us-jobs-white-house/articleshow/24609063.cms; http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/shutdown-rattles-economy-sends-wave-of-uncertainty-lack-of-confidence/article_6f594a32-3b9a-11e3-a52f-001a4bcf887a.html.
5. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge.
6. Pork alone isn't the whole story. Other forces are at work, most notably gerrymandered house voting districts. The RPCA has raised the ill effects of that ugly beast before (http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-commentary-how-legitimate-is-the-government-shutdown-over-the-aca/).

Letter to CA congressional delegation

DRAFT 3

October 25, 2013

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein (Barbara Boxer)       Mr. Mark Kravis
United States Senate                                                        Treasurer, Reform Party of California
Washington, DC 20510                                                  14704 Caminito Vista Estrellado
                                                                                           Del Mar, California 92014


Re: Request for Support for Spending Priority Changes


Dear Senator Feinstein (Boxer):

I write to you as a California small business owner and on behalf of the Reform Party of California ("RPCA") and all California citizens and businesses. This letter raises a matter that is very important for California's economy, its citizens and its businesses. Information that the RPCA has obtained indicates that, in relation to other states, California contributes more tax dollars to federal spending outside of its home state than any other state. Analysis of tax data published by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax analysis organization, show that for every federal tax dollar that California sent to Washington in 2005, the state received back about $0.78 in federal spending.[1] The RPCA estimates that if California had received $1.00 back in federal spending in the state for each $1.00 sent to Washington in 2005, the state would have received an additional $43 billion in spending back from the federal government. That data indicated that California ranked 43 in terms of getting back what it paid in federal taxes.

Unfortunately there is no way to compare, dollar for dollar, how much a state gets from the federal government and how much the state pays in federal taxes for most tax years. The 2005 analysis mentioned above appears to be based on the most recent detailed tax data that exists. This is the best data available to date. Estimating the situation for other years is the best that can be done. The RPCA has looked into the situation for 2010, the most recent year with sufficient data that we are aware of for a similar analysis and estimate.

IRS data for 2010 shows that gross payment to the IRS from California residents and businesses was $273.3 billion ($292.6 billion in 2012).[2] That was significantly more than payments from any other state. This is not surprising because California has the largest gross state product of any state, about $1.9 trillion in 2010 or about 13% of the U.S. GDP. The 2010 tax data, which is incomplete, indicates that California residents received from federal programs about $4,459 per person.[3] Based on a 2010 population of about 37.3 million[4], California received about $166.3 billion from the federal government in 2010. To account for an incomplete 2010 data set, one can assume that payments back to California in 2010 were 25% higher than $166.3 billion. In that case, California received $207.9 billion of the $273.3 billion that was paid in 2010. Obviously, if the 25% correction factor for incomplete data is in error, then the amount California received in 2010 would be adjusted up or down accordingly.

Assuming the 2010 estimate is accurate, California received from the federal government 76% of the proceeds it sent to Washington that year. That estimate is similar to the 78% return rate that the complete data set for 2005 showed. If the 2010 estimate is accurate, California subsidized spending outside the state by about $65.4 billion. The RPCA is unaware of more accurate or more recent data. As you know, many other states receive more in per capita federal spending than they contribute.[5] As far as the RPCA knows, there is no constitutional or legal requirement for California to be a perpetual donor state, so the situation is open to reassessment at any time without any constraint.

California has the largest, most dynamic and productive economy of any state. It also has the largest population. As you are no doubt aware, the state's infrastructure is in a state of serious disrepair and there are other pressing critical needs for maintaining California's dominant economic position. Urgent current spending needs to simply restore California's position could reach $1 trillion.[6] Based on assessment of our current situation, the RPCA believes that federal spending priorities need to be reoriented to attain at least a parity situation where California receives one dollar in federal spending in the state for each tax dollar it sends to Washington.

The RPCA cannot stress enough that California's contributions are critically important to the overall U.S. economy and the U.S. population as a whole. California is a major generator of new technology and innovation. That is the single most important means available to generate wealth and to defend our standard of living. California's economy is the 9th largest in the world, but its state business tax climate ranks about 48th from the top.[7] That disconnect, a hostile business tax environment coupled with staggering economic output, can only hint at the restrained dynamism of California's economic engine. Any drag on the capacity of California's economy to perform at maximal efficiency hurts overall U.S. GDP growth and that in turn, adds to federal fiscal stress. World-class infrastructure for California, including its education system, is critical to maintaining maximal economic efficiency.

Obviously, attaining tax parity would significantly improve California's business climate because revenues that businesses generate would result in tangible infrastructure improvements that should increase their competitiveness against global competitors. Many of those competitors do not play on a level field against our companies, so anything that the federal government can reasonably do to help is critical to the economic well-being of the entire U.S. Clearly, the U.S. has a vested interest in insuring that California's infrastructure, education system and general operations is world-class and fully funded. The question that must be asked is whether it makes economic or national security sense to continue to starve the single biggest economic engine in the U.S. economy in return for benefits that cannot be readily quantified.

Under current circumstances, California's generosity simply does not make economic sense. It is arguably unsustainable and damaging to the U.S. economy as a whole. Some information suggests that California has been a major subsidy donor for many years[5], and one can argue that is at least part of the reason for its infrastructure deterioration. California's once world-class infrastructure has been neglected for quite some time and it continues to degrade.[6] Under the circumstances, the RPCA believes that it is in the best interest of California and the U.S. to bring federal spending in California in line with what California sends to Washington. In short, the RPCA is asking for your support on the public record for spending priorities that return to California every tax dollar it sends to Washington. Reorientation of spending existing revenue streams will not increase the federal debt. Implementing this proposal therefore cannot be significantly objectionable on debt-related grounds.

Because of the complexity of budgeting and ongoing programs, the RPCA understands and is sensitive to the fact that attaining revenue and spending parity cannot be accomplished overnight. Federal budgets are complicated and shifting spending priorities need to be made with care. Nonetheless, current spending priorities endanger America's economic growth and its competitiveness. In turn, that endangers America's national security. Given the urgency and seriousness of California's deteriorating status, the RPCA believes that a shift to parity within 3-4 years is fair and reasonable. That is sufficient time to minimize undue disruption to current spending programs, while providing a real prospect of meaningful relief to California in a reasonable period of time.

Although recipient states initially may resist this change in spending priorities, the RPCA is confident that on reflection, all members of congress will agree that it is in the public's interest to support this reorientation effort. The general attitude in many states is fully in accord with the concept of self-reliance and limited government. For affected states, reduced reliance on California revenues would obviously be more than welcome because reorientation will clearly reduce their dependence on federal spending while increasing self-reliance. Those are the main political goals for a number states that now receive more in federal spending than they contribute. It is hard to imagine any degree of reasoned opposition from such states once these fundamental bedrock principles are made clear.

When California does well, the rest of America will also prosper. Moving toward tax and spending parity for California is clearly a win-win opportunity for all American stakeholders and the world at large. In turn, that efficiently serves the public interest. 

The RPCA is asking for support for this critically important effort from all of California's senators and representatives, President Obama and key leaders in both houses of congress. The RPCA is formally asking all members of California's congressional delegation to initiate a cooperative bipartisan effort to begin the complex process of bringing California into a parity profile as soon as that can reasonably be done. The RPCA has every confidence that once this matter is brought to the attention of our members of congress, there will be unanimous agreement that this must be a high priority for California's elected representatives going forward. The RPCA is contacting Governor Brown, key congressional and state legislative leaders and businesses, key California politicians and other groups to ask them to go on the record to either express their support or to oppose this proposal. Based on increasing revenue inflow from reorientation, the RPCA will ask state leaders to reduce, when prudent, tax rates on California citizens and businesses.

You are of course very busy and the situation in congress is complicated and difficult. Despite the difficulties, I sincerely hope that this request for your support of this effort is accompanied by information and unbiased reasoning sufficient to convince you that this is a an important issue for California's citizens and its powerful economic engine. The links provided below should allow your office to begin to independently assess the situation and draw its own conclusions, which the RPCA is confident will mirror our own.

The proposed reorientation effort will require a sustained bipartisan effort, but the ultimate goal is more than worthwhile. I would very much appreciate hearing from you or your office in due course regarding your response to this request for your support and participation. Absent a response from you or your office, the RPCA can only (reluctantly) conclude that you feel that this effort is of insufficient importance for a sustained reorientation effort.

Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate your hard work on behalf of all Californians.

Sincerely,


Mark Kravis
Treasurer, Reform Party of California

Footnotes:
1. Tax Foundation 2005 analysis: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005.
2. Internal Revenue Service gross collections (before refunds) by type of tax and state are reported in the fiscal year IRS Data Book, Table 5 (http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Gross-Collections,-by-Type-of-Tax-and-State,-Fiscal-Year-IRS-Data-Book-Table-5; http://nationalpriorities.org/en/interactive-data/database/mashups/bod5cq0ad4ntvrkr/).  Gross and net collections at the national level are reported in the IRS Data Book, Table 1. All IRS data tables are at: http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-IRS-Data-Book.
3. http://nationalpriorities.org/en/interactive-data/database/mashups/ufz9e7raolmod39z/.
4. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/CA.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state.
6. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/infrastructure-380794-california-public.html; http://www.caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/california-infrastructure-grades-are-in-needs-improvement; http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/where-is-the-money-going/local-road-infrastructure-crumbling-in-the-age-of-austerity-130306?news=847273.
7. http://taxfoundation.org/article/2014-state-business-tax-climate-index.




Representatives:
Letter Address

The Honorable Full Name

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

or district office address

Salutation

Dear Mr. / Mrs. / Ms. Last Name:

CA tax parity & misc info links

Information available to the Reform Party of California (RPCA) strongly suggests that California taxpayer interests are being poorly protected at the federal level. Data published by reputable sources show that for every federal tax dollar that California taxpayers sent to Washington in 2005, they received about $0.78 in federal spending.¹ The RPCA estimates that if California had received $1.00 back in federal spending in the state for each $1.00 sent to Washington, the state would have received an additional $43 billion in 2005.

For 2005, the data shows that California ranked 43 in terms of getting back what it paid in federal taxes. Returns for the four best-treated states were, for New Mexico $2.03 received for each dollar sent to Washington, $2.02 for Mississippi, $1.84 for Alaska and $1.78 for Louisiana. Those states were followed by $1.76 for West Virginia, $1.68 for North Dakota, $1.66 for Alabama, $1.53 for South Dakota, $1.51 for Kentucky and $1.51 for Virginia.

Unfortunately there is no way to compare, dollar for dollar, how much a state gets from the federal government vs. how much its pays in federal taxes. Estimating the situation apparently is the best that can be done. IRS data for 2010 shows that gross payment to the IRS from California residents and businesses was $273.3 billion ($292.6 billion in 2012).² That was significantly more than payments from any other state. Data from 2010 indicates that California residents received from federal programs about $4,459 per person³. With a 2010 population of about 37.3 million⁴, one can estimate that California received about $166.3 billion from the federal government in 2010. To account for the incompleteness of the 2010 data set, one can assume that payments back to California in 2010 were 25% higher than the $166.3 billion estimate, in which case California received back $207.9 billion of the $273.3 billion it paid in 2010. Obviously, if the correction factor for incomplete data is in error, then the amount California received in 2010 would need to be adjusted up or down accordingly.

Assuming the 2010 estimate is accurate, California received back from the federal government 76% of the proceeds it sent to Washington. That estimate is similar to the 78% return rate that the complete data set for 2005 showed. If the 2010 estimate is accurate, California subsidized spending in recipient states by about $65.4 billion. The RPCA is unaware of more accurate or more recent data than that discussed above.

Although many or most Californians may be pleased to subsidize other states like this, it makes sense to reassess this level of generosity. California has the largest economy and largest population of any state. It is therefore very important to the overall U.S. economy and the U.S. population as a whole. California is a major contributor to U.S. new technology and innovation, which is an important means to generate wealth and to defend our standard of living, which has been under attack for years. The entire U.S. has a vested interest in insuring that California's infrastructure, education system and general operations is world-class and fully funded. The question has to be asked if it makes economic sense to continue to starve the single biggest economic engine in the U.S. economy in return for benefits that cannot be readily quantified.

In RPCA opinion, this kind of gracious generosity no longer makes economic sense and is unsustainable. Maybe it never made sense. Some information suggests that California has may been a major subsidy donor for years.⁵ California's once world-class infrastructure is slowly degrading and it has been neglected for quite some time.⁶ Under the circumstances, the RPCA believes that it is in the best interest of California and the U.S. as a whole to bring federal spending in California in line with what California sends to Washington. In short, the RPCA is calling for parity in returning to California every tax dollar it sends to Washington.

Because of the complexity of budgeting and ongoing programs, the RPCA understands and is sensitive to the fact that attaining revenue and spending parity cannot be accomplished overnight. Federal budgets are complicated and shifting spending priorities needs to be made with care. Nonetheless, current spending priorities endanger America's economic growth and its competitiveness. In turn, that endangers America's national security. Given the urgency and seriousness of California's deteriorating status, the RPCA is calling for a shift to parity within 3-4 years. That is sufficient time to minimize damage to current spending programs, while providing a real prospect of meaningful relief to California in a reasonable period of time.

Although recipient states initially may resist this change in spending priorities, the RPCA is confident that on reflection, they will agree that it is in the public's interest to support this reorientation effort. The general attitude in many recipient states is fully in accord with the concept of self-reliance and limited government. For those states, this reorientation will no doubt have great appeal because it lessens local dependence on federal spending. That undeniably serves the public interest. It is hard to imagine any degree of opposition from such states once the fundamental bedrock principles are understood.

In addition, this provides a wonderful opportunity for other states who are so-inclined to step up and assume a leadership position in terms of generously donating assistance to states that are inclined to accept it. States that are now recipients may wish to repay the past generosity of others with future generosity of their own. When California does well, the rest of America also prospers. Moving toward tax and spending parity for California is clearly a win-win opportunity for all American stakeholders and the world at large.

To initiate the reorientation process, the RPCA has sent letters to all of California's senators and representatives asking them to begin a bipartisan, cooperative effort to begin the complex process of bringing California into a parity profile as soon as that can reasonably be done. The RPCA has every confidence that once this matter is brought to the attention of our congress members, there will be unanimous agreement that this will be a high priority for California going forward. The RPCA is contacting governor Brown and key state legislative leaders and other key politicians and groups to asking them to support this effort by conveying their support for parity to our congress members. A copy of the RPCA's letter is shown at footnote 7.

The RPCA urges all Californians to support this important and urgent project. Once parity is successfully in place, tens of billions in additional tax revenues will flow into California each year. Among other things, that will result in major improvements in California's infrastructure and education system over time. The best way to support this is to write to senators Feinstein and Boxer and the house member in your voting district. Contact information for our members of congress is at footnote 8. The RPCA further urges Californians to express their support to governor Brown and state political leaders, with their contact information shown at footnote 9.

Footnotes:
1. The quoted data is based on a 2005 analysis by the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation was founded in 1937 and describes itself as "the nation’s leading independent, non-partisan organization providing sound research and analysis on federal and state tax policy." These numbers appear to be fairly stable over time.
2. Internal Revenue Service gross collections (before refunds) by type of tax and state are reported in the fiscal year IRS Data Book, Table 5 (http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Gross-Collections,-by-Type-of-Tax-and-State,-Fiscal-Year-IRS-Data-Book-Table-5; http://nationalpriorities.org/en/interactive-data/database/mashups/bod5cq0ad4ntvrkr/).  Gross and net collections at the national level are reported in the IRS Data Book, Table 1. All IRS data tables are at: http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-IRS-Data-Book.
3. http://nationalpriorities.org/en/interactive-data/database/mashups/ufz9e7raolmod39z/.
4. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/CA.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state.
6. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/infrastructure-380794-california-public.html; http://www.caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/california-infrastructure-grades-are-in-needs-improvement; http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/where-is-the-money-going/local-road-infrastructure-crumbling-in-the-age-of-austerity-130306?news=847273.
7.
8.
9.
taxing and spending by states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
National Priorities Project: http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2013/federal-spending-your-state-2012-2014/; http://nationalpriorities.org/en/about/contact/

federal tax dollar spending in CA: http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/111117_How_Are_Federal_Dollars_Spent_pb.pdf
IRS tax data tables: http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Historic-Table-2
census bureau keeps tabs on fed spending per state
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-federal-aid-state-budgets
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-19/blame-fdr-and-lbj-for-moocher-paradox-in-red-states.html
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
defense facilities map: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nrdc.org/energy/images/database_dod_facilities_graphic.png&imgrefurl=http://www.nrdc.org/energy/readgdb.asp&h=585&w=810&sz=287&tbnid=O0HEcnW9WlPR3M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=125&zoom=1&usg=__CNDJR7SAA_BC5sr5E5stvZT18Is=&docid=lzCK5uQ-6WIRiM&sa=X&ei=FN81UqznH6rSiwLQyYCoCg&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=2074

nuclear accidents kept from Americans

Reform Party of California Commentary

The consequences of keeping Americans in the dark

A point that the Reform Party of California (RPCA) occasionally mentions regarding normal two-party politics is its disturbing penchant to hide information from Americans. Hiding the truth was a factor in the start and conduct of the Vietnam War. It was a factor in the passage of major legislation, e.g., medicare. It may turn out to be a factor in the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but it is too early to know that yet. It may have been a factor in the 2012 presidential election regarding the Benghazi embassy fiasco in 2012. It arguably was a factor in getting public support for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially Iraq. The list is long and depressing.

Almost nuked ourselves - lots of times

And, now it turns out that secrecy hid the risk of building and maintaining America's nuclear arsenal, especially in the 1950s, 1960s and the early part of the 1970s. During that time, and probably still today, the federal government felt it was best to not bother the American public with information about just how close and how often we were to the accidental detonation of American nuclear warheads on American soil. It turns out that we have darn near nuked ourselves a few dozen times and the government had no intention of even mentioning any of it. Maybe they thought it was too trivial to merit a paltry press release. Or maybe, they did not trust the American public enough to be honest about the close calls and risk of a nuclear accident incinerating a U.S. city.

Investigative reporter Eric Schlosser has just published results of a long investigation into nuclear accidents in his book "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" and what he describes is sobering to say the least.[1] If Schlosser's findings are basically true, sheer blind, dumb luck has kept us safe so far. To be fair, it appears that modern nuclear weapons are much safer than the earlier weapons. However, putting some faith in that assertion requires some trust in the federal government. Is such trust warranted?

Why the secrecy?

The RPCA assumes that the federal government chooses to keep such critically important information secret from the public for two main reasons. The first is to protect national security secrets. The second is to hide risk and embarrassment from the public. Obviously, the government will strenuously deny that it would ever do the second, but that denial carries no weight. The federal government has had no compunction about calling everything from illegal activities to staggering incompetence and waste a "secret". It took 25 years of Freedom of Information Act requests just to force the FBI to reluctantly release John Lennon's secret files.[2] There were no national security threats there, but there was a great deal of embarrassment and wasted time and money. Unfortunately, the government uses secrecy to hide all kinds of failure and waste.

No basis for trust

Discouraging as it is, there is no reliable basis for the public to trust the government in matters like this. Sometimes claims of secrecy are valid. Sometimes they are not. If the two-party system had a better track record over recent history, having some sympathy for nonsense might be justified. Unfortunately, the track record is not good.[3]

What happens if we nuke ourselves?

Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been a push to develop defenses against biological and radiological weapons. Radiological weapons included thermonuclear weapons, not just dirty bombs. In 2004, congress passed Bioshield legislation and appropriated $5 billion to develop defensive measures.[4] To date, the development of any measure for treatment of survivors of a nuclear blast has yielded nothing. The Bioshield and BARDA programs were intended to incentivize the private sector to development treatments, but implementation has been a dismal failure, with politics trumping serious private sector effort. The program for nuclear weapons mitigation has been in essence, converted into a long term government research program with the full knowledge and acquiescence of congress. What happens to survivors of a nuclear blast is simple: They crawl out of the high-radiation portion of the blast zone on their own. Official policy is to not send first responders in to rescue survivors unless they are in a low radiation area.[5]
In short, what will happen after a nuclear blast in a U.S. city is that thousands or tens of thousands will die (slowly and miserably) of radiation sickness, assuming they survive the initial blast. Treatment for that kind of biological insult requires intensive care (intravenous lines, antibiotics, platelet and/or blood transfusions) and such medical facilities in any region of the U.S. can treat a few hundred survivors at the very most. That assumes they are not vaporized in the nuclear blast. Platelet supplies are good for only a few days, so intensive care will be impaired or limited to whole blood transfusions. The situation represents yet another dismal failure of the two-party system.[6]

The irony is that all along, the chance of a nuclear blast from terrorists has appeared to be very low. An accidental launch by the Russians or Chinese appeared to be more likely, but still very low. Now, with the revelations from Schlosser's book, the real threat appears to be from the nuclear arsenal of the U.S. itself. Given the revelations from Schlosser, it is reasonable to think that the chance of a nuclear blast in a U.S. city is 100-fold to 1,000-fold more likely to come from our own nuclear arsenal than from any murdering terrorist or an accident by a nuclear power such as Russia. If the public had known all along the risk that Schlosser describes, the RPCA is confident that Bioshield, BARDA or earlier efforts, e.g., the Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute[7], would not have been so dismally moribund and would have been real, serious efforts. In that scenario at least one or more drugs with a meaningful impact on saving lives after a nuclear blast would very likely be available today.

This situation is a direct consequence of what happened, or didn't happen, because the U.S. government did not trust its people to be able to handle truth. It is time for regime change in Washington. Both parties need to go. The Reform Party offers a real difference, if you do not know where to go.

Footnotes:
1. Links: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=230075256; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tavis-smiley/eric-schlosser_b_4081050.html; http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/09/30/130930crbo_books_menand?currentPage=all.
2. Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-lennon-files-the-fbi-and-the-beatle-429429.html; https://www.aclu.org/national-security/after-25-years-fbi-finally-releases-last-10-documents-john-lennon-fbi-file.
3. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-two-party-politics-and-recent-history/.
4. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bioshield_Act; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_Advanced_Research_and_Development_Authority.
5. Links: http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/outreach/pdf/planning-guidance.pdf; http://hps.org/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf.
6. Rest assured, the government will claim great progress and success, e.g., they deploy useless, overpriced iodine tablets and let people think that has any relevance to a nuclear attack. The federal posture here is simply impossible to square with the reality of a nuclear blast in a populated area. What the government is working on is (i) stockpiling medicines (e.g., filgrastim) that need to be used in intensive care facilities (which are not available to more than a few dozen people) and (ii) drugs that work only if they are administered before a nuclear blast. How any of that has any relevance is far beyond the RPCA's capacity to reconcile the hideous reality of a nuclear blast with the government's proposed nonsense solutions. The whole Bioshield/BARDA approach for nuclear blast mitigation has been smoke, mirrors, gas, vapor and a waste of tax dollars.
7. Link: http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/.

Afghanistan and unpleasant diplomacy

Reform Party of California

Afghanistan, unpleasant diplomacy and an uncertain future

It is good that there are at least some people with the self-control, talent and amazing patience to skilfully practice the black art of diplomacy. It is better to at least keep talking than to back away from the table and not talk. That is true even if it is obvious that talks are not going to accomplish anything in the short or medium term. Maybe in the long run something good, e.g., an unnecessary war avoided, will come of it. However, there are times when the people that diplomats have to deal with are so profoundly corrupt, odious and offensive that one would think that human patience would simply run out.

On October 9, 2013, page A6, the New York Times (NYT) published an article discussing "a stinging critique of the American-led campaign" in Afghanistan.[1] Afghan president Hamid Karzai made comments in an interview with the BBC where he criticized the U.S. for "causing harm to the Afghan people" in its quest to find Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. At the moment, American and Afghan negotiators are unable to agree on terms of relations once the U.S. withdraws its troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014. As president Karzai delicately put it: "If the agreement doesn't suit us, then, of course, they can leave." President Obama has hinted that if there is no agreement, the U.S. may have to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan. The U.S. had hoped to keep about 10,000 troops for training Afghan troops and hunting terrorists.

An insult was that, although Karzai conceded that his own government was "weak and ineffective" and that it had not been able to tackle rampant corruption within its own ranks, the blame for the corruption fell on the U.S. and its allies. It is true that the U.S. cannot account for the aid it sends to Afghanistan[2] and U.S. aid is likely a major source of funds to terrorists and corrupt officials.[3] Despite that, massive corruption and vote fraud is closely linked to Karzai himself and his close allies.[4] As early as 2001, the year the U.S. put Karzai in power, Afghanistan was referred to as a kleptocracy and he has done nothing to change it since.[5] The Afghan government admits to internal corruption, but insists that they can deal with it.[6] That is pure nonsense. The Afghan government is capable of dealing with essentially nothing. Mr. Karzai's allegation that the U.S. caused corruption in Afghanistan is pure mendacious hypocrisy.

As far as the future goes, the odds unfortunately look good for a Taliban resurgence, a massive economic collapse[7] and the sad slide of a well-armed Afghan society back into the Taliban dark ages. That is despite Karzai's insistence that "The return of the Taliban will not undermine progress. . . . . there will be more Afghan women studying and getting higher education . . . . Even if the Taliban comes, that will not slow down." Amazingly, it appears inevitable that the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics. The U.S. and Karzai are at cross purposes. U.S. forces in Afghanistan recently captured Latif Mehsud, a leader of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, which is the group that claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing of Times Square in 2010.[8] Karzai has criticized the U.S. action as an affront to Afghan sovereignty. The prospects for Afghan-U.S. cooperation do not look promising to say the least. Odioius people of Meshud's ilk are what Karzai is looking to bring back into Afghan government and "civil" society. We will sorely need our diplomats.

It is getting worse

The evidence says that the Taliban will return to power and that their tactics have not changed. A recent Wall Street Journal article[9] reports that about 590,000 Afghans out of a total population of 30 million are internally displaced by fighting between Taliban and Afghan forces. The pace of displacement is sharply increasing. Overall security continues to deteriorate and many Afghan citizens are desperate to leave the country. A UN expert on Afghan refugees said that refugee's "desperation is incredible" and as many as 200,000 Afghans could flee to Pakistan next year as U.S. troops withdraw. Discouraging and sad as it is to say, this looks much like the end of the Vietnam war all over again. It is time to begin to ask who is responsible for this impending disaster. It is easy to argue that our flawed two-party system and inept U.S. political leadership had more than a little to do with this disaster.

Given the poor and worsening situation in Afghanistan, one can only wonder why the delightful Mr. Karzai thinks he can do anything about the Taliban if they regain power. Common sense suggests that if the Taliban does gain power, Karzai will slip out of the country in the dead of night, taking billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars with him. It would be either that, or he stays in the country and the Taliban slits his throat.

Finally, it is worth note that tucked into the NYT article about Karzai, was a little box called "Names of the Dead". It stated that to date 2,269 American service members have died in the Afghan war and related operations. It stated that DOD confirmed the deaths (presumably in Afghanistan) of five U.S. service members with ages ranging from 19 to 25. To date, the U.S. has spent about $665 billion in Afghanistan. In the coming decades, hundreds of billions more will be spent caring for our wounded service members.[10]

Hard questions need to be asked

If the Taliban does come back into power and Afghanistan will likely slip quietly back into the dark ages. If that does happen, the question the American people should consider is how well did the two-party system serve or not serve the public interest. How effective was nation building? The original promise was a total cost of about $50-60 billion for Afghanistan, but that now looks like an outright fabrication or staggering incompetence. Who is responsible? What difference would there have been if the U.S. had simply gone into Afghanistan and captured or killed Osama Bin Ladn when it had the chance to do so and then simply left, with the Taliban returning to continue as it did before the invasion. There are many questions that need to be asked and answered.

Unfortunately, those questions are unlikely to be asked in mainstream two-party politics. The politicians from both parties are responsible and if the outcome is truly sour, neither side will want to discuss it. In that case, the American people will, yet again, have been misled by their government and there will be no accountability for the failures. Taxpayers simply have to pay the price and the two-party status quo will carry on with its self-serving business as usual. All things considered, it is hard to assess who or what is less odious - Karzai or an intractably incompetent two-party system.

Footnotes:
1. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/world/asia/karzai-lashes-out-at-united-states-for-its-role-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0.
2. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11641964. An astonishing inability of some U.S. agencies to account for how they spend money is a topic the RPCA has raised before (http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-commentary-dods-unacceptable-accounting-practices/). This is a serious, chronic problem that is simply beyond the capacity of two-party politics to address.
4. Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/kabul-bank-audit-details-extent-of-fraud.html?pagewanted=1&hp; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/world/asia/corruption-remains-intractable-in-afghanistan-under-karzai-government.html?ref=asia; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/world/asia/12afghan.html; http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/17/afghan.election/. 5. Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/26/news/mn-8452; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/is-corruption-the-cost-of-saving-afghanistan/article4403844/.
6. Link: http://www.khaama.com/afghanistan-dismiss-us-audit-watchdogs-remarks-2195.
7. Although the NYT article says that Afghanistan itself generates 20% of its government budget with the rest coming from foreign aid and military spending, that is hard to reconcile with other reports asserting that over 90% of the country's budget comes from the outside (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/19/world/la-fg-afghan-economy-20110819). Even if the NYT 20% figure is accurate, common sense says that Afghanistan will collapse once we leave (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/16/will_afghanistan_collapse_after_us_troops_leave_maybe_but_not_why_you_think; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/world/asia/world-bank-issues-alert-on-afghanistan-economy.html). With any luck, all of that doom and gloom will turn out to be wrong. One can only hope for the best.
8. Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=232015007.  
9. Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2013, pages A1, A16; online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303382004579127432990605714.html.
10. Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629.

debt ceiling debate and confirmation bias

Reform Party of California

The debt ceiling debate and biased thinking

Context

Treasury Secretary has warned that "nothing good" will come if congress does not raise the debt ceiling, which is projected to be breached on or about October 17, 2013. Secretary Lew asserts that if Congress does not pass a debt-ceiling increase, the U.S. will be “dangerously low” on cash and risk defaulting on its debts.[1] Governments and business groups worldwide are very nervous about this and they mostly urge congress to increase the debt ceiling. PIMCO, a major holder of U.S. bond debt, holds no U.S. bonds that come due from now until December because they did not want to take any chance whatever of holding any U.S. bond that is anywhere near a default.[2] That is how sensitive at least some investors are to risk. They have a hair trigger and are willing to take no more investment risk than is absolutely necessary in view of projected returns on their investment.

From a non-ideological pragmatic point of view, i.e., the Reform Party of California's (RPCA's) point of view, an urgent question is exactly what would happen if the debt ceiling is not raised. The question is urgent because many republicans in congress now believe that the the effect of not raising the debt ceiling would not create significant problems for the U.S. or world economy. The thinking is that there is sufficient incoming tax revenue to service existing debt obligations and any income shortfall would be addressed by spending cuts and/or late payment on various debt obligations as they come due. Obviously, many people outside of congress disagree either by words or by action, e.g., PIMCO's exit from risk.

A complication to assessing the options and predicting outcomes is in innate biases attached to ideology. Even the very best and brightest experts have a very hard time in consistently predicting outcomes from policy choices in their fields of expertise.[3] The adverse effects of ideology on clear, logical thinking can sometimes be powerful and painfully obvious to unbiased observers but almost impossible to see in the ideologue's own mind.[4] Acknowledging and seeing internal bias in one's own thinking is difficult and it can be very unpleasant. That is especially if a person is an ideologue, because reality just does not care about any one's ideology and the two often collide, leaving a mess behind.[4] Most people may not be aware of this normal human trait at all, but the phenomenon known as confirmation bias has been well known for decades in the social sciences.[5]

Confirmation bias or confirmatory bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or faith (ideology). The phenomenon is manifest by selective memory and biased interpretation of information. The effect is more powerful for deeply entrenched beliefs or ideology, which tends to irrational emotional bias into issues. Another adverse effect of confirmation bias is that it tends to lead a person to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing ideology or belief.

Biased memory and interpretation of information have been invoked to explain several bad outcomes on thinking. One bad outcome is attitude polarization, the phenomenon of disagreements becoming more extreme in the face of the same data or evidence. Another bad outcome is the phenomenon of belief perseverance, which is persistence of beliefs after the evidence supporting the belief is shown to be false.[4] There are other bad effects, but the point is obvious - ideology influences thinking in ways that are usually counterproductive for smart, efficient politics (and most everything else).

One observer had this comment: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."[6] A corollary to that might be that if you do not have beliefs to defend when going into a debate or issue, then that neutrality ought to reduce the ill-effects of normal human biases on thinking that comes from ideology.

 

What happens if we do not raise the debt ceiling?

The RPCA simply cannot predict what effects, for better or worse, there would be from doing nothing and allowing the chips to fall where they will. The RPCA's instinct is to oppose endless raising of the debt ceiling. In the long run, continuing to do that positively will ruin the economy and wreck our standard of living. There is no question about that ultimate outcome if we do not change the way we handle our financial affairs. The question is how long the debt party can go on. The counterpoint to that ideology, is the fact that the two parties are highly polarized, very antagonistic and, if a default of some sort did occur, it is unclear that they could cooperate to take actions that experts might argue would be needed. The grip of ideology and the polarization it engenders makes prospects of intelligent, fast action by congress appear to be very, very unlikely. Gridlock appears to be the new norm in two-party governance.

 

What about the broader context?

The intelligent approach to this is to set instinct or ideology aside and look objectively at everything. It is obvious that there are vastly differing versions of what would happen if the debt ceiling is not raised and/or we default on some or all U.S. debt. Most expert opinion argues that the effects would be bad to catastrophic for the U.S. and probably the rest of the world's economy. They do not want to come anywhere close to a default. Minority opinion, coming mostly from conservative republican and/or libertarian ideologues, is that things would go on just fine or with only modest problems at worst. U.S. public opinion appears to support raising the debt ceiling and not defaulting on any debt.[7] For the minority, outcomes other than debt service default would occur and thing would stay more or less normal.

 

As with global warming, this issue is not simply political. The voices of economists should carry some real weight. Most politicians are not economists, much less economic experts. In global warming, the RPCA has argued that the voices of the majority of climate scientists need to be heard and accorded proper weight.[8] What politicians have to say about it is secondary at best. There has to be one or more reasons for the disconnect between the minority who argue that the debt ceiling does not need to be raised and those who argue the opposite. The RPCA's concern here is that minority opinion is largely ideologically-driven and heavily influenced by some sort of confirmation bias associated with conservative, anti-government ideology. Other than the authority that comes with majority expert opinion, the RPCA is aware of no basis for the confident predictions of either side because America has never defaulted on its debt.

Under the circumstances, what would happen to investor confidence and to the U.S. and foreign economies simply cannot be predicted. We are approaching blindingly complex but uncharted waters. Given congressional polarization and dysfunction and the fickle nature of investor confidence coupled with the size of U.S. debt and a frail economic recovery, the RPCA reluctantly concludes that the intelligent thing to do is to raise the debt ceiling and continue trying to address our chronic fiscal problems. That opinion comes with the full recognition that the spending urge in congress is very powerful and has not been restrained by either democrats or republicans in recent decades. Very good arguments can be made that neither side in this impending train wreck is anywhere near to being serious about dealing with fiscal and budget matters.[9] It also recognizes that what appears to be the most intelligent and compassionate approach, such as that advocated by the Simpson-Bowles commission, is ideologically unacceptable to both sides in this endless, self-serving debate.

 

The choices that the two-party system have given us, and the position they have put us in, are simply bad and awful. What we are getting from the two sides is a blitherfest of nonsense.

Footnotes:
1. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57606229/treasury-secretary-warns-congress-nothing-good-will-come-of-failure-to-raise-debt-ceiling/; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-06/u-s-to-default-if-debt-ceiling-not-raised-lew-says.html.

2. Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/10/230914894/what-a-u-s-default-would-mean-for-pensions-china-and-social-security.
3. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-commentary-injecting-rationality-into-irrational-politics/.
4. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-commentary-why-ideology-is-bad-for-politics/.
5. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias.
6. Kida, Thomas E. (2006), Don't believe everything you think: the 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, page 157. Kida attributes the quote to the same individual, Michael Shermer, that authored the commentary discussed at footnote 4.
7. Disapproval with republicans in congress is increasing (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx?utm_source=WWW&utm_medium=csm&utm_campaign=syndication). Presumably that disapproval is driven at least in part by unhappiness with the prospect of a default or other side-effect of not raising the debt ceiling.
8. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/. 
9. Link: http://reformparty.org/the-tax-gap/.

The government shutdown

Reform Party of California Commentary

How legitimate is the government shutdown over the ACA?

A few weeks ago, the Reform Party of California (RPCA) observed that the rhetoric in the House of representatives showed that the two parties were far apart with no basis for compromise on much of anything in evidence.[1] The disputes included disagreement over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. Now that a partial government shutdown is in effect, republican rhetoric relies heavily on assertions of public support for the legitimacy of House republican's position. The democrats are curiously quiet on this point. Given the penchant for both parties to spin facts and reality any way they wish, it is fair to ask exactly how much public support for the shutdown there is in unspun reality.

A poll released on October 1, 2013 indicated that about 72% of Americans opposed a government shutdown for failure to pass budgets, with 64% opposing a shutdown over the debt ceiling.[2] Assuming that data is real, a solid majority of Americans oppose a shutdown. Republican claims of legitimacy based on widespread public support are false. Some republicans shade their rhetoric by saying that most of their constituents in their voting districts are urging no compromise on blocking the ACA. Assuming that is true, and it could be, how does that fit into the larger context of how the federal government works and does that legitimize the shutdown?

The larger context includes the following. The republicans lost the presidential race in 2012. They lost senate seats in 2012. Republicans retained control of the House. Senators are elected by voters statewide, while many representatives are elected by voters in gerrymandered districts. The point of gerrymandering is to reduce political competition, which favors the party that draws congressional districts. Not surprisingly, the net effect of gerrymandering was protection of House incumbents in 2012.[3] That is exactly what gerrymandering is supposed to do in the two-party system.[4] Given that context, House republican claims to legitimacy are, on balance, not particularly credible. That claim from U.S. senators carries more weight - their voting districts are not gerrymandered.

The larger context also includes the state of people's knowledge of what the ACA really is. In terms of what the public knows, there is confusion with opinions varying widely. One recent poll found that 30% of Americans believe that the impact of the ACA would be negative, while 50% felt it would be neutral and 12% felt it would be positive.[5] Another poll indicated that 25% of Americans believed they understood the ACA well and 33% felt they had little or no understanding.[6] Opinion can vary depending on whether one refers to the healthcare law as the ACA or Obamacare, but that evidence is anecdotal.[7] It is fair to say that at the least, there is widespread confusion or disagreement about what the ACA is and what its impact will be.

It is also fair to say that there are no obvious reasons to know what impacts the ACA will have because, e.g., until a few days ago the insurance rates and coverages for the myriad of competing plans were not even known. Thus, when democratic talking heads wax eloquent about affordable health care for all with no adverse impacts, they cannot know what they are talking about. Similarly, when the republican talking heads wax eloquent about the awful disaster the "failed" ACA will be, they cannot know what they are talking about.[8] It is too soon to draw any firm conclusions.

When all things are considered as a whole, it is fair to say that pointing to public support as a justification for shutting the government down over the ACA is not persuasive. The public doesn't want it. House republicans are not making a compelling case for legitimacy in the face of outright public opposition to a shutdown, widespread confusion about what the ACA actually is and a rigged electoral system that favors the very people who claim legitimacy of "the American people". Those claiming legitimacy represent a minority, not the majority. Where is the legitimacy in this?

Footnotes:
1. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-commentary-colloquies-in-venom/.

2. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/americans-by-72-oppose-shutdown-tied-to-health-care-cuts.html.
3. Link: http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/redistricting-gerrymandering-effect-2012-congressional-elections.html.
4. If the RPCA had its way, House and state voting districts would be gerrymandered to either increase competition or to be neutral or geographically compact. The fact that both parties gerrymander to dilute the power of political opposition and/or minorities is evidence that neither party is willing to compete head on in elections. They don't want the competition. In turn, that is evidence that both parties put their own well-being and grip on power ahead of service to the public interest.
5. Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/18/polls-give-both-sides-ammunition-in-shutdown-fight/.
6. Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/.
7. Link: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-jimmy-kimmel-obamacare-affordable-care-act-20131001,0,1174482.story. Although anecdotal, this does fit with data showing that when individual key provisions of the ACA are explained, people tend to like those provisions, but when the law as a whole is discussed, approval decreases.
8. There may be credible evidence that health care costs for most people will increase significantly as part of the cost to insure millions of currently uninsured people (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/; the author of this piece is very hostile to the ACA and thus it is unclear if unspun data or the author's ideology is speaking; the author is associated with the American Enterprise Institute, a hard core conservative, anti-government ideologue think tank). If costs do increase as right wing ideologues argue, an honest debate would be focused on whether Americans want to pay the price for that kind of social service for fellow citizens. Public opinion on that point is unclear. However, it would be fair to say that if the promises of lower healthcare costs that accompanied the passage of the ACA law turn out to be wrong, millions of Americans could feel misled, betrayed and/or angry. Absent some very good reasons, those reactions would be justified.

Why ideology is bad for politics

Reform Party of California Commentary

Why ideology is bad for politics

A key criticism the Reform Party of California (RPCA) has repeatedly leveled at the two-party system is its heavy reliance on rigid ideology as a guide to inform and evaluate competing policy choices.[1] That flaw is a key driver of fantasy, failure and waste in governance. The RPCA is not alone in seeing ideology as a major bad actor in politics.

The magazine Scientific American published a commentary on ideology in its October 2013 issue (page 95; online at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-should-choose-science-over-beliefs). The piece was written by Michael Shermer, a hard core libertarian who argues that when reality or science does not support belief or ideology, then the ideology needs to give way. Mr Shermer described simple but powerful examples of how ideology distorts reality.

One example was Mr. Shermer's slow realization that in the gun control debate he saw himself engaging in "the cherry picking and data mining of studies to suit ideological convictions." He further explained that "We all do it, and when the science is complicated, the confirmation bias (a type of motivated reasoning) that directs the mind to seek and find confirming facts and ignore disconfirming evidence kicks in."

Another example Mr. Shermer described related to global warming. The RPCA has used the same topic to illustrate the same corrupting influence of ideology on reality that Shermer sees.[2] There, Mr. Shermer was attending the libertarian 2013 FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, NV. At the meeting Mr. Sherment made the unremarkable observation that "between 90 and 98 percent of climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming, someone shouted, “LIAR!” and stormed out of the room."

Conclusion

The reasonable conclusion is simple: Ideology is bad for smart, efficient politics. As Mr. Shermer put it in his commentary: ". . . not all libertarians deny science, but all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be." Those comments reflect exactly the point about ideology that the RPCA has been making over and over.[3] The RPCA is not alone in rejecting a major role for ideology in politics. However, if you want waste and inefficiency, stick with your ideology and you will get more waste and inefficiency. If you want something better, the RPCA is offering centrism grounded in non-ideological pragmatism. Take your pick.

Footnotes:
1. Links: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-what-is-the-proper-size-and-scope-in-government/; http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
2. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
3. It is not the case that science has all the answers to everything. It doesn't. For example, science cannot prove the big bang theory. However, religion cannot prove Creationism. Nonetheless, there is scientific evidence that accords with the big bang. For Creationism there is religious faith, which is perfectly fine for personal religious belief. But when it comes to governing, which intellectual framework do you want to rely on: one grounded in scientific evidence or one grounded in religious faith and/or political ideology?