politics(17) the NUTS in D.C.

Politicians' DOUBLESPEAK, even their use of hyperbole (that so easily become "facts" in sound bite quotations) was what used to raise my hackles. But recently it has been hard to come by as politicians no longer feel the need for restraint. Civil discourse in the exercise of their functions may be lost forever; in fact the news cast made a big deal out of the jovial exchange (about golf scores) between Vice President Biden and Speaker Boehner before Obama's speech to Congress on Sept. 8 as if it had been thought impossible.

Today, primarily because of the Tea Party, whose members have borrowed the vocabulary of lies and name calling by the likes of Glen Beck and Russ Limbaugh, with the avowed aim of being transparent and honest with the "American people that voted them into office," Republicans in the House of Representative bluntly tell lies on the floor as much as the Republican candidates on the Campaign trail. Transparent in a way, but honest? Never mind that they get on their high horse and get the choir on Fox TV to demand apologies and retractions when one of their critics adopts their own playbook. It used to be that violent speech, name calling and hyperbole were the preferred means of communication of extremists of the left, of which the radicals at World Trade Conferences have raised the strident tone. That was rejected by everyone in public office, including those who may have agreed with the objectives. This is no longer so as extremists on the right have adopted those tactics as became clear during the 2010 campaigns of Democrats who were verbally assaulted by opponents of Obama's Health care legislation and earlier by supporters of Senator McCain's bid for the presidency in 2008 who called Obama a Communist, a Muslim and a non-citizen. A Congressman remains uncensored (and receives millions in donations for his re-election) for having called the President a liar during the State of the Union Address, for he is entitled to "his" opinion although he may have broken the rules of decorum. Censuring is apparently reserved for financial and in particular for sexual improprieties, though for the latter voluntary or pressured resignation is preferred. My own reference to "nuts in D.C." may be justified by Rep. Cotter's (R-Mich.frequent Fox contributor) "Washington is nuts." And I include those who hope to go to Washington.

Sarah Palin may be the most egregious "misleader" but in her case I'm not reluctant to paraphrase one of Christ's Words from the Cross: "Forgive her for she doesn't know of what she speaks." I am far less forgiving of Michele Bachman, who, after all has a good education and especially because she once worked in President Carter's election campaign. Her fortunes seem to be slipping, but her rhetorical license has strengthened the conviction that the views of her Tea Party supporters are correct. Se is simply too quick in making unsupported statements as in the case of a girl that developed mental retardation after being injected against cervical cancer, which medical experts say must have been coincidental. But the Tea Party types do not read or hear the comments from humorists and moderate commentators that her candidacy provided them with numerous one-liners, though nothing as entertaining as Tina Fey's impersonations of Palin.

I want to single out Rick Perry, the newly announced Republican candidate for 2012, because he is the front runner in some polls and appears to have won over the obviously fickle Tea Party crowd. He is proud that large numbers of Texans have no health insurance and his first action as President will be to issue an executive order abolishing "Obama-care." He also prides himself on the jobs he created in Texas but these turn out to be mostly minimum pay jobs that do not get the workers out of the poverty class, nor do they get the normal social benefits. Really scary is the fact that he ran for Agriculture secretary denouncing a rule that farmers should remove their workers from the fields before they sprayed with insecticides. He insists on calling Social Security "unconstitutional," "a Ponzi scheme" (because it's paid for from worker's contributions and not from investment) and a "lie" (because it won't really be there when the workers retire).

I have not heard anyone explain what makes Social Security unconstitutional and Perry's argument appears to rely on the Federal Govt's assuming a "right" that belongs to each State. Considering the opposition to FDR's New Deal by some conservatives who brought suits against part of its programs, wouldn't they have brought a successful suit against Soc. Security? The one that was brought, Helvering vs Davis (1937) was argued on the basis of Congressional taxing powers and the Supreme Court upheld the law.

Ponzi schemes have deservedly gotten a bad reputation and they are set up as a scam, which is not true of Social Security. It relies exclusively on payroll deductions. In the 1970s its independent status was ended and its accumulated funds used to, temporarily, reduce the government's debt, the assumption being that the Govt would pay all its debts anyway; the Gov't, theoretically at least, ensured this by means of the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund that consists of bonds held by the Govt, in fact promissory notes. "Borrowing" the money from Social Security was one of Senator Moynihan's bright ideas and it was adopted by the Republican Administration to help pay for the unfunded Vietnam War. If Soc. Sec. is not going to be there, it is most likely because Republican presidential candidates and Representatives keep talking about "privatizing" it, a policy currently being advocated by Representative Ryan (whose proposed "budget" doesn't stop at privatizing Soc. Security).

One serious problem is caused by high unemployment which reduces Govt revenues. Another is the fact that soc. sec. taxes are levied on low salaries at the beginning of one's career and the retiree may not have paid in what is taken out, especially if retirement begins at 62. Because the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund is not invested in any growth portfolio but in government promissory notes it may seem that the contributions, if invested by the payee (i.e. "privatisation") might yield better returns. And with the increased lifespan of today's population it becomes evident that something has to be done to keep the system solvent, for example setting the age for drawing the first payment at 67 or 68 for the employed. In this context the statement "Younger workers pay for the retirement of the old, and that is not fair (Gov.Scott, R-Fl. on MSNBC, 9/29/11)," while accurate in fact is nevertheless misleading, for not only was the system set up that way from the beginning, but it ensures that those young workers will receive their social security when they retire, so that in reality their contributions will be returned to them.

"Privatizing" sounds appealing: 1) it removes the government from the life of its citizens and gives responsibility for one's decisions back to the citizen; 2)it avoids the necessity to raise taxes to pay for the increasingly inflationary cost of this program, and 3) there will be the, not publicly admitted, benefits that would accrue to the private sector (insurance companies, brokers, bankers, etc.) The assumption underlying the Republican privatization proposals is that citizens will be responsible savers of the deductions that are no longer taken out of their paycheck and wise investors. Wise investors have to rely on the same investment bankers that created the veritable Ponzi schemes of derivatives of mortgages that would have been retirement savings for the worker. But evidently the decision makers in Washington do not expect, and do not want, the worker to save any reduction of their taxes as they are enjoined to spent the country out of recession. And if workers no longer paid into social security, how would the Govt pay the current retirees?

"Wise investors" are probably only a virtual reality. Even the bright boys of Wallstreet didn't quite understand their own schemes, for at the time of the Bush Adm.'s bail out it was publicly admitted that Congress was not equipped to solve the problems on its own. Economists have coined the phrases "adverse selection" that results from "adverse information," which would not be needed in a honest world where the person with superior knowledge would not offer a choice to a less informed person by withholding his knowledge. One thinks immediately of the common warning "buyer beware" or phrases that cover what used to be called "horse trading" or quacksalvery. It has become abundantly clear in the aftermath of the financial debacle that the investor was merely not informed enough, but was fed incorrect information as a sales strategy. Any regular reader of the NYT Business section and in particular of Gretchen Morgenstern's Sunday column knows that whatever legislation was passed to rein in Wallstreet's abuses was imperfect, often failing to address the central problems and/or is poorly enforced.

During the Republican "Tea Party" debate on Sept. 12 (the day after the 10th commemoration of 9/11 with its calls for "unity") that anti-Obama rather than substantial policy proposals received the most applause from the selected Tea Party audience. A striking instance occurred when a hypothetical question was raised concerning a successful, healthy young man who had chosen not to have any health insurance who unexpectedly ends up in a coma. Ron Paul began to answer by approving the young man's decision as the American way's "freedom of choice" which caused him to be interrupted by enthusiastic and loud reactions and by the moderator who asked "would you let him die" which clearly shocked the audience, but some loudly yelled "yes."

Perhaps the most outstanding lie by Tea Party-wooing politicians and rightist commentators is the statement that millions of Americans pay no income tax at all. It is obvious that "income" hear excludes payroll taxes that all workers pay. And even the unemployed pay some taxes, e.g. each time they buy something the price of which includes not only the sales tax but also the taxes that are hidden in the product and paid for by its producers, transporters and other handlers. They also pay rent and that includes the property owner's taxes. The statement becomes still more of a lie when it is repeated in sound bites as "they pay no taxes at all." In elections the terms "adverse selection" and "adverse information" thus also play their role as the latter becomes the "coin of the [political] realm."

Tea Party members in the House and other Republicans have pledged not to raise taxes and Speaker Boehner thus continues to rule out any new taxes, including restoring some of the Bush tax cuts on the top income bracket. Obama's poposal to do so, is immediately rejected as "class warfare" though it is simply a demand for a fair contribution on incomes that had risen 23.5% since the late 70s (when they were still rising at nearly 9%). Instead, Republicans want all savings to come from "entitlement" programs. This stance makes all of them liars in fact, for if programs that are paid for in payroll withholding are reduced than the result is in effect a tax increase as the cost of the service is raised for each individual. The talk is about eliminating waste, which sounds good, but some politicians' idea of waste in health care may actually reduce the care.

Then there is the lie created by the victory of Republicans in 2010 who ran on the slogan "Where are the jobs?" They now have the majority in the House and could create jobs programs. Instead they are fixated on reductions in spending; they would make additional taxes ("You can't tax the job creators!) unnecessary and perhaps reduce taxes; this will put more money in the pockets of Americans which will allow them to buy more which will cause the economy to grow. So far, their reductions have not lowered taxes or created jobs. Instead they raise the cost of living of most individuals who relied on public programs and shifted the burden of such programs to the states and municipalities so that these have to raise taxes and/or decide on lay offs thereby adding to the jobless and thus reducing state, local and federal tax revenues. As these governments are large buyers of goods, their decling revenues reduces their buying, etc. etc.