A Night Unremembered
13 years ago
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Sometimes mistakes are made
There are a lot of talking heads pontificating about the "fiscal cliff." I don't think I need to explain that term to you, you are smart people. That doesn't mean you actually understand it, just that you have an idea of what it means. You are wrong, though. It means a lot more than simply huge across the board cuts. It will happen, by the way. No, not the way it is described in the media. Congress will not let it happen that way.
Instead, it will be both subtle and massive. Yes, that does sound like a contradiction but we are talking about government here, not reality.
Some people think Obama won't let us go over that metaphorical cliff, that he doesn't want to damage his presidential legacy. I chuckle about that. Why? Simple, I don't think these people have a clue about what Obama sees as his potential legacy. I am fairly sure his version of his legacy cannot be damaged in any way.
You see, we do not know what he feels would be his legacy. He may have hinted at it during his campaign in 2008 where he talked about wanting to "fundamentally change the country." He just didn't tell us what that change would be.
I think there is no stopping him now. Sure, Republicans have control of the House but that means next to nothing. There's a fair chance that Obama will get to appoint two members of the US Supreme Court. He will select two, reasonably young, candidates who will view issues as he would like them viewed. He likely feels that his party will retain control of the Senate in 2014.
Its going to be a bad 4 years for those of us who think less government is better than more. It's going to be a bad 4 years for the middle class who will struggle to pay the rising utility bills, the rising cost of food, and the rising cost of housing if you cannot buy. Rents will go up because of demand and because of taxes on those who own rental properties and because of the increases in the cost of energy and food.
I am not optimistic about the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Douglas, I'm much more optimistic than you are. But I learned a long time ago not to try to predict the future. Because I'm usually wrong.
Tom, I am more pessimistic about life in general than most folks. I always hope I am wrong.... because a small part of me wants to be optimistic.
Ad you are well aware, I feel that the time is right for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution and modify our governance model based on what we have experienced during the past couple of years.
One suggested revision? Let one party control all 3 branches of government for perhaps 10 years, and let them do whatever they want to do. If at the end of that 10 years, the majority of citizens do not like what they see, the other party takes over for 10 plus (let's say 3) years. That way, we will really see if the parties live up to their promises and claims, and the "uncertainty" complaint goes out the window.
Another possibility, require that there be 5-7 equally powerful parties, all equally funded.
In the business world, if a business did not radically alter its business model after years of losses, we'd call it crazy. And yet, we carry on with the same governance model, year after year, after year, with very few changes.
Something has got to give, before we implode.
And then again, there is the possibility of 50 separate countries.
Quite frankly, a pure libertarian approach, eliminating all government doesn't sound too bad either.
Sound too crazy? Something needs to be done, and something dramatic.
Inspector, a little crazy at least. We have exchanged views on the idea of a Constitutional Convention before and you know I am strongly opposed to the idea. It is simply too dangerous, especially in a time of crisis. In the last convention held (in 1787), the entire governance model was tossed out and our current model was devised. I think it was a brilliant document whose flexibility is its greatest strength. Your suggestion... I have some questions:
Which party gets first crack?
Have you considered what remedy could be taken if the first party basically destroys all opposition in the first 5 years (quite possible, by the way, since there are no checks and balances in your model) and removes all protections for minority parties and individuals?
I do not trust government. In any form. I do not trust those who seek power over others (we call them "politicians"). I want regularly established elections to at least try to rein in politicians.
The reason we have the Constitution we have is because those in the first convention realized we were well on our way to having 50 separate states or nations and saw the need to allow for power sharing, divisions of power and responsibility, and checks on the powers granted to government.
A Constitutional Convention could toss all that out the window and establish a dictatorship that could only be brought down by revolution.
Post a Comment