Everyone has some sort of Thanksgiving tradition handed down to them from each generation to the next. Some continue and some are tossed in the trash like the public school system. My family tradition is to watch football, eat, watch more football, eat again, watch even more football, eat even more food, then fall asleep in what ever position you have been watching football in.
My wife’s family is a little more Norman Rockwell about the annual day of giving thanks. They watch the parade and I watch football during the commercials, they listen to satellite radio (Christmas Songs), and I watch football when my mother-in-law is in the restroom or in the kitchen, they have wine with dinner, I have wine with everything, and most importantly we talk.
The range of topics is immense and often edgy. Sometimes we talk about politics, sometimes about religion, and sometimes we talk about other more mundane things (everything else). Every Thanksgiving, we spend time bashfully telling each other what we are most thankful for, certain not to open up too much and become vulnerable to interfamily ridicule. Most talk about their spouse, their children, and their jobs. This year I would like to give you my list of things that I am most grateful for.
1. World Peace (With the exception of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Korea, Somalia, Mexico, and well you get the point.)
2. The “TSA Pat Down” (No extra charge, can you believe it, no extra charge! Another example of more government waste. Charge $10, be slightly more invasive and put Vegas out of business.)
3. Sarah Palin (Ironic, but so true!)
4. The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle (After reading this book about staying present, I realized that the more I focus on the present, the more I think about what I’m going to do once I get there. I am pretty sure I am absolutely helpless.)
5. The Tea Party (Give them a break, they're big picture people. They have no need for the details, they can leave that up to the politicos. Wait, isn’t that what we did last time. Ooops!)
6. Sarah Palin’s Alaska ( I love the show’s premise. Call it Sarah’s Alaska then watch her do things that she has never done before. Maybe they should call it Sarah Palin Discovering Alaska for the First Time.)
7. Most importantly, not having to say thanks over dinner (I am much better on paper, sometimes)
Happy Thanksgiving!!!!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Any Idea Is A Good Idea, As Long As Its My Idea...
As game day 2012 approaches, the conservative and liberal elites are drawing their proverbial lines in the sand on an issue that is not important to most of the common folk in our society. Seven in ten Americans polled say that the current airport security requirements of full body scans and pat downs that might require the use of rape kits if performed outside of the airport by improperly trained member of the Transportation Security Administration, are okay with them. In a political climate that calls 55% opposition to health care reform a mandate for repeal, this is a story that should be listed somewhere between the coupons and the statistics for last nights Los Angeles Clippers game.
The Administration has chosen to use a clearly conservative idea, in order to appear tough on security. Do whatever is necessary to keep the American people safe, a GOP triune call offered to the masses many times (like every time they are running against a liberal.) Preemptive war, torture, rendition, secret prisons, a deck of playing cards depicting the pictures of enemies of the state we seek to assassinate, warrant-less wire taps and randomly selective more intrusive private searches at airports, are among a broad list of tough security measures the Right was willing to promote to provide for your safety. And until two weeks ago so where full body scanners. Michael Chertoff (Bush era Homeland Security Chief) has supported these machines in airports since 2003 and there is a GOP sponsored bill in Congress to install these machines in every airport in the United States by 2014. Historically, there seems little room for debate among conservatives. Before “the don’t touch my junk” dude burst on the scene, if you questioned these ideas, then you questioned the ideals of the party and where labeled a moderate or even a progressive-RINO. But, scanners are for some reason the place where the Republican Party has chosen not only to draw the line, but completely switch sides. Stop the pony and slap the dog, why could this be?
The left has deemed these current measures as a necessary intrusion upon our privacy to ensure our safety, Gloria Allred has stated that she doesn’t mind the scanners or the pat downs because she feels safer, The Americans Civil Liberties Union, has said a lot by simply remaining silent. The left has often defended privacy so adamantly, I would not be surprised if it is illegal to eavesdrop on your teenage daughter in your own home in San Francisco. The Democratic party is now supporting these measures wholeheartedly, despite the opposition that raged every time the TSA or the Bush Administration even hinted at installing these scanners from 2002 through 2008. The Democrats are wrestling with a ideological catch-22. When they down play extreme measures and underline the terrorists inability to fundamentally change who we are, they are attacked by the GOP for not having a realistic respect for the dangers that Islamic extremism posses in the world today. Now that they have caved on this issue, the Republicans can say that the Administrations weakness has placed us in a reactive state of mind, that has left us cowering to terrorists at the expense of our very American soul.
What we have witnessed is both sides switching jerseys and switching sides on this one issue. This give us hope in one regard, the independent belief that one party does not always have, all the answers, all the time. Unfortunately the despair it creates when we consider how unlikely it is for left and right to come together on a issue, is overwhelming. Obama-care contains many ideas the GOP touted through the years in regard to healthcare reform, but they where rejected as leftist when included in the bill. Full body scanners have been embraced by the left, because being seen as week on security could be another nail in their 2010 coffin. I think the evidence is overwhelming that in our current state of affairs the extremes of the political spectrum have no regard for the life, liberty, and happiness of their fellow Americans. They only care that they frame the other side as detrimental to Americanism, corrupt and deceitful, and void of empathy and consideration for you on every level. God bless you and God bless the United States of America, unless you’re blue and I’m red or I’m red and you’re blue, in that case go f*ck yourself.
The Administration has chosen to use a clearly conservative idea, in order to appear tough on security. Do whatever is necessary to keep the American people safe, a GOP triune call offered to the masses many times (like every time they are running against a liberal.) Preemptive war, torture, rendition, secret prisons, a deck of playing cards depicting the pictures of enemies of the state we seek to assassinate, warrant-less wire taps and randomly selective more intrusive private searches at airports, are among a broad list of tough security measures the Right was willing to promote to provide for your safety. And until two weeks ago so where full body scanners. Michael Chertoff (Bush era Homeland Security Chief) has supported these machines in airports since 2003 and there is a GOP sponsored bill in Congress to install these machines in every airport in the United States by 2014. Historically, there seems little room for debate among conservatives. Before “the don’t touch my junk” dude burst on the scene, if you questioned these ideas, then you questioned the ideals of the party and where labeled a moderate or even a progressive-RINO. But, scanners are for some reason the place where the Republican Party has chosen not only to draw the line, but completely switch sides. Stop the pony and slap the dog, why could this be?
The left has deemed these current measures as a necessary intrusion upon our privacy to ensure our safety, Gloria Allred has stated that she doesn’t mind the scanners or the pat downs because she feels safer, The Americans Civil Liberties Union, has said a lot by simply remaining silent. The left has often defended privacy so adamantly, I would not be surprised if it is illegal to eavesdrop on your teenage daughter in your own home in San Francisco. The Democratic party is now supporting these measures wholeheartedly, despite the opposition that raged every time the TSA or the Bush Administration even hinted at installing these scanners from 2002 through 2008. The Democrats are wrestling with a ideological catch-22. When they down play extreme measures and underline the terrorists inability to fundamentally change who we are, they are attacked by the GOP for not having a realistic respect for the dangers that Islamic extremism posses in the world today. Now that they have caved on this issue, the Republicans can say that the Administrations weakness has placed us in a reactive state of mind, that has left us cowering to terrorists at the expense of our very American soul.
What we have witnessed is both sides switching jerseys and switching sides on this one issue. This give us hope in one regard, the independent belief that one party does not always have, all the answers, all the time. Unfortunately the despair it creates when we consider how unlikely it is for left and right to come together on a issue, is overwhelming. Obama-care contains many ideas the GOP touted through the years in regard to healthcare reform, but they where rejected as leftist when included in the bill. Full body scanners have been embraced by the left, because being seen as week on security could be another nail in their 2010 coffin. I think the evidence is overwhelming that in our current state of affairs the extremes of the political spectrum have no regard for the life, liberty, and happiness of their fellow Americans. They only care that they frame the other side as detrimental to Americanism, corrupt and deceitful, and void of empathy and consideration for you on every level. God bless you and God bless the United States of America, unless you’re blue and I’m red or I’m red and you’re blue, in that case go f*ck yourself.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Reconciliation Primer By Ezra Klein | March 1, 2010; 11:05 AM ET
It is amazing how few reporters understand what the budget reconciliation process is: Either how it works, or what it's traditionally been used for, or what Democrats are proposing to use it for. That confusion creates comical exchanges like this one, where Bob Schieffer and Politico listened to Kent Conrad argue for a reconciliation strategy and walked away believing he'd thrown cold water on the idea.
I don't really want to write up a whole new reconciliation primer, so let me link to the one I've already done. For a much longer look at the process, this CRS report (pdf) has tons of information.
The very short version is that the budget reconciliation process -- which limits debate and thus defuses the filibuster -- was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1974. It was later modified by the Byrd rule, which confined it to provisions that directly affect federal spending. That constraint is what makes reconciliation complicated: Insurance regulations, for instance, have only an indirect effect on federal spending, which means they're not eligible for reconciliation. Subsidies, however, have a direct effect, so they are eligible. Policies falling into the gray area are decided by the Senate parliamentarian, who listens to arguments from both sides and then makes a ruling.
Reconciliation has, in general, been a Republican endeavor. Political scientist Joshua Tucker looked at the 19 times reconciliation was used between 1981 and 2005, and found that 14 of them were Republican initiatives. If you extend that analysis out to 2008, then 16 of 21 reconciliation bills were Republican.
That brings us up to the present. But now, Republicans are arguing that reconciliation has never been used for major legislation, and so any attempts to use the process to modify the health-care reform bill would be a sharp break with precedent. That's wrong on two counts.
First, reconciliation has been used for major legislation almost constantly, particularly on health-care reform. An NPR analysis concluded that "over the past three decades, the number of major health financing measures that were not passed via budget reconciliation can be counted on one hand."
In fact, if you named a recent legislative accomplishment at random, you'd probably find it went through reconciliation. Both Bush tax cuts, at a total cost of $1.8 trillion, used the reconciliation process. So did welfare reform, and the Balanced Budget Acta of 1995 and 1997. The Children's Health Insurance Program was created in reconciliation, and so too was COBRA. The law stating that hospitals who take Medicare and Medicaid money have to see all patients who walk into their emergency room was also passed in reconciliation, as was the 1983 tax increase that reversed many of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts.
Second, Democrats are not proposing to create the health-care reform bill in reconciliation. Rather, they're using the process for a much more limited purpose: passing the 11 pages of modifications that President Obama proposed to reconcile the House and Senate bills with each other. This is not a particularly ambitious use of the reconciliation process, and it's certainly not unprecedented. Republicans are arguing otherwise, of course, but the record belies their rhetoric.
I don't really want to write up a whole new reconciliation primer, so let me link to the one I've already done. For a much longer look at the process, this CRS report (pdf) has tons of information.
The very short version is that the budget reconciliation process -- which limits debate and thus defuses the filibuster -- was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1974. It was later modified by the Byrd rule, which confined it to provisions that directly affect federal spending. That constraint is what makes reconciliation complicated: Insurance regulations, for instance, have only an indirect effect on federal spending, which means they're not eligible for reconciliation. Subsidies, however, have a direct effect, so they are eligible. Policies falling into the gray area are decided by the Senate parliamentarian, who listens to arguments from both sides and then makes a ruling.
Reconciliation has, in general, been a Republican endeavor. Political scientist Joshua Tucker looked at the 19 times reconciliation was used between 1981 and 2005, and found that 14 of them were Republican initiatives. If you extend that analysis out to 2008, then 16 of 21 reconciliation bills were Republican.
That brings us up to the present. But now, Republicans are arguing that reconciliation has never been used for major legislation, and so any attempts to use the process to modify the health-care reform bill would be a sharp break with precedent. That's wrong on two counts.
First, reconciliation has been used for major legislation almost constantly, particularly on health-care reform. An NPR analysis concluded that "over the past three decades, the number of major health financing measures that were not passed via budget reconciliation can be counted on one hand."
In fact, if you named a recent legislative accomplishment at random, you'd probably find it went through reconciliation. Both Bush tax cuts, at a total cost of $1.8 trillion, used the reconciliation process. So did welfare reform, and the Balanced Budget Acta of 1995 and 1997. The Children's Health Insurance Program was created in reconciliation, and so too was COBRA. The law stating that hospitals who take Medicare and Medicaid money have to see all patients who walk into their emergency room was also passed in reconciliation, as was the 1983 tax increase that reversed many of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts.
Second, Democrats are not proposing to create the health-care reform bill in reconciliation. Rather, they're using the process for a much more limited purpose: passing the 11 pages of modifications that President Obama proposed to reconcile the House and Senate bills with each other. This is not a particularly ambitious use of the reconciliation process, and it's certainly not unprecedented. Republicans are arguing otherwise, of course, but the record belies their rhetoric.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
“The Uncompromised One” Is Here to Stay (I Hope)
Many people who read this essay will say that I hate Sarah or that I feel threatened by her. They couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is I love the former VP candidate, I love what she has done to the political landscape in America and I love how she keeps me emotionally and intellectually entertained; much like a car race (can anyone say crashhhh!!!) This is why I, unlike many liberals accross the country, am enjoying Sarah’s reign as defacto-populist-conservative spokeswoman. Watching her is like watching a Saturday Night Live skit in the Twighlight Zone on the Outer Limits. I am speechless, shocked, and confused all at the same time. I am so happy. She is the political version of crack cocaine.
Sarah gave a speech recently at the first ever National Tea Party Convention. Six hundred delegates paid a hefty price to be a part of this historical meeting on contemporary conservative thought. She began her speech by saying thank you to Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), who she described as a true representative of the Tea Party movement, someone who saw that Washington wasn’t working and decided to run for Senator, in order to bring the government back to the people. But, his Tea Party affiliations end there. Senator Brown is against any further restrictions to abortions or gay marriage, and he is a supporter of Massachusetts’s current healthcare program that provides universal coverage and does require compliance by the citizens of that state. What?!? He supports insurance mandates, socialized medicine, and an unconstitutional intrusion upon our freedom. When did these become Tea Party standards? On top of this Scott Brown has said in the Boston Globe, that he is not certain exactly what the Tea Party movement stands for. This is the best they could come up with? That’s like having Kermit the frog (and by Kermit I am referring to Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman) as the Democratic National Committee Chairman.
The truth is that Scott Brown represents everything that Half-Gov. Palin says is wrong with the Republican Party. He is quite possibly the most moderate Republican in the Senate. Her support for this man is laughable. Much like Sarah’s support of Rush Limbaugh after he said that liberal Democrats were retards (despite calling for Rahm Emanuel’s resignation for using the same word to describe the same people), her support of Senator Brown is another political compromise, by “The Uncompromised One.” Her popular appeal comes from her claim that she is not like the Washington establishment. In this she is correct, she likes to play the Washington word games, unfortunately her spin is too obvious for most moderate Americans to endure long term. If she likes to play the game (and I know that she does), she is going to have to improve her forehand return and volley. And if you are listening Mrs. Palin, please run for President in 2012, because politics has not been this entertaining in many years.
Sarah gave a speech recently at the first ever National Tea Party Convention. Six hundred delegates paid a hefty price to be a part of this historical meeting on contemporary conservative thought. She began her speech by saying thank you to Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), who she described as a true representative of the Tea Party movement, someone who saw that Washington wasn’t working and decided to run for Senator, in order to bring the government back to the people. But, his Tea Party affiliations end there. Senator Brown is against any further restrictions to abortions or gay marriage, and he is a supporter of Massachusetts’s current healthcare program that provides universal coverage and does require compliance by the citizens of that state. What?!? He supports insurance mandates, socialized medicine, and an unconstitutional intrusion upon our freedom. When did these become Tea Party standards? On top of this Scott Brown has said in the Boston Globe, that he is not certain exactly what the Tea Party movement stands for. This is the best they could come up with? That’s like having Kermit the frog (and by Kermit I am referring to Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman) as the Democratic National Committee Chairman.
The truth is that Scott Brown represents everything that Half-Gov. Palin says is wrong with the Republican Party. He is quite possibly the most moderate Republican in the Senate. Her support for this man is laughable. Much like Sarah’s support of Rush Limbaugh after he said that liberal Democrats were retards (despite calling for Rahm Emanuel’s resignation for using the same word to describe the same people), her support of Senator Brown is another political compromise, by “The Uncompromised One.” Her popular appeal comes from her claim that she is not like the Washington establishment. In this she is correct, she likes to play the Washington word games, unfortunately her spin is too obvious for most moderate Americans to endure long term. If she likes to play the game (and I know that she does), she is going to have to improve her forehand return and volley. And if you are listening Mrs. Palin, please run for President in 2012, because politics has not been this entertaining in many years.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Me.
The deepest reaches of my mind are filled with the libations of my darkest thoughts.
How can I be who I am? Can I remain sacrosanct?
Of course not, it was never meant to be.
Was I ever beyond the bowls of this inglorious existence?
Certainly I must have achieved some pedestrian level of influence on the body of my brothers and sisters.
I play it cool, like Mr. Blonde. I don’t care, but I do.
I’m heated ready to explode and I love everything.
I can’t be who I want to be, I get in my own way.
I yearn to be love plus nothing, but I continue to be me plus something.
I know I’m narcissistic, I realize I enjoy the sound of my own voice. But can’t I make a difference?
Won’t I bruise someone’s conscience?
My issue is not self loathing, it never has been.
The problem is I love myself too much. I can’t get past the Me and I can’t control the id in my soul.
Fly me away Superman. Perhaps this load is too heavy.
A shot to the belly and a bottle of scotch will cure all ills, but will I make a difference?
Will my dream to work to love endure? Or will Mr. Orange take me down to keep me from questioning those who question me?
It’s Wild E. and the Roadrunner, and I’m not sure who I am.
Today I feel like the road, unable to be part of the game and grind. Just a bystander, hoping my turns, hills and slopes will have an influence.
Today I am me.
How can I be who I am? Can I remain sacrosanct?
Of course not, it was never meant to be.
Was I ever beyond the bowls of this inglorious existence?
Certainly I must have achieved some pedestrian level of influence on the body of my brothers and sisters.
I play it cool, like Mr. Blonde. I don’t care, but I do.
I’m heated ready to explode and I love everything.
I can’t be who I want to be, I get in my own way.
I yearn to be love plus nothing, but I continue to be me plus something.
I know I’m narcissistic, I realize I enjoy the sound of my own voice. But can’t I make a difference?
Won’t I bruise someone’s conscience?
My issue is not self loathing, it never has been.
The problem is I love myself too much. I can’t get past the Me and I can’t control the id in my soul.
Fly me away Superman. Perhaps this load is too heavy.
A shot to the belly and a bottle of scotch will cure all ills, but will I make a difference?
Will my dream to work to love endure? Or will Mr. Orange take me down to keep me from questioning those who question me?
It’s Wild E. and the Roadrunner, and I’m not sure who I am.
Today I feel like the road, unable to be part of the game and grind. Just a bystander, hoping my turns, hills and slopes will have an influence.
Today I am me.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Why Ask Why? The Socratic Method and Theological Interpretation
Some Christian traditionalists view the asking of questions as a form of disobedience. I see exploration and critical though processes regarding popular opinion based not on fact but upon the opinion of an authority as a truly virtuous consequence of a curious mind. Basing our opinions solely upon what others have told us, without exploration, is un-liberating. Living with a world view base upon out dated dogma and constricting rules of engagement between men is an act of obedience. But to what? And at what cost?
Obedience to God is not what is at stake here. You can challenge the contemporary understanding of The Church without questioning God’s commands. Jesus never intended His children to blindly follow the leadership within The Church. In fact, our understanding of Theology Proper is base upon, educated and curious men’s challenges of what The Bible is telling us and what we should believe as saints of God, living among men. If this were not true, we would be worshipping as we were two thousand years ago. The fact that we are not is a testament to our increased understanding of scriptural principles and a deeper regard for context and audience when interpreting Biblical texts.
The most telling incite into the nature of humanity, is what I call the “grandeur of the contemporary.” Each generation of The Church has a contingency that believes that finally, after all these years; they not only have a deeper understanding of Christ upon their lives than previous generations, but that their views are above suspicion and introspection. Where does the motivations for these feeling originate?
It would be easy to blame the leadership with in The Body of Christ. After all they are a target for all those that wish to criticize The Church. However, criticism is not the true motivation of incite. The fact is many Biblical Scholars gained knowledge through critical study of The Word, not memorization of known facts and texts. A deeper understanding, developed through asking tough theological questions, allows teachers and preachers to tie multidimensional Biblical concepts to one another providing for deeper and more complex sermons.
We cannot put the burden of inaction upon the congregation either. Jesus never blamed the Jews for the corruption of faith within the leadership. He placed the blame solely upon the upper echelon of teachers. The sheep should be lead, and follow they will. This is our nature. Many like their answers in black and white and many ideas in The Bible are just that. However, many more Christian ideas are base primarily upon opinion. Armenians versus Calvinists, Pentecostals versus Baptists, Protestants and Orthodox versus Catholics, Conservative Christianity versus Liberal Theology, Billy Graham versus Jerry Falwell and the list goes on and on. One side can prove the other wrong only as far as they can prove that their own ideas are also left wanting.
What is most important is that these questions are as much a cornerstone of our faith as baptism and worship. Though we may never find the answers, the experience that that exploration provides can bring us closer to our Deity. Each time we question opinion, we have an innate opportunity to either solidify our argument, or better understand the plausibility of dissenting opinions. Through this we come to a deeper and less compromised understanding of God and a closer and more intimate relationship to our Savior.
Obedience to God is not what is at stake here. You can challenge the contemporary understanding of The Church without questioning God’s commands. Jesus never intended His children to blindly follow the leadership within The Church. In fact, our understanding of Theology Proper is base upon, educated and curious men’s challenges of what The Bible is telling us and what we should believe as saints of God, living among men. If this were not true, we would be worshipping as we were two thousand years ago. The fact that we are not is a testament to our increased understanding of scriptural principles and a deeper regard for context and audience when interpreting Biblical texts.
The most telling incite into the nature of humanity, is what I call the “grandeur of the contemporary.” Each generation of The Church has a contingency that believes that finally, after all these years; they not only have a deeper understanding of Christ upon their lives than previous generations, but that their views are above suspicion and introspection. Where does the motivations for these feeling originate?
It would be easy to blame the leadership with in The Body of Christ. After all they are a target for all those that wish to criticize The Church. However, criticism is not the true motivation of incite. The fact is many Biblical Scholars gained knowledge through critical study of The Word, not memorization of known facts and texts. A deeper understanding, developed through asking tough theological questions, allows teachers and preachers to tie multidimensional Biblical concepts to one another providing for deeper and more complex sermons.
We cannot put the burden of inaction upon the congregation either. Jesus never blamed the Jews for the corruption of faith within the leadership. He placed the blame solely upon the upper echelon of teachers. The sheep should be lead, and follow they will. This is our nature. Many like their answers in black and white and many ideas in The Bible are just that. However, many more Christian ideas are base primarily upon opinion. Armenians versus Calvinists, Pentecostals versus Baptists, Protestants and Orthodox versus Catholics, Conservative Christianity versus Liberal Theology, Billy Graham versus Jerry Falwell and the list goes on and on. One side can prove the other wrong only as far as they can prove that their own ideas are also left wanting.
What is most important is that these questions are as much a cornerstone of our faith as baptism and worship. Though we may never find the answers, the experience that that exploration provides can bring us closer to our Deity. Each time we question opinion, we have an innate opportunity to either solidify our argument, or better understand the plausibility of dissenting opinions. Through this we come to a deeper and less compromised understanding of God and a closer and more intimate relationship to our Savior.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Rise of the Fed bashers By George F. Will Thursday, December 10, 2009 Washington Post
And at Rep. Ron Paul, the 2008 presidential candidate who had the zany idea -- as many laughing people thought -- that the Federal Reserve system could become a sizzling political issue. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, who does not laugh promiscuously, knows that it is no laughing matter that Paul has 317 co-sponsors (180 Republicans, 137 Democrats) for a bill to open the Fed's books to "audit" by the comptroller general.
The canny congressman cannot accomplish what the title of his best-selling book recommends: "End the Fed." But he probably hopes that if the Fed's transactions with financial institutions were publicized, he and kindred spirits could stir populist resentment of the mysterious institution. Although profoundly mistaken in his objective -- breaking the Fed to Congress's saddle -- Paul is not frivolous. His rage against the Fed is rooted in his rejection of fiat money -- paper money backed by nothing but confidence in Congress (really), and his libertarian enthusiasm for maximizing the role of unmanaged markets in allocating social rewards.
Bernanke on Monday told the Economic Club of Washington that Congress already can examine the Fed's balance sheet. His worry is that Congress, by ordering audits when it dislikes Fed monetary policy decisions, might make the Fed seem subject to, and eventually actually make it subject to, congressional pressure.
At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress's "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."
That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking, and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.
Before the recent downward tick in unemployment from 10.2 percent to 10 percent, Democrats said: The absence of downward movement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending. After the downward tick they said: The improvement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending lest the momentum stall. For such people, "more spending" is a verbal tic. Let such people begin managing the Fed and they will mandate low interest rates, regardless of circumstances. The currency will fail as a store of value.
Is the Fed's independence (de facto, not de jure) "undemocratic"? Somewhat. So what?
America is committed to democracy -- and to circumscribing democracy's scope in order to minimize the damage it can do by improvident responsiveness to untempered gusts of public passion. Thus the government is replete with restraining mechanisms -- three branches of government, rival chambers of the legislative branch, vetoes, supermajority requirements, judicial review, etc. And there are extraconstitutional circumscriptions of democracy, such as allowing the Fed an independence that exists at the sufferance of Congress.
If Time magazine has a lick of sense, Bernanke will be its Person of the Year because his leading role in stabilizing the financial system enabled the president to pursue other objectives. He did not do it perfectly, but he prevented paralysis.
On Monday, he reminded his Economic Club listeners of John Maynard Keynes's hope that "economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists." But humble people do not claim -- as Bernanke does, under Congress's mandate -- the competence to simultaneously produce, with "adroit" policies, price stability and full employment.
Like the Fed, dentists are always important and urgently desired when pain is intense. But they are rarely objects of their patients' affections.
georgewill@washpost.com
The canny congressman cannot accomplish what the title of his best-selling book recommends: "End the Fed." But he probably hopes that if the Fed's transactions with financial institutions were publicized, he and kindred spirits could stir populist resentment of the mysterious institution. Although profoundly mistaken in his objective -- breaking the Fed to Congress's saddle -- Paul is not frivolous. His rage against the Fed is rooted in his rejection of fiat money -- paper money backed by nothing but confidence in Congress (really), and his libertarian enthusiasm for maximizing the role of unmanaged markets in allocating social rewards.
Bernanke on Monday told the Economic Club of Washington that Congress already can examine the Fed's balance sheet. His worry is that Congress, by ordering audits when it dislikes Fed monetary policy decisions, might make the Fed seem subject to, and eventually actually make it subject to, congressional pressure.
At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress's "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."
That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking, and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.
Before the recent downward tick in unemployment from 10.2 percent to 10 percent, Democrats said: The absence of downward movement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending. After the downward tick they said: The improvement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending lest the momentum stall. For such people, "more spending" is a verbal tic. Let such people begin managing the Fed and they will mandate low interest rates, regardless of circumstances. The currency will fail as a store of value.
Is the Fed's independence (de facto, not de jure) "undemocratic"? Somewhat. So what?
America is committed to democracy -- and to circumscribing democracy's scope in order to minimize the damage it can do by improvident responsiveness to untempered gusts of public passion. Thus the government is replete with restraining mechanisms -- three branches of government, rival chambers of the legislative branch, vetoes, supermajority requirements, judicial review, etc. And there are extraconstitutional circumscriptions of democracy, such as allowing the Fed an independence that exists at the sufferance of Congress.
If Time magazine has a lick of sense, Bernanke will be its Person of the Year because his leading role in stabilizing the financial system enabled the president to pursue other objectives. He did not do it perfectly, but he prevented paralysis.
On Monday, he reminded his Economic Club listeners of John Maynard Keynes's hope that "economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists." But humble people do not claim -- as Bernanke does, under Congress's mandate -- the competence to simultaneously produce, with "adroit" policies, price stability and full employment.
Like the Fed, dentists are always important and urgently desired when pain is intense. But they are rarely objects of their patients' affections.
georgewill@washpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)