A Gathering Storm

POL 213:

A headline caught my eye today. It seems that our senators are finally realizing the full effects of a looming problem facing our nation. As the Baby Boom generation edges closer and closer to the golden age of retirement, the feasibility of paying their allotment of the Social Security nest egg slims. It's not as though they haven't seen it coming, or that no one has touted a plan to fix it before, but there hasn’t been a sense of urgency that is evident now. In fact, the Senate’s budget writers have proposed creating a task force to recommend solutions to the coming financial drain that would be required to deliver its consensus by December of next year. It would be fast-tracked through both branches of legislature to come to a final vote.

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota stated, "We cannot ignore the coming crisis and hope that future leaders will solve this problem. The longer we wait, the harder the choices become." He’s right. There is no easy way to fix a system that is beyond hope already. When there are so many frail people depending on those monthly checks, the pressure is even more intense.

The Social Security plan has inherently fatal flaws. The first is that the Constitution gives absolutely no authority for the kind of universal wealth distribution system that the plan espouses. In fact, the Constitution clearly establishes the rights and role of the government (for instance, running a postal system), while leaving all other interests to the private citizen to pursue. The framers knew that individual interests would create a much more efficient and effective system of distribution than anything they could possibly create.

The system was set up with short term vision regarding our country and population demographics. Of course Roosevelt and the legislators of 1935 could not foresee the drastic changes in births from the 1950s to today’s world, but they should have at least considered the potential complications to their plan. At this point, we have a small workforce trying to support a large number of retirees. It simply isn’t sustainable.

There is also no incentive given to create more wealth under this plan. All citizens are treated equally when it comes time to collect their monthly check. It cripples those who would take initiative by requiring them to invest. What if I’d rather privately invest that money? Too bad! I have no choice but to throw more into the system than what I can ever expect to receive in return.

At a rough time in our country’s history, the decision to raise taxes by requiring Social Security payments from both citizens and employers caused nothing but trouble. As employers struggled to pay higher fees, yet weren’t rewarded with any extra business, they were forced to cut back on their number of employees. This made the effects of the Great Depression stretch further into the lives of every American as unemployment skyrocketed.

I wish the new task force well as it embarks on a politically-charged mission to reform a corrupt system. Their job will not be easy. No one seems to have a good solution to the problem. I think that privatizing retirement investment options would be a good start. Perhaps we should even encourage it by eliminating all taxes on investments! This would be a good time to “take one for the team” and correct a mistake made by misinformed or misled former legislators.

The Fine Line

POL 213-

In an article published by Bloomberg.com on September 14, Edwin Chen and Aliza Marcus gave an overview of the ongoing competition among the top Democratic presidential candidates to come up with a workable health insurance plan for the nation. It seems that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama each plan to endorse at least some type of mandatory insurance.

For Senator Obama, the coverage would apply only to children, while former Senator Edwards has espoused a plan for full coverage of all U.S. citizens. Senator Clinton plans to reveal her plan for comprehensive coverage in a speech in Iowa today, but it will most likely have a more practical framework than Senator Edwards’. He opted to create a government-backed system that would compete with private firms, making insurance a viable option for anyone.

The authors hold that Clinton’s choice to ride the fine line between these two plans is an “attempt to convert a potential liability into an asset while opponents seek to make it a fatal flaw.” She faces the backlash from an early 90’s proposal in which she espoused full coverage while failing to set the stage for such a drastic change and to present a feasible plan. In this case, Clinton may have a fighting chance, since cries to reform the gigantic healthcare system are sounding louder and more frequently than they have in the past.

Her situation gives us a perfect example of someone riding the tide of public opinion in order to solve a particular political problem. Will she crash under the lip of another giant wave as constituents balk at another comprehensive plan? Or will she have enough momentum to cruise along the crest of the election tide?

Clinton does maintain a couple of distinct advantages in the insurance plan turmoil. It was certainly in her best interests to delay revealing any kind of plan until after her opponents had the chance to do so first. Her experience with the thwarted earlier attempt also gives her much more experience than any of the other candidates. In July, 65% of Americans stated that they held a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in her ability to tackle this issue. The election question certainly will not be determined without considering this hot-button topic of health insurance. The candidate able to win the crowd with his proposal looks to gain a significant lead in the polls.

Leadership structure

Have you ever found yourself placed in a position of authority, wondering how to best involve the members of your group or organization in the mission you all claim to support? You were elected or appointed to this role, and now you're wondering how you can lead effectively. I found this tension described perfectly in the first chapters of a small book entitled Culture Craft. Targeting those in Christian leadership, the book charts the traditional view of organizational structure in the Western world that has spread across the globe. This is a “top-down” approach, where power, results, and influence are implied, if not actually stated, as fundamental principles of the organizational hierarchy. I began to wonder how this view of the chain of command applied to my country, the United States, as well as to the beleaguered government in Iraq.

James Otis, in his "Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," comments that, “the end of it [the government] is manifestly the good of the whole.” As such, he goes on to state that a democracy is possibly the best way of ruling with a balance of power. Representation was created as a practical means of carrying out the huge task of making decisions for such a large body of people. It was born out of practicality and provides the model for the “top-down” theory that we discussed earlier.

The country of Iraq brings a whole new course to the dinner table. If, like me, you struggle to identify exactly what is at stake in the current war, you may find "Which Iraq War do you Want to End?" helpful in clarifying your thoughts. In this article, Christopher Hitchens describes the conflicts currently at center stage in the Middle East. He explains that there are really at least three wars being waged: "The first, tragically, is the battle for mastery between Sunni and Shiite. The second is the campaign to isolate and defeat al-Qaida in Mesopotamia. The third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north. " Faced with three such diverse objectives, the lines have blurred between our starting objective and the seemingly hopeless web that Coalition troops are experiencing today.

The occupation in Iraq started with a noble cause. Again according to James Otis, “Whenever the administrators, in any of those forms [of government], deviate from truth, justice and equity, they verge towards tyranny, and are to be opposed; and if they prove incorrigible, they will be deposed by the people, if the people are not rendered too abject.” I am wondering what the mood and attitude of the Iraqi people really was when we invaded. Were they really too spiritless to stand up for themselves, or did they simply realize just how deeply rooted are the lines of conflict in their country?

As is evidenced in the “Iraq Political Structure Rotting from the Inside and the Outside” report, Malou Innocent relates that backbiting Cabinet members, an ineffective Parliament, and the lack of legitimate use of Iraqi forces point to serious problems of functionality in the current system of government. It will take some additional research and reflection to discover just what type of government, if any, would be able to bridge the gaping holes in this country. In any case, James Otis’ point that, “the inconveniencies, not to say impossibility, attending the consultations and operations of a large body of people have made it necessary to transfer the power of the whole to a few,” is well-illustrated in this case.