Beware of The Gang of Six
Jul 31
Democracy and Power 108: Obfuscation
Wherever politics intrudes upon economic life, political success is readily attained by saying what people like to hear rather than what is demonstrably true. Instead of safeguarding truth and honesty, the state then tends to become a major source of insincerity and mendacity. – Hans F. Sennholz
The politician’s speech is seldom precise or logically reasoned. Seeking a favorable image, the politician talks in generalities, exaggerates and obfuscates.
Beware of The Gang of Six
Senator Kent Conrad said the Gang of Six’s plan would, “find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion.“ What Conrad did not say is that tax revenues would increase by $3 trillion. Why the discrepancy? Conrad knows tax increases of $4.5 trillion will occur when the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire. Thus, Conrad’s “relief” is a $3 trillion revenue increase instead of a $4.5 increase. Conrad is deliberately deceiving the public.
Also, the Gang of Six claims to reduce billions in taxes] by eliminating the onerous alternative minimum tax (AMT). Wrong. Historically, the AMT is repealed every year because it is a detested burden on millions of American taxpayers. Thus, this claimed tax cut is non-existent.
As to spending, except for freezing federal pay, terminating long term care legislation and altering the consumer price index, the Gang of Six only proposes that various congressional committees reduce spending billions of dollars. These future cuts are a ruse.
In reality, the Gang of Six extracts a $3 trillion tax increase with minimal spending cuts. This is politics as usual in D.C. – a continuation of the tax increases and spending cut deceptions that have created our debt crisis.
Wretchedly, the Gang of Six’s financial plan perpetuates America’s decline. Equally harmful, these deceits and subterfuges are morally wrecking America. Instead of safeguarding truth and honesty, the state then tends to become a major source of insincerity and mendacity.
Read a more detailed report by Marc A. Thiessen at AEI.. http://www.aei.org/article/103900
Mr. Abram,
Very interesting website! Congratulations on sharing something that could really help our country. I am trying to get my own site started, which perhaps starts on a different side of the same mountain — but what it will look like from the peak is more similar than different. My site is MUCH less mature than yours (Aug. 2011) but two of the central goals are similar — 1) to strengthen the individual (for me that means many things) and 2) to advocate for structural changes to our political process. On 2) I look at it like an engineering problem first — what are the simplest, most direct changes that the american people could change in the machinery of our federal govt, probably by constitutional amendment, that would allow a better democracy to emerge? I would like to have a discussion with our fellow citizens about the options available and then work with a coalition to implement one. Why the machinery versus policy? Because even the very best policies, if implemented by a huge movement of the people or by a miracle of congressional wisdom, can be reversed by a new wave of political bribes (election donations) by TPTB or by the next set of congressional knuckleheads. Given enough time, the best policies will erode into what monied interests design versus what the general “american people” would design. To me, our founding fathers introduced to the world the greatest political process of their time, but since then that process has been gamed by interests. The gaming of the system is not entirely an evil process — meaning, it is not useful to attribute all the undesired results on bad or evil people. Unintentionally, the system has designed so that it will be gamed, and so that is what we get. We allow campaign donations and donations correlate to election results, so we are going to get politicians that want — no, must have — large donations. And donations are really attempts at influencing legislation. We are a media driven society, presently, and so messages are catered to short, misleading, sound bites. And so on. (I am sure you know better than I.) So now is the time to design and roll-out a new version of the system. Why now? Because we are alive now. When we are gone it will be someone else’s turn! Now once the process is fixed, then we can fight about policies, ideology, etc — I am not as interested in that now because it all seems like an uphill battle. I trust that the american people, if given a government that they can control and given a system that allows for serious, wise, deliberation and execution, the american people will make good choices over time. Until then, we are being lead by the nose like cattle and confused like children in some haunted house or hall of mirrors. So I might have some preferences but they are mostly irrelevant … and probably not based on good information anyhow! I would rather partner with folks from a broad spectrum of view-points that all shared the goal of structural reform than I would hang out with a group of people that share my policy preferences. We aren’t going to fix this by debating policies — those are distractions and will always be manipulated by other interests. So I want to talk about campaign reform, term limits, and really, other ideas that will help take back the government and give it back to the people. Your conclusions are different than mine, about putting control back to local government but I really like what you are saying. My conclusions (so far, but I am really open — when you are engineering a solution, you have to be open) are different but really related too. The main principles are exactly the same. Ok – I hope I have written enough to convince you to send me an email: thebalancedrepublic@gmail.com. You can swing by my site, too, http://www.thebalancedrepublic.com. But I would like to engage you in a conversation and then if it is a fit, work to help each other some. Perhaps our efforts could complement? I am already getting ideas from how you have laid out your site. And I think your points 101-116 are a fantastic way to organize the discussion. Even if you do not contact me, I respect what you are doing here and will put a link on my site to yours. I have very few readers now, but that will change and they may come and see you and debate it out with you too. thanks and best wishes. ~TBR