I received some feedback from a good friend of mine. This is what he said:
"I think rather than initiating a 4th branch, that the other three branches should just get out of the way of economic management. Its not their job to manage the economy. It's their job to make sure people are honest and don't commit fraud. Simple policing."
I agree very much that it is not their job to manage the economy. However, regardless of whether we think it is their job, they have made it their job and will forever make it their job under the current setup. The sad reality of our world is that the government is and will be involved. The Great Depression changed that forever. Nobody wants to be known as the next Herbert Hoover and politicians have put themselves up as the economic saviors of the world. Not only have they put themselves up as that, that is what the people expect of them. The number one issue on voter's minds is the economy. It is political suicide to not acknowledge that.
Here are some articles that show my point:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/news/economy/election_issue_poll/index.htm
http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2007/12/economy-number-one-issue.shtml
I agree that the ideal role of government is to stay out of the economy and to let the chips fall where they may. However, our economically uneducated politicians can't afford to take that approach. They have to answer their constituent's requests and we can't blame them. Because our people have turned to their government for economic salvation, the government should be altered to meet that need and it should be altered in a manner that economically intelligent and educated persons are able to be placed in the situation to make those recommendations and decisions. Many economists would vote to not have this much government involvement in the economy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/02
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977460238
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
By taking this approach, those who know the economy best would choose to meddle the least. Therefore, the only way to get government truly out of the economy, is to get the government more involved by placing within it the people who know best and are capable of actually making sound economic policies. That cannot be done, in my opinion, in the current system. Therefore, a change of some kind has to happen.
Again, as I see it we have two choices: move ever closer to a dictatorial Executive Branch due to our representative's inability to act forcing our constitution to be null and void or amend our constitution so that we can act - by the people and for the people - for the good of America and for the good of all mankind.
"Let us include in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods. And it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." Thomas Jefferson 1816
"I think rather than initiating a 4th branch, that the other three branches should just get out of the way of economic management. Its not their job to manage the economy. It's their job to make sure people are honest and don't commit fraud. Simple policing."
I agree very much that it is not their job to manage the economy. However, regardless of whether we think it is their job, they have made it their job and will forever make it their job under the current setup. The sad reality of our world is that the government is and will be involved. The Great Depression changed that forever. Nobody wants to be known as the next Herbert Hoover and politicians have put themselves up as the economic saviors of the world. Not only have they put themselves up as that, that is what the people expect of them. The number one issue on voter's minds is the economy. It is political suicide to not acknowledge that.
Here are some articles that show my point:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/news/economy/election_issue_poll/index.htm
http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2007/12/economy-number-one-issue.shtml
I agree that the ideal role of government is to stay out of the economy and to let the chips fall where they may. However, our economically uneducated politicians can't afford to take that approach. They have to answer their constituent's requests and we can't blame them. Because our people have turned to their government for economic salvation, the government should be altered to meet that need and it should be altered in a manner that economically intelligent and educated persons are able to be placed in the situation to make those recommendations and decisions. Many economists would vote to not have this much government involvement in the economy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/02
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977460238
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
By taking this approach, those who know the economy best would choose to meddle the least. Therefore, the only way to get government truly out of the economy, is to get the government more involved by placing within it the people who know best and are capable of actually making sound economic policies. That cannot be done, in my opinion, in the current system. Therefore, a change of some kind has to happen.
Again, as I see it we have two choices: move ever closer to a dictatorial Executive Branch due to our representative's inability to act forcing our constitution to be null and void or amend our constitution so that we can act - by the people and for the people - for the good of America and for the good of all mankind.
"Let us include in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods. And it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." Thomas Jefferson 1816
2 comments:
Ken,
Interesting idea along with Jefferson's quote. I think the idea of revising the constitution from time to time makes my head spin. I see it being like an Isreali sort of event where elections are held and the winner tries form a government and if they cant form a coalition (constitution) then more elections are held...so on and so forth. It would be mayhem in my opinion.
Another interesting thing is this idea of what the people expect. We have gone through an upward spiral of ever increasing expectations from our government. LBJ's Great Society spoiled the American people. This upward drift has turned into a current that is impossible for politicians to successfully work against.
What we need is a butcher who can lower the standard and take us back to pre-New Deal levels of government. Ironically, it may not be a politician that does it but the ebb and flow of the generations that will do it for us. We have not reproduced enough people to sustain pensions for our aging population. I bet that 20 years from now we will not have Social Security or Medicare as we know it today. They will be bankrupt.
If our politicians act in advance then perhaps some faith may be kept in our goverment. If they don't then the people will ultimately loose faith in their leaders and we will have a revolution in the halls of government. Its never a good to over promise and under deliver.
Jeremy,
I agree with you on the cutting us back to what the proper role of government should be. We cannot be everything to everyone. By following that course we will eventually become nothing - bankrupt and incapable of guiding an unprincipled people.
And even though the politicians don't want to talk about it, Social Security is going to have to change. The numbers don't add up. I don't think it will go bankrupt. Our elected officials can't afford to let that happen. It will become a welfare benefit based on income. Rather than getting more based on your wages, people who earned more will get less. People who earned more and paid more and get less. Tell me how that makes sense.