Drastically Change the Way Washington Works
President Elect Obama comes into office with America’s economy facing the worst crisis in decades, a ten trillion dollar debt, projected deficits of over a trillion a year, major financial, industrial and even retail institutions at risk of collapse, American troops still at war in Iraq, the growing threat of Afghanistan, and escalating unrest in the Middle East, and a world view of America that is to say the least tarnished. And that’s just the beginning of America’s problems. So what should Obama’s top priority be?
Obama has talked endlessly about what he is going to do to rescue the economy. And without doubt, he sees that as his first priority. The problem is that he’s very likely to fail…partly because the situation is bigger than the President and what he can do, partly because his solutions aren’t sufficient, and partly because the root problems, and what got us into this mess in the first place is systemic…and requires cleaning up Washington, changing the way Washington operates and taking on the political establishment itself.
I think Obama’s top priority should be to radically transform how Washington works, and take dramatic steps to overhaul the political system and engage the American public in a new chapter of our amazing democracy.
At the end of the day, Obama’s biggest and most important task is to ensure that over time we can get out of the mess we’re in, and then not get into it again. Business as usual won’t accomplish that. Neither will just asking for hundreds of billions of dollars to throw at the problems. Obama needs to use the Presidency to immediately do two things:
1) First, throw down the mantle in Washington and effectively call out the system and all those who enable it. Our bankrupt, partisan, two party political system -- full of long term politicians with short-term all about the next election not the next generation attitudes got us into this mess. And it will take challenging that system and culture, and changing it, to get us out.
2) Second, Obama needs to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to engage, inspire and mobilize Americans to join him to fight through these difficult times, rebuild America, and change the way Washington works.
Obama can’t fix what’s wrong in America without fixing what’s wrong in Washington and he can’t do either without the active trust and support of the American people.
The American public is deeply distrustful of Washington, cynical about politics and politicians, and increasingly disillusioned with how the federal government handles our money and our national interest. The first chapter of the first $700 billion bailout is a great example. Washington urgently demanded, and then hastily handed out 350 billion taxpayer dollars without even the slightest accountability…not even a requirement that the recipients keep track and report what they did with it. Obama is asking Congress to authorize him to spend the second half of that bailout, and in addition is asking for another 700 plus billion dollars to try to stimulate the economy. He wants it now, and without preconditions.
All too quickly, the man who promised hope and change could find himself exactly where he doesn’t want to be – the guy who promised change and can’t deliver it. Obama’s already out there quickly trying to lower our expectations. America’s economic rebound is not going to happen quickly, and the President’s long list of campaign promises are going to have to wait, possibly for a long time.
So why not change the dynamic altogether. What Obama is doing, however well intentioned is still a basic version of what we have already tried, and it still relies on the same people, institutions, and systemic mechanisms which have been failing us. Why not go out on a limb and try something truly radical? Turn Washington upside down and in the process reengage the American people in the political process in an active and ongoing way. Along those lines, here’s two things Obama could immediately do that would shake up Washington, capture the public imagination, and show that Obama is about real change.
First, Obama should put us on the path to a more direct democracy. Make all of America part of guiding and solving the national crises we face today. The old way of doing business was to elect a politician and then let them go to work for us for a few years and see if we’re happy with what he or she did before deciding to reelect or replace them. We live in the era of instant communication, people vote for the winners of American idol on their cell phones, and we still don’t directly influence what our government does? Why not ask the American people to help guide what happens over the next four years? For the bailout, for example, President Obama could give the American public a choice in what they want him to do with the money…give everyone a dozen options, and let the public vote on line to pick the top 5. Maybe the public says take the one trillion that’s up to be given out and divide it among every adult American. Granted, that’s only about $5,000 a person, but it’s our money after all, so why not let us decide how best to use it? Would we make good choices? Maybe, maybe not. But could we really do much worse than what Washington has done? With practice, Obama could use this direct democracy approach to periodically give the public actual choices over big issues that his team has narrowed down to a few key options.
Second, Obama should call for a Constitutional Convention to address systemic problems in how our government governs and to allow us to get clarity on numerous major national issues. From gun control and the Second Amendment to the failure of the Fourth Amendment to adequately protect and address modern civil liberties, there are numerous Amendments that need to be clarified and restructured to make them fit the times we live in. And we could provide some new and needed direction for the future -- from establishing term limits on members of Congress and even a limit to how long someone can serve on the Supreme Court to establishing and defining a literal privacy right.
A Constitutional Convention would allow us to put all kinds of key systemic issues on the table, and ensure that the government we have is truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and that it’s governing document is suited to the times we live in, not to those of generations ago. Thomas Jefferson himself said that American’s should have a Constitutional Convention every 20 years to “perform periodic repairs.” By Jefferson’s standard we’re already more than ten overdue. A Constitutional Convention would be a call to action for all of America. It would challenge us, engage us and inspire us. It would be the most meaningful political event in generations, and it would transform America, allow us to better deal with the challenges we face today, and ensure a more secure future for generations to come.
Direct democracy. A Constitutional Convention. Extraordinary actions? Perhaps. But these are no ordinary times. These kinds of actions would not just be radical and out of the box, but potential transformative, not just addressing the symptoms of our crisis, but the underlying causes. These actions would be so bold and innovative that they would have a catalyzing effect on both the American public and the Washington establishment. Is it a risk? A huge one. But America is in a crisis -- a crisis of confidence as much as dollars and cents. Just taking hundreds of billions more of our money and saying you’re going to spend it better than George Bush did or would is neither inspiring nor bold. And it’s not going to inspire Americans, nor get us to reengage in the process of fixing this country and believing in our government once again. A radical departure from politics as usual and a genuine jolt to the system just might.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Barry Hussein gets NASA to reach out and make Arabs feel good about their history, I thought they were supposed to be involved in Space research?
Next, Once again Barry Hussein Obama has shown that he considers immigration to be primarily a game of political calculation rather than an issue that deeply affects how many millions of U.S. workers must remain unemployed. His renewed call for massive numbers of work permits for foreign workers is an incredible slap in the face to the 25 million Americans who want a full-time job but cannot find one. Let me pull out just a few of outrageous statements that the President made today and suggest you what they mean.
1) It is incredibly hypocritical for the President to talk about holding employers accountable when his DHS has basically stopped criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and has completely stopped worksite raids, and when his Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overturn Arizona's E-Verify law, and all despite the fact that 25 million US workers can't find full time jobs.
Next, Unbelievable. You're not going to guess what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Actually, in this ObamaNation, maybe you will guess it. It turns out that you and I are funding the State Department to purchase and distribute copies of Feisal Abdul Rauf's book, What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Rauf is the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque and is the same imam who won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization; the same imam who said on "60 Minutes" that America was an "accessory" to September 11; and, as we reported at Human Events, the same imam who told a college audience overseas that the United States is worse than al Qaeda.
Yep, that dude. And not only has the State Department anointed him as our ad hoc ambassador to the Muslim world, but now they are acting as his personal Barnes & Noble to boot. Good grief! Buried in a recent New York Times article on Imam Rauf's global hopscotch, the paper casually referenced that our government buys his tome in an effort "to lecture about tolerance" and pursue "interfaith dialogue" with Islamic nations.
Only in the left's strange world does it make sense to support Imam Rauf as a goodwill spokesman for the United States while he's busy trashing the United States. But that aside, did the bureaucrats at the State Department ever take the time to read Rauf's What's Right with Islam? If so, they'll have to justify why they're promoting a book that faults America for stirring up conflict with Muslims, brags that America is "Sharia compliant," and makes excuses for suicide bombings.
2) His contention that our borders are more secure than they've been in decades is ludicrous, but then, he wouldn't know that, since he hasn't been down there; his claim would come as a big surprise to the law enforcement officers and ranchers who have been shot or shot at in recent months by illegal aliens, and to the human and drug smugglers who are operating with impunity.
3) His contention that our immigration laws are unenforceable is interesting--how would he know, since he hasn't tried? When he took his oath of office and swore to faithfully execute the laws of the land, he didn't say, "except those I don't like, like immigration laws."
4) The only thing he was actually specific about was his support for amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens who, as he admitted, came here to take jobs from US workers who desperately need them during the current jobs depression.
5) His politicization of this issue is offensive. He talked about all the different groups he's met with, representing all kinds of views and faiths and beliefs. Unfortunately, the only groups he hasn't met with are those who represent the American people, who oppose his amnesty plan and his apparent plan to ratchet up already too high legal immigration levels. He also said that Republicans are the ones blocking CIR. Last I checked, Democrats control both the House and the Senate. The fact is that there are sufficient numbers of Democrats who actually represent their constituents and oppose amnesty, but instead of admitting that CIR simply doesn't have enough support to pass, he blames Republicans.
May 2010: think the previous story is the worst that it can get? Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri visited the White House this week. His nation plays amiable host to Iran's creation and proxy, Hezbollah. In fact, Hariri has invited members of Hezbollah into his government. Though Mr. Obama pressed Hariri about the transfer of long-range missiles to Hezbollah, the Prime Minister seemed undeterred. Maybe this is why. Apparently, the real purpose for his visit was to threaten our President. He said that Mr. Obama was running out of time. If he didn't force an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that satisfied Arab demands soon, the result will be increased violence and extremism in the Middle East. What is it with these foreign heads of state coming into 'the people's house' and knocking the U.S. or giving us ultimatums?
Next, Barry Hussein Obama's Nominee for Deputy Attorney General Says 9/11 Attacks Not Acts of War, Likens Them to Domestic Crimes of Murder, Rape
Monday, June 14, 2010. Despite a resolution by Congress authorizing war against those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama’s nominee to be the number two official at the Justice Department, James Cole, wrote an op-ed in 2002 likening the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the domestic crimes of murder, rape and child abuse, while arguing that the attackers ought to be treated like domestic criminals. “But the attorney general is not a member of the military fighting a war--he is a prosecutor fighting crime ,” Cole wrote in a Sept. 9, 2002 article in Legal Times that critiqued the way then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft was handling the 9/11 case. “For all the rhetoric about war, the Sept. 11 attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population, much like the terrorist acts of Timothy McVeigh in blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or of Omar Abdel-Rahman in the first effort to blow up the World Trade Center,” said Cole. “The criminals responsible for these horrible acts were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal justice system, without the need for special procedures that altered traditional due process rights.
Next, Former U.N. General Assembly President – a Critic of the U.S. and Israel – Will Provide ‘Expertise’ to U.N. Human Rights Council
Friday, June 18, 2010. General Assembly president Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann addresses a meeting marking the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” at the U.N. in New York on Nov. 24, 2008. (UN Photo by Devra Berkowitz). (CNSNews.com) – Less than a year after he ended an often turbulent presidency of the U.N. General Assembly, a Nicaraguan leftist and arch-critic of the U.S. and Israel was set Friday to be appointed to the advisory committee of the U.N.’s top human rights agency. Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann has been nominated by the Sandinista government to fill a vacancy on the Human Rights Council’s advisory committee, a body of 18 experts, which functions as the Geneva-based council’s think tank.
As the vacant position is one of three earmarked for Latin America and the Caribbean nations, and D’Escoto is the only nominated put forward by that regional group, known as GRULAC, his election by the 47-member council on the last day of its three-week midyear session is likely to be a formality. The HRC states that the nomination process is meant “to ensure that the best possible expertise is made available to the Council.” According to agreed-upon U.N. procedures, the post calls for “recognized competence and experience in the field of human rights; high moral standing; [and] independence and impartiality.” D’Escoto’s year-long presidency of the General Assembly – which followed GRULAC’s unanimous endorsement and subsequent “election by acclamation” and ran until last September – was arguably the most polarizing in the organization’s history.
Next, Barry Barack Hussein Obama's first presidential meeting with a foreign leader was not with that of Great Britain -- one of our two closest allies, whose prime minister stood down opposition within his own party to join the effort in Iraq. Obama met with Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party, to stress the importance of restarting the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" -- which Obama considered essential to moderate Arab and Muslim views. Obama chastised Israel, the other of our two closest allies, for building "settlements" in east Jerusalem -- even though, pre-Obama, the Palestinian leadership had already accepted construction in that area as part of any future deal. Obama gave his first presidential sit-down interview to Al-Arabiya television network, where he asked "countries like Iran ... to unclench their fist." He hoped to deter Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, something candidate Obama called a "game changer" and "unacceptable."
Rob Nelson asks for drastic change. OK. One idea he sort of offered was a vote on line for an option that would devote $1 Trillion of stimulus to be paid to every adult at the rate of $5000 each.
Such an idea is properly simple. It would work. I think we need more of the same simple type of very great change.
One problem today is to finance jobs by big business, small business, and self-employment.
Another problem is to provide economic security to today's very poor--by raising the minimum standard of living.
Another problem is to reduce overall greed by improving the economic security of today's middle class and exceptionally rich by popularizing inflation protected savings modeled on Treasury Inflation Protected Securities so that people can have confidence in a nest egg that cannot be destroyed by market conditions. Its ultimate protection would be PRODUCTION -- which government would undertake by subsidy to private producers or direct hire: government would demonstrate in good times its competence to replace private producers IF NECESSARY for as long a time as it might take for the private sector to get back on its feet.
If we substantially accept the above, we decide:
1. Big business jobs will be sought the way we do this today (or better, as the future unfolds).
2. Small business jobs will be sought by complete tax exemption for all small business.
3. Self-employment will be aided by adoption of micro-lending practices, Americanized as necessary.
The above changes to the Washington's Ways also depend on meeting any deficit in demand with credit directly from the central bank to Congregational appropriations at the option of the Congress. This would minimize taxes and interest and maximize economic growth for as long as severe inflation was held at bay.
In the event of severe inflation, Congress would have at hand recall and replacement of the nation's money with new money to be equitably exchanged to protect the lower half of the wealth distribution curve. The upper half would still be very rich.
Anti-trust and anti-monopoly law would always be in place to prevent ownership of property from too great concentration. How much concentration is too much? Congress may have to establish a special court to decide the issue.