Incumbent Exit Fever!

Throw The Bums Out!

The primary results from yesterday across the country seem to validate the sense that Americans are fed up with Washington, with career politicians and with the backroom scheming that dictates the nature and outcome of legislation.

OK.

So, toss them all out. I agree that a large number of Senators and Congressmen/women are either out of touch, corrupt, influenced by nefarious interests or all of the above.

But, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. No less a Republican Party hack than Karl Rove has disparaged the victory of Tea Party backed conservative Christine O’Donnell over incumbent Mike Castle in Delaware. Rove says that O’Donnell cannot win a general election. The sharp move to the right in the First State (in Rove’s opinion) will insure the Democrats will retain that seat. As far as I can tell, Castle’s downfall was mostly because he’s currently in office. In the musical chairs world of politics, he was in the seat when the music stopped—and that’s all it took for his chair to be yanked away.

What’s a conservative to do?

Better to determine, what is the source of the anger and frustration out there? While I think that those opposed to the Democratic legislative agenda have fueled much of the angst, Republicans should be warned that the mood is as much “anti-incumbent” as it is “anti-Democrat”.

In fact, while the Tea Party’s conservative goals prove to be a better fit with Republican ideals, the extremism that has taken hold in Tea Party-backed candidates has an ominous side. Namely, the likely Republican pandering for Tea Party approval (to align with an energized voter base) may have the backlash effect of driving moderate Republicans to the other side when Election Day arrives.

As best as I can tell, the hostile attitude toward all things incumbent centers around the following rallying points:

1) We are spending beyond our means—bankrupting the country and mortgaging our children’s future.
2) Our lawmakers are not really REPRESENTING us. Public sentiment over a particular bill or proposed legislation is not reflected in the outcome.
3) The government is getting too big, taking over too much that should be in the private sector—and raising our taxes to pay for it all.

Am I leaving anything major out?

These are broad generalizations, but I think most major complaints can fit under one or more of the Big 3 above.

So, where’s the beef? Are all of the above postulates true?

I think they may be true, but the caveat in asserting they are--- is qualified by also stating there may be some short-term justification for all three.

1) WE ARE SPENDING BEYOND OUR MEANS. I am no economist, but students of the Great Depression like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke are insistent that deficit spending by government is absolutely essential to hastening the end of a recession or depression.

In fact, it is asserted that the Great Depression would have been much shorter in duration had the deficit spending in the 30’s been more extensive and had not been thwarted by political opposition. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but no politician is versed in economic theory to the extent that his or her opinion counts for much.

Whatever you think of Bernanke ( a Bush appointee), Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or the braintrust of Larry Summers, James Galbraith, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin—and at least a dozen other prominent financial minds that comprise the President’s economic team, one thing is certain: the actions that the federal government took to avert a complete economic meltdown were not motivated by politics—at least not with that crowd of economists.

In fact, getting real results ARE the best politics—and even if the American public –and right wing talk show hosts—don’t UNDERSTAND the dynamics that call for these moves, it doesn’t mean they were not necessary.

I admit that the whole idea seems counter-intuitive, but let’s face it. I’m a disc jockey---a DJ with a business degree, but a radio guy nonetheless who doesn’t deal with this on a micro or macro level daily—as do the people creating policy. Is it POSSIBLE that economic experts, working together without the distraction of seeking re-election—may be able to make better economic decisions than can, say, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin?

My guess is: yes, they can, even if the results are not coming as fast as an impatient public would like.


2) OUR LAWMAKERS ARE NOT REPRESENTING US. This is perhaps best evidenced by the Health Care reform bill. Supposedly, a majority of Americans were opposed to the bill—and yet it passed anyway.

Civil Rights Legislation, if held to the standard of majority rule/public opinion polls—would likely have never passed in 1964. It took political courage to vote for one’s convictions when faced with the possibility of expulsion. Those in Congress who lose their seat based solely on their vote for the Health Care measure will pay the price for that courage.

Most will likely say it was worth it.

Leaders must not always be swayed by public opinion polls, especially when the opinions may be based on distorted information fed to them by political foes. Only time will tell if this legislation was a net positive or a net negative. The Congressional Budget Office stated without qualification that not only would the Health Care bill not be deficit neutral as proposed, but rather, it would be beneficial to REDUCING the deficit.

I prefer to accept this assessment over that of the political right wingers who called the bill a “government takeover of healthcare” It was and is nothing of the sort. The facts simply don’t support that kind of representation. Were a Public Option part of the bill (which I was in favor of to force health insurance companies to be competitive cost-wise), at least THAT provision would justify charges of Uncle Sam “taking over”. The present law does not.


3) THE GOVERNMENT IS GETTING TOO BIG, TAKING OVER TOO MUCH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR---AND RAISING TAXES TO DO IT. The bailouts of AIG and other private banks as well as General Motors are clearly troublesome. However, many believe they were necessary to save entire industries.

The temporary nature of the bailouts and the current status of payback and return to normal operations seem to have borne this out to be a good move. No one knows the extent of a recession in the wake of the demise of GM. Depression is perhaps a more appropriate word to describe the likely effect.

As far as taxes, the Democratic plans to give tax breaks to small businesses and those investing in new technologies belie the charges of new taxes being levied. Even Republicans, who have opposed anything proposed by Obama—cannot withstand the political fallout of opposing these Republicanesque measures to stimulate the economy. Repeal of the Bush tax cuts (benefiting the wealthiest of Americans) is a weak argument for asserting the current administration is raising taxes.


So, maybe everyone in Congress should look for the exit doors and head back to lucrative “consulting” jobs or whatever ex-politicians do when jettisoned from office. To trust that their replacements will be any more effective or competent is naïve, in my view.

We’ll punish the incumbents—and soon realize the “new” folks didn’t transform the landscape much.

But we’ll all feel better, right?


If you’d like my blog in your daily inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com