Why the Democrats are clueless

Or maybe why I cannot figure out how the Democrats feel they can afford or fund their programs.

I am still mad at the writer or the producer of the movie where Michael Douglas says greed is good. Greed is not good, yet way too many use this philosophy to justify abuses of the system and the wealth gap. The truth though is greed is a motivator to some people.  Greed by itself is wrong, the underlying motivator though can be used for good. Or at least ways to accomplish goals.

Democrats seem to forget taxpayers are consumers. They consume government services. Most people accept paying taxes for the services government provides that they see the benefit or see the need. We pay taxes for building roads and infrastructure, for police and fire, for the military to protect our sovereign borders, educating our children, and maybe a few other basic needs I cannot think of off the top of my head right now. The rest of what the government does and spends money on becomes a matter of choice. This is where the push and pull of politics comes into play. And it should be this way in an open government.

For our health we need clean air and clean water, but who should pay for it? Some people do not like to admit this, but we are a country based on Christian principles and if applied we need to take care of the poor, the disabled, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the children and orphans. The question is who is to take care of these people.  Some argue the government, some argue the private sector via charities pay or fulfill the need.

After these definite needs of society are accomplished we then get into wish list of what we want of our country. Or are they wish list items? Is good affordable healthcare a definite need of society? Or is it a nice benefit? Are higher wages for all a need or a benefit? Should we work until we die, or do we deserve a retirement? I bring these up because we have attempted to answer these questions with Social Security and Medicare for example. Private sector companies also offer some type of retirement benefit. This shows you government can create public policy to cover more than just the basic needs. Again, this is the benefit of an open government which allows society to elect people to represent them to help make their lives better. Can we make social security better? We should, but can we?

In the above philosophy, in essence, is what the Democrats tout they are trying to do. They think government should address the inequalities in society to create a level playing field. Our founding fathers also believed in this and wrote the Constitution to give people and our country the opportunity to find ways to create an equitable society that benefits those who work hard but leaves no one behind or prevents anyone from taking that opportunity away. On a side note, in 2018 we are moving away from what we were given.

Sounds great doesn’t it. Well, lets go back to people or taxpayers are consumers of government services. Two factors that affect consumers are what can they afford and how much do they want it, or occasionally how much do they need it. I do not want to go spend an afternoon getting my haircut, my job requires I look neat and trim. I need the employment to pay my bills, so I go get a haircut on occasion. Some things the government does fit this simple example. We do not want to spend time arresting people, so we pay for the police to protect us. I am not saying anything the government does is perfect, it is the ideal we are talking about, yet the ideal is for what we are paying. So as a consumer do we accept subpar services, or do we demand better. The next problem is how good of a consumer are we of government services. I will hypotheses not very good. That is a different argument than today’s though.

And to me this is one reason why the Democrats are clueless. They do not seem to understand us as consumers, our needs as consumers and what we can afford as consumers. They have lofty ideals, yet no understanding of how to effectively implement them. They fight the greed of the donor party in their verbiage yet offer no concrete solutions to counter that greed. Where as mentioned above the same motivator behind greed is what they should use to accomplish their goals. Altruism is wonderful, putting into practice is sainthood. So, what is needed is a compromise to what motivates people to accomplish what is needed that no one wants to pay for or better yet find the ways to pay.

Another simple example and it is a policy idea I write occasionally is instead of any blanket tax cuts under the guise of trickle-down theory lies, is to give corporations tax cuts once they accomplish certain goals, whether it be retraining, new hires, better wages, etc…. This is a very simple example, but hopefully it illustrates the point of a more beneficial give and take in public policy.

A more difficult example is the clean air and water problem.  Frankly it is not the government’s responsibility to clean up after business, however, the Democrats have institutionalized this into the Federal government. We need clean air and water, so our government needs to make some decisions. I have espoused ideas for that before, but I do not see the Democrats defining how to either afford for the government to take on this responsibility or be more forceful in demanding companies clean up after themselves. Sure, there is the EPA and on occasion we fine or sue the company, but are the payments from the companies enough to cover the damage? In most cases, no. Everyone knows we need clean air and water and I even suggest by having clean air and water our healthcare costs on the individual and society level will decrease and significantly. Yet, it is like the haircut for me. We do not want to be bothered with the effort. This is where some people delegate the authority to a party such as the Democrats, yet has our environment improved? Some, yet, but we are falling further behind in the big picture. The Democrats cannot find what motivates people and companies to address this issue well.

One more example and this is the bigger picture item that we require government to be part of yet find difficult to implement and that is infrastructure and infrastructure that is more than road and bridge upkeep. Two examples of public policy being successful are the St. Lawrence Seaway in the 1800’s and the interstate highway system of the 1950’s. The difference we need to look for though is more private investment and less reliance on the government to tax us to accomplish these larger goals. We need constant improvement in our country and even on occasion multi-dimensional behemoths that benefit and affect the whole country. The St Lawrence Seaway, the railroads, and the highway system benefit all aspects of society. For example, the highway system was actually designed so the government could move resources around in this country if we were attacked, yet businesses and individuals all benefit from this project to this day in a myriad of ways. I see a project of this size that this country needs, and we need it, yet the Democrats if elected could not even begin to manage it, especially the balance of private investment into something that benefits all of society on an equal playing field. In the above examples that worked, corporate greed played a big part in their accomplishment, the taxpayer funded most of it, but benefitted disproportionally less than the corporations. The public in general benefited, true, but not the same as the corporations.  Balancing this discrepancy, both in cost and benefits, is where I see the Democrats failing.

In fact, it is the total balance of all the Democrats tout they want versus being able to understand what the government consumer, the taxpayer, can afford or is willing to accept. Or just as important, balancing the public’s understanding of what they need versus what they are willing to think they need or what they will pay. Education is something most people of all political persuasions believe is a need, determining what is a good education, what is an affordable education and what is the best education for the buck is what our government should be working to achieve. We pay taxes for our children’s education. We should expect the people we elect to figure how to fulfill the need. The Democrats cannot balance this in their public policy, nor even their proposals, or campaign promises. If you disagree with me, then why hasn’t public education improved over the years, when in reality it is declining and compared to other countries, we are inferior.  If the Democrats could manage this, do you not think the current scenario would be different? And isn’t better education something that they say falls under their platform? Or worse, the failure of the Great Society programs that have institutionalized poverty and welfare. Great idea, wonderful concept, absolute disaster, both financially and in achieving any goals of reducing poverty.

The Democrats inability to manage wants, needs, and needs we do not want in policy development, nor their ability to create successful programs that accomplish goals, yet stay within budget are why the Democrats are clueless. Nor are they able to counter, what the Republicans have done to diminish our ability to grow as a country and for example the wealth gap that is a symptom of us being in decline. The Democrats will talk wonderful ideals with absolutely no clue as to the how.