Saturday, May 06, 2006
The unintended consequence of the “Great Social Security Debate of 2005” was the question it raised about the ability of the Democrat and Republican parties to deal with any major problem facing the nation today. The “Great Social Security Debate” began with the President’s warning that the program was an unfunded obligation which cannot be sustained and his proposal to provide private accounts for future recipients. If he intended to start a substantive debate, and we cannot be certain he did, he failed. When the curtain was raised, instead of a substantive debate, the nation was subjected to another loud, boring rope-a-dope performance by the Washington Players. The rope-a-dope, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the name Mohammed Ali gave to the boxing technique he used to defeat a less experienced opponent by tricking him. In the Washington Players variation, Ali’s role is played by the Democratic and Republican parties. If you are wondering who the dope is, you haven’t been paying attention. When the water was boiled out of their performance, it consisted of little more than warnings by each party not to trust the other. They were both correct; neither should be trusted. The major rope-a-dope deception of their performance was their treatment of the “Social Security problem” as an isolated problem requiring a stand alone solution. It was a false premise which would only lead to a flawed solution. The Social Security problem is all about money and no effective solution to it or any other national problem is possible unless it is made in the context of the government’s present financial condition, the real problem. Before turning to that problem, it would be useful to examine some of the other rope-a-dope deceptions under the light of non-partisan common sense.
The President’s description of the Social Security program as an “unfunded obligation” was misleading at best. Surely, he must know that every government program is an unfunded obligation. They all require annual appropriations and they all contribute, dollar for dollar, to the national debt, including the retirement programs of federal employees, the military, the congress and the president. Arguably, Social Security is the only government sponsored retirement program which has been entirely funded by the payroll deductions of its recipients and their employers. As we know, the program has been overfunded by approx. $1.7 trillion which has been spent by the Washington Players and will have to be recollected in additional taxes.
The President’s sketchy plan for private accounts always began with a pledge to protect present recipients and guarantee their benefits would not be cut. The pledge is worthless because he lacks the power to guarantee anything of the sort. Were his overreaching promise made in complete sincerity, it would hold only until the next change of the political winds, the next international crisis (real, imagined or contrived), the next congress or the next president. Many of us who receive Social Security benefits are in our seventh and eighth decades of listening to the promises of politicians who know they will not be around when the bill comes due. We have some advice for those new to the game, those to whom the promise of private accounts was made. The obvious risk of a private account is its uncertain future value when the owner can no longer work. We are told that the risk can be eliminated by purchasing “safe securities yielding greater returns than Social Security.” If the proponents of private accounts really believed private accounts are the panacea they claim, why haven’t they proposed that all government retirement plans, military and civilian, be modified to substitute private accounts for their present defined benefit plans and why wasn’t the Social Security trust fund invested in those “safe” securities instead of being co-opted by both parties to mask their federal budget deficits?
Has anyone noticed that the demographic projections used to support the President’s warnings are always described as a threat to only the Social Security program? We have all heard about the two and a half workers who will be the sole support of each Social Security retiree. No reference is ever made to all the other unfunded obligations which the same two and a half workers would have to support, including the interest on the national debt which projections indicate will exceed Social Security expenditures.
The Washington Players would have us believe "the Social Security problem” is unique because to admit it is only one symptom of a larger, more threatening problem would call attention to their failed stewardship of the government’s finances. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) which has the statutory responsibility to monitor the government’s financial condition and audit its financial statements has published facts about that condition which neither party disputes. Those facts are known to all our elected representatives, but are largely unknown to the general public.
The Comptroller General of the United States, the head of the GAO, advised the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in his letter of December 14, 2004 that the fiscal year 2004 U.S. consolidated financial statements did not pass audit. It was the seventh consecutive year the government’s consolidated financial statements have failed to receive the auditor’s approval. During that same seven year period, financial accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and numerous other publicly owned companies rocked financial markets, costing investors tens of billions of dollars. The Washington Players wasted no time seeking out television cameras to stand before while they proclaimed their disgust for corporate executives who place private gain before their fiduciary responsibilities. Highly publicized congressional hearings were held and new legislation was enacted criminalizing the toleration of improper accounting. The Washington Players unanimously agreed the integrity of financial accounting systems in the private sector must be ensured at any cost. No mention was made of the integrity of the government’s financial statements and accounting systems over which they have oversight responsibility and, to no ones surprise, no legislation was proposed to criminalize the toleration of improper accounting in the government.
In that same letter, available on the GAO website (www.gao.gov), the Comptroller General states the following:
.
“The federal government’s gross debt as of September 2004 was about $7.4 trillion, or about $25,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. But that number excludes such items as the gap between promised and funded Social Security and Medicare benefits, veteran’s health care, and a range of other unfunded commitments and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support. If these items are factored in, the current dollar burden for every American rises to about $145,000 per person or about $350,000 per full-time worker.”
You may want to inform your children and grandchildren of the surprise which awaits them. Our elected representatives of both parties have run up a $350,000 charge account for each of them fortunate enough to find full time employment. Could this possibly be the model of transparent democracy that they tirelessly champion?
The GAO publication 21st. Century Challenges, subtitled “Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government” (GAO-05-325SP) warns, “Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of living and ultimately our national security.” The nation’s policy makers must “examine the advisability, affordability, and sustainability of existing programs, policies, functions and activities throughout the entire federal budget- spanning discretionary spending, mandatory spending, including entitlements and tax policies and programs……….the projected fiscal gap is so great that it is unrealistic to expect that we will grow our way out of the problem. Clearly, tough choices will be required.” The GAO accurately defined the scope of effort necessary to effectively deal with the real problem that threatens the nation’s economy and security. Unfortunately, the Washington Players, lack the will to pursue that effort because curbing their profligate borrowing would threaten the very source of their political power. Without the ability to borrow money to finance programs and policies favored by special interests, their reelection would no longer be assured.
American taxpayers paid about $1.9 trillion in combined federal taxes in fiscal year 2004. Those taxes, along with over $4 trillion in deficit borrowing funded the federal government. It should be noted the total expenditure of $5.9 trillion, $1.9 trillion in taxes collected and $4 trillion borrowed (or taxes deferred) represent about 50% of the GDP. Since not one cent of the $4 trillion borrowed was used for the Social Security program, why did the President target Social Security for change based on future projections, when the government is swimming in a sea of red ink today from all its other unfunded obligations? The implication of his choice is that he considers all the other obligations, untouchable because they are more important than Social Security.
The defense budget is one of the major contributors to that sea of red ink, but no mention is made of it by either party. President Eisenhower warned the nation in his farewell address of the dangers inherent in our military / industrial / congressional complex, the Iron Triangle. He was uniquely qualified to understand those dangers having served as President for two terms during the military build up of the Cold War and as a war time commander in the nation’s last major conflict. Eisenhower witnessed and understood the threat excessive defense spending posed to the nation’s welfare and the nation’s economy, the true source of the nation’s strength and security. The Iron Triangle has produced a defense force with the most technologically advanced weapons in the world, but it has cost the nation dearly. The need for balance between requirements and affordability prescribed by Eisenhower has long since been forgotten. Our annual defense expenditures have grown to the point where they are greater than the defense expenditures of the rest of the world combined. The nation’s security alone cannot possibly explain these excesses. The beneficiaries of this out of control spending justify it with alarmist warnings like, “It’s a dangerous world out there,” and “We must be prepared to spend whatever it takes to preserve our liberty.” Are we to conclude that the world is more dangerous today than it was in the 1930s and 1940s or the Cold War?
The Democrat and Republican parties must bear the responsibility for the condition of the government’s finances. Political parties were never envisioned by the nation’s founders, nor were the incredible high costs of financing election campaigns. The republic of our founders has mutated into a marketplace where favored legislative treatment is traded for election support. The vendors call it constituent service, but Will Rogers summed it up more accurately when he said, “We have the best Congress that money can buy.” The Washington market is so large it has spawned an entire service industry to support it. Without that support structure, it could not function. It is a devil’s bargain; effective election support to guarantee reelection is purchased at the cost of democratic failure. A recent article in The Washington Post estimated that Washington has over 34,000 registered lobbyists. If they were to gather for a convention, it would require a major league stadium to seat them all. After serving apprenticeships in the government, the better connected are hired at an average starting salary of over $300,000 per year. It is a starting salary greater than the salaries of the members of Congress, the Cabinet, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Vice President. The only federal employee whose salary exceeds those average starting salaries is the President. Those high starting salaries are not gifts of altruistic generosity; they are dictated by the economics of the marketplace. Well connected stealth advocates who can guide special interests through the Byzantine labyrinth of the federal legislative process are worth their weight in gold. Their success can reward special interests, domestic or foreign, with tens of billions of dollars for decades. When the deals are done, a very select group of legislation sausage makers, also known as, congressional staffers, lobbyists and special interest lawyers, decide which ingredients will be stuffed into the sausage. If that sounds too cynical to believe, take a look at the recently enacted Medicare Prescription Benefits legislation. That incredibly complex, nearly 1000 page long, legislative sausage was placed in the hands of our elected representatives for the first time the evening before it was voted on. Did the Congress understand it? Of course not! Did that lack of understanding prevent its passage? Of course not! The trump card was party loyalty which guarantees financial support necessary for reelection. It carried the bill through the entire legislative process and nary an intelligent question was heard, even from a Senate which fancies itself “the greatest deliberative body the world has known.” The Medicare Prescription Drug program has hardly begun and its estimated cost has already doubled to $8.1 trillion, making it the most expensive program in the nation’s history.
The selection process for the office of president is also completely controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties. It doesn’t require a PhD. in American History to be struck by the precipitous drop in quality from George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who filled the nation’s first four presidential terms, to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who filled the last four terms. Clinton and Bush were not aberrations; they were the predictable products of a nomination process controlled by the same two parties that have wreaked havoc on the nation’s finances. Their primary concerns when evaluating candidates are: Can he raise enough money to finance the campaign and will the party special interests unite around him? They exclude candidates of other parties from participation in the national televised presidential debates and even control the format of the debates to shield their special interest candidates from effective public examination. The parties have the right to use any nominating process they choose; but they must not be allowed to effectively restrict the nationally televised presidential debates to only the two candidates selected by the special interests of their parties. It is a restriction which has produced candidates like Clinton, Bush, Gore and Kerry.
What can be done to break the Democratic and Republican parties’ stranglehold on the nation’s political processes? The first thing we must do is stop throwing our votes away by voting Democratic or Republican. Find a party which best represents your political position, vote for their candidates and give them your financial support. The two major parties are both driven by special interests, frequently, by the same special interest groups. Their all consuming preoccupation with raising campaign funds has taken the nation too far down the wrong road, the road to economic and international disaster. They must be stopped and they are vulnerable.
The Democratic and Republican parties are more vulnerable today than they have been in recent memory because they have both had the opportunity to lead and they have both failed miserably. Large numbers of former Democrats and former Republicans who disagree with their party’s special interest objectives will no longer vote for them. They know the most important issues confronting the nation are never openly discussed in the halls of congress and they are tired of rope-a-dope performances. Tens of millions of Social Security eligible voters distrust them for their expropriation of the $1.7 trillion trust fund which will necessitate the collection of another $1.7 trillion of double taxes. One party is desperately attempting to implement unpopular programs and the other has no program at all but claims it would do a better job of implementing the unpopular programs. The public’s low opinion of both parties is reflected in recent poll approval ratings: the Presidential approval is about 33% and the Congressional approval is even lower. Both are locked into their unpopular positions by special interest politics which they cannot abandon and they feel they can win the election despite their unpopularity. It reminds one of the story of the two hunters who are attacked by a grizzly bear. In their haste to escape, they drop their guns and run into a cabin. When the bear begins to smash down the front door, the first hunter turns to the second and asks, “What can we do?” The second hunter answers, “I don’t know about you, but when he breaks the door down, I am going out the back door and I am going to run as fast as I can.” The first hunter warns, “You can’t outrun a grizzly.” The second hunter replies, “I don’t have to outrun the grizzly, I only have to outrun you.”
Despite their unpopularity, the Democratic and Republican parties still have enormous advantages over any other party. Their state organizations have fashioned a complex web of laws and regulations which effectively give them control over the nation’s political process at the state level, the constitutional gateway to national legislative and presidential power. Any new party would require deep pockets to retain legions of attorneys to handle countless time consuming court cases to effectively challenge them in each of the fifty states. Fortunately, there are other parties and other candidates who have been fighting the good fight for all of us. It’s time we gave them our full support. The two major parties are almost in a state of equilibrium and that is their Achilles heel. Small blocks of voters can swing presidential elections; they know it and they fear it. They may have more money, more lawyers, and cadres of paid professional support, but they don’t have all the votes.
The internet is affordable and could provide the communication network necessary to send the Washington Players out of town to productive occupations. If you are interested in assisting in this effort, please forward this document to any others who share your frustrations. If you know any who do not have access to the internet, please print a copy for them. We would appreciate any suggestions or ideas you may have.
P.S The auditor’s report on the government’s consolidated statements for FY 2005 is now available on the internet at http://www.gao.gov/. For the eighth consecutive year, material deficiencies and material weaknesses made it impossible for the auditor to certify the government’s consolidated financial statements. All the warnings from the previous year are repeated and the nation’s gross debt increased from $7.4 trillion to $8 trillion. When all the obligations that the government has pledged to support are included, the burden increases to $46 trillion, which translates to $156,000 per American or approximately $375,000 per full time worker. It is clear the Washington Player’s mismanagement of the government’s finances will only be stopped by an aroused electorate or economic disaster. They have found a formula for keeping themselves in power and they will not abandon it.
The President’s description of the Social Security program as an “unfunded obligation” was misleading at best. Surely, he must know that every government program is an unfunded obligation. They all require annual appropriations and they all contribute, dollar for dollar, to the national debt, including the retirement programs of federal employees, the military, the congress and the president. Arguably, Social Security is the only government sponsored retirement program which has been entirely funded by the payroll deductions of its recipients and their employers. As we know, the program has been overfunded by approx. $1.7 trillion which has been spent by the Washington Players and will have to be recollected in additional taxes.
The President’s sketchy plan for private accounts always began with a pledge to protect present recipients and guarantee their benefits would not be cut. The pledge is worthless because he lacks the power to guarantee anything of the sort. Were his overreaching promise made in complete sincerity, it would hold only until the next change of the political winds, the next international crisis (real, imagined or contrived), the next congress or the next president. Many of us who receive Social Security benefits are in our seventh and eighth decades of listening to the promises of politicians who know they will not be around when the bill comes due. We have some advice for those new to the game, those to whom the promise of private accounts was made. The obvious risk of a private account is its uncertain future value when the owner can no longer work. We are told that the risk can be eliminated by purchasing “safe securities yielding greater returns than Social Security.” If the proponents of private accounts really believed private accounts are the panacea they claim, why haven’t they proposed that all government retirement plans, military and civilian, be modified to substitute private accounts for their present defined benefit plans and why wasn’t the Social Security trust fund invested in those “safe” securities instead of being co-opted by both parties to mask their federal budget deficits?
Has anyone noticed that the demographic projections used to support the President’s warnings are always described as a threat to only the Social Security program? We have all heard about the two and a half workers who will be the sole support of each Social Security retiree. No reference is ever made to all the other unfunded obligations which the same two and a half workers would have to support, including the interest on the national debt which projections indicate will exceed Social Security expenditures.
The Washington Players would have us believe "the Social Security problem” is unique because to admit it is only one symptom of a larger, more threatening problem would call attention to their failed stewardship of the government’s finances. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) which has the statutory responsibility to monitor the government’s financial condition and audit its financial statements has published facts about that condition which neither party disputes. Those facts are known to all our elected representatives, but are largely unknown to the general public.
The Comptroller General of the United States, the head of the GAO, advised the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in his letter of December 14, 2004 that the fiscal year 2004 U.S. consolidated financial statements did not pass audit. It was the seventh consecutive year the government’s consolidated financial statements have failed to receive the auditor’s approval. During that same seven year period, financial accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and numerous other publicly owned companies rocked financial markets, costing investors tens of billions of dollars. The Washington Players wasted no time seeking out television cameras to stand before while they proclaimed their disgust for corporate executives who place private gain before their fiduciary responsibilities. Highly publicized congressional hearings were held and new legislation was enacted criminalizing the toleration of improper accounting. The Washington Players unanimously agreed the integrity of financial accounting systems in the private sector must be ensured at any cost. No mention was made of the integrity of the government’s financial statements and accounting systems over which they have oversight responsibility and, to no ones surprise, no legislation was proposed to criminalize the toleration of improper accounting in the government.
In that same letter, available on the GAO website (www.gao.gov), the Comptroller General states the following:
.
“The federal government’s gross debt as of September 2004 was about $7.4 trillion, or about $25,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. But that number excludes such items as the gap between promised and funded Social Security and Medicare benefits, veteran’s health care, and a range of other unfunded commitments and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support. If these items are factored in, the current dollar burden for every American rises to about $145,000 per person or about $350,000 per full-time worker.”
You may want to inform your children and grandchildren of the surprise which awaits them. Our elected representatives of both parties have run up a $350,000 charge account for each of them fortunate enough to find full time employment. Could this possibly be the model of transparent democracy that they tirelessly champion?
The GAO publication 21st. Century Challenges, subtitled “Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government” (GAO-05-325SP) warns, “Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage our economy, our standard of living and ultimately our national security.” The nation’s policy makers must “examine the advisability, affordability, and sustainability of existing programs, policies, functions and activities throughout the entire federal budget- spanning discretionary spending, mandatory spending, including entitlements and tax policies and programs……….the projected fiscal gap is so great that it is unrealistic to expect that we will grow our way out of the problem. Clearly, tough choices will be required.” The GAO accurately defined the scope of effort necessary to effectively deal with the real problem that threatens the nation’s economy and security. Unfortunately, the Washington Players, lack the will to pursue that effort because curbing their profligate borrowing would threaten the very source of their political power. Without the ability to borrow money to finance programs and policies favored by special interests, their reelection would no longer be assured.
American taxpayers paid about $1.9 trillion in combined federal taxes in fiscal year 2004. Those taxes, along with over $4 trillion in deficit borrowing funded the federal government. It should be noted the total expenditure of $5.9 trillion, $1.9 trillion in taxes collected and $4 trillion borrowed (or taxes deferred) represent about 50% of the GDP. Since not one cent of the $4 trillion borrowed was used for the Social Security program, why did the President target Social Security for change based on future projections, when the government is swimming in a sea of red ink today from all its other unfunded obligations? The implication of his choice is that he considers all the other obligations, untouchable because they are more important than Social Security.
The defense budget is one of the major contributors to that sea of red ink, but no mention is made of it by either party. President Eisenhower warned the nation in his farewell address of the dangers inherent in our military / industrial / congressional complex, the Iron Triangle. He was uniquely qualified to understand those dangers having served as President for two terms during the military build up of the Cold War and as a war time commander in the nation’s last major conflict. Eisenhower witnessed and understood the threat excessive defense spending posed to the nation’s welfare and the nation’s economy, the true source of the nation’s strength and security. The Iron Triangle has produced a defense force with the most technologically advanced weapons in the world, but it has cost the nation dearly. The need for balance between requirements and affordability prescribed by Eisenhower has long since been forgotten. Our annual defense expenditures have grown to the point where they are greater than the defense expenditures of the rest of the world combined. The nation’s security alone cannot possibly explain these excesses. The beneficiaries of this out of control spending justify it with alarmist warnings like, “It’s a dangerous world out there,” and “We must be prepared to spend whatever it takes to preserve our liberty.” Are we to conclude that the world is more dangerous today than it was in the 1930s and 1940s or the Cold War?
The Democrat and Republican parties must bear the responsibility for the condition of the government’s finances. Political parties were never envisioned by the nation’s founders, nor were the incredible high costs of financing election campaigns. The republic of our founders has mutated into a marketplace where favored legislative treatment is traded for election support. The vendors call it constituent service, but Will Rogers summed it up more accurately when he said, “We have the best Congress that money can buy.” The Washington market is so large it has spawned an entire service industry to support it. Without that support structure, it could not function. It is a devil’s bargain; effective election support to guarantee reelection is purchased at the cost of democratic failure. A recent article in The Washington Post estimated that Washington has over 34,000 registered lobbyists. If they were to gather for a convention, it would require a major league stadium to seat them all. After serving apprenticeships in the government, the better connected are hired at an average starting salary of over $300,000 per year. It is a starting salary greater than the salaries of the members of Congress, the Cabinet, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Vice President. The only federal employee whose salary exceeds those average starting salaries is the President. Those high starting salaries are not gifts of altruistic generosity; they are dictated by the economics of the marketplace. Well connected stealth advocates who can guide special interests through the Byzantine labyrinth of the federal legislative process are worth their weight in gold. Their success can reward special interests, domestic or foreign, with tens of billions of dollars for decades. When the deals are done, a very select group of legislation sausage makers, also known as, congressional staffers, lobbyists and special interest lawyers, decide which ingredients will be stuffed into the sausage. If that sounds too cynical to believe, take a look at the recently enacted Medicare Prescription Benefits legislation. That incredibly complex, nearly 1000 page long, legislative sausage was placed in the hands of our elected representatives for the first time the evening before it was voted on. Did the Congress understand it? Of course not! Did that lack of understanding prevent its passage? Of course not! The trump card was party loyalty which guarantees financial support necessary for reelection. It carried the bill through the entire legislative process and nary an intelligent question was heard, even from a Senate which fancies itself “the greatest deliberative body the world has known.” The Medicare Prescription Drug program has hardly begun and its estimated cost has already doubled to $8.1 trillion, making it the most expensive program in the nation’s history.
The selection process for the office of president is also completely controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties. It doesn’t require a PhD. in American History to be struck by the precipitous drop in quality from George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who filled the nation’s first four presidential terms, to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who filled the last four terms. Clinton and Bush were not aberrations; they were the predictable products of a nomination process controlled by the same two parties that have wreaked havoc on the nation’s finances. Their primary concerns when evaluating candidates are: Can he raise enough money to finance the campaign and will the party special interests unite around him? They exclude candidates of other parties from participation in the national televised presidential debates and even control the format of the debates to shield their special interest candidates from effective public examination. The parties have the right to use any nominating process they choose; but they must not be allowed to effectively restrict the nationally televised presidential debates to only the two candidates selected by the special interests of their parties. It is a restriction which has produced candidates like Clinton, Bush, Gore and Kerry.
What can be done to break the Democratic and Republican parties’ stranglehold on the nation’s political processes? The first thing we must do is stop throwing our votes away by voting Democratic or Republican. Find a party which best represents your political position, vote for their candidates and give them your financial support. The two major parties are both driven by special interests, frequently, by the same special interest groups. Their all consuming preoccupation with raising campaign funds has taken the nation too far down the wrong road, the road to economic and international disaster. They must be stopped and they are vulnerable.
The Democratic and Republican parties are more vulnerable today than they have been in recent memory because they have both had the opportunity to lead and they have both failed miserably. Large numbers of former Democrats and former Republicans who disagree with their party’s special interest objectives will no longer vote for them. They know the most important issues confronting the nation are never openly discussed in the halls of congress and they are tired of rope-a-dope performances. Tens of millions of Social Security eligible voters distrust them for their expropriation of the $1.7 trillion trust fund which will necessitate the collection of another $1.7 trillion of double taxes. One party is desperately attempting to implement unpopular programs and the other has no program at all but claims it would do a better job of implementing the unpopular programs. The public’s low opinion of both parties is reflected in recent poll approval ratings: the Presidential approval is about 33% and the Congressional approval is even lower. Both are locked into their unpopular positions by special interest politics which they cannot abandon and they feel they can win the election despite their unpopularity. It reminds one of the story of the two hunters who are attacked by a grizzly bear. In their haste to escape, they drop their guns and run into a cabin. When the bear begins to smash down the front door, the first hunter turns to the second and asks, “What can we do?” The second hunter answers, “I don’t know about you, but when he breaks the door down, I am going out the back door and I am going to run as fast as I can.” The first hunter warns, “You can’t outrun a grizzly.” The second hunter replies, “I don’t have to outrun the grizzly, I only have to outrun you.”
Despite their unpopularity, the Democratic and Republican parties still have enormous advantages over any other party. Their state organizations have fashioned a complex web of laws and regulations which effectively give them control over the nation’s political process at the state level, the constitutional gateway to national legislative and presidential power. Any new party would require deep pockets to retain legions of attorneys to handle countless time consuming court cases to effectively challenge them in each of the fifty states. Fortunately, there are other parties and other candidates who have been fighting the good fight for all of us. It’s time we gave them our full support. The two major parties are almost in a state of equilibrium and that is their Achilles heel. Small blocks of voters can swing presidential elections; they know it and they fear it. They may have more money, more lawyers, and cadres of paid professional support, but they don’t have all the votes.
The internet is affordable and could provide the communication network necessary to send the Washington Players out of town to productive occupations. If you are interested in assisting in this effort, please forward this document to any others who share your frustrations. If you know any who do not have access to the internet, please print a copy for them. We would appreciate any suggestions or ideas you may have.
P.S The auditor’s report on the government’s consolidated statements for FY 2005 is now available on the internet at http://www.gao.gov/. For the eighth consecutive year, material deficiencies and material weaknesses made it impossible for the auditor to certify the government’s consolidated financial statements. All the warnings from the previous year are repeated and the nation’s gross debt increased from $7.4 trillion to $8 trillion. When all the obligations that the government has pledged to support are included, the burden increases to $46 trillion, which translates to $156,000 per American or approximately $375,000 per full time worker. It is clear the Washington Player’s mismanagement of the government’s finances will only be stopped by an aroused electorate or economic disaster. They have found a formula for keeping themselves in power and they will not abandon it.
