Why Our Politicians Are Now So Ineffective

Adam Taggart
By Adam Taggart on Fri, Oct 11, 2013 - 2:12pm

Here is a great article by John Rubino over at DollarCollapse.com, explaining why governing has become such hard sledding of late for our politicians. Since they have enjoyed an ever-expanding pie so far in their carreers, they don't have any professional experience of prioritizing spending, which the sluggish economy is now demanding of them. They are, simply  put, the wrong people for the job:

But of course (irony alert) the real victims are the politicians who have grown used to spending play money and then running for re-election on their generosity. They’re suddenly faced with limited funds and the need to prioritize. And they’re finding that they’ve lost that skill. They have no idea how to stand before an audience and tell hard truths, perhaps because they’ve literally never done it. Think about it: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – and for that matter their main Republican counterparts – have never in their careers had to take anything away from a major constituency. They’ve always been able to find the money.

Now they’re beginning to realize what an unnaturally easy gig they used to have. Being a politician is suddenly hard, unpleasant work, and the current crop is, not surprisingly, terrible at it.

Give incompetent leaders insufficient money and the inevitable result is a chaotic mess. Programs that are on auto-pilot will go up, programs that are subject to automatic cuts will go down, voices will be raised in anger, and the system will drift further into dysfunction. This isn’t an accident. It’s just what happens when a rich, spoiled society runs out of money. Things that used to be easy become hard and what used to be hard becomes impossible. And a whole generation finds itself in 1930 wondering how to get back to 1929.

Pretty soon the pain of the current stalemate will become overwhelming and some new coalition will form to raise the debt ceiling and buy another two years of fantasy spending. In 2015 the drama will repeat, and life will get even tougher for park rangers and librarians. And so on.

Click here to read the full article.

Note: If you're reading this and are not yet a member of Peak Prosperity's Economy Wonks Group, please consider joining it now. It's where our active community of economic enthusiasts share news and engage in debate regarding all things economic. Simply go here and click the "Join Today" button.

1 Comment

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 841
System Problem, Not Individuals

It isn't the politicians who are deficient, it is the system. Think about it. If you are an American with the right to vote, you can vote for the president (and the VP who didn't quite cut the mustard enough to be president,) the representative from your district, both senators from your State, your governor and some of your representatives in State government, city leaders, and some school board members. (Of course, there are a few more.)

Unless you are from Nevada, you can't oust Harry Reid. Unless you are from Boehner's district in Ohio, you can't oust him. These people have enormous power over your life. Does that seem right? I personally have no electoral control over these mothers (note this is half a word often viewed as a pejorative.)

Perhaps the system needs to be changed. The system prefers the dolts who profit from it. They have the advantage when the votes are counted. "I, your representative, have brought back federal dollars to build your pet projects. Vote for me and you'll get even more!!!!!!!!!!!" That's the message I hear. Don't you?

So, now we're in a time of declining resources. The promises that were made by the politicians because we were experiencing a time of acceleration of everything ... just don't cut it anymore. It will get worse. We supposedly have a representative government. Unfortunately, you can only vote for a small proportion of the elected officials. That doesn't seem "representative" to me.

After FDR won 4 terms as president (and died in office,) the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. This amendment limited the president to 2 elected terms (plus up to 2 years of the president's term if you are the vice president.) If it is such a good idea for limiting the power of the president, why hasn't it cascaded to all elected offices? Why can a representative from any State get reelected simply because they bring federal largesse (purchased by the rest of us) back to their State? It doesn't make sense to me. That is the biggest blame for our huge imbalances.

I don't hold out too much hope for this version of government. There is too much money and too many fools who listen to their beloved representative to make the needed changes. The system will likely break. If it breaks soon enough, there will be a push to develop a new government. That is when these ideas need to be brought forth.

A simple change like this won't fix the problem. It will only limit the carnage that one individual can invoke.

Grover

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments