Scott's Reflections » Politics

Congress Should Work on a Commission Basis

Scott — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:18:52 +0000

In the real world, workers are compensated based upon merit. Good performers get better raises while poor performers get lower raises and are sometimes laid off. Management and salespeople are often compensated based upon meeting specific business goals such as company revenue or profit. People respond to incentives, and companies set up incentives that are based upon a company’s goals.
Members of Congress, on the other hand, are doing the worst job in the history of this country; yet they are being paid sizable salaries just for showing up for work. Members of Congress today do not share the same goals as their employer, we the people. Their goals are to get reelected and to strengthen their own political party. Other than the noble desire to do good for the country, which apparently is not a motivator for today’s Congress, they have little incentive to do what is good for the country.
What I propose is that we cut Congress’s base salary to 50% of its current amount and pay them a portion or all of the additional 50% based upon their ability to meet clearly defined objectives. For example, for every percentage point drop in unemployment, they receive 10%. And for every trillion dollars they eliminate from the deficit, they receive 10%. So if they reduce unemployment by 3% and reduce the deficit by two trillion dollars, they earn a full 50% of their incentive income. That combined with their 50% base salary equals their original salary.
What if they reduce unemployment by 5% and they reduce the deficit by three trillion dollars? Then they come out 30% ahead of their current salary, and I think the American people would be happy to pay the extra.
One might argue that this isn’t fair because each individual member cannot effect change. Each member’s salary would be based upon the actions of the entire Congress. And I argue, that’s exactly the point. Congress is dysfunctional. They vote along party lines and as a result they are accomplishing very little. It’s time that they figure out how to work together for the greater good. And what better way to get them to do it than by paying them based upon their collective accomplishments or lack thereof.
It’s all about carrots and sticks. You try to lead them to do well with a carrot (more money). But if they don’t, you beat them with a stick (pay them less). And if they do badly enough, we vote them out. I personally think we should vote them all out and start from scratch. But since that is unlikely, let’s appeal to their wallets and see what happens.

What if they reduce unemployment by 5% and they reduce the deficit by three trillion dollars. Then they come out 30% ahead of their current salary, and I think the American people would be happy to pay the extra.
One might argue that this isn’t fair because each individual member cannot effect change. Each member’s salary is based upon the actions of the entire Congress. And I argue, that’s exactly the point. Congress is dysfunctional. They vote along party lines and as a result they are accomplishing very little. It’s time that they figured out how to work together for the greater good. And what better way to get them to do it than by paying them based upon their collective accomplishments or lack thereof.
It’s all about carrots and sticks. You try to lead them to do well with a carrot (more money). But if they don’t, you beat them with a stick (pay them less). And if they do badly enough, we vote them out. I personally think we should vote them all out and start from scratch. But since that is unlikely, let’s appeal to their wallets and see what happens.

US Congress Makes al Qaeda Obsolete

Scott — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 23:52:37 +0000

Your first reaction to the title of this article may be – “what the heck are you talking about?” Or “are you the same person who, a few days before the 2008 election, wrote that it was time to clean House… and Senate?”
Hear me out. al Qaeda wants to destroy America. Congress IS destroying America. al Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001, not expecting to kill us all, but to ruin our financial markets. They dragged us into a hugely expensive war. We have a spiraling debt that is far more the fault of an irresponsible Congress than it is the fault of al Qaeda. And without strong, swift action by Congress, that is where we are headed.
al Qaeda is an extremist organization that considers us their enemy, and they are trying to destroy us with their swords. But it turns out that the old adage “the pen is mightier than the sword” is so true. Congress is destroying us with the bills they write and, at the moment, by the bill that they are failing to write. And what is their motive? What is Congress’s reason for wanting to destroy us? Oh yeah, they are pandering to their own extremists and special interest groups in the hopes that they get elected again to do a job whose purpose they have lost sight of long ago – a job that they don’t deserve to hold in the first place.
The members of Congress seem to have forgotten that they serve not only those individuals who vote for them or contribute to their campaigns. They serve the entire country. They are supposed to be doing what is right for the whole, not just do what some fundamentalist, extremist, ideological wing-nuts want them to do.
Who needs enemies like al Qaeda when we have Congress? I hope the pen shows its power when it’s time to go to the ballot box next time. I maintain more than ever that it’s time to clean House… and Senate.

Doesn’t Anybody Have the Guts to Lower The Debt in this Way?

Scott — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:30:31 +0000

In a capitalistic country such as ours, we should know how to turn our strengths into a profit. Although as a country we have lost our #1 ranking in many areas, one area in which we are the unchallenged leader is in our military and the technology behind it. Why can’t we charge all parties who benefit from our military?
For example, our military is still in Afghanistan. If the Afghans want us there, they should pay us. Or if other countries want us there, they should all contribute.
The rule should be:
1. If we engage our military strictly for our own benefit, we pay the bill in full.
2. If other countries support our military action that is in our joint interest, all interested parties should contribute monetarily, but the other parties should pay a premium because it is our soldiers and our technology.
3. If a country wants our military support for a cause that we agree with but do not have a vested interest in, the other country should pay the entire cost – plus profit.
Beyond that, this should all be out in the open. We have countries who secretly ask us to help militarily but publicly they bad-mouth us and act as if we are the enemy so they can maintain power through fear-mongering. It’s time for countries to admit that we’re the good guys.
We have other countries like China who sit back and watch, choosing to spend their capital in technology and infrastructure. At the same time, we are strapped for cash and we are policing the world at our own expense. If we can’t find a way to reduce our military spending, we should obtain funding from the parties that benefit. And the price should be very high.

Nuclear Reaction of the Knee Jerk Kind

Scott — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:50:45 +0000

With the nuclear catastrophe in Japan still fresh and ongoing, the anti-nuke voices are getting louder and increasing in number. I don’t mean to minimize the problems that Japan is facing. But I do want to put the dangers of energy in perspective.

Although I don’t have all the answers, I do have a number of questions that serve as food for thought.

How many people have gotten sick, been injured, or died as a result of:
a. Collection and mining of fossil fuels
b. Energy production with fossil fuels
c. Pollution generated by fossil fuels
d. Climate change and the extreme weather that results from it
e. Oil-related wars

How different would the world be if the Arab countries in the middle east didn’t enjoy so much power as a result of their oil supply? How much better off would our own economy be if we hadn’t gotten into wars in that region? How many lives would have been spared?

How much better off would the Arab people themselves be if their leaders weren’t so complacent because of oil riches and power, and instead worked to educate their people and modernize their countries?

How much better off would we be today if we hadn’t had a knee-jerk reaction to Three Mile Island? How much less oil-addicted would we be? Would we have gone to war in the middle east? Would we have had to suck up to leaders in the middle east who, but for oil, are truly not our friends? Had we not had such ties in the middle east, would 9-11 have happened? Would al Qaeda be a household word and would there be a need for a war on terrorism?

And how badly off will the world be when the oil runs out if we don’t find alternatives?

Nuclear energy comes with risk. But so does other forms of energy. Maybe nuclear is just a stop-gap measure until renewable, environmentally friendly energy sources can completely take over. But to shy away from nuclear energy in Three Mile Island style is just not a well thought out plan.

The Truth About the Tax on the Wealthy

Scott — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:09:09 +0000

Those who support the continuation of the Bush tax break for the wealthy have something that they don’t want us to know or think about. They would have us believe that the tax on the wealthy is unfair. They would even have us feel bad for the wealthy. What these people are conveniently glossing over is the fact that the tax rates are marginal. What does that mean? Read on.

We often think about a tax bracket as a range of taxable income and its associated tax rate. The example we’ll use in this article is for married individuals filing joint returns. But the concept applies regardless of filing status. Only the brackets change.

Married individuals filing joint returns whose income is between $67,900 and $137,050 are in the “25% tax bracket”. It is easy to think that this means that a couple making $100,000 per year would have to pay $25,000 in taxes. But that isn’t how it works. That couple pays 25% only on the taxable income in excess of the $67,900. The first $67,900 of income is taxed at the lower marginal tax rates. Without going into the details, that couple pays $13,375 in taxes.

The marginal tax system makes taxes fair for all. Every taxpayer (married filing joint returns) pays 10% tax on the first $16,700 of income. And every taxpayer pays 15% of each dollar of income in excess $16,700 up to a total income of $67,900. And every taxpayer pays 25% of each dollar of income in excess of $67,900 up to a total income of $137,050. And so it goes through the 28%, 33%, and 35% tax brackets.

If this were not the case, there would be a huge jump in tax when income increases from bottom of one tax bracket to the bottom of the next higher tax bracket. You would be better off earning $67,000 than $68,000 because your taxes would increase by far more than the $1000 difference. And that type of tax system could never fly.

So what about the wealthy? Well, the same applies to them. The top tax bracket, the 35% bracket, covers those whose taxable income exceeds $372,950. These wealthy people still pay 10% on their first $16,700 of income, 15% of their income above $16,700 up to $67,900, and so on. They are only taxed at the 35% tax rate on income in excess of $372,950. Are we, the less than wealthy, supposed to feel sorry for them? We wish we were in a position where we earned that much and could complain about the tax rate.

And to those who complain that restoration of the taxes will hurt small businesses, those business owners who are making such nice profits can cut their tax rates by hiring additional employees, by paying existing employees better wages, by providing better benefits, or by donating to charity. Or they can pocket their profits and shut up.

Democracy 1, Partisan Politics 0

Scott — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:15:09 +0000

In passing Proposition 14, Californians have dealt a blow to politics as usual. Proposition 14 combines the partisan primary elections into a single election. A voter’s party affiliation no longer matters. Independent voters now have a voice in primary elections, as it should be. Californians are hoping that this move will give more strength to moderates and less strength to partisan extremists. Hopefully other states and the country as a whole will adopt similar changes.

Independent voters now outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. Incumbent has become a four-letter word. People are fed up with the clowns to the far left, the jokers to the far right, and lunatic fringes everywhere else.

It’s time for our leaders to focus on ideas rather than ideology, on pragmatism rather than partisanship, and on public interest rather than special interest. It’s time for our leaders to start working together for the greater good rather than fighting amongst themselves in order to gain power for themselves and their parties.

Washington, are you listening? This is your wake up call. Start listening or we’ll give you the boot.

Using a Game of Chance to Select Politicians

Scott — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:55:07 +0000

Congress is broken. So, what else is new? To most members of congress, partisanship and special interests have long since taken precedence over the interests of the American people. They would rather vote against their political opponents rather than enact bipartisan legislation that benefits the American people.

Yes, we have the power of the vote, but the political parties and special interest groups choose which candidates to put forth and fund with campaign dollars. As a result, we have little choice but to vote for the same type of politicians as are already in Congress today.

Our current politicians are predominantly lawyers. We call them lawmakers, but they are in fact policy makers as well. Policies should be driven by a diverse group of responsible citizens whose backgrounds span the American population – not by lawyers. In contrast to how Congress currently does business is how businesses conduct business. In a business setting, business people (those who understand the business) make business decisions and lawyers write legal documentation to suit those business decisions. Similarly, when individuals hire lawyers, the lawyers may offer advice, but it is the individuals who make the decisions based upon that advice. Then the lawyers follow up with the legal mumbo-jumbo.

What we need to do is elect responsible Americans with diverse backgrounds and talents to handle our policy making. We need teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers, environmentalists, psychologists, social workers, accountants, financial experts, and others to decide on policies. We should then hire (not elect) lawyers who write the laws based upon those decisions.

The political parties don’t want average Americans in Congress because they are too independent and cannot be controlled and influenced as easily as career politicians. In order to short circuit the influence of the political parties, I suggest adding a degree of chance. Here is my proposal. When a person wants to become a candidate for office, he or she would have to circulate a petition and obtain a minimum number of valid signatures. For each open elected position, 200 such petitioners would be selected at random. Next, an organization yet to be defined would vet the candidates and narrow the choice down to a few good, qualified candidates. Perhaps the vetting process would include journalists to learn and write about the candidates, and law enforcement to ensure that the candidates have a clean record. The chosen candidates’ names would subsequently go on the ballot and we the people would then vote.

It sounds counterintuitive to introduce a degree of randomness to the equation. But I believe that randomly selected people have a better chance of accomplishing good things for America than the currently gridlocked members of Congress. And there is a precedent: the jury selection process. In order to select a jury of our peers, the first step in the process is random.

Prejudice or Political Analysis

Scott — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:15:45 +0000

Let’s talk about Harry Reid’s controversial comment about President Obama. In discussing Obama’s chances to be elected president, Reid was quoted as saying that Obama is “light-skinned with no Negro dialect, unless he wants one.” In the context spoken, what makes this offensive? Reid’s statement is a reflection of prejudice that still exists in the United States. He is saying, in his opinion, that the US voters are less likely to vote for a darker-skinned black person than a lighter-skinned black person. And he is saying that US voters are less likely to vote for somebody who speaks with what he calls a Negro dialect than somebody who speaks without one.

Harry Reid didn’t say that he thought it was right for US voters to have this bias. He was portraying the political landscape as he saw it. Before you criticize Harry Reid, ask yourself if you believe these things to be true. Have you noticed that many newscasters and other professional African Americans speak without a “Negro dialect?” Could it be that they do so because of a prejudice that some have toward those who speak with that dialect? Isn’t that what Harry Reid is saying? Even if you don’t think such a prejudice exists, is it wrong for Harry Reid to say that he thinks it does exist?

Didn’t people question John F. Kennedy’s chances to win the presidential election because he was Catholic? Didn’t people question Al Gore’s choice of Joe Lieberman as a running mate because Lieberman is Jewish? Didn’t people question George W. Bush’s chances for election because of the way he speaks? These discussions are political analysis, not prejudice.

We would all be much better off if we discussed real issues rather than those fabricated by the extremist pundits and partisan strategists. If you want to criticize Harry Reid for his stance on an issue or for the way he performs his job, have a blast. On this issue, don’t waste your breath.

Marijuana vs. Morphine

Scott — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:02:32 +0000

My home state of New Jersey has signed into law a bill that allows the use of marijuana for medical purposes. My question is this – why has it taken so long? The answer is that there are too many people who are unable to open their minds and realize that things may not be as black and white as they were led to believe. Let’s put things in perspective.

How many times have you seen a prescription drug advertisement on TV or read one in the newspaper or magazine. These ads are filled with disclaimers and warnings about possible side effects. After reading such an ad, one might start to wonder why the drug is on the market in the first place. It is on the market because the benefits outweigh the risks when the drug is properly prescribed (or because a drug company influenced the FDA, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

Yet some people stigmatize medical marijuana while being comfortable with morphine, oxycontin, alcohol, tobacco, and over-the-counter cold medications that can make you unfit to drive a motor vehicle. What causes more damage to individuals and society – cigarettes and alcohol that are addictive, proven killers, and can be bought without a prescription or tightly controlled medical marijuana?

Purchasing Drugs from Canada is a No-Brainer to Anybody but a Politician

Scott — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:34:09 +0000

Congress is once again debating whether or not to allow Americans to purchase prescription drugs from Canada where prices are much lower. In fact, Americans pay the highest prices on the planet for prescription drugs. The way I look at it, we are subsidizing Canadians and everybody else while our health care costs are burying us.

The FDA, a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the pharmaceutical industry, and some politicians would have us believe that it would be dangerous to allow us to purchase prescription drugs from Canada. As if the FDA had a good track record of keeping dangerous drugs off the market.

When my health “insurance” carrier removed a prescription drug from its formulary, I had to buy it out-of-pocket for $400/month. I looked online and found the same brand-name drug for sale in Canada for $120! But according to US law, I am not allowed to purchase it from Canada.

Clearly that law is protecting the pharmaceutical industry far more than it is protecting me. If we as a country could cut our prescription drug costs by 50% or more, think about how much we would save in overall health care costs. And it would be so simple to do compared to the complex health care plans that Congress has been debating on and off for the past decades with no results.

And the reality is that, if the law were to change, the prices would become more balanced. If we were able to purchase the drugs from Canada for half the price, Drug companies would lower the prices in the US while raising them elsewhere in order to maintain the same revenue. In the end, we could go back to purchasing our drugs right here in the US under the “careful” scrutiny of the FDA.

If Congress doesn’t pass this legislation, it is nothing less than disgraceful.