It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change. The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution — millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

He arrives there from this bit of data:

One of the keys to healthy aging is what George Vaillant of Harvard calls “generativity” — providing for future generations. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t. As Vaillant writes in his book “Aging Well,” “Biology flows downhill.” We are naturally inclined to serve those who come after and thrive when performing that role.

The problem that he identifies is that:

The odd thing is that when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs, according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.

Third, they are taking opportunity. For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities. Already, pension costs in many states are squeezing education spending.

So his conclusion is that the problem is reverse-generativity and that the only people who can stop it are those who have the most to gain by perpetuation or even accelerating it. Why do I find that hard to swallow?

Along the way he offers this tortured logic for his conclusion:

I used to think that political leaders could avert fiscal suicide. But it’s now clear change will not be led from Washington. On the other hand, over the past couple of years we’ve seen the power of spontaneous social movements: first the movement that formed behind Barack Obama, and now, equally large, the Tea Party movement.

Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly.

. . .

Old people now have the time, the energy and, with the Internet, the tools to organize.

The examples of spontaneous social movements were both driven primarily by younger people. He offers no evidence that this older generation will suddenly stop doing the things that helped them amass their political power in favor of taking the route that their grandchildren are pioneering – especially in an effort that would diminish their political power and rob them of their spare time.

Altruism and performing service is much easier and more immediately rewarding when it is directed at friends and relatives than when it is directed at an anonymous society.

The fact is that it really is clear that change will not come from Washington – it will have to come to Washington in the form of new voices and new leaders who have the ability to look past traditional divisions and traditional ideas and push through some new ideas using new alliances to bring about the kind of transformational changes that could actually avert eh looming economic crisis that virtually everyone agrees is on the horizon.

While candidate Mike Lee acted like a senator on the issue of confirming Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Bob Bennett acted like a marionette under the control of the mystical wizard of Washington D.C. With a short press release and a predictable vote, our “Senator” Bob Bennett plainly demonstrated the cancerous logic that is rampant among Washington insiders. Here is how he justified his vote to confirm Ben Bernanke:

I reluctantly cast a vote in favor of Ben Bernanke because I do not want to give President Obama the opportunity to put someone who shares his leftist views in charge of the Federal Reserve. I am aware of the mistakes that have been made at the Fed while Chairman Bernanke has been there, but I fear an alternative would be worse for the country’s economic future.

So our elected Marionette is simply trying to save us from having the president nominate someone else. Cute. Perhaps he should have engaged his brain and realized two simple facts – first, if Bernanke was not confirmed by the senate there is little chance that President Obama would have name a more extreme nominee (the natural reaction would be to nominate a safer pick); second, considering the makeup of the Senate (not to mention the final vote tally) opposing Bernanke would have been unlikely to prevent his confirmation but at least it would not have demonstrated approval for his performance (a vote to confirm sends that message more strongly than any press release about your supposed reluctance to cast the vote).

In contrast, Mike Lee (who ought to be replacing Bennett within a year) demonstrated what senatorial advice and consent should look like. Mike issued a statement opposing confirmation for Bernanke and giving solid reasons for that opposition:

“It is clear that during Chairman Bernanke’s term, the Federal Reserve has played a significant role in creating and perpetuating policies and strategies that have contributed significantly to the most difficult economic environment our country has faced in a generation.” Mike Lee continued, “To confirm the Chairman to a second term would be both a tacit approval of his actions during these past few years, and an endorsement that ‘business as usual’ is acceptable. That is something I am simply not willing to do.”

. . .

“Simply replacing Bernanke may not be sufficient, but Chairman Bernanke must be held accountable for the Fed’s actions. It is time to send a clear message that ‘business as usual’ is not acceptable, that transparency is mandatory and that everyone is accountable, now and in the future. This is the first in a series of important steps which must be taken to ensure the integrity and reliability of our monetary system.” (emphasis added)

Bennett failed to demonstrate any responsibility for the senatorial task of advice and consent. Instead he chose to throw up his hands and issue a statement about how sorry he was to vote against the wishes of his constituents and even his own better judgment. Worse yet, he did so on a vote where voting his conscience would not have made a material difference except to be honest about his position.

Back in October I wrote about the dangers of a crisis mentality and tried to show that the abuse of crisis was not a one-party trait. I see that Will Wilkinson did a better job of showing that this month in Let the next crisis go to waste:

The Aughts began in crisis when the second plane hit the second tower on Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration, loath to let a serious crisis go to waste, managed to parlay the nation’s alarm and credulity into an ill-conceived invasion of an entirely unrelated country, wasting over a trillion dollars and many tens of thousands of lives, all while losing control of the fight in Afghanistan and failing utterly to bring down Osama bin Laden.

Bush’s botched attempts to capitalize on crisis—the ugly aftermath to which Obama is heir—might have made an alert leader wary. But instead, Obama set up shop in the Oval Office and proceeded immediately to use crisis as (Emanuel’s words again) “an opportunity to do things you’d think you could not do.”

Rather than acting as a prudent guardian of the public good in a time of economic turbulence and hardship, Obama and the Democratic Congress have hurried to check the boxes on their partisan wish list precisely when the nation most needed a restorative break from transformative ambition.

When Obama was campaigning he promised change – the only change we got was that the president was officially affiliated with a different party than before. His opponents during the campaign were vocal about the fact that they could not believe he would deliver the promised change. Since his inauguration some of those who supported him have found that they no longer believe in the change he promised. We were promised an end to “politics as usual.” Instead some left wishing for the politics of the 90’s – nasty as they were – rather than the politics of today. As Mr. Wilkinson put it:

This marriage of incompetence and craven opportunism is so much in the familiar spirit of the age that one must conclude that the age itself remains unchanged.

The “crisis as opportunity” mentality can lead to only one thing – criminal behavior. It is the same mentality that leads to looters during the L.A. race riots of the past and the Hatian earthquake of the present.

I have concluded that regardless of whatever other rhetoric a candidate may offer in the future the biggest change I want to see will be a candidate who promises to treat a crisis as a crisis and not as an opportunity.

The men and women serving in our armed forces are the best in the world. They can accomplish anything they are asked to do, if they are given the proper resources and clear rules of engagement.

He believes that we should be working towards:

Imagine the best equipped strategic strike forces rapidly deployed at a moment's notice to respond to the national security interests of the United States of America. Also, imagine a well compensated military that cares for the military families, now, in the future, and especially when wounded.

He thinks this will take us there:

• Dedicate at least 4% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for national defense spending.
• Secure our borders, enforce our current immigration laws, and reject amnesty for those who are here illegally.
• Adopt a “Go Big or Go Home” approach to our overseas military presence. We must have the best foreign intelligence, human and electronic.
• Support an “all of the above” national energy policy that advocates rapid development of renewable energy, clean/green energy, and the use of our various natural resources and nuclear capabilities. Recognize that energy independence is vital to our national security.
• Keep Guantanamo Bay open and continue with military tribunals.
• Sustain the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
• Support Veterans by honoring all commitments made to them.

My reactions:

• Having a flat rate dedicated to defense might be better than our current what-can-we-get-away-with approach. Whether 4% is the right rate is up for debate.
• We need to secure our borders, but that will probably require a long discussion about what we believe about immigration and then a complete overhaul of our immigration laws. Then we would need to strictly enforce those immigration laws once they are in line with our immigration beliefs.
• “Go Big or Go Home” might help us be more careful about when and where we “go.”
• “All of the above” is definitely the right energy policy.
• Keeping Guantanamo Bay open is not helping our national security in any measurable way.
• We should sustain basic rights – obviously including the Second Amendment.
• We should honor all our commitments and our veterans have done the most to warrant making those commitments to them than any other group – certainly they have done more than most of our members of Congress.

Americans have lost confidence in their elected leaders and the direction of the country as a whole. We are being governed by a “nanny state” mentality that is blanketing the country with the misconception that the government can and should solve all problems.

He envisions the goal as:

Imagine an atmosphere of personal responsibility where individuals took control of their future and worked hard to improve their lives. Restoration of confidence in the government is possible through true openness and transparency in all facets of government operations.

To achieve that goal he proposes:

• Fire the Czars and adhere to the procedures under the Constitution requiring Senate confirmation for such leadership positions.
• Apply all laws equally to Congress.
• Require Committees to post all proceedings on the Internet within 24 hours. Allow 72 hours for Bills and Conference Reports to be publicly online prior to a vote on the House Floor.
• Prohibit Members of Congress serving on Appropriations and Ways & Means from seeking earmarks.
• Require that 100% of all campaign donations be filed with the Federal Election Commission for public review.
• Attack the rampant waste, fraud, and abuses in Medicare and Medicaid.
• Deny the passage of “card check” and participate in labor law reform.
• Ensure that E-Verify is fully deployed and mandatory for hiring an employee.

My thoughts on his steps toward the goal:

• Sounds more like a sound bite than an real effective step in the right direction.
• What does this mean?
• This couldn’t hurt.
• This would make those committee assignments much less desirable but if the rest of our Representatives can still seek earmarks little will have been accomplished.
• I like it.
• Vague.
• Vague.
• I’m not sure that E-Verify is all that it is cracked up to be. I fear that it will be more expense than value.

The government is omnipresent in our lives, restricting our basic liberties. The proper role of government is a strictly limited one. We recognize that the States created the federal government. The federal government did not create the States. Further, it is not the government that will create jobs, wealth, or propel the United States of America to reach its fullest potential. It is the American people who will drive America forward.

He suggests that our goal should be:

Imagine a federal government that recognized it could not solve every problem. Imagine a government focused instead on the most important federal roles, such as national defense. Individuals should have the freedom to succeed or fail in this country. It is not the government’s role to stand in the way of either outcome or to choose winners and losers.

To achieve this goal he recommends:

• Repeal TARP and commit to no more “stimulus” bills that are merely a ruse to grow government.
• Appoint a bi-partisan “Sunset Commission” to identify at least 100 federal departments or programs recommended for elimination by December 31, 2011.
• Reduce the corporate income tax to a flat 10%. This will eliminate the wide array of corporate loopholes, incentivize business in the U.S.A., and simplify the tax code.
• Reject the “Cap & Trade” scheme and repeal all EPA funding related to carbon policy.
• Sell back to private ownership the three million acres of federal land identified under the Clinton Administration as having no federal purpose.

My thoughts on those steps is as follows:

• No more stimulus is a great idea.
• A bipartisan commission would only identify 100 departments by having half the commission identify at least 49 departments or programs and then trade those with the 49 other “crucial” departments or programs identified by the other half of the commission as recommended for elimination. Added to the two departments or programs that the majority could honestly agree on they would scrape together the recommended 100 – none of which will actually get eliminated. Mmmm, sausage.
• As I said before, a flat tax rate without loopholes allows the private portion of the economy to act with more confidence.
• All of our government “green” legislation and policies are more political than scientific. It’s too bad that our government can’t stick to facts and let opinions sort themselves out instead of the other way around.
• The government should sell off any federal land that has no federal purpose.

Congressman Chaffetz describes our current fiscal discipline situation as:

Our national debt exceeds $12 trillion, with our annual deficit in excess of $1.4 trillion. Federal spending as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is roughly 25%, when historically it has been roughly 19-20%. We pay approximately $600 million per day in interest payments. In short, the current government spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much of the people's money. It is unacceptable and unsustainable. No longer can we run this government on a credit card. We are not going to borrow and spend our way out of these challenges.

He suggests a goal to work for as:

Imagine a federal government that treats the national treasure with respect and responsibility by living within its means-where every American pays a fair share.

Here are the steps he proposes to achieve that goal:

• Reduce total federal payroll and workforce by 10%, except for military. This action will force all federal departments to identify and eliminate waste.
• Support a balanced budget amendment.
• Require 2/3 majority vote for any tax increase.
• Cut non-defense discretionary spending by inflation minus 3% across the board.
• Impose a moratorium on all appropriations earmarks until the process is reformed legislatively. Work to maximize openness and transparency with filters, to ensure only expenditures with a federal nexus, and prohibit allocations to for-profit companies.
• Reduce the capital gains rate to 10%. This will lead to increased receipts to the federal treasury and will also increase investment in the USA.
• Engage in entitlement reform.

Here are my thoughts in a point-by-point format:

• The idea to reduce government spending and bureaucracy is right but he seems to be using a very blunt instrument to perform this surgical operation.
• Sounds good to me but show me the proposed amendment.
• I’m not sure what drawbacks this might have.
• Why 3%? (Plus, show me the math so that I’m clear on the meaning here.)
• Sounds like politician-speak for “earmarks are bad but we can’t really get rid of them – let me show you that I want to fix the system.”
• I favor flat tax rates without loopholes – that provides predictability so that people know what to expect on tax day. That certainty allows businesses to more confidently make decisions.
• Vague but promising.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., initially cast a “no” vote.

The explanation we are given is that he was exhausted – which makes sense considering the amount of all-night negotiations and arm-twisting that he has been doing recently.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who grew up in Boston. By the time I knew her she had been out of Boston long enough to lose the accent. one time I called her early enough in the morning that she was still waking up and her natural Boston accent was prominently on display in her voice. When the defenses are down the truth shines through.

I guess it just goes to show that when his defenses are down even Harry Reid knows that this is a horrible piece of legislation.

The Senate bill isn’t a “starter home,” it’s a sink hole. It needs to die so something else can take its place. It doesn’t matter whether people are on the right or the left — once they understand the con job that’s about to be foist upon them, they agree. That’s why Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to jam it through as fast as they can, before people get wise. So email the list to your friends and family, tweet it and spread the word.

I was going to add my own perspective when I first started reading that, but it is too well done to be condensed. Go read all 10 Reasons to Kill the Senate Bill.

Many people, liberal and conservative, seem ready to give up because the Senate already cleared their first 60-vote hurdle. That’s exactly what Reid and his company of non-representative public officials would love to see. Please don’t give up yet or settle for this poor excuse for reform. We may not agree on all the right directions, but almost everyone who’s paying attention knows that this legislation is not anything close to what we need. Let’s not allow the Senate to pass this just so they and the president can say they passed something – that is simply not a good enough reason.

The definition of “insomniac” as an adjective also fits because his actions will cause a lot of sleepless nights among people who previously believed they had some freedoms left in this country. Even more dangerously, every lawyer and CEO in the health care industry will undoubtedly suffer from insomnia as they try to figure out how to profit from the 2700 page bill that has not even been released online yet as far as I can find (I can only see the “original” 2074 page version of the bill).

I understand the urgency of meeting an artificial deadline on Christmas day for a bill that won’t take effect for another 4 years but I wonder why this could not have waited another 6 or 8 hours until a decent time for a vote. I’m always distrustful of a fast moving legislative body but more than any other rushed vote this move is reminiscent of some other midnight political proceedings that were driven by a desire for power.