With apologies to Mark Twain.
That simple twist on the famous line often attributed to Mark Twain sums up the state of Liberals and their failing efforts to mobilize the public in the fight against man-caused Climate Change. There’s no shortage of horror stories in the media attributing everything from hunger in Africa to last fall’s series of deadly Midwestern tornados to global warming; study after scientific study depicts the planet as headed for an apocalyptic end; Al Gore, James Hansen and even President Obama continue to press for action.
But nothing ever changes. Americans are yawningly uninterested in global warming; fifteen years after the Kyoto treaty, the public couldn’t care less. According to a March 2010 Gallup poll, 48 percent of Americans believe that the extent of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 31 percent in 1997 when Gallup first asked the question. And that's before any taxes have been levied, any emissions have been capped, or any freedoms have been abridged. Even in Germany, the planet’s poster child for model global citizenship, opinion polls show a drastic reversal in public sentiment with only 42 percent of Germans now expressing angst uber global warming.
But by simply substituting the word “debt” for “weather”, Twain’s famous line could just as easily sum up the failure of Conservatives and their fight against endless deficits and new government debt. There’s no shortage of horror stories in the media attributing everything, from high unemployment to slow economic growth, to the high level of federal debt; Paul Ryan, Warren Buffet and President Obama’s Bowles-Simpson deficit panel continue to press for action. But the deficits and debt continue. This summer’s $2.4 trillion debt deal was a drop in the bucket compared the size and scope of the problem.
Sure, both political parties have put forth competing plans for addressing the country’s debt problem. Republicans have proposed the Ryan Roadmap that takes on long-term entitlements; President Obama countered with a budget outline that raises taxes. But neither plan is likely to ever pass. It doesn’t matter anyway; both debt reduction plans would each still add $6 trillion in new government debt over the next 10 years. So even if one party’s plan does win out, America still loses; both parties are simply competing to see which party can best manage America’s decline.
Liberals blame “global warming deniers” from conservative, free-market think tanks, and industry for their lack of progress. That’s partially true. But there are just as many “debt deniers” on the liberal side as evidenced by the refusal of the Democrats in Congress to endorse a strict balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
And therein lies the key to curing America’s unhealthy addiction to both fossil fuels and federal debt.
Ironically, in advancing their respective causes, Liberals and Conservatives actually make the same apocalyptic arguments. Both claim the future is at stake and that future generations will suffer. Both claim that the facts are on their side. And both make good arguments for action. Still, the public couldn’t care less about global warming and is unwilling to make the hard choices on America’s fiscal problems.
So it’s time for Liberals concerned about rising global temperatures and Conservatives concerned about rising federal debt to realize the obvious: they need to BUY each other off in order to effectively address their pet ideological concerns—there is no other way. It’s just too easy for Washington political adversaries to thwart the other side’s priorities. “Buying each other off” means trading, among other things, a carbon tax and fully-funded healthcare for all for a balanced budget amendment and an enforceable limit on the size of government (limited government).
Buying each other off has worked before. In 1790, during George Washington’s first term, two separate but equally contentious issues arose that nearly destroyed the newly united country. The first issue was the huge revolutionary war debt held by the states and how to pay if off. The second issue was the location of the nation’s capital.
Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s Treasury Secretary, wanted the new federal government to assume all of the states’ enormous revolutionary war debts and refinance it. The states objected because they saw Hamilton’s plan as a gambit to increase the size and power of the federal government over the states as well as a windfall to rich northern bankers.
Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, wanted the new federal capital to be located in the South to counter northern political strength. This incensed Northerners who believe that the political capital should be seated in the financial capital of the country and that was clearly up North in cities like New York or Boston.
So what did Hamilton and Jefferson do? They bought each other off. Jefferson agreed to support Hamilton’s debt plan and Hamilton agreed to place the capital down South in what is known today as Washington, DC.
Today’s equivalent of that historical agreement is the “Let’s Make A Deal” plan (LMAD for short).
For starters, the LMAD plan buys off Liberals with a $600 billion carbon tax to fight global warming. It also adds fully-funded healthcare for every American, a public option health insurance entity, and the implementation of consumption-based tax schemes that are frequently advocated by Liberals such as a “salt-sugar-fat tax” and a value-added tax. The LMAD plan even grants overnight amnesty of 10 million illegal aliens. These are all long-sought ideological goals favored by Liberals that will never, ever pass otherwise.
Then, LMAD buys off Conservatives with a strict balanced budget and a limit on the size of government as a percentage of GDP. It also permanently ends future illegal immigration, adds tort reform and completely replaces all taxes on production, labor, saving and investment with the new carbon tax, the value-added tax and the salt-sugar-fat tax favored by Liberals. The LMAD plan even removes the burden of healthcare expenses from corporate balance sheets by ending America’s reliance on employer-provided health insurance. These are all long-sought ideological goals favored by Conservatives that will never, ever pass otherwise.
With LMAD, Liberals can breathe easier knowing that global warming is finally being addressed, that every American has adequate healthcare and that energy, consumption, waste and affluenza are appropriately taxed.
Conservatives can fire their guns in the air to celebrate that the budget is permanently balanced, the size of government is held in check, and those anti-growth taxes and business-borne healthcare costs that are killing American exports and penalizing work, savings and investment are forever ended.
Both sides will appreciate that the LMAD deal is a potent GDP-growth accelerant that puts the United States firmly in the China/India economic growth league. The country will be transformed from a debt-ridden, gluttonous net-importer afflicted with high structural unemployment, unaffordable healthcare costs and scant economic prospects to a lean, efficient, export juggernaut that creates millions of new, higher-income jobs and hosts an increasing number of world class companies that choose to relocate to the only country on the planet that doesn’t tax production or labor. With healthcare costs finally contained and economic growth unleashed, Medicare and Social Security will be made solvent without the need to impose politically painful benefit cuts.
So Liberals and Conservatives. Are you going to keep wasting your time (and ours) with these incessant rants about how the planet is going to die and about how the country is going to go bankrupt or are you going to actually do something about it?
If you find the LMAD plan ideologically unpalatable, fine. But then do us all a favor: stop with all the fear mongering about existential threats and apocalyptic ends. And above all, stop lying to us about how critical and necessary your particular pet ideological cause is. After all, if you’re not willing to step up and trade for it, it can’t be all that critical, can it?
So what’s it going to be? Deal or no Deal?
Jon Mitchell is a Certified Public Accountant and author of the book “Let's Make A Deal: A Hail Mary Pass to Get America Off the Bench and Back in the Game”. He is also a principal with Logic and Logistics, Inc., a consultancy that specializes in internet software, business intelligence systems, and supply chain consulting, with a focus on delivering software that optimizes supply chain operations and reduces costs for companies. He lives in Atlanta, GA.
Related Links:
Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com/
Amazon: amazon.com/Lets-Make-Deal-Jon-Mitchell/dp/0982975716
B&N.com: barnesandnoble.com/w/lets-make-a-deal-jon-mitchell/1031386165
Subscribe