I don’t care for the way congress is handling the debt crisis. I don’t know many people who do.
A few people will profess their disgust with congress and the inability of one party or the other to do anything constructive. These are usually highly partisan people who recite the talking points of their political party’s leadership.
(It always strikes me as strange that we talk about party leadership in Washington when there seems to be so little of it. And, invariably, our references to the lack of leadership always concern the “other” party. I guess that’s human nature, however.)
These shallow-minded people aside, more and more people seem to be totally annoyed with the leaders of both political parties. I hear repeatedly, “Why can’t these politicians sit down, agree on the scope of the problem and recognize what has to be done?” The speaker will usually go on to say something along the lines that when ordinary Americans face a debt problem in their lives, they know they have to (1) reduce spending, and (2) come up with some more capital. They have to pay down the existing debt with extra funds found through an extra job, sale of securities, or some other means. At the same time, they must cut up credit cards, stop eating out so much, and quit playing golf or whatever it takes to stop creating more debt.
That’s it. Stop spending and find extra income where possible. Doctrine, myths and beliefs must take a back seat to reality.
A friend suggested turning the problem over to a super committee, not of politicians -- who have demonstrated their inability to deal with the problem they created – but to a committee of business leaders, people who regularly deal with and solve similar large-scale financial problems in their particular industry.
The idea has appeal. First of all, as just indicated, CEOs of major companies deal with this problem on a regular basis. “Deal with,” means they confront the problem and solve it, not kick it down the road to the next CEO. Doing so is a sure fire way to get fired. Second, a committee of CEOs is not beholding to voters who (1) may not understand the scope of the problem or (2) may care more about some ideology than they do solving the problem. CEOs don’t have to worry about appealing to lobbyist or constituents; they worry about getting the job done, something the current crop of politicians in Washington does not do.
This may be too simple a solution to a complex problem, but doesn’t it make a little sense? And wouldn’t the country be a lot better off if we started electing people to congress based on their proven ability to get things done rather than their religion, their ideology, their presence before the camera, their slick. 30-second TV advertisements, their ability to generate millions, even billions, of dollars for an election campaign, and so forth?
