This Election Will Solve Nothing

When I look at the present choice between the two main parties, I am struck with how we are forced to choose between two fantasy worlds.  Romney thinks he can cut taxes further while we have record deficits.  I would be in favor of radically simplifying the tax code.  Bring back Reagan’s TRA ’86 — it was so simple that it starved those that made their living by gaming the tax code.  (Accountants, Actuaries, Attorneys — what is it with these “A” professions?)

Over the last 10 months, I have mentioned Romney in significant ways three times (aside from compilations of my Tweets):

Romney does not factor much into my thinking because:

  • I don’t know what he really believes.  His views have shifted a lot across many years, and in convenient ways.
  • His promises are not self-consistent.
  • Mormons are unusual, and most have distinct views on Israel and the US that make them rigid in their views.
  • If I worry about how a Catholic might respect the Pope, I worry more about how a Mormon respects the hierarchy in Salt Lake City.

But we know Obama, and his actions are at variance with his rhetoric.  He’s had only two significant piece of legislation passed during his term, and neither were good for the US:

  • Dodd-Frank: introduced  the bad concept of legislation via study.  Congress, dumb as it is, is supposed to analyze ideas for themselves, and not outsource analysis.
  • PPACA: Increases health care costs, destroys the ability to control costs.  Really dumb legislation could that only be passed because the rules of the Congress were ignored.

Neither bill was critical to what Americans wanted.  These were the actions of an ideologue that pursued his own misbegotten agenda.  I wrote four significant pieces regarding Obama, here they are:

Barack Obama is a rigid ideologue whose views are well known.  He also does not possess a lot of courage to push his views, aside from two pet projects.  I am genuinely surprised that no Democrats decided to oppose him in the primaries.

So, who do you vote for, the guy who has dumb ideas that are well-known, or the guy who you have no idea as to what he believes?  I say neither.  We need to create a third party to break the duopoly that is strangling US politics.  That is my main message to readers.




  • RichL says:

    I’m not thrilled by the choice in this election, either. However, criticizing Obama as an ideologue is a step too far.

    The healthcare legislation is very far from perfect, but requiring health insurance for the idiot who rides a motorcycle without a helmet, then crashes, and then gets free medical care paid for by everyone else corrects an egregious problem. Similarly, as a cancer survivor who was completely cured post-op, it was utterly impossible for me to get insurance even though I was low risk. That’s fixed.

    Dodd-Frank also requires more risk capital at big banks, which solves the core problem.

    The rest is sloppy, but when both parties are bought and paid for (especially the Republicans post Rove), what do you expect?

    Why does solving, however imperfectly, the two biggest problems in the country make Obama an ideologue?

    And don’t say that Unemployment wasn’t solved by Obama. With automation and greater skills required for work in today’s world, I don’t see that being solved by any politician.

    And you actually do know what Romney wants by his actions. He’s the kid in High School who wanted to be Class President and sucked up to everyone to get their vote. That’s his core belief.

  • sg says:

    Nah, it doesn’t take a couple thousand pages to require people to buy insurance.

    Like every big government program, it is a jobs program. Many more employees will be required to administer it. They are hired for life, can’t be fired generally, get defined benefit pension plans, are overpaid compared to private sector. Just look at Britain. Most health system employees are not health care workers. So where is the efficiency of single payer?

    My advice to all of you on Nov. 6 is to carefully study the policy positions and records of all of the people who are running for local offices way down on the ballot. Your vote there is almost certainly going to have a far greater impact than your vote for president.

  • etaoinshrdlu2 says:

    It is saddening to see so many of the thinkers I respect settling for cynicism about the political situation. No, this election will not “solve” anything. But meaningful choices do currently exist. One major political party still is associated with the JudeoChristian worldview which led to America’s attempt at limited government; the other major party, at its heart holds to an expanionist view of the role of government which would have been utterly anathema to this country’s founders. Neither side is at all pure, but one side is out and out wrong. With eyes wide open, there is still a meaningful choice.

  • etaoinshrdlu2 says:

    That would be an “expansionist” view of the role of government!

  • FroyoBaggins says:

    Dear Mr. Merkel,
    If your clients shared the same cynicism about investing, you would be out of business. In spite of your education and experience, even you can lose money on the stock market. However, your clients still put their faith in you, because of the benefits you offer. They are well aware that there are forces outside your control which can jeopardize their investments, yet they take the plunge knowing that you will be able to hold their hand.

    Similarly, the task of running a diverse nation like the US requires a strong leader. The President may not be able to solve all problems, but think of what will happen to a nation without one.

    • No matter who we would have elected, we would not have gotten a strong leader. I am not a cynic, I am a realist playing for the long term — the system is broken and needs to be replaced. Maybe parties need to be made illegal.