Picking Perfect Priorities

Discernment is the act of exercising keen insight and good judgment. In other words…know what you can, understand the parameters and the consequences, and make the best choice possible. True discernment does not necessarily mean that one makes the choice that yields the most favorable outcome. The favorable path may be immoral, unethical or perhaps illegal. The best choice, therefore, may not be the one with the greatest yield. Bernie Madoff chose to engage in an enterprise that initially reaped high returns for his clients and him, but ultimately led to most of his customers losing their entire investments. In addition, Bernie now sits in an eight by twelve cell, and his family apparently loathes him (or it’s a ruse to minimize their liability).

One of the more popular slogans for those engaging in complex difficult tasks is “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” In other words if the goal can be generally achieved with a reasonable outcome, take it and move on. Do not allow your quest for perfection mire you into a fruitless, time-consuming effort when you could be moving on to other tasks or objectives. Discerning decision making is having the judgment to understand when “good” is good enough….additional time and talent will not significantly appreciate the value of the outcome. This column is not intended to be an esoteric exercise in decision making. I leave that to Robert Ringer, Stephen Covey and John Maxwell. This column is a follow-up of sorts to an earlier one (“What is your vision?”, 10-26-2011, www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com). In the previous column I urged you to identify and solidify what your vision for the nation would be if you had the power to implement it. If you cherish and respect the Founding and Framing documents, your vision can be defined more quickly, but getting from “here” to “there” requires a whole lot of vision, work and persistence.

Picking perfect priorities is a method for transitioning from vision to action. As we stated in the earlier column, the vision will establish the parameters for identifying candidates or issues that are consistent with the end result we desire. Reality often intervenes, however, so it becomes necessary to prioritize the qualities or attributes that we believe are essential for earning our support. Earlier I stated that I value constitutional fidelity based on principle, integrity and humility. You, on the other hand, may have different priorities. You may prefer tenacity, pragmatism or collegiality as your over-arching attributes for restoring our Founding ideals. With your vision defined you can choose the attributes that are most likely to lead toward your visionary goal for the country, and choose the people and issues that most closely match your template.

These two columns in tandem are not intended to be a sum total definition of the process for choosing whom or what to support in the governing and electoral processes. Just as a frame is not a house, these columns are not an action plan. A house does need a solid frame to be structurally worthy, and I believe that we need more than slogans, vague objectives and partisan rhetoric to achieve our goals and save our Republic. In the last election cycle, for example, Tea Party and affiliated groups elected 83 or 84 Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. Yet when the first major vote- raising the debt ceiling- was cast, more than 60 of those freshly-minted Representatives abandoned the overwhelming will of the people who elected them. Why? I believe that we failed to insist on strong constitutionalism from our candidates. “Smaller government” is not necessarily “constitutional government.” Our vision and our priorities were not definitive enough to truly identify candidates who shared our passion….or who were “lukewarm” and in “general agreement” with our objectives. We allowed the “apparent” good to supersede the quest for perfect, and we settled for weak unprincipled poseurs. The outcome, so far, has been disappointing, but as we more clearly define our expectations and do not allow ourselves to be stampeded into strictly partisan boxes, we can be more effective in vetting and identifying those who truly share our vision and our priorities.

The final column in this mini-series will be “Raveling.” We’ll attempt to design a framework for undoing the “unraveling” of the United States of America. See the “vision,” identify the “priorities,” and implement the “raveling” can be a formula for restoration. We must have a plan, and we cannot rely on a party establishment or leadership to share our values. They work unceasingly for power, and we should always labor for liberty. These are not complementary or compatible values.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

This week: Mon., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

    

Default, Dear Brutus.

Default,” Dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Shakespeare might be annoyed that I borrowed and corrupted his line from Julius Caesar, but he’s dead. “Default” is the power word of the week as statists scramble to coerce Congress into supporting an increase in the national debt ceiling limit. The dirty truth is that default is not a Constitutional option. Current monthly income for the federal government is just under $200 billion. The primary obligation for the Treasury is to pay the debt service first out of any collected proceeds. At current interest rates, the monthly cost for interest on the $14.4 trillion obligation is slightly less than $30 billion. In addition, the secondary Constitutional obligation is payment of Social Security benefits due to the hypothetical, mythical “trust fund.” Those payments run about $60 billion. It is clear, therefore, that the two Constitutionally-mandated disbursements will leave a balance of roughly $110 billion in the Treasury for prioritizing other outlays and payments such as military pay and civilian work-force payroll. The threats of impending doom, and starving grannies are gross misrepresentations…..lies.

If, for any reason, Obama or Geithner delay the Constitutionally-required disbursements for political purposes, they will be in contempt and should be subject to impeachment. Whatever they choose to do, legal or otherwise, the debt ceiling is a two-edged sword for the nation. While it is true that federal cash flow is sufficient to satisfy Constitutional and legal requirements, the massive size of the debt makes it politically difficult to lower taxes enough to generate an economic boom. Some will continue to argue that taxes must remain at present levels (or even higher) to raise funds for debt retirement. Given the history of debt service in the United States, this may be a bogus argument driven primarily by ideological considerations. No principle payments have been applied to the national debt for 51 years, so it seems rather remote that the government would feel compelled to pay down the outstanding balance. Certainly debt retirement would be beneficial for the fiscal health of the country because every uptick in interest rates would require billions of dollars more from the budget.

The debt ceiling and the debt itself are constraining in another way. It may create an artificial endorsement of the status quo on the spending side of the ledger. The political class may perceive the debt limit as defining the outer parameters of the spending matrix. They may convince themselves that as long as they stay within the defined limit, their appropriations are justified and defensible…no matter what the value, constitutionality or justification for a particular program or line item may be. A similar concern is that with the artifice of the debt ceiling in place, career politicians will be continually seeking to increase or looking for ways to circumvent it. Pet programs represent political promises for favored constituent groups. The political class will be fearful of returning the government to its Constitutional structure. They will fear the retribution of recipient groups who have become accustomed to government benefits. Concurrent with addressing the debt crisis and drastically reducing federal spending, the nation, people and politicians, must unite for the “weaning of America.” We must insist and enable the drying of the Nanny teat.

The kabuki dance that is taking place in Washington at this time is merely a small beginning toward what must be done. Systematic and reasonable spending reductions must be implemented to prevent a repeat of the current fiasco. The cuts should be vertical reductions with entire departments, programs and agencies being eliminated. Horizontal cuts are easier because they will not generate the furious responses of the affected agencies and their constituencies, but they are not effective and enduring. Merely shaving dollars from the top of every aspect of government leaves the monstrous apparatus in place to fight for restoration of money in the next and all subsequent budgets. It might be useful (and proper) for Congress to become familiar with the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. Even if they ignore their legal limits, they may at least attempt to fund only governmental functions that are relatively close to meeting Constitutional muster. I can hope, can’t I? We the people should commit to allowing some favorite programs to be cast aside if we are to work our way out of this fiscal maze. Now is the time for that “shared sacrifice” that the progressive-statists are so fond of demanding. Every American must be willing to sacrifice some program or agency on the altar of budgetary sanity and economic reality. Shared sacrifice, indeed, but I suspect the lefty crowd will battle openly…and underhandedly every attempt to restore order to our nation’s financial chaos.

Our situation is dire. Personally, I’m unconcerned if the Chinese pass us as the preeminent economic power in the world. It suggests that their billions of people may be on the cusp of experiencing some semblance of individual liberty. I do desire that we put our fiscal house in order so that liberty and prosperity will be available for all of our people. Default, dear Brutus, can be brutal. Correction will be politically, economically and socially disruptive. Each of us must be dedicated to the task. Et tu?

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha,blogspot.com