America's two-party system needs two 21st Century parties

The following commentary is written by my good friend George Miller, who is retired from a career as an American Foreign Service Officer.

A View

This is a brief review of the dilemma of the Republican Party as seen through the eyes of a card carrying member of the Democratic Party.

The dilemma is that control of the Party rests largely with aging Anglo-Saxon males, steeped in the mores of the past, trying to formulate programs that will appeal to a younger, multi-cultural society in which women play an ever more important role.

Their old hearts are not in the effort so the Party's messages are conflicting, garbled and uncertain. It claims to have a concern for the working poor and disadvantaged but gives debt reduction top priority, opposes minimum wage hikes and chooses a candidate for President who writes off 47% of Americans as free loaders destined to vote Democratic.

Writing off half the voters in the country proved not to be a recipe  for success in 2012.

The Party claims to have an interest in solving the illegal immigration problem but blocks legislation to address the problem and any path to eventual citizenship for illegal emigrants. Its solution so far, more security at our southern border. It harps on the problems of the Affordable Care Act but offers no acceptable alternatives to it. It constantly criticizes the Obama Administration's foreign policy initiatives designed, through diplomacy, to end bloodshed and turmoil in troubled areas of the world. Unlike its great leader of the past it now offers only a big stick solution to world problems leaving no room for speaking softly. 

The GOP, as presently constituted, sounds discordant notes on its political trumpets and wonders why so many voters don't respond to its calls for action. Voters are asking--what action? Why? And, in a divided Party, under whose leadership?

Is a turn around possible? Yes, with new leadership in tune with the 21st century and America's rapidly changing profile. I am a firm believer in a viable two party system and wish the Grand Old Party well in its efforts to put its house in order.

Where does government inefficiency come from?

The following commentary is written for publication in LeftWingCapitalist by my good friend and multiple-time guest commentator Guy Heston.

***

In many communities across our nation it is local election time. Mayors, council members, county supervisors, sheriffs, prosecutors and so forth will soon be elected, re-elected, not elected or thrown out of office. Predictably, many of the want-to-be elected officials include in their platform that one of their goals if elected will be to make the government entity to which they want to be elected more efficient. They will ferret out waste! They will make sure the taxpayers' dollars are well protected! They will cut back administrative overhead! Etcetera.

This particular form of campaign rhetoric begs the question: where does government inefficiency come from? There are many sources, of course. We can all tell stories of trying to work our way through the system, say at the Department of Motor Vehicles.  But having managed in the public sector for over 30 years I can tell you with absolute certainty that one of the greatest sources of government inefficiency is (drum roll here).... elected officials! Yes, the very ones who get elected swearing they will make government more efficient proceed to make it more inefficient.

For instance, elected officials often want to study something, especially if they think the study will forward their agenda. In my hometown in the past month the city council has considered ordering the city staff to conduct two studies: one on the possibility of offering free preschool to all local children and another on making records of all city expenditures available on-line. I don’t necessarily disagree with either of these concepts, but let’s be clear it takes time and effort to study. If I were city manager of my hometown, I would establish a “Department of Studying Things.” It would not be cheap considering the city council’s proclivity to order things studied. And if you want to know why it takes so long to get a request, permit or application moved through your local city hall, well it might be because the staff is busy studying something they were ordered to study by the governing body.

Once things are studied, there is often a resulting rule, regulation, law or ordinance duly passed by the elected officials, which results in rules and regulations promulgated by the public servants (sometimes called bureaucrats) trying to implement the idea which was studied and passed into law. To see how this works, look no further than the private sector trying to bid on a government contract. I cannot tell you how many times in my career I told a prospective supplier who complained upon receipt of a jaw dropping gazillion pages (rough estimate) request for proposals/bids that the various rules and regulations with which they must comply, the forms and certifications that must be filled out and so on were required by law (that would be a law passed by elected officials who presumably wanted to make the government more efficient). Sadly, many of the suppliers would not bid because it was too much hassle. And we had a person on staff designated to try to walk prospective suppliers through the byzantine process of making an offer. Yes, the staff person had to be paid salary and benefits. When I was accused by a prospective supplier of being an inefficient bureaucrat, and believe me this happened more times than I would care to remember, I would advise the complainant  to contact their elected officials to request a change in the law as I was simply implementing what was required by said law as efficiently as possible.

There is much fun to be had in carrying on about government inefficiency and it’s an easy topic to include in a candidate’s election mailers.  My advice is to just be sure to ask for the specifics of exactly how the candidate will reduce government inefficiency. What will he or she not study?