Not like us --why distrust of D.C. causes bipartisan pain -- July 11, 2013

By MARSHA MERCER

What’s the difference between Washington and everywhere else? Here’s a quick take from a corporate executive who knows from experience.   

“Growing up in New Hampshire and being a CEO, I always felt like what I thought, what I said and what I did had to be the same thing,” says David M. Cote, chairman and chief executive of Honeywell International. 

“In government, that’s three separate decisions.”

In Washington, “what they say isn’t necessarily what they think, and what they do isn’t necessarily what they say or think,” says Cote, who noted that Washington operates at a level of “complexity” beyond any he has dealt with in the business world. He sat for an interview last month at a Wall Street Journal breakfast.

I would argue that not doing what one says is duplicity, not complexity, but let’s not quibble. Cote hit on a truth so obvious it made me want to slap my forehead. He learned as a member of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles fiscal responsibility commission how to translate Washington-speak and understand how politicians triangulate their thoughts, words and deeds.

Cote, the lifelong Republican, said he once walked out of a meeting with a pol who had said, “I’m with you, Dave.” Cote turned to his staff guy and said, “What a great meeting!”  

“He’s not with us,” his guy replied and explained why what the pol said wasn’t really what he meant. Cote had a lot to learn.

Some corporate suits named to presidential commissions just make one appearance or so – they’re busy, after all, with their day jobs. But Cote arranged his schedule so he could show up every time the commission met, an accomplishment that only he, Simpson and Bowles managed. He learned not to take what pols say at face value – certainly not until there’s a deal they can start talking about. Why, he says, would a savvy pol go out on a limb and upset constituents prematurely?

When the Simpson-Bowles commission considered raising the age of eligibility for Social Security by one year 75 years in the future, left-leaning groups rose in mighty opposition, ludicrously claiming that the commission was robbing the old. Eventually, Congress must deal with the long-term future of boomer-burdened Social Security and Medicare. The longer we wait, the more likely we hurt current beneficiaries.   

Even though Congress should deal with the future of Medicare and Medicaid now, the more likely scenario is that Congress will lurch forward, crisis to crisis, Cote says.

There are “some really smart, well-meaning people” in Washington, Cote says, and, yes, there are also dolts. “I’ve had times when I’ve looked at someone and said, ‘You can’t possibly believe what you just said.’”Haven’t we all?

Cote’s trenchant remarks help explain why it’s so hard for voters to trust anyone in Washington. President Barack Obama shocked many on his side when he delayed parts of the Affordable Care Act, and that was merely the latest in a series of disappointments for liberal supporters.

House Majority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., promises that the House will take up a package of bills before the end of the month aimed at addressing the trust deficit in Washington. Among these is a bizarre  measure allowing people to record their conversations with some federal officials – although not with members of Congress.

If the House and Senate can’t agree on substantive legislation, like the Farm Bill and how to avoid doubling the interest rates on new student loans, political grandstanding hardly will shore up the people’s trust.

If Dave Cote is right, the problem for the next presidential candidate -- Republican and Democratic –is deeper than something a jazzy PR campaign can fix. Voters need to believe we can rely on what politicians say as a guide to what they’ll do. That’s not too much to ask. Anything less adds to the already significant distrust of Washington and that will keep voters home on Election Day.

 © 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

The logic of lifting the debt limit -- June 9, 2011 column

By MARSHA MERCER

A large majority of people believe the nation’s economy would tank if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. It follows logically that a large majority would favor raising the debt ceiling.

Forget logic. Barely half of Americans favor raising the debt limit, even if Congress also sharply cuts spending. That sobering news in The Washington Post appeared under the headline: “Americans are conflicted about raising the debt limit.”

What? “Americans have a collective death wish about the economy” wouldn’t fit on the page?

Seventy-one percent of people thought failing to raise the debt limit would cause serious harm to the economy, but only 51 percent supported raising the limit while making deep spending cuts, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

People have heard the dire warnings about what happens if we default on our financial obligations -- and they just don’t care? Are they really saying, “Let’s throw the economy under the train right now. It’s still weak and won’t put up much of a fight”?

I don’t think so, not for a minute. Nobody wants the economy to fail. People are desperate for jobs and economic security. Something else must be going on. Another response in the Post survey crystallized the political problem behind the debt ceiling question.

Asked which political party would do a better job coping with the big problems facing the country over the next few years, one person in five volunteered “neither.” Neither. That’s harsh. And entirely logical.

Neither party has come through the last couple of years dusted in gold. Overall, people trust Democrats more than Republicans, 41 percent to 32 percent, the poll found, but Democrats can't feel good knowing only two people in five have confidence in them.

Washington exists in a parallel universe where the drama concerns how deeply to slash spending and remake government. Poll after poll shows there’s no great appetite in the country for the kinds of big programmatic changes being considered. People favor spending about the same for Medicare and Medicaid.

Interestingly, seniors oppose the Medicare restructuring passed by House Republicans even though they’d be protected and the changes would affect only younger retirees.

I’m not saying we can’t think of worthy cuts. But we know, if we think about it, that each cut comes with a cost.

The federal workforce? Pluck that low-hanging fruit. We surely don’t need so many bureaucrats, uh, unless they’re the physicians and scientists at the National Institutes of Health curing cancer. Them we need.

Congressional pay? Surely I’m not alone in my unhappy thoughts that my tax dollars go toward the $174,000-a-year salary, plus benefits, of one Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.

Waste, fraud and abuse? Our old friends. We should stamp out all three, absolutely, and every administration tries. Even the Pentagon isn’t buying $600 toilets and $400 hammers anymore.

The home mortgage interest deduction is a classic example of how difficult it is to curb tax expenditures, the tax code’s revenue losers. President Obama and his bipartisan fiscal commission proposed scaling back the deduction. It’s logical as the deduction is costly and favors wealthier taxpayers.

Some 35 million Americans claim the mortgage deduction, and it will cost the federal government $131 billion in lost revenue in 2012 alone, according to Calvin Johnson, a tax professor at the University of Texas. To take the deduction, though, you have to itemize, and only the top third of wage earners itemize. Two-thirds of taxpayers aren’t even eligible for the break.

Johnson also told David Kocieniewski of The New York Times last year, “No one can make a serious intellectual argument in favor of the mortgage interest deduction.” And he said, “Why should the government subsidize homeowners rather than renters? The only thing it’s good for is middle-class votes.”

Not exactly. The housing industry has suffered a lot over the last few years, and this hardly is the time to add economic stress. The National Association of Home Builders has a Web effort savemymortgageinterestdeduction.com. Rep. Gary G. Miller, R-Calif., introduced a sense of the Congress resolution that says the deduction should be left unrestricted. More than 150 cosponsors have signed on.

And there’s this. Asked whether the deduction should be eliminated, 61 percent of Americans said no. This was true even though only 43 percent said they personally took the deduction, a Gallup-USA Today poll found in April.

Like the seniors who want to preserve Medicare for their younger friends and relatives, people who don’t take the mortgage deduction want others to benefit. We’re all in this together.

That’s so logical even politicians should understand it.

© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30