It seems that politicians all like to talk about is if we follow thier plan something will be accomplished after they leave office. Bush is now going to balance the budget. Of course it will happen after he leaves office. If we just follow his plan. Obama is saying universal health care in 6 years. 2 years after his term is up.
Bradley P
Favorite Answer
Part of it is that people on both sides of the "mainstream" fence--both Dems and Repubs, never mind that they are *both* CEO, Big Oil/Arabist Party for the moment--people on both sides need to *game for the second term*. Or, where the "next term" doesn't apply, to sell people on keeping their "party" or ideology in charge.
It isn't enough to say, "I plan on being in Office for four years, and on getting X done in that time." Nope, almost *every* professional Politician in the system is conditioned to say, "I will be in Office....and I will *start* getting X done, but you'll have to re-elect me/elect my close partner (crony) to office to see it finished."
It's a mind game designed to get folks to vote on auto-pilot is what it is. The idea is that if you support Program X, which isn't done, you'll automatically be *in the pocket* of the Politician who started that Program and will therefore re-elect him or her, or elect whoever the original Politician dictates. This is how the *first* George Bush got elected, he was sold to the American people as being a continuation of Reagan when Reagan himself couldn't go on.
That is the cynical answer. There is also a practical answer, and the perfect example of that can be seen with the way the Minimum Wage hike got stalled (buried) in a Congress that REFUSES to do anything for the Ordinary Citizen without *giveaways* to the Rich and Pissy.
*ahem* But I digress....sorry.
Point is, there are *too many* Chefs in the Kitchen. Too many people in the process for most things to go quickly. Some of this is deliberate, as the Founding Fathers did try to engineer some *inertia*, in the form of Checks and Balances into the branches of government.
But I don't think *anyone* alive in 1776 could have foreseen just *how deeply* the Rich men have insinuated themselves into the process. Abraham Lincoln had some idea as to what could happen if the government "by the people, of the people" ended up being *for* Big Business...and FDR saw some of those results happen at home and abroad in his lifetime, during his presidency, dealing with economic collapse at home and Fascism/Nazism abroad.
Quite simply, Big Campaign Spending for the Media and Big Lobbying have added at least *two unnecessary* layers of complexity to the business of governance. At least. Now our Congress can't (or more precisely *won't*, as in WILL NOT) do anything for Ordinary Citizens until and unless the Rich Men/CEOs get theirs because they WILL show up pissing and moaning with their soft little hands out....case in point, recent Business lobbying with regards to Immigration policy. X-(
But I digress. And as a poor person and Problem Citizen, I am likely taking all of this *way* too seriously. :)
Point is, even if you don't think Politicians are "gaming for terms" here, you have to admit there are a *lot* of unnecessary humanoids gumming up the works who shouldn't be there....or at the very least shouldn't be *this* damned influential.
Just my (relatively worthless) two cents, take them as you will (because that is all people here *do* isn't it, that taking thing).
Thanks for your time! :) Have a good one!
sprcpt
Balanced budget in 12 years? What happened to the balanced budget that Bush inherited that was accomplished in less than 5 years under Clinton.
And people call the democrats wasteful spenders.
These things can be accomplished during their terms, but it takes discipline and cooperation.