Comeback America Read online

  You’re familiar with my proposals in these areas by now. This is mostly a policy book after all. But as we approach the last few pages, let me suggest that we may need more than changes in government policies and practices to secure our collective future, strengthen our democracy, and save our republic.

  The bottom line is that to change the kinds of damaging policies our system produces, we might have to change the system itself. And it might take constitutional amendments to do that. Again, I know this is not the most practical suggestion in this book. However, I can imagine a number of serious reforms that could be achieved by amending the Constitution through a grassroots effort. Even if the effort ultimately fails, it will send a message to our elected officials, and may just encourage them to act.

  Amending our Constitution is not something to take lightly. There are only two ways to do it, both arduous. In the method we’ve used in the past, both houses of Congress approve the amendment by two-thirds majorities, after which three-fourths of the state legislatures (or conventions called by the states) must ratify the change.

  In a second process, which has never been used, two-thirds of the state legislatures (or state conventions) call for a national constitutional convention, and any measure approved by the national body must be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions.

  You will notice that the second option bypasses Washington’s political establishment entirely. That’s never been tried. Some argue that a national constitutional convention might open a Pandora’s box and approve who-knows-what changes (although its work would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states). But imagine if we simply started a serious national effort to call for such a convention to address a number of specific, predetermined, and agreed-upon issues—and imagine a few large and influential state legislatures going along. Do you think we would get Washington’s attention? I do.

  What are some of the issues a constitutional convention would take on? We could find many constructive ideas among the states (as our founders intended). We should look at how Arizona and Iowa draw up their congressional districts, for example, using nonpartisan redistricting commissions rather than partisan state legislatures. And we should look at Maine’s popular formula for financing elections for state office with public funds.

  We could also boost the sensible center in presidential elections by changing the way we allocate Electoral College votes. Most states award all of their votes to the candidate who wins that state. But why not award most of the votes according to who wins each congressional district, and then give the winner of the state the two electoral votes associated with its Senate seats? That would force presidential candidates to court more than just a few big swing states. It could make a big difference in close elections. If this rule had been in effect in 2000 and 2004, the results might have been different.

  (A constitutional amendment is not technically necessary for changing how electoral votes are allocated. Nebraska already apportions its Electoral College votes the way I described above. However, as in the case of the redistricting issue, a constitutional effort would accelerate change.)

  We could, of course, eliminate this Electoral College confusion entirely. We could change to a popular vote for electing our president and vice president. That change would definitely require a change to the Constitution.

  We should also give ordinary voters more clout by reforming policies on financing campaigns with private money. For one thing, we could place limits on the ability of wealthy candidates to funnel millions of dollars of their own money into their own campaigns. We could also require that a supermajority (say, 80 percent) of candidates’ contributions come from actual constituents. Candidates could still take money from political action committees or distant fat cats, but they would be required to rely primarily on contributions from real people, other than themselves, who live in and can vote in their districts.

  Does it look like I want to make it tougher for people to make a career out of politics, especially those who serve in the same job for many years? You got that right. Which brings me to the subject of term limits. In my view, we should have them, since the positives outweigh the negatives. This reform would clearly require a constitutional amendment.

  We need to learn from the experiences of some states and make sure that the limits we impose aren’t too short. If you give politicians a four-to six-year term limit, they will have to start figuring out what they want to run for next almost as soon as they’re elected. The rapid turnover also will increase the power of behind-the-scenes staff members, who, no matter how capable and dedicated they may be, aren’t elected by anybody and aren’t directly accountable to the people. I would suggest twelve-to eighteen-year term limits. That tells an aspiring politician: Sure, you can have a political career—just not all in the same job.

  Speaking of terms, we should give members of the House of Representatives four-year terms of office (instead of the present two) and hold elections for half of the House every two years. We should also consider having the president serve one six-to eight-year term. That way, these politicians wouldn’t be running for a second term from day one. After all, we always have impeachment if they really mess up.

  Changes like the ones outlined in this chapter would make our politicians more responsive and responsible, but we also have to give them a constraint to force more prudent behavior once they do assume elective office. That is, there should be a constitutional limit on the extent to which Washington can mortgage our nation’s and families’ futures.

  PUT A LIMIT ON DEBT

  The issue that we really need to address is not balancing the short-term federal budget so much as it is controlling our growing structural deficits—caused by those programs on autopilot—and our escalating debt levels. We must take both mandatory spending programs and tax preferences off autopilot if we want to avoid flying into a mountain of debt. A constitutional amendment could require the federal government to limit total debt to, say, no more than 125 percent of GDP (three percentage points higher than our all-time record at the end of World War II), absent a declaration of war or some unforeseeable financial calamity like a depression or serious recession.

  At present our total debt adds up to almost 85 percent of GDP and, based on projections by the Congressional Budget Office, it’s expected to climb to almost 95 percent by the end of 2010. If the limit I proposed were in effect, there would still be some room for more borrowing—but there would also be a clear credit card limit. After all, there should be a limit on how much of other people’s money elected officials can spend, especially if those other people aren’t even born yet.

  While we are at it, we should have an amendment stating that all federal spending should have a national purpose. We would give the president a line-item veto to enforce it. Right now, the president has to veto either an entire bill or nothing. So when Congress gives him a bill he can’t veto—providing financing for the Afghanistan war, for example—members of Congress may tack on lots of goodies for themselves. Maybe Congressman Benevolent will order up a new library, federal building, or bridge back home named after himself. If the president had a line-item veto, he could approve the war financing while curbing our generosity to the memory of Congressman Benevolent. Come on, Ben, can’t it wait at least until you’ve passed on?

  We need to take additional steps to help ensure knowledge of and compliance with our nation’s Constitution. In this regard, every member of Congress, along with every other legislative, executive, and judicial branch official who is required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, should be required to pass an annual exam on its details. Maybe we could hold an exam on Constitution Day, September 17. And to help ensure that all parties take it seriously, the results would be made public.

  Call me a dreamer, but even spreading the word about a few major political reforms like these would be powerful enough to stir up some storm clouds over the heads of the ruling class in Was
hington and might start generating some real reforms. I spent almost ten years working for the Congress in Washington auditing, analyzing, and testifying about a broad range of federal government policy and operational issues. My position gave me access to the inner workings of that machinery without being part of anybody’s “team.” And what I saw convinced me that the best path to real reform must start beyond Washington’s Beltway.

  What Washington really needs if it is to work better is not a new president or a new budget plan. It’s you and me, “We the People.” We Americans, acting as shareholders of our nation (and treating it like a family business), can re-adopt the values and principles that made us great and take the steps necessary to ensure that our collective future will be better than our past.

  Trust me, there is still time to change things. Will you help? If you and I join with others, we can make America the comeback country and extend the vitality of our republic far into the future. In the end, Washington is a mirror of our society. It will reflect the values and priorities that we demand of it.

  Epilogue

  Are you feeling fired up yet? At the start of this book, I pointed out that you had just committed yourself to absorbing several-score pages on the subject of America’s looming fiscal crisis and certain other key sustainability challenges. In ordinary times, that is one of those worthy topics that everybody knows is important but nobody wants to read about. In the course of most Americans’ lives, worrying about such major, mind-boggling challenges ranks right up there with worrying about the Mideast crisis—a perennial pastime best left to others.

  So let me say at the start of this little epilogue: Thank you. When you picked up this book, you knew you weren’t buying a light read for the beach—or a typical Washington tell-all full of espionage, sex scandals, war planning, and gladiators jousting in the political arena. Instead, you took on a serious book about significant challenges facing our government and country. This is the inside world of Washington, where people ride to work on the Metro every day and operate the machinery that governs America. This isn’t a story of White House intrigue or high-level gamesmanship. It’s a story about the malfunctioning of the great machine itself.

  In the world of this book, it matters less who wins the struggle for political power and policy dominance. What matters is that at the present time no powerful player or political party has been able to take up the mantle to halt our national slide toward bankruptcy. This plotline will not end in a satisfying climax and denouement. It will take us slowly, sometimes imperceptibly, but inexorably toward the erosion of the American lifestyle and the diminution of America’s standing in the world, unless we turn things around. And it will take a lot of work to do that. There’s no easy resolution or happily-ever-after scenario at the end of this book.

  Except one: You have read it, and hopefully, you will recommend it and share its many messages with others. When our Founding Fathers broke our ties with England and set America on its independent course, they reached for freedom not only from the king’s control but from the mother country’s traditions, dominated by elites and noblesse oblige and all the intrigues of court. In America, things would be different. People would govern through representatives who stood for all of their interests. The founders trusted us—they trusted you—to govern according to the broad needs of the citizenry rather than pursue the perquisites and special interests of the few. That’s democracy American-style, by way of our Constitution and political values.

  In reading this book, you have put your own hands on the levers of our government. I hope you find my case compelling, and I hope you buy into many of the illustrative solutions I have proposed. But what is really important is that you have grabbed those levers and hopefully will not let go. By doing that, you can begin to exercise power the American way. And that’s our best hope for repairing the road to our future.

  This book has covered more than our political culture. I have tried in these pages, as I did in my government service, to revive what I can only call the pragmatic idealism of the American way in order to keep the American Dream alive. From the start of our national story, when we set out to develop a continent and build a nation, we adopted the values of industry and thrift as emblematic of our economic lives. Not every American has a Horatio Alger or Peter G. Peterson story, but we all respect the stories of the citizens such as these who achieve success and wealth through their own enterprise and hard work. Pete Peterson was born to a very poor Greek immigrant family, and through the good education they provided him and by working hard he rose to lead major entities in government and industry and on Wall Street. He’s now a billionaire who puts his money where his mouth is and his effort where his heart lies. In many ways, Pete is a case study in the American Dream come true.

  Pete’s kind of success through striving and sacrifice has largely become a national myth. It doesn’t make pleasant reading for me to point out that too many Americans today are reaching not for the opportunity to maximize their own potential but for government benefits delivered at the least possible personal cost.

  That reflects the central breakdown of our government: the impetus to provide services without adequately paying for them—generous benefits and low taxes. As I’ve been telling you, much of this system is on autopilot, driving us deeper and deeper into debt and closer and closer to a fiscal abyss. Our government and our political system have failed to change course and make the tough but necessary changes. I’ve suggested concrete ways we can address this lack of leadership. But behind this debacle stand the citizens who have demanded more for less—and rewarded the politicians who are delivering their so-called free lunch solutions. I’m betting that many more of us recognize the fiscal hole our government has dug and want to climb out and not fall back in—for the sake of our country and our children. If you’ve read this book, I’m betting that you agree with me and will join me.

  There’s another aspect of our American myth—the American Dream: an evocation of the home of one’s own and other marks of prosperity that come as a reward for hard work and enterprise. This is a dream of the American family, and a vital aspect of it is to pass our success along to others. Each generation of Americans—and each individual family—is charged with passing along a better life for those who come after us. The weakening of this intergenerational promise is the cruelest aspect of this fiscal story. In today’s America, we have been robbing from the next generation, taking benefits for ourselves and deferring the payment to our children, grandchildren, and generations further. We are also reducing relative levels of federal investment in their future while they face increasing competition from abroad. I am betting that as a reader of this book you understand the dimensions of this assault on America’s future and are ready to find a path for us to put us on a more prudent path, if only to give our children the opportunity for growth and success that our parents gave us.

  What do we do next? At this point, more Americans should be made to understand the problem and its dimensions. That will make it hard for our government and its presiding politicians to give us the same old song and dance. If they promise us expanding vistas of universal health care, for example, without setting clear standards and goals for this program, and without making absolutely clear how we will pay for it—and what we will have to give up to pay for it—while we also reduce our tens of trillions in unfunded health care obligations, then you and I will know that the destructive fraud of promising something for nothing continues.

  Are you hearing that expanded health care is “fair” and that paying for it is a simple matter of taxing the “rich”? The alarm bells are going off, aren’t they? That’s the same old formula that is leading us toward national decline—and you and I know we have to do better than perpetrate this massive exercise in, excuse me, BS.

  Let me be a bit more precise. We have a duty as citizens to set the standards for American politics and, when our representatives present us with plans, to consider these proposals and to ask tough
questions.

  I’m hoping you have plenty of questions for the powers that be at this point. And remember: We can’t ask these questions just once. We have to keep asking them until we get real answers and real results. Let me suggest a few for starters. Here are some of the things we ought to be asking about our elected representatives and other federal policy makers no matter what their position is and what party they are a member of:

  Have the president and key congressional leaders admitted to the American people that government has promised more than it can afford and that those promises need to be renegotiated?

  Have these leaders admitted that federal taxes must go up for more Americans than the “rich”—defined most recently as those making more than $250,000 a year—and that the longer we wait to address our large and growing deficit, the higher taxes will go?

  Are politicians still just talking about fiscal responsibility, or have they started to take action to achieve it?

  Have the conservatives with the loudest voices begun to move ever so slightly toward the center? (Pay attention to those who admit that some government spending is necessary. Note those who say that our goal should be to create a limited and effective government while keeping taxes as low as possible, rather than advocating smaller government and lower taxes. And look for conservatives who acknowledge that our economy can’t grow its way out of our fiscal mess.)

  Have the liberals with the loudest voices begun to move ever so slightly toward the center? (Respect those who admit that government cannot solve all our problems. Recognize those who advocate limits on what role government can and should play. Salute those who say we can’t tax our way to prosperity and that renegotiating our current social insurance contracts is an essential component going forward.)