Just what is Common Ground?

Wednesday – August 24, 2011

Just what is Common Ground?

It takes leadership to find the common ground and to find solutions.

The left seems to be rigid and the right seems to be the ones that always bend. But with the left it is never enough. The right might have the best solutions; they might have the fairest solutions. The right might even have as some polls show the solutions that most Americans agree with.

But with the left it is never enough, because they just can’t get over the idea that some people in life have a rougher time than others. They can’t get over the fact that some have more money than others. They can’t get over the fact that some would give their wealth to help some others that they want to help, instead of what the government says should be the ones to help. They can’t get over the fact that we have a system that rewards individual excellence.

When an administration believes that a system that rewards individual excellence is flawed, then an atmosphere is created that does not provide for the proper leadership to do the things that are required to find the common ground and negotiate for a common ground.

When leadership is absent, the ability to find common ground is also absent. The President is meeting with Warren Buffet, the billionaire, and Alan Mulally, the CEO of Ford Motor Co., to discuss what needs to be done on the job front. In other words, how can we create jobs in this economy? When a President of the United States continually meets with business leaders and gets the same answers, but packages those answers in combination with his theories and ideology, common ground still cannot be found. Warren Buffet is a one of the wealthiest men in the world. He believes that the super rich should pay more. So that advice will only bolster the President’s belief on who should pay more in taxes. The increase in revenue that will result from the rich paying more is miniscule and will only disappear into the entitlement abyss.

There is no doubt that a safety net must exist in this country. For instance, the safety net of Social Security was intended for short term relief when it was created. However, the left made it into the bureaucracy it is today so that tax dollars would fund the growing entitlement and every thing else under the sun. In time, like everything else the government manages, it grows into something it was never intended to be. Social Security is now a retirement benefit and/or a way of life. If the money that had been put into Social Security over time was untouched and still there, based on the original charter, it would be fully funded and it could handle the pay out to the baby boomers that are now entering the system daily. However, the government via the President and the Congress over time has raided the fund to the point that it will be broke by 2017. This is what government does. This is the model of the left. Healthcare will be no different, when it becomes a bureaucracy.

The model of job growth that the president will propose on September 5, will be just another government sponsored program with the rich paying their fair share. When the rich are required to pay their fair share it registers with those who want government aid and who want the government to provide for the masses. In other words the government is doing its job!

The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently came out with these statistics. In 1960, government spending was 27% of the nations GDP. Now the government spends 37% of our GDP. In 1980 the National Debt was 42% of the nations GDP. Now the National Debt is 100% of our GDP. The Tax Foundation recently published these statistics. In1986, 18% of the population paid negative or no tax. Today, 51% pay negative or no tax.

The solution is to view all entitlements as safety nets. The cost of these entitlements go up, because of fraud and because many who do not need the benefits collect them, because its law. Instead of asking the super rich to pay their fair share why not ask them to opt out of the entitlements altogether?

Many participants should be means tested and be given benefits based on their economic need and there income level at retirement. In other words if someone was fortunate to make millions during their careers their benefits might not be as much as those who were not as fortunate. We should not penalize someone if they want to work past the legal retirement age either. If they produce, they will be contributing to the economy.

Instead of another jobs plan that will cost more in tax payer dollars and do nothing to cure the spending and entitlement problem, we should be demanding that the government spend our money more wisely before they ask the rich or upper middle class to pay more in taxes. If we place wise, practical and experienced people in elected positions, then common ground can once again be attained over time.

The Politicians of today are nothing less than theoreticians. A wise experienced person would look at entitlements and see that the premise was good, but also see that the current programs really don’t help those that need it most today. A wise and experienced person would take an objective view of spending and realize that it can no longer be supported without reforms that would make entitlements a safety net instead of a way of life. In time, the entitlement crowd would become producers and tax payers, if they were given the means to wean themselves from government sponsored programs. In time, the entitlement crowd would come to see the benefits of being prosperous contributors.

The means are a simple thing called a job and a career. The means are a simple thing called a pro growth economy that encourages investment in business and in people. In time, if 100% of the people who worked paid their fair share we could have the safety net as it was originally intended by some wise people who were once office holders and who had the compassion to provide a short term benefit to the people by a limited government.


Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives

A footnote: You see common ground can be achieved, if we follow the original plan. This also includes the original plan of those who created the Constitution so that common ground could be achieved.