A fine mess - politics and the budget - column

Healthcare Financial Management, Dec, 1990 by R.L. Clarke

A fine mess

1990 will enter the history books as a year of epic changes. We saw the end of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the strange alliances it caused, and a cancerous savings and loan industry scandal.

Many of these changes were positive, many were negative, and the effects of some will take years to fully develop.

On another front, problems with the Federal budget persist year after year. Again Congress and the Administration haggled, positioned, and exchanged charges concerning taxes and spending for almost a year. Germany was rejoined as one nation in less time.

At the 11th hour, the White House and Congressional budget summit negotiators developed a deficit reduction proposal. Congress howled, lobbyists scurried, and deals were cut. Congress initially rejected this compromise, and the government shut down for a few days. Eventually a compromise was forged--at least for this year.

The results of the FY91 budget debate did not solve the budget dilemma or produce a national vision on pressing issues, such as education, the environment, or health care. The Bush Administration and Congress have not shown the political will to make hard choices or unpopular decisions.

Our leaders are not leading.

Given this dismal track record, one would expect the voting public to "throw the rascals out" of all levels of government. But as statistics tell us, incumbents overwhelmingly win re-election.

Recently, U.S. News and World Report Editor-at-large David Gergen wrote: "Everyone knows that the political system is broken, and it is increasingly clear that the only cure is a sledgehammer." True enough.

However, the sledgehammer also must fall on the American public. We allow incumbents to be re-elected, even when we doubt they are doing their jobs. We fail to insist that political candidates engage in substantial and meaningful debate on important issues. And we send mixed messages, wanting more government than we are willing to support through taxes.

The government we have is the government we apparently want. I say "apparently" because so many of us are uninvolved in the political process. We do not research candidates records on issues of importance to us. We allow campaigns to be superficial and focused on character flaws. And too many of us fail to vote.

Gergen suggested removing the poison of money from politics and limiting the terms of elected officials to assure some infusion of fresh faces--and hopefully fresh ideas. These suggestions and others may help. Until the governed become actively involved in the process of governing, however, little will change.

Some people complain that becoming involved does no good because one person out of so many cannot make a difference. Other people claim that you cannot fight the system--and maybe they are right.

But cynicism and inaction rarely accomplish anything. As citizens of this country or of any free country, we have an obligation to make democracy work. We must understand the issues, develop positions on them, and express our views at the ballot box, in writing, and in person.

Healthcare financial managers especially have a stake in the budget debate. The actions of Congress directly affect our employers' abilities to provide vital services. If we believe that spending priorities should be shifted or that taxes should be levied, then we have an obligation to express those views.

The nation's budget mess is the result of unrealistic public expectations and a lack of political will among our leaders. We can only blame ourselves for letting it happen.

Have you bugged your Congressman today?