Is this a glimpse into the political mind?

If you have paid any attention to the news lately, you'll know that our country is in an interesting place. Our government, going back over the last...oh, every President of my lifetime, has spent too much money. And yeah, I know people will tell you that Clinton had a massive surplus, but that statement is based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and forecasts. Personally, I don't give the CBO much credit. Yeah, they're a pretty smart group, but part of the modus operandi is that they never account for changes in consumer behavior. They are bound to a static view of economics wherein a consumer will not change their economic behavior no matter what their taxes are.

Of course, under George Bush, our country was attacked by Al Qaida. In the aftermath of the attack, the Dow plummeted, gas prices went up, and the housing market collapsed. Of course, the housing market collapse is more a result of the Clinton Administration's desire to put people in houses, even if they could not afford the mortgages.

Since the economy stayed in a downturn for so long, in the last couple of years of the Bush Administration and the first two and a half years of the Obama Administration, we've seen government stimulus packages. According to members of the Obama Admin, if we passed the stimulus then unemployment would not go above 8%, but right now the unemployment rate is hovering around 9% or so.

The current national debt is $14.2 trillion. In other words, we are way too far in debt. And yet, for all that, Joe Biden says we need to spend more. This is Keynesian economics, which in an extremely over-generalized view says that if you have no money, you should spend money and more money will magically appear.

The Republicans have pushed for some budget cuts. Some Democrats have joined them. Remember, this is a Democratic Party that has controlled at least one if not both houses of our government for the last four years, and has not passed a budget for the last 22 months. One of the funniest things I've heard lately is my liberal friends complaining about the GOP not passing a budget in the last six months, but they won't put the same scrutiny on their own party.

But to get back to the title of this blog post, I was amused to hear from John Conyers (D-MI). Conyers is a long time Democratic Representative out of Michigan. He's supplied us some wonderful comments lately, especially concerning the health care law. He was asked what portion of the US Constitution allows Congress to force individuals to purchase health insurance. His response: "The Good and Welfare Clause." There is no Good and Welfare Clause in the Constitution.

Now, Conyers has delivered some insight into the political mindset, I think. Speaking of those in Congress who are seeking to cut billions of dollars from the budget, Conyers delivered this statement:

“This is the first time that I can remember being confronted by members of the Congress, my colleagues, who say, ‘I don’t care if I get reelected or not, I want to cut the budget by $100 billion or whatever.' I’ve never seen that kind of a member before. … It’s a dangerous point of view from my perspective.”

If I'm understanding this comment correctly, Conyers is saying that congressmen who seek to serve their constituency without worrying about getting reelected are dangerous. Really? I thought that, as a public servant, you were supposed to serve your constituents. If you served them well, they would reward you with reelection. According to Conyers, your job as a congressman is to get reelected. If you follow your heart, regardless of your election status, your are a danger.

Personally I think Conyers's point of view is dangerous. We need more politicians who don't care about their reelection.