The Art of Negotiation--Government Style

The Art of Negotiation -- Government Style

The president said; “I won’t negotiate over paying our bills”;  an oxymoron.  By saying he won’t negotiate over a certain point IS negotiating…he is laying down a negotiating point.  It is obvious that he was negotiating by the end terms.  By negotiating he got what he most wanted; continued spending and gave up very little.

The proper answer to that would have been; I won’t negotiate the raising of the debt limit without some measures to address the cause and solutions to an ever growing national debt of $17,000,000,000 debt.

If that had been done, both sides would have staked out the first position.  Then the only question is who benefits by not blinking.

For this answer we have to find out what each side really wants. 

So what is it that both sided wanted?  The president wanted more spending and the opening of the partially closed government.  If he did not get what he wanted was he comfortable with the consequences of both parties not blinking which would have been default. 

What did the republicans want?  Unfortunately they assumed that they would get the blame for the default and this was their main “Want”!  Whether this is true or not, they believed it, so, in the end they blinked.

The key point in any negotiation is whether or not you are prepared to walk away from the deal.  The president was comfortable with walking away from the deal and defaulting, the republicans were not. 

Unfortunately for the country it is an unequal negotiation.  The president is perfectly willing to see the country hurt for political gain.  The republicans are not, or at least they do not want to be demonized by the media.

The president touted the fact that our deficit is the lowest in years.  I don’t quite see how this is possible, but if it is it is like an overweight person saying; “I know that I am 100 pounds overweight and it will eventually kill me, but look on the bright side; I am gaining weight at a slower pace than before!”

How does this play out?  It will take a tough dynamic leader to sell the tough solutions demanded, but  in the end we will likely not resolve the debt/default question until we actually default.  That will come when nobody will continue to lend us money to pay the interest on our debt.  Without tough solutions, this will happen.

Will we be the Roman Empire or not.  Stay tuned.  With the stakes this high it should be interesting.

What Goes Into a Revolution? Or Not

Egypt just did it in a matter of a few days.  What made this happen?  For this to happen so quickly took two things:  First there were millions in the streets protesting.  They protested everything from not having a job to an elected president that turned into a dictator.  Second, the military provided the power and the final action of removing the elected dictator.

Revolutions usually take longer… much longer.  Take a look at our revolution that was formalized (not won) on July 4, 1776.  One could mark the start to 1763 with the end of the French and Indian War.  But the colonies were inflamed with the Boston Massacre in 1770 and the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

See the word “inflamed”?  It takes an inflamed group of people to really get a revolution going.  Many, and I am one, who say that Samuel Adams was an essential ingredient in the success of the revolution.  Adams was not particularly successful in business, but he knew and managed and stoked the people’s outrage.  A rabble-rouser is often necessary to the success of a revolution.

To the present:  On February 19, 2009 Rick Santelli went on a rant against the government’s Homeowners Affordability and Stability Act and said that it promoted bad behavior by potential homeowners and suggested a Chicago Tea Party.  The Tea Party movement was born, and thrived and put the Republicans in charge of the House in 2010. Now we know the power of that and the government quickly put the IRS into stopping it by slow walking applications and forever prolonging their application and various acts of harassment and intimidation.  The Tea Party movement was severely slowed and, in many cases, died.

As scandal after scandal piles up, there is no “Santelli” or outrage.

Should we not be angry that the administration made no effort to to save our people under attack in Benghazi?  Should we be even angrier that they actually told people to “Stand down”?The culture of the military made this impossible and many disobeyed order and went to help and died trying.

Should we not be outraged that the administration used the most powerful arm of the government (outside the military) the IRS to undermine a national election.  Is there no greater sin against democracy?

Should we not be outraged that they are slow walking any investigation?  Oh, and they are very quick to look into finding something else to convict George Zimmerman.

Should we not be outraged that they are collecting our telephone calls, e-mails, internet traffic without cause or warrant?

Should we not be outraged that the President declares that he will delay implementation part of a law passed by congress and signed by the him?

Yes, to all.  But no one is in the streets.  There is no Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams or Rick Santelli.

Who will it be, what will be the trigger? Or, will we be the frog in the pan sitting comfortably in the warm water as it heats up and evntually kills?

We have to do something! NOT!

Our immigration policy is broken...we have to do something.

I am tired of this.  Essentially they are saying;  The laws we put in place are not working, so we must make a new law.  More clarifying, some of the laws now in place, we just will not enforce.

Laws are worthless if there is no will to enforce a law.  The problem is not the law...it is the lack of will.

Some cities are called "sanctuary cities".  This means that in this city we will not enforce this or that law.  Can you imagine this?  It would be helpful if each city or state, or for that matter it would also be helpful if President Obama would tell us what laws that would not be enforced.  To his credit, amazingly, he has told us!

So are we a nation of Laws, not Men?  It does not seem so.  Men seem to be trumping the laws.

The congress is doing back flips and pretzel twists to pass an immigration law.  One of the amendments proposed and voted down was to finish the 700 mile fence that is already in law!

Are you tired of the saying; "We need to do something!" yet?

Another item there are wrangling about is a trigger that when we have stopped 90% of the illegals crossing the border we will do thus.  The question is whether this should be a goal or a requirement.  Goal means nothing, requirement means something.  But the question I have is:  How do we know when we have stopped 90% of the illegals crossing the border.  Yes, we can count the ones we catch, but how do you know the number crossing without our knowledge?  Basic math requires both numbers.  Perhaps there is a "NEW" math in play here.

"We need immigration reform."  Another meaningless statement.  How about "We deport all the illegals"?  There, that is reform and satisfyies the meaningless statement; "We must do SOMETHING!"

But no, that is not what they mean.  Underlying all is the need for the politicians to cater to a a group and give amnesty to all they think might vote for them.

In all that the congress does, it is always doing what is good for them  immediately and later we will do something for you.  Thus we raise the taxes immediately (get more money to buy votes) and later we will cut spending.  It is the same way with immigration... Give amnesty immediately and then work on sealing the border... or more likely forget it... as in the 700 mile fence.

Are you tired yet?  Better yet.... Are you angry yet?

The Fallacy of Compromise

All you hear is compromise, bipartisan, work together, just get something done.  But it is all baloney.

Compromise is a word cover for the winner to say; “I win you lose, but it doesn’t look like that.”

Compromise is a word for; “Let’s meet half way, not solve the problem and we can live to fight another day.”

Compromise is a civil word to use in “nice” conversation. 

If there are two ways of doing something, one is better than the other.  So let’s compromise:  Take a little of the good and a little of the bad and see how that works out.  It doesn’t.

Take abortion.  Some think it is morally wrong, some think it is ok.  Give me a compromise.  Perhaps we allow every other mother to abort a child.

This world is based on winners and losers.  This is being gradually undermined in the school system where we do not want the “self esteem” of the child to be damaged so let’s not keep score. 

We say we want our legislators to “play with others well”.  But we don’t, or shouldn’t.  Playing well with others results in compromise, kick the can down the road, allowing the problem to fester not quite as fast as it was.  In the end, the solution won’t be… a solution

Neither fan of San Francisco or Baltimore will want  their team to “play with other well”.  They want them to win.

So quit paying well with others and fight for you rpoint of view.  Let the compromise be, may the best idea win.  Much better than watering down the best idea with a compromise from the bad idea.