Rep. John Boehner discussed with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation the question of taxes to adddress the economic situation.

It appears the debate is premature. We have yet to have a coherent statement of what the problem is, much less what to do. The Congerssional Oversight Panel issued a report pointing to an ambiguous Treasury department problement statement:

15 of 65: "Treasury has still not explained precisely what it sees as the problem."

Before we debate "what is in the package," when will we have a debate on what the problem is? Indeed, as Boehner says, Americans are skeptical. But that skepticism is not linked with a dubious economic plan, but with debating the solution before defining the problem.

See financial shocks here.

Evaluating the Time Lag Problem

There is an important time period between when the crisis first started to unfold, when the problem statement was clear, and the final list of options. The issue is the time delay.

Once concern is the delay in getting a problem statement clarified; a second concern is the apparent delay in developing a coherent set of options. In general terms, the economic crisis has been brewing for at least six months. Even if we narrow the timeframe from when the crisis started to when it was first raised in the 2008 election, this still leaves us there months into the crisis, but no coherent problem statement, much less a set of options.

By comparison, when the National Security Council directed an option study, the leadership would issue a tasking requirement, and set a deadline for there weeks.

We need to understand: 

- Why is there not a coherent problem statement this many months after the problem started;

- Where is the option study that should have been made available within a few short weeks of the deadline set last year

One answer is the leadership does not, in fact, know what to do; and they are still unclear of what has really happened; and do not understand what is going on. We need to get a clear answer:

- What the problem statement that the US government is working with

- What problem statement has the national leadership in Congress defined

- What additional time does the leadership require to provide a coherent option study

- What is the reason for not providing a timely plan of options, including their assessment, in the early weeks of September 2008 when the economic crisis first started

- Does the Congress require additional financial consequences before it takes seriously the requirement to provide a similar option study to the American public

- Where is the President's option study he should have directed the NSC and national economic advisors to provide when the President accepted there was a problem requiring a bailout

- Without a clear statement of the problem, why should anyone have confidence the national leadership understands what is really going on, what the problem is, or whether there is or is not any connection between the proposed plan and the real problem facing the United States and world community?

At best, the political "disagreement" in DC appears to be nothing more than a diversion from a needed Congressional answer to the public: Either they do or do not have a coherent option study available for public review to implement a coherent solution. Giving the US government "more time" doesn't appear to be the answer: They've had months to get this right. Giving them another "couple of more weeks" doesn't appear to be an answer.

Judgements

We judge the economic crisis is large, still not understood, and it is premature to discuss credible solutions. We're still in the middle of the crisis without a demonstrated process to clarify the problem, much less credibly ask for, nor receive, cohernt options.

We view the time between the crisis start date and now an important: There is no adequate public statement of what problem the leadership hopes to address; nor a credible basis to believe the leadership, absent this clear problem statement,have requested, nor received a detailed option plan.

The economic crisis is still unfolding, has not been bounded, and it is premature to credibly believe the leadership understands what is it confronting, much less looking at credible options.

Conclusion

The national leadership is behind closed doors well aware they have no adequate explanation how this crisis appeared out of the blue, nor does it have a credible explanation how the US econmoy has suffered this much damage without a credible risk mitigation plan.

The national leadership has no basis to request a credible list of options, as it still has no clear undersatnding of what subsequent problems are unfolding.

The economy is in a fragile situation. Another small, minor surprise could create a subsequent shock and compound the current crisis. The world's financial and economic situations, as they deteriorate, could have a secondary and tertiary impact on the US economy.

The national leadership has not adequately demonstrated it is serious about admitting it has no clear plan of what to do; nor a reasonable forecast of when it will be in a position to credibly discussion viable options for a serous econmic situation that is deteriorating much faster than the national leadership understands, much less will admit.

There is no clear problem statement becuse the problem has not stabilized; and there is no credible basis to believe they have a firm grasp of the situation, much less credible options needed to stabilize the situation.

They have no credible plan. And the leadership has no credible plan to "get a plan".