Original Title: Obama Short On Specifics For Recovery

President-elect Obama at George Mason University urged Congress to implement his economic stimulus package. The speech was not characteristic of Obama in that he presented more of a written statement than provided verbal assurances and hope.

Amazingly, Cheney would have us believe that nobody saw it coming. Congress needs to step up to the plate and provide some answers to the public. It remains to be seen who, besides the TARP IG, might provide this insight. The Congress and the IGs dropped the ball, and the public needs to know why Congress was sleeping like ("with"! cough, cough) the SEC.

This note discusses in detail the questions raised here about mitigating financial fragility.

This note comments on the governance problems; makes some suggestions for the President-elect and his staff to generate public support; and offers an approach to confront Members of Congress.
The President elect repeated his warning the economic situation is dire, and that action is needed. His concern is Congress will not swiftly move on the economic plan.Our concern is the credibility problem with Congress, and the failed oversight 2001-9. We have two broad concerns: 

Leadership Vacuum

Vague, Poorly Understood Problem Statement: The scope of the problem has yet to be well discussed;
 
Unclear Success Criteria: There is a poor discussion of how specific measures will address the identified problems.

Sample Supporting Material from

See 15 of 65, chart item 1.1-2

Question: What is Treasury's vision of the problem?

Treasury Response: No response.

Panel Evaluation: "Defining the problem to be addressed is essential to designing
an effective strategy. . . . Treasury has still not explained precisely what it sees as the
problem."

The President elect suggested there will be shared sacrifice. It's unclear, as with the Homeland Security stop-lights, what specific actions Americans must take, or how they should change their actions to contribute. 

The public needs to hear some open discussion from those outside government -- especially economists at the long-ignored IMF whose warnings fell on deaf ears in Congress -- and encourage them to provide their assessments: 

Engaging With Ignored Forecasters

A. What is their view of the problem;

B. What plan or suggestions do they have;

C. How do they see the proposed plans squaring with what is required to remedy this situation. 

The public needs some assurances that the sources of concern and warning are getting heard; and that there is an open discussion of what the problem really is. To date, "the problem" is vaguely defined as something related to the credit markets, and very large. That is not helpful. 

Web-based Planning Charts

A better approach would be to use a graphical approach, outline the scope of the forecasted economic downturn, and along the horizontal-time-axis show how deep the various indicators are expected to get. In parallel, along the same axis, we should see how the proposed plans are expected to improve the various indicators; and discuss the basis for the forecasts. The public would benefit by seeing a documented plan that specifically graphs how the expected reforms, stimulus, and other proposed plans will - over time - hopefully return the situation within acceptable limits. 

These charts will be useful in assessing the detailed analysis managers and leadership are making; and force them to commit to a specific set of options with an agreed-to forecast of what they hope to accomplish. Understandably, the forecast is just that: A guess, and reality will be much different. We have to start somewhere that is coherent. The public's problem is that we're dealing with hand waving, not a specific forecast or plan. 

Publicize Coherent Planning Assumptions

Of concern is the apparent notion that throwing money -- at a still poorly-articulated problem --  will achieve some sort of desirable outcome. The issue is that the scope, severity, and duration of the downturn have not been specifically couched in terms of quantifiable numbers. Again, we're not asking for a specific guarantee, nor precision; but a commitment in writing and charts to the assumptions the leadership is using. 

Our concern is the leadership appears to have not adequately agreed to, nor developed a coherent method to arrive at an agreeable set of assumptions of what they view the problem is; how the problem should be solved; or the benchmarks they plan to use going forward to monitor progress. 

Credibility Burden

Our concern is that the leadership's desire to have Americans cooperate and support the plan is based on the false assumption that the leadership has restored confidence in itself; and that the public, despite years of being ignored on legal compliance issues, is suddenly expected to trust those same players to start doing what they've shown they're not capable of doing: Conducting oversight, assessing a situation, and appropriately adjusting to meet agreed-to objectives.

The US government -- including the US Congress -- has poorly managed the anti-terror operations 2001-8 within the Constitutional framework. The same players in Congress who have turned a blind eye to oversight would have us believe that they're positioned to start doing what they've not been able to do. That is a great leap for Congress to bridge, and for the public to believe Congress can span.

The President elect suggests we should not get into the blame game. That is an admirable goal, but presupposes that there's a coherent understanding of the problem; and that anyone has a coherent assessment of what went wrong, why, and what needs to change. Our view is that the Congressional failure 2001-9 to adequately confront significant legal issues is a subset of the current economic problem: A breakdown in oversight, system monitoring, and open option studies. 

Concerns About Congressional Oversight

We are not confident that a Congress which has largely abdicated oversight functions 2001-9 is poised to start doing what it refused, despite a change in leadership, party, and promises. Indeed, the leadership and Committee staffs have a fundamental credibility problem: Regardless what the President's economic advisors did or didn't do 2001-9, or might have missed by way of economic warnings, the Congressional committees have a long row to how to explain: 

Accountability On Congress

A. Where were they;

B. What were their views on the economic situation

C. What warnings did they ignore

D. What got in the way of them taking action to challenge the President 

The above questions are related to the core issues getting in the way of Congress confronting the President on impeachable offenses, not just FISA and Geneva violations. It appears Congress, despite the promise of change, has not developed the independent skill to act as a separate branch of government: That of independently monitoring the economy, economic conditions, and outlining - independently - their view and plans of what needs to happen. 

No Independent Legislative Plan

At best, the promise of change isn't change: Congress isn't starting from square one, but as with the Patriot Act, taking a proposed Executive Branch plan and adjusting it. That's not the work of an independent branch. The public needs to see Congress - independently - review the situation, specifically discuss the problem, outline the risks, and present a plan to the current President for his signature. Now, not after President-elect Obama takes office.

Risk of Legislative Deference To Executive

As with the post 9-11 world, it appears the Executive looks at Congress, and Congress agrees, that the Legislature is the administrative arm of the Executive. We would like to see independence and separate work products, especially in the initial phases of the problem assessment and proposal discussion.

The Committee leadership and staff -- which should have been monitoring the economic situation and developing an independent assessment and mitigation plan -- appears to have fallen into a bad habit of waiting for the Executive to provide the leadership. We have no confidence the bad habits Congress has embraced 2001-9 will suddenly reverse themselves, nor is Congress adequately positioned to coherently discuss in public the problem, the options required, and a coherent game plan for American citizens to embrace.

The Committee leadership in both houses has been strangely quiet, deferring -- in our view, in appropriately -- to the President elect to make a coherent statement. Change must be something more than a campaign slogan. It means looking inward, examining which leadership got in the way of monitoring the economic situation, and being honest with what got in the way of Congress adequately mitigating this problem while it happened. Whatever got in the way - until it is openly discussed - will continue, and has no prospect of being banished from the political stage until Congress, in the wake of a financial crisis, is forced to mend its ways. 

Mixed Signals May Require Sever Financial Shock To Focus Leadership

As with the post-9-11 DHS stop-lights, the public is dealing with vagueness, not specifics. 

At best, we are concerned that the current entrenched laziness in Congress will only get the needed shock it needs -- to awaken it to reality -- if there is a severe economic shock. That hasn't happened. Despite the best efforts of the President elect to inspire Congress to do what it has proven incapable of doing 2001-9. Our concern is Congress will require a severe financial crisis before it takes the warnings of the President elect seriously.

Avoided Problem

There is a noticeable lack of public commentary from Members of Congress on the detailed problems facing the country; nor a coherent discussion of what the real risks are. It appears there is something very disturbing the national leadership is dancing around, and will not publicly admit. We hope the leadership will stop pretending the public does not notice, and discuss the no-kidding concerns; and make the case that the proposed plans will mitigate those risks.

FISA, Geneva Violations: Lesson of Secret, Unchallenged Planning After 9-11

After 9-11. the country was misled, not given all the information about the planned illegal activity, and the national leadership in secret agreed to questionable, reckless, dubious, or illegal activity. Had the national leadership conducted lawful combat operations and fully complied with their legal mandates, those who refused to support the game plans going forward might have been the necessary forces to mobilize peer support, provide feedback, and inspire the leadership to listen to suggestions. 

We continue to have the opposite: Leadership taking a top-down approach to decision making, and not adequately mobilizing public support for what was really required. The worst thing was for the leadership, in secret, to agree to unacceptable programs which fractured public support.

Legitimacy

Congress has yet to explain how this economic situation could be so dire, yet the Congress - an independent branch of government - has not adequately provided the independent leadership, plans, and proposals to mitigate this problem. It's as if the national leadership has been doing nothing in public; and now expects the public to live with the results -- an unlikely proposition

The public will have to endure the financial problems and do the real work. One problem facing Congress is the leadership problem. The public is lost: 

Clarity Needed

-  What does the Congress specifically want the public to do differently

-   Is the proposed burden sharing -- the Congress wants to rest on the shoulders of the public --  appropriate

-   To what extent has Congress adequately spread the pain and burden beyond the public, to include the corporations that gain financial benefits, but are incorporated overseas

Public Oversight of Congress

Our job as American citizens must be to monitor how the American leadership does or does not respond to these discussion points. It's not our job to impose a solution. Rather, our job as citizens will be to examine whether the leadership learns the lessons of Katrina, and will work through the UN Security Council with the Russians and Chinese and our allies to focus on the problems and grow this economy.

Whether Congress does or does not take the above approach is a secondary issue. The question is whether Congress makes a decision to do or not to something that the public can specifically understand. We are not tied to the above approach. Rather, it is there as an example of the type of specificity Congress and the President need to provide to better generate public support. Saying, "We're going to throw money at the (vague) problem," isn't convincing.

One problem with the above is generating the public and Congressional support to put aside the failures of 2001-9, and take the cue that real change is needed: Better questions, more risk mitigation, and an independent discussion of the real risk mitigations required.The public will be able to make an informed decision whether the Congress is or isn't' serious about providing the specificity required to justify public confidence.

Inherent Congressional Flaws Impeding Independent Economic Policy Making

If the national leadership in DC wants the support of the public, then the leadership needs to quickly embrace the real issue: The credibility problem Congress has with the public; and the failure of Congress 2001-9 to independently conduct oversight, and manage the economic situation. No American citizen should be reasonably expected to burden the responsibility of change when the leadership continues doing the same path of pretending the problem of oversight is someone else's problem. 

As an analogy, until someone learns to correct a problem, they'll likely repeat their errors, especially in a more stressful situation. The problems Congress had in conducting oversight 2001-9 over these economic issues must be confronted; and the public needs to see that Congress is doing what Congress still refuses to do: 

Publicly Assessing Congressional Management

Factors to evaluate whether Congress is adequately developing an independent economic development plan

-  Timely outline a credible problem statement

-  Explore the scope of the forecasted economic problem

-  Outline the options required, and the scope of the plan

-  Make the case that the proposed plans will have measurable improvements

-  Commit to that plan

-  Then, as we make progress or stumble, conduct oversight and monitor the situation to make mid-course corrections

Legislative Immaturity Warrants Increased Public Oversight of Congress' Economic Policy Development

Congress has to do something it has not well done 2001-9. That difficulty is one Congress will have to embrace; but the public has an independent job: To assess, despite the President elect's warnings, whether Congress -- as a governing body -- is or is not capable of conducting oversight, outlining plans, and monitoring progress.

Developing Backup Plans Should Congress Prove Ineffective

Only Congress can decide what Congress does. But the American public will have the knowledge that there are players waiting in the wings who stand ready to provide the structure and leadership. Congress has not adequately made the case that it is willing to start doing what it has refused 2001-9. Until the public gets adequ8ate assurances that there are real changes, the public is encouraged to refrain from throwing your support with the current approach, the proposed plans, or the existing players. 

This does not mean that the proposed economic plan should be rejected. Rather, the public's role is different than Congress: Our job is to assess whether Congress, despite the President elect's warnings, is or is not positioned to do what needs to be done; or whether it requires the catalyst of a sever economic crisis for Congress to change its ways, confront the issues, articulate the problem, outline options, and create a credible, supportable plan for the public to buy-into.

We're not there yet. Congress is on very thin ice, not just because of the economic situation, but this recovery will be a litmus test: Does Congress really respond; or does it fall back into the old habits which turned a blind eye to impeachable offenses, FISA violations, and war crimes. Our concern is in the absence of a measurable, visible, economic crisis, Congress will not have the catalyst to really do what is required: Provide leadership, articulate the problem, and develop a coherent plan that the President would support. 

Burden Sharing

We appreciate there are tax laws which permit corporations to secure US government contracts, incorporate overseas, and marginal income taxes. They have enjoyed the benefits of the financial success; it's their job, like homeowners, to shoulder some of the burden. We need to discuss the methods the US government - going forward - will ensure there is a reasonable relationship between US government contracts awarded, and the real financial support those corporations provide to the very people, system, and financial institutions which contributed to their financial success.

Mitigating Adverse Effects of Military Spending Cuts

One issue is the relationship between military spending and economic growth. Since WWII, there is a symbiotic relationship: As military spending goes up, this has a net positive affect on the economy; and when military spending goes down, the reverse is true. Statistically, this is known and can be measured by something called "auto-correlation."  More

As we draw down forces from Iraq, and contracts close out, the net military drawdown will have a negative impact on the economy. The public needs to ensure the forecasts adequately incorporate this risk into the forecasts; and that demobilization is adequately seen for what it is - Something that may economically marginally contribute to a deepening recession.

Developing Export Markets

This economic recovery plan cannot simply mean throwing money at the US economy; that money needs to be earmarked to grow export markets that can consume world goods. This means creating viable export markets

Future growth of the world economy will depend, in part, on planting the seeds today for those expected export markets. The world leadership must collectively discuss  -- in the wake of this still-unfolding economic crisis -- how we will bridge the gap between (a) the near-term efforts to stabilize the economy; and (b) the mid-term efforts required to start growing export markets.

We should look to foreign nations, and start developing governance standards to help manage foreign development. The problem is that before the economic crisis started, there was reluctance to embrace these governance standards at home.

We must look at what's really gotten in the way of developing the post-Katrina economy. That is a microcosm of what will have to be repaired going forward: The same institutions in government -- which failed to mobilize in the wake of Katrina and, still, in 2009, have not adequately proven themselves in creating a recovery - are still in place.

Domestic Economic Experiment Zones

What the US leadership needs to do is establish - now - economic zones of redevelopment that employ slightly different options, and can demonstrate that the US is serious about doing on a larger scale.

The Congress needs to not focus first on the world economic problem, but narrowly look at developing a tailored program that will do in New Orleans what the Congress and President elect want to convince Americans they're serious about doing for the country and world economy.

 
We recommend :

Phased Economic Policy Implementation

- Start the discussions in Congress with a smaller, more manageable problem;

- Start initial, low-level funding projects, and feed results into mid-term Congressional economic policy planning

- Concurrently apply the lessons of the discussions and oversight on these small issues to how the Congress will manage the oversight for the larger recovery

- Plan the seeds now for economic development in small areas

- Monitor closely the initial programs, and share successes and lessons learned

- Tailor the larger economic package to these early lessons and proven progress

- Work with world allies and foes to agree to put aside military differences, and embrace a spirit of joint-stakeholdership: In exchange for security guarantees, the US and her allies through the UN and Security Council will forgo profits, and help local populations share in regional wealth from commodity exports

- Develop regional centers of economic experiments that put into practice the solutions needed to recover, grow, and rebuild the world economy

Irrigation Projects To Develop Foreign Export Markets

As an analogy, the railway industry relied on private investments, there were many failures, but the railway system is a proven means of transporting goods. Similarly, the world must see that there is a plan in place to create export markets, bring resources to new areas, and plan the seeds for future growth.

The goal isn't to squander resources, but to create the near terms conditions that will inspire additional capital investment, risk taking, and a plan to support economic development.

The public needs to see physical progress in the ground in New Orleans in the context of this change in spirit in Congress. The Congress must apply these lessons learned from the expected progress in New Orleans to other areas.

Going forward, the US and world economy has one thing they can agree: That there is a finite amount of water. Ocean water can be transferred inland to water the seeds of regional economic development. This will give the public a chance to see specific plans which, when executed, are translating into measurable results.

Tangible Results

The public needs to see tangible results on the ground in New Orleans; and the commitment of the national leadership to try some new things in new economic zones, not just in the US but around the globe.

Going forward, in theory, if the public is willing to buy into a specific plan, then the financial markets will reap the benefits: The expected benefits of creating an export market would create a reasonable flow of expected future income streams that could finance current bonds needed to finance this investment.

One challenge will be in creating these financial instruments within the very financial reporting system which failed. Congress has a double problem of reforming the failures within the reporting and regulatory system; and at the same time using the system - which lacks credibility and confidence - to build the future.

We encourage the Congressional leadership to openly discuss the challenges ahead with the financial reporting and regulatory system in the context of this recovery plan; and specifically outline the proposals in terms the public can understand:

Some Leadership Benchmarks

- How will the supposed lessons of the 1930s, which were ignored or explained away after the 1980s, get embraced and re-injected into the regulatory system;

- Which specific financial mechanisms have known regulatory problems; and what was the compliance plan Congress wants to impose;

- What is the expected get well-date for these financial regulatory reforms; and what assistance (incentives) do corporations need to transition their assets from foreign tax havens to US taxing authorities;

- What financial incentives can the US provide to corporations to invest -- not just in the US, but future, foreign export markets -- when they are inclined to do the opposite: Reduce capacity and production lines, reduce workforce, and reduce credit lines.

The above is intended to be a similar outline of what Congress could provide to the public. Absent the above types of discussion points, it is difficult to have confidence in Congress, the options it is considering, or the prospects of economic recovery. 

Specifics 

Let's get into some of the details of what we're really talking about.

Candid Discussion of Real Risks

First, Congress should remove from its set of beliefs that the public doesn't want to hear about the worst case scenario. The possibility is well understood as a real risk.

The question is whether Congress, knowing this worst case risk, has the catalyst to act; or it is caught in the headlights. Debates and arguing over misguided plans is more of the same. The credible way forward is to confront what's failed in New Orleans, build on the existing successes in the US in regional development, and work with foreign powers to tailor these lessons to local economies.

Program Management Updates

Second, we encourage the program managers to get familiar with daily briefings on progress, plans, and results. These are not cabinet officers, but are people given power to conduct the day to day management of these international program efforts.

This isn't a financial position. It's a leadership position. Ones that are well versed on auditing, securities, legal compliance, program management, and long-range planning in infrastructure development.  The public needs to see a credible change in how the crew operates than what we've seen fail in re Katrina, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

New Leadership

Third, we encourage the Wall Street bankers to take, for now, a back seat. It appears they have too much influence over solutions that appear more of their interest, and do little to visibly address the needed public planning in Congress.

We would like to see private corporations demonstrate publicly, visibly how their proposed plans will fit into the vision of recovery. Stop the hand waving, but get very specific with:

- How the firm's goals, prosecutes, and services will contribute

- Demonstrate that you're putting these approaches into practice

- Facilitate real decision making that shows results

Auditing Progress

Fourth, the IGs need to get to work. There is massive catching up to do, not just because of the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan; but because of the destruction of institutional learning in the auditing world. If you need manpower, you need to be clear with your requirements, the skills you need.

After 9-11, the call went out, but there was no real national mobilization. If, as some suggest, this is a multi-year problem, then people entering high school will, when they graduate from college, be well positioned to provide additional support in these needed disciplines. This planning appears to have been lost in the wake of 9-11. That multi-year time frame is what Americans need to hear more about: So they can plan, made decisions now, and have a sense of how their future plans might fit into the planned recovery plans over the next decade.

Applying Lessons of Recent Failures

Fifth, we need to see a specific list of lessons learned from Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the DHS and FEMA; and show how these management problems will be - one-for-one - applied to how the future economic development efforts are managed.

Hopefully, despite the secrecy in Iraq, the US has some records of what went right or wrong; and we can build on those failures in Iraq, and adjust course to turn the set-backs into successes.

Secure Living Arrangements

Sixth, we need a specific plan of where the expected homeless are going to live. The US needs to start monitoring the number of homeless, monitor the street-level service providers, and ensure they are adequately trained to provide support.

The US government does not want to get caught throwing money at a problem, only to find that the very people entrusted with these dollars to help Americans are most in need of counseling support. We need to see a Congressional-level plan to create standards of excellence, training, and oversight for those who are going to directly interact with people who are soon to be suffering economically.

Protecting Fraud Whistleblowers

Seventh, we need to tailor the Department of Justice to expand its definition of civil rights to include adequate safeguards for whistleblowers who are reporting fraud or misconduct during this economic recovery.

The public needs to have confidence, despite the backroom deals on Wall Street, that there are mechanisms in place to responsibly report evidence of criminal activity; and that there are regularly systems in place that will be adequately staffed to investigate and address the concerns raised. We need to see a better owners of enforcement that doesn't rely on civil litigation; but one that combines the forces of the criminal arms of DOJ with the SEC enforcement division.

Reviewing Which1930's Reforms Were Ignored

Eighth, we need to have a line-by-line demonstration of the specific regulatory problems which surfaced after 1929 and were addressed with the 1933-4 Acts; and a discussion of which themes from the 1920s resurfaced; then a plan going forward to not only address the current regulatory gaps, but create an oversight system that will infuse these themes into future regulation on to-be devised financial products.

We need a clear statement of whether these institutional lessons can be entrusted only to a regulatory system; or whether we require Constitutional reforms that would make it more difficult to repeal or ignore.

Developing Foreign Export Markets

Ninth, we need to see a global-scale program which specifically identifies which foreign development efforts the US and her allies are sponsoring; and showing the planned development efforts; and how progress is being made to generate future revenue streams.

It would be appropriate for the President through the NSC to task the CIA to gather this information; and help transition some of the agents from combat-support to economic development and security monitoring in the developing areas. The public will be able to see tangle geographic maps, with progress in laying pipeline for water and irrigation, and showing the net improvement in forecasted cash flows, subject to independent auditing.

Understanding What Congress Was Focusing On, How Congress Needs To Adjust Oversight

Tenth, it would also be helpful for the Congressional leadership, when it outlines its plans, to be very specific with the indicators it will be using; and discuss why these indicators are going to get better attention than what appears to have been ignored 2001-9.

Congress needs to be specific with the indicators that it should have been monitoring 2001-9; and develop some public reporting products that will show how these indicators - going forward beyond 2009 - will be used to conduct independent oversight and review of the world and US economy; and what thresholds Congress will use to discuss new or adjusted risk mitigation plans.

UN Review

Eleventh, we need to get a better handle of what the Security Council was doing; and why it appears this disaster got this big before the concerns of the IMF took center stage. Security must include the times of economic developments we saw with the Marshall Plan. Was there no adequate spokesperson who had the statute to appear before the world community and generate attention?

This leadership requirement should not rely on personality, but be part of an ongoing review that cannot be cast aside as were the 1933-4 regulatory principles. If we're going to apply the lessons of the 2008-9 financial crisis, then we need to ensure three generations from now they're not wrestling with the same issues as we're doing this many years after the 1930s.

NSC Economic Monitoring

We also need to see a visible discussion of what broke down inside the National Security Council's economic intelligence mechanism. The public needs to have some confidence that whatever failed to assist the President 2001-9 will get the necessary reform; and adequately monitor progress and needed mid-course corrections.

We need to see some specific revenue targets by year; and how the proposed plans are going to specifically change these revenue targets. Discuss specific tax revenue assumptions; and the back-ups should these revenue targets not be achieved.

The public needs to see some evidence that the Russians and Chinese, along with others on the Security Council, are actively involved with the economic development efforts; and that the investment bankers are working to sustain the financial flows required for development, and for successful progress.

We'd also like to see some discussion on what percentage of the net wealth in the US is expected to get whipped out; over what duration; and the scope of bond losses. This will help the public understand more about risk; and the importance of diversification. This doesn't mean that the forecast will be accurate; but that if sufficiently spread, the bond losses should be far less than 100%.

Risk Assessments

We also need to understand why the securitization process - that of spreading risk - did not adequately isolate the problem; and what relationship the derivatives had on increasing the speed risk was spread, not contained.

It makes little sense to continue with an investment model which is not adequately reformed; but more foolish to not understand why IMF-level concerns about the financial risks were ignored. The issue is less what the problems were with the financial instruments, but with why, despite these risks, the risks were thought to be much more isolated than they were.

Moral Hazard

We also need to have an open discussion of the moral hazard. Congress may have decided to wait until the situation got bad before acting. The problem is that Congress, in waiting, may still not have the catalyst to do what is needed. As bad as things are and are expected to be, it may be premature for Congress to act: The real pain hasn't sunk in.

Conclusion

Americans are willing to do the right thing. The question is what is the right thing, and who is really getting the near term and long-term benefit. The understandable problem is that there appear to be few credible forecasts; and the most prudent are assuming the worst.

Hope isn't something that need be based on blind faith, but can be linked with something that is specific, measurable, and believable. Congress appears to be relying more on the hope of blind faith than in real hope that Congress will provide the leadership and implement a plan that will help turn this economy around.

Clarity Needed To Focus Public Action

Americans are willing to work diligently and sacrifice as long as their sacrifice is not shouldered by them alone; and that their contribution is seen as making a difference. One problem is that some Americans view this problem is something others created; and our specific role in solving the problem doesn't appear to be well defined. Congress needs to signal that it's willing to listen, discuss, and start doing what it's not well done 2001-9.

Public Must Oversee Congress

Putting the above aside, our task as Americans will be to monitor whether the Committees to respond, provide the leadership, and implement and oversee a coherent plan. If Congress refuses or fails, then the public should openly discuss the reforms needed to ensure Congress has the requisite leadership, tools, and will to do what it appears to not willingly do.

Congress needs help. It needs new authority. It needs a different type of monitoring system. Perhaps Congress, in secret, knows the answer, but is waiting for the situation to deteriorate.

It's up to Congress whether it steps up to the plate; or whether it requires the leadership of people marginally more interested in leadership to do what needs to be done. If Congress refuses or fails, the public should be ready to transition to a system of governance that will do what Congress refuses to do; and does achieve results despite the power of Congress to allocate resources.

Public Must Scrutinize Inadequate, Flawed Legislative Plans

The public is not obliged to continue blindly following a Congress that will not exercise leadership; nor one that will not sustain public support. Whether these are issues of personality, leadership, or systemic Constitutional problems are one the public - outside Congress - can easily debate and remedy through lawful means. The American public does not have a binding obligation to forever stick with a system of governance that proves unresponsive, unyielding, or incapable of effectively managing foreseeable problems.

Congress needs to signal that it is willing to support needed changes in corporate leadership; and that the managers and political leadership which rose to the tope during the era of complacency are adequately supervised, better trained, and, as needed, replaced by those who can do the job.

Public Must Look Beyond the Congressional Smokescreen

This country faces a problem because of a leadership problem. Members of the House have voted to continue supporting the current Speaker. They have chosen to bind themselves to the leadership which, apparently, missed the boat, and did not independently review the economic situation, nor provide the leadership to move us forward.

The real change didn't come from the Speaker, but from the Voters who have elected a new President. The question is whether the Congress can persuade Americans to continue supporting the same leaders who missed so much, and who still have yet to provide a clear statement of the problem, or their approach to moving the economy forward.

Congressional Oversight Fell Short of Promise

The America public's job isn't to do Congressional staff work; nor remind Member of Congress of the importance of leadership. Members of Congress are there because they -- somehow -- convinced us you're the right ones for the job.

Yet, how do Members of Congress explain:

Breakdown With Congressional Oversight, Leadership Model

- How did this mess happen, but there was no timely mitigation plan discussed  nor implemented?

- Who was making which arguments to not openly discuss these risks?

- What incentives were there to not openly discuss options?

- What else have Members of Congress glossed over?

- Who made which decisions to do nothing until the crisis was severe?

This financial crisis is one that American citizens will not be required to shoulder alone. Those in charge, including the mid-level managers, who have abused power, created smokescreens, and not tackled these problems have a mess on their hands. It's your mess. You're in charge of cleaning it up.

Monitoring Mid-level Corporate, Government Management

We're here to help, but the mess is your responsibility. That means if you refused to adjust, you will have a higher burden of proof to remain on the political stage.

Members of Congress, their staff, and peers in corporate management may have fooled many, enjoyed the rise to the leadership during the good times; now that the bad times are here, we'll learn whether you can be trusted to provide the leadership, make the case, and achieve the results reasonably expected of leadership.

Congress Remains on Probation

If you fail, the public has a reasonable basis to broadly examine what really failed; and examine what reforms are needed within the Constitutional system, not just governance, to ensure this recklessness is not repeated.

Constitutional Reforms Remain On Table

This problem did not appear out of the blue.  The question is whether the leadership will provide responsible leadership, or make more excuses not to confront the inherent leadership vacuum within the Congress.

If Congress gets this wrong, there will be an open discussion of what Constitutional reforms are required to ensure your reckless malfeasance is more timely, but lawfully removed from the political stage. Don't disappoint us. Either change, or change will be imposed upon you.