Vote for Your 3-Year Old in 2010!

In this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a University of Colorado, Boulder psychology professor published his findings from a study involving the cognitive development of toddlers. Now, surprisingly, PNAS is not on my "must read" periodicals list. I'm sure it's a fascinating publication, what with studies on "The capillarity of nanometric water menisci confined inside closed-geometry viral cages". I'll bet that's a real page turner.

Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."

In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.

The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."

In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.

Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.

Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.

How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.

Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.

Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.

Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.

Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.