On October 3, 2008 Congress passed The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (with TARP). Just prior to that, both US Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke opined that the financial world was on the verge of collapse. Something had to be done immediately.

The legislators were told to vote for the legislation or face an unspeakable financial collapse worse than the great depression. Many fell into line. They had a cover. Experts told them of the potential collapse. There was no need to research the issue and consider alternative actions. Thus, financial institutions that procrastinated on developing foresight, got bailed out-even some that did not need a bailout!

Did Bernanke and Paulson see this crisis coming well in advance of its occurrence and then sit on their hands hoping that a tilting economic ship would right itself? Were they asleep at the wheel and woke up just before a crash? Was this dramatization of the impending financial collapse and bailout a version of the Chicken Little story where a panicked chicken caused others to think the sky was falling down?

If procrastination is an automatic problem habit of needlessly delaying a timely and relevant activity until another time, was the stabilization act an end product of multiple acts of procrastination by both governmental and financial organization officials?

Now comes The American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus Package). Officials asserted that the package needed to be immediately passed to stimulate the economy. This would keep unemployment below eight percent. In knee-jerk fashion, most congressional representatives voted to pass the legislation. The unemployment rate now hovers around 10%. Including people who have given up looking, the rate may be as high as 18-20%.

Was this Chicken Little time again? If the financial sky was truly falling, was the Stimulus Package enacted too late? Did congressional representatives, who added lard to the bill, expect that the economy would right itself soon enough? (Why worry about the cost today; things will be better later.) Who didn't read the bill yet voted for it? Do we have another case of political procrastination? How is this knee-jerk dynamic explained?

We've all seen what happens when elected public officials are faced with complex legislation that fills over 2000 pages. They'll tend to do what most people will do: do something diversionary. In this case, fighting for their party platform seems genuine enough. This is easier to do than read and understand the bill. But is it in the nation's long-term interest to sidetrack responsibility by thinking and acting in a party-centric way?

There is ample evidence to suggest that many elected officials avoided the complexity of the healthcare legislation by not reading the bill, acted with party-centric thinking, recycled the talking points of the partyleadership, and sent boilerplate letters to their constituents to cite the party position. Is this procrastination? I think so. What's the cost? If you pay taxes, they go up.

The Arizona Fiasco

If you took a final examination, and neither read the books nor attended the lectures, would you expect to pass the test?

US Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley denounced SB 1070, the Arizona Immigration Law. (Arizona legislators framed the law on federal immigration law.) Here is the rub. These three public officials did not read the Arizona law that they denounced. Janet Napolitano, for example, made a statement of belief about what she thought the law meant. This statement of belief represented a flimsy excuse for procrastination.

SB 1070 is an obvious hot button issue. Yet Holder and Napolitano took initiative to denounce the law before they read it. The law is brief and readable.

An omission in performing a timely and relevant activity is a form of procrastination (Knaus. 2010. End Procrastination Now. McGraw-Hill). Applying this definition, the three appointed officials procrastinated.

Is political procrastination new? Hardly! There is an Aesop's fable of an orator, Demades, who spoke before the Athens Greece Assembly 2500 years ago. He told a fable of fellow travelers: Dementer, a swallow, and an eel. The travelers came to a river without a bridge. Swallow flew over the river and eel swam under. The orator paused. Several asked what happened to Dementer. The orator answered: "Dementer is very angry with you for listening to fables when you ought to be minding public business." Times change. Things remain the same.

When it comes to procrastination, does it matter what political party is in power? Not as far as I can tell. 

Is there an antidote for political procrastination? The solution is simple, but not easy.

Pick the person, not the party. Strongly consider giving your vote to people with practical judgment with demonstrated ability to develop thought-out long-term views on vital issues and who demonstrate decisive (not impulsive) actions through planned follow through measures and adaptability. Avoid narcissistic type individuals whose agenda is "them" and who are likely to later operate with arrogance. Watch out for "ideologues" whose beliefs substitute for reason, where foot dragging  substitutes for competency, and where speeches are preachings filled with lofty promises and criticisms of others, while saying nothing of substance.  How do you know who they are? Don't procrastinate. Do your homework.

The process of getting capable people into office starts with an alert, educated, populace with developed critical thinking skills who can discern between political rhetoric and productive actions.

Dr. Bill Knaus