Let Reason Prevail: A Request of Atheists

     I read a recent News article entitled "Atheists seek OK for banner at Christmas display."  It appears that a national atheist foundation sought to display its own banner among the other holiday displays on the courthouse grounds.  There seem to have been some objection to what seem to them only representation by those the Christian faith.  The county judge said that the grounds were open to anyone who wanted to add  religious symbols of their faiths to the holiday display.  The atheists seemed concerned that displays were permitted to represent any religious faith and were countering with a demand for the right to display their own.

     Any display of religious symbols are public  expressions of the faith of those erecting the displays. But these symbols should not be interpreted as saying anything about faiths--or lack of faith--of people not represented by those symbols.  

But the atheist, not only say that they believe in the "natural world"; they want to trash those who have religious beliefs.  That's not what people who display religious symbols are doing, at least, I hope it's not.

     These atheists want permission to display a banner which says:  "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL.  There are no gods, no devils,  no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enclaves minds."   But aren't atheists often guilty of the same things?  

     Religion no doubt has been used by certain people at various times in history to enslave the minds and hearten the hearts of the faithful, often against their neighbors.  But those were not among the basic teachings of major religions nor of their founders.  It might have been sufficient for the banner to simply said: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL."  Or simply say: "Atheists wish everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS."  There is nothing wrong with atheists or people of faith wishing happiness for others regardless of their religious faith or lack of faith.  It's evidence of not being closed-minded and "hard hearted."

     But atheists call for "REASON" to prevail seems quite appropriate.  So let's try it.  They believe only in "our natural world" as if anybody, including them, knows exactly what that is.  They believe that within a relatively few millions years (say a billion years) "our natural  world" produced some forms of living single-celled organisms from non-living matter.  But how did that primordial life came into being? Nevertheless, those one-celled organism went on to produce mankind, who is constantly discovering new aspects of our natural world, inventing new mathematics to describe it, and using that knowledge to invent smart telephones and technology unimaginable even by the creators of Dick Tracy.   

     Since we have no idea about the limits of "our natural world,"could it not be reasonable that during an eternity it could produce a supreme being that is infinitely more creative than human beings, and who could set into motion those aspects of reality with which we are familiar and others with which we are capable of becoming acquainted?  And any natural world that can create superior intelligence must be enabled by someone or something possessing something that is superior to intelligence.  (I'm just reasoning.) 

     But with everything about "our natural world" that we observe and infer but don't understand and that we don't even know about (visit "Fabric of the Cosmos" on pbs) atheists are willing to conclude that for reasons that defy reason, that God cannot not exist there.

     There appear to be only two choices:  Either "our natural world" with perhaps an infinite IQ  always existed or a supreme being (God) with an equal or perhaps superior attribute.  Both are incomprehensible.   The question about who made either one is legitimate.  I'd rather rather believe there be a supreme, rational being determining what our natural world will be rather or how it will behave than a randomly acting natural world whose only creative tool in trial and error, and that allows anything to happen and makes anybody and anything possible.  However, I Two options are all that I can see.   

     So when atheists ask us to reason, just based on what we know about ourselves and what scientists are learning everyday about ourselves and "our natural world," reason leads us to conclude that we live or exist in a reality of infinite possibilities but not infinite disorderliness.  As long as "our natural world has existed no one has ever found an intelligent telephone, a telescope or any such contraption that nature world built.  Mankind with intelligence had to build them.  

      Yet, the disbelief of atheists is understandable.  That any being could be so awesomely powerful and so incomprehensibly intelligent is unimaginable.  But that's why God is referred to The Supreme Being; He has attributes that aren't in any dictionary.

     So much for the reasoning, though, the inevitability of God hadn't worked for Christopher Hitchens, renown and thoughtful atheist whose interviews many enjoyed.  At least it hadn't at the time of a interview of him after he became ill.  He assured CNN's Anderson Cooper that if anybody heard that he finally found God on his death bed, not to believe it. It will have happened without his permission, to paraphrase. Another renowned atheists, however, admitted considering the possibility that, after death, he might end up somewhere he didn't expect to be.  

     Hitchens and William F. Buckley, Jr. were people with whom I often disagreed, but who compelled me to see the other sides of issues and look for any merits that might exist in opposing opinions.

      Most atheists (in contrast to those who just choose to ignore God) are good, honest, fair-minded people who, like the Biblical Cornelius and his family, know what is right--and do it--without any apparent religious influence.  Jesus has said that no man comes to the Father except by Him.  I believe He will give such people permission to pass on by.

    

President Obama: A Toothless Tiger

December 14, 2011

To:  The Editor                                        

     The President of the United States has been rendered a toothless tiger.  He can roar and growl during his political speeches about the economy and the needs to create jobs, but the fact remains that fellow Democrats defanged the President--and Democrats in Congress--when they did not get out the vote during the 2010 congressional elections.  

     Democrats, including the President, apparently did not recognize the threat that Republican successes posed to the Democrats' agenda.  Even as polls were saying that there would be Republican gains sufficient to take control of the House, Democrats were not telling voters why such a transfer of power would be a disaster for the middle class.  They took the polls as evidence of a movement that they could do nothing about.  Mitch McConnell had already stated the Republican goal was making President Obama a one-term president.  Yet the President did not recognize or anticipate the threat that a Republican-controlled House and the lack of a veto-proof Senate would provide to his presidency.  

     Democrats seemed to have taken for granted that the voter turnout  will always vote less during the mid-term elections regardless of what they did.  To the contrary that should have motivate Democrats to be even more politically active, and make sure that this election was one of the exceptions. 

     I rode around town on election day, seeing if I could find neighborhood signs encouraging voters to vote, and to vote for Democrats.  I did not find any.  Maybe Republican supporters pulled up the signs, but I didn't hear of any such complaints from Democrats.

     Democrats need the votes of the poor and minorities to win.  But increasingly, the poor and minorities are becoming disenchanted because their conditions don't change regardless of who is president or who controls Congress.  Democrats don't even promise to do anything for them anymore.  Their votes, historically, have helped to significantly improved the economic status of members of the middle class and the working poor.  But when middle class members have made it, they have not always used their good fortune to give the less fortunate comrades a helping hand.

     Members of the working poor and non-working poor are not by nature significantly less intelligent than are those in higher income brackets.  This is especially true of members of many black American communities.  What there are less of, though, are environments that encourage, inspire and provide the role models of success and possibilities both within their families and within their communities.  These conditions can be overcome, but usually not without the help of people who know how to make a difference and care enough to try.       

     Consequently, even though many Americans believe there are good reasons to vote for Democrats next November, the wide range of incomes among middle-class families make common ground among them meaningless in terms of the amenities that are possible both within and among the various income levels.

     Who is the middle class, anyway?  Do middle-class families earn yearly, $40-250 thousand a year?  What does a family which earns $40 thousand a year have in common with one which earns $250 thousand per year?  Do families with yearly earnings of $250 thousand have more in common with those with yearly earning of $50 thousand or those with yearly earnings of $500 thousand?.

     Within each wealth class there are people who are seeking to move up within that level or to more to another level of wealth.  Those who are in positions either by educational preparation, intelligence, access to people with influence or other qualities which enable some people to move up the economic ladder faster and further than others don't have a common vision with others about what is best for their situations and expectations.

      Many Americans who are in the upper middle class are satisfied with conditions as they are.  Most of them are living within their means--not trying to live like they are millionaires.  But many of those in the lower middle-class and working poor don't read or listen to political news often enough or with sufficient attention to issues to recognize them, care about them, or take positions about them.  And, unfortunately, they did not hear much advice and encouragement from trusted--often elected--Democratic leaders that might have gotten them out to the polls.

     President Obama had a chance to extend the middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits until January 1, 2012, as was agreed to for the Bush tax cuts,.  Allowing them to terminate on December 31, 2011 made no sense, unless the Bush tax cuts also stopped.  

     Future tax cuts should cease for the wealthy on January 1, 2012, as scheduled,  but tax cuts for the middle class should be phased out over ten years.  Members of the middle class are more likely to be severely impacted by any sharp and immediate increases in taxation.

     President Obama's most pressing problems, however, are (1) that there may too many voters who have lost hope that their conditions will change regardless of who is president, and (2) that there is another group within the middle class which may be satisfied with any person as president who appears to assure that their financial conditions either improves or do not change.  

     Democrats get another chance--maybe their last one--to make a compelling case why both groups should vote, and why they should vote for them.

Deregulations Enhance Uncertainty

       I'm having trouble understanding how fewer regulations lead to more certainty both in the operation of businesses and within the economic system where these businesses are seeking to find certainty?  Many businesses have become like poker players who want to stay in the games, where they have already become big winners, but only if their chips are given double value.  Playing that kind of game certainly makes increasing their winnings more likely.  But it also more likely--if not inevitably--makes more of the other players bigger losers.

       Deregulating is like suggesting that fewer rules and officials increases the chances that football and basketball games will be played more fairly.  While there certainly can be too many rules in a game, such as requiring football linemen to always be a certain number of inches from the line of scrimmage, or requiring the quarterback to not take more than four steps before throwing a pass or handing off the ball.  The rules applying to football now seem about right.   From time to time rules are changed as circumstances justify them.  But the rules aren't changed just because some running backs aren't able to make runs pass the line of scrimmage or some quarterbacks can't complete enough of their passes.

      So far, I have not heard the argument that too many regulations being properly monitored is what caused our financial disaster.  President Obama has said he is willing to review all regulations and make changes where a good case can be made for changing or eliminating them--and already has changes some.  But deregulating so that some businesses can take unfair advantage of either consumers or other businesses is kind of certainty that reasonable people would not consider constructive in an economy struggling to recovery its better days.

     Businesses have never had the certainty that they would make profits--or even survive.  Businesses go our of business somewhere, everyday.  Uncertainty is built into American capitalism.  But now a days, some big businesses want regulations that will guarantee that their teams always score touchdowns, that dropped balls will never be called a fumble, and that they will not be required to play a better game than the competition in order to win.

     When I was a boy, our baseball games often were played in the streets with the balls and bats of other children.  But the boy that owned the bat (a broomstick) and ball (a wormed tennis ball) didn't say that unless we gave him five strikes he was taking his bat and ball home.  Some businesses want five strikes and their right hand touched at first base before they can be called out.  They can say that because they own the bats and balls.

      Republicans say that placing higher taxes on businesses hurt job creators.  But how can that be true?  Businesses say they are refusing to hire more workers, not because they don't have enough money, but because there either are not enough of the kinds of people they need to hire or there is not a sufficient market for more of their products or services.  How then can giving these businesses access to more money by reducing their taxes produce more qualified job applicants and more consumers for their products?  And how can taxing them a little bit more and reducing their profits a little bit change those reasons?

     What kinds of regulations and certainties do businesses want, the kinds that existed before Barack Obama became president--the kinds that caused the Great Recession?  Are these the kinds of regulations and certainties that Republicans are pledging to reinstate?  Overturning regulations intended to prevent the kinds of intentional missteps that caused the Great Recession cannot be justified.  Neither, however, can over-regulating.  

     Who, then, should make decisions about what regulations are appropriate to equitably distribute uncertainty, and fairly serve all classes of Americans?  And by what processes are fair and just regulations most likely to be achieved?  Fair or not, it appears that those who own the bats and balls are most likely to make those decisions.  And whatever decisions they make will be proclaimed also to be good for the rest of us.

     An emerging problem with our American capitalism is that it is operating within a climate of uncertainty reinforced by internal conflicts and contradictions about the importance of propriety, ethics and morality in our society.  Winston Churchill called old Russia "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."  That's beginning to define attitudes, politics and economics in America.

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Identifying and Assessing Obama's Economy

    The claim is being made by Republicans that the present US economy belongs to President Obama.  They're really talking to people who they hope do not know that Obama is dealing with a terrible economy produced by the actions of President George W. Bush:  two unfunded wars (one a war of choice), tax cuts that that were not paid for and which did not produce jobs, an unpaid-for prescription drugs plan and the Great Recession.  Republicans are hoping that lll of these economic missteps have either been either forgotten or never known.   Be that as it may, these are the main elements of the Bush's economy which ended in January 2009

     But let's see what constitutes what Republican are choosing to call "Obama's economy" since January, 2009.  If the present economy is Obama's economy the he certainly could only take credit or blame for those things that are the result of his ideas. 

(1) President Obama inherited Bush's Great Recession. (That was Obama's fault because, knowing what the economic condition of the country was, he still chose to seek the  presidency.)  

(2) He stabilized the banking system and prevented a depression.  (3) He established regulatory reform intended to prevent the same reasons to cause another recession or exacerbate the present one.  

(3) He extended unemployment benefits during the recession.  

(4) He reduced taxes on middle-class workers.  

(5) He pass a health-care law, which even Obama realizes needs fixing.  (He got the best he could get with a shaky super Democratic majority in the Senate.)  

(6) A treaty was signed with the Soviet Union.  

(7 Job loss steadily decreased and eventually has resulted in job gains.  (The unemployment rate remaining at 9.1% reflects that job gains are keeping up with growth of Americans entering the job market.  More jobs are needed to bring that percentage down.  Republicans are trying to make sure that does not happen.  

(8) Obama saved the three American auto companies, saving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers.  

(9) He passed a stimulus plan that created and saved the jobs of over 4 million teachers, fire fighters and policemen and policewomen, though he hoped it had done more.  (Republicans say that the stimulus failed, though they knew it had some success because many of them accepted the money to save jobs in their states.)  

(10) Several Al Caeda leaders were killed, including Osama bin Laden, and Moammar Gadhafi was deposed because of the leadership of Obama.  

(11) The President is trying to solve the nation's short- and long-term economic problems with a rational blend of $4 trillion worth of spending cuts and revenue enhancement.

(12)  President Obama has been willing to compromise: consider tort reform in connection with health-care reform and place entitlements on table in order to address national debt consistent, both consistent with the voters wishes that there be more bipartisanship in Washington and contrary to the wishes of his political base.

     These are only a partial list of the things the President has done and tried to do during the "Obama economy."   And all that Obama has done still has failed to completely rescue the country from the economic wounds inflicted by the Bush Administration.  Most of the people who are still out of work were put out of work by the deeds of  George W. Bush.   Their unemployment is not part of Obama's economy.  And Obama has not started any new wars. 

      However, wealthy people, who were further enriched by the Bush tax cuts, have not had many children fighting in the wars that George W. Bush started.  Wealthy people whose families have not as a group joined fellow Americans on the battlefields of Asia and the Middle East, should feel it their responsibility to support the nation with some of their money during this period of financial crisis.  They should gladly help restore a thriving economy in this country so it can provide jobs and proper care for those children of the poor and middle class who did their part fighting, dying and being injured on those dusty battlefields.  They did it for all Americans.  These wealthy Americans will more than make those surtaxes back in a thriving economy.

     Despite the consistent and often irrational opposition by the Republican Party, the Obama presidency has been quite good so far.  When Republicans say that because of what Obama has achieved--or tried to achieve--they cannot stand four more years of Obama in the White House, they're right:  They can't stand it, but the majority of the American people probably can.

     This economy belongs to Obama only (1) if he caused the economic troubles (He didn't.), or (2) if his attempts to fix the economy had Republican support. (They didn't.), or (3) if the economy--regardless of its condition when Obama became president--got even worse.  (It didn't.)

     If the Super Committee fails to come up with the Big Deal, look of our credit ratings to fall.  And if Republicans gain the White House, expect  ratings to sink to A or B level, and interest rates to skyrocket.

     Despite the "Occupy" movement, Senate Republicans continue with their votes on jobs to scream, "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!

     Why the media think Obama will be blamed in the 2012 for things he did not cause is either a reflection of their own poor judgement or their low opinion of the judgment of the American voters.  

     Voters may have bad understandings because of media failure to challenge lies,  allowing unchallenged lies, too often, to be perceived as truth.

Raising Cain (A Revision)

 I'm beginning to be concerned about the way Herman Cain is being treated during the controversy about his alleged sexual harassment.  I'm concerned as a black (I learned that from Herman Cain).  I'm concerned for the same reason that many--if not most--women think he is getting his due.  I'll admit, there are some things about which I'm not able to be objective--though in those circumstances I realize that I could be the one that is wrong. 

     I am not aware of every statement that Herman Cain has made related to accusations against him by potentially as many as three women who either worked under him or in his presence as he served in some kind of leadership position.  My reaction has not been to whether he is guilty or not guilty as accused.  My reaction is to the media having rendered him "guilty until found innocent" in Cain's words.

     There are people of various persuasions who are pulling for the women to be telling the truth and others pulling for Cain to be telling the truth.  One or the other is not telling the truth, or both are telling the truth.  From what I have heard, there does not seem to be enough information surfacing to know what the truth is.

     This is what I know.  For some reason two women surfaced to announce that they had been sexual harassed by Herman Cain.  I have heard no reason why these women chose to release that information or otherwise make that assertion.

Did they not like Herman Cain because he is a black American?  Was it because he is a black American conservative?  Was it because it because they do not believe a man who has done such things should ever become President of the United States?  Or was there some other reason?  Regardless of what it was, there was something that motivated their decisions.

     The women want Cain to grant them the privilege to speak out about the alleged sexual harassment.  But why would he do that?  If they are telling the truth, he won't want them to tell it.  And if they are not telling the truth, why would he want them to  lend support to the suggestions that are being promulgated by the media?

     The media is saying that Cain is changing his story.  Well, based on what I have heard, he has.  But the story seemed to change when he was attempting to explain different aspects of the history surrounding the accusations.

     The latest information to surface suggest that during a previous senatorial campaign eight years ago he told his campaign manager that there had been a sexual harassment complaint made against him that might surface as an issue in the campaign.  He did not say he had been guilty of sexual harassment.  The media is treating that information as a confession of guilt.

     This manager ends up in Rick Perry's struggling campaign.  Was he added to the Perry team because he said he had some useful information? Did Perry know about that information before it was released?  Probably not.  He would have been provided a shield of deniability. 

     Cain said that he may have said or did something that someone might have interpreted as sexual harassment, which is possible.  We don't know the details of how the case was resolved.  Was Cain found to be guilty or were the findings inconclusive for some reason?  And if the evidence was conclusive, why did the women settle for merely a reportedly $35, 000.00? 

     A second witness has surfaced who says that he saw the sexual harassment happen, and a third woman who said she was sexually harassed by Cain and started to file a complaint but decides against it.

     I don't know why Herman Cain is receiving persistent attention to his possible involvement with these women, while the media stopped questioning Senator John McCain during his run for the presidency when he said he would answer no more questions about an alleged extra-marital affair.  These two acts are certainly different situations but not different enough in the moral severity to deserve such unequal levels of coverage. 

     What is it that Cain is supposed did?  Was it something he said, something he did or something he wanted to do?

     Was Cain a Republican at the time of the alleged incidents?  Were the women Democrats?  And if they were, was the incident made more objectionable because Cain was a Republican?

     Or was it an arrogance within Cain that made him feel empowered, because of his position, to seek liberties with these women that resulted in confrontations exaggerated because of ideological conflicts between the parties.

     I still have not idea what the truth is.  But neither do the media, though they talk as if Cain is the only player not telling the truth.  Has anybody volunteered to take a  lie-detector test?

     

US Needs Blend of Ideologies

     Sometimes conservatives are right.  There is some merit to their argument that safety nets create dependency by people who might otherwise be self-sufficient if they were so compelled and strove to so be.

     The Republican plan of having Social Security remain as is for those who are 55 years or older may be all right if Social Security for those younger than 55 years was phased out so that younger people become increasingly more responsible for more of their retirement needs.

     For example, a person who is 54 years of age would receive at 65 years of age 96% of expected Social Security and Medical Care coverage and would pay 96% of expected Social Security taxes.  That person will have 11 years to save up enough money to make up the differences in benefits.  They could buy some kind of supplementary insurance with the savings, save it, or invest it..

     A person who is 52 would receive 92% of expected benefits from SS and MC.  SS taxes would be 92% of expected cost.  The person 3 years longer (13 years)  to prepare for reduced benefits.

    A person who is 50 would receive 88% in benefits, pay 88% less in cost and have 5 years longer (11 years) to save for retirement costs.

    A person who is 48 would receive 84%, pay 84% and have 7 years longer to save (17 years).

    Finally, a person who start work at age 22 would pay for 46% of coverage, pay 46% of the cost, and have 47 years to save for retirement.

    This scheme has possibilities if people save, if they know how, where, how much and when to save and if they can anticipate or determine what their retirement needs would be in the future.  

     For wealthy people--many of whom are among those most critical of people who need SS and MC--the uncertainty of those needs is not a problem because most of them have inherited wealth.  Or as Rev. Al Sharpton recently put it: These are people who "were born on third base, and are acting like they hit a triple."

    But for those who must fit retirement plans into the need to live in the present on modest incomes, this is a problem.  How much health and life insurance can a family afford?  How well will children be clothes and fed?  In what kinds of homes and neighborhoods will the family live?  What colleges and universities can the children attend?  How many and what kinds of family vacations will there be?  Must both spouses work?    

     These are just some of the decisions that would affect the kinds of retirements for which people can reasonably prepare.  This can be done.  There are people who are doing it.  But people must have plans for doing it successfully.  High school economics classes could be places where students learn how to make such plans.

     But there seems to be a refusal by most conservatives to realize that not all people have the same financial skills or interests.  They don't have the same families,  parents, spouses, colleagues, associations through organizations, or teachers that can influence their skills, interests and commitments.  For these people a mandatory system of retirement planning is necessary.  Social Security and Medicare both anticipates and addresses those needs.

     Does Social Security tend to make people less independent in providing for their own retirement?  For some people that is true.  For most people, the best we can say is "we don't know."  But enabling people to prepare for their own retirement in a mutual effort with others still seems like a reasonable approach to address that uncertainty.  People pay into pension plans or buy insurance: to address periods of need which may occur at unexpected times and during periods of family uncertainty--like the present.  Social Security is multiple insurance.

     Conservative are right, however, in suggesting that our welfare system tend to promote and encourage dependency by people who have the abilities and talents not only to take care of themselves but also to make significant contributions to our economic, social and political systems.  

      But how can that talent be harnessed?  And how can we identify those who have the potential to become independent, contributing members of society, and distinguish them from those who likely will need our help?  For some people, taking care of the most vulnerable is more economical--and humane--than trying to make everyone financially independent and having them suffer the consequences if they aren't.  Safety nets are important. 

     Unfortunately, too many conservatives have acquired an unChristian-like indifference about those who come upon hard times.  They believe that the conditions of the less fortunate are always their fault, and never the fault of the circumstances which both generate and perpetuate their conditions.   Poor schools and poor teachers, for example, contribute to poor performance as adults, whereas

having the best schools and teachers contribute to success.  A country, therefore, must be guided by a blend of conservative and liberal ideas because its people will always be a blend of those who need help and those who don't.     

      Liberals--and perhaps most conservatives--believe we must prepare those who are most able to be independent, and care enough to help those who are less able so they can experience a quality of life that at least satisfies their desires and basic needs.  Most poor people don't need much to be happy, and those who are not happy with their conditions usually find ways to overcome them.  Many of our most successful people emerged from very humble circumstances.

     Lee Hamilton states it in a recent News column that the American people "don't want big government or small government, but smart government.  They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done."  For everyone, I might add.  Voters get another chance in 2012 to get it right.

Cain Vote Gets Money Out of Politics

     The presidential campaign of Herman Cain is cause for concern for many members of the Republican Party.  There is the fear by some that, even if Cain somehow wins the Republican nomination, he could not possibly win against President Obama.  Others fear that in a contest against Obama, Cain might actually win.  Such is the nature of the party. 

     Herman Cain would like to be the second black president in the White House.  And some black Americans--maybe even Cain himself--would even welcome the chance to have what they consider a "real black man" there.  Without giving Cain candidacy more credibility than it deserves, though, we must give him credit for having run well, thus far.      

     The idea has been floated that the Mitt Romney campaign encouraged his supporters to vote for Cain in the Florida straw vote, hoping a substantial Cain victory would create a ground swell of support for Cain, and, given the choice of Romney or Cain, conservative Republicans would choose Romney.  And the fact that Republicans are using their control in state governments to pass legislation that suppresss opposition votes suggest they certainly would not be averse to using unscrupulous means to attain a politician advantage over each other.

      But whatever is the political fate of Herman Cain--and regardless of why it has happened--he is currently making a serious run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  The main question concerning the viability of Cain's candidacy seems to be whether his intelligence and management skills can offset limited political skills and limited awareness of worldwide circumstances.

      Cain is a conservative Republican.  And the meaning of conservatism does not change just because the person espousing the ideology is black.  The only difference between black and white conservatives is that one can be reasonably sure that black-conservative opposition to liberals has nothing to do with race.     

      Cain has said that black Americans have been brainwashed, and many black people have been offended by the comment.  Some of that feeling may be due to the fact that there is some truth to it.  Certainly, many black people vote based on a trust they have in black leaders who are advocates--often paid advocates--for the Democratic Party.  By that definition white voters are similarly "brainwashed."

     The leanings of Black Americans toward the Democratic Party began and evolved through the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, which led to Civil Rights Laws in 1948.  That confidence in the Democratic Party grew under the leadership of the Democratic Party during the 1960s, as black Americans demanded--and finally achieved--many rights due to us as American citizens.          

     The fact is, however, that black Americans don't know what they could have achieved had their votes not been pledged to Democrats.  Black people never forced Democrats and Republicans to bid for their votes with promises of fairness.  Both black voters are swing votes that perhaps could have force attention by both parties to the issues of social and economic justice.  But present congressional Republican aren't even inspiring confidence among fellow Republicans.

     Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have merits, not necessarily in the numbers but potentially in the concept or model  The numbers may not be the right mix.  Perhaps they should be 7-8-9, 5-10-15 or some other combination.  The merits of the model would ultimately be evaluated in terms, not merely of its simplicity, but of its potential to lead to consensus on taxation and spending in a manner that  grows the economy and reduces--and eventually eliminates--the number of people who are too poor to pay taxes.  Such a simple plan would not necessarily, as is often claimed, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as national safety nets.  The core 9-9-9 plan--or whatever numbers it contains--would not become law as presented by Cain during the primary debates.  It would be debated and amended by both houses of Congress before a presidential signature makes the plans law.

     A political candidate cannot be liberal and conservative at the same time, as some black Americans think Cain should be, and which Mitt Romney is trying to shed the image of trying to be).  When Cain says that Wall Street protesters should not blame Wall Street but themselves, which is the conservative message, he did not mean they should blame themselves for not blaming President Obama, which is also a conservative message.  But he also did not mean those protesters who have done the right things but are victims of present economic conditions.  

     He did mean those who had not applied themselves sufficiently in school to prepare themselves for present and emerging job markets, and I would add those who were eligible but did not vote for Democrats during the 2010 elections.  But Americans cannot help if we are in denial of the extents to which certain malfunctions exist within many American families and communities, and within the psychic of many Americans. 

     Conservative Americans who gave Republicans control over Congress in 2010 did not send them to Washington to govern the way they have so far--and they did not campaign that they would.  The support of Herman Cain could just be a message to Republican members of Congress that constituents disapprove of their representatives representing Grover Norquist and not them.  Many of them are  sending a message to congressional Republicans about the 2012 election results unless they change their acts in Washington.

     Cain justifies his 9-9-9 plan by contending that math suggesting it won't work is flawed and that opponents don't understand the plan because they are confusing apples with oranges.  But distorting the truth and making people believe what is not true has been a recent Republican strategy.  Why shouldn't Republicans try it on each other?

     Meanwhile, the liberal media are criticizing Cain and his 9-9-9 plan as if they fear he could actually become president.  Or maybe that's what they would like conservative Republicans to believe is the case.  Anyway, he is being criticized more than--and including by--those who have no plan.

     More importantly, though, a vote for Cain might help get money out of politics.

About Not Following "Strangers"

     The problem facing the United States is that too many people who want the United States to be perceived as being the leader of a diverse world are having problems appreciating diversity within their own borders.

      A majority of Americans claim to be Christians, but increasingly Christianity seems more about talking the talk than walking the walk.

     Several years ago, Rev. Andrew Jason, a late associate minister at the church where I am a member, preached the sermon.  He began by recounting for the audience a time when, after many years, he revisited his home community back in rural Louisiana. 

     He said that he knocked on the door of a home of one of his parents old friends--  he wasn't even sure if anyone still lived there.  But soon an old man opened the door, and before he could tell the old man who he was, the old man looked at him and said, "You must be Andrew Jason's son.  Come on in."  The subject of Rev. Jason's sermon that Sunday was "If you are a child of God, you don't have to tell anybody who you are."

     Jesus said that we know a tree by the fruit it bears.  He also said that His sheep know his voice and they will not follow a stranger.  Too many American Christians don't know whether to follow Jesus or strangers.  Jesus said we can't follow both.

However, strangers of different persuasions have convinced many Americans that they indeed can follow both.  Following Jesus to church on Sundays and following strangers Monday thru Saturday allows us to get along better with family members and neighbors, in the work place, and with church-roll strangers.

     If blind men still begged, present-day Republican Christians would require them to pay income tax on the day's collections.  Instead of  putting something in the cup, many of them would favor the government's taking something out.  They want the government out of their own business but wouldn't object to government intervening in the blind man's business.  

     Even today, some Republican would have them back of the corners begging.  They may not be saying it publicly now, but they thinking it.  These are the kinds of strangers that present-day Republicans--and some independents are following.

     But this suggestion that I'm making about Christians too often not sounding or behaving like followers of Jesus is not intended to ignore the merits of conservative arguments that our "welfare state" does encourage some of our people to be dependent on government, and on the wealth of more fortunate Americans.  For those who would have achieved greater independence were it not for such government assistance--sharing the wealth--the welfare system is a handicap.  But for those who would not have become independent but would have been even worse off without assistance, the system has been a necessary safety net.

     Recognizing, therefore, that there are if fact people who will need our help as badly as do those who are blind or mentally challenged demands appropriate actions.  We act as if we have forgotten that people are born whose intelligence ranges from the most severely mentally challenged to the most gifted geniuses.   These people don't have equal chances in their pursuit of happiness.

     Not only do people differ in their intelligence levels, individual differ in many other qualities over which they have no control, such as: educational and employment opportunities; self and other's motivation; encouragement; role models; predispositions; ethnic diversities; kinds of friends and classmates; neighborhoods; religious faiths (or no faith),; home environments,;education, wealth and influence of parents; quality of schools; whether parents are on welfare; personal attitudes and attitudes of others; etc.  

     Those who criticize those who have not achieved their potential because of the welfare system has encouraged it should therefore consider the factors which more often than not contribute to underachievement and welfare dependence.

      Let's face it, though.  If many of these people who are unemployed or on welfare had had in their lives all or at least many of the advantages that contribute to economic success, they would have the jobs of some of those who criticize them because they would have become better qualified.  So many who are employed who are glad that some people are satisfied to receive welfare  and food stamps.  They don't mind contributing financially to keep them there--or they shouldn't.

     But there is a increasing number of people who don't want to help them on welfare and food stamps but also don't want to help them.

     For the rest of the complainers, those who don't follow strangers, let's provide as many as we can of those factors which contribute to success.  Let schools work on student work habits, their skills, their attitudes toward themselves and their futures.  Discuss what schools, houses of worship and communities should be doing.  Discuss why each is failing and what can be done to help them succeed.  Discuss how homes, churches and community can both help and be helped through these endeavors.

     When great majorities of Americans say in all major polls that they favor the wealthy paying higher taxes in order to take some of the nation's financial burden off the backs of the poor and middle class, most of them aren't talking about class warfare; they're responding to a calling for that "Old Time Religion" that was good enough for their parents and grandparents, and used to be good enough for them.  There is a yearning for the joy of their salvation that once made them "kinder," "gentler" and more compassionate.

     Republican presidential candidate Mitch Romney says he believes that the United States is God's pick to lead the world's nations.  But how can the United States ever become God's world leader if the American people no longer allows Him to touch their minds, shape their thoughts and guide their decisions and behavior.  God can't lead a country when strangers lead the people. 

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink,net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com    

A Deadly Return to the Master

      Several years ago, I heard news of a man who had been witnessed stabbing his dog and throwing it into the Houston ship channel.  But the dog did not die.  Instead, it swam back to shore and, wagging its tail, returned to its master.  Whereupon, the master stabbed the dog again--this time fatally--and threw it again into the channel.  The newsman concluded that it was as if the dog had returned to the master, saying "I forgive you.  I know you didn't mean what you did.  I'll give you another chance."  

      Memories of this incident came back to me as I tried to justify Republican supporters in present-day American politics, and to assess the Republican Party's opinion and betrayal of average American voters, 

     During the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, middle-class Americans and the working poor of all political persuasions were stabbed with frozen incomes, despite incomes rising for wealthy and well-to-do Americans.   Before Obama even thought about being president, unfortunate Americans were being victimized by rising unemployment.  The economic injuries inflicted by Bush's Great Recession took its toll on American workers, and Republicans had--and still have--no reasonable remedy to treat the wounds.  Their solution is always not do whatever President Obama did or would like to do.

     Americans of all political persuasions are hurting because of Republican wounds inflicted during those years.   Still, many of these wounded Americans believe Republicans just made mistakes, that they are sorry for their deeds and will do not do it again.  But Tigers don't shed their stripes, and they don't lose their appetite for deer, just because they failed to catch more than one during the last chase.  The beast waits for another election day, the master, another chance to kill.

      Enters, though, an intelligent young man who talked about the need for a united America, and a need for change to address the injuries an unregulated Wall Street had inflicted on America's workers.  A Republican regulated Wall Street had stabbed the American economy and thrown it into the channel.   Convincing themselves that Republicans and Wall Street, which they failed to regulate, were really not bad people, and that they did not mean to do any harm, the American people bailed out the banks and saved other businesses primed for collapse.   

     But Wall Street stabbed the American economy and American workers again by not hiring and not lending to businesses that would, thus throwing consumers into the channel of hopelessness.

     Last November, the American consumer, of whom were already unemployed said with their votes or with the ballots they did not cast, we know you Republican did not mean to freeze our salaries during the Bush presidency.  We forgive you for not knowing that the housing bubble would eventually burst, causing the values of our homes to decline.  We forgive you for not knowing that if jobs were be lost at an accelerated rate, that eventually the unemployed would include people who needed a check or tow to finance their standard of living.  We forgive you for not realizing that stagnant salaries and reduced incomes would render families unable to both save and to keep up with expenses.  But we forgive you because we know you did not really mean us any harm.   

     Well, the forgiven party has shown its appreciation for the trust the American people have placed in them by stabbing them again by blocking every effort Democrats make to rescue them and treat their economic wounds.

     Republicans are asking, again, for a chance to finish the kill, and many Americans still can't believe that Republicans would mistreat them.  Not all Republicans are misguided.  But most Republicans who are running and winning in recent elections seem to be of a different breed, motivated and financed by a kind of American that are alien to the promises of America.

     Most people don't change in terms of how they vote.  That loyalty has been mostly  because the economic status of most people's did not change, no matter who represented them in government.  And they were certain that the people in business and government were honest people who were busy looking after their best interests, not using unsavory ways to look out for their own.

     But these times are different.  The past ten years have affected Americans as never before.  The 2000 election of George W. Bush could go down in history as ushering in the demise of the greatest, most compassionate and most influential military, financial and creative giant the world has ever known.

      The pope reportedly issued a recent warning to the German people.  Quoting the article: "The Pope spoke for 20 minutes in the Reichstag, which was torched in 1933 in an incident used by Hitler to strengthen his grip on power. 'We Germans know from our own experience' what happens when power is corrupted, Benedict said, desecrating Nazis as a highly organized band of robbers, capable of threatening the whole world and driving it to the edge of the abyss'. "  The American people are in need of such a speech by the Pope.   We think people who desire to be dictators are only in Germany or other countries, never are such people in the United States.

       The Pope's scary words should remind Americans of the reasons they vote--or should vote.  Serious thought must be given to which party members deserve a second chance.  

    

Getting Real about Jobs and Debt on C-span (A Revision)

      The President, the Speaker and the congressional Super Committee need to outline job-creating ideas in detail, including how jobs will be created, how many good jobs they will generate and why it will happen.  If they believe a lower tax rate for businesses will generate jobs, it should be because businesses have promised to do so.  We should know how many jobs businesses promise, and have triggers that will tie the rates of tax relief to rates of hiring.    If businesses have made such promises, there should be a time-frame for hiring to begin.  

     Also, there must be the realization that businesses are not the only ones who need "certainty."  Governments also need certainty, and workers need it because they are also consumers.  Workers should consider how certainty might be increased  by sharing either work time or wages during periods when workers  might otherwise be fired.  This would require that workers save more of their earnings during good times, while keeping their spending under control, so they can manage their financial needs, with the help of those savings, during tough times when either their work time or wages must be shared with fellow workers.

      In this uncompromising political climate, all discussions and decisions about jobs and debt should be made on C-Span, where there is a requirement that each position be justified , explained how it will work, has evidence cited from history when such strategies worked in a similar economic environment and has the corroboration of experts.  The fact that  the Super Committee is six Democrats and six Republicans--and not one member of each party--assumes a diversity of expressed opinions in an environment where members of one party may agree with positions of the other party and party members may disagree with each other..

     Our economy always has been consumer driven,  and some Americans have become wealthy because others spent too much, while saving less than they should have.  People whose salaries for years were stagnated and reduced in buying power were enticed to buy homes they could not afford, and which tough times eventually rendered them unable to keep.

     Those who enriched themselves off the middle class no longer have a thriving middle class that can buy more than it can afford, and continue to promote their prosperity.  These wealth-seekers now seek to punish former spenders--who made them rich--for not having saved enough to finance their own retirement and health care needs.   Many Americans are not only unemployed, underemployed, and underpaid; they are being threatening with denial of access to Social Security, Medicare and pensions, which they have helped fund.  

      But there were no suggestions by politicians, during good times, that the middle class save more so they could finance more of their financial and health-care needs after retirement, and businesses certainly weren't advising consumers to spend less.  Unfortunately, those who have improved their financial conditions by taking advantage of an overspending middle class,--which unwisely sought a way of life their incomes would not afford--now punish their benefactors for doing so.     

     Consumers placed their own future retirements at risk by overspending and enhancing business profits.  But businesses now require "certainty" before they will use part of those profits to return the favor to consumers by providing them with jobs.   But how can there be that kind of certainty when fewer consumers are employed, and more of those who are working are saving more because they fear becoming unemployed.

     Discussions of the Obama's plan must raise relevant questions of businesses,  workers, and government in terms of their responsibilities in the American economy.  Businesses, consumers, governments and workers are a team.  And if they are to be a winning team, they must decide how they best work together to become a winner.  How they will achieve that should be discussed on C-Span.

     Workers have invested in businesses with their time and labor and by consuming their goods and services.  Now it is time for businesses to use part of those profits to invest in workers by hiring.  Businesses are waiting for a kind of certainty that only existed in the past only because there were spending  consumers who were "certain" about their employment.  The business world has always been the main engine of job creation.  Job creation breeds profits, and if the goods and services are worth having, working consumers will pay for them.  

     Unfortunately, large companies are having to choose between hiring more American workers and having lower profits for share holders, or hiring more workers abroad, where the labor is cheaper, and having higher profits for investors.  Which is better is not easily answered because many of those profits help finance workers pensions and supplement their retirement incomes in the form of dividends.  Certainly, some investors are entitled to greater financial benefits than others based on the amounts of money invested.  

     But how should that aspect of wealth-distribution be related to the need for an economy to provide employment for all Americans who want to work?  Can maximum wealth generation and maximum job-creation coexist?  The question, which certainly defies an exact answer is:  what combination of American and foreign employment does most good for all Americans and for capitalism in the American economy.. 

     President Obama must chart out a vision for the future of America, as a place where all American feel secure, have no fear of becoming prey, nor feeling any need to prey on fellow Americans.  It must grow out of realization by government, business and workers how they must cooperate to maximize the efficiency of the American economy.

     He must force Republicans to submit their own vision of America, and let the people decide which vision they prefer so they can elect people they can trust to pursue their preference.  If there is common ground in the visions, that's great; voters, therefore, can decide which candidates they trust more to compromise when compromise necessary.  

     Even as each party makes cases for its own ideological preferences, there must be a recognition that the people on the other side of the ideological divide are also Americans, who think they are right--and might be.

    

Ronald C. Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

    

The Roots of America's Problems

   The United States should reduce it tax rates on US businesses to 15% and bring home all American troops.  As somebody said--I believe it was US Representative Ron Paul--let our military personnel secure our own borders, and spend any money they have back home.   

     Let our foreign friends see if they can support their own military capable of defending themselves.  Let them see if they can build defense systems capable of protecting themselves from Iran's nuclear weapons.  Let they pay their fair shares to support the UN and other joint ventures, where the US bears a disproportionate share of the burden because we once had the wealth to do it before these friends starting siphoning that wealth unto themselves with low tax rates.  Let them see if they can do all of these with the low tax rates businesses are paying them so our businesses and jobs can be relocated in their countries.  It is no longer in America's best interest to police the world, while the world  steals our wealth and jobs.  

     If these nations are indeed allies, then there should be agreements with them to have uniform or equitable tax rates on businesses.  If this is a bad idea, then our friends should be able to explain why what the present rates of taxing is good for the United States, given our present condition.  It's obviously good for them.  How can they be friends on the battlefields but enemies on the field of economics?

     I remember during one of my social studies classes in school, we had either a chapter or chapter section entitled "How a bill becomes a law."  And until recently, I remembered the title much better than I remembered the process.  I'm even more in the dark, now, about how our laws regulate our relations with other nations, and who determines what those laws are.  I know they are wrapped up in agreements and treaties of various sorts.  But do they work--for Americans?

     NAPTA sounded like a great idea in concept and on paper:  send low paying jobs to third-world nations, build up their standard of living so they can buy products of higher paying jobs back in the United States.  The products of higher paying jobs would be products of more highly educated Americans who presumably would not need the low paying jobs being sent to other countries.  It was as if there would be no people left in the United States who would not ever qualify for jobs that required anything more than basic skills and understandings.

     I don't recall any questions being raised or debated about these people who needed and could have performed these low level jobs.  I did not question it because I was caught up in the hope that all American children would be given such a high quality education that they would qualify for these highly innovative, highly skilled, high paying jobs.

     But suppose we had saved those low paying jobs for our lowest skilled citizens and paid them minimum wages to do them, would our citizens have taken the jobs?  Would they have been as enthusiastic about these jobs as third-world workers who would consider working for even less than the American minimum wage as placing them, where they live, among the middle or upper economic class?  I don't know.

What I do know is that our economic system is on the decline, and part of the reason is that the system has allowed too much wealth to flow into too few hands.  

     But unequal distribution of wealth is less a reason than it is a consequence of other actions that are more fundamental to the American heritage.  Those fundamentals are embodied in the religious faith of the American people for whom life has no more important aspect or purpose.  America's failure to address its present economic problems grows out of a weakening of that faith in the lives of many Americans, and resentment by many others of faith that the practice and foundations of that faith have been abridged by the Supreme Court.

      Removing prayer from schools rather obviously was not the intent of the 1st Amendment.  Prayer in schools was not the result of any law established by Congress.  But by denying student the rights to pray and hear prayer, the Court did prohibit "the free expression" of religion.  Schools and school districts are not Congress.  When a Christian, a Muslim, Jew,  Buddhist, or a Hindu pray, they pray to the same god, who is God.  And they pray for the same kinds of things.  The Court took a sense of God out of the lives of millions of children for whom the school was their only contact with Him. 

      The second action that impact the American culture is the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortions.  For many seriously religious people, killing of an innocent, defenseless baby--be it born or unborn--is reprehensible, and no one has the right to do it as a matter of necessity or personal convenience.  Punishing an unborn child for the deeds of some adult seems unfair.

      The third reason is gay "marriages."  Many seriously religious Americans, who might accept civil unions, believe--as a foundation of their faith--that marriage is between a man and a woman.  They believe that one can no more call a union of two women or two men a marriage than one could call one member of such couples a husband and the other a wife, or one member of a lesbian couple a man and one of a gay couple a woman.

     Whatever the merits the arguments for such decisions may have, they breed deep-seated resentments by many who are seriously religious, and they provide the political wedges which have divided Americans on moral issues like fairness, decency, honesty, stealing, compassion, sexual behavior, etc.   Most religious Democrats have been reluctant to express disapproval of these practices, even as they accept that the rights exist so long as the Supreme Court says they do. 

     Democrats have been morally right on issues of compassion, fairness, and honesty, and many other issues.   But they will continue to lose the moral high ground and the votes of Democrats, Republicans and independents of faith who otherwise share their values.  These judicial wedges challenge religious faiths and are the reasons why our conservative Supreme Court has not--and will not--overturn those rulings.  

     These challenges to faith are the sources of American problems, problems which Republicans will not to fix and Democrats dare not try.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

President Obama Needs a Plan--for Super Committee

     I heard a Methodist pastor tell the story of rural community that had one baptist church, one Methodist churches and one saloon--and the saloon was doing more business than both churches put together.  So the pastors decided to pray that the saloon go out of business.

     After a few months, the saloon went out of business, and the saloon keeper sued the pastors for putting him out of business.

     At the court hearing, the judge told the pastors that the saloon keeper accused them of putting him out of business, and asked how they pleaded.

     The pastors said, "We didn't do it."

     The puzzled judge, scratched his head, responded, "I'm confused, now.  This saloon keeper says that he believes in prayer, and you preachers are saying that prayers don't work."

      I was reminded of that story as I tried to reconcile what Democrats claim to believe about Standard and Poor's downgrading of US bonds and what they think should have been the consequences of political blackmail by Tea Party Republicans.

      As Republicans were threatening to let the government default in the payment of its debts, unless it got is way.  Well, there was no default but only because both Democrats and Republicans settled for less than they thought was necessary (tax cuts for Republicans, and tax cuts and a revenue increases by Democrats) to make a sufficient dent in the nation's debt.  The Tea Party threat of blocking the debt ceiling being raised forced the parties to compromise on what S&P's--and many Democrats and Republicans--considered less than adequate debt-reduction package.  The debt ceiling was raised but political blackmail produced a debt-reduction package and introduced a political strategy that suggest future congresses also will be unable to adequately address the mounting debt.  

     Those criticizing S&P's seem to be saying that political blackmail is no threat to our economy and that there should be no consequences by either rating agencies or voters for such political hostage taking. The financial market have been in free-fall for the past couple of weeks.  There are several reasons that account for that decline.  One is the battle leading to the eventual raising of the debt ceiling; the other is the lower bond rating issued by S&P's.  

     Of course Democrats don't want political blackmail to be the reason for the decline because they fear not being able to stop Republicans from making threats in the future, again making adequate debt-reduction outcomes impossible.

    A few politicians, in the past, voting against raising a debt ceiling which they knew would be raised was not the same as a sufficiently large group of politicians being committed to preventing it from happening.

     So I am confused.  Is political blackmail bad for job growth and the American economy in general, and grounds for Democrats urging American voters to get rid of as many Republicans as possible.  Or is hostage-taking a meaningless strategy to be ignored because there will always be some kind of compromise--no matter how inconsequential--that will allow the debt ceiling to be raised?  Some liberal Democrats seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.  Who are the bad guys, the Tea Party for their blackmail or the S&P's for their reaction to it?

     The consequences of both have contributed to a serious downturn in the stock market,  a diminution of consumer ability to buy and their willingness to do so.  To me Republicans are the blame for this lousy economy.  But Democrats deserve much, if not all, of the blame that is being heaped on them by the public.

     In a June opinion, I stated that President Obama needed to lead, that that is what the American people elected him to do.  I suggested that he gather the best ideas of Democrats and Republicans, develop a debt-reduction plan that achieved his vision for America, and give it to Congress for the finishing touches to pay the nation's bills.  Granted, all spending bills should originate in Congress--unless they don't.  The House had approved a plan devised by Representative Paul Ryan, but without input from Democrats.  And the Senate rejected it, without providing an alternative.  

     The President should have submittted a plan similar to the one he and Speaker Boehner almost agreed to a week before the default date--or even the plan submitted by the Senate Gang of Six.  Democratic and Republican members of Congress could have debated, modified, and rejected or approved any compromise.  

     But this did not happen because the President did not provide a framework around which a reluctant Congress could be nudged to do something they would otherwise be either unwilling or unable to do on it own.  To that extent Democrats are at fault, but so were Republican claims that the President not only did not provide such a plan, but he did not have a firm idea about the directions spending-cuts and revenue enhancement should have in shaping the long- and short-term needs of the economy.  The President failed to generate confidence even in the people who support him and are pulling for him to succeed.

     The President should be calling Congress back to Washington, share with them his plan about how he wants this economic recovery to proceed, how he wants the debt reduced, and how he wants revenue raised.  Share the plan with the media and the people, and let the House and Senate react to it and fix it to their satisfaction--if they will.  A copy of that plan should even be given to the congressional Super Committee, as a place to start.

     If President Obama does not heed such a call to lead, then perhaps Secretary Clinton should get of the bench and begin warming up.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

US Needs DEMS Who May Lose by Default

     Well, it happened: The Standard & Poors rating agency has lowered its rating of US bonds from AAA to AA+.  That should be a blow to the pride of America.  But to Republicans, it apparently doesn't mean a thing. 

     And despite even President Obama suggesting that our rating might be lowered because the US no longer has a AAA government, Democrats seem to be wondering why S&P did it.   They claim that the world knows that the US is able to pay its debts, and always has.  

     But the S&P made a mistake in trusting Wall Street with AAA ratings based on its past performance.  It was not--and is not in the future-- going to make the mistake of assuming the trustworthiness of the US, given recent Tea Party shenanigans, and Republican commitments to more of the same.  Being able to pay and paying are two different things.  Tea Party Republicans have shown that. 

     Their threat did not result in default in paying of the nation's bills, but it certainly prevented the US from addressing the nation's debt as adequately as it might have.  They blocked a ten-year compromise package of  $4.7 trillion in debt reduction, that President Obama and Speaker Boehner had constructed.  Another proposal of $9 trillion recommendation that had been submitted by Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn was never even considered.  Instead the Tea Party, pretending to be the party of debt reduction, forced compromise of about $2.7 trillion.

     The reasons for the S&P downgrade are obvious: (1) a government where the Republicans' tail wags the dog, (2) the Republican Senator leader Mitch McConnell's confidence that Republicans still will be able to practice political blackmail after the 2012 elections, and (3) the Republican promise to stack the congressional Super Committee with people who will not compromise.  

     Democrats are partly to blame for our present economic condition, but only a small part and in a different way.  They could have prevented our invasion of Iraq and the Bush tax cuts with threats of a Senate filibuster.   But most Democrats believed George W. Bush, having been elected President of the United States, leader of the American people, deserved the benefit of the doubt on his decisions.  Bush unfortunately took advantage of their trust to invade Iraq, with no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and tax cuts--presumably as means of addressing the recession--but which actually exacerbated it..

     Congressional Democrats respected the leadership prerogatives of Bush, hoping Bush would be successful, because when if Bush succeeded, the American people succeeded.   Democrats did not seek to make him fail.  Republicans have done just the opposite.  Acceptance of Obama's agendas would be a self-repudiation of their control (and too often lack of control) during the previous eight years.  So voters know where the problem lies and when it started.  And it's not with both parties as the media seems committed to suggesting.

     The cloud hanging over the US willingness to pay its bills will continue until the Supreme Court either declares that the law giving Congress the right to not raise the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, or that the President, with certain limitations, has the authority under the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling.  The S&P needs to hear that.  If the Supreme Court does not act--or for some reason feels that does not itself know what the 14th Amendment means--then Congress can quiet the concerns of rating agencies by rescinding the law requiring congressional approval before the nation's debts can be paid.   The passage of such a law should be at the top of President Obama and the Democrat's agenda.  It likely would re-establish a AAA rating of our bonds and clear the path toward meaningful bipartisan compromise of debt-reduction, quiet the financial markets and help bring certainty into the economy.   Both parties should explain why clearing this issue should not be at the top of both parties immediate agendas.

      George W. Bush was able to have his way as president because Democrats did not have as their goal making him a one-term president.  Certainly Democrats, like Republicans, will always want to win the next election.  But the Democrats never before tried to further their chances in the  next election but deliberately throwing stumbling blocks in the way of a Republican president.  Present Republicans, alone, brought B-  politics to Washington.  Their assault against almost everything Obamab pursues is both persistent and malicious.  It does not matter that what Obama wants may be good for the American people.  If it is not much better for wealthy Americans and American businesses, then it is not nearly good enough.

     "Without a vision a nation perishes."  It also perishes if pursues a different vision every four or eight years.  That vision for American must be a shared vision.  Circumstances may affect pursuit of that vision but not affect its being shared.  America must be a good place to live for conservatives and liberals.  It must be a place of peace for Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  It must be a vision shared and realized by peoples of all colors, genders sexual orientations and religions.  "My way or the highway" will eventually puts all of us on the highway.

America has become less than AAA in politics because we have become less than AAA people--and falling.  

     There is still hope, however, that Americans and their bond ratings again can be rated AAA..  But the President must force Republicans to react publicly to every ideas in his agenda that supports job-growth, debt reduction, economic recovery, a return of AAA politics and a return to AAA attitudes among the American people.   He must force Republicans to either accept, reject or seek compromises.  

     Republican constituents must remember that it was Democrats that prevented the default in payments of our nation's bills.  Regular congressional Republicans could not gather enough Tea Party votes to prevent them from dancing in the streets. 

      If Obama and Democrats still cannot show voters why Republicans should not control any level of government in 2012, then perhaps neither should they.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Is Light at Tunnel's End a Train?

     One wonders what really takes place behind closed doors in America's politics.  There is no way to know that the end point was not determined by the leaders early during their deliberations, with what followed merely being an acting out for the benefit of the cameras and colleagues a predetermined procedure to get to that point.  Even negotiating before the camera would not have prevented negotiators from talking or texting in private.

     The agreement reached, following tea party hostage-taking, was a reasonable compromise, but it was not a draw.  Obama and the Democrats were the winners, though not clear winners.  Remember, the only winning card Obama held to head off a default was the 14th Amendment option, but it use would have done nothing about reducing the deficit.  Democrats had to win with one hand tied behind their backs.  But Democrats are responsible for their weak position because they did not vote and encourage others to vote in the last election.  As a consequence, many of those who found no reason to vote last time may find themselves unable to vote next time.

     But the Republican defeat likely was due to both the skills of Democrats and to telephones calls from constituents, informing tea party freshmen that they did not vote for hostage-takers, and parents reminding these Republicans that they didn't raise any.  Republicans are offended that these hostage-takers were called terrorists.  But when the people who need Social Security checks to survive are your parents and grandparents, and you are unable to fill that financial gap, sensitive Americans would believe those families are terrorized.

     Republicans forget that Democrats also want to cut spending.  They forget that Obama was cutting spending before hostage-taking and negotiations began.  Many Democrats were critical of Obama's cutting spending without requiring something from Republicans.  Adding these cuts means Democrats cut more.  They met Republicans on their playing-field and still beat them.  

     The revenue increases that Obama wanted could become part of the debt-reduction solution.  Despite Republicans threatening to hold the debt ceiling hostage in 2013, and talking about blocking any possible revenue increases by the super committee, a balanced-budget amendment could become the sweetener that makes it happen.    

      Despite thousands of teacher, police, and firefighter jobs being saved, Republicans use every opportunity to claim that the stimulus failed,  It shows what Republicans really think about the value of middle class jobs.  But the American people will be watching, listening to and thinking about both Democrats and Republicans much more closely for the next sixteen months.  This present round of politics is educating and alerting Americans as never before.  Every Republican lie or exaggeration must be challenged, every deception exposed and every dark place illuminated.  

     Because Republicans have blocked every Democratic effort to adequately address the problem, the United States are still struggling to get Americans out of this recession.  They forced a stimulus package that was too small and contrary to what most experts said was needed.  Facing the threat of it's not passing in the Senate, the President did not even try for a larger stimulus.  Wanting to avoid early confrontations and hoping to lay a foundation for future bipartisanship, the President settled for a  package that was too small.  

     So what do Republicans do when the economic stimulus fails?  They call the stimulus a failure and blame Obama for for doing what they forced him do.  The President, his budget and other financial advisors, and Paul Krugman--a Nobel Prize winner in economics--said the economy needed a larger stimulus.  But Republicans wouldn't allow it.  It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that they either knew the stimulus would be insufficient and wanted the economy--and ordinary American people--to fail under Obama's leadership, or Republicans forced Obama do what they would have done if they were in charge.  Either way the failure of the Obama's stimulus was really the Republicans' failure.

      Most people know that the way businesses grow is by borrowing money and paying it back as the business expands.  Businesses that want to grow don't reduce inventory and put their profits under the mattress.  Why do Republicans believe that the federal government can grow the economy by using a different strategy?

       Republicans seem to object to the fact that some less fortunate Americans are relying on the income of more privileged (but only sometimes hardworking) Americans to finance their livelihoods.  But they don't seem disturbed that many of these privileged, wealthy Americans are relying on incomes denied the poor and powerless so they can finance their lavish and extravagant lifestyles. 

     Any politician who believes that his or her ideas about solving complex economic problems are the only ways to do it either has "lost some marbles" between the ears or intends to solve the problems in ways that benefit only a certain people.   People who are elected to political office represent all of the people voting territory, not just members of his or her party.  Voters should be electing people who will be impartial in seeking the best solutions based on which seem to benefit more people.  Politics will produce winners and losers among candidates but should not seek to produce winners and losers among  constituents. 

     The eyes of America will be on both Democrats and Republicans, especially tea party members, during the next sixteen months and the coming political campaigns.  Voters will be on the watch for candidates who sign pledges not to compromise, and to obey the will of people other than the voters who elected them and other constituents whom they represent.

     Let the 2012 campaigns and debates begin.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:   rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:     ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com