The President of the United States is the elected leader of the American people. Some Americans may not like it, but Barack Obama, although not king, is the head of the American government and political leader of the American people--not Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner nor Mitch McConnell. These other gentlemen could have sought the presidency if they had creditable visions for the nation's future, felt best qualified to lead this country toward such realities and thought the American people would follow. Neither felt such a calling, nor possessed such a belief.
At this crucial time in the history of our country, President Obama must exude the kind of confidence in his leadership qualities that voters expressed in electing him to lead this country.
I have had been impatient with the President--and fellow Democrats--for not coming up with their own debt reduction plan to rival the Ryan plan. But there is perhaps a better alternative for Obama as national leader, namely: developing a plan based on the ideas that are surfacing in the various meetings intended find common ground, and making his decisions based on his perception of the nation's present problems and future needs. The plan should be fair and balanced, consistent with his conscience, and compatible with the goals of most Americans, his leadership style and his responsibility to lead.
The plan should (1) identify incorporated ideas as Republican, Democratic or common ground, (2) seek to be politically and ideologically neutral, (3) reflect recognition that the Republican goal still is to make him a one-term president, (4)contain a balance between spending cuts and increased revenues, (5) be presented to Congress by July 1, 2011, and (6) provide for further negotiations on a "give and take" basis until July 15, 2011. The President should present the Obama plan to Congress by July 22, and wait for the Congress to decide whether or not it chooses to pay, with a raised debt limit, bills it approved and was committed to pay.
While acknowledging that the American people wanted bipartisanship leadership (and acknowledging the diversity of opinions among Americans) Obama did not campaign from a compromised position. And he was not elected to lead from a position that does not reflect the character and intelligence that caused the American people to select him to be their president. The President can be forgiven for decisions that prove to be wrong--especially if failure is due to political and market forces that are beyond his control and were designed to make him fail. But he will not be forgiven if failure is perceived to be due to his own failure (to 1) try sufficiently hard to lead the nation where he said he wanted to take us, and (2) cast sufficient and persistent blame on those who who prevent his doing so.
One of the agreements that should come out of debt-reduction deliberations is a law that makes raising the debt limit by Congress mandatory. If Congress authorizes and approves expenditures, it should not have the prerogative to not pay the bills--anymore than Americans have the right not to pay income taxes, make mortgage payments on homes or pay monthly notes on automobiles?
Does Congress also have the power to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the salary of every Republican congressperson is doubled? Do it have the power to demand--on behalf of friends--half of the gold in Fort Knox before they will permit the nation to pay its bills? Could the United States legally make demands of other countries by refusing to repay its debts to those countries unless they comply with its demands?
The Supreme Court should confirm that neither Congress nor any president has that power. Our nation cannot survive if nations from whom we borrow money to pay our bills feel that the United States has become a poor risk for future borrowing? Congress' decisions to borrow money to fund worthy national causes poses considerably less threat to our economic security than the Republican threat not to pay the money back. Most of the debt we owe was run up by a Republican president and congress. And while Obama and Democrats are trying to fill the economic hole fhey dug, Republican contributions have been disabling bull dozers and destroying dump trucks.
The damage to our trustworthiness may already have been done regardless of what rating Standard and Poor gives US bonds in the future. Twice this year Republican politicians have shown a willingness to use blackmail to get what they want. They are threatening the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans, and billions of people world wide. There is something inherently wrong about that. And if the threat is not tantamount to hollering "fire" in a crowded building, I don't know what is. Foreign countries (and even Americans) may already be contemplating the need for higher interest rates before lending to us.
We are witnessing derangement in government. It happens when people who are addicted to wealth and power become psychotically driven by them, and believe that they can convince the American people that such psychosis is political sanity. They want the American voters too confused to recognize the difference, and government too small to do anything about it.
The United States, as the richest, most powerful and most trusted nation in the history of the world, should not allow the radical attributes of a few turn us into the history's biggest contrived economic threat. This is what Congressional Republicans are threatening, and capitulation by Democrats could suggest that political blackmail that can control economics in America has a chance worldwide.
These are the lessons, about the potentials and perils of democracy, that Republicans are teaching fertile minds in emerging democracies who seek both freedom and role models of liberty.
Ronald
Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net
Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
