It has been said that the test of a nation's character is the way it treats its poor. It has become obvious that Republicans don't care about the poor and powerless. What that says about Americans in general will be communicated during the Nov. 2012 elections. While Democrats have been talking about the effects of cuts that are too big and too untimely on the middle class and the working poor, Republicans have been talking, without shame, about how much money the wealthy--who helped cause massive unemployment with the money they had--now need supposedly to reduce unemployment.
I recently chanced upon Neil Cabuto's show on Fox News. His disturbing argument was essentially that millionaire and billionaires should not pay more in taxes because poor people don't pay taxes. Republicans care so little about the poor that they beat them up for things for which they are not responsible. The poor did not pass the laws exempting them from paying income taxes. Those laws were passed during a time when both Democrats and Republicans contained mostly compassionate members.
Unfortunately, funding the government's obligations is the responsibility of this increasingly shameless congress which is increasingly less compassionate and sympathetic toward less fortunate Americans, and increasingly indifferent to mainstream Americans. Until recently, the final bills were routinely compromises between House and Senate ideas that are subsequently approved by both houses and signed by the president. But along with record tornadoes, floods, fires and heat have come tea party Republicans.
Initially, because paying the nation's bill is the responsibility of Congress, President Obama was not part of the negotiations to reach a compromise on debt reduction through spending cuts and revenue increases. However, because Democrats were persistent in requiring that there be revenue increases as well as spending cuts in any compromise, Republicans objected to the way negotiations were going under the leadership of Vice President Biden and asleep that the President become directly involved in the negotiations. They said Obama needed to demonstrate some leadership. So the President joined the strategy sessions.
But Obama was also demanding that spending cuts be coupled with revenue increases, reportedly to the degree of 4 or 6 to 1 in favor of spending cuts. But Speaker Boehner still couldn't sell the tea party Republicans on the idea of raising revenue as a means of effecting massive debt reduction, and thereby placing Obama at odds with his political base. Republicans did not go along with a large deficit-reduction package of $4 trillion or more at a time when they claimed debt reduction was essential for economic recovery and job creation.
Fed up with attempts to negotiate with Obama, now Boehner said he could not negotiate with the President, and will negotiate only with senate leaders. (The fact was he could not convince his tea party comrades that he had effected a good deal for Republicans.
At first glance, the best of the alternatives for President Obama and fellow Democrats seems to be approving some of the spending cuts on which both sides agree, along with having the debt limit being raised and extended pass into 2013. Voters could decide during the presidential and congressional campaigns--and during the November, 2012 elections--what kind of government they want in the future and who as president and as members of congress can best lead them there.
President Obama, however, is right in believing compromises that cannot be achieved, now, will only be more difficult to resolve three or six month later with the same people. And if he caved in now, he would only be expected to cave in even more three months later. Six months later, he likely would be expected to throw in the kitchen sink--and he probably would.
Republicans cannot be allowed to blackmail the government into honoring its every wish--and won't unless the President allows it. No party--nor any faction within a party--should be in a position to effect the directions of financial markets solely according to its wishes. Allowing this would be an even greater threat to our American democracy and longterm economic health than defaulting.
By assuming presidential authority, apparently accorded him by the Constitution, to raise the debt limit when the Congress refuses to pay its debts in a manner and for motives that amount to political blackmail, President Obama can show that such antics will not work for this Congress, now, nor against any future president. The president's authority to prevent default has been equated some to his authority to respond decisively to a military attack. The president of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the US government. Hopefully the Supreme Court confirms, now, and in the future, such presidential power related to the payment of the nation's debts.
If Republicans feel that they are doing the right thing, then they should not mind their decisions and those of the President in this matter being at the center of campaign debates concerning the future of our democracy. If they really believe they are right in this current stalemate, they should feel confident that raising the debt limit into 2013 would benefit themselves rather than President Obama during the 2012 campaign. President Obama only has an advantag , as Republicans suggest. only he is the one who is right.
Americans, most of the rest of the world and bond raters know that, if the United States defaults, it will not be because we cannot afford to pay our debts, either now or later, but rather because Republicans are choosing to demand unreasonable political concessions as conditions for paying. Neither Americans, bond holders nor raters of bonds benefits from a United States they cast into depression. We likely would continue to be able to sell our bonds, as bond holders wait until the results of the 2012 elections to make decisions about whether--and to what extent-- the United States and the party in power can be trusted.
Ronald C. Spooner
rcspoon@earthlink.net
ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment