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