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
No comments:
Post a Comment