Governing with What We have and Who We Are

    President Obama, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans must do what is best for the United States at this time.  Democrats wish they had congressional Republicans like Tip O'neil had, and Republican wish they had congressional Democrats like Ronald Reagan had.  But that is not the kind of congress we have.  It not the kind of congress most Americans thought they they elected but apparently it's the kind of candidates they voted for.  If voters believe they have made a mistake, they have the next election to make it right.

     President Obama is a principled person who wants to do the right thing and not set precedents for future presidents that are detrimental to the stability and proper functioning of freedom and the ultimate will of the people in the American democracy.  But he must deal with today's Congress, and let future presidents deal with the circumstances and expectations of future voters and members of Congress.   Because Obama capitulates to some demands of Republicans today does not mean that future congressional politicians will successfully use future threats to make unreasonable political and economic demands nor does it mean that future Presidents will be required to capitulate with unreasonable politican demands during their times.

     The President not only are the times different, but he is different.  He is a black president.  And while that is considered a good thing and a proud achievement for most Americans, skin color was not something that Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan had to deal with.  Unless Obama deal properly with present-day circumstances, it may be a long time before a person of color is elected to the presidency, not because the American people will not want one but because of fear that the politician climate not accommodating such diversity.

     President Obama must make decisions that are appropriate to these times and rest assured that future presidents and congresses will make decisions deemed appropriate for their times.  If the people want universal health care, voters will place control of the presidency and Congress in the hands of Democrats.  If a majority of voters don't want it,  they will elect Republicans to lead the government, and Obamacare may be overturned.  

    What the people choose, whether for better or worse, will always represent who Americans--and the people they choose to represent them--are at that time.

Sometimes Political "Blinking" Is a Good Thing

     There was a time when it was believed that when congressional pollticians got together to solve a problem that involved compromising that the meetings needed to occur in secret so politicians would not be afraid to make statements or vote for positions that might be objectionable back home.  They could decide on what they thought  was right for the country.  But that is no longer the case:  They are meeting behind closed doors but not reaching a compromises or solutions.

     Both parties should  be required to discuss the contested issues on C-span.  The people need to know (1) what the issues being discussed, (2) what solutions are being proposed by each parties and party members, (3) what are the arguments are favoring each proposal,  (4) what the argument are against each proposal, (5) what compromises are being proposed, (6) what examples or expert opinions support each position taken opposing or favoring contested ideas.  (Have the experts present during debates to contest and correct incorrect information or statements.

     The parties pick only an uneven number of experts with whom they agree.  And let the experts debate and vote.  Agree to accept the decision of the experts.

     As a last resort, develop a way to resolve deadlocks.  Examples: (1) Flip a coin on each contended item.  Or (2) Where appropriate, have each party prioritized a list of preferences related to each controversial issue.  Flip a coin to determine who gets the first choice.  The loser gets topic its second and third choices, the winner the fourth and fifth choices, etc., with the loser getting the final pick.

     Each party should have a publicly-expressed strategy for settling congressional deadlocks.  Voters might be asked to vote for they one they prefer and expect the parties to follow.

Are you willing to compromise? and will you compromise where possible and necessary?  These are questions every candidate for public office should be required to answer either yes or no

     Listing to answers to questions raised during the Sunday talk shows, I conclude that Democrats are almost as guilty as Republicans in contributing to the present deadlock.  Both sides say that want to "have a conversation".  Democrats say they are "willing to discuss anything."  But when Democrats are asked about making adjustment to entitlements, Democrats say that is not on the table.  When Republicans are asked about raising revenues, Republicans say revenues are not one the table.  Each side wants to have a discussion but just not consider what the other side considers important.

     A Republican senator from Wyoming said that we are spending too much money on people who   aren't able to take care of themselves.  He suggested that their conditions are primarily their own fault.  He used used the analog of making people who are doing well financially are being punished by have to pull a wagon which is getting heavier with an increasingly large load of passengers and a decreasing number of people able to pull the wagons due to increased in their taxes.  There is some merit to that argument.  But poor education increases the number of people in the wagon, and it reduces the number of people who could be pulling the wagon.  Also promoting job creation would increase the number of people pulling the wagon and reduce the number of people who are riding.

     Finally, extending the debt-limit deadline will not merely "kick the can down the road."  That time could be used to reach compromises on all of the controversial issues.  Each side should submit a publicly released plan for compromise.  If there is still deadlock over the issues at that time, we will be no worse off than where we are now.  But the issues will have been discussed, any possibility for compromise dismissed, and voters will have a better barometer for deciding how to vote next year.

     There eventually comes a time when the right combination of event and people cause a disaster.  Trains will wreck.  Car tires will blow-out.  Buses will run off cliffs.  Airplanes will crash.  In each case the reason for the accident can be determined, but it will not make that driver more attentive, or those tires stronger, or the airplane malfunction or whatever the cause may be.  What we are witnessing in Congress appears to be an avoidable disaster.  But we may have a collection of congress members whose dispositions will not allow the members change their actions anymore than the bus driver could stay awake or the trains could avoid being on the same section of tracK at the same time.  The difference is that this wreck has not yet happened.  We've been warned sufficiently in advance that two trains are headed for a collision.   The wreck can be averted, just not by these two train engineers and conductors.  Something is missing within America's political and economic conflicts that seem to occur despite there being obvious solution options.  What can be done?

      President Obama, as a Nobel Peace Award laureate, must be the nation's leader and world's hero by "caving in."   He was elected because his desire and promise to end deadlocks.  If his party won't help him, he must make the decision himself and let his party--and the Republicans--whether or not to follow him.  His position within the Democratically controlled Senate is no different from that John Boehner in the Republican controlled House, except that, as president, Obama has the greater responsibility.

     "Blinking" and "caving in" can be a good thing.

Ronald 

Orama's Moderation Not Appreciated

    Barack Obama ran for the presidency promising to reach across the isle to seek bipartisanship and end congressional deadlocks.   He said the people wanted an end to political gridlock.  Ending deadlocks meant both Democrats and Republicans must consent to compromise, and must seek and find contentment in common ground.  Even though Americans which helped him become President of the United States knew that Obama was not elected king--and, therefore, would not be able to bring an end to congressional gridlock all by himself--there was to be increased voter frustration with Obama's failure settle gridlocks by decree. 

     The voters seemed to recognize that the president would need congressional help when they gave him the necessary congressional support by giving Democrats control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  But the majority in the Senate was not sufficient to overcome the reluctance of conservative Democrats--and one contrary liberal Democrat--to solidify Democratic congressional leadership and control.   Nevertheless,  voters made a good attempt: They gave Obama a good start.  However, despite the political successes under Democratic control, these successes were for the most achieved without the support of Republican politicians.  The potential for deadlock was still there.  And the enthusiasm which brought American voters (especially Democratic voters) to the polls during the presidential election of 2008 was not there in for midterm elections of 2012, when members of congress were vying for congressional positions. 

      Without the enthusiasm which accompanies elections when the president is on the ticket, Democrats lost the House of Representatives.  Democrats were the blame for not giving the midterm elections the same amount of attention, and not communicating to voters the importance of their returning to the polls to strengthen the Democrats' control of congress--and as it turns out, the need to strengthen Democratic influence in state governments.  I'm not aware of the number of Republicans who voted for Democrats during the 2008 and 2012 elections.  But polls have indicated that Americans of all political persuasions opposed congressional gridlock.  Most Republicans also believed in compromise.  Unfortunately, Republican members of Congress made their goal making Obama a one-term president.  No matter how important or good his ideas were, they would vote against them.  It was obvious who were the stumbling blocks, but Republican voters chose candidates who were committed to promoting exactly what the wanted President Obama to help end.  Their politics became more important than what they believed was in the best interest of the country and themselves.  People who wanted an end to gridlock essentially voted to continue it--in fact to extent it to the point of crippling government's ability to government.

     So, itt's gridlock time again in Washington.  Republicans are so sure the American Obamacare is a bad ideas for the American people that they are willing to shut down the government--and punish fellow Americans--in order to punish President Obama for trying to help people who need access to affordable health care, and for trying to cut the cost of health care in the United States.  Republicans say the don't want to shut down the government; they only want to delay the funding of Obamacare until appropriate changes can be made.  But what do Republicans want to change and what would they replace those element changed with?  Is that to be determined later?  Indefinitely later?  Gridlock is still here.  But Obama is not to blame.  

     Republican had input into the development of Obamacare.  They had chances to make suggestions for change before the final instrument was voted into law.  They refused to accept compromise by demanding changes which the President was not disposed to accept.  Establishing the Affordable Care Act was the idea of Democrats.  Hillary Clinton made an attempt during the Clinton presidency, and she a Barack Obama debated the issue during the 2008 presidential primaries.  Hillary had argued for a mandate that would force young people to participate in purchasing insurance.  Obama argued that they will buy health care insurance if it is cheap enough.  As president, Obama agreed with Hillary Clinton--and past Republicans--that the mandate was the better idea, and necessary to keep the insurance affordable for most Americans.  But because President Obama is now for the mandate, a reach across the isle, Republicans are no longer for it. 

      Democrats have opposed the President's desire to compromise with Republicans about entitlements reforms in exchange for Republican concessions about raising taxes on wealthy people.  That was another attempt to reach across the isle.  So whether its health care, Syria, attempts to grow jobs, increase middle class incomes, or fix Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Obama has reached across the isle--and angered the leadership of both parties.  But it has become no longer a debate about the merits of positions on issues, but about some politicians' having their own way or fulfilling promises not to cooperate, not to compromise.

     The American people got what they say they wanted in a president.  They have to decide if the people they are sending to Washington and to our state governments to represent them have gotten the message.  The problem is that the people voters would like to represent them too often either won't run or aren't permitted to run. 

     When history should ever record how The United States of America became the late United States--and the world was cast into economic chaos--it likely will record that it began in 2013, an evidently bad-luck year, when congressional politicians refused to compromise on either on balancing spending and taxing or adjusting the Affordable Care Act,  the only areas where common ground exist and can be found.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner     

Washington, Jefferson and Einstein: Messages to Americans

October 7, 2013

To:  The Editor

     "Be what you is, cause if you be what you ain't, then you ain't what you is."  One of my college education professors gave that quote in class one day--I forget specifically what he reference it to. 

But it made some sense.  I believe Allan Ritter was a Democrat because of who he was.  He later switched to become a Republican, quite likely because of where he lived: He tried to become what he ain't.  Now, he is says that he is retiring from politics because he is about to become a grandfather for the fourth time.  But here was a time in American politics--and hence in the character of the American people--when those four grandchildren would have been four good reasons for good men like Allan Ritter NOT to quit.  

     Allan Ritter is an example of the kind of Democrat and Republican that voters might want to vote for, as alternatives to tea-party candidates who are inflexible and uncompromising in their approach to government and governing.  He is the kind of politician I recently suggested might give voters  choices other than tea-party candidates.  But for whatever reasons, the kinds of Democrats and Republicans straight thinking Americans might take the time to go to the polls to elect, especially in times like these, may not be either willing or allowed to run.

     Recently, I either heard or read that the Democrats and Republican stalemate that has shut down the government is an example of why the nation's first president, General George Washington, thought a two-party system would be a threat to the union, that eventually one of the parties would seek to bring the other down and risk bringing the nation down.  Political despots would emerge to  divide and conquer, in the "name of individual liberty."  (Reader might want to check out Google or Yahoo to review Washington's views about political parties)

     During the same time-frame, Thomas Jefferson was warning that a nation cannot poorly educate it people and remain free:  Poorly educated people cannot elect good governments because they are most likely to be either poorly informed or poorly equipped to evaluation information.   Poor education, job shortages and low pay provide access to an army of young people which few other choices for their economic futures than the military.  And we have members of this Congress who appear to be prime candidates to become the first Ruler (and commander in chief) of the United States.  (Remember how Castro criticized and overthrew Cuban dictator Batista before becoming Cuba's dictator himself.) 

     However, one also might want to read Albert Einstein's "Essay on Socialism."  He talks about what capitalism will eventually permit those who have access to great wealth to become and where that will lead the nation.  George Washington and Albert Einstein two of the wisest and smartest giants of the nations history has predicted what is on the threshold of happening within the United States.  Great wealth can buy a nation of voters which believes it is not happening and cannot happen.

     What kind of people are we becoming?  What kind of children are we teaching and role-modeling for our children to become?  What kind of country, what kind of government, will they inherit?  What will their roles be within that society?  What kinds of relationships with other people are we preparing them to have?  What about people of other races or religions?  Are the religious teachings to have no relevance to political behavior?  Are the only functions of religious institutions to give members respectability, conduct wedding ceremonies and funeralize the dead?  Will this provide a better world for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren than we have?  And can having more money, with less integrity and no compassion be sufficient for happiness?  Will they even be able to live with each other ?

     "Be what you us."  What are you?  Unfortunately, "Be what you is" is also a message to those who may choose to be the villains of society if they take that advice.  Should not religion be the instrument that changes hearts and minds, that gives people who are less inclined to love their neighbors reason to do so?  Is Heaven the only reward for practicing the teachings of Jesus?  Are there no earthly benefits, no benefits within family relationships.  Is there no inner peace, no outer sense of purpose that faith accrues?

      "Be what you is" seems to be the prevailing or driving force of human behavior.  There is increased social, political and peer pressure to resist trying to "be what (we) ain't"  If it corresponds with the old moral codes, with the old ways of thinking.  There is also a feeling among many that what use to be wrong is not right and what use to be right is not wrong.  

     I talked in a previous opinion about Democrats and Republicans being on the opposite sides of what is right and wrong: Republicans are for children before they are born but act as if they don't care about them after they are born.  Democrats seem to care more about children after they are born but less about them before they are born.  It seems to be that being on the opposite of most important issue is the only reason to have more than one political party. Voter, they seem to believe, must be given a choice.   That means that each party must claim that what the other party wants to do--or has done--is wrong.  And recently they have resorted to lying about the others intent as many time as is needed for lies begin to sound like the truth.  These are among the reason why George Washington did not want more than one politics party.

      What does it say when good men cannot remain in government because governing is hard on the conscience.  I don't know if this is the reason for an area Republican state representative, Allan Ritter, retiring, but I know that there are many Republicans who are increasingly having to fight unwanted battles with their consciences in order to stay in public office.  It is a battle that good men can't continue to win, and it's a battle that conscience can't continue to lose.

     The decision of Speaker Boehner to not have a vote of the House of Representatives to determine whether to continue the funding of the government because he claims there are not enough votes to approve it makes no sense.  If the votes are not there, permitting the vote would, at worst, leave the shutdown in place as it is.  But if the vote are actually there, the shutdown will end and government will have resumed working at intended.  After all, the Speaker is speaker of the entire House, not Speaker of the Republicans.

     The Speaker says further that there must be conversations between Democrats and Republicans that result in reduced spending--primarily on entitlements--but does not raise more revenues through tax increases.  But he says further that revenues will not be raised.  What, then, is there to talk about?  This is another kind of internal contradictions that are rotting the party.  Remember, too, the sequester which was supposed to be so sever that Congress would not be stupid enough to allow it to actually happen has happened.  And this is the same Congress that is now making important decisions about whether keep the government open and raise the debt limit.  The hope that Congress would somehow become smarter by decision-making time has proven to be just that: "hope."  "Be who you is"?  Congressional members, especially most tea-party Republicans and their Speaker, are still simply being who they were.

     If Washington, Jefferson, and Einstein are right, they may be bells tolled for the United States that are incapable of being unrung.

(I need more followers on Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Tweet: Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Can DEMS & GOP Establish Common Ground

     By chance I tuned onto C-SPAN at the beginning of a women's' conference.   Patty Murray, senator for the state of Washington, was the special guest.  She answered questions, first by msnbc's Karen Finney,  then from the audience, following her and Ms Finney's introductions.  

     The questions dealt mainly with women issues and those related with the inability of Democrats and Republicans to reach common ground on so many issues critical to our economy and the proper functioning of our form of government, including the result of the current deadlock leading to  the latest shutdown of the government.

      Most interesting to me, among the questions asked, was one by a lady who identified herself as representing an organization which was nonpartisan.  Her question related to the fact that not all Democrats agree of all social issues.  She pointed out that not all Democrats, for example, agree on the party's position on gay marriages.  (She might also have added that not all Democrats agree on the Democratic party's positions on abortions and prayers in school.)  She asked why the Democratic party does not attempt to find common ground within the party between progressive and conservative Democrats, such as on issues related to religion.   The response was not a serious attempt to answer that question.

     For serious people of faith, anything that conflicts with foundations and teachings of their religious faith cannot become bases for common ground.  However, such opposition to gay marriages does not necessarily equate to opposition to the condition of gayness.  But President Obama's eventual evolution from believing that civil unions were not a sufficient common ground for gays and lesbians and straights to a belief that they had Constitutional rights that superseded any conflict with the teaching of the Christian-Judaic faith. That belief that such marriage was appropriate is at the heart of conservative opposition to President Obama, along with several other things..

     Now, how many within the Republican Party don't like either Obama, Obamacare or both?  Probably not that many.  Most who don't like Obamacare don't understand it.  Most, if they knew and understood what the law provides--would like it, and will when the law is fully implemented and they become familiar with it.  Those who don't like Obamacare include (1) those who just don't like President Obama because they believe the many negative things that have been said falsely about him, (2) those who just don't like minorities (especially African Americans), (3) those who have deep-seated religious faith which Democrats seem to take less seriously, and (4) those who have just been persuaded that the tea party movement is the right thing what ever they do or persue.

     Of course, the best way to make one's religious faith attractive to others is to let lights of faith shine so that others see what faith does for you, how it cause you to feel about other, and what it causes you to do for others.  You can't impose religion on others by using religious motives to hurt others, to oppress others, to deny others their rights and opportunities.  Love is promoted by loving.  Punishing the poor as a means of making the poor productive does not promote the teachings of religious faith.   The common ground that Democrats and Republican seek rest in the common ground they have at the core of their religious mututal faith.  But their problem is that both have staked out certain positions that are contrary to their faith while also taking positions that are consistent with their faith but not consistent with the practices or beliefs of the other party.

      Resolving this problem of right and wrong is perhaps a long-term task.  

      But resolution of the present shutdown of government rests, I believe, in the President blinking first, and  establishing a bipartisan commission to identify flaws in the ACA and implement them into legislation as flaws are identified and means of rectification them are developed.  

     The commission should consist of four conservative Democrats and four liberal Democrats, four tea party Republicans and four moderate Republicans.  There should be two of each from the Senate and two of each from the House of Representatives.  Each ideological group within the Senate and the House should select its own commission representatives.l Two weeks of deliberations would be provided for problems already recognized by Democrats and Republican to be pointed out for attention and rectified or resolved.

     In exchange for allowing the bipartisan commission this opportunity to suggest immediate changes to provisions of Obamacare guidelines, Republicans--specifically Speaker John Boehner-- will allow the full House of Representative to vote on both the continuing resolution and extension of the debt limit during the same session.  Failure to resolve differences will result in the law being imprimented as written, with revisions made later on a continuing basis as needed.  All discussions during these deliberations should be conducted on C-SPAN

     In conclusion, not all Republicans in Republican-gerrymandered districts are tea-party Republicans; hence; regular or moderate Republicans are free to vote either Republican or Democrat.  Also, whatever number of Democrats there are within these gerrymandered districts, they  can vote either Democratic or for whom they consider to be the right Republican.  Moderate Republicans who voice their opposition to shutting down of the government will not necessarily lose their jobs during the next election for doing what most people in both parties know to be the right thing to do for the country.

Ronald