Spooner's Spin

America Needs Education Academy (Final Edit)

2012-02-27T23:37:00.000-08:00

For the past 50 years, Americans have pursued quality education--especially in mathematics and the sciences--for all American children. Many attempts have been made by some very smart people--and with considerable success. But while these programs were often successful, the courses often were too difficult for the teachers assigned to teach them.

Most of those who developed these courses were either scientists, mathematicians, or university professors. This was good. But the efforts were wasted because little attempt was made to recruit teachers, who not only were familiar with and masters of the content, but knew how to teach that content in a manner that allows all student to succeed. That means enabling students to master content at levels commensurate with their abilities, interest and willingness to devote reasonable time maximizing their learning.

Maximizing the learning of every child is the responsibility of every school, teacher, principal and superintendent. But the job of differentiating instruction in manners that allow students to learn a their rates is not easy. And because there are too few strategies for doing so that are known to teachers, use of the strategy should not be limited to teachers who take it upon themselves either to develop strategies that works for them, or use strategies developed by other teachers.

So let's assume that effective teaching strategies are possible--or better still, exist--which would enable schools to succeed with all children. How would these strategies be placed in the hands and heads of teachers? It is a disgrace that in fifty years we still don't have such strategies available. Is it that teachers who have mastered the strategy of differentiating instruction are compensated too well by becoming consultants? Or do they earn more attractive salaries by going to school districts--or even colleges and universities--which reward them handsomely for their knowledge? For some reasons, differentiating instruction is not making it to our many failing schools.

Chicago is in the process of closing failing schools. Parents, students, teacher unions and community leaders are concerned but unsure about the reasons. Are the concerned about the closing of schools or about the reasons why the schools are being closed?

Suggestions are being made that schools are being closed because they are in minority neighborhoods, that somebody does not want minority children to receive an education. Others suggest that these schools are being closed because of poor academic performances by the students, that the students are being transferred to schools where students are performing well and, hopefully, that students from closed schools might be able do the same. Some parents believe other schools do better because they have better teachers and resources. It appears, though, that strategies that make one district or city school successful are not shared with other teachers and schools throughout the schools and school systems.

Are good teachers reluctant to share good ideas with other teachers?

And are successful teachers justified in that reluctance? Maybe they are more successful because they have joined more professional organizations, read more professional literature, attended more challenging colleges and universities, continued their college or university training at night or during summers, worked longer hour preparing to be successful and other things to extend their knowledge and teaching skills. Whatever motivates or equips some teachers to perform better than other teachers should be made available to all teacher. But how?

Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are differences both among students and among educators concerning their abilities to learn; their motivations, interests, backgrounds, ethnicities, colleagues and peers; and concern for students. Teachers have preferred teaching styles, and students have preferred learning styles. There are many successful teaching styles and strategies. The problem is matching teaching and learning styles.

Such matches of optimum teaching and learning styles are less likely to be found--or even pursued--in low priority schools. Identifying teachers instructional needs and students learning needs are time-consuming responsibilities, and are usually beyond both the interest of school boards and the expertise of school administrations. And both fail to fulfill these responsibilities because school patrons don't know what to expect of either of them.

But there is a solution: America has trained young people to become the best military in the world. She has landed men on the moon and safely return them to Earth. That America also can fix her schools. But how?

Just as the government has military academies to train its military leaders, it needs an Education Academy to train educational leaders who can head state departments of education--for states that want them--and provide leadership for and communicate academic and administrative expectations to local school districts. These educators will have explored all factors that contribute to success in schools serving all kinds and combinations of children.

The academy would also develop national curricula--again, for states choosing to use them. It would train instructors for positions at teacher-training college and universities, teaching them to differentiate instruction (mastery teach) for all students commensurate with students abilities and willingness to learn. Academy students would graduate within in six-eight years with a cross-discipline PhD. The goal always would be to produce, through research and experimentation with different kinds of students and diverse circumstances, educators who are much better teachers than their own academy professors.

Many believe that education is as important as the military to the future security of America. If that true, then let's turn our best minds loose in solving the nation's education problems, and spread educational expertise throughout the country.

Ronald

EMail: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Gradual Routes to Compromise (Edited)

2012-02-21T11:40:00.000-08:00

President Obama needs a comprehensive plan for the economic future of America, including a strategy that achieves a $5-6 trillion debt-reduction package over the next 10 years.

The most likely way to achieve that goal and greater confidence might be to set goals that are phased in over a 10-year period. A phased approach allows everyone who will be impacted to adjust their life styles and budgets to accommodate the changes. If an effective debt-reduction plan must require sacrifices by everybody, appropriate levels of change and phase-in periods will be necessary.

Justifications for entitlement revision have not changed over the years: People who have acquired certain level of wealth should have their Social Security and Medicare benefits reduced to reflect that wealth. Social Security and Medicare are safety-nets designed to serve those who for various reasons may needs for such financial assistance. They are like buying home, auto, sick and accident, and term-life insurance to protect against occurrences which encumber expenses that the insured might not otherwise be able to afford.

But if the house is not damaged by fire or wind, if the car is not severely damaged, and if the insured does not get sick or die within the insured period, the insured does not expect to get any money. Protection was bought. Economic sanity demands that--at least for the foreseeable future--the same apply to Social Security and Medicare. Warren Buffet does not need Social Security and Medicare coverage--at this time.

And just as people who buy various other types of insurance make every attempt not to receive benefits, the goal of every employee should be to never need Social Security and Medicare. Just as people are happy when they don't have benefit from the various forms of insurance they have purchased, those who paid into SS and MC should be glad when their wealth makes such benefits unnecessary.

Social Security and Medicare could be phased out according to such income-benefit schedule as the following: Income, $50,000--benefits, 100%, $60,000-96%, $70,000-92%…….$280,000-4%, $300,000-0. Each benefit-income level might be phased in over five years. Beyond $300,000 of income, people who are 65 years of age will have earned enough--and accumulated sufficient wealth--to insure themselves. Medicare would still cover catastrophic illnesses.

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would end on December 31, 2012. Those for the middle class and working poor would be phased out over a 5-10 year period. After ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, gradually increase their maximum tax rates to the Clinton rate of 39% over the next ten years. The Wealthy will have less money to invest, but the middle class will make up the difference by having more of it to invest.

Wealthy Americans obviously are in better financial condition to adjust to the changes in taxation than are the middle class and working poor; hence, there would need to be a phase-in period. Americans at all income levels would have the remainder of 2012 to begin anticipating--and hopefully making--any adjustments to their budgets that will make the transitions painless or less painful.

The contributions of business to the economic recovery is indispensable and must be present with the same vigor that they give to the success of their company. They have a crucial role to play in providing employment opportunities, but they have perhaps greater responsibility to help better educate America's children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they need.

The contributions of business to the recovery of the American economy is indispensable. Businesses provide employment opportunities. But they also should help address the problem of better educating American children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they have. Businesses must indicate not only the areas of need but the number of openings available. Then, they must hire and, along with governmental assistance, finance the education that qualifies local students for these positions.

Students will not pursue skilled areas if they don't have confidence that there will be job when they become certified. Therefore, businesses should target interested and qualified students in the eighth grade from which some determined number of students will selected for apprenticeships and employment. Financial aid would be for students who would not otherwise be financially able to receive such education. Announcements of such opportunities in the early years would be motivational for all students to perform better--even those not eventually selected.

If unions and workers are serious about jobs and job security, there would be agreements among union workers to share hours in economic down turns. No workers should be laid off. Hours would be shared, allowing worker skill-levels to be retained. The degree of sharing would depend on business needs to cut back on hours worked. Workers would save during good times to make up for lost income when they must share hours.

All wages and salaries would be tied to the salaries of the CEO of the business, with a fixed rate. The importance of CEOs relative to that of other executives and workers remains essentially the same: More proficient CEOs produce more proficient employees.

Finally, there may also be needs to phase pensions out for the wealthy and phase them down for the middle class. It would be better, especially for the working poor and middle class, to eliminate even the possibility of having to cut salaries, benefits and services by 25% or more all at once as is now the case with Greece. Where appropriate, benefits would be phased back as dictated by economic conditions and outlook.

These ideas need be discussed on c-span by a committee from businesses, unions, education, legislatures; all races, all political and religious persuasions: include Allan Simpson and Erskine Bowles; and be chaired by President Obama.

Americans and peoples of the world should be able to see an example of how economic and social problems can be resolved--and perhaps, in the future, prevented.

On Doing the Right Things

2012-02-13T13:41:00.000-08:00

February 13, 2012

To: The Editor

President Obama has extended his religious compromise in order to accommodate those in the Catholic church who feel, much as do fellow Republicans, that, because of their principles, they cannot compromise with Democrats. These leaders of the Catholic faith feel, similarly, that they should not compromise with the President because of their consciences. And I agree with sticking with one principles and the dictates of one's conscience.

But when principles of people who must work together clash, what's to be done? You compromise. One principle cannot be consider superior to another: Neither church nor state trumps the other.

The fact that the Catholic faith believes that contraction is wrong does not give it the right to impede those benefits to those who might not believe that. If those who are using contraceptive means are committing sinful acts and choose to do so, that's between them and God. The fact that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptions does not justify obstructing contraceptive use by employees who either don't share that belief, or who, while sharing that belief, encounter circumstances which dictate that they act contrary to those beliefs.

When Catholic institutions, like many other employers, pay for their employees insurance, they pay for insurance in lieu of paying employees higher wages which would enable employees to buy their own insurance. Catholic institutions, therefore, have no more right to restrict the insurance coverages of contraceptive services when they pay insurance premiums than they would have it they paid employees enough to buy their own insurance.

The Catholic institutions owe President Obama and all of the policy holders of the insurance who must have their premiums increased to pay for contraceptive services that the Catholic church institutions refuse to cover. The Church in effect passes over to other policy holders the responsibilities of paying for services which the church believes to be sinful.

Which, therefore, should give in when the expectations of the Catholic church conflicts with what its members rights are determined to be under the Constitution? It is my opinion that the Catholic church has no authority over how the government will operate, except for the right of its members to determine at the ballot boxes who and what will constitute that government. Only the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress should control the government--not politicians of the Catholic faith.

The government, on the other hand, does have authority to impose laws that impact what the Catholic church and its members can and cannot do related to matters outside of the authority and teachings of the church. The church can teach what it believes to be the will of God. But it cannot control the behavior of individuals, be they Catholics or non-Catholics, just because what those individuals do conflicts with the consciences of church leaders or some of its members in politics.

If there is a conflict between the teachings of the church and rights of its members under the federal law, the people rights under the law take precedence--on earth. Teachers of religious doctrine will have fulfilled their calling when they teach what the behaviors of the followers should be.

One of the church bishops says that the President's policy change is "a good first step." I say it was one step too far because if a Catholic institution has the right to deny employees insurance coverage for contraceptive services, they can fire employees who have the services performed regardless of what insurance pays for it.

The President has said in the past something to the effect that it is better to do "the right thing" than be reelected by not doing it. Of course, its easier to say that when election time is not imminent. The "right thing" was what he decided before he changed his mind. If that's not satisfactory to Catholic voters and Catholic leaders, and they believe a bette American rest with Republican, let them vote Republican.

If President Obama's latest concession to the Catholic church was "a good first step," The "right thing" would be for Catholic institutions is to take the second good step of increasing wages of employees by an amount that enables them to buy their own insurance. The church need not even know which insurance they bought.

Certainly the Catholic church and its institutions would not want other policy holders to pay the cost of insuring their employees.

And further exploring this matter of the President's changing his mind and doing the "right thing" with respect to Catholic institutions and contraceptions, he should change his mind about establishing super PACs for receiving hidden campaign contributions from corporations and do the "right thing" by giving the people a chance to vote against there being too much money in politics, especially secret corporate money.

While it is understandable that the President would want to "play on a level playing field by the rules of the game and be temped to "fight fire with fire," this may be one of those times when "how you play the game" again is allowed to matter, and fire will be fought--with water.

If November's elections will indeed be battles for the "soul of America," Americans with genuine religious faith already know which side they're on.

Ronald

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Rendering unto Caesar (Edited)

2012-02-09T08:32:00.000-08:00

Concerning the desire of certain Catholic institutions for further exemptions from the new health-care law, the following are ideas that provide other perspectives on this latest controversy.

First, having a religious institution send its employees to another insurance company that will pay for contraceptive services at a non-catholic hospital would cause another hospital to do what the Catholic church believe is wrong. If it is wrong for Catholics, it is wrong for non-Catholics, whether or not these non-Catholics believe it. Both Catholics and non-Catholics serve and expect to be judged by the same God.

The conflict might be somewhat analogous to a person thinking that he (or she) has reason to murder someone. But believing it would be wrong to do so, hires or encourages someone else to do it. Wouldn't the first person still be wrong for making arrangements for someone else to do something that he (or she) believed to be wrong?

Catholic universities and hospitals should not encourage non-Catholics to do something they themselves believe is sinful. And that being the case, the Hawaii plan would not be the answer for Hawaiians either.

Paying for employee insurance that covers contraceptive services is not the same a performing or condoning whatever contraceptive services may be performed. Catholic hospitals and universities can pay for the insurance of non-Catholic employees, even as they recommend against their use of the service, but recognize the employee's rights under existing law--a sort of "rendering unto Caesar."

Also, Catholic universities and hospitals don't generally teach their employees about Catholic dogma or religious doctrine, primarily (I guess) because many of their employees are non-Catholic. The Catholic Church does the teaching. So this conflict between conscience and deed, and between whatever minimal Catholic religious teaching these institutions may provide and the contraceptive services the insurance will buy seem not to warrant further exceptions to the health-care law.

The exemption of the Catholic church and any other Catholic institution which hires and insures only member of the Catholic faith makes sense. The employees who follow the church's teachings won't want need contraceptive services.

But what about those who would? Again, it would be wrong to help Catholic members to find other sources of insurance that would cover services which the Catholic church believes is unforgivably sinful.

Some "wrongs" may be appropriate if they achieve a greater good. Many people must work on the Sabbath in order to keep their jobs. Even many religious institutions hire--and require--workers both of the faith and not of the faith to do various kinds of work on the Sabbath. Many people of faith go to war and kill other people who also would rather not being there, but are there either because they are forced to be there or in order to achieve a greater good.

A religious institution's buying employee insurance which also permits contraceptive services also achieves a greater good by providing services to both Catholic and non-Catholic employees who much more often than not have medical needs unrelated to contraceptions.

To the extent that doing something that may be "wrong," It, too,may be "forgivable" when the action achieves a greater good, and President Obama made the right decision. For the President to have ruled otherwise would mean that all Catholic institutions might have to be exempted from all aspects of the law dealing with insuring contraceptive services. That would be unfair to Catholic patrons who might want and need the services, and it would open the door to all kinds of requests by others for exemptions, even those unrelated to religion and contraception.

As for the politics of the matter, the Catholic church--and Catholics members and organizations--must decide whether it wants to be responsible for the failure of Obamacare, and by doing so deny Americans who need universal health care and the benefits the law provides. The disagreement, therefore, does not seem to warrant those of the Catholic faith who otherwise support his agenda abandoning President Obama in his reelection bid. The President made the best decision possible, given the circumstances. He just finds himself in a position of being "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

Which leads one to wonder, what decision a white Republican president of the Catholic faith would have made concerning this matter, and how the Catholic community would have reacted to that decision. I have concluded that both the decision and the reactions would have been the same.

Religion, Rights and Societal Responsibility (Edited)

2012-01-14T21:00:00.000-08:00

There is a widely held perception that problems within the American economy is due to problems in the nation's politics. That perception is incorrect. The problem is within the American people. There are conflicts within and among our religious faiths, our rights and our sense of societal responsibility.

Never before in my lifetime have I heard those who either hold or seek political positions pitting themselves--and those with wealth and power--against those who are the least fortunate within our society for reasons beyond their control. Were it left to these conservatives, handicapped American would again be begging in the public square, and Republican politicians would be demanding that they pay taxes on the alms they receive. Too many preachers have become so wealthy themselves that they have forgotten who sent them to preach, they have forgotten Jesus' saying that whatsoever is done to the "least of these" being done to Him.

The Bible teaches that people cannot learn the ways of Christianity without preachers who have been sent, Rom 10:11-14. But preachers don't preach anymore about the rich man, the camel and the eye of the needle. And because they no longer preach an uncompromising gospel, greed and corruption not only flourish but are perceived to be all right.

Churches have become more likely than not to be aligned with liars and cheats. And when Christians, liars and deceivers become teammates, and the church no longer criticizes the rich for robbing the poor, our politics can't improve, and America becomes a model for mistreating the powerless. Were it left to some conservative politicians, blind and the handicapped Americans would be back on the streets begging for handouts, and forced to pay taxes on their alms. They have less confidence in a Democratic president who is a Christian than in a Republican one who may not be. It's hard to be sure why or when this corruption of the American spirit began, but the following likely have been contributing factors.

Blue laws were established to prevent competitors of Christian businesses from being able to sell while Christians businesses were observing the Sabbath. However, the Blue laws allowed Christians to work on the Sabbath of Jews and muslims, which is Saturday. Overturning the Blue laws was the right thing to do. The problem is the likely effect on the attitudes of Christians toward the significance of the Sabbath. When a significant number of people of the dominant religion of any nation loses respect for some symbols associated with their faith, there is a greater tendency for them to lose respect for similar symbols and behaviors as well.

Consequently, we have seen substantially less emphasis on Christmas and more on holidays, in justified recognition of other celebrations that also occur during the Christmas season. But concurrent celebrations do not necessitate ignoring the religious significance of the season. Doing so, though, desensitizes Christians to the significance of the birth and life of Jesus, and reduces the impact of faith on moral judgement and personal behavior, which along with the pursuit of wealth and political power are the two things that exercise the most influence of personal behavior within a society.

Religion influences both personal behavior and individual attitudes concerning wealth, power and economic fairness. The desire for as much wealth and power as possible too often proceed along paths that are contrary to the fundamental teaching of most religions.

The general acceptance of obscenity in literature and entertainment as "free speech" is hardly what the Framers of the Constitution had it mind as protected speech. The quest for wealth by any means necessary is allowed to trump moral beliefs about proper behavior. Those who quote the Declarations of Independence with respect to our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't find much of importance in the part which says that "all men were created equal," meaning being of equal worth and deserving of equal consideration.

Approval of abortions by liberals and continued approval of the death penalty by conservatives, despite DNA testing showing many of those sentenced to death to be innocent, narrow the gap between the behaviors of Christians and those of many Americans who have no religious faith.

And unfortunately we are becoming better at it. There is no way that the most wealthy and powerful Americans can have unlimited access to the nation's wealth and still leave enough wealth for those at the bottom--and those in the middle heading for the bottom--to survive. We on the verge of greed-induced genocide, where those at the bottom either die of malnutrition and poor health care, or kill each other in an attempt to survive.

But this could not happen in a predominately Christian nation until Christians first became desensitized to profanity, obscenity, nudity, sexual promiscuity, deteriorating family structures, until Christians first became void of compassion for each other by reducing passion for their religious faiths and their desire to have religion impact their lives by guiding their judgement and behavior. Even China is attempting to protect its culture from the worldly ways of the West,

The rights of women to not be stay-at-home moms, the behavior of men that have driven women to seek independence, and the rights of gays and lesbians to marry are rights to which they are entitled. But dad at home with young children is not the same as mom being there. And out-sourcing care is worse, except where the mother resents staying at home enough to be a threat to the children.

And how do heterosexual children respond to seeing homosexual couples kiss and make love in movies and on television? Do they know the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals at young ages? Might they not come to feel that kissing, making love and marrying heterosexual individuals of the same gender is acceptable? It's hard to see how these behaviors can contribute to a stronger, long lasting society of the nature we have known. However, can--or should--a person feel a greater responsibility to the future of the society than to the fulfillments and gratifications of personal needs and desires?

Whereas laws and interpretations of the Constitution grant and protect our personal rights and religion serves to guide our personal lives, better politics will require better homes and better informed family members. And all will be impacted by the influence of religion--or by the lack of it.

Let Reason Prevail: A Request of Atheists

2011-12-17T19:08:00.000-08:00

I read a recent News article entitled "Atheists seek OK for banner at Christmas display." It appears that a national atheist foundation sought to display its own banner among the other holiday displays on the courthouse grounds. There seem to have been some objection to what seem to them only representation by those the Christian faith. The county judge said that the grounds were open to anyone who wanted to add religious symbols of their faiths to the holiday display. The atheists seemed concerned that displays were permitted to represent any religious faith and were countering with a demand for the right to display their own.

Any display of religious symbols are public expressions of the faith of those erecting the displays. But these symbols should not be interpreted as saying anything about faiths--or lack of faith--of people not represented by those symbols.

But the atheist, not only say that they believe in the "natural world"; they want to trash those who have religious beliefs. That's not what people who display religious symbols are doing, at least, I hope it's not.

These atheists want permission to display a banner which says: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enclaves minds." But aren't atheists often guilty of the same things?

Religion no doubt has been used by certain people at various times in history to enslave the minds and hearten the hearts of the faithful, often against their neighbors. But those were not among the basic teachings of major religions nor of their founders. It might have been sufficient for the banner to simply said: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL." Or simply say: "Atheists wish everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS." There is nothing wrong with atheists or people of faith wishing happiness for others regardless of their religious faith or lack of faith. It's evidence of not being closed-minded and "hard hearted."

But atheists call for "REASON" to prevail seems quite appropriate. So let's try it. They believe only in "our natural world" as if anybody, including them, knows exactly what that is. They believe that within a relatively few millions years (say a billion years) "our natural world" produced some forms of living single-celled organisms from non-living matter. But how did that primordial life came into being? Nevertheless, those one-celled organism went on to produce mankind, who is constantly discovering new aspects of our natural world, inventing new mathematics to describe it, and using that knowledge to invent smart telephones and technology unimaginable even by the creators of Dick Tracy.

Since we have no idea about the limits of "our natural world,"could it not be reasonable that during an eternity it could produce a supreme being that is infinitely more creative than human beings, and who could set into motion those aspects of reality with which we are familiar and others with which we are capable of becoming acquainted? And any natural world that can create superior intelligence must be enabled by someone or something possessing something that is superior to intelligence. (I'm just reasoning.)

But with everything about "our natural world" that we observe and infer but don't understand and that we don't even know about (visit "Fabric of the Cosmos" on pbs) atheists are willing to conclude that for reasons that defy reason, that God cannot not exist there.

There appear to be only two choices: Either "our natural world" with perhaps an infinite IQ always existed or a supreme being (God) with an equal or perhaps superior attribute. Both are incomprehensible. The question about who made either one is legitimate. I'd rather rather believe there be a supreme, rational being determining what our natural world will be rather or how it will behave than a randomly acting natural world whose only creative tool in trial and error, and that allows anything to happen and makes anybody and anything possible. However, I Two options are all that I can see.

So when atheists ask us to reason, just based on what we know about ourselves and what scientists are learning everyday about ourselves and "our natural world," reason leads us to conclude that we live or exist in a reality of infinite possibilities but not infinite disorderliness. As long as "our natural world has existed no one has ever found an intelligent telephone, a telescope or any such contraption that nature world built. Mankind with intelligence had to build them.

Yet, the disbelief of atheists is understandable. That any being could be so awesomely powerful and so incomprehensibly intelligent is unimaginable. But that's why God is referred to The Supreme Being; He has attributes that aren't in any dictionary.

So much for the reasoning, though, the inevitability of God hadn't worked for Christopher Hitchens, renown and thoughtful atheist whose interviews many enjoyed. At least it hadn't at the time of a interview of him after he became ill. He assured CNN's Anderson Cooper that if anybody heard that he finally found God on his death bed, not to believe it. It will have happened without his permission, to paraphrase. Another renowned atheists, however, admitted considering the possibility that, after death, he might end up somewhere he didn't expect to be.

Hitchens and William F. Buckley, Jr. were people with whom I often disagreed, but who compelled me to see the other sides of issues and look for any merits that might exist in opposing opinions.

Most atheists (in contrast to those who just choose to ignore God) are good, honest, fair-minded people who, like the Biblical Cornelius and his family, know what is right--and do it--without any apparent religious influence. Jesus has said that no man comes to the Father except by Him. I believe He will give such people permission to pass on by.

President Obama: A Toothless Tiger

2011-12-14T16:35:00.000-08:00

December 14, 2011

To: The Editor

The President of the United States has been rendered a toothless tiger. He can roar and growl during his political speeches about the economy and the needs to create jobs, but the fact remains that fellow Democrats defanged the President--and Democrats in Congress--when they did not get out the vote during the 2010 congressional elections.

Democrats, including the President, apparently did not recognize the threat that Republican successes posed to the Democrats' agenda. Even as polls were saying that there would be Republican gains sufficient to take control of the House, Democrats were not telling voters why such a transfer of power would be a disaster for the middle class. They took the polls as evidence of a movement that they could do nothing about. Mitch McConnell had already stated the Republican goal was making President Obama a one-term president. Yet the President did not recognize or anticipate the threat that a Republican-controlled House and the lack of a veto-proof Senate would provide to his presidency.

Democrats seemed to have taken for granted that the voter turnout will always vote less during the mid-term elections regardless of what they did. To the contrary that should have motivate Democrats to be even more politically active, and make sure that this election was one of the exceptions.

I rode around town on election day, seeing if I could find neighborhood signs encouraging voters to vote, and to vote for Democrats. I did not find any. Maybe Republican supporters pulled up the signs, but I didn't hear of any such complaints from Democrats.

Democrats need the votes of the poor and minorities to win. But increasingly, the poor and minorities are becoming disenchanted because their conditions don't change regardless of who is president or who controls Congress. Democrats don't even promise to do anything for them anymore. Their votes, historically, have helped to significantly improved the economic status of members of the middle class and the working poor. But when middle class members have made it, they have not always used their good fortune to give the less fortunate comrades a helping hand.

Members of the working poor and non-working poor are not by nature significantly less intelligent than are those in higher income brackets. This is especially true of members of many black American communities. What there are less of, though, are environments that encourage, inspire and provide the role models of success and possibilities both within their families and within their communities. These conditions can be overcome, but usually not without the help of people who know how to make a difference and care enough to try.

Consequently, even though many Americans believe there are good reasons to vote for Democrats next November, the wide range of incomes among middle-class families make common ground among them meaningless in terms of the amenities that are possible both within and among the various income levels.

Who is the middle class, anyway? Do middle-class families earn yearly, $40-250 thousand a year? What does a family which earns $40 thousand a year have in common with one which earns $250 thousand per year? Do families with yearly earnings of $250 thousand have more in common with those with yearly earning of $50 thousand or those with yearly earnings of $500 thousand?.

Within each wealth class there are people who are seeking to move up within that level or to more to another level of wealth. Those who are in positions either by educational preparation, intelligence, access to people with influence or other qualities which enable some people to move up the economic ladder faster and further than others don't have a common vision with others about what is best for their situations and expectations.

Many Americans who are in the upper middle class are satisfied with conditions as they are. Most of them are living within their means--not trying to live like they are millionaires. But many of those in the lower middle-class and working poor don't read or listen to political news often enough or with sufficient attention to issues to recognize them, care about them, or take positions about them. And, unfortunately, they did not hear much advice and encouragement from trusted--often elected--Democratic leaders that might have gotten them out to the polls.

President Obama had a chance to extend the middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits until January 1, 2012, as was agreed to for the Bush tax cuts,. Allowing them to terminate on December 31, 2011 made no sense, unless the Bush tax cuts also stopped.

Future tax cuts should cease for the wealthy on January 1, 2012, as scheduled, but tax cuts for the middle class should be phased out over ten years. Members of the middle class are more likely to be severely impacted by any sharp and immediate increases in taxation.

President Obama's most pressing problems, however, are (1) that there may too many voters who have lost hope that their conditions will change regardless of who is president, and (2) that there is another group within the middle class which may be satisfied with any person as president who appears to assure that their financial conditions either improves or do not change.

Democrats get another chance--maybe their last one--to make a compelling case why both groups should vote, and why they should vote for them.

Deregulations Enhance Uncertainty

2011-11-16T09:01:00.000-08:00

I'm having trouble understanding how fewer regulations lead to more certainty both in the operation of businesses and within the economic system where these businesses are seeking to find certainty? Many businesses have become like poker players who want to stay in the games, where they have already become big winners, but only if their chips are given double value. Playing that kind of game certainly makes increasing their winnings more likely. But it also more likely--if not inevitably--makes more of the other players bigger losers.

Deregulating is like suggesting that fewer rules and officials increases the chances that football and basketball games will be played more fairly. While there certainly can be too many rules in a game, such as requiring football linemen to always be a certain number of inches from the line of scrimmage, or requiring the quarterback to not take more than four steps before throwing a pass or handing off the ball. The rules applying to football now seem about right. From time to time rules are changed as circumstances justify them. But the rules aren't changed just because some running backs aren't able to make runs pass the line of scrimmage or some quarterbacks can't complete enough of their passes.

So far, I have not heard the argument that too many regulations being properly monitored is what caused our financial disaster. President Obama has said he is willing to review all regulations and make changes where a good case can be made for changing or eliminating them--and already has changes some. But deregulating so that some businesses can take unfair advantage of either consumers or other businesses is kind of certainty that reasonable people would not consider constructive in an economy struggling to recovery its better days.

Businesses have never had the certainty that they would make profits--or even survive. Businesses go our of business somewhere, everyday. Uncertainty is built into American capitalism. But now a days, some big businesses want regulations that will guarantee that their teams always score touchdowns, that dropped balls will never be called a fumble, and that they will not be required to play a better game than the competition in order to win.

When I was a boy, our baseball games often were played in the streets with the balls and bats of other children. But the boy that owned the bat (a broomstick) and ball (a wormed tennis ball) didn't say that unless we gave him five strikes he was taking his bat and ball home. Some businesses want five strikes and their right hand touched at first base before they can be called out. They can say that because they own the bats and balls.

Republicans say that placing higher taxes on businesses hurt job creators. But how can that be true? Businesses say they are refusing to hire more workers, not because they don't have enough money, but because there either are not enough of the kinds of people they need to hire or there is not a sufficient market for more of their products or services. How then can giving these businesses access to more money by reducing their taxes produce more qualified job applicants and more consumers for their products? And how can taxing them a little bit more and reducing their profits a little bit change those reasons?

What kinds of regulations and certainties do businesses want, the kinds that existed before Barack Obama became president--the kinds that caused the Great Recession? Are these the kinds of regulations and certainties that Republicans are pledging to reinstate? Overturning regulations intended to prevent the kinds of intentional missteps that caused the Great Recession cannot be justified. Neither, however, can over-regulating.

Who, then, should make decisions about what regulations are appropriate to equitably distribute uncertainty, and fairly serve all classes of Americans? And by what processes are fair and just regulations most likely to be achieved? Fair or not, it appears that those who own the bats and balls are most likely to make those decisions. And whatever decisions they make will be proclaimed also to be good for the rest of us.

An emerging problem with our American capitalism is that it is operating within a climate of uncertainty reinforced by internal conflicts and contradictions about the importance of propriety, ethics and morality in our society. Winston Churchill called old Russia "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." That's beginning to define attitudes, politics and economics in America.

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Identifying and Assessing Obama's Economy

2011-11-06T09:08:00.000-08:00

The claim is being made by Republicans that the present US economy belongs to President Obama. They're really talking to people who they hope do not know that Obama is dealing with a terrible economy produced by the actions of President George W. Bush: two unfunded wars (one a war of choice), tax cuts that that were not paid for and which did not produce jobs, an unpaid-for prescription drugs plan and the Great Recession. Republicans are hoping that lll of these economic missteps have either been either forgotten or never known. Be that as it may, these are the main elements of the Bush's economy which ended in January 2009

But let's see what constitutes what Republican are choosing to call "Obama's economy" since January, 2009. If the present economy is Obama's economy the he certainly could only take credit or blame for those things that are the result of his ideas.

(1) President Obama inherited Bush's Great Recession. (That was Obama's fault because, knowing what the economic condition of the country was, he still chose to seek the presidency.)

(2) He stabilized the banking system and prevented a depression. (3) He established regulatory reform intended to prevent the same reasons to cause another recession or exacerbate the present one.

(3) He extended unemployment benefits during the recession.

(4) He reduced taxes on middle-class workers.

(5) He pass a health-care law, which even Obama realizes needs fixing. (He got the best he could get with a shaky super Democratic majority in the Senate.)

(6) A treaty was signed with the Soviet Union.

(7 Job loss steadily decreased and eventually has resulted in job gains. (The unemployment rate remaining at 9.1% reflects that job gains are keeping up with growth of Americans entering the job market. More jobs are needed to bring that percentage down. Republicans are trying to make sure that does not happen.

(8) Obama saved the three American auto companies, saving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers.

(9) He passed a stimulus plan that created and saved the jobs of over 4 million teachers, fire fighters and policemen and policewomen, though he hoped it had done more. (Republicans say that the stimulus failed, though they knew it had some success because many of them accepted the money to save jobs in their states.)

(10) Several Al Caeda leaders were killed, including Osama bin Laden, and Moammar Gadhafi was deposed because of the leadership of Obama.

(11) The President is trying to solve the nation's short- and long-term economic problems with a rational blend of $4 trillion worth of spending cuts and revenue enhancement.

(12) President Obama has been willing to compromise: consider tort reform in connection with health-care reform and place entitlements on table in order to address national debt consistent, both consistent with the voters wishes that there be more bipartisanship in Washington and contrary to the wishes of his political base.

These are only a partial list of the things the President has done and tried to do during the "Obama economy." And all that Obama has done still has failed to completely rescue the country from the economic wounds inflicted by the Bush Administration. Most of the people who are still out of work were put out of work by the deeds of George W. Bush. Their unemployment is not part of Obama's economy. And Obama has not started any new wars.

However, wealthy people, who were further enriched by the Bush tax cuts, have not had many children fighting in the wars that George W. Bush started. Wealthy people whose families have not as a group joined fellow Americans on the battlefields of Asia and the Middle East, should feel it their responsibility to support the nation with some of their money during this period of financial crisis. They should gladly help restore a thriving economy in this country so it can provide jobs and proper care for those children of the poor and middle class who did their part fighting, dying and being injured on those dusty battlefields. They did it for all Americans. These wealthy Americans will more than make those surtaxes back in a thriving economy.

Despite the consistent and often irrational opposition by the Republican Party, the Obama presidency has been quite good so far. When Republicans say that because of what Obama has achieved--or tried to achieve--they cannot stand four more years of Obama in the White House, they're right: They can't stand it, but the majority of the American people probably can.

This economy belongs to Obama only (1) if he caused the economic troubles (He didn't.), or (2) if his attempts to fix the economy had Republican support. (They didn't.), or (3) if the economy--regardless of its condition when Obama became president--got even worse. (It didn't.)

If the Super Committee fails to come up with the Big Deal, look of our credit ratings to fall. And if Republicans gain the White House, expect ratings to sink to A or B level, and interest rates to skyrocket.

Despite the "Occupy" movement, Senate Republicans continue with their votes on jobs to scream, "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!

Why the media think Obama will be blamed in the 2012 for things he did not cause is either a reflection of their own poor judgement or their low opinion of the judgment of the American voters.

Voters may have bad understandings because of media failure to challenge lies, allowing unchallenged lies, too often, to be perceived as truth.

Raising Cain (A Revision)

2011-11-03T22:42:00.000-07:00

I'm beginning to be concerned about the way Herman Cain is being treated during the controversy about his alleged sexual harassment. I'm concerned as a black (I learned that from Herman Cain). I'm concerned for the same reason that many--if not most--women think he is getting his due. I'll admit, there are some things about which I'm not able to be objective--though in those circumstances I realize that I could be the one that is wrong.

I am not aware of every statement that Herman Cain has made related to accusations against him by potentially as many as three women who either worked under him or in his presence as he served in some kind of leadership position. My reaction has not been to whether he is guilty or not guilty as accused. My reaction is to the media having rendered him "guilty until found innocent" in Cain's words.

There are people of various persuasions who are pulling for the women to be telling the truth and others pulling for Cain to be telling the truth. One or the other is not telling the truth, or both are telling the truth. From what I have heard, there does not seem to be enough information surfacing to know what the truth is.

This is what I know. For some reason two women surfaced to announce that they had been sexual harassed by Herman Cain. I have heard no reason why these women chose to release that information or otherwise make that assertion.

Did they not like Herman Cain because he is a black American? Was it because he is a black American conservative? Was it because it because they do not believe a man who has done such things should ever become President of the United States? Or was there some other reason? Regardless of what it was, there was something that motivated their decisions.

The women want Cain to grant them the privilege to speak out about the alleged sexual harassment. But why would he do that? If they are telling the truth, he won't want them to tell it. And if they are not telling the truth, why would he want them to lend support to the suggestions that are being promulgated by the media?

The media is saying that Cain is changing his story. Well, based on what I have heard, he has. But the story seemed to change when he was attempting to explain different aspects of the history surrounding the accusations.

The latest information to surface suggest that during a previous senatorial campaign eight years ago he told his campaign manager that there had been a sexual harassment complaint made against him that might surface as an issue in the campaign. He did not say he had been guilty of sexual harassment. The media is treating that information as a confession of guilt.

This manager ends up in Rick Perry's struggling campaign. Was he added to the Perry team because he said he had some useful information? Did Perry know about that information before it was released? Probably not. He would have been provided a shield of deniability.

Cain said that he may have said or did something that someone might have interpreted as sexual harassment, which is possible. We don't know the details of how the case was resolved. Was Cain found to be guilty or were the findings inconclusive for some reason? And if the evidence was conclusive, why did the women settle for merely a reportedly $35, 000.00?

A second witness has surfaced who says that he saw the sexual harassment happen, and a third woman who said she was sexually harassed by Cain and started to file a complaint but decides against it.

I don't know why Herman Cain is receiving persistent attention to his possible involvement with these women, while the media stopped questioning Senator John McCain during his run for the presidency when he said he would answer no more questions about an alleged extra-marital affair. These two acts are certainly different situations but not different enough in the moral severity to deserve such unequal levels of coverage.

What is it that Cain is supposed did? Was it something he said, something he did or something he wanted to do?

Was Cain a Republican at the time of the alleged incidents? Were the women Democrats? And if they were, was the incident made more objectionable because Cain was a Republican?

Or was it an arrogance within Cain that made him feel empowered, because of his position, to seek liberties with these women that resulted in confrontations exaggerated because of ideological conflicts between the parties.

I still have not idea what the truth is. But neither do the media, though they talk as if Cain is the only player not telling the truth. Has anybody volunteered to take a lie-detector test?

US Needs Blend of Ideologies

2011-11-02T11:13:00.000-07:00

Sometimes conservatives are right. There is some merit to their argument that safety nets create dependency by people who might otherwise be self-sufficient if they were so compelled and strove to so be.

The Republican plan of having Social Security remain as is for those who are 55 years or older may be all right if Social Security for those younger than 55 years was phased out so that younger people become increasingly more responsible for more of their retirement needs.

For example, a person who is 54 years of age would receive at 65 years of age 96% of expected Social Security and Medical Care coverage and would pay 96% of expected Social Security taxes. That person will have 11 years to save up enough money to make up the differences in benefits. They could buy some kind of supplementary insurance with the savings, save it, or invest it..

A person who is 52 would receive 92% of expected benefits from SS and MC. SS taxes would be 92% of expected cost. The person 3 years longer (13 years) to prepare for reduced benefits.

A person who is 50 would receive 88% in benefits, pay 88% less in cost and have 5 years longer (11 years) to save for retirement costs.

A person who is 48 would receive 84%, pay 84% and have 7 years longer to save (17 years).

Finally, a person who start work at age 22 would pay for 46% of coverage, pay 46% of the cost, and have 47 years to save for retirement.

This scheme has possibilities if people save, if they know how, where, how much and when to save and if they can anticipate or determine what their retirement needs would be in the future.

For wealthy people--many of whom are among those most critical of people who need SS and MC--the uncertainty of those needs is not a problem because most of them have inherited wealth. Or as Rev. Al Sharpton recently put it: These are people who "were born on third base, and are acting like they hit a triple."

But for those who must fit retirement plans into the need to live in the present on modest incomes, this is a problem. How much health and life insurance can a family afford? How well will children be clothes and fed? In what kinds of homes and neighborhoods will the family live? What colleges and universities can the children attend? How many and what kinds of family vacations will there be? Must both spouses work?

These are just some of the decisions that would affect the kinds of retirements for which people can reasonably prepare. This can be done. There are people who are doing it. But people must have plans for doing it successfully. High school economics classes could be places where students learn how to make such plans.

But there seems to be a refusal by most conservatives to realize that not all people have the same financial skills or interests. They don't have the same families, parents, spouses, colleagues, associations through organizations, or teachers that can influence their skills, interests and commitments. For these people a mandatory system of retirement planning is necessary. Social Security and Medicare both anticipates and addresses those needs.

Does Social Security tend to make people less independent in providing for their own retirement? For some people that is true. For most people, the best we can say is "we don't know." But enabling people to prepare for their own retirement in a mutual effort with others still seems like a reasonable approach to address that uncertainty. People pay into pension plans or buy insurance: to address periods of need which may occur at unexpected times and during periods of family uncertainty--like the present. Social Security is multiple insurance.

Conservative are right, however, in suggesting that our welfare system tend to promote and encourage dependency by people who have the abilities and talents not only to take care of themselves but also to make significant contributions to our economic, social and political systems.

But how can that talent be harnessed? And how can we identify those who have the potential to become independent, contributing members of society, and distinguish them from those who likely will need our help? For some people, taking care of the most vulnerable is more economical--and humane--than trying to make everyone financially independent and having them suffer the consequences if they aren't. Safety nets are important.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives have acquired an unChristian-like indifference about those who come upon hard times. They believe that the conditions of the less fortunate are always their fault, and never the fault of the circumstances which both generate and perpetuate their conditions. Poor schools and poor teachers, for example, contribute to poor performance as adults, whereas

having the best schools and teachers contribute to success. A country, therefore, must be guided by a blend of conservative and liberal ideas because its people will always be a blend of those who need help and those who don't.

Liberals--and perhaps most conservatives--believe we must prepare those who are most able to be independent, and care enough to help those who are less able so they can experience a quality of life that at least satisfies their desires and basic needs. Most poor people don't need much to be happy, and those who are not happy with their conditions usually find ways to overcome them. Many of our most successful people emerged from very humble circumstances.

Lee Hamilton states it in a recent News column that the American people "don't want big government or small government, but smart government. They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done." For everyone, I might add. Voters get another chance in 2012 to get it right.

Cain Vote Gets Money Out of Politics

2011-10-20T13:09:00.000-07:00

The presidential campaign of Herman Cain is cause for concern for many members of the Republican Party. There is the fear by some that, even if Cain somehow wins the Republican nomination, he could not possibly win against President Obama. Others fear that in a contest against Obama, Cain might actually win. Such is the nature of the party.

Herman Cain would like to be the second black president in the White House. And some black Americans--maybe even Cain himself--would even welcome the chance to have what they consider a "real black man" there. Without giving Cain candidacy more credibility than it deserves, though, we must give him credit for having run well, thus far.

The idea has been floated that the Mitt Romney campaign encouraged his supporters to vote for Cain in the Florida straw vote, hoping a substantial Cain victory would create a ground swell of support for Cain, and, given the choice of Romney or Cain, conservative Republicans would choose Romney. And the fact that Republicans are using their control in state governments to pass legislation that suppresss opposition votes suggest they certainly would not be averse to using unscrupulous means to attain a politician advantage over each other.

But whatever is the political fate of Herman Cain--and regardless of why it has happened--he is currently making a serious run for the Republican nomination for the presidency. The main question concerning the viability of Cain's candidacy seems to be whether his intelligence and management skills can offset limited political skills and limited awareness of worldwide circumstances.

Cain is a conservative Republican. And the meaning of conservatism does not change just because the person espousing the ideology is black. The only difference between black and white conservatives is that one can be reasonably sure that black-conservative opposition to liberals has nothing to do with race.

Cain has said that black Americans have been brainwashed, and many black people have been offended by the comment. Some of that feeling may be due to the fact that there is some truth to it. Certainly, many black people vote based on a trust they have in black leaders who are advocates--often paid advocates--for the Democratic Party. By that definition white voters are similarly "brainwashed."

The leanings of Black Americans toward the Democratic Party began and evolved through the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, which led to Civil Rights Laws in 1948. That confidence in the Democratic Party grew under the leadership of the Democratic Party during the 1960s, as black Americans demanded--and finally achieved--many rights due to us as American citizens.

The fact is, however, that black Americans don't know what they could have achieved had their votes not been pledged to Democrats. Black people never forced Democrats and Republicans to bid for their votes with promises of fairness. Both black voters are swing votes that perhaps could have force attention by both parties to the issues of social and economic justice. But present congressional Republican aren't even inspiring confidence among fellow Republicans.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have merits, not necessarily in the numbers but potentially in the concept or model The numbers may not be the right mix. Perhaps they should be 7-8-9, 5-10-15 or some other combination. The merits of the model would ultimately be evaluated in terms, not merely of its simplicity, but of its potential to lead to consensus on taxation and spending in a manner that grows the economy and reduces--and eventually eliminates--the number of people who are too poor to pay taxes. Such a simple plan would not necessarily, as is often claimed, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as national safety nets. The core 9-9-9 plan--or whatever numbers it contains--would not become law as presented by Cain during the primary debates. It would be debated and amended by both houses of Congress before a presidential signature makes the plans law.

A political candidate cannot be liberal and conservative at the same time, as some black Americans think Cain should be, and which Mitt Romney is trying to shed the image of trying to be). When Cain says that Wall Street protesters should not blame Wall Street but themselves, which is the conservative message, he did not mean they should blame themselves for not blaming President Obama, which is also a conservative message. But he also did not mean those protesters who have done the right things but are victims of present economic conditions.

He did mean those who had not applied themselves sufficiently in school to prepare themselves for present and emerging job markets, and I would add those who were eligible but did not vote for Democrats during the 2010 elections. But Americans cannot help if we are in denial of the extents to which certain malfunctions exist within many American families and communities, and within the psychic of many Americans.

Conservative Americans who gave Republicans control over Congress in 2010 did not send them to Washington to govern the way they have so far--and they did not campaign that they would. The support of Herman Cain could just be a message to Republican members of Congress that constituents disapprove of their representatives representing Grover Norquist and not them. Many of them are sending a message to congressional Republicans about the 2012 election results unless they change their acts in Washington.

Cain justifies his 9-9-9 plan by contending that math suggesting it won't work is flawed and that opponents don't understand the plan because they are confusing apples with oranges. But distorting the truth and making people believe what is not true has been a recent Republican strategy. Why shouldn't Republicans try it on each other?

Meanwhile, the liberal media are criticizing Cain and his 9-9-9 plan as if they fear he could actually become president. Or maybe that's what they would like conservative Republicans to believe is the case. Anyway, he is being criticized more than--and including by--those who have no plan.

More importantly, though, a vote for Cain might help get money out of politics.

About Not Following "Strangers"

2011-10-10T22:56:00.000-07:00

The problem facing the United States is that too many people who want the United States to be perceived as being the leader of a diverse world are having problems appreciating diversity within their own borders.

A majority of Americans claim to be Christians, but increasingly Christianity seems more about talking the talk than walking the walk.

Several years ago, Rev. Andrew Jason, a late associate minister at the church where I am a member, preached the sermon. He began by recounting for the audience a time when, after many years, he revisited his home community back in rural Louisiana.

He said that he knocked on the door of a home of one of his parents old friends-- he wasn't even sure if anyone still lived there. But soon an old man opened the door, and before he could tell the old man who he was, the old man looked at him and said, "You must be Andrew Jason's son. Come on in." The subject of Rev. Jason's sermon that Sunday was "If you are a child of God, you don't have to tell anybody who you are."

Jesus said that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. He also said that His sheep know his voice and they will not follow a stranger. Too many American Christians don't know whether to follow Jesus or strangers. Jesus said we can't follow both.

However, strangers of different persuasions have convinced many Americans that they indeed can follow both. Following Jesus to church on Sundays and following strangers Monday thru Saturday allows us to get along better with family members and neighbors, in the work place, and with church-roll strangers.

If blind men still begged, present-day Republican Christians would require them to pay income tax on the day's collections. Instead of putting something in the cup, many of them would favor the government's taking something out. They want the government out of their own business but wouldn't object to government intervening in the blind man's business.

Even today, some Republican would have them back of the corners begging. They may not be saying it publicly now, but they thinking it. These are the kinds of strangers that present-day Republicans--and some independents are following.

But this suggestion that I'm making about Christians too often not sounding or behaving like followers of Jesus is not intended to ignore the merits of conservative arguments that our "welfare state" does encourage some of our people to be dependent on government, and on the wealth of more fortunate Americans. For those who would have achieved greater independence were it not for such government assistance--sharing the wealth--the welfare system is a handicap. But for those who would not have become independent but would have been even worse off without assistance, the system has been a necessary safety net.

Recognizing, therefore, that there are if fact people who will need our help as badly as do those who are blind or mentally challenged demands appropriate actions. We act as if we have forgotten that people are born whose intelligence ranges from the most severely mentally challenged to the most gifted geniuses. These people don't have equal chances in their pursuit of happiness.

Not only do people differ in their intelligence levels, individual differ in many other qualities over which they have no control, such as: educational and employment opportunities; self and other's motivation; encouragement; role models; predispositions; ethnic diversities; kinds of friends and classmates; neighborhoods; religious faiths (or no faith),; home environments,;education, wealth and influence of parents; quality of schools; whether parents are on welfare; personal attitudes and attitudes of others; etc.

Those who criticize those who have not achieved their potential because of the welfare system has encouraged it should therefore consider the factors which more often than not contribute to underachievement and welfare dependence.

Let's face it, though. If many of these people who are unemployed or on welfare had had in their lives all or at least many of the advantages that contribute to economic success, they would have the jobs of some of those who criticize them because they would have become better qualified. So many who are employed who are glad that some people are satisfied to receive welfare and food stamps. They don't mind contributing financially to keep them there--or they shouldn't.

But there is a increasing number of people who don't want to help them on welfare and food stamps but also don't want to help them.

For the rest of the complainers, those who don't follow strangers, let's provide as many as we can of those factors which contribute to success. Let schools work on student work habits, their skills, their attitudes toward themselves and their futures. Discuss what schools, houses of worship and communities should be doing. Discuss why each is failing and what can be done to help them succeed. Discuss how homes, churches and community can both help and be helped through these endeavors.

When great majorities of Americans say in all major polls that they favor the wealthy paying higher taxes in order to take some of the nation's financial burden off the backs of the poor and middle class, most of them aren't talking about class warfare; they're responding to a calling for that "Old Time Religion" that was good enough for their parents and grandparents, and used to be good enough for them. There is a yearning for the joy of their salvation that once made them "kinder," "gentler" and more compassionate.

Republican presidential candidate Mitch Romney says he believes that the United States is God's pick to lead the world's nations. But how can the United States ever become God's world leader if the American people no longer allows Him to touch their minds, shape their thoughts and guide their decisions and behavior. God can't lead a country when strangers lead the people.

Ronald

Email: rcspoon@earthlink,net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

A Deadly Return to the Master

2011-09-26T11:02:00.000-07:00

Several years ago, I heard news of a man who had been witnessed stabbing his dog and throwing it into the Houston ship channel. But the dog did not die. Instead, it swam back to shore and, wagging its tail, returned to its master. Whereupon, the master stabbed the dog again--this time fatally--and threw it again into the channel. The newsman concluded that it was as if the dog had returned to the master, saying "I forgive you. I know you didn't mean what you did. I'll give you another chance."

Memories of this incident came back to me as I tried to justify Republican supporters in present-day American politics, and to assess the Republican Party's opinion and betrayal of average American voters,

During the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, middle-class Americans and the working poor of all political persuasions were stabbed with frozen incomes, despite incomes rising for wealthy and well-to-do Americans. Before Obama even thought about being president, unfortunate Americans were being victimized by rising unemployment. The economic injuries inflicted by Bush's Great Recession took its toll on American workers, and Republicans had--and still have--no reasonable remedy to treat the wounds. Their solution is always not do whatever President Obama did or would like to do.

Americans of all political persuasions are hurting because of Republican wounds inflicted during those years. Still, many of these wounded Americans believe Republicans just made mistakes, that they are sorry for their deeds and will do not do it again. But Tigers don't shed their stripes, and they don't lose their appetite for deer, just because they failed to catch more than one during the last chase. The beast waits for another election day, the master, another chance to kill.

Enters, though, an intelligent young man who talked about the need for a united America, and a need for change to address the injuries an unregulated Wall Street had inflicted on America's workers. A Republican regulated Wall Street had stabbed the American economy and thrown it into the channel. Convincing themselves that Republicans and Wall Street, which they failed to regulate, were really not bad people, and that they did not mean to do any harm, the American people bailed out the banks and saved other businesses primed for collapse.

But Wall Street stabbed the American economy and American workers again by not hiring and not lending to businesses that would, thus throwing consumers into the channel of hopelessness.

Last November, the American consumer, of whom were already unemployed said with their votes or with the ballots they did not cast, we know you Republican did not mean to freeze our salaries during the Bush presidency. We forgive you for not knowing that the housing bubble would eventually burst, causing the values of our homes to decline. We forgive you for not knowing that if jobs were be lost at an accelerated rate, that eventually the unemployed would include people who needed a check or tow to finance their standard of living. We forgive you for not realizing that stagnant salaries and reduced incomes would render families unable to both save and to keep up with expenses. But we forgive you because we know you did not really mean us any harm.

Well, the forgiven party has shown its appreciation for the trust the American people have placed in them by stabbing them again by blocking every effort Democrats make to rescue them and treat their economic wounds.

Republicans are asking, again, for a chance to finish the kill, and many Americans still can't believe that Republicans would mistreat them. Not all Republicans are misguided. But most Republicans who are running and winning in recent elections seem to be of a different breed, motivated and financed by a kind of American that are alien to the promises of America.

Most people don't change in terms of how they vote. That loyalty has been mostly because the economic status of most people's did not change, no matter who represented them in government. And they were certain that the people in business and government were honest people who were busy looking after their best interests, not using unsavory ways to look out for their own.

But these times are different. The past ten years have affected Americans as never before. The 2000 election of George W. Bush could go down in history as ushering in the demise of the greatest, most compassionate and most influential military, financial and creative giant the world has ever known.

The pope reportedly issued a recent warning to the German people. Quoting the article: "The Pope spoke for 20 minutes in the Reichstag, which was torched in 1933 in an incident used by Hitler to strengthen his grip on power. 'We Germans know from our own experience' what happens when power is corrupted, Benedict said, desecrating Nazis as a highly organized band of robbers, capable of threatening the whole world and driving it to the edge of the abyss'. " The American people are in need of such a speech by the Pope. We think people who desire to be dictators are only in Germany or other countries, never are such people in the United States.

The Pope's scary words should remind Americans of the reasons they vote--or should vote. Serious thought must be given to which party members deserve a second chance.

Getting Real about Jobs and Debt on C-span (A Revision)

2011-09-19T14:37:00.000-07:00

The President, the Speaker and the congressional Super Committee need to outline job-creating ideas in detail, including how jobs will be created, how many good jobs they will generate and why it will happen. If they believe a lower tax rate for businesses will generate jobs, it should be because businesses have promised to do so. We should know how many jobs businesses promise, and have triggers that will tie the rates of tax relief to rates of hiring. If businesses have made such promises, there should be a time-frame for hiring to begin.

Also, there must be the realization that businesses are not the only ones who need "certainty." Governments also need certainty, and workers need it because they are also consumers. Workers should consider how certainty might be increased by sharing either work time or wages during periods when workers might otherwise be fired. This would require that workers save more of their earnings during good times, while keeping their spending under control, so they can manage their financial needs, with the help of those savings, during tough times when either their work time or wages must be shared with fellow workers.

In this uncompromising political climate, all discussions and decisions about jobs and debt should be made on C-Span, where there is a requirement that each position be justified , explained how it will work, has evidence cited from history when such strategies worked in a similar economic environment and has the corroboration of experts. The fact that the Super Committee is six Democrats and six Republicans--and not one member of each party--assumes a diversity of expressed opinions in an environment where members of one party may agree with positions of the other party and party members may disagree with each other..

Our economy always has been consumer driven, and some Americans have become wealthy because others spent too much, while saving less than they should have. People whose salaries for years were stagnated and reduced in buying power were enticed to buy homes they could not afford, and which tough times eventually rendered them unable to keep.

Those who enriched themselves off the middle class no longer have a thriving middle class that can buy more than it can afford, and continue to promote their prosperity. These wealth-seekers now seek to punish former spenders--who made them rich--for not having saved enough to finance their own retirement and health care needs. Many Americans are not only unemployed, underemployed, and underpaid; they are being threatening with denial of access to Social Security, Medicare and pensions, which they have helped fund.

But there were no suggestions by politicians, during good times, that the middle class save more so they could finance more of their financial and health-care needs after retirement, and businesses certainly weren't advising consumers to spend less. Unfortunately, those who have improved their financial conditions by taking advantage of an overspending middle class,--which unwisely sought a way of life their incomes would not afford--now punish their benefactors for doing so.

Consumers placed their own future retirements at risk by overspending and enhancing business profits. But businesses now require "certainty" before they will use part of those profits to return the favor to consumers by providing them with jobs. But how can there be that kind of certainty when fewer consumers are employed, and more of those who are working are saving more because they fear becoming unemployed.

Discussions of the Obama's plan must raise relevant questions of businesses, workers, and government in terms of their responsibilities in the American economy. Businesses, consumers, governments and workers are a team. And if they are to be a winning team, they must decide how they best work together to become a winner. How they will achieve that should be discussed on C-Span.

Workers have invested in businesses with their time and labor and by consuming their goods and services. Now it is time for businesses to use part of those profits to invest in workers by hiring. Businesses are waiting for a kind of certainty that only existed in the past only because there were spending consumers who were "certain" about their employment. The business world has always been the main engine of job creation. Job creation breeds profits, and if the goods and services are worth having, working consumers will pay for them.

Unfortunately, large companies are having to choose between hiring more American workers and having lower profits for share holders, or hiring more workers abroad, where the labor is cheaper, and having higher profits for investors. Which is better is not easily answered because many of those profits help finance workers pensions and supplement their retirement incomes in the form of dividends. Certainly, some investors are entitled to greater financial benefits than others based on the amounts of money invested.

But how should that aspect of wealth-distribution be related to the need for an economy to provide employment for all Americans who want to work? Can maximum wealth generation and maximum job-creation coexist? The question, which certainly defies an exact answer is: what combination of American and foreign employment does most good for all Americans and for capitalism in the American economy..

President Obama must chart out a vision for the future of America, as a place where all American feel secure, have no fear of becoming prey, nor feeling any need to prey on fellow Americans. It must grow out of realization by government, business and workers how they must cooperate to maximize the efficiency of the American economy.

He must force Republicans to submit their own vision of America, and let the people decide which vision they prefer so they can elect people they can trust to pursue their preference. If there is common ground in the visions, that's great; voters, therefore, can decide which candidates they trust more to compromise when compromise necessary.

Even as each party makes cases for its own ideological preferences, there must be a recognition that the people on the other side of the ideological divide are also Americans, who think they are right--and might be.

Ronald C. Spooner

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

The Roots of America's Problems

2011-08-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

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

2011-08-11T09:38:00.000-07:00

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

2011-08-08T09:52:00.001-07:00

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?

2011-08-04T07:41:00.000-07:00

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

America at Political Cross-Roads (Revised)

2011-07-31T06:15:00.000-07:00

It is rather obvious to anyone with any common sense that there are two reasons why we have a debt problem: (1) We spend more than we could afford--or were willing to cover. Instead of paying cash for our unnecessary expenditures, we put it on our credit card, borrowing money to give big tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and borrowing more money to fight a war in Iraq which we needed not fight. (2) We did not bring in enough revenues through taxes to pay off the credit cards, that is, to cover the payment of our debts. So we have a debt problem because we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. And it doesn't matter how many times Republicans say it is only because we have a spending problem; it is not not true.

Liberals on the far left have reason to be disappointed with the performance of President Obama during the first two and a half years of his presidency. He was so absorbed in the nation's need--and call--for bipartisanship that he too often began negotiation at the likely position of compromise, resulting in his eventually compromising to the right of center. He did not allow Congress to arrive at that center themselves, with some timely help from him when necessary to fine tune the agreement.

On the debt-ceiling dilemma, the President told Democratic members of Congress not to draw a line in the sand, despite Republican having announced their line in the sand of no tax increases. Even so, Democrats and Republicans likely had found a middle ground of sorts with three or four to one weighings of spending cuts to revenue increases. There was a chance that more spending cuts could have been achieved had Republicans agreed to an additional $400 billion in cuts which had been suggested by the Senate's Gang of Six Committee. The President asked the Speaker if those additional revenues were doable with House Republicans. The Speaker did not respond.

But freshmen tea party Republicans weren't even going to agree to even the original revenue increase $800 billion in revenue increases. And when Republicans turned down the $800 billion increase in revenues, the Speaker blamed the rejection on the President's "moving the goal posts" and "demanding" $400 billion dollars of revenue. Neither the reason for the rejection nor the claim of the President's "demanding" a revenue increase was true.

If there are sufficient Republicans who are committed to the government defaulting in paying back the money Congress borrowed, then Congress cannot reach any agreement. The House and Senate will never agree on something that can pass both chambers. What happens then?

The Constitution has the answer: The obligation of the nation's debts to be paid cannot be "questioned." But if Congress cannot agree to pay expenditures it approved, the President must save the nation from default before the condition become a catastrophic. The 14th Amendment apparently gives somebody the responsibility--and the authority--to pay the bills. Who is that if not the President of the United States? And if it is the responsibility of the President, would it not be derelict in the performance of his duty for the President not to raise the debt ceiling? Would it be an impeachable offense?

But for how long would Obama have the authority to raise the debt ceiling: one week, one month, one year, until after the next elections, or is it a blank check to raise it at the president's discretion? Obama must not allow political blackmail to succeed. He must exercise the 14th Amendment authority if necessary, and let the Supreme Court explain for governments of the future why a president can or cannot do so. A vote of disapproval by the Court would encourage political blackmail and is itself perhaps unimpeachable offense.

The nation and the world now know what to expect should Republicans ever gain control of Congress and the presidency. They know what is likely to happen should Democrats not control the presidency and both chambers of Congress that includes a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And they also know, now, why Republicans were so persistent in characterizing Obama as a Fascist: It was to deflect attention to their own efforts in that direction.

Unfortunately, the present political climate in Washington makes possible the unthinkable: government officials having the power to deliberately manipulate the political climate in ways that influence financial markets in ways that assure the success of their or their supporters investment bets. Politicians can scare the markets into a decline, enabling them, those related to them or to whom they are indebted to make money as markets go down and as they turn around a go up. It is understandable why some politicians don't want government big enough to regulate and oversee.

Your will notice that Republicans never mention how poor and middle class Americans will be affected by tax cuts that are too large and tax revenues that are too low. They never explain how spending cuts will increase the number of jobs.

The present political debates are not about whether we spend too much or tax too little. It is about something much more: It's about what kind of people we are or choose to become as Americans.

On second thought, the tea party Republicans are not as significant part of that future as they appear. Their threats to not vote to raise the debt ceiling and severely damage the American and world economies unless they get their way clearly identifies them as a non-factor in future elections. Remember, all of the spending cuts that will go into the final bill were negotiated with any tea party members of Congress, only regular Republicans. Tax cuts without revenue increases is a conservative position, but tea party members don't care about a Republican victory; they are only care about their receiving the credit for whatever out come results, and making political blackmail work.

The final Democratic position, in this debt-ceiling debate, is where a party which wants to be the big-tent party should be: slightly to the right of center--and Democrats and Republican would be meeting there even without a tea party.

Ronald C. Spooner

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Thwarting Political Blackmail and Compassion Void

2011-07-24T03:19:00.000-07:00

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

Theory of Republicanomics

2011-07-23T10:35:00.000-07:00

Republicans have tried to make the case that taxing wealthy people, and corporations that are making hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, would be bad for the American economy. They claim that corporations would not be able to hire workers because they would not have enough money left to do so.

However, their argument that lower taxes would stimulate job growth fails to acknowledge three facts: (1) Because of technology, there are fewer corporate job openings. (2) There are lower demands for good and services because of uncertain and unemployed consumers. And (3) there is no evidence in the recent past that lower taxes on either wealthy people or wealthy corporations produced more jobs.

If lower taxes for corporations and wealthy people meant more jobs, one might reasonably assume that job growth would be maximized by reducing corporate taxes and taxes on wealthy people to zero. And if that is the case, would not the functioning of the economy be maximized if nobody paid taxes? Certainly people would have more money to spend. That would create a greater demand for goods and services and, hence, a greater need for corporations to employ more workers to satisfy the demand, enabling businesses to more money. Having no taxes would be Utopia for the American economy. Wouldn't it?

However, Republicans have yet to show that lower corporate taxes produce more jobs and not just more profits for stock holders. Republicans claim with certainty that taxes cuts for businesses and wealthy individuals would increase the number of jobs, but have not explained why they would, nor have they explained occasions when they haven't. Have we, for example, gotten the job increases Republicans promised when the Bush tax cuts were extended? And what about the jobs promised through the other tax deals made during this year's Lam Duck session? Were all of these promised job increases supposed to occur next year?These should be able to explain at levels average Americans understand--if they can be.

Small businesses and corporations do not make profits by selling goods and services only to their workers. They might be able to do that if they produced and served all of the needs of consumers they hire, but they don't. An economy involves consumers who buy goods and services from different enterprises, which also receive goods and services from other enterprises, many of whom are their own consumers.

The economy is a complicated matrix of competing interactions, including political influences, distributions of wealth, and other self interests such as market manipulations which allow savvy investors to make money both as markets go up and as they come down. These interactions are not easily predictable by such simple-minded suggestions as lower taxes enhance job creation and higher taxes inhibit them. They only sound right because they are said so often and too often are not effectively refuted.

The American economy needs consumers to spend, but economists say consumers needs to save and invest more. But when consumers save more, they lose their jobs for not spending enough. Business profits decrease, and jobs seek cheaper labor overseas. A solution would be workers being paid enough so they can save, invest and spend. But how can that be made to happen? Republicans pretend to be certain about things about which even expert economists fail to agree.

One reason low and no taxes are bad ideas is that we need governmental services: an adequate military, police and firefighters, safe food and water, safe medicine, and many others such as the need to educate our children with the essential knowledge and skills necessary to maximize the development of their academic potentials. How much government is needed is an appropriate question. But does government only become too big only when it addresses the needs of others but too small when it fails to address our own?

Can wealthy people be trusted to identify and provide for the needs of the poor and powerless? The answer is debatable. Poor and middle class people are part of "We the people." They are the one's whose children (and often themselves) are defending this country. Certainly Christianity and the Constitution provide protections for the powerless and less powerful. Shouldn't they?

Republicans should be required to explain why they feel that allowing the country to default in the payments of its bills is better for the American economy and job production than raising taxes on the wealthy. If they can explain--and make me understand--I'll support default, too. But their brand of economics is hard to understand for the same reason that Einstein's Theory of Relativity if hard: Both operate outside the realm of common sense. The difference is that Relativity is understood by people who are well-versed in the field of physics. No person who is well-versed in the field of economics, whether conservative or liberal, understands the logic of Republicanomics.

Just as there is a point where taxes are too low to sustain an economic system, there is a point where taxes are too high: paying taxes at the 100% level, for example. Government, with the help of independent economic experts, must be the final arbiters of what constitutes the proper taxing levels, and maybe even what constitute optimum wealth distribution and opportunities for employment within a viable society.

But when Wall Street, Congress and the Supreme Court form a politico-economic team, democracy is at a risk level that Americans would not permit were the president not Barack Obama. Time will tell whether the present team uses or abuses this once in a lifetime opportunity that Obama's unique leadership qualities provide.

Ronald

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

When Liberty Becomes a Liability

2011-06-28T19:50:00.000-07:00

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

Who, What and When to Trust

2011-05-27T12:38:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've spent more time watching discussions of financial markets. The differences of opinion expressed by the various financial experts reminded me of our political debates.

Each of these guests is an expert, who has reached market conclusions based not only on the pool of information to which each has access but on how their personal intellectual, psychological and sociological systems interact with the circumstances and human inclinations they peruse.

But regardless of how much these experts express believes in their market predictions or expectations, they never invest based only on their own ideas. They tend to invest in a manner that acknowledges that other opinions may be correct. They diversify.

However, present-day Republicans, despite most of them not being experts, are insist on investing the nation's future exclusively in their ideas. There is seldom any mention of "common ground." Republicans seem to be intentionally making ever aspect of every issue a source of debate. I use Republicans to be inclusive of even Republican who don't necessarily agree with every idea that surfaces under the Republican banner. I include them because they too often refuse to show their opposition with their votes.

Republicans dug the financial ditch in which America finds itself, and Bush's Iraq war and tax cuts were the shovels. The Republicans' position in 2003 was that the government budget surplus, which had been built up by tax increases and spending cuts during the Clinton presidency, somehow was the people's money and should be returned to them.

President Obama and fellow Democrats, along with decisions by President Bush at the end of his presidency and Republican support early during the Obama presidency, applied brakes to the free fall of the American economy. Obama's actions bought the free fall to a halt: fewer jobs were being lost. Soon more people were being hired than fired. Banks were shored up. And the big three auto makers had been saved, surviving prosperously and hiring among other things.

But the media kept saying that the people would judge Democrats in the 2010 elections by their own present conditions and not be the fact that the nation's Bush induced condition (and potentially their own) was improving. The media did not know how the American people felt. It was as if these analysts were willing to have Americans blame Obama for what Bush had caused and give him no credit for ameliorating the condition. Somehow this idea that the party that was trying to fix the problem (and succeeding) should be blamed and not the person who caused it made no sense to me. The political party that thought the low taxes for the wealthy, that brought on the Great Recession, was good in 2003 still thinks it is good for America despite our still not being sure how to recover from it.

The strange thing is that Republicans are counting that Americans continuing believing those tax cuts for the wealthy were good for all Americans then and are necessary for the future success of the economy. It may have been good for average incomes of all Americans but not nearly so good for the incomes of average individuals. As someone wisely pointed out, if one averages the income of a typical American and that of Warren Buffet, that typical American becomes a billionaire--but without the money.

Every Obama success makes it harder and less likely that Republicans can achieve their goal of making him "a one-term president." He had Obama Care approved by Congress. He found Osama bin Laden. He withdrew troops and suspended major military activities in Iraq. He is committed to beginning substantial troop withdrawal from Afghanistan this Summer. He very likely will suspend major military operations in Afghanistan by the end of the year. But all of these achievements and prospects of achievement will only make Republican less willing to help Obama succeed wherever they can, or to give him credit wherever he does.

However, the New York congressional election shows that not all Republicans, especially those outside the Bible belt, vote according to dictates of the standard Republican propaganda. While they may not agree with much of the Democratic ideology, they also don't support Tea Party craziness. They don't believe columnists and commentators who deliberately distort Obama and Democratic positions. And despite some of these people's claim to be born-again Christians, Precinct 26 voters were not deceived about the truth of the issues at hand.

Even as they blocked most of Obama's efforts to stimulate jobs creation, Republicans blamed Obama for not producing enough jobs. Yet during their tenure of being in control of the political agenda, Republicans have failed to suggest any of those ideas they claimed Obama should have used to create jobs. Only fantom jobs, which presumably giving more money to oil companies, millionaires and billionaires would produce, were recommended..

Americans of all political and ideological persuasions, therefore, must be able to distinguish between those ideas and actions that are sincerely believed to be the best of known alternatives , and those that are obviously designed only to defeat a president in the next election and to enriching the wealthy. They must realize that economic problem are not solved by continuing what caused the problem.

In 2010, both Tea Party and Republican politicians fooled both independents and the majority of their political bases. The results in the special New York congressional election suggest that, in 2012, shame may well be on these politicians.

America's greatest fear, though, is that most Republicans weren't merely fooling the American people in 2010 as a political strategy: These politicians may have been saying what they actually believed. And their craziness about not raising the debt ceiling may not seem crazy to them.

America's greatest hope is the suggestion by the NY-26 special election that most Republican politicians are rational, and are only temporarily acting crazy.

Ronald

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: www.ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Debt Reduction Strategies and Obstacles

2011-05-20T08:51:00.001-07:00

As is the case for many people concerning my opinions, I read Mr. Thomas' columns "A Solution to the Debt Menace" with great reluctance and my usual skepticism. I could only imagine what this one was about.

I became even more skeptical when I read that the plan Mr. Thomas was writing about was developed by The Heritage Foundation but I found much in the recommendation that even I could support. For the last 15-20 years, I have suggested that Social Security and Medicare should be what has become known as "means tested." In other words, these safety nets should be available to people in proportion to their ability to pay and need to be covered.

Homeowners insurance, auto insurance, term life insurance, income-protection insurance, hospitalization insurance and various kinds of warranties that we purchase don't guarantee those paying for the coverage will ever receive benefits. We buy protection but hope we never need them. The same applies to Social Security and Medicare: Most young people hope their future financial conditions can obviate the need for either.

However, for too many years benefits have been given to those not needing them but willingly accepted them. People no long feel guilty about receiving what they don't need, even if it means simultaneously expanding the numbers and failing to address the needs of the most vulnerable Americans..

When I first recommended gradually phasing out Social Security and Medicare benefits as incomes increased, I also suggested that future benefit adjustment be considered to differentiate between people who choose not to have or adopt children and those who have them.

Children who are gainfully employed contribute to pools that finance much of their parents retirement and medical care benefits. As it stands now, people with no children receive the same retirement benefits as those with five children gainfully employed and paying into the programs.

I've forgotten what remedies I proposed at that time. But one reader said I should "have (my) head examined" and that the editor should have his examined for printing it. I may have suggested that retirees' benefits should be related to the incomes of their children. This would have given parents an incentive not only to have children but to educate them well.

Some practices, however, continue to seem appropriate only because they have been in operation for so long, not because there aren't better alternatives. Like it or not, the success and sustainability of Social Security and Medicare relate directly--even if not solely--to the earning power of retirees' children. And problems cannot be resolved by ignoring factors that contribute to the problem. This aspect of the solution, however, also would be phased in over a period of time.

I am disappointed, to say the least, that, whereas Republicans have the Paul Ryan Plan and The Heritage Foundation Plan to address problems related to our long-term national debt, Senate Democrats and liberal think-tanks have not come up with debt-reduction plans of their own that are consistent with their values and indicative of the vision they have for the futures of all Americans.

The Democrats' plan seems to be having the Senate come up with a compromise plan with Senate Republicans that will, then, be further compromised with the House approved Ryan Plan. A 50-50 compromise in the Senate would become a 25-75% compromise by the time something is agreed to that will pass both houses.

That's right: 25% is likely all the President and fellow Democrats can get from Republicans. Whether "the people" knew it or not, that's what they asked for last November, either with the votes they cast or with the votes they failed to cast because they failed to vote. Democrats are mostly the blame, however, for not persistently and emphatically pointing out to supporters and potential voters both the possible and very likely consequences of not voting.

Republicans, emboldened by last year's elections, will not approve paying the nation's bills (they will even risk devastating the world's economy) unless Democrats surrender. The resulting legislation will be a longterm social disaster,

But President Obama cannot lead where this Congress doesn't want to go. And with Republicans controlling the outcomes in both houses of Congress, Obama can either lead the nation where Republicans want to go, or refuse to lead at all, and allow voters to decide next November what they want. We can hope, that in the meantime, Democrats and Republicans agree on a strategy to recover from an even worse economic condition than the one they are presently unable to resolve.

But the 25% that Republican concede doesn't have to be that bad if it includes things like: extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, not touching Medicaid and student loans, extending unemployment benefits through 2012, means-testing Medicare and Social Security, and earmarking cuts only for areas that can be tolerated until voters in 2012 get perhaps their last chance in to get it right, and eventually repeal the disastrous legislation that likely must be approved this year.

As America moves from where we are to where our economy and our politics are that change must be considerate of the potentials for human pain, and assure that pain is born in proportion to people's ability to endure and emerge from it as better people, with a plan that sustains economic recovery and promotes political integrity. Big business and politicians who serve the wishes and needs of their constituents have the collective ability to make such a win-win recovery a reality. But where the wishes and need of people are secondary, big business and their politicians can bring this country to its knees.

The past ten years have found democracy in America trending toward oligarchy or something resembling it. As peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world seek to embrace the hopes of democracy and the blessings of liberty, Americans find themselves in a battle to hold on to their own.

Ronald

EMail: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldspooner.blogspot,com

Valuing Dot-Connecting

2011-05-09T08:00:00.001-07:00

There is some debate concerning the extent to which water boarding yielded information that led to the finding of Osama bin Laden. Some Republicans want give water boarding considerable weight; others give it 0-2%

But two things are certain, though: First, whereas, the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots that could have prevented 9/11, the Obama Administration put together the dots that led to bin Laden's capture within two years. And, second, all of the information that Obama used--even if it included some evidence obtained through torture--was either known or available to be known during G. W. Bush's presidency. Again, however, Republicans were not able to recognize and collect dots that could have been connected.

But two things are certain: First, whereas, the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots that could have prevented 9/11, the Obama Administration put together the dots that led to bin Laden's capture. And second all of the information that Obama used--even if it included some evidence obtained through torture--was either known or available to be known during Bush's presidency. Again, however, they were not able to recognize or collect relevant dots to connect.

Republicans are eager to give Bush much of the credit for finding bin Laden--even as they insist on giving Obama full blame for the Bush-induced recession. But it was Obama who announced that, if he had actionable information about the location of bin Laden in Pakistan, he would not seek Pakistan's permission to get him. Although he seemed to lose interest later during his presidency--likely born of frustration--Bush did say he "wanted bin Laden Dead or Alive." Obama delivered him dead, and buried him at sea with a dignity that was consistent with his faith, though consistent not with his deeds.

As speculation rises concerning the possible role of Pakistan in harboring bin Laden, or in not having the vigilance to discover that he was around, questions are being raised about the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death: Was it necessary? Was he armed? Was he attempting to defend himself? Was he going for a weapon? All of these questions are being raised by people who are concerned that he may have been killed without being given as opportunity to surrender and be brought back for trial.

This is because among the great diversity among Americans--we are diverse by race, religion, color, national origin, language, ideology, gender and sexual orientation to mention a few--significant diversity exist within Americans themselves concerning when life is to be valued and when death is appropriate.

Many liberals vigorously defend a woman's right to terminate the life of her unborn child even as they argue just as vigorously against death penalty. Many conservatives defend just as vigorously the right of a baby to be born even as they defend a state's right to take the lives of those accused of killing others, despite the frequency of the convicted eventually being found innocent, . Each group has within its own value system a conflict concerning when life it to be valued. A discussion about that conflict, within our moral and legal systems of justice, is natural now that Osama bin Laden has been found, and perhaps executed.

Let's continue the discussion by examining the circumstances surrounding this mission--assuming what is being reported so far is correct. A plan to either capture or kill bin Laden had been thoroughly practiced, and when considered ready to be executed still was given only a 60-80% chance of succeeding.

Suppose, then, the plan had been to capture bin Laden. Wrapped in that 20-40% chance of failure would have been the possibility of his eventual escape or rescue. Unanticipated and uncontrolled circumstances could have resulted in a captured bin Laden being on the loose again. (It has also been suggested that bin Laden might have had a self-detonating bomb strapped to himself, potentially endangering the lives of American captors.)

In either case, most Americans of all political persuasions would have been insisting that bin Laden should have been killed, and his possible escape not risked. Republicans would have been claiming that they would have delivered him dead. And Obama's defeat in next years election likely would have been signed, sealed and delivered regardless of what the economy did.

Osama bin Laden was a special criminal: He was a deadly international enemy. The circumstances leading to his capture were among the riskiest for several reasons, and the odds were against his ever being found again. Still, despite bin Laden's death being necessary--and given the circumstances perhaps preferred by him--some concern about the means will linger.

President Obama was successful in capturing bin Laden because he did not need Republican help to do it. Can you imagine what would have happened had Obama asked Congress' permission to get him? We'd still be debating whether we could afford it.

Barack Obama was elected president because of his integrity, wisdom, intelligence and determination to solve difficult national problems . It took him less than three years to catch bin Laden, because he had time to do it. And he'll solve our other problems, too, if we give him time and some help.

It's not likely that the party that did not know how to keep this country and the world out of the Great Recession, did not recognize the symptoms of the pending catastrophe, and did not suggest measures that could have prevented it would know how to solve present problems and prevent others.

Republicans have been inept at recognizing and connecting dots related to the nation's security and prosperity. And few Americans believe that Obama's becoming president, somehow miraculously made them smart.

Returning to Effective Schools

2011-05-02T13:38:00.000-07:00

There is much discussion in the United States concerning the lack of opportunities for most children to acquire a quality education. There are many examples emerging of successful programs being designed and implemented.

Most of the strategies involve planning that improve instructional strategies, and testing students to assess the quality of instruction. But testing must be frequent, and feedback to the students and teachers immediate, if remediation is to be timely in laying foundation for future instruction.

During reform efforts in Texas in the mid 80s, much emphasis was placed on instructional objectives, testing for levels of mastery, and reteaching when student performances were not satisfactory. Many teachers tested at the ends of weeks or chapters.

In most cases, however, too much content from previous lessons had been covered for students to review and learn, while keeping up with current assignments. Students who could not satisfactorily master one week or chapter of content now were expected to master two. Many teachers were only going through the motions of reteaching. and administrators who didn't know how to help them do better didn't complain.

In many areas, immediate mastery is required before student can mastery the content that follows. Daily testing--and immediate feedback to the teacher and student--are imperative if subsequent learning is not to be impeded by lack of prerequisite learning. This requires planning and cooperation between teachers and students, not only within the classroom during regular school hours but before and after school, and during study hall periods, where students study and learn how to do so effectively. The strategy extends opportunities for parents and the community to offer assistance.

One strategy involves giving students copies of chapter objectives, time-lines for coverage of sets of objectives, quiz schedules, copies of all exercises and examples that accompany each set of objectives, and textbook sections related to the objectives,which were to be read. In some cases students should be given problem answers associated with both current and future lessons so students who choose to study and work ahead will know if they were doing so successfully.

Students should be quizzed everyday on homework, and received credit for the homework only if the quiz was passed. Three attempts might be allowed, only the first during regular class time. Students soon realize that they must do their own homework--or study what they copy--if they are going to pass quizzes and get credit for the homework.

It is helpful to label all objectives and problems as (a) advanced, (m) medium and (b) basic. Students wanting to earn A's would be required to work the most difficult problems and answer the most difficult questions. Grades of "C" would require mastering the basic content at the 90% level. Grade of "B" would require mastering basic and medium content at the 90% level. And grades of "A" would require students to master the total content. All students should exposed to entire content and students allowed to find their own levels. This process was not perfect, but it will produce better students.

During Texas' reform effort in the mid 1980s there was much discussion in professional literature circles about "Effective Schools research." A school was considered effective based, not on the percentage of students passing a test, but on tests showing improved student performances at all levels.

School success based on the percentage of student passing a test can be effectively achieved by giving the poorest students access to the best teachers during before school and after school sessions. But that should not deny the top students access to these teachers and to appropriate levels of challenge. No school should be considered exemplary unless it also is effective..

In effective schools, principals and teachers were effective. And in the most of them students are not segregated, academically. In academically mixed classes, top students are able to help teachers help other students. Such tutoring reinforces what top students have already learned, and their presence allows them to be role models for other students. Many underachievers are academically talented but don't know how to develop that talent and use it. Many have had no previously encouragement or incentives to do so. Effective principals expect and help all teachers become effective consistent with their potentials to perform.

Students learn better when they take daily quizzes, chapter tests, semester tests and final examinations. Quizzes and tests encouraged review and practice, and are themselves review and practice. Unfortunately, limiting the definition of success to pass-fail does not challenge top students to become mathematicians, scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, technician, teachers and other quality professionals.

But effective principals must either have been effective teachers themselves or have learned and practiced the qualities of effective teaching during their pursuit of administrative certification and advanced degrees. Not all effective teachers, however, possess the other qualities necessary to become effective principals. And neither is administration an ambition of most effective teachers.

Despite the current emphasis on improving out children's education, though, little is heard about effective schools and effective schools research. Perhaps the reason is that it's easier to increase the number of students passing a test than it is to enable all students to maximize their potentials to improve.

Students also tend to do better when they took five academic classes and physical education or band. One reason: Class periods were longer and students had fewer classes for which to prepare. There was once a belief that less was more, that engaging students at greater depth in fewer courses laid foundations for more challenging content and careers later. Now, we seem to be exposing students to more but expecting less.

Ronald

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldspooner.blogspot.com

When Religious Dogma and Political Ideologies Collide

2011-04-28T15:33:00.000-07:00

President Obama's speech on debt reduction was one of the best speeches he has crafted. It established the goals that characterized both the America we have known and the America we want others to believe we are. But the character and compassion that are the face of America don't characterize all Americans. Consequently, not everyone found the speech equally appealing.

Republicans say they seek to severely cut federal spending and rapidly reduce the national debt because that is what the American people send them to Washington to do. Even Republican who were not elected in 2008 say that, despite polls to the contrary.

People with religion faith should not compromise their principles in living their own lives. But in a nation of people with different religious faiths and different views about religion, the principles of the people's religious faiths sometimes must acknowledge and tolerate behaviors that are contrary to their own beliefs. Because of such diversity of beliefs, adultery, for example, is not illegal in America.

If America were a religious state, abortions very likely would be considered both morally and legally wrong.

But not every American has religious faith and even Americans with the same faith react differently to the faith's teachings. Many Americans tolerate abortions, not because they believe the practice is morally right, but because they choose to be tolerant to fellow Americans who believe abortions to be legally permissible under certain circumstances. .

Everybody has to sacrifice economically and compromise ideologically in order to reduce the nation's debt. But who should make bigger sacrifices: wealthy individuals who earned and have much more money than they need, or the middle class who, in many cases, barely earned and have enough to survive, and the working poor and unemployed who still neither earn nor have enough? Jesus addressed the question. And even atheists know the answer. Certainly those who service the rich will earn more when the wealthy pay less taxes. But those who service the middle class and working poor earn more when these American are taxed less. But which achieves more for most people? Despite Republican claims that they know the answer, they don't.

There is certainly no conclusive evidence that the Bush tax cuts created jobs and reduced national debt. Nor is there evidence that, by making tax cuts permanent, the effects of reduced government spending and increased spending and investing by the wealthy would enhance debt reduction more than would adding these taxes to the federal treasury.

Republicans seem to believe it is economically better and morally appropriate to impose economic pain on powerless people in the near future so wealthy Americans won't be inconvenienced by debt in the distant future. They claim they don't want to leave debt for their children and grandchildren. But at the same time they are trying to so enrich the parents and grandparents of these future generations that their inheritances will prevent any lingering debt from affecting their standards of living.

Most American families have gone through a period when they had a house note, a car note, credits cards, various kinds of insurance, savings and investments and other expenses. (You'll notice I didn't mention traveling.) But they paid them off in time, first, because they did not buy or spend on things they could not afford, and, second, because one or both parents had jobs that brought income into the home. Should a family's economic status get to the point where parents must choose between having an insufficient amount of food on the table for the children or having the mother get a job, or the father getting an extra job or a better paying one--or all three--the parents will choose bringing more money into the home. They won't choose to starve the children or stop payment on the car. In tough economic times, governments also can pay its bills if it eliminates wasteful spending and raise revenue through taxation, but it, too, should not choose to do so by starving the helpless or not treating the ill.

If families are better off by spending less and saving more, why would that not also be true of government?. In an emergency, federal needs may exceed savings, and like a family, must borrow money and pay it back within a time-frame it can afford.

Unfortunately, Americans who have been convinced that big government is bad for them often need big government. If small government were so good, why are so many states and cities having budget problems. And governments don't get much smaller than school districts. Why, then, are so many American schools failing to educate children well?

But government can be no more responsive to the needs of powerless people than is the character of the people who elect politicians to office. As the character of a nation deteriorates, the kinds of things politicians they elect do become more outrageous, power is usurped, competition is squashed, and democracy dies.

Reducing the national debt and balancing the federal budget obviously aren't easy tasks. But both seem more humane and effectively achieved when, during tough economic times, economic pain is reduced for those who need help and economic sacrifice is increased for those who can give it, gradually reversing the process as the economy improves, when the less able need less help and have more buying power, when increased tax cuts provide the more able with greater opportunities to invest and further enhance economic growth.

That will require a diverse America to have a shared vision, whicht seems to be where President Obama wants to lead the nation. Republicans either can't see that far, or they won't look.

Ronald

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldspooner.blogspot.com

Debating the Pursuit of Happiness

2011-04-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

The debate about the future of America must be about more than politics and the economy of the country. It must be about the people, their education, their values, their relationships, their religion (the relevance of one's own faith) and the implications of each in the people's pursuits of quality, meaningful and productive lives.

In times like these, people who are respected and consensus experts in these areas of expertise should be joining economists and politicians in the debate about the nation's future, speaking to the implications of their particular areas of expertise to this matter of pursuing happiness in the United States. Teaching about the relevance of these areas in seminaries and in the classrooms of great universities--and especially not teaching about them at all--are not sufficient in a nation still experimenting with securing the blessings liberty for everyone.

The country--the people at home--needs to hear from them. The listeners of CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and MSNBC need to hear. And the broadcast and printed media need to invite their points of view in addition to those of economists and politicians--and just as often.

We are in the midst of a great political and ideological debate. But it's about more than about Democrats and Republicans believe: it's about what it means--or should mean--to be an American. It's the most urgent, timely and engaging debate the nation would have had since the eighteenth century.

On Becoming a Less Perfect Union

2011-04-12T21:54:00.000-07:00

As Democracies age, they become victims of those who exploit weaknesses they build into the system, as they learn to make the democracy work for themselves at the expense of others. They lose interest in "secur(ing) the blessings of liberty" for anyone but than themselves.

Democracy in America is not the "more perfect union" envisioned two hundred years ago by the Founders. And it can be neither attained nor sustained by lesser leaders, with less integrity, and without the inspiration of God who can make "more perfect" possible.

As the decisions democracies make become more complex, they require a more educated, informed and discriminating populous to make the democracy work. But we are living in a period where, as the problems and solutions are becoming more complex, our level of education in America for the general public is declining.

Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father, believed that any one who thinks a nation can be both ignorant and free (was) thinking what never was and never shall be." Quality education broadens exposure to ideas and possibilities. It liberates the mind to be creative and to judiciously examine and evaluate opinions and options. It implores the mind to the informed.

A poll of citizens prior to the 2004 presidential election suggested that 20% of Americans (1 in5) believe that Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against the United States during the Gulf War, and 33% (1 in 3) believed that the United States has found those weapons. Those likely are voters who will, as a consequence of their feliefs, support the President for in 2004. If that was a fair sampling of voters, then the President already has one-third of the votes he needs just from the uninformed. All he needed was a little more than 17% of the informed voters and he wins. Uninformed voters making decisions is one feature of democracy that make it "the worse kind of government--except for all the rest." The only solution is to provide the public with quality public education, where children are required to read and write about current issues in order to evoke their real opinions about controversial issues.

Americans have been losing jobs overseas for the past thirty years or more. According to experts, the solutions rested in technology, which was to create more jobs that it eliminated. I never quite understood how that would work. And it didn't. Then they said the low paying jobs would go overseas, but the higher paying jobs would be increased in the United States. Well, that didn't work either. First, because the public school systems in the united States did not produce enough quality students with the skills to handle (or qualify for) those high paying jobs. And rather than develop schools that could produce the desired products, industry has chosen to get the skills overseas for less money.

Part of the problem is that corporations are in business primarily to make money for shareholders. Providing jobs is secondary. Workers are forced to increase assets in 401Ks by having jobs go overseas or south of the border. Workers, in effect, lay themselves and fellow worker off. We can't blame CEO because they just work there. And their job descriptions, as presently defined, involves making as much money as possible, not creating as many jobs as possible.

At some point, America must come to grips with the fact that our average standard of living relative to the rest of the world is--and must be--on the decline. It may even be declining relative to what it once was. Right now, that average is increasingly an average of more those who have too much, those who have too little, and a declining center. In a working democracy, that average should be an expanding center.

Standards of living must decline. We must build smaller homes, small enough to only comfortably accommodate family members. The wealthy must stop building homes that are too expensive for future generations to afford. We must cease establishing high standards of living in America that people in the undeveloped world seek to attain at the expense of the middle-class jobs. We are motivating them to better educate themselves, even a Republicans do all they can to not educate and miseducate certain fellow Americans--or teammates.

Ofter jobs could have been saved id experienced workers worked fewer hours or approved across-the board cuts in pay. Workers could have saved more money during good times so they could afford to work fewer hours or at a lower rate of pay during tough times. Standard of living would be based on tough time salaries, prevent preventing workers from incurring excess debt which in the future could cost co-workers jobs. (Workers also would have kept their skills current.)

The federal government should have a greater role in overseeing the relationships and agreements between corporations and employees. There should be either job security or income security. The government, corporations and workers must contribute financially to guaranteeing either jobs or incomes until workers can find jobs with comparable incomes, or unconditionally supplement lesser incomes until better jobs can be found. While businesses must serve the interest of their investors, government must serve the interest of all Americans a strike a proper balance.

The lack of sufficient jobs caused by jobs going overseas is exaggerated by the fact that increasingly husbands and wives have two good-paying jobs, leaving other homes with either poorly paying or no jobs. The middle class is shrinking because many families are moving into the upper class--becoming rich, if not wealthy. In many cases these are achieved by pushing others from the middle class into the category of working poor, and from working poor to just poor.

Most middle class and poor Americans have little hope of becoming better educated without extraordinary self-motivation and significant help from others. This lessen their desires and expectations that the US economy will satisfy their increasing desire for both bigger things and need more than they can afford.

Americans have collaborated to establish a less perfect union.

Securing Social Security, Medicare and the Nation

2011-04-11T19:25:00.000-07:00

Now that a federal government shutdown over the 2010-2011 budget has been averted, attention and debate will focus the 2011-2012 budget and the nation's long-term plans for both using and liquidating indebtedness.

The rationality of liberal and conservative arguments will--or should--depend on the kind of nation most Americans perceive appropriate for themselves and for fellow Americans. If a rational discussion cannot be had about who we are, or what we hope to be, prior to the debates then consequences will be inconclusive.

A rational debate would involve liberal positions, a plan that defines the nation's relevant conditions that now exist, long-term conditions desired and a long-term budget that supports that position and achieves that desired condition. Similarly, the debate would contain corresponding conservative positions, and a plan and long-term budget that achieves and supports those future conservative positions.

The debated issues must involve, but not be limited to, comprehensive immigration reform. how to best educate all children well, establishing future standards of living by class, establishing bases for wealth distribution, ensuring everyone access to quality health care, addressing the needs and helping overcome the handicaps of poor and underprivileged people, dealing with diversity, delineating the role of common moral teachings of different religious faiths in establishing codes of conduct, and bases for character building and expectations within governments and among the nation's citizenry.

After these plans which address these specific issues have been developed, shared and debated, they should become bases for compromise--recognizing that America is neither 100% conservative or liberal nor is it 100% Republican or Democrat. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle, not all of one color, not all of the same religion, nor all of a single ideology. Republicans already the Paul Ryan plan. Democrats need to also have a plan, or risk inheriting the "party of no" title. The Democrats plan should address the items listed above, and the line should be drawn with that plan and include enough trash that it is willing to compromise away to Republican in exchange for their trash.

The country has never failed to raise the debt ceiling, and most Americans don't think this is the time to do so. Polls will probably indicate this. But what would failure to raise the debt ceiling do to the American economy?

We presently have a three-party politicaL system in the United States: Democratic Party--the liberal party; Republican Party--the conservative partly and Tea Party, the radical-right party.

Vice President Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964 because Johnson was a Democrat. But Johnson swamped Goldwater because Johnson was a Southerner, also.

On the other hand, Vice President Hubert Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon because Humphrey was a Northern Liberal. Southern Democrats were, for the most part, socially conservative; whereas, Northern Republican tended to be fiscally conservative, though more socially liberal.

Civil rights for black people eventually turned the South against a born-again Christian president, Jimmy Carter--one of its own--in favor of a great communicator, Ronald Reagan. With that decision, Southern Christians had decided to place their trust more in Reagan's charisma than in the holy omnipotence of Christ. The political battles that are being wage today are battles related to that choice.

Democrats face a tough choice in the coming weeks. They're in competition with deeds of the devil. The devil--whether he's a being from down below or merely the intent within our hearts--doesn't care about poor people, the homeless, the sick, the elderly, or the jobless. So Democrats have to make hard decisions to make when it comes to shutting down the government or allowing the nation to default in the payment of money it has borrowed, and will still need to borrow in the future. People who have become wealthy in this country know the value of debt in pursuing and sustaining wealth.

Most businesses required years before profits exceeded indebtedness. Our present financial problems are not because we borrowed too much; its because we have not taxed the wealthy enough. We have regressed from being a wealthy country to a country of wealthy individuals. And most of these wealthy individuals won't care much if Social Security checks don't go out.

So Democrats--and rational Republicans--have a choice to make: They can risk our future and future credit-worthiness, and not be blackmailed by tea party threats of not to raise the debt ceiling. Or they can give in again and confirm again that the tea party is the ruling party and that Speaker Boehner is president by default. It's Probably time for Democrats and rational Republicans to play crazy, too.

The solutions to Medicare and Social Security, on the other hand, are easy: For Medicare Care, persons with a yearly income of $200,000.00 or more will be responsible for their own medical expenses. ( Or the amount they would be responsible for would be phased in at some level and over some period of time.)

Similarly for Social Security. Just as taxes on Social Security are phased in with increased income, Social Security should be phased out for individuals whose outside incomes exceed $50,000, phasing out at $200,000.00 of annual outside income. Both would force people to save and invest for the future.

The middle-class tax cuts would be extended, their rates further decreased, and the tax rates of the wealthiest Americans and corporations should be increased.

The nation can no longer afford or tolerate allowing some Americans to experience the joy of merely having lots money when there are millions of other Americans in need of things money can buy.

It's time for Democrats and rational Republicans to stand together now so their ideologies can compete again later--during better times. Democrats must draw a line in the sand also, and move forward only when--and to the degree--Republicans do.

The New Gridlock: Government Shutdown

2011-04-08T08:46:00.000-07:00

Republicans are trying make the Speaker of the House, effectively, President of the United States, not just third in line. The House would make decisions about both how much money would be spent and how the money would be spent. Regardless, of the platform of any successful presidential candidate, the president could only do what House members and a strong Speaker wished done. The three branches of government in America are losing their balancing power. Gridlock is translating into government shutdown any time the minority party controls the House of Representatives and chooses to have its way on spending.

Unfortunately, these actions coincide with increased control of government by large corporations. They seem already to control the Supreme Court, and have enough cash to make millionaires of every Republican member of Congress, every Republican state legislator and any interested Democrats.

It's strange that Christians, who are looking forward to an eternal lives in mansions built on streets paved with gold--things they admit they don't deserve-- are themselves choosing to punish less fortunate neighbors, whom they consider also undeserving, for conditions they did not cause. In The Lord's Prayer they ask to be forgiven their debts as they forgive their debtors. They find it convenience to consider all people who aren't working to be lazy. These same people, however, believe that God will forgive them for their shortcomings, even when they aren't trying.

Of course, some of these people have faith only in themselves. Some have no religious faith because they were brought up that way. Some found the existence a supreme being to be intellectually incompatible with reality as they see it. The problem occurs when these people persuade real Christians that non-Christian behavior provide no obstacle to their salvation: Do what you want to others; it won't matter because Jesus died so you'd have the right to do so. This kind of "Christian" belief and teaching make self-serving, by any means necessary, all right for them.

The people had a chance to prevent the tea party (they are no longer a proper noun) from controlling the House of Representatives. But out of ignorance or indifference, they did not vote. And Democrats did not make them aware of the consequences of not voting because they did not foresee the havoc the tea party could impose on the nation. Democrats did not see the 2010 election as important as they made the 2008 election, despite having every reason to do so. Now tea party Republicans are joyfully saying "shut it down!" the government, that is.

I'm reminded of a James Dean movie in which two young men, urged on by supporters, engaged in chicken challenge to see which would bale out of his car first, as they raced toward the edge of a cliff. Those doing the cheering for their driver to remain in the car longer were not in the car. Can you imagine two buses loaded with people racing toward that cliff? Would passengers be cheering for their driver to be the last driver to jump?

The buses Democrats and Republicans are driving are filled with the American people, but, likewise, the people who cheering for their driver to stay the course aren't in a bus. If Democrats give in, Republican will claim they didn't really want Boehner to run off the cliff. If you believe that, you believe Kaddhafi has stepped down in Libya.

If Democrats give in, the President effectively gives up his presidency. He therefore needs to go to the people--poll them--and let them choose which party's plans they feel best represents their best interest.

If the government is shut down, the willing should begin to organize for massive fund raising to help those whose needs would be affected by a government shut down. And if there is a government shut down and the wealthy sit on their money, America will have communicated to the rest of the world, in the loudest manner possible, a tutorial about how to make a capitalistic democracy work for the wealthy only.

Democrats seem to have several choices: (1) Let the government be shut down and let the people choose between the parties in 2012. (2) Make extension of tax cuts for the middle class permanent and extension of unemployment benefits for the unemployed until the end of 2012 conditions for compromise. (3) Go along with the short-term extensions but make additional demands or retract concessions every time there is a Republican rejection of a compromised offer. And (4) Seek a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans that can guarantee John Boehner's remaining Speaker, despite an agreement on a budget compromise--they can threaten to block passage of any future House bill that would be propose under a Speaker Eric Canter. The possibility of that same bipartisan coalition would be a factor in future negotiations, and would bring reason back to House deliberations.

If the government shuts down the people Democrats are trying to help will get nothing. If Democrats give in they will at least get something and can help put Democrats back in control in 2012. Unfortunately, the same tactic that worked to twice elect George W. Bush and put the tea party in control of the House likely will work on them again.

Prior to the 2010 elections, I tried to justify the Democrats to force Republican to reject extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class only. The debates on such a vote would have shown middle-class voters whose side Republican were on. I hoped the failure to hold a vote would have equally attract the middle class to the polls for fear of what might happen. It didn't. And Democrats didn't do a good job or telling them why they should vote. I'm afraid they will not be able to communicate a sense of urgency next time either.

Ronald

E-Mail: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldspooner.@blogspot.com

Giving Libyans Chance for Freedom

2011-04-01T08:06:00.000-07:00

President Obama has said that dictator Moammar Gadhafi "must go." But that means Gadhafi must go if the people, including the national military, want him to go. After all, Gadhafi's national military are also part of "the people."

In Egypt, the military was not against the people as seems to be the case in Libya--and they had a relationship with the US military. The question in Libya, then, is, If the fighters who are fighting the rebels are foreigners, on which side are the Libyan soldiers?

The no-fly zone provided by coalition forces gives Libyans--including the national military--a chance for freedom by forcing Gadhafi to either step down or leave the country. Obama's saying that Gadhafi "must go" simply means he must go if the people both want him to go and can compel him to do so with minimal outside help. Only rebel leaders know if the people have the manpower, will, resources and outside help necessary to ouster Gadhafi. If they don't, then the people must either die trying or go back to life as usual, hopeful that the uprising at least will bring about moderation in Gadhafi's rule.

Hence, contrary to the conclusions of various news analysts, Obama stating that Gadhafi "must go" does not mean that if the Libyan people cannot make this happen themselves, the United States and its allies will do it. The people must want it and be able to do it on the battle field, if not in the streets, now that they don't have to encounter Gadhafi's military airplanes and as many of his tanks. The rebels asked for the no-fly zone--and they got it. But that did not suggest unlimited additional help was being promised.

As is the case with Iraq, the allies are providing Libyans with a chance to win their freedom, but they are not committing to guaranteeing success.

Most of the reasoned debate that I have heard prior to the President's decision decision to along with coalition forces provide a no-fly zone in Libya involved what might happen if they did. There was no conclusion about whether we should or should not participate: There were reasons to do it and reasons not to. Hence, Obama was destined to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't, or as has turned out, damned if he didn't and damned if he did.

However, it is not surprising that the people who would allow Kaddafi to massacre his people are for the most part the same people who would allow fellow Americans to suffer the consequences of a bad economy, brought about by people who have managed to further enriched themselves by those consequences.

Republicans have taken every opportunity to deny as many middle-class workers, working poor and totally destitute Americans as possible from receiving government assistance of any kind during this period of hardship for them. Most of these Republicans leaders try to wrap themselves in the cloak of Christianity, and are supported by people who believe that Christianity is about what Jesus did and not about what He said we should be doing.

America's role in Libya is something Obama had to do, first, because it needed to be done; second, because the true nature of the American conscience made us want to do it, and, third, because being the leader--whether as an American or the American president--means taking the initiative to do the right thing, even when reluctant, and when it means leading from behind.

Questions are being raised about the kind of government and leadership that will replace disposed dictators in Muslim countries seeking freedom: Will the new government be friendly to the United States?

Well, why would not people we help liberate not be friendly to us? The efforts by the western countries to bring democracy and improved economies to the Middle East can actually soften Al Queda's animosity toward the us. One of its criticism has included our not equitably assisting in the economic development of the Middle East.

The actions of coalition forces seem to have turned the war around. Rebels are on the offense, and chances grow each day that Gadhafi's national forces might either join the rebels or refuse to fight. Some are questioning whether the coalition forces are exceeding the intent of the UN resolution authorizing the establishment of a no-fly zone when they also seek to protect towns other than the one threatened. But why do they assume that Kadhafi would not attack family of rebels in these other unprotected cities?

Given the pros and cons of America's becoming involved in Libya, the reasons to become engaged on this limited basis (including doing so without Congressional approval and sending a message to other dictators who might be thinking of killing dissenters) outweigh the reasons not to do so.

Negotiating with the Enemy

2011-03-29T04:22:00.000-07:00

Image a conversation between an offensive football lineman, whose assignment is to open hole in the defensive line so the running back can score touchdowns, and the defensive lineman whose assignment is to prevent that from happening.

Or consider a conversation between a baseball pitcher trying to get a batter out and the batter trying to hit a home run, or a basketball player wanting to drive to the basket for a layup and the defensive center intending to block that attempt.

What kind of conversations could this be? What do Democrats say to Republicans who are committed to the defeat of Democrats next year? How does any team negotiate with an opposing team? It's not possible. Can you imagine how the conversation is going between Democrats and Republicans concerning the President's budget? Does the commitment to making Obama a one-term president enter the discussion? Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans have become not a first and second team of an American team but different teams. Once the party out of power was like a second team which wanted to play but pulled for the party in power because it wanted to win more than it wanted to be in the game.

Well, that's what the President and Democrats face in dealing with Republicans: Republicans will not give in to anything that will allow Obama to succeed in effecting a successful economic recovery. Remember, they must make him a "one-term president." They don't even give him credit for those things that have been successful. Everything Obama has recommended Republicans have called either a failure or a job-killer--even when then weren't. They do this because they believe the American people won't know the difference.

The Republican threshold for compromising on anything will be the point where they are reasonably sure that the President will be perceived to be a failure. Democrats' line in the sand must be considerably short of that point. Republicans are trying to get the president involved in the funding debate, but funding is the job of Congress. He must stay uninvolved until they come up with funding he feels meets his threshold for being able to act with reasonable certainty on behalf of the American people.

The prospect of compromise would be better were the difference of opinions was merely philosophical. Give and take could be win-win for both parties. But this conflict is not about win-win but about victory. Voters need to decide if they have sufficient reason to place their trust liars.

There is good reason to believe that Republicans will shut down the government unless they get what they want. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is an example of how the Tea Party picked to run--and subsequently elected--egotistic congressional representatives with fringe beliefs and one-track minds.

It's time for the American people to determine if they want the President to decide what is the best mix of spending cuts and taxes, or if they think House Republicans can best do that. Maybe it's also time for Democrats to throw into the compromise mix making the tax cuts for the middle class permanent and extending unemployment benefits for the unemployed to Jan. 2013. Offer Republicans a concession of $30 billion in spending cuts. That would put the ball in the Republicans' court to make a better offer.

The President reserves the responsibility to veto any spending cuts that prevent him from having the mix that he feels offers the best chances to hasten the present recovery as well as minimize the chances that this kind of recession will ever happen again. The American people believe that President Obama is the person best qualified to do that. That's why he was elected president. And none of the Republicans who are trying to promote Obama's failure is sufficiently qualified or trustworthy to make even the very long list of potential Republican presidential candidates in 2012. The President, however, likely will have no bill to veto.

Despite Jesus' saying not even the angels in heaven will know when the end of the world will come, it's being predicted by certain members of the Christian community that the end will come in May of this year. Nostradamus has predicted that the end will come at the end of next year. If either is true, that's too close for comfort. But whether the end of the world occurs in May or not, Tea Party Republicans could bring at least be bringing the United States, as we have known it, to an end.

Consider the effort of Texas Republicans to change the practice of limiting the class size of public elementary schools to 22 students. They claim a change that averages 21 students per class is necessitated by the need to cut the state budget.

I haven't heard the explanation, though, why having 21 students per class would cost less than having 22. Five teachers teaching 22 students each teach110 students, whereas, five teachers teaching 21 students each only teach 105 students. How is that less expensive? Maybe the answer rests beneath the surface. You see, there are several ways to achieve a 21-student per class average.

Of course having 21 students in every class averages 21 students per class. But so does having five classes with 30, 30,15,15 and 15 students average 21 students per class. The difference, in the latter example, is that some students could be in classes with as many as 30 students while other students are in classes with as few as 15 students. Which students do you think will be in the classes with 15 students? And which teachers do you think will be teaching them?

The world may be coming to an end. And Texas, Wisconsin and Tea Party Republicans provide more evidence that a lot of Americans still may not be ready.

Quality-Control in Public Education

2011-03-20T08:21:00.000-07:00

The vast majority of Americans believe that the United States needs a strategy plan for pursuing, and eventually achieving, world-class education for all American children.

This must start with a national curriculum for every course being offered or perceived to be needed in America's schools. The curriculum for each course would be determined by our best public school and college teachers in both content and pedagogy. .Each curriculum would contain content that range and challenge from basic thru world-class content. Students and parents would have access to these curricula, including via the internet, and quality-control would be built into the process of building such quality.

The teachers' responsibilities would be to enable student to master the content, commensurate with their abilities, their interests and the amount of time they either can or choose to spend trying to master content.

Administrators' responsibilities would be to enable teachers to become the best teachers they can be, commensurate with their abilities, interest and the amount of time and money they can or choose to spend preparing themselves to be successful teachers.

School board responsibilities would be setting world-class goals for student performance that, while providing adequate education at basic levels, also sufficiently challenge students thru world-class levels.

That curriculum would be available for adoption by each state. States would be permitted to make substitutions for 10% of the content. But substitutions would have to be of comparable contents and challenge at comparable levels.

If we took the curriculum at either Stanford University, Chicago University, Harvard University or Rice University and taught them at all four schools, the quality of education would likely not vary very much. The same would be true of Cal Berkeley, University of Texas, University of Minnesota and University of Pennsylvania.

Common curricula enable training institutions to know what to teach future teachers in the content areas, and how to teach it in the departments of education. Universities would even teach teacher-trainers how to best teach what they teach. All of these people would be talking to each other about common problems, solving them together, and making everybody else better because of it.

What's wrong with that? I'm guessing, but I'll bet wherever firefighters and policemen policewomen are trained, they are trained the same way, to do the same kinds of things, given a set of circumstances. I'd bet surgeons learn to do the same things for particular kinds of surgeries. And when someone announces a new, more effective way of doing something, it's passed on to others. The military does not have different ways to train recruits at its different locations. There are correct ways to handle guns, deploy troops or fly airplanes. Oil refineries refine oil in the same ways, even different refining companies because, if cars don't perform properly because of poor gasoline, refineries can't get away with blaming cars.

Why, then, the difference in education? It's the absence of quality controls.

Contrary to what the pay for educators suggest, providing opportunities for each student to receive the best education possible is the hardest job. The only things that limit what children learn--and are prepared to learn in the future--is the quality of education offered in their public schools and the times they are inspired, encouraged and want to invest taking advantage of the opportunities. The quality of that education is limited only by the ability of educators to provide it after investing the time needed to learn how to do it That means students will learn more as educators themselves learn more, and as students are motivated and enabled to do so. So the crucial question is: How can we improve the performances of educators?

Every educator from the superintendent to the classroom teacher would have a job description that specifies the expectations of each position in terms that board members can understand. Consistent with those descriptions, each would have a plan of action in writing describing in detail how they will fulfill those expectations: Administrators would have weekly or monthly plans and teachers, daily plans.

Copies of these plans would be on file at the home schools of teachers and in the administration building for review by appropriate administrators and board members at their discretion.

Logs of administrators' daily activities would document what they've done, when it is done, why it was done, and reference evidence of effectiveness. Plans, logs and their assessments would serve as bases for staff and board discussions at special monthly meetings on instruction and suggest ideas for future improvement.

The board would hire an ombudsman, who could never become district superintendent, to oversee compliance with board policy regarding instruction and preparations for instruction at all levels. The ombudsman (or woman) would make monthly reports to the board and the community, and would be held responsible if student performances during each grading period fail to measure up to monthly reports and expectations of improved performance..

One board meeting would be conducted each month, devoted exclusively to instruction; instructional planning; evaluation of student, teacher, and administrator performances; parental and community involvement, and such other things that can impact student performance in the future.

That's the kind of quality-control in education that produces higher salaries for educators, a better educated workforce, and a brighter economic future for America. Without quality-control, quality education is left to chance--a slim chance.

Ronald

The Devolution of America

2011-03-08T19:23:00.000-08:00

The present state of politics and economics in America brought to mind a most unusual response by a politician, following George H. W. Bush's being elected president in 1988. A Reporter asked then Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo if he would seek the party nomination in 1992. Cuomo's responded that he wasn't sure because he would "be pulling for President Bush to succeed." The present climate in Washington causes one to wonder what happened to the days when who was president was less important than his ability to lead the nation toward solving its problems.

But because the goal of Republicans is "to make President Obama a one term president," they are taking "opposition party" to both a new level and a new kind of political competition. That goal is made more likely if Obama is incorrectly perceived by voters to have both caused and failed to revive the failing economy, and if he can be perceived to have caused whatever adverse conditions lead up to the 2012 presidential election, despite the conditions being caused by circumstances predating his presidency.

Consequently, if Obama's failure is the primary Republican goal, then whether Democrats or Republicans have the better plans for the future of our economy really is no longer debatable Besides, when the President fails, America fails. Certainly, there are things this president might attempt that would cause all Americans to wish his failure. But so far there is no evidence that he has either done or sought to do such things.

Health-care reform, for example, was an attempt to address the health needs of people who are less able to afford quality care, and at the same time reduce the increasing contribution of health care costs to the nation's debt. What's wrong with these? Republican objections to every attempt to benefit the American people are always based on their negative effects on businesses.

Businesses make profits because the American people work for them, buy their products and pay for their services. Businesses don't have to pass tax increases or the cost of health insurance to consumers in order to maintain adequate profits. Businesses whose profits are adversely affected by new regulations or taxes should be allowed to either pass on some of the costs or receive special tax considerations. But the economy must be either self-regulating or managed with rules and restrictions that benefit business, the people and a functioning American society.

But if Republicans are committed to making Obama fail, then everything they do will be toward that end, even if it means letting the government default in debt payments and hope Obama gets the blame. Politics in Washington have always been partisan but was never before so obviously driven by forces of greed and deliberate class destruction.

Barack Obama was elected CEO of the United States. He is the nation's main advocate, representative and spokesperson. As such, he sets the agenda for leading the country. It is an agenda on which he campaigned and was elected president by a substantial majority. His goals were clear and they were consistent with those he has pursued.

The pursuit of those goals, however, often has had to be compromised, consistent with democracy and a government where the people have representation in Congress who are both Democratic and Republican. But because Obama was elected by a substantial majority of the American people, the goals and the intent of the President's agenda should not be seriously compromised, and certainly not surrendered. The Congress should recommend, but not attempt to derail the people's intent as expressed in the President's agenda.

Unfortunately when Republican talk about what "the American people" want, they are really talking about the American people who give them marching orders and finance their elections.

Prior to the Nov. '10 elections, Republicans used polls, not the 2008 elections, to determine what "the people" wanted. However, since the 2010 elections, they don't use polls; they infer the people intent from those elections. How absolutely unbelievable can Republicans be and still be trusted?

Congress' job is to finance the president's programs and assure that the money is wisely spent. It is not their job to establish a counter agenda, but rather to make laws that, consistent with sound judgment, support the president's efforts. If the president fails in his pursuit of those goals, failure should be attributed to the president's programs, not to obstructions by the opposition party whole expressed intent is to cause his failure.

Although they may act as if they possess a crystal ball, Republicans have no way of knowing whether their economic plan or Obama's economic plan will better secure the nation's economic future. We do know, however, by their intent that Republicans will oppose any Obama's plan they believe will succeed. In a time of crisis, the political parties should be working together to help the people's leader succeed. There would be plenty of time in the future--when times are again normalized--to fight over which party is better for the country at that particular time.

Many Americans are presently in need of help because they have been denied equal opportunities to receive a quality education and, hence, get better paying jobs. Others have become impoverished by conditions they did not create. Yet, the wealthy want to punish them even more by denying them assistance to help them survive the conditions. The newly elected House Republicans are acting as if they have a mandate from the American people to be heartless.

We're in trouble on many fronts, and our salvation rests the following: (1) middle-class white Americans accepting that reality that most wealthy people don't care about them, either; (2) all Americans feeling enough responsibility for their own well-being by continuing to become better educated, being more involved in their children's education, and becoming better informed voters; and (3) American Christians not being persuaded by Christians pretenders who seek to link the teachings of Jesus to the shortcomings of socialism.

The Christian religion helped lay the foundation for this country. It undergirds our morality, ethics, and national integrity. If these attributes no longer matter, then self-control by public officials is no longer a viable option, making more regulations and oversight necessary--but also suspect if no one can be trusted.

Nearly everything pursued in America nowadays seems to be a race to the bottom.

Ronald

When the Irrational Becomes Reasonable

2011-02-18T20:22:00.000-08:00

The recent effort by House Republicans to repeal the health care law, which was passed by Democrats, was an exercise not only in futility but also exercises in contradiction and hypocrisy.

They argued that the legislation should be repealed because the American people, in Nov. 2010, voted to have it repealed. But they act as if they (and so did the Democrats, for that matter) forgot that these same American people, in Nov. 2008, voted for universal health care when they elected Barack Obama President of the United States.

Republicans are acting as if they misunderstood what voters were voting for in Nov. 2010. Voters were saying repeal the law if Republicans are elected in numbers sufficient to (1) have the repeal approved by both the House and Senate, (2) override a presidential veto, and (3) have written and passed a better law in its place.

But Republicans didn't not win in sufficient number to achieve those ends. Sufficient numbers in the Senate were impossible, anyway. Voters made sure they wouldn't even have enough members in the Senate to control the agenda, The American people spoke, but they said something different from what Republicans claim they heard.

What voters did said, and what recent polls suggest they are saying now, is: If you cannot repeal the health care law and pass another law, then, at least FIX the present law. But Republicans have failed--or refused--to draw that conclusion about the American people's intent. They persist in believing, or acting as if they believe, that the American people don't have much sense, and that the people really don't want universal health care.

But it is Republicans who don't want health care. What better evidence of that than the fact that during all of the time when they controlled the Congress, during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, they did not seek to implement health-care legislation. And as Dr Phil continues to remind us: The best predictor of what people will do in the future is what they have done in the past.

Republicans have come up with four committees presumably to work on a Republican proposal for health-care legislation. But there is no timeline for them to complete their work. I understand that Republicans under Bob Dole had a plan, but Republican cannot use that one because it already incorporated in the present law.

Concerning whether everyone should be required to buy health care insurance, this was a source of disagreement between Obama and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries: Clinton thought everyone should be required to buy insurance. Obama thought that a mandate would not be necessary because the only reason people would not buy insurance was be if they couldn't afford it. The present law seeks to make insurance affordable for everyone by helping those who cannot afford it. People who want to be thought of as Christians but who don't want to act like Christians call such an accommodation for the less able Socialism. But sometimes Christians and Socialists do the same kinds of things.

Republicans are trying to get the courts to get rid of the bill by saying its unconstitutional to require those who can afford insurance to buy insurance. But care of the uninsured is one of the main reasons why the skyrocketing health care cost is being passed on to those who have insurance. Will those who refuse to purchase health care insurance be saying by not buying insurance that if they have serious accidents or become ill at home, they should be treated at home, or if they are injured in accidents in the highway, they want to be treated by the side of the road or taken home? How do they expected to be cared for? If they have the right to not buy insurance, will ambulance services and hospitals be given the right to deny them serviced?

Republican actions have become irrational. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party are running them crazy, or at least causing them to act as if they are.. Their arguments are sinking to level of outright lies that everyone now recognize as being untrue. Their augments are becoming sinking to levels liken to justifying the Tuscan shootings. Even Jared Loughner's defense attorney won't try to make that case.

But if normally rational people like congressional Republicans can act irrationally--even when they know better--how can one expect better from those who don't know better. Unfortunately, Republicans believe--or act like they believe--that the American voters are among those who don't know any better.

The way to satisfy what the people voted for in both 2008 and 2010 (and the American people are smarter than Republican hope they are) is to use this time for Republicans to work with Democrats to fix what wrong the law that's on the books, now. These four House committees should be committees of Republicans and Democrats. And these committees should do all of their deliberating before the camera on C-Span--like Obama promised but did not do.

A government that is publicly irrational in its pursuits of solutions to its own problems can't gain the confidence of the Chinese nor sustain the confidence of its allies and the rest of the world.

The nation's economy and the world need a strong United States of America. But both also need a rational United States because only a stable United States can survive.

Ronald

When the Irrational Becomes Rational

2011-01-20T10:47:00.000-08:00

The recent effort by House Republicans to repeal the health care law, which was passed by Democrats, was an exercise not only in futility but also exercises in contradiction and hypocrisy.

A government that is publicly irrational in its pursuits of solutions to its own problems can't gain the confidence of the Chinese nor sustain the confidence of its allies and the rest of the world.

The nation's economy and the world need a strong United States of America. But both also need a rational United States because only a stable United States can survive.

Ronald

What Do We Seek to Become?

2011-01-17T10:36:00.000-08:00

The Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in 1788, and the first president was elected in 1789. The contents of the Constitution were debated for the most part by Christian men of reason, and were finally written and ratified during a time when there was no political party. Reason and compromise prevailed, and a great nation was born.

If the great political, religious, and racial divides that exist today in America have any significance, it probably rests in those reasons why we exist and feel that we still deserve to exist as a nation. It rests in the reasons why we have our form of government, our political and economic systems--and until recently, our kind of politics--and not the other alternatives. It rests in the reasons we have to trust or distrust our economic and political systems, which must be anchored in integrity but are potentially the roots of considerable evil. Who we are--and even what we hope to become--rest on whether those reasons are changing, and on whether Americans both want and expect economic and political integrity to be lasting attributes of this nation.

In his historic Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said, "our forefathers established on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Although there were plenty of red and black men in America--and of other colors throughout the world--when the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written, the majority of the Founders chose to reference ALL men, meaning not just all WHITE men. "ALL men are created equal" included colored people.

In the midst of the "Great Civil War," Lincoln was reminding us that we were "testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated (could) long endure." He was not questioning the merits of equality; he was questioning white America's ability to extend the "blessings of liberty" to people of color: Did a substantial majority of white Christian Americans believe it, and were the others at least willing to act like they did because it was the right thing to do?

There was, even then, a strong case to be made for all men not being created equal. Even people of the same color were not equivalent: They had different heights, talents, intelligence, areas and levels of creativity, degrees of attractiveness, etc. But "equal" did not mean equivalent or identical. Equal meant of equal worth, deserving of equal respect as human beings, deserving to be treated as one would like to be treated.

Those who suggest that men were not all created equal imply by such suggestions that some people--usually themselves--are superior to others. But such superiority usually means that some people had advantages not available to those whom they consider inferior. Within every race and within every endeavor, everything else being equal, there are millions of individuals who can outperform millions of members of any races. In other words: not every member of any race of people is superior to every member of any other race in any attribute.

The exercise and levels of genius within a culture depends on the physical, social and intellectual environments where geniuses reside. It depends on the perceived physical, social and intellectual needs of that society, and on the society's demands for and commitments to intellectual resourcefulness. Creativity (and at what level it is allowed to exist) often depends on whether prevailing attitudes will allow ingenuity to be expressed.

Whereas, scientific, economic, and medical genius easily find avenues for expression, social, educational and moral genius, which address how we relate to each other, because of a lack of financial reward, have a much harder time being developed, even when there are examples of success, and when there are such obvious needs for them.

So we are back to the original question: Who are we as Americans, and what do we seek to become? Just what did the Founders envision when they "established on this continent a new nation"? What did they mean by "all men (being) created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? And does our survival, as a nation founded on those principles, depend on our either believing them or acting as if we do.

There are those who say it was no coincidence that men of the intelligence, wisdom and integrity of the Founders lived at the same time, in the same place, to address a situation that required their presence. They say it was divine providence. And although Lincoln expressed some concern whether a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal' could "long endure," he closes his address by optimistically saying that the nation would have a "new birth of freedom," and that government of the people, by the people and for the people (would) not perish from the earth. Was Lincoln being prophetic or was it just an expression of hope?

One hundred years later, during the sixties, the nation experienced what many considered that new birth. And although it may only have put finishing touches on the first one, It felt good to be an American. Since then, however, who we are and what we seek to become as Americans have become increasingly relevant questions.

Paraphrasing Jesus, Lincoln said that a nation divided against itself cannot stand. Because of slavery, the nation was divided North against South. Later, the South would be separated, White from Black. And, now, there are religious divides in a country once aspirating to be "one nation under God."

If the Founders were men chosen by The Creator to establish a model nation for the world, who chose these flounderers who seem committed to preventing it from happening?

Ronald

Bailing Out America

2010-12-18T19:39:00.000-08:00

Who are the rich people who need their tax cuts extended--when they shouldn't?

They are not billionaires. They are people who became millionaire because of the Bush tax cuts, and at the expense of the working class, but lost most of it during the Great Recession. They are people whose trusts, many established for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, were also hit.

They are people who invested more than they could ultimately afford on homes that were too big. on mansions they could't afford, and on expensive cars for each member of the family.

They are people who spent much of their children's inheritance on worldwide trips, entertainment and recreation, not expecting the Great Recession and the decline in prices of their homes whose sizes too often exceeded the needs of the family.

Many of these are people who impoverished themselves by poor management of their wealth, and hope to bounce back on the backs of the middle class to which they only recently belonged, and they won't feel guilty about impoverishing them so long as they regain their financial standing.

Many of these people were rich people, who earned as much a $500 thousand a year, who have become middle class again, and fear they may have lost their last best opportunity to again enrich themselves legitimately.

Many of them are having to take care of adult children who did not prepare themselves for secure employment, forcing parents and the children into a lower standard of living.

Many of them are trying to build new wealth at the expense of the middle class and working poor, money which they should have saved for their children's future and present needs.

However, people with hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth or more don't need tax-cut extensions. They're generally smart enough, shrewd enough or positioned well enough to have invested wisely and avoided being terribly damaged by the recession. Most of them actually used the recession, and the lead up to it, to further enrich themselves. Many of them were already super-rich, with enough money to adequately fund even trusts of future generations.

The only problem with funding future generations is that top academic talents may go undeveloped to the detriment of the nation. And if moral virtues and traditional values are not the underpinnings of their ambitions and if those talents were to be used to seek out weaknesses within our political and economic systems for personal gain--then maybe the nation is better off with their not be well-educated.

Poor management of money, of course, enriches some elements of the population, whereas, wise management of money enriches a different set of elements, and often provides jobs for a different kind of employee.

The people of the emerging economies want to have what Americans have, and the more they achieve that goal, the more Americans trend toward conditions from which they have come.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pointed out in a recent interview that while the emerging world is presently taking jobs and wealth from the Western world, those jobs and that accumulation of wealth will eventually produce consumers who will want to buy the kinds of thing we will either make or make better and faster than anyone else.

But that will only happen in the US if we educate our children better than everybody else, so they can either generate the creative ideas, produce unique but necessary products, or play their parts by enabling both of these to happen through education and productive, rewarding labor.

In the meantime, although there are many formerly rich people (and people who were just well off) who need tax cuts to return to their status among the elite, there are very rich people whose standards of living have not be seriously impacted by the Great Recession, and would not be impacted were their wealth reduced in some cases by a billion dollars or two, and in other cases by several hundreds of million dollars, and still others by several tens of millions of dollars. Some of them spend hundreds of millions of dollars seeking political office.

Now, is the time for President Obama to call on the patriotism of the wealthy who really did not want or need their Bush tax cuts extended, and ask them to come to the rescue of the nation that made their wealth possible by giving back to the government, not only any tax cuts to which they are entitled to over the next two years, but give even more as they can afford.

Right-wing conservative Republicans have criticized wealthy Americans who have expressed opposition to Bush tax cuts being extended for the wealthy, suggesting that they could give it back if they don't want it. Well, this is the time for every liberal, moderate, and conservative American, for every religious leader and congregations, for every doctor, lawyer, and Indian chief, for every bank and corporation who has an American agenda to, not only make that appeal, but make a generous contributions to this "bailout" of America. Middle-class generosity would make the job even easier.

Our brave young men and women, the vast majority of whom have neither amassed nor inherited wealth of any consequence, are sacrificing their lives and jeopardizing their futures to protect this nation, its way of life and the opportunities it affords fellow Americans. Those who have benefited from those opportunities, be they businesses or individuals, should be willing to show that nation, in times of dire need, their gratitude in measures commensurate with their good fortune.

But we need somebody of note to take the lead toward sacrifice and a new national pride, toward a renewal of the American economy to one where lost wealth and lost opportunities can be restored, both for ourselves and our posterities.
This is a venture where Democrats and Republicans should find common ground.

Ronald

Democratic Compromise or Capitulation

2010-12-08T12:34:00.000-08:00

The Democrats and Republicans have come to an apparent "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts; that is, the President's words announcing the agreement sounded like a compromise: Tax cuts for the middle class to be extended permanently, while cuts for the wealthy would be extended for another two years. Unemployment benefits would be extended for another thirteen months, and other tax benefits would help stimulate the economy. Even at that, I would have preferred extending the tax cuts for the wealthy by one year, and making extending it for the second year contingent on evidence of significant job growth as a result of it.

But I understood wrong. Under the agreement, ALL tax cuts would be extend for two years--that includes the middle class cuts. And unless businesses are going to plow profits during the next two years into middle class salaries and wages the way they did for upper-income tax payers during the past thirty years, the middle class will be no better able to fit such cuts into their budgets in two years than they are now.

There are, however, two good things about this agreement: (1) Extension of tax cuts for the wealthy for two years still gives the present congress and the President control over further extensions for them and (2) middle-class voters will again have a chance in November 2012 to realize and rectify their mistake, and return Democrats to a majority status sufficient to make middle class cuts permanent.

But I still don't see any figures made public showing how much the taxes at various income levels of the middle class would increase if the tax cuts expired. They should have been announced continuously before the last Nov. elections and certainly should be publicize now and for the next two years if this agreement prevails.

Faced with the reality of this agreement, I have to rate it more capitulation than compromise. With Republicans willing to hold the middle class hostage to demands of the rich, the President had to capitulate by taking what Republicans were willing to give him. There are Democrats who say the President and Democrats should refused this compromise and fight. But most of these people likely can afford to have their taxes increased.

It remains to be seen whether senate democrats will hold out for a better agreement (or a real compromise). They could demand that the middle-class tax cuts be made permanent. Such a stand would assume that middle-class tax payers could (or were willing to) take a tax hit, and whether the unemployed could (or were willing to) go another two years without further unemployment relief. If there were sufficient jobs created during the next two years despite increased taxes, then the need for unemployment benefits would be less. But that would be up to the business community.

This is the kind of quagmire which the people chose on November 2. The middle class voted against itself. Many of those who are unemployed blamed Democrats for their condition and voted for Republican, and many middle-class workers, not realizing that they were offering themselves to be hostages for the enrichment of the wealthy, did likewise.

While voters obviously did not understand the consequences of their votes, Democrats did--or should have. I heard very little from the party, warning middle-class voters what would happen to their taxes if Republican gained sufficient strength in Congress. The dilemma that we face now was predictable when the idea of extending tax cuts for only the middle class was first conceived..

But even if all of the tax cuts are extended, we may be no better able to effect job growth and economic recovery than we are now. Why? Because instead of the middle class and borderline rich continuing to spend tax savings that stimulate job creation, they may decide to start saving because of the chance their taxes will increase in two years.

Capitalism requires that risk be taken and shared by all participants in the economic system: consumers, corporations, insurances companies, banks--everybody. But just as businesses are claiming uncertainty as a basis for not employing more workers now, won't there be the same uncertainty during the next two years as they prepare for the uncertainty about what will happen in next two years, and couldn't that uncertainty continue to offer the same reasons for businesses not to hire during future extensions?

Ultimate, there seem to be only two endings possible for the tax-cut dilemma facing present-day Democrats and Republicans: All tax cuts will eventually either be made permanent or all of them will expire. Letting taxes expire not only would be devastating to many members of the middle class, but it hinders the economic recovery by keeping businesses afraid to hire, and middle-income and borderline rich people, afraid to spend. Making the tax cuts permanent, together with compromise spending, will deepen the hole of the federal debt, all with no strategy for long-term debt reduction and economic recovery. Either way, however, it's heads the wealthy wins, tails the middle class and working poor lose.

We will be borrowing to put in the pockets of the wealthy money that will be paid back through the sacrifices of everybody else. No wonder the Republicans leaders are smiling.

Ronald

Spinning Nov. 2 Elections

2010-11-21T17:31:00.000-08:00

November 21, 2010

To: The Editor

Nov. 2 has come and gone, and now is time to speculate about what "the American people" said. In just about every other word they speak, Republicans are spinning that "the American people" said they want what Republicans want. And they spin it as if Republicans simply want what "the American people" want. The fact is: the American people want different things. But what we all want, is a quick return to the days when there is a lot less threat to or uncertainty about our future.

I was hopeful that voters would conclude that their best hopes rested in the character and agenda of the Democratic Party. It was Democrats that at least tried to produce jobs with stimulus legislate,--which worked, though not to the extent needed or expected.

It was not Obama's fault, however, that cities, counties and states did not have plans in place that could make use of the money. It is not his fault that many cities, counties and states that were prepared to use the money chose instead to leave workers unemployed. Voters rewarded Republicans for limiting the success of the stimulus they limited. Because of Republican repudiations, too many voters gave Democrats no credit for either their intent or for whatever success was achieved.

The message that voters sent rest in the fact that they gave Republicans the House but denied them the Senate. It would have been easy for voters to vote straight Republican tickets and elect enough Republicans to the Senate to give them a majority. The message was: We're hurting. We're worried. We don't know what is needed, but we expect the President and Congress to figure it out. Its like a patient going to a doctor and saying, "Doc, I don't feel well. Nothing hurts; I just don't feel good." Obama and fellow Democrats have been prescribing medicine, but Republicans have done everything within their power to prevent the patient's accessing and taking the medicine. The patient still feels bad, but blames the doctor rather than those who denied them access to the medicine.

In this election, voters are saying to Democrats: Maybe it wasn't your fault that we didn't receive the medicine, but we're going to blame you until you find a way to get that medicine, whatever it is, to us. Voters said in effect: maybe you'll have to give it to us in your office or bring it to our home. But find a way. Their message to Republicans is: Get in there and help get the medicine to us. If someone tells you another medicine is better, discuss it with the President. We elected him to be our personal physician. If his medicine is not right time will tell.

The fact is Republicans were not obstructing Democratic ideas because Republicans thought they were bad ideas. They opposed them because they were afraid they would succeed. Defeating Democrats, not healing the patient, was the goal of Republicans from the beginning. That goal has not changed. And whatever they agree to will be with hopes that it fails--with a little help from them if necessary.

I suggest the following strategy for any bipartisan compromise: (1) Identify the sectors where there are new ideas or concerns by either party, for example, health care, financial regulations, education, energy independence, clean energy and the environment, comprehensive immigration legislation. (2) Within each sector, allow each party to identify in writing changes it would like to see made in each sector. (Parties would have met in advance to decide what changes they would recommend.) (3) List by party all recommendations submitted for each sector. (4) Allow the parties to take copies of both sets of ideas back to their caucuses and choose between alternatives. (5) Pair up the ideas about each area and have caucus prioritize their choices from most important to them to least important. (6) Flip a coin to determine who gets the pick first. During the first cycle, the winner picks the area that party determined to be highest priority. The loser gets their 2nd and 3rd choices, then winner the 4th choice. During the second cycle, the loser of the first cycle chooses first, the loser 2nd and 3rd and winner 4th, etc. In case there is only set of ideas left, flip a coin to determine which party's idea will be accepted.

It seems complicated, but it's fair.

A far as extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, Democrats had better get something mighty good in return. Extending tax cuts for the rich only became an issue when it was almost too late to negotiate a deal with health care, comprehensive immigration legislation, the environment, etc.

The president had a great press conference on Nov. 3. He took blame for results that were not his fault. Critics questioned as if they also bought it was his fault, and that he felt none of the people's pain. But nobody can feel the pain of a situation like someone who has been there.

The President did more than say he felt the people's pain, he tried to alleviate it. He stimulate the economy to save and create jobs, he extended unemployment benefits, he provided money for small businesses to be better able to hire people. He lowered middle-class taxes so people would have more money during tough times. He kept American auto manufacturers in business, saving automaker jobs and jobs at the dealerships and suppliers. These jobs kept people in homes, and gave workers buying power that kept other workers employed.

Yet, the President is constantly criticized for seeming not to care. But Republicans, who have tried every trick in the bag to prevent help from going to these people, are never asked how they feel about not helping those in need, nor are they criticized for seeming not to care.

Again, President Obama seems anxious to reach across the aisle. And, again no Republican talks about reaching back to compromise on something that Republicans feel passionately about. Democrats should demand that Republicans reach back with things they value. If they won't compromise their "principles," why would they (and the American people) expect Democrats to compromise theirs.

Ronald

An Election Like No Other

2010-11-12T09:07:00.000-08:00

This year's mid-term elections very likely were the most crucial elections in American history. The American people were faced with the need for earth-shaking reforms, from very complex survival needs to the very daunting needs to adjust to a new economic reality in America. Voters had to determine whether America would become a place where "survival of the fittest" prevailed, or where no group of human beings was considered dispensable, and none was deemed indispensable. As was the case with the founding of the nation, however, solutions would only be provided by our brightest Americans who are also among our most moral, ethical and empathetic Americans.

Someone said that democracy requires and moral ethical majority. "Survival of the fittest" with a moral, ethical and empathetic foundation both prepares and enables the strongest, brightest and wealthiest to then provide the means for maximum opportunities and preparation of those of lesser attributes so they, too, can make their maximum contribution to society. But where conscience is no longer a factor in decision-making, "survival of the fittest" leads to domination rather than support of those less fit.

Someone else has said that the test of a nation's character is how well it treats its poor.

And as the American people have become wealthier, we are becoming less willing to share that wealth with those who are less fortunate. This attitude eventually impoverishes the middle class. Increasingly more American families have children in poor schools than in good schools, guaranteeing to grow that pool of needy Americans who either don't know or can't control what is best for them.

Strangely on Nov. 2, American families, most of whose children attend poorer schools, expressed a belief that Republicans offered their children a better chance for a quality education--despite there being no evidence of this. Thomas Jefferson said that democracy cannot survive with an uninformed, poorly educated electorate.

But instead of providing quality education for all children, too many parents have succeeded in providing the best schools, courses, teachers and classmates for our own children so they will be among the "fittest" to survive. But they do this with no intention that their children be among the "fittest" so they can then help those who are less "fit."

Someone said that democracy requires a moral, rational majority. We need to be able to trust those with whom we survive. But we can't continue to elect people we don't trust, for the wrong reasons, and expect honest government. What we are to become as a nation, we are now becoming. We can only hope that the last election results is not evidence that we are already there. It certainly will be difficult to elect people who are better than we are ourselves. And we cannot care more for other people than our minds have been taught and our hearts will allow. Those who lie most, deceive most, and care less about those of us who have come upon hard times have been able to convince a majority of "the American people" that their successful war against the poor is due to God's being on their side.

These are confusing times, indeed, when people think that those who got them into trouble are more likely to lead them out, and those who cost them jobs are more likely to bring those jobs back.

During this campaign, Tea Party participants depicted President Obama as a socialist--and as a nation we are socialistic: Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public universities, public highways, public support for medical research. public financing of the military, public judicial systems, public police and fire services, etc. Little did voters realize, though, the kind of political system they were making possible. Even in communist China the government determines the parameters within which businesses operate, and establishes people-friendly ends that business must pursue. In the end, the success of political and economic systems does not rest in what the system is called but in the results it achieves--its ability "to do the most good for the most people."

But America in the process of doing the most good for the fewest people, and we are finding ourselves operating contrary to all the words of wisdom that have been spoken and guided the behavior of mankind for thousands of years. Even "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" is beginning to be treated as a joke.

Whether it sought it or not, big business has been handed control of both elections and the Supreme Court, and a return to little regulations, no oversight, and no obligation to be people-friendly in its behavior. It can reduce workforce or what workers are paid at will. They can cut work time and workers would have to accept it because there would be no better paying jobs elsewhere. Judging from the unidentified financial contributions given to the Republican party during the last election, there are more corporate bad guys than good guys.

In the past, businesses made money off middle-class and the working poor who both spent more and accumulated more debt than they could afford. Not being paid what their labor was worth, too often these Americans used credit and credit cards to cover financial shortfalls. That money bought things and activities (and paid interest on debt) that enabled businesses, both the lenders and the sellers of goods and services, to generate more profits. These profits exceeded what business should have expected (or even would have been possible) had workers lived within their means and saved according to their future needs. But this allowed investors at the top of wealth ladder to further enriched themselves by climbing on the backs of those working Americans who were doing the ground-level work for both businesses and this society.

The fact that the rule of big business is not only conceivable but, with the help of the Supreme Court, quite achievable should ring a alert bell and be cause for great concern by moral and rational voters on whose wisdom and actions survival of our democracy depends.

Ronald

Thinking through Political Decisions

2010-11-10T15:58:00.000-08:00

November 10, 2010

To: The Editor

When a nation's children rank 23rd and 24th (and falling) in science and math, respectively, there is little surprise that their parents ("the American people") also will not think rationally in the political decisions they make.

Rational decision-making in politics--as in education--is a problem-solving activity. As in science and mathematics, both begin with a set of given conditions that are relevant to a goal to be achieved during a solution process. Each goal has it own set of relevant conditions.

A student who has not been taught to think critically and reason logically in English, history, government, health and other non-science and non-mathematics classes will not automatically do so in science and mathematics classes either unless science and math teachers encourage, stimulate and teach them how to do so. If voters have not been taught to think rationally in their schools, how can they be expected to do so in preparation for election day?

Being prepared to think rationally in preparation for election day does not mean that all people will come to the same conclusion. With difficult math and science problems some times the correct solution is reached by students only because the answers are in the back of the book. Rational thinking will not alway lead to the correct answers to problems, but it gets one on the road toward the solution.

Solutions to all problem require access to correct information and knowledge of relationships between and among the variables existing within that body of relevant information. The relationship between a home to live in and a good job is simple: If the father has a good job, the family will have a place to stay. An employer, however, does not relate directly to the family having food and a place to live. But both an employer and family needs relate to the father's having a job. Hence, if the employer hires the father, there will be food on the table and a place to live. But employers also have needs, further complicating the problem.

I once attended a conference of science teachers who were setting the guidelines for the curriculum of a science course, and the teachers had been led to conclude that teaching the scientific method was no longer appropriate because even real scientists did not use it. I was unable to convince them that the scientific method was not just an approach to tackling science problems, it was useful in problem-solving and decision-making in everyday life activities--like voting.

I'm again reminded of my favorite mathematics teacher, Burton West, saying to us: "Think, young people, think." If children are not taught and encouraged to think in school, who will teach and encourage them to do so after they become adults?

In a recent column, Bill O'Reilly asks, " Why do the West Coast and the Northeast continue to embrace liberalism, especially when it has led to economic disaster?" That statement was aimed at an uninformed and misinformed audience whom O'Reilly hopes remains so about such facts.

Often, when voters are not able (or inclined) to think rationally during political campaigns, they either flip coins to decide how to vote or engages in "trial and error problem-solving. Trial and error works sometimes but mostly when one knows the answer and has much time to solve the problem. Flipping the coin always has a fifty-fifty chance of being right, but votes tend to cancel each other. Recent elections suggest that the present electorate is resorting to both methods in making political decisions: If the bunch who are in office are not getting the job done," trial and error" says choose someone else. "Flipping the coin says: I don't know which is better; I'll just pick one. At least I'm voting. Both can be persuaded, by the party which claims to know and represent what "the American people" want.

President Obama was doing what "the American people" wanted: Preventing a depression required that money be spent to stabilize banks. It required that money be spent producing and saving jobs. Saving General Motors and Chrysler saved jobs at the automakers, their dealerships and their suppliers. Health-care reform was aimed at reducing the contribution of health-care costs to the growing national debt. Keeping economic conditions and unemployment from getting worse and effecting an economic recovery, slow though it may be, made Democrats worthy of two more years. "The American people" disagreed, and TV personalities, almost to a person, espoused that kind of thinking by them as reasonable.

No person who survives an auto crash in critical condition goes home the next day. Yet that's what "the American people" thought was possible with America's great recession. Trial and error thinking has demanded another doctor, presuming that with another "doctor", our economy would have been well the next day. The reason why people don't make bad decisions in medical emergencies is because they don't constantly hear and submit to other people who tell them to do what is contrary to their better judgment. Yet, in politics, "the American people" allow surrogates to think for them.

Granted, liberals are no more thoughtful than conservatives about what is best for government to be and be doing. The more rational or centrist elements of either ideology could move the country forward. But ideologies no longer control political agendas. The contest is no longer one of political and social ideas; it is about whether the wealthy have the right (and should be allowed) to become richer at the expense everyone else.

Middle-class voters, whose incomes have been stagnate for the past ten years or more as incomes of the wealthy increased, and others who earn less than $250 thousand dollars a year, essentially said on Nov. 2: If taxes of the wealthiest Americans are increased on Jan. 1, then, we want ours increased also.

How can Democrats regain the faith of "the American people" who use trial and error, flipping the coin and the thinking of others to make political decisions? How will Democrats deal with "the American people" who allow questionable financial contributions to essentially buy their votes? Better education might help; a better national character would demand it. But Republicans won't allow either.

Ronald

Strange Things Are Happening

2010-10-22T07:07:00.000-07:00

Isn't it strange that so many people who have jobs and so many of those who don't have jobs seem to support the same political party this year? Isn't it strange that people who have plenty of money and those who don't have nearly so much seem to support the same party? And isn't it strange that people who have homes and those who can afford pay on their home mortgages are on the same political side as those who have lost homes and cannot afford to pay on their mortgages? Something strange and troubling is happening.

One would think that those without jobs would be thankful that condition have improved enough that their parents or siblings or children still have jobs and, as a consequence, can help them--maybe even provide a place for them to live--until things get better. It's strange.

Ronald

Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide

2010-10-20T17:34:00.000-07:00

October 21, 2010

To: The Editor

If you (Texas voters) had to let either Rick Perry or Bill White hold all of the money you possess, and did not intend to count it either when it was given or when it was returned, which one would you trust more to be custodian of this money? Which would you trust more, Barack Obama or Newt Gingrich? Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner? Sharron Angle or Harry Reid? Your Republican candidate for Congress or the Democrat? If your plans are to vote for the candidates you trust less, will your conscience have been your guide or will it have died?

I believe it has not died. I believe that Republicans will likely take some seats in Congress, not because the polls suggest it is so, but because those who prefer the Democrat's agenda will choose to stay home on election day. I believe that regardless of what voters have said in the polls, they will trust Democrats more to bring us through to a sustainable economic recovery. President Obama has even said he will be willing to work with Republicans who may have managed to win only because his 2008 supporters are not so motivated this time.

But that cooperation will require that responsible Republicans be elected. You'll remember, Obama tried to work with the present crop of Republicans with very little success, other than one or two Republican defections on a few very important occasions. But where voters must choose between broadminded Democrats and Republican ideologues or less, Republican and independent voters (and the American people) would be better served if they helped elect Democrats who are willing to work with Republicans.

The value of the Tea Party in this year's election is important in that it says to Obama and the Democrats that they have one more chance to get this thing right. Most Tea Party members are smart. They know that Republicans don't have a plan to bring about a quick recovery from our present economic condition. They also know that Republican didn't have a plan to even bring us as far as Democrats have. How do they know? They know because Republicans never say specifically what they will do to hasten recovery if they are placed in charge. Nor do they say specifically what they would have tried in 2009 to hasten recovery had they been in charge. (Why Democratic candidates aren't emphasizing this on the campaign trail is a mystery to me.)

The main reason why Republican can't fool all members of the Tea Party is because many (if not most) Tea Party members joined the movement and attended rallies only because they were invited to do so by employers, friends or family members whose invitations they thought they could not refuse.

The news media and news analysts aren't can't seem to make up their minds why Republicans will or should win congressional seats in November elections. They vacillate between the notion that Republican will win seats because a lack of enthusiasm by the Democratic base in an off year election and the desire of people polled to have the country move in in a different direction. Both could be true, but neither might be.

I don't believe people want a different direction for the country. They want the same direction: They want jobs and job security in the America they have known. Democrats will not lose congressional seats in November because of the votes of the ten percent who are unemployed nor because of the fifteen percent who would like jobs: Democrats will lose seats because of the anxiety of middle-class workers and the working poor who have jobs but fear they will lose them unless economic conditions improve. Many of them seem inclined to place their hopes in the change of direction that Republicans would provide. Many of these voters don't have the time to evaluate track records of political parties nor can they place slow economic progress in a proper perspective when rapid progress is what many people need and everybody wants.

So Democrats will lose some seats, but not because they should lose them. They will lose them because the combination of (1) voters who always vote Republican, (2) those who vote always Republican when there is no clear choice or reason not to, and (3) those who can be persuaded by reason, and are somehow are persuaded that Republicans will manage to get it right if they are only given another chance.

But so much anonymous money has been poured into the campaigns this year to support Republican candidates that the process has been distorted and no longer necessarily nor properly reflects the will of the people. The people--even those whose party is benefiting from this flood of financial contributions must decide if that's a fair advantage and whether it's an advantage they wish to retain. A vote for a Republican candidate in this November election will be a vote that elections where outcomes continue to be determined by exorbitance amounts of money from unknown donors. There have always been people who would not mind this practice. But that had not be true of a majority of Americans.

Many of us have already made up our minds how we will vote. But there is a significant minority who are undecided and will be watching Fox and MSNBC more to help get a closer look at what is true (and claimed to be true) about the two parties and their candidates. These most conscientious voters will have made the difference during this election.

I'm betting that on November 2 voters will prove that the American conscience has not died, that the ways we elect our representatives for government and the ways we pursue economic, political and social progress in the United States will confirm, again, that our sustaining American traditions and our deep-seated American values still matter.

Ronald

A Grand Partnership for America 2

2010-10-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

October 4, 2010

To: The Editor

Everybody knows that needed progress on the economy has not been achieved primarily because businesses are not hiring, banks are not lending and too many consumers are choosing to save more and spend less. Consumers are trying to offset their declining incomes by excessively using credit cards and home-equity loans. If businesses hire consumers and if they stay hired and are paid equitably with higher salaried employees, these consumers will buy. And if businesses promise to keep workers hired so long as profits increase, then workers will gradually consume more goods and services if they stay hired and paid equitably with higher salaried employees. even as they pay off debt and save.

Also, if people have secure jobs and equitable incomes, banks will be more willing to lend to such people. If economic conditions warrant them companies would be expected to reduce the number of workers--or reduce the hours worked--and banks would be expected to reduce the number of loans they will approve in light of such declining incomes. Renters would have an incentives to save so they can make the kinds of down payments that make them better risks in both good and tough times.

Some degree of certainly about the job market is necessary, but that certainty should have little to do with extending tax cuts for the wealthy. When the workforce increases, increased purchasing power increases profits that offset the costs of doing business. Wealthy investors benefits from rising stock markets and business profits. Businesses and the wealthy have known for ten years that the tax cuts would expire in January. Where was the uncertainty? If our economy system has degenerated to the point where uncertainty renders that system no longer able to tolerate and eventually overcome reasonable risk, then its time to find out why.

Republicans say all the economy needs to reestablish that certainty is an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy for at least two more years. But if those tax cuts can do that much to help the economy during the next two years, why have the cuts not achieved that during the past two years, or for that matter, the past eight years? What would wealthy do with their money the next two years that would generate jobs? And if low taxes for the wealthy is so good for middle-class American workers, why not reduce their taxes for the wealthy to zero?

When Barack Obama campaigned about retaining the tax cuts for people earning less than $250 thousand per year, but allowing them to expire for those earning more, Republicans didn't complain. Obama continued to express that intention after being elected president. Republicans still didn't complain. Republicans didn't argue against allowing the tax breaks for the wealthy to expire, even as they criticized all of the President's other attempts to end the Great Recession and establish for the long term a stable, energy independent economy.

If Republican really believed that Obama's plans would not revive the economy, and that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy was necessary for that recovery, why were they not suggesting that tax-cut remedy much sooner?

The fact is that, if Republicans had requested as extenuation of tax cuts for the wealthy too soon, the President would have required Republicans to give Democrats something in return, such as support for a larger economic stimulus package, health-care reform with a public option, and more rigorous legislations on climate change, financial regulations, comprehensive immigration, education reform initiatives, etc. And the President might have demanded passage of his legislative agenda before the November elections.

There had been indications that some kind of tax-cut compromise might be worked out between Democrats and Republicans before the November elections. But significant political damage had already been inflicted on Democrats by Republicans, who criticized and refused to support Obama's initiatives despite most having had bipartisan input. When they were not watering down Obama's plans, they were blocking them. Now they want to compromise.

One form of compromise would be to make the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy contingent (1) on Democrats retaining control of the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, (2) on businesses showing good faith by increasing hiring prior to the November elections, (3) on banks promising to lend if businesses hire and (4) on extensions being limited to three-months intervals, consistent with some prior established bench marks showing more banks lending, more businesses hiring, and more people working more hours with all workers receiving equitable pay rates. Meeting benchmarks would merit other three- months extension of the tax cuts.

Democrats' decision to delay votes on the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250 thousand per year until after the November elections should have the benefit of getting the base of the Democratic party out to vote. The base will realize that if Democrats don't win in November with sufficient majority in the Senate, then Democrats, Republicans, nor Independents earning less than $250 thousand a year all will have their taxes go up in January. And if tax cuts for the wealthy are as vital to economic recovery as Republican claim, then all Republican--even wealthy Republicans--should prove it by supporting and voting for Democrats,

At hand is another chance for Democrats and Republicans to work together, this time to establish time frames and benchmarks with banks and businesses that can enhance their confidence in the other, and to allow each to show that such reassurances can actually increase jobs and lending, and hasten economic recovery.

Middle-class Republicans and Independents who had thoughts of voting for Republicans, and middle-class Democrats who had plans to not vote all but just sit back and continue enjoying their tax-cut extensions should consider changing their election-day plans.

Ronald

2010-09-24T11:10:00.001-07:00

I was afraid of the boogey man when I was small, though I had never seen one. I believe it because those whom I trusted told me he existed. And despite the fact that they did not tell me how he looked or what he would do, for a while the possibility of his existence kept me quiet or in my seat.

Obama and the Democrats are being portrayed as the bogey man by the real boogie man: Republicans. Americans have been seeing the boogie man, and the damage he can do, for last ten years. How could so many people not recognize him? One reason is because they have the delusion that the boogie man must be black. I alway pictured him as being black myself. But if you check throughout history, bogey men have come in all shapes, colors, nationalities and genders. Most recently, they happen to be Republican. But the "Republican Tea Party" is saying, no, the boogey man is President Obama.

Many Obama's supporters also are second-guessing the President on some of the decisions he has made. Some say he should have been concentrating on the economy instead of health care and financial regulations.

Well, what else could he have done about the economy and job creation? Republicans and conservative Democrats would not approve a larger stimulus package. Also, Republicans would have liked Obama to have been devoting all of his time on an economy and job-creation, because they were going to make sure nothing he tried worked. He would have been criticized by Republicans for not being able to "walk and chew gum at the same time," and by Democrats,for acting as if he couldn't.

Everybody knows that progress on the economy has not been made mostly because businesses are not hiring, banks are not lending and too many consumers are choosing to save more rather than spend too much. If businesses hire, the people they hire will buy--if they stay hired. If businesses promise to keep workers hired so long as profits increase, then workers will gradually consume more even as they save.

Also, if people have secure jobs, banks will be willing to lend to people with stable incomes. If economic conditions warrant it, companies would be expected to reduce the number of workers--or reduce the hours worked--and banks would be expected to reduce the number of loans they will approve. Renters would have an incentives to save so they can make down the kinds of payments that make them better risks.

But there must be some degree of certainly about the job market. That should have little to do with taxes. When the workforce increases, increased spending increases profits that offset increased taxes. If our economy system has degenerated to the point where uncertainty renders it no longer able to tolerate and overcome risk, then maybe its time to change the system.

People say all the economy needs is to have the tax cuts for the wealthy extended at least two more years., If those cuts can do that much during the next two years, why have the cuts not done anything the past two years, or for that matter the past eight years? What would wealthy do with their money in the next six months that they did not do the past six month?

Barack Obama campaigned that he would retain the tax cut for people who earn less that $250 thousand per year, but allow them to expire for those earning more. Republicans didn't complain at that time.

Obama continued to express that intention after being elected president. Republicans still didn't complain. Republicans didn't argue against allowing the tax break to expire for the wealthy, even as they criticized all of the President's other attempts to end the Great Recession, and establish for the long term a stable, energy independent economy.

Which raised the question: If Republican really believed that Obama's plans would not cure the economy's ills, and that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy was necessary for economic recovery, why were they not mentioning that until recently? The answer: If Republican had requested as extenuation for the wealthy too soon, the President might have required them to support the implemention of some of his initiatives like a larger stimulus package, health-care reform, climate change legislation, financial regulations, comprehensive immigration legislation, education reform, etc. He might have demanded passage of his legislative agenda before the November elections, and that they stop trashing the initiatives.

There is some hope now that some kind of compromise might be worked out between Democrats and Republicans before the November elections. But irreparable political damage may already have been done to Democrats. Republicans didn't help support Obama's programs despite most legislation being bipartisan in their composition. And when they were not watering down Obama's plans, they were blocking them. Now they want to compromise.

Well how is this for compromise? Make the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy contingent (1) on Democrats retaining control of the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, (2) on businesses agreeing to increase hiring prior to the November elections and on banks promising to lend if businesses hire, and (3) on three months extensions of the breaks after January 1, 2-11 producing more bank lending and business hiring, where the number of people working, the numbers hours worked, and pay rates of middle-class workers all increase. If job and lending increase during the three-month period, extend them for three more months, and continue extending three-month periods every year for up to two years, or so long as there is significant job growth and lending accompany the extensions.

Delaying the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250 thousand per year until after the November elections would be an incentive to get the base of the Democratic party off their behinds and vote. If Democrats don't win, then nobody get their taxes cuts extended. If tax cuts are that vital to the economic recovery of the country, then Republican need to prove it by electing Democrats, who are the only party that can guarantee extension of the tax cuts since the President is a Democrat.

I'm still having trouble understanding how extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will help the economy recover. But this is a chance for Democrats and Republicans to work together with banks and businesses to enhance their confidence and allow them to show that those reassurances can produce jobs.

Middle-class Republicans who intend to vote Republican, middle-class independents who intend to vote Republican, and middle-class Democrats who had planned to not vote--and just sit back and wait for their tax-cut extensions-- need to consider changing their elections plans.

Ronald

Who is in charge during economic paralysis?

2010-09-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

WHO MUST TAKE CHARGE, IF NOT GOVERNMENT, WHEN BANKS DON'T KNOW WHETHER, WHEN OR HOW MUCH TO LEND; BUSINESSES DON'T KNOW WHETHER, WHEN OR HOW MANY TO HIRE; AND CONSUMERS DON'T KNOW WHETHER, WHEN AND HOW MUCH TO SPEND AND SAVE?

Switching Homes to Address Crisis

2010-03-27T11:16:00.000-07:00

SWITCHING HOMES TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS

Why is it not possible--or of no consequence--to have families move out of more expensive homes which they cannot afford into lower priced homes which they can afford, and that exist within the same general areas or within distances which do not cause an reasonable travel inconveniences and expenses to workers and families?

For purposes of illustration, two methods are suggested, using the following simplified numbers and situations representing various home buyers:

HOME OWNER MORTGAGE MONTHLY NOTE

(1) $800,000 $8,000

(2) 600,000 6,000

(3) 400,000 4,000

(4) 200,000 2,000

(5) 100,000 1,000

METHOD I

Suppose that home buyers (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) are in homes they cannot

afford but can afford one of the lower priced homes listed. Each homeowner could be allowed to assume the mortgage of one of the less expensive home that the family can afford, maybe the most expensive home the family can afford. Ideally, (2 )has a home and monthly payment (1) can afford; homeowner (2) pursues the home of homeowner (3); and homeowner (4) buys the home of homebuyer (5). The point is to get families into homes they can afford at this time. The home of home buyer (1) could be sold as described in METHOD II.

All mortgages that are endangered would be identified, and arrangement made, with government help, to work out exchanges among the lending agencies and home buyers. Government financial interventions may be used, where needed, to expedite the mortgage exchanges.

METHOD II

Suppose home buyer (1) can no longer afford a monthly note of $8,000 but can afford the monthly payment of $4,000 on house that Homeowner (3) owns. And suppose Homeowner (3), whose house is paid out, would like to--and can afford to--buy a larger house, maybe the one home buyer (1) or (2) is buying. Let them switch homes, with (1) now acquiring a mortgage on the home owned by (3), who would use that money paid for his home as down payment on the larger home.

Why would these not be possible--and practical--within a defined geographical area? And why might it not be possible even over a wider area if homeowners are willing, and find it to their advantage to travel farther to work if they can keep and live in their own homes? A tax credit for gasoline and toward the purchase of a new car for transportation might be offered.

In each case there would be a problem of matching compatible homeowners. But whatever can be achieved might be worth the effort.

Something similar happens with renters: When family incomes become less, families move to apartments where the rent is lower.

Ronald C. Spooner

Starting Health-care Reform with Blank Sheet

2010-03-24T10:19:00.000-07:00

I have tried to figure out what would be the process of starting over in developing a new, bipartisan health-care bill, starting with, as Republicans call it, "a blank sheet of paper." Would that also involve somehow starting over with blank minds.

Every attempt to change or replace an existing program, set of by-laws, or other guidelines for operation, some person or group decides that some process needs to be either initiated or changed. There is seldom, if ever, a group of people assembling to decide what is needed or what needs to be changed.

Now, in the case of Health-care reform, if blank sheet means that nothing has been written down by when those responsible for writing the rules or guidelines, I can understand that. But that would not mean that participants would not have ideas written down in their minds or on their own pieces of paper.

So let's suppose there is a blank sheet of paper on which the eventual plan is to be written, how would the discussion begin? With the chairman asking if anybody has an idea about what needs to be done or how the group should proceed?

Suppose someone suggest that the first item to be discussed in formulating a health-care bill would be those to be covered by the bill. One party likely would support one level of coverage, and the other party another level, especially if party member have previously discussed the matter among themselves. Would such prior discussions be appropriate. One would expect that some prior thought would have been given to ideas before they are recommended for consideration. Otherwise, how would a committee member be prepared to justify the recommendation.

It makes sense, therefore, that each member would come to the committee meeting with ideas and their implementations written down in their heads or on paper. It would help if these ideas were not previously discussed with other party members. Members would them feel less inclined to support ideas simply because the committee member is a member of his or her party.

But that is where the problem lies.