Quality-Control in Public Education

     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

     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

     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

     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

What Do We Seek to Become?

     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

 
     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

     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