When Religious Dogma and Political Ideologies Collide

    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

     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

     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

     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

     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

    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.