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
No comments:
Post a Comment