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.
No comments:
Post a Comment