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.

Negotiating with the Enemy

     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

     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