President Obama Needs a Plan--for Super Committee

     I heard a Methodist pastor tell the story of rural community that had one baptist church, one Methodist churches and one saloon--and the saloon was doing more business than both churches put together.  So the pastors decided to pray that the saloon go out of business.

     After a few months, the saloon went out of business, and the saloon keeper sued the pastors for putting him out of business.

     At the court hearing, the judge told the pastors that the saloon keeper accused them of putting him out of business, and asked how they pleaded.

     The pastors said, "We didn't do it."

     The puzzled judge, scratched his head, responded, "I'm confused, now.  This saloon keeper says that he believes in prayer, and you preachers are saying that prayers don't work."

      I was reminded of that story as I tried to reconcile what Democrats claim to believe about Standard and Poor's downgrading of US bonds and what they think should have been the consequences of political blackmail by Tea Party Republicans.

      As Republicans were threatening to let the government default in the payment of its debts, unless it got is way.  Well, there was no default but only because both Democrats and Republicans settled for less than they thought was necessary (tax cuts for Republicans, and tax cuts and a revenue increases by Democrats) to make a sufficient dent in the nation's debt.  The Tea Party threat of blocking the debt ceiling being raised forced the parties to compromise on what S&P's--and many Democrats and Republicans--considered less than adequate debt-reduction package.  The debt ceiling was raised but political blackmail produced a debt-reduction package and introduced a political strategy that suggest future congresses also will be unable to adequately address the mounting debt.  

     Those criticizing S&P's seem to be saying that political blackmail is no threat to our economy and that there should be no consequences by either rating agencies or voters for such political hostage taking. The financial market have been in free-fall for the past couple of weeks.  There are several reasons that account for that decline.  One is the battle leading to the eventual raising of the debt ceiling; the other is the lower bond rating issued by S&P's.  

     Of course Democrats don't want political blackmail to be the reason for the decline because they fear not being able to stop Republicans from making threats in the future, again making adequate debt-reduction outcomes impossible.

    A few politicians, in the past, voting against raising a debt ceiling which they knew would be raised was not the same as a sufficiently large group of politicians being committed to preventing it from happening.

     So I am confused.  Is political blackmail bad for job growth and the American economy in general, and grounds for Democrats urging American voters to get rid of as many Republicans as possible.  Or is hostage-taking a meaningless strategy to be ignored because there will always be some kind of compromise--no matter how inconsequential--that will allow the debt ceiling to be raised?  Some liberal Democrats seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.  Who are the bad guys, the Tea Party for their blackmail or the S&P's for their reaction to it?

     The consequences of both have contributed to a serious downturn in the stock market,  a diminution of consumer ability to buy and their willingness to do so.  To me Republicans are the blame for this lousy economy.  But Democrats deserve much, if not all, of the blame that is being heaped on them by the public.

     In a June opinion, I stated that President Obama needed to lead, that that is what the American people elected him to do.  I suggested that he gather the best ideas of Democrats and Republicans, develop a debt-reduction plan that achieved his vision for America, and give it to Congress for the finishing touches to pay the nation's bills.  Granted, all spending bills should originate in Congress--unless they don't.  The House had approved a plan devised by Representative Paul Ryan, but without input from Democrats.  And the Senate rejected it, without providing an alternative.  

     The President should have submittted a plan similar to the one he and Speaker Boehner almost agreed to a week before the default date--or even the plan submitted by the Senate Gang of Six.  Democratic and Republican members of Congress could have debated, modified, and rejected or approved any compromise.  

     But this did not happen because the President did not provide a framework around which a reluctant Congress could be nudged to do something they would otherwise be either unwilling or unable to do on it own.  To that extent Democrats are at fault, but so were Republican claims that the President not only did not provide such a plan, but he did not have a firm idea about the directions spending-cuts and revenue enhancement should have in shaping the long- and short-term needs of the economy.  The President failed to generate confidence even in the people who support him and are pulling for him to succeed.

     The President should be calling Congress back to Washington, share with them his plan about how he wants this economic recovery to proceed, how he wants the debt reduced, and how he wants revenue raised.  Share the plan with the media and the people, and let the House and Senate react to it and fix it to their satisfaction--if they will.  A copy of that plan should even be given to the congressional Super Committee, as a place to start.

     If President Obama does not heed such a call to lead, then perhaps Secretary Clinton should get of the bench and begin warming up.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

US Needs DEMS Who May Lose by Default

     Well, it happened: The Standard & Poors rating agency has lowered its rating of US bonds from AAA to AA+.  That should be a blow to the pride of America.  But to Republicans, it apparently doesn't mean a thing. 

     And despite even President Obama suggesting that our rating might be lowered because the US no longer has a AAA government, Democrats seem to be wondering why S&P did it.   They claim that the world knows that the US is able to pay its debts, and always has.  

     But the S&P made a mistake in trusting Wall Street with AAA ratings based on its past performance.  It was not--and is not in the future-- going to make the mistake of assuming the trustworthiness of the US, given recent Tea Party shenanigans, and Republican commitments to more of the same.  Being able to pay and paying are two different things.  Tea Party Republicans have shown that. 

     Their threat did not result in default in paying of the nation's bills, but it certainly prevented the US from addressing the nation's debt as adequately as it might have.  They blocked a ten-year compromise package of  $4.7 trillion in debt reduction, that President Obama and Speaker Boehner had constructed.  Another proposal of $9 trillion recommendation that had been submitted by Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn was never even considered.  Instead the Tea Party, pretending to be the party of debt reduction, forced compromise of about $2.7 trillion.

     The reasons for the S&P downgrade are obvious: (1) a government where the Republicans' tail wags the dog, (2) the Republican Senator leader Mitch McConnell's confidence that Republicans still will be able to practice political blackmail after the 2012 elections, and (3) the Republican promise to stack the congressional Super Committee with people who will not compromise.  

     Democrats are partly to blame for our present economic condition, but only a small part and in a different way.  They could have prevented our invasion of Iraq and the Bush tax cuts with threats of a Senate filibuster.   But most Democrats believed George W. Bush, having been elected President of the United States, leader of the American people, deserved the benefit of the doubt on his decisions.  Bush unfortunately took advantage of their trust to invade Iraq, with no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and tax cuts--presumably as means of addressing the recession--but which actually exacerbated it..

     Congressional Democrats respected the leadership prerogatives of Bush, hoping Bush would be successful, because when if Bush succeeded, the American people succeeded.   Democrats did not seek to make him fail.  Republicans have done just the opposite.  Acceptance of Obama's agendas would be a self-repudiation of their control (and too often lack of control) during the previous eight years.  So voters know where the problem lies and when it started.  And it's not with both parties as the media seems committed to suggesting.

     The cloud hanging over the US willingness to pay its bills will continue until the Supreme Court either declares that the law giving Congress the right to not raise the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, or that the President, with certain limitations, has the authority under the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling.  The S&P needs to hear that.  If the Supreme Court does not act--or for some reason feels that does not itself know what the 14th Amendment means--then Congress can quiet the concerns of rating agencies by rescinding the law requiring congressional approval before the nation's debts can be paid.   The passage of such a law should be at the top of President Obama and the Democrat's agenda.  It likely would re-establish a AAA rating of our bonds and clear the path toward meaningful bipartisan compromise of debt-reduction, quiet the financial markets and help bring certainty into the economy.   Both parties should explain why clearing this issue should not be at the top of both parties immediate agendas.

      George W. Bush was able to have his way as president because Democrats did not have as their goal making him a one-term president.  Certainly Democrats, like Republicans, will always want to win the next election.  But the Democrats never before tried to further their chances in the  next election but deliberately throwing stumbling blocks in the way of a Republican president.  Present Republicans, alone, brought B-  politics to Washington.  Their assault against almost everything Obamab pursues is both persistent and malicious.  It does not matter that what Obama wants may be good for the American people.  If it is not much better for wealthy Americans and American businesses, then it is not nearly good enough.

     "Without a vision a nation perishes."  It also perishes if pursues a different vision every four or eight years.  That vision for American must be a shared vision.  Circumstances may affect pursuit of that vision but not affect its being shared.  America must be a good place to live for conservatives and liberals.  It must be a place of peace for Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  It must be a vision shared and realized by peoples of all colors, genders sexual orientations and religions.  "My way or the highway" will eventually puts all of us on the highway.

America has become less than AAA in politics because we have become less than AAA people--and falling.  

     There is still hope, however, that Americans and their bond ratings again can be rated AAA..  But the President must force Republicans to react publicly to every ideas in his agenda that supports job-growth, debt reduction, economic recovery, a return of AAA politics and a return to AAA attitudes among the American people.   He must force Republicans to either accept, reject or seek compromises.  

     Republican constituents must remember that it was Democrats that prevented the default in payments of our nation's bills.  Regular congressional Republicans could not gather enough Tea Party votes to prevent them from dancing in the streets. 

      If Obama and Democrats still cannot show voters why Republicans should not control any level of government in 2012, then perhaps neither should they.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Is Light at Tunnel's End a Train?

     One wonders what really takes place behind closed doors in America's politics.  There is no way to know that the end point was not determined by the leaders early during their deliberations, with what followed merely being an acting out for the benefit of the cameras and colleagues a predetermined procedure to get to that point.  Even negotiating before the camera would not have prevented negotiators from talking or texting in private.

     The agreement reached, following tea party hostage-taking, was a reasonable compromise, but it was not a draw.  Obama and the Democrats were the winners, though not clear winners.  Remember, the only winning card Obama held to head off a default was the 14th Amendment option, but it use would have done nothing about reducing the deficit.  Democrats had to win with one hand tied behind their backs.  But Democrats are responsible for their weak position because they did not vote and encourage others to vote in the last election.  As a consequence, many of those who found no reason to vote last time may find themselves unable to vote next time.

     But the Republican defeat likely was due to both the skills of Democrats and to telephones calls from constituents, informing tea party freshmen that they did not vote for hostage-takers, and parents reminding these Republicans that they didn't raise any.  Republicans are offended that these hostage-takers were called terrorists.  But when the people who need Social Security checks to survive are your parents and grandparents, and you are unable to fill that financial gap, sensitive Americans would believe those families are terrorized.

     Republicans forget that Democrats also want to cut spending.  They forget that Obama was cutting spending before hostage-taking and negotiations began.  Many Democrats were critical of Obama's cutting spending without requiring something from Republicans.  Adding these cuts means Democrats cut more.  They met Republicans on their playing-field and still beat them.  

     The revenue increases that Obama wanted could become part of the debt-reduction solution.  Despite Republicans threatening to hold the debt ceiling hostage in 2013, and talking about blocking any possible revenue increases by the super committee, a balanced-budget amendment could become the sweetener that makes it happen.    

      Despite thousands of teacher, police, and firefighter jobs being saved, Republicans use every opportunity to claim that the stimulus failed,  It shows what Republicans really think about the value of middle class jobs.  But the American people will be watching, listening to and thinking about both Democrats and Republicans much more closely for the next sixteen months.  This present round of politics is educating and alerting Americans as never before.  Every Republican lie or exaggeration must be challenged, every deception exposed and every dark place illuminated.  

     Because Republicans have blocked every Democratic effort to adequately address the problem, the United States are still struggling to get Americans out of this recession.  They forced a stimulus package that was too small and contrary to what most experts said was needed.  Facing the threat of it's not passing in the Senate, the President did not even try for a larger stimulus.  Wanting to avoid early confrontations and hoping to lay a foundation for future bipartisanship, the President settled for a  package that was too small.  

     So what do Republicans do when the economic stimulus fails?  They call the stimulus a failure and blame Obama for for doing what they forced him do.  The President, his budget and other financial advisors, and Paul Krugman--a Nobel Prize winner in economics--said the economy needed a larger stimulus.  But Republicans wouldn't allow it.  It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that they either knew the stimulus would be insufficient and wanted the economy--and ordinary American people--to fail under Obama's leadership, or Republicans forced Obama do what they would have done if they were in charge.  Either way the failure of the Obama's stimulus was really the Republicans' failure.

      Most people know that the way businesses grow is by borrowing money and paying it back as the business expands.  Businesses that want to grow don't reduce inventory and put their profits under the mattress.  Why do Republicans believe that the federal government can grow the economy by using a different strategy?

       Republicans seem to object to the fact that some less fortunate Americans are relying on the income of more privileged (but only sometimes hardworking) Americans to finance their livelihoods.  But they don't seem disturbed that many of these privileged, wealthy Americans are relying on incomes denied the poor and powerless so they can finance their lavish and extravagant lifestyles. 

     Any politician who believes that his or her ideas about solving complex economic problems are the only ways to do it either has "lost some marbles" between the ears or intends to solve the problems in ways that benefit only a certain people.   People who are elected to political office represent all of the people voting territory, not just members of his or her party.  Voters should be electing people who will be impartial in seeking the best solutions based on which seem to benefit more people.  Politics will produce winners and losers among candidates but should not seek to produce winners and losers among  constituents. 

     The eyes of America will be on both Democrats and Republicans, especially tea party members, during the next sixteen months and the coming political campaigns.  Voters will be on the watch for candidates who sign pledges not to compromise, and to obey the will of people other than the voters who elected them and other constituents whom they represent.

     Let the 2012 campaigns and debates begin.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:   rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:     ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

America at Political Cross-Roads (Revised)

        It is rather obvious to anyone with any common sense that there are two reasons why we have a debt problem:  (1) We spend more than we could afford--or were willing to cover.  Instead of paying cash for our unnecessary expenditures, we put it on our credit card, borrowing money to give big tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and borrowing more money to fight a war in Iraq which we needed not fight.  (2) We did not bring in enough revenues through taxes to pay off the credit cards, that is, to cover the payment of our debts.  So we have a debt problem because we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem.  And it doesn't matter how many times Republicans say it is only because we have a spending problem; it is not not true.

      Liberals on the far left have reason to be disappointed with the performance of President Obama during the first two and a half years of his presidency.  He was so absorbed in the nation's need--and call--for bipartisanship that he too often began negotiation at the likely position of compromise, resulting in his eventually compromising to the right of center.  He did not allow Congress to arrive at that center themselves, with some timely help from him when necessary to fine tune the agreement.

     On the debt-ceiling dilemma, the President told Democratic members of Congress not to draw a line in the sand, despite Republican having announced their line in the sand of no tax increases.  Even so, Democrats and Republicans likely had found a middle ground of sorts with three or four to one weighings of spending cuts to revenue increases.  There was a chance that more spending cuts could have been achieved had Republicans agreed to an additional $400 billion in cuts which had been suggested by the Senate's Gang of Six Committee.  The President asked the Speaker if those additional revenues were doable with House Republicans.  The Speaker did not respond.

     But freshmen tea party Republicans weren't even going to agree to even the original revenue increase $800 billion in revenue increases.  And when Republicans turned down the $800 billion increase in revenues, the Speaker blamed the rejection on the President's "moving the goal posts" and "demanding" $400 billion dollars of revenue.  Neither the reason for the rejection nor the claim of the President's "demanding" a revenue increase was true.

     If there are sufficient Republicans who are committed to the government defaulting in paying back the money Congress borrowed, then Congress cannot reach any agreement.  The House and Senate will never agree on something that can pass both chambers.  What happens then?

     The Constitution has the answer:  The obligation of the nation's debts to be paid cannot be "questioned."  But if Congress cannot agree to pay expenditures it approved, the President must save the nation from default before the condition become a catastrophic.  The 14th Amendment apparently gives somebody the responsibility--and the authority--to pay the bills.  Who is that if not the President of the United States?  And if it is the responsibility of the President, would it not be derelict in the performance of his duty for the President not to raise the debt ceiling? Would it be an impeachable offense?

      But for how long would Obama have the authority to raise the debt ceiling:  one week, one month, one year, until after the next elections, or is it a blank check to raise it at the president's discretion?   Obama must not allow political blackmail to succeed.  He must exercise the 14th Amendment authority if necessary, and let the Supreme Court explain for governments of the future why a president can or cannot do so.   A vote of disapproval by the Court would encourage political blackmail and is itself perhaps unimpeachable offense.

     The nation and the world now know what to expect should Republicans ever gain control of Congress and the presidency.  They know what is likely to happen should Democrats not control the presidency and both chambers of Congress that includes a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  And they also know, now, why Republicans were so persistent in characterizing Obama as a Fascist:  It was to deflect attention to their own efforts in that direction.

     Unfortunately, the present political climate in Washington makes possible the unthinkable: government officials having the power to deliberately manipulate the political climate in ways that influence financial markets in ways that assure the success of their or their supporters investment bets.  Politicians can scare the markets into a decline, enabling them, those related to them or to whom they are indebted to make money as markets go down and as they turn around a go up.  It is understandable why some politicians don't want government big enough to regulate and oversee.

      Your will notice that Republicans never mention how poor and middle class Americans will be affected by tax cuts that are too large and tax revenues that are too low.  They never explain how spending cuts will increase the number of jobs.

The present political debates are not about whether we spend too much or tax too little.  It is about something much more:  It's about what kind of people we are or choose to become as Americans. 

     On second thought, the tea party Republicans are not as significant part of that future as they appear.  Their threats to not vote to raise the debt ceiling and severely damage the American and world economies unless they get their way clearly identifies them as a non-factor in future elections.  Remember, all of the spending cuts that will go into the final bill were negotiated with any tea party members of Congress, only regular Republicans.  Tax cuts without revenue increases is a conservative position, but tea party members don't care about a Republican victory; they are only care about their receiving the credit for whatever out come results, and making political blackmail work.

     The final Democratic position, in this debt-ceiling debate, is where a party which wants to be the big-tent party should be: slightly to the right of center--and Democrats and Republican would be meeting there even without a tea party.

     

Ronald C. Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Thwarting Political Blackmail and Compassion Void

     It has been said that the test of a nation's character is the way it treats its poor. It has become obvious that Republicans don't care about the poor and powerless.  What that says about Americans in general will be communicated during the Nov. 2012 elections.  While Democrats have been talking about the effects of cuts that are too big and too untimely on the middle class and the working poor, Republicans have been talking, without shame, about how much money the wealthy--who helped cause massive unemployment with the money they had--now need supposedly to reduce unemployment.    

      I recently chanced upon Neil Cabuto's show on Fox News.  His disturbing argument was essentially that millionaire and billionaires should not pay more in taxes because poor people don't pay taxes.  Republicans care so little about the poor that they beat them up for things for which they are not responsible.   The poor did not pass the laws exempting them from paying income taxes.  Those laws were passed during a time when both Democrats and Republicans contained mostly compassionate members.

     Unfortunately, funding the government's obligations is the responsibility of this increasingly shameless congress which is increasingly less compassionate and sympathetic toward less fortunate Americans, and increasingly indifferent to mainstream Americans.  Until recently, the final bills were routinely compromises between House and Senate ideas that are subsequently approved by both houses and signed by the president.  But along with record tornadoes, floods, fires and heat have come tea party Republicans.

     Initially,  because paying the nation's bill is the responsibility of Congress, President Obama was not part of the negotiations to reach a compromise on debt reduction through spending cuts and revenue increases.  However, because Democrats were persistent in requiring that there be revenue increases as well as spending cuts in any compromise, Republicans objected to the way negotiations were going under the leadership of Vice President Biden and asleep that the President become directly involved in the negotiations.  They said Obama needed to demonstrate some leadership.  So the President joined the strategy sessions.   

      But Obama was also demanding that spending cuts be coupled with revenue increases, reportedly to the degree of 4 or 6 to 1 in favor of spending cuts.  But Speaker Boehner still couldn't sell the tea party Republicans on the idea of raising revenue as a means of effecting massive debt reduction, and thereby placing Obama at odds with his political base.   Republicans did not go along with a large deficit-reduction package of $4 trillion or more at a time when they claimed debt reduction was essential for economic recovery and job creation.

     Fed up with attempts to negotiate with Obama, now Boehner said he could not negotiate with the President, and will negotiate only with senate leaders.  (The fact was he could not convince his tea party comrades that he had effected a good deal for Republicans.

     At first glance, the best of the alternatives for President Obama and fellow Democrats seems to be approving some of the spending cuts on which both sides agree, along with having the debt limit being raised and extended pass into 2013.  Voters could decide during the presidential and congressional campaigns--and during the November, 2012 elections--what kind of government they want in the future and who as president and as members of congress can best lead them there.

     President Obama, however, is right in believing compromises that cannot be achieved, now, will only be more difficult to resolve three or six month later with the same people.  And if he caved in now, he would only be expected to cave in even more three months later.  Six months later, he likely would be expected to throw in the kitchen sink--and he probably would.

     Republicans cannot be allowed to blackmail the government into honoring its every wish--and won't unless the President allows it.  No party--nor any faction within a party--should be in a position to effect the directions of financial markets solely according to its wishes.  Allowing this would be an even greater threat to our American democracy and longterm economic health than defaulting.      

     By assuming presidential authority, apparently accorded him by the Constitution, to raise the debt limit when the Congress refuses to pay its debts in a manner and for motives that amount to political blackmail, President Obama can show that such antics will not work for this Congress, now, nor against any future president.    The president's authority to prevent default has been equated some to his authority to respond decisively to a military attack.  The president of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the US government.  Hopefully the Supreme Court confirms, now, and in the future, such presidential power related to the payment of the nation's debts.

     If Republicans feel that they are doing the right thing, then they should not mind their decisions and those of the President in this matter being at the center of campaign debates concerning the future of our democracy.   If they really believe they are right in this current stalemate, they should feel confident that raising the debt limit into 2013 would benefit themselves rather than President Obama during the 2012 campaign.  President Obama only has an advantag , as Republicans suggest. only he is the one who is right.

     Americans, most of the rest of the world and bond raters know that, if the United States defaults, it will not be because we cannot afford to pay our debts, either now or later, but rather because Republicans are choosing to demand unreasonable political concessions as conditions for paying.  Neither Americans, bond holders nor raters of bonds benefits from a United States they cast into depression.  We likely would continue to be able to sell our bonds, as bond holders wait until the results of the 2012 elections to make decisions about whether--and to what extent-- the United States and the party in power can be trusted.

Ronald C. Spooner

rcspoon@earthlink.net

ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

        

Theory of Republicanomics

     Republicans have tried to make the case that taxing wealthy people, and corporations that are making hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, would be bad for the American economy.  They claim that corporations would not be able to hire workers because they would not have enough money left to do so.   

     However, their argument that lower taxes would stimulate job growth fails to acknowledge three facts: (1) Because of technology, there are fewer corporate job openings. (2) There are lower demands for good and services because of uncertain and unemployed consumers.  And (3) there is no evidence in the recent past that lower taxes on either wealthy people or wealthy corporations produced more jobs. 

     If lower taxes for corporations and wealthy people meant more jobs, one might reasonably assume that job growth would be maximized by reducing corporate taxes and taxes on wealthy people to zero.  And if that is the case, would not the functioning of the economy be maximized if nobody paid taxes?  Certainly people would have more money to spend.  That would create a greater demand for goods and services and, hence, a greater need for corporations to employ more workers to satisfy the demand, enabling businesses to more money.  Having no taxes would be Utopia for the American economy.  Wouldn't it?

     However, Republicans have yet to show that lower corporate taxes produce more jobs and not just more profits for stock holders.  Republicans claim with certainty that taxes cuts for businesses and wealthy individuals would increase the number of jobs, but have not explained why they would, nor have they explained occasions when they haven't.  Have we, for example, gotten the job increases Republicans promised when the Bush tax cuts were extended?  And what about the jobs promised through the other tax deals made during this year's Lam Duck session?  Were all of these promised job increases supposed to occur next year?These should be able to explain at levels average Americans understand--if they can be.

     Small businesses and corporations do not make profits by selling goods and services only to their workers.  They might be able to do that if they produced and served all of the needs of consumers they hire, but they don't.  An economy involves consumers who buy goods and services from different enterprises, which also receive goods and services from other enterprises, many of whom are their own consumers.  

     The economy is a complicated matrix of competing interactions, including political influences, distributions of wealth, and other self interests such as market manipulations which allow savvy investors to make money both as markets go up and as they come down.  These interactions are not easily predictable by such simple-minded suggestions as lower taxes enhance job creation and higher taxes inhibit them.  They only sound right because they are said so often and too often are not effectively refuted.  

     The American economy needs consumers to spend, but economists say consumers needs to save and invest more.  But when consumers save more, they lose their jobs for not spending enough.  Business profits decrease, and jobs seek cheaper labor overseas. A solution would be workers being paid enough so they can save, invest and spend.  But how can that be made to happen?  Republicans pretend to be certain about things about which even expert economists fail to agree.

     One reason low and no taxes are bad ideas is that we need governmental services: an adequate military, police and firefighters, safe food and water, safe medicine, and many others such as the need to educate our children with the essential knowledge and skills necessary to maximize the development of their academic potentials.  How much government is needed is an appropriate question.  But does government only become too big only when it addresses the needs of others but too small when it fails to address our own?    

     Can wealthy people be trusted to identify and provide for the needs of the poor and powerless?  The answer is debatable.  Poor and middle class people are part of "We the people."  They are the one's whose children (and often themselves) are defending this country.  Certainly Christianity and the Constitution provide protections for the powerless and less powerful.  Shouldn't they?

      Republicans should be required to explain why they feel that allowing the country to default in the payments of its bills is better for the American economy and job production than raising taxes on the wealthy.   If they can explain--and make me understand--I'll support default, too.  But their brand of economics is hard to understand for the same reason that Einstein's Theory of Relativity if hard:  Both operate outside the realm of common sense.  The difference is that Relativity is understood by people who are well-versed in the field of physics.  No person who is well-versed in the field of economics, whether conservative or liberal, understands the logic of Republicanomics.

     Just as there is a point where taxes are too low to sustain an economic system, there is a point where taxes are too high: paying taxes at the 100% level, for example.  Government, with the help of independent economic experts, must be the final arbiters of what constitutes the proper taxing levels, and maybe even what constitute optimum wealth distribution and opportunities for employment within a viable society. 

     But when Wall Street, Congress and the Supreme Court form a politico-economic team, democracy is at a risk level that Americans would not permit were the president not Barack Obama.  Time will tell whether the present team uses or abuses this once in a lifetime opportunity that Obama's unique leadership qualities provide.

Ronald  

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

When Liberty Becomes a Liability

     The President of the United States is the elected leader of the American people.  Some Americans may not like it, but Barack Obama, although not king, is the head of the American government and political leader of the American people--not Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner nor Mitch McConnell.  These other gentlemen could have sought the presidency if they had creditable visions for the nation's future, felt best qualified to lead this country toward such realities and thought the American people would follow.  Neither felt such a calling, nor possessed such a belief. 

      At this crucial time in the history of our country, President Obama must exude the kind of confidence in his leadership qualities that voters expressed in electing him  to lead this country.  

     I have had been impatient with the President--and fellow Democrats--for not coming up with their own debt reduction plan to rival the Ryan plan.   But there is perhaps a better alternative for Obama as national leader, namely: developing a plan based on the ideas that are surfacing in the various meetings intended find common ground, and making his decisions based on his perception of the nation's present problems and future needs.  The plan should be fair and balanced, consistent with his conscience, and compatible with the goals of most Americans, his leadership style and his responsibility to lead.  

     The plan should (1) identify incorporated ideas as Republican, Democratic or common ground,  (2) seek to be politically and ideologically neutral, (3) reflect recognition that the Republican goal still is to make him a one-term president, (4)contain a balance between spending cuts and increased revenues, (5) be presented to Congress by July 1, 2011, and (6) provide for further negotiations on a "give and take" basis until July 15, 2011.  The President should present the Obama plan to Congress by July 22, and wait for the Congress to decide whether or not it chooses to pay, with a raised debt limit, bills it approved and was committed to pay.  

    While acknowledging that the American people wanted bipartisanship leadership (and acknowledging the diversity of opinions among Americans) Obama did not campaign from a compromised position.  And he was not elected to lead from a position that does not reflect the character and intelligence that caused the American people to select him to be their president.  The President can be forgiven for decisions that prove to be wrong--especially if failure is due to political and market forces that are beyond his control and were designed to make him fail.  But he will not be forgiven if failure is perceived to be due to his own failure (to 1) try sufficiently hard to lead the nation where he said he wanted to take us, and (2) cast sufficient and persistent blame on those who who prevent his doing so.

     One of the agreements that should come out of debt-reduction deliberations is a law that makes raising the debt limit by Congress mandatory.  If Congress authorizes and approves expenditures, it should not have the prerogative to not pay the bills--anymore than Americans have the right not to pay income taxes, make mortgage payments on homes or pay monthly notes on automobiles? 

     Does Congress also have the power to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the salary of every Republican congressperson is doubled?  Do it have the power to demand--on behalf of friends--half of the gold in Fort Knox before they will permit the nation to pay its bills?  Could the United States legally make demands of other countries by refusing to repay its debts to those countries unless they comply with its demands?  

     The Supreme Court should confirm that neither Congress nor any president has that power.  Our nation cannot survive if nations from whom we borrow money to pay our bills feel that the United States has become a poor risk for future borrowing?  Congress' decisions to borrow money to fund worthy national causes poses considerably less threat to our economic security than the Republican threat not to pay the money back.  Most of the debt we owe was run up by a Republican president and congress.  And while Obama and Democrats are trying to fill the economic hole fhey dug, Republican contributions have been disabling bull dozers and destroying dump trucks. 

     The damage to our trustworthiness may already have been done regardless of what rating Standard and Poor gives US bonds in the future.  Twice this year Republican politicians  have shown a willingness to use blackmail to get what they want.  They are threatening the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans, and billions of people world wide.  There is something inherently wrong about that.   And if the threat is not tantamount  to hollering "fire" in a crowded building, I don't know what is.  Foreign countries (and even Americans) may already be contemplating the need for higher interest rates before lending to us.

     We are witnessing derangement in government.  It happens when people who are addicted to wealth and power become psychotically driven by them, and believe that  they can convince the American people that such psychosis is political sanity.  They want the American voters too confused to recognize the difference, and government too small to do anything about it.  

     The United States, as the richest, most powerful and most trusted nation in the history of the world, should not allow the radical attributes of a few turn us into the history's biggest contrived economic threat.  This is what Congressional Republicans are threatening, and  capitulation by Democrats could suggest that political blackmail that can control economics in America has a chance worldwide. 

     These are the lessons, about the potentials and perils of democracy, that Republicans are teaching fertile minds in emerging democracies who seek both freedom and role models of liberty.

     

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com