Raising Cain (A Revision)

 I'm beginning to be concerned about the way Herman Cain is being treated during the controversy about his alleged sexual harassment.  I'm concerned as a black (I learned that from Herman Cain).  I'm concerned for the same reason that many--if not most--women think he is getting his due.  I'll admit, there are some things about which I'm not able to be objective--though in those circumstances I realize that I could be the one that is wrong. 

     I am not aware of every statement that Herman Cain has made related to accusations against him by potentially as many as three women who either worked under him or in his presence as he served in some kind of leadership position.  My reaction has not been to whether he is guilty or not guilty as accused.  My reaction is to the media having rendered him "guilty until found innocent" in Cain's words.

     There are people of various persuasions who are pulling for the women to be telling the truth and others pulling for Cain to be telling the truth.  One or the other is not telling the truth, or both are telling the truth.  From what I have heard, there does not seem to be enough information surfacing to know what the truth is.

     This is what I know.  For some reason two women surfaced to announce that they had been sexual harassed by Herman Cain.  I have heard no reason why these women chose to release that information or otherwise make that assertion.

Did they not like Herman Cain because he is a black American?  Was it because he is a black American conservative?  Was it because it because they do not believe a man who has done such things should ever become President of the United States?  Or was there some other reason?  Regardless of what it was, there was something that motivated their decisions.

     The women want Cain to grant them the privilege to speak out about the alleged sexual harassment.  But why would he do that?  If they are telling the truth, he won't want them to tell it.  And if they are not telling the truth, why would he want them to  lend support to the suggestions that are being promulgated by the media?

     The media is saying that Cain is changing his story.  Well, based on what I have heard, he has.  But the story seemed to change when he was attempting to explain different aspects of the history surrounding the accusations.

     The latest information to surface suggest that during a previous senatorial campaign eight years ago he told his campaign manager that there had been a sexual harassment complaint made against him that might surface as an issue in the campaign.  He did not say he had been guilty of sexual harassment.  The media is treating that information as a confession of guilt.

     This manager ends up in Rick Perry's struggling campaign.  Was he added to the Perry team because he said he had some useful information? Did Perry know about that information before it was released?  Probably not.  He would have been provided a shield of deniability. 

     Cain said that he may have said or did something that someone might have interpreted as sexual harassment, which is possible.  We don't know the details of how the case was resolved.  Was Cain found to be guilty or were the findings inconclusive for some reason?  And if the evidence was conclusive, why did the women settle for merely a reportedly $35, 000.00? 

     A second witness has surfaced who says that he saw the sexual harassment happen, and a third woman who said she was sexually harassed by Cain and started to file a complaint but decides against it.

     I don't know why Herman Cain is receiving persistent attention to his possible involvement with these women, while the media stopped questioning Senator John McCain during his run for the presidency when he said he would answer no more questions about an alleged extra-marital affair.  These two acts are certainly different situations but not different enough in the moral severity to deserve such unequal levels of coverage. 

     What is it that Cain is supposed did?  Was it something he said, something he did or something he wanted to do?

     Was Cain a Republican at the time of the alleged incidents?  Were the women Democrats?  And if they were, was the incident made more objectionable because Cain was a Republican?

     Or was it an arrogance within Cain that made him feel empowered, because of his position, to seek liberties with these women that resulted in confrontations exaggerated because of ideological conflicts between the parties.

     I still have not idea what the truth is.  But neither do the media, though they talk as if Cain is the only player not telling the truth.  Has anybody volunteered to take a  lie-detector test?

     

US Needs Blend of Ideologies

     Sometimes conservatives are right.  There is some merit to their argument that safety nets create dependency by people who might otherwise be self-sufficient if they were so compelled and strove to so be.

     The Republican plan of having Social Security remain as is for those who are 55 years or older may be all right if Social Security for those younger than 55 years was phased out so that younger people become increasingly more responsible for more of their retirement needs.

     For example, a person who is 54 years of age would receive at 65 years of age 96% of expected Social Security and Medical Care coverage and would pay 96% of expected Social Security taxes.  That person will have 11 years to save up enough money to make up the differences in benefits.  They could buy some kind of supplementary insurance with the savings, save it, or invest it..

     A person who is 52 would receive 92% of expected benefits from SS and MC.  SS taxes would be 92% of expected cost.  The person 3 years longer (13 years)  to prepare for reduced benefits.

    A person who is 50 would receive 88% in benefits, pay 88% less in cost and have 5 years longer (11 years) to save for retirement costs.

    A person who is 48 would receive 84%, pay 84% and have 7 years longer to save (17 years).

    Finally, a person who start work at age 22 would pay for 46% of coverage, pay 46% of the cost, and have 47 years to save for retirement.

    This scheme has possibilities if people save, if they know how, where, how much and when to save and if they can anticipate or determine what their retirement needs would be in the future.  

     For wealthy people--many of whom are among those most critical of people who need SS and MC--the uncertainty of those needs is not a problem because most of them have inherited wealth.  Or as Rev. Al Sharpton recently put it: These are people who "were born on third base, and are acting like they hit a triple."

    But for those who must fit retirement plans into the need to live in the present on modest incomes, this is a problem.  How much health and life insurance can a family afford?  How well will children be clothes and fed?  In what kinds of homes and neighborhoods will the family live?  What colleges and universities can the children attend?  How many and what kinds of family vacations will there be?  Must both spouses work?    

     These are just some of the decisions that would affect the kinds of retirements for which people can reasonably prepare.  This can be done.  There are people who are doing it.  But people must have plans for doing it successfully.  High school economics classes could be places where students learn how to make such plans.

     But there seems to be a refusal by most conservatives to realize that not all people have the same financial skills or interests.  They don't have the same families,  parents, spouses, colleagues, associations through organizations, or teachers that can influence their skills, interests and commitments.  For these people a mandatory system of retirement planning is necessary.  Social Security and Medicare both anticipates and addresses those needs.

     Does Social Security tend to make people less independent in providing for their own retirement?  For some people that is true.  For most people, the best we can say is "we don't know."  But enabling people to prepare for their own retirement in a mutual effort with others still seems like a reasonable approach to address that uncertainty.  People pay into pension plans or buy insurance: to address periods of need which may occur at unexpected times and during periods of family uncertainty--like the present.  Social Security is multiple insurance.

     Conservative are right, however, in suggesting that our welfare system tend to promote and encourage dependency by people who have the abilities and talents not only to take care of themselves but also to make significant contributions to our economic, social and political systems.  

      But how can that talent be harnessed?  And how can we identify those who have the potential to become independent, contributing members of society, and distinguish them from those who likely will need our help?  For some people, taking care of the most vulnerable is more economical--and humane--than trying to make everyone financially independent and having them suffer the consequences if they aren't.  Safety nets are important. 

     Unfortunately, too many conservatives have acquired an unChristian-like indifference about those who come upon hard times.  They believe that the conditions of the less fortunate are always their fault, and never the fault of the circumstances which both generate and perpetuate their conditions.   Poor schools and poor teachers, for example, contribute to poor performance as adults, whereas

having the best schools and teachers contribute to success.  A country, therefore, must be guided by a blend of conservative and liberal ideas because its people will always be a blend of those who need help and those who don't.     

      Liberals--and perhaps most conservatives--believe we must prepare those who are most able to be independent, and care enough to help those who are less able so they can experience a quality of life that at least satisfies their desires and basic needs.  Most poor people don't need much to be happy, and those who are not happy with their conditions usually find ways to overcome them.  Many of our most successful people emerged from very humble circumstances.

     Lee Hamilton states it in a recent News column that the American people "don't want big government or small government, but smart government.  They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done."  For everyone, I might add.  Voters get another chance in 2012 to get it right.

Cain Vote Gets Money Out of Politics

     The presidential campaign of Herman Cain is cause for concern for many members of the Republican Party.  There is the fear by some that, even if Cain somehow wins the Republican nomination, he could not possibly win against President Obama.  Others fear that in a contest against Obama, Cain might actually win.  Such is the nature of the party. 

     Herman Cain would like to be the second black president in the White House.  And some black Americans--maybe even Cain himself--would even welcome the chance to have what they consider a "real black man" there.  Without giving Cain candidacy more credibility than it deserves, though, we must give him credit for having run well, thus far.      

     The idea has been floated that the Mitt Romney campaign encouraged his supporters to vote for Cain in the Florida straw vote, hoping a substantial Cain victory would create a ground swell of support for Cain, and, given the choice of Romney or Cain, conservative Republicans would choose Romney.  And the fact that Republicans are using their control in state governments to pass legislation that suppresss opposition votes suggest they certainly would not be averse to using unscrupulous means to attain a politician advantage over each other.

      But whatever is the political fate of Herman Cain--and regardless of why it has happened--he is currently making a serious run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  The main question concerning the viability of Cain's candidacy seems to be whether his intelligence and management skills can offset limited political skills and limited awareness of worldwide circumstances.

      Cain is a conservative Republican.  And the meaning of conservatism does not change just because the person espousing the ideology is black.  The only difference between black and white conservatives is that one can be reasonably sure that black-conservative opposition to liberals has nothing to do with race.     

      Cain has said that black Americans have been brainwashed, and many black people have been offended by the comment.  Some of that feeling may be due to the fact that there is some truth to it.  Certainly, many black people vote based on a trust they have in black leaders who are advocates--often paid advocates--for the Democratic Party.  By that definition white voters are similarly "brainwashed."

     The leanings of Black Americans toward the Democratic Party began and evolved through the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, which led to Civil Rights Laws in 1948.  That confidence in the Democratic Party grew under the leadership of the Democratic Party during the 1960s, as black Americans demanded--and finally achieved--many rights due to us as American citizens.          

     The fact is, however, that black Americans don't know what they could have achieved had their votes not been pledged to Democrats.  Black people never forced Democrats and Republicans to bid for their votes with promises of fairness.  Both black voters are swing votes that perhaps could have force attention by both parties to the issues of social and economic justice.  But present congressional Republican aren't even inspiring confidence among fellow Republicans.

     Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have merits, not necessarily in the numbers but potentially in the concept or model  The numbers may not be the right mix.  Perhaps they should be 7-8-9, 5-10-15 or some other combination.  The merits of the model would ultimately be evaluated in terms, not merely of its simplicity, but of its potential to lead to consensus on taxation and spending in a manner that  grows the economy and reduces--and eventually eliminates--the number of people who are too poor to pay taxes.  Such a simple plan would not necessarily, as is often claimed, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as national safety nets.  The core 9-9-9 plan--or whatever numbers it contains--would not become law as presented by Cain during the primary debates.  It would be debated and amended by both houses of Congress before a presidential signature makes the plans law.

     A political candidate cannot be liberal and conservative at the same time, as some black Americans think Cain should be, and which Mitt Romney is trying to shed the image of trying to be).  When Cain says that Wall Street protesters should not blame Wall Street but themselves, which is the conservative message, he did not mean they should blame themselves for not blaming President Obama, which is also a conservative message.  But he also did not mean those protesters who have done the right things but are victims of present economic conditions.  

     He did mean those who had not applied themselves sufficiently in school to prepare themselves for present and emerging job markets, and I would add those who were eligible but did not vote for Democrats during the 2010 elections.  But Americans cannot help if we are in denial of the extents to which certain malfunctions exist within many American families and communities, and within the psychic of many Americans. 

     Conservative Americans who gave Republicans control over Congress in 2010 did not send them to Washington to govern the way they have so far--and they did not campaign that they would.  The support of Herman Cain could just be a message to Republican members of Congress that constituents disapprove of their representatives representing Grover Norquist and not them.  Many of them are  sending a message to congressional Republicans about the 2012 election results unless they change their acts in Washington.

     Cain justifies his 9-9-9 plan by contending that math suggesting it won't work is flawed and that opponents don't understand the plan because they are confusing apples with oranges.  But distorting the truth and making people believe what is not true has been a recent Republican strategy.  Why shouldn't Republicans try it on each other?

     Meanwhile, the liberal media are criticizing Cain and his 9-9-9 plan as if they fear he could actually become president.  Or maybe that's what they would like conservative Republicans to believe is the case.  Anyway, he is being criticized more than--and including by--those who have no plan.

     More importantly, though, a vote for Cain might help get money out of politics.

About Not Following "Strangers"

     The problem facing the United States is that too many people who want the United States to be perceived as being the leader of a diverse world are having problems appreciating diversity within their own borders.

      A majority of Americans claim to be Christians, but increasingly Christianity seems more about talking the talk than walking the walk.

     Several years ago, Rev. Andrew Jason, a late associate minister at the church where I am a member, preached the sermon.  He began by recounting for the audience a time when, after many years, he revisited his home community back in rural Louisiana. 

     He said that he knocked on the door of a home of one of his parents old friends--  he wasn't even sure if anyone still lived there.  But soon an old man opened the door, and before he could tell the old man who he was, the old man looked at him and said, "You must be Andrew Jason's son.  Come on in."  The subject of Rev. Jason's sermon that Sunday was "If you are a child of God, you don't have to tell anybody who you are."

     Jesus said that we know a tree by the fruit it bears.  He also said that His sheep know his voice and they will not follow a stranger.  Too many American Christians don't know whether to follow Jesus or strangers.  Jesus said we can't follow both.

However, strangers of different persuasions have convinced many Americans that they indeed can follow both.  Following Jesus to church on Sundays and following strangers Monday thru Saturday allows us to get along better with family members and neighbors, in the work place, and with church-roll strangers.

     If blind men still begged, present-day Republican Christians would require them to pay income tax on the day's collections.  Instead of  putting something in the cup, many of them would favor the government's taking something out.  They want the government out of their own business but wouldn't object to government intervening in the blind man's business.  

     Even today, some Republican would have them back of the corners begging.  They may not be saying it publicly now, but they thinking it.  These are the kinds of strangers that present-day Republicans--and some independents are following.

     But this suggestion that I'm making about Christians too often not sounding or behaving like followers of Jesus is not intended to ignore the merits of conservative arguments that our "welfare state" does encourage some of our people to be dependent on government, and on the wealth of more fortunate Americans.  For those who would have achieved greater independence were it not for such government assistance--sharing the wealth--the welfare system is a handicap.  But for those who would not have become independent but would have been even worse off without assistance, the system has been a necessary safety net.

     Recognizing, therefore, that there are if fact people who will need our help as badly as do those who are blind or mentally challenged demands appropriate actions.  We act as if we have forgotten that people are born whose intelligence ranges from the most severely mentally challenged to the most gifted geniuses.   These people don't have equal chances in their pursuit of happiness.

     Not only do people differ in their intelligence levels, individual differ in many other qualities over which they have no control, such as: educational and employment opportunities; self and other's motivation; encouragement; role models; predispositions; ethnic diversities; kinds of friends and classmates; neighborhoods; religious faiths (or no faith),; home environments,;education, wealth and influence of parents; quality of schools; whether parents are on welfare; personal attitudes and attitudes of others; etc.  

     Those who criticize those who have not achieved their potential because of the welfare system has encouraged it should therefore consider the factors which more often than not contribute to underachievement and welfare dependence.

      Let's face it, though.  If many of these people who are unemployed or on welfare had had in their lives all or at least many of the advantages that contribute to economic success, they would have the jobs of some of those who criticize them because they would have become better qualified.  So many who are employed who are glad that some people are satisfied to receive welfare  and food stamps.  They don't mind contributing financially to keep them there--or they shouldn't.

     But there is a increasing number of people who don't want to help them on welfare and food stamps but also don't want to help them.

     For the rest of the complainers, those who don't follow strangers, let's provide as many as we can of those factors which contribute to success.  Let schools work on student work habits, their skills, their attitudes toward themselves and their futures.  Discuss what schools, houses of worship and communities should be doing.  Discuss why each is failing and what can be done to help them succeed.  Discuss how homes, churches and community can both help and be helped through these endeavors.

     When great majorities of Americans say in all major polls that they favor the wealthy paying higher taxes in order to take some of the nation's financial burden off the backs of the poor and middle class, most of them aren't talking about class warfare; they're responding to a calling for that "Old Time Religion" that was good enough for their parents and grandparents, and used to be good enough for them.  There is a yearning for the joy of their salvation that once made them "kinder," "gentler" and more compassionate.

     Republican presidential candidate Mitch Romney says he believes that the United States is God's pick to lead the world's nations.  But how can the United States ever become God's world leader if the American people no longer allows Him to touch their minds, shape their thoughts and guide their decisions and behavior.  God can't lead a country when strangers lead the people. 

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink,net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com    

A Deadly Return to the Master

      Several years ago, I heard news of a man who had been witnessed stabbing his dog and throwing it into the Houston ship channel.  But the dog did not die.  Instead, it swam back to shore and, wagging its tail, returned to its master.  Whereupon, the master stabbed the dog again--this time fatally--and threw it again into the channel.  The newsman concluded that it was as if the dog had returned to the master, saying "I forgive you.  I know you didn't mean what you did.  I'll give you another chance."  

      Memories of this incident came back to me as I tried to justify Republican supporters in present-day American politics, and to assess the Republican Party's opinion and betrayal of average American voters, 

     During the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, middle-class Americans and the working poor of all political persuasions were stabbed with frozen incomes, despite incomes rising for wealthy and well-to-do Americans.   Before Obama even thought about being president, unfortunate Americans were being victimized by rising unemployment.  The economic injuries inflicted by Bush's Great Recession took its toll on American workers, and Republicans had--and still have--no reasonable remedy to treat the wounds.  Their solution is always not do whatever President Obama did or would like to do.

     Americans of all political persuasions are hurting because of Republican wounds inflicted during those years.   Still, many of these wounded Americans believe Republicans just made mistakes, that they are sorry for their deeds and will do not do it again.  But Tigers don't shed their stripes, and they don't lose their appetite for deer, just because they failed to catch more than one during the last chase.  The beast waits for another election day, the master, another chance to kill.

      Enters, though, an intelligent young man who talked about the need for a united America, and a need for change to address the injuries an unregulated Wall Street had inflicted on America's workers.  A Republican regulated Wall Street had stabbed the American economy and thrown it into the channel.   Convincing themselves that Republicans and Wall Street, which they failed to regulate, were really not bad people, and that they did not mean to do any harm, the American people bailed out the banks and saved other businesses primed for collapse.   

     But Wall Street stabbed the American economy and American workers again by not hiring and not lending to businesses that would, thus throwing consumers into the channel of hopelessness.

     Last November, the American consumer, of whom were already unemployed said with their votes or with the ballots they did not cast, we know you Republican did not mean to freeze our salaries during the Bush presidency.  We forgive you for not knowing that the housing bubble would eventually burst, causing the values of our homes to decline.  We forgive you for not knowing that if jobs were be lost at an accelerated rate, that eventually the unemployed would include people who needed a check or tow to finance their standard of living.  We forgive you for not realizing that stagnant salaries and reduced incomes would render families unable to both save and to keep up with expenses.  But we forgive you because we know you did not really mean us any harm.   

     Well, the forgiven party has shown its appreciation for the trust the American people have placed in them by stabbing them again by blocking every effort Democrats make to rescue them and treat their economic wounds.

     Republicans are asking, again, for a chance to finish the kill, and many Americans still can't believe that Republicans would mistreat them.  Not all Republicans are misguided.  But most Republicans who are running and winning in recent elections seem to be of a different breed, motivated and financed by a kind of American that are alien to the promises of America.

     Most people don't change in terms of how they vote.  That loyalty has been mostly  because the economic status of most people's did not change, no matter who represented them in government.  And they were certain that the people in business and government were honest people who were busy looking after their best interests, not using unsavory ways to look out for their own.

     But these times are different.  The past ten years have affected Americans as never before.  The 2000 election of George W. Bush could go down in history as ushering in the demise of the greatest, most compassionate and most influential military, financial and creative giant the world has ever known.

      The pope reportedly issued a recent warning to the German people.  Quoting the article: "The Pope spoke for 20 minutes in the Reichstag, which was torched in 1933 in an incident used by Hitler to strengthen his grip on power. 'We Germans know from our own experience' what happens when power is corrupted, Benedict said, desecrating Nazis as a highly organized band of robbers, capable of threatening the whole world and driving it to the edge of the abyss'. "  The American people are in need of such a speech by the Pope.   We think people who desire to be dictators are only in Germany or other countries, never are such people in the United States.

       The Pope's scary words should remind Americans of the reasons they vote--or should vote.  Serious thought must be given to which party members deserve a second chance.  

    

Getting Real about Jobs and Debt on C-span (A Revision)

      The President, the Speaker and the congressional Super Committee need to outline job-creating ideas in detail, including how jobs will be created, how many good jobs they will generate and why it will happen.  If they believe a lower tax rate for businesses will generate jobs, it should be because businesses have promised to do so.  We should know how many jobs businesses promise, and have triggers that will tie the rates of tax relief to rates of hiring.    If businesses have made such promises, there should be a time-frame for hiring to begin.  

     Also, there must be the realization that businesses are not the only ones who need "certainty."  Governments also need certainty, and workers need it because they are also consumers.  Workers should consider how certainty might be increased  by sharing either work time or wages during periods when workers  might otherwise be fired.  This would require that workers save more of their earnings during good times, while keeping their spending under control, so they can manage their financial needs, with the help of those savings, during tough times when either their work time or wages must be shared with fellow workers.

      In this uncompromising political climate, all discussions and decisions about jobs and debt should be made on C-Span, where there is a requirement that each position be justified , explained how it will work, has evidence cited from history when such strategies worked in a similar economic environment and has the corroboration of experts.  The fact that  the Super Committee is six Democrats and six Republicans--and not one member of each party--assumes a diversity of expressed opinions in an environment where members of one party may agree with positions of the other party and party members may disagree with each other..

     Our economy always has been consumer driven,  and some Americans have become wealthy because others spent too much, while saving less than they should have.  People whose salaries for years were stagnated and reduced in buying power were enticed to buy homes they could not afford, and which tough times eventually rendered them unable to keep.

     Those who enriched themselves off the middle class no longer have a thriving middle class that can buy more than it can afford, and continue to promote their prosperity.  These wealth-seekers now seek to punish former spenders--who made them rich--for not having saved enough to finance their own retirement and health care needs.   Many Americans are not only unemployed, underemployed, and underpaid; they are being threatening with denial of access to Social Security, Medicare and pensions, which they have helped fund.  

      But there were no suggestions by politicians, during good times, that the middle class save more so they could finance more of their financial and health-care needs after retirement, and businesses certainly weren't advising consumers to spend less.  Unfortunately, those who have improved their financial conditions by taking advantage of an overspending middle class,--which unwisely sought a way of life their incomes would not afford--now punish their benefactors for doing so.     

     Consumers placed their own future retirements at risk by overspending and enhancing business profits.  But businesses now require "certainty" before they will use part of those profits to return the favor to consumers by providing them with jobs.   But how can there be that kind of certainty when fewer consumers are employed, and more of those who are working are saving more because they fear becoming unemployed.

     Discussions of the Obama's plan must raise relevant questions of businesses,  workers, and government in terms of their responsibilities in the American economy.  Businesses, consumers, governments and workers are a team.  And if they are to be a winning team, they must decide how they best work together to become a winner.  How they will achieve that should be discussed on C-Span.

     Workers have invested in businesses with their time and labor and by consuming their goods and services.  Now it is time for businesses to use part of those profits to invest in workers by hiring.  Businesses are waiting for a kind of certainty that only existed in the past only because there were spending  consumers who were "certain" about their employment.  The business world has always been the main engine of job creation.  Job creation breeds profits, and if the goods and services are worth having, working consumers will pay for them.  

     Unfortunately, large companies are having to choose between hiring more American workers and having lower profits for share holders, or hiring more workers abroad, where the labor is cheaper, and having higher profits for investors.  Which is better is not easily answered because many of those profits help finance workers pensions and supplement their retirement incomes in the form of dividends.  Certainly, some investors are entitled to greater financial benefits than others based on the amounts of money invested.  

     But how should that aspect of wealth-distribution be related to the need for an economy to provide employment for all Americans who want to work?  Can maximum wealth generation and maximum job-creation coexist?  The question, which certainly defies an exact answer is:  what combination of American and foreign employment does most good for all Americans and for capitalism in the American economy.. 

     President Obama must chart out a vision for the future of America, as a place where all American feel secure, have no fear of becoming prey, nor feeling any need to prey on fellow Americans.  It must grow out of realization by government, business and workers how they must cooperate to maximize the efficiency of the American economy.

     He must force Republicans to submit their own vision of America, and let the people decide which vision they prefer so they can elect people they can trust to pursue their preference.  If there is common ground in the visions, that's great; voters, therefore, can decide which candidates they trust more to compromise when compromise necessary.  

     Even as each party makes cases for its own ideological preferences, there must be a recognition that the people on the other side of the ideological divide are also Americans, who think they are right--and might be.

    

Ronald C. Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

    

The Roots of America's Problems

   The United States should reduce it tax rates on US businesses to 15% and bring home all American troops.  As somebody said--I believe it was US Representative Ron Paul--let our military personnel secure our own borders, and spend any money they have back home.   

     Let our foreign friends see if they can support their own military capable of defending themselves.  Let them see if they can build defense systems capable of protecting themselves from Iran's nuclear weapons.  Let they pay their fair shares to support the UN and other joint ventures, where the US bears a disproportionate share of the burden because we once had the wealth to do it before these friends starting siphoning that wealth unto themselves with low tax rates.  Let them see if they can do all of these with the low tax rates businesses are paying them so our businesses and jobs can be relocated in their countries.  It is no longer in America's best interest to police the world, while the world  steals our wealth and jobs.  

     If these nations are indeed allies, then there should be agreements with them to have uniform or equitable tax rates on businesses.  If this is a bad idea, then our friends should be able to explain why what the present rates of taxing is good for the United States, given our present condition.  It's obviously good for them.  How can they be friends on the battlefields but enemies on the field of economics?

     I remember during one of my social studies classes in school, we had either a chapter or chapter section entitled "How a bill becomes a law."  And until recently, I remembered the title much better than I remembered the process.  I'm even more in the dark, now, about how our laws regulate our relations with other nations, and who determines what those laws are.  I know they are wrapped up in agreements and treaties of various sorts.  But do they work--for Americans?

     NAPTA sounded like a great idea in concept and on paper:  send low paying jobs to third-world nations, build up their standard of living so they can buy products of higher paying jobs back in the United States.  The products of higher paying jobs would be products of more highly educated Americans who presumably would not need the low paying jobs being sent to other countries.  It was as if there would be no people left in the United States who would not ever qualify for jobs that required anything more than basic skills and understandings.

     I don't recall any questions being raised or debated about these people who needed and could have performed these low level jobs.  I did not question it because I was caught up in the hope that all American children would be given such a high quality education that they would qualify for these highly innovative, highly skilled, high paying jobs.

     But suppose we had saved those low paying jobs for our lowest skilled citizens and paid them minimum wages to do them, would our citizens have taken the jobs?  Would they have been as enthusiastic about these jobs as third-world workers who would consider working for even less than the American minimum wage as placing them, where they live, among the middle or upper economic class?  I don't know.

What I do know is that our economic system is on the decline, and part of the reason is that the system has allowed too much wealth to flow into too few hands.  

     But unequal distribution of wealth is less a reason than it is a consequence of other actions that are more fundamental to the American heritage.  Those fundamentals are embodied in the religious faith of the American people for whom life has no more important aspect or purpose.  America's failure to address its present economic problems grows out of a weakening of that faith in the lives of many Americans, and resentment by many others of faith that the practice and foundations of that faith have been abridged by the Supreme Court.

      Removing prayer from schools rather obviously was not the intent of the 1st Amendment.  Prayer in schools was not the result of any law established by Congress.  But by denying student the rights to pray and hear prayer, the Court did prohibit "the free expression" of religion.  Schools and school districts are not Congress.  When a Christian, a Muslim, Jew,  Buddhist, or a Hindu pray, they pray to the same god, who is God.  And they pray for the same kinds of things.  The Court took a sense of God out of the lives of millions of children for whom the school was their only contact with Him. 

      The second action that impact the American culture is the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortions.  For many seriously religious people, killing of an innocent, defenseless baby--be it born or unborn--is reprehensible, and no one has the right to do it as a matter of necessity or personal convenience.  Punishing an unborn child for the deeds of some adult seems unfair.

      The third reason is gay "marriages."  Many seriously religious Americans, who might accept civil unions, believe--as a foundation of their faith--that marriage is between a man and a woman.  They believe that one can no more call a union of two women or two men a marriage than one could call one member of such couples a husband and the other a wife, or one member of a lesbian couple a man and one of a gay couple a woman.

     Whatever the merits the arguments for such decisions may have, they breed deep-seated resentments by many who are seriously religious, and they provide the political wedges which have divided Americans on moral issues like fairness, decency, honesty, stealing, compassion, sexual behavior, etc.   Most religious Democrats have been reluctant to express disapproval of these practices, even as they accept that the rights exist so long as the Supreme Court says they do. 

     Democrats have been morally right on issues of compassion, fairness, and honesty, and many other issues.   But they will continue to lose the moral high ground and the votes of Democrats, Republicans and independents of faith who otherwise share their values.  These judicial wedges challenge religious faiths and are the reasons why our conservative Supreme Court has not--and will not--overturn those rulings.  

     These challenges to faith are the sources of American problems, problems which Republicans will not to fix and Democrats dare not try.

Ronald C Spooner

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com