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

Who, What and When to Trust

     Lately, I've spent more time watching discussions of financial markets.  The differences of opinion expressed by the various financial experts reminded me of our political debates.

     Each of these guests is an expert, who has reached market conclusions based not only on the pool of information to which each has access but on how their personal intellectual, psychological and sociological systems interact with the circumstances and human inclinations they peruse. 

     But regardless of how much these experts express believes in their market predictions or expectations, they never invest based only on their own ideas.  They tend to invest in a manner that acknowledges that other opinions may be correct.  They diversify.

     However, present-day Republicans, despite most of them not being experts, are insist on investing the nation's future exclusively in their ideas.  There is seldom any mention of "common ground."  Republicans seem to be intentionally making ever aspect of every issue a source of debate.  I use Republicans to be inclusive of even Republican who don't necessarily agree with every idea that surfaces under the Republican banner.  I include them because they too often refuse to show their opposition with their votes.

     Republicans dug the financial ditch in which America finds itself, and Bush's Iraq war and tax cuts were the shovels.  The Republicans' position in 2003 was that the government budget surplus, which had been built up by tax increases and spending cuts during the Clinton presidency, somehow was the people's money and should be returned to them.   

     President Obama and fellow Democrats, along with decisions by President Bush at the end of his presidency and Republican support early during the Obama presidency, applied brakes to the free fall of the American economy.  Obama's actions bought the free fall to a halt: fewer jobs were being lost.  Soon more people were being hired than fired.  Banks were shored up.  And the big three auto makers had been saved, surviving prosperously and hiring among other things.

     But the media kept saying that the people would judge Democrats in the 2010 elections by their own present conditions and not be the fact that the nation's Bush induced condition (and potentially their own) was improving.   The media did not know how the American people felt.  It was as if these analysts were willing to have Americans blame Obama for what Bush had caused and give him no credit for ameliorating the condition.  Somehow this idea that the party that was trying to fix the problem (and succeeding) should be blamed and not the person who caused it made no sense to me.  The political party that thought the low taxes for the wealthy, that brought on the Great Recession, was good in 2003 still thinks it is good for America despite our still not being sure how to recover from it. 

      The strange thing is that Republicans are counting that Americans continuing believing those tax cuts for the wealthy were good for all Americans then and are necessary for the future success of the economy.  It may have been good for average incomes of all Americans but not nearly so good for the incomes of average individuals.  As someone wisely pointed out, if one averages the income of a typical American and that of Warren Buffet, that typical American becomes a billionaire--but without the money.

     Every Obama success makes it harder and less likely that Republicans can achieve their goal of making him "a one-term president."  He had Obama Care approved by Congress.  He found Osama bin Laden.  He withdrew troops and suspended major military activities in Iraq.  He is committed to beginning substantial troop withdrawal from Afghanistan this Summer.  He very likely will suspend major military operations in Afghanistan by the end of the year.  But all of these achievements and prospects of achievement will only make Republican less willing to help Obama succeed wherever they can, or to give him credit wherever he does.

     However, the New York congressional election shows that not all Republicans, especially those outside the Bible belt, vote according to dictates of the standard Republican propaganda.  While they may not agree with much of the Democratic ideology, they also don't support Tea Party craziness.  They don't believe columnists and commentators who deliberately distort Obama and Democratic positions.  And despite some of these people's claim to be born-again Christians, Precinct 26 voters were not deceived about the truth of the issues at hand.

     Even as they blocked most of Obama's efforts to stimulate jobs creation, Republicans blamed Obama for not producing enough jobs.  Yet during their tenure of being in control of the political agenda, Republicans have failed to suggest any of those ideas they claimed Obama should have used to create jobs.  Only fantom jobs, which presumably giving more money to oil companies, millionaires and billionaires would produce, were recommended..

     Americans of all political and ideological persuasions, therefore, must be able to distinguish between those ideas and actions that are sincerely believed to be the best of known alternatives , and those that are obviously designed only to defeat a president in the next election and to enriching the wealthy.  They must realize that economic problem are not solved by continuing what caused the problem.

     In 2010, both Tea Party and Republican politicians fooled both independents and the majority of their political bases.  The results in the special New York congressional election suggest that, in 2012, shame may well be on these politicians.

     America's greatest fear, though, is that most Republicans weren't merely fooling the American people in 2010 as a political strategy:  These politicians may have been saying what they actually believed.  And their craziness about not raising the debt ceiling may not seem crazy to them.  

     America's greatest hope is the suggestion by the NY-26 special election that most Republican politicians are rational, and are only temporarily acting crazy.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    www.ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

    

Debt Reduction Strategies and Obstacles

     As is the case for many people concerning my opinions, I read Mr. Thomas' columns "A Solution to the Debt Menace" with great reluctance and my usual skepticism.  I could only imagine what this one was about.   

     I became even more skeptical when I read that the plan Mr. Thomas was writing about was developed by The Heritage Foundation but I found much in the recommendation that even I could support.     For the last 15-20 years, I have suggested that Social Security and Medicare should be what has become known as "means tested."  In other words, these safety nets should be available to people in proportion to their ability to pay and need to be covered.   

     Homeowners insurance, auto insurance, term life insurance, income-protection insurance, hospitalization insurance and various kinds of warranties that we purchase don't guarantee those paying for the coverage will ever receive benefits.  We buy protection but hope we never need them.  The same applies to Social Security and Medicare:  Most young people hope their future financial conditions can obviate the need for either.

     However, for too many years benefits have been given to those not needing them but willingly accepted them.  People no long feel guilty about receiving what they don't need, even if it means simultaneously expanding the numbers and failing to address the needs of the most vulnerable Americans..

     When I first recommended gradually phasing out Social Security and Medicare benefits as incomes increased,  I also suggested that future benefit adjustment be considered to differentiate between people who choose not to have or adopt children and those who have them.  

     Children who are gainfully employed contribute to pools that finance much of their parents retirement and medical care benefits.  As it stands now, people with no children receive the same retirement benefits as those with five children gainfully employed and paying into the programs. 

      I've forgotten what remedies I proposed at that time.  But one reader said I should "have (my) head examined" and that the editor should have his examined for printing it.  I may have suggested that retirees' benefits should be related to the incomes of their children.  This would have given parents an incentive not only to have children but to educate them well.     

     Some practices, however, continue to seem appropriate only because they have been in operation for so long, not because there aren't better alternatives.  Like it or not, the success and sustainability of Social Security and Medicare relate directly--even if not solely--to the earning power of retirees' children.   And problems cannot be resolved by ignoring factors that contribute to the problem.     This aspect of the solution, however, also would be phased in over a period of time.   

     I am disappointed, to say the least, that, whereas Republicans have the Paul Ryan Plan and The Heritage Foundation Plan to address problems related to our long-term national debt, Senate Democrats and liberal think-tanks have not come up with debt-reduction plans of their own that are consistent with their values and indicative of the vision they have for the futures of all Americans.  

     The Democrats' plan seems to be having the Senate come up with a compromise plan with Senate Republicans that will, then, be further compromised with the House approved Ryan Plan.  A 50-50 compromise in the Senate would become a 25-75% compromise by the time something is agreed to that will pass both houses.  

     That's right:  25% is likely all the President and fellow Democrats can get from Republicans.  Whether "the people" knew it or not, that's what they asked for last November, either with the votes they cast or with the votes they failed to cast because they failed to vote.   Democrats are mostly the blame, however, for not persistently and emphatically pointing out to supporters and potential voters both the possible and very likely consequences of not voting.

     Republicans, emboldened by last year's elections, will not approve paying the nation's bills (they will even risk devastating the world's economy) unless Democrats surrender.  The resulting legislation will be a longterm social disaster,         

     But President Obama cannot lead where this Congress doesn't want to go.  And with Republicans controlling the outcomes in both houses of Congress, Obama can either lead the nation where Republicans want to go, or refuse to lead at all, and allow voters to decide next November what they want.  We can hope, that in the meantime, Democrats and Republicans agree on a strategy to recover from an even worse economic condition than the one they are presently unable to resolve.

     But the 25% that Republican concede doesn't have to be that bad if it includes things like: extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, not touching Medicaid and student loans, extending unemployment benefits through 2012, means-testing Medicare and Social Security, and earmarking cuts only for areas that can be tolerated until voters in 2012 get perhaps their last chance in to get it right, and eventually repeal the disastrous legislation that likely must be approved this year.  

     As America moves from where we are to where our economy and our politics are that change must be considerate of the potentials for human pain, and assure that pain is born in proportion to people's ability to endure and emerge from it as better people, with a plan that sustains economic recovery and promotes political integrity.  Big business and politicians who serve the wishes and needs of their constituents have the collective ability to make such a win-win recovery a reality.   But where the wishes and need of people are secondary, big business and their politicians can bring this country to its knees.  

     The past ten years have found democracy in America trending toward oligarchy or something resembling it.   As peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world seek to embrace the hopes of democracy and the blessings of liberty, Americans find themselves in a battle to hold on to their own.

Ronald

EMail:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldspooner.blogspot,com

Valuing Dot-Connecting

     There is some debate concerning the extent to which water boarding yielded information that led to the finding of Osama bin Laden.  Some Republicans want give water boarding considerable weight; others give it 0-2% 

     But two things are certain, though:  First, whereas, the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots that could have prevented 9/11, the Obama Administration put together the dots that led to bin Laden's capture within two years.   And, second, all of the information that Obama used--even if it included some evidence obtained through torture--was either known or available to be known during G. W. Bush's presidency.  Again, however, Republicans were not able to recognize and collect dots that could have been connected. 

     But two things are certain:  First, whereas, the Bush Administration failed to connect the dots that could have prevented 9/11, the Obama Administration put together the dots that led to bin Laden's capture.  And second all of the information that Obama used--even if it included some evidence obtained through torture--was either known or available to be known during Bush's presidency.  Again, however, they were not able to recognize or collect relevant dots to connect. 

     Republicans are eager to give Bush much of the credit for finding bin Laden--even as they insist on giving Obama full blame for the Bush-induced recession.  But it was Obama who announced that, if he had actionable information about the location of bin Laden in Pakistan, he would not seek Pakistan's permission to get him.  Although he seemed to lose interest later during his presidency--likely born of frustration--Bush did say he "wanted bin Laden Dead or Alive."  Obama delivered him dead, and buried him at sea with a dignity that was consistent with his faith, though consistent not with his deeds.

     As speculation rises concerning the possible role of Pakistan in harboring bin Laden, or in not having the vigilance to discover that he was around, questions are being raised about the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death:  Was it necessary?  Was he armed?  Was he attempting to defend himself?  Was he going for a weapon?  All of these questions are being raised by people who are concerned that he may have been killed without being given as opportunity to surrender and be brought back for trial.

     This is because among the great diversity among Americans--we are diverse by race, religion, color, national origin, language, ideology, gender and sexual orientation to mention a few--significant diversity exist within Americans themselves concerning when life is to be valued and when death is appropriate.  

     Many liberals vigorously defend a woman's right to terminate the life of her unborn child even as they argue just as vigorously against death penalty.  Many conservatives defend just as vigorously the right of a baby to be born even as they defend a state's right to take the lives of those accused of killing others, despite the frequency of the convicted eventually being found innocent, .  Each group has within its own value system a conflict concerning when life it to be valued.   A discussion about that conflict, within our moral and legal systems of justice, is natural now that Osama bin Laden has been found, and perhaps executed. 

      Let's continue the discussion by examining the circumstances surrounding this mission--assuming what is being reported so far is correct.  A plan to either capture or kill bin Laden had been thoroughly practiced, and when considered ready to be executed still was given only a 60-80% chance of succeeding. 

     Suppose, then, the plan had been to capture bin Laden.  Wrapped in that 20-40% chance of failure would have been the possibility of his eventual escape  or rescue.  Unanticipated and uncontrolled circumstances could have resulted in a captured bin Laden being on the loose again.  (It has also been suggested that bin Laden might have had a self-detonating bomb strapped to himself, potentially endangering the lives of American captors.)

     In either case, most Americans of all political persuasions would have been insisting that bin Laden should have been killed, and his possible escape not risked.  Republicans would have been claiming that they would have delivered him dead.  And Obama's defeat in next years election likely would have been signed, sealed and delivered regardless of what the economy did. 

     Osama bin Laden was a special criminal:  He was a deadly international enemy.  The circumstances leading to his capture were among the riskiest for several reasons, and the odds were against his ever being found again.  Still, despite bin Laden's death being necessary--and given the circumstances perhaps preferred by him--some concern about the means will linger. 

     President Obama was successful in capturing bin Laden because he did not need Republican help to do it.  Can you imagine what would have happened had Obama asked Congress' permission to get him?  We'd still be debating whether we could afford it.

     Barack Obama was elected president because of his integrity, wisdom, intelligence and determination to solve difficult national problems .  It took him less than three years to catch bin Laden, because he had time to do it.  And he'll solve our other problems, too, if we give him time and some help.

     It's not likely that the party that did not know how to keep this country and the world out of the Great Recession, did not recognize the symptoms of the pending catastrophe, and did not suggest measures that could have prevented it would know how to solve present  problems and prevent others.  

     Republicans  have been inept at recognizing and connecting dots related to the nation's security and prosperity.  And few Americans believe that Obama's becoming president, somehow miraculously made them smart.