In case you didn't notice, the 112th congress opened this week to much media fanfare, ceremony, and even attendance by some family members of the newly elected officials. As Nancy Pelosi graciously-ahem-handed over a very large gavel to John Boehner, the new majority speaker of the house, one would have thought we had entered a new era of peace, love, and tranquility between the two parties. One would have been dead wrong. Before the session had ended, both parties had made clear their objectives---and they were not conducive to any resemblance of bi-partisanship. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made very clear that she and her party will defend to the death the health care bill and other controversial issues passed under her watch. John Boehner, under pressure to represent his constituents, including the influential Tea Partiers, and what the Republicans feel was a very definite mandate from the American public, countered with his announced intentions to challenge and change the direction of the congress back to a more conservative stance. For starters, he required that the first day's session would begin with the reading of the Constitution. What? What does that have to do with anything? Much to the chagrin of the Democrats, they seemed to feel they were being chided---and perhaps they were, for playing a little fast and loose with some of the founding father's rules, at least according to the Republicans. In addition, and to make life even more difficult for them, any new proposed legislation will first have to pass muster by attaching the appropriate section of the Constitution to the bill. Oh, the headache of it all---just when they were on such a roll. Life just isn't fair---but the original idea was to stay balanced---and fair. That being said, we're in for wild ride---hold on to your party hats.
But will the Republicans be able to really do much damage to the Democrats with a Senate still controlled by the Dems and a president who would surely veto anything counter productive to his liberal agenda? The answer is probably no, but it is their assignment to go through the motions, and so they will, just for the record--and possibly their political future. On the other side of the aisle, The Dems must show a little willingness to open the door and their minds to compromise. Obama himself may have the trickiest, most difficult job ahead, ideologist that he is---not only must he try to hold the line for his threatened health care bill and defend his position on others, but he must appear flexible and willing to listen to the other side---or risk losing his job all together in the next election---to say nothing of the extreme left wing who continue to breathe down his neck and press for even more of their liberal wishes. You have to wonder what part of the last election results they did not understand. But still, Harry Reid, who so adamantly labeled the Republicans "the party of 'no'" came out, dukes up, with warnings that any challenges to modify or change will be met with defeat---otherwise known as no, no, and no. Harry doesn't appear to play well with others. Obama must learn to do so, and might start with muzzling a bit, both Reid and Pelosi. This is make or break time for the Prez, and he needs to become his own man---"man up", transcend some of his cronies and become a true leader of the people, not just a party pawn. His recent cabinet choice of Bill Daley as Chief of Staff is somewhat encouraging, given Daley's pro business background and acumen, but we need to see more evidence that Obama doesn't consider big business the enemy.
The immediate challenge for both parties will be how to keep the economy moving and ease down more quickly the unemployment numbers. At the same time, congress must come to terms with the out of control budget and whether to increase the debt ceiling for temporary relief, or put the brakes on spending immediately-----and that's probably not going to happen. To do so, would be to default on our loans to other countries, damaging our already questionable credit rating, among other drastic cuts too traumatic for the country to face at this time. The wheels have to keep turning, for now, but the great debate regarding our ever growing debt versus our ever growing government will be central to every move that congress attempts to make. We are at a crisis point with a debt load of 13.7 trillion and which is not sustainable. In other words, we're in a "hot mess" and it's time to get real about our spending issues and priorities, or some predict we may fall off the proverbial cliff.
First on the Republican's to-do list is to repeal the very unpopular health care bill, while the Dems seethe with fury over this affront to their view point and narrowly passed, but passionately fought for piece of legislation. There isn't much hope that the Republicans will succeed, but there are 22 democrats who voted against the bill in the first place. If some of them were to break loose and vote Republican, it is conceivable that we could see repeal, but look for the battle to be a bloody one. The Republicans feel this bill will put our country into even more debt, while the Dems feel just the opposite---game on.
Much is riding on the next couple of years, as we attempt to pull ourselves out of the muck and regain our footing as the leader of the free world. China is rising, Japan is falling, and Europe is hanging on with its finger nails. Our fate hangs in the balance---will we stand or fall? Have we seen our best days? Will China, as some predict, overtake us as the the most powerful nation? Stay tuned---it's the greatest show on earth, and the world is watching. We can afford to do nothing less---nor can we afford to be only spectators. As the politicians ply their craft, hammer our their proposals, fight among themselves, compromise, and play their games---we the people and our generations to follow, will pay for the expenses and live out the results. The stakes are high, the rules keep changing,and the winners or losers are us---so pull up a chair. Better yet, call your congressman/congresswoman and tell them how you feel. You might remind them that we own the biggest gavel of all. Will the country please come to order?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why do average income Republicans believe that big business is on their side?
ReplyDeleteBig Bus. is neither our friend nor our enemy--they are an important function, however, of a capitalistic society, which by the way, we are, like it or not. Question for you, dear reader---do you really think big government is our friend? What do they produce? Do they make any money on their own? Yes, they create some jobs, but all the net revenue goes right back to the government,most of which is used to keep running the bureurcracy. Kellee
ReplyDeleteGovernment must be big enough to regulate business, otherwise we would be governed by lawless corporations, becoming fewer and bigger by the day, accountable only to themselves, hoarding money rather than "making" it, and certainly not our friends. Business needs government to channel the energy of business for the benefit of business and the benefits law abiding businesses confer on society. And government must be big enough fill in the gaps not addressed by capitalism or charity. Unlike the private sector, a democratic government, big or small, is accountable to the people. Every large organization has a bureurcracy and many good American workers contribute to the common good as members of bureurcracies, private and public. When did "bureurcracy" become a nasty word? Ours is a "mixed" economy, not a blind and rigid ideological machine. That's something we can be grateful for.
ReplyDeleteMy, my---I think I must have hit a nerve. But I don't see anywhere I had mentioned big business as being our friend or our enemy--simply that Obama must not convey the latter, as that has been his m.o for quite some time--not presidential, and not healthy for the country---nor himself. I'm afraid our ideological differences, however are more reflected in your very defensive statements re the govt.---you are entitled, of course, but I happen to believe that while the government is a necessary component of our society, required in great part for our protection and curbing of human greed, it was originally meant to take care of far fewer of our needs, and has mushroomed and morphed until finally the weight and branches of it are crowding out and threatening our original intentions, resources, and freedom to take care of ourselves. Calif., New York are only two of several states sadly suffering the results of too much govt. I do not believe the common good is served solely or necessarily by an over reaching government, nor do I believe that big business "hoards" all their money. That may be true at the moment, due to their fears and uncertainties for the future, but not in general. By virtue of making more money, which is what its function is, money is spent, circulated, and used to create more jobs. Government has never been known to do that---nor is it free from greed, power, and mis-management. We were never meant to be a welfate state, and yet are fast becoming just that---does that better serve the common good? I don't think so---dependence on those who make more money because some are smarter, work harder, or are in some cases just luckier, breeds more dependence, not strength, innovation,or ambition, all qualities that we have been known for. It's been proven over and over again---hard truth is there is no perfect utopia. Ours is the most successful society so far---let's not destroy it with continuously feeding this gargantuan, bulging with wasteful programs, never satisfied government until there's nothing left but it--and the sweat of our brows to keep it running. That's totalitarianism, and not good for anybody except those in control. Now, having said all this, I doubt I've changed your mind, one iota--but you threw me the bait, and I ran with it. So, there you have it---such is a good conversation.
ReplyDeleteThank God ours is a civil conversation The tragedy in Tucson demonstrates the very opposite of our debate. "Totalitarianism" is an overstatement to be sure, but if that's your fear I can see where you're coming from. What, specifically, are the "wasteful programs" you would eliminate? ...The oil depletion allowance?
ReplyDeleteThe horrible tragedy in Tuscon has nothing to do with with civil conversation or any other kind of sane behavior. It was the acting out of a deranged young man, period. And the efforts of the media to portray it as the result of political discourse in this country is shameless and could lead to another tragedy--the muzzling of public opinion and any conversation that is considered too contrary to their general liberal beliefs or politically incorrect---can you say "Tea Party" or Sarah Palin? Frightening.
ReplyDeleteMournful.
ReplyDelete