So much for the "Super Committee" and its efforts to come up with 1.2 trillion in budget cuts and/or extra revenue, otherwise known to the Dems as taxes. The committee, which was comprised of six Democrats and six Republicans, could have been called "same song, different verse", decided that failing to do their assigned duty was a better option than jeopardizing their reputations during an election year. So, now what? Supposedly, we now kick into a pre-ordained do or die edict called "sequester", whereby severe cuts will automatically be made to both domestic and military budgets. The former will hurt lots of people, but the latter could seriously compromise our very security as a nation---up to 600 billion, in addition to a previous cut of 450 billion, may not be much in our total national budget, but it's blood-letting, traumatic surgery for our military. There is talk that congress will find a way around this trigger-cutting last ditch effort to save us from these dire slashes; but President Obama says he will not allow for any such meddling---how very staunch----but where was he during the negotiation phase?? It would appear he did not care to involve himself in the political "sausage making", getting his hands dirty and thereby steering clear of controversy---- preferring to do what he enjoys most---mixing it up with the people, sharing his views, otherwise known as campaigning. We could have used a dab of leadership about now---a president who might have been present and presidential---who might have actually led by putting politics aside and said, "Look, people----this is what you gotta do---- raise a little, cut a little, compromise, negotiate---but get it done!!! Forget the election and do your duty and mine---it's the right thing to do, even if we personally lose." How noble and awesome would that be? It might even win them all votes, based on extraordinary wisdom, courage and a patriotism that refuses to be responsible for the demise of a once great country. But it didn't happen, not going to happen---we are grid-locked.
It was Obama's golden opportunity, his moment in time to rise to the occasion, and he blew it---all of them did. So, now we face the prospect of sinking into the same morass as Europe. Well, you can't say they didn't try---but was it all lip service? Political ideology and ambition trump conscience and reality. It is painful and distressing to watch our system not working, as though the problems are too big to be solved by mere politicians and their petty agendas and self interests. The differences between the two parties seem to have become more of a "my way or the highway" loggerjam than a celebration of diversity and balance. It is as though we are engaged in a tug of war, with one side pulling for an America that is traditional and rooted in our past; and the other wishing to mold and morph into a new America that will somehow blend our past capitalistic history with socialistic principles---a "new" system. Proponents of this theory argue that a few countries such as the Norwegians, have done this---so why not us. We are not Norwegian, or anyone else, that's why. We are Americans, a different breed of cat, sprung from the alleys of an oppressive English monarchy, with a fierce wish to be free of unnecessary government intervention, to pursue our happiness with all the inherent risks of independence. We do not wish to go backwards---or even sideways. We wish to be what we've always been---a great, roaring motor of free market enterprise, entrepeneurs, and a labor force which benefits from the success of revenue gained from product and labor, not taxes---or even over zealous labor unions.
But the game of tug of war has turned ugly and threatens to dismantle, rather than build. upon our differences. The occupiers of New York and other big cities are hopefully fading away, as they lack a true compass, leadership, and focus. The spectrum of people causing mayhem, destruction, and dangerous conditions were more distasteful than inspiring. Their rallies could have been a teachable moment, in that it might have shone a light on the growing unrest and impatience with the state of our economy and those who helped get us where we are. But the protesters didn't have a leader to clarify and state a constructive message. The only vision they showed the world was one of resentment, rebellion, rape, drugs, and demand for more entitlement---not a recipe for reasonable change. It didn't fly, because it didn't reflect the true American spirit---which is still that we play by the rules, not mob frenzy. Unfortunately, the current administration used the occupiers for their own agendas, emphasizing and promoting class warfare for political advantage---- they have missed an underlying and sincere angst of the so called 90 percent of us---- unemployment and our very profound concern regarding our future as a healthy world power.
But what about closing the income gap between the rich and the middle class? Again, those who assign all our troubles to that complaint, do not represent the "can do" spirit of this country---don't we all want to do well, to make as much money as possible? Is the disparity of income a result of the rich having made too much money---or is it what happens when a country can no longer afford the entitlements given to the middle class and poor, thereby collapsing under it's own weight?? That is the real question, isn't it? The unions will answer a resounding "no", but they too have become part of the problem. Burning the house down isn't the answer---cleaning it out, is. Get rid of the dishonesty and greed that contaminated the financial empires.. Regulations are already doing that, but they must also be tempered, lest it suck all the oxygen out of the room. Fire the politicians that march only to their special interest groups. That is not an easy task, as politics are fueled by money, and special interest groups are the money trees, but integrity is becoming a more effective currency as the American people begin to take more interest in the workings of government and demand transparency and integrity. Champion the rights for the poor and middle class, but guard the parameters of that which is fair versus undue and excessive benefits. Supply a safety net for those who cannot help themselves, but don't tear it apart with the weight of those who can.
It appears we have reached a tipping point, teetering on the edge of a philosophical disagreement too polarized to even consider compromise and balance between social responsibility and fiscal practicality. But on the eve of our Thanksgiving holiday, there is still hope that we will find our way back to, if not what we were, a healing, chastened country who will once again work together, having tasted the bitter fruits of too much dissention among ourselves. Look closely and you will see a longing for a national ability to get along with one another, to once again be proud of ourselves, to work together towards health and prosperity for all.
The path to the future is already here---we're on it. We're stumbling, falling, hesitating, getting lost, but not down yet----because we're too big to fail---big, as in big spirited. To coin a phrase, it really isn't our economy," stupid", it's our heart. It beats as one, refuses to lose, and in spite of our diversities, wants to include everybody who believes in the American dream. To do anything else is to lose our identity, give up our heritage, give in to forces within and without that have weakened and diluted our unitedness.
The upcoming election is part of the journey we're on---take note, watch the debates, read, read, read. Study the nominees, the current president---take part in the process that will ultimately shape our destiny. This is a big deal, this election----Newt Gingrich, currently the front runner in the Republican presidential nominee race, recently stated that he believes we will begin to get well on the eve of election night, given we elect a Republican president. How in your face is that? But memo to the Dems---it played very well with the conservatives, according to the polls. And likewise, President Obama says loud and clear that his is the way, that he needs another four years to get his goals accomplished. His poll numbers are not so good---but predictions are that he will still win the nomination---go figure.
The American people must decide which way to turn, left or right--- but given the extreme polarization in the country, perhaps the only electable way is down the middle. Whatever, we march forward, and history will remember this time as our major fork in the road. The" super committee" may have failed us, but they are not us---we will hopefully find a way to salvage ourselves sooner or later. May that goal be included in our prayers as we bow our heads in remembrance of a people who once sat together in thanksgiving for freedoms they were willing to fight and die for. Their passion for their country, not their "party", is remembered still today---may we find the same, as we struggle to restore even a semblance of the United States of America---God bless us, everyone..
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Beautifully written and felt--real patriotism. BTW: Have you any opinions on the pledges solicited by Grover Norquist or the Wall Sreet dealings reported by Peter Schweizer? It seems to me the gridlock is a result of such goings on which snatch away rationality from our law makers.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion, as stated in the above blog, that the answers to our dilemma are to be found in a down the middle, balanced approach---the country too reflects this approach. Re the two gentlemen mentioned in your comment, they may have wielded some influence, but it is my understanding that both parties were guilty of refusing to bend much at all If the Repubs were marching to the beat of Grover Norquist, the dems seemed to be taking their orders from Obama who had made it very clear that was his rigid position. It was, I'm afraid, over before it started---either tax the rich, or no dice. There were actually several offers put on the table re some rather serious cuts and taxes via closing loopholes, etc. by both sides, but the dems would not budge on increasing taxes for the rich---and neither would the Repubs. Game over. Don't think you can blame that on Grover Norquist, though pledges of that type probably don't help---it's an issue that's been burning for a long time, and has finally bubbled to a boiling point. Perhaps it represents the final line in the sand----no more new taxes, which to many are like adding life boats to a sinking ship.
ReplyDeleteGrover Norquist and Peter Schwiezer not withstanding, I think the committee were being led by their own differing philosophies, long set, you might say in stone. I understand several offers were put on the table re both cuts and tax increases. All were summarily rejected because the Dems could not get by the one big issue---tax the rich, or else. Obama had made it clear that that was his position, so could possibly be just to blame as Mr. Norquist for any marching orders or pledges. Game over before it started. Rationale?? By whose standards?
ReplyDeleteThe politicians don't have the necessary flexibility of the average person on the street!
ReplyDeleteThrow the bums out----but who to replace them??Who can cut the ties to special interest groups?Who can divorce themselves from the business of politics? Who can resist the temptations of making money by scratching someone's back? I've got it---we need a king! Don't think so. We're stuck with a system that works pretty well, in spite of itself---but our elected officials reflect us and our values. So, maybe it's us that needs to change as well.
ReplyDeleteGood insight! The foresight of our founders also included the press as a "4th Estate". A "60 Minutes" piece had the effect of a bill introduced with 60 signatures to stop the "insider trading" in Congress! Don't know where it will go, but will be interesting to watch. The "media" is far from perfect too, but where would we be without it? And as technology continues to open new avenues of communication (like this blog), there is still hope that our leaders will be held to higher standards. Pepper spray notwithstanding, the right to assemble is perhaps even another "estate" which pushes the media to consider issues it would otherwise allow us to ignore.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's just to desire riches at the expense of others. Do you?
ReplyDeleteNo, but I think "class envy" is a real and present danger. There is envy for those who have more--a human nature instinct, unfortunately---and not a constructive one. What you're implying is that there is honor in trying to give more to those who have less. I agree to a point, but the trick is in finding balance between what is deserved and what is pure welfare---it is not necessarily honorable to take inordinate amounts from the rich and give to the poor--too much is called welfare and socialism. And here we go again---don't think we'll ever agree on this one. The price we pay for a free society and a free, competetive market are un-fixed prices and wages, both connected to supply and demand of the market place. Not always fair? Maybe not---but life isn't, and this is America, not Utopia.
ReplyDeleteLife may not be fair, but that's no excuse for we humans not doing OUR best to be fair. It may not be utopia (seems to be one of your favorite words)--it's called civilization. And Civilization does not just aid the deserving, but the disadvantaged, too. You would have unfixed wages--no minimum wage? Have you checked your history books to remember just how low wages fell before the minimum wage? "Supply and demand" works alright, but it's not a silver bullet or a panacea. There will always be gaps that thinking people need to address. The price we pay for a free society must be paid alright, but not inproportionatly by those who can afford it least. The teeter totter is no fun if the heavy kid doesn't scoot up enough so both get a ride. Would you say an "inordinate amount from the rich" would be less than or more than the way it is now?
ReplyDeleteBecause I don't want the heavy kid to scoot up TOO far any more than you do. The teeter totter won't work that way either.
I admit, my off the cuff remarks were not written with enough detail and back up arguments. Labor union's minimum wage battles are an essential part of the mix, but it would be nice if you would admit that they too have gone to extremes and are hurting this country with unreasonable demands. I don't think the rich necessarily "scoot", as much as climb and work for their success. This is where we disagree---who, in your mind, and how would you decide who gets what and how much??? I'm afraid we're beating a dead horse--or at least one that we've already ridden to death. I say we agree to disagree. Sorry for over using the word "utopia"---how about "paradise" or "fairy land" or "in your dreams"?? But it would seem this issue of poor vs. the rich is your favorite and repetitious drum beat. At present, I fear we're in far too much trouble to be debating whether we should raise min. wages or anything else. That isn't the pressing issue---we need to create more jobs, which isn't accomplished by raising taxes. Next topic---
ReplyDeleteWhat has happened to our jobs in the last 30 years? Many have gone overseas. Many still exist but the wages have remained stagnant or worse. Upward mobility is but a memory. I am gratified that you recognize the contribution of labor unions for improving the lot of hard working Americans and agitating for a minimum wage. Yes, there have been abuses, and that is where government comes in--to reduce abuses through regulations. But as union membership has dropped from 31% to 8% in the last 60 years, I don't see them able to do much harm. Do you? What's your take on Barney Frank's career?
ReplyDeleteA devoted Democrat, long time career politician---who over saw the Fannie May, Freddie Mac morgtage mess before and during. Among those I'm happy to see retire---though I'm sure he's accomplished some good things for his party.
ReplyDeleteSo much for Barney Frank. Then there's the up and coming Newt Gingrich, who was fined $300,000 by a huge majority of the House for ethics violations, who now wants the Republicans to nominate him as their candidate for President. Do you think the Republicans will actually nominate so tainted a man who would therefore surely lose in the general election?
ReplyDeleteThey all do it. Newt just got caught.
ReplyDeleteRight on---Newt's transgressions are mild compared to many other politicians--shall I name a few? No, we all know, ad nauseum, who they are. And Newt's ethic charges were highly suspect and politically "tainted" from the start. Many of the charges were dropped as well. He is not perfect, but is brilliantly smart, experienced and shows real presidential leadership--all of which make him look very good right about now, and a major threat to the Democrats and especially to Obama. Watch closely for the Obama "take no prisoners" Chicago style election campaign to take some ugly turns as they seek to eliminate "the enemy". This election from here on out is going to get viscious---not so much "hope and change", as "seek and destroy".
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think this election will get viscious? I haven't seen any such signs. In Newt's case his brilliance only means he must have well known the congressional rules he chose to violate as Speaker of the House, unlike some others (who haven't been caught)who break rules out of lack of knowledge. I guess Cain is about to announce something about his candidicy this week-end. I think he'll probably drop out. But, who knows? If he does, it will be to Newt's advantage, I think. But while Gingrich was busily impeaching Clinton, wasn't he carrying on his own sexual adventures? Correct me if I'm wrong. He'd be presidential alright, in the scary sense of the word. His intention of repealing the child labor laws, effective since 1938, should frighten every American, because we know he's not one to let rules get in his way.
ReplyDeleteOh please---your comments reek of hypocrisy and moralistic preaching so parochial and one sided that it's hard to believe you actually believe yourself. "Sexual adventures"? Newt's affair outside of marriage can hardly be compared to Clinton's escapades with an intern in the Oval office---but oh, I forgot, he didn't "have sex with that woman", and even if he did, I'm sure he wasn't aware of any rule prohibiting such behavior. Re Newt's child labor law remarks---as usual, they were taken out of context--I believe he will have plenty of chances to explain himself and the American people will decide whether he has the credentials to be our next Pres.---if the Obama campaign doesn't derail him first. When a president of the United States insists upon engaging upon class warfare and likes to call his opponents, namely the Republicans, "the enemy", there is no reason not to doubt a vicious campaign.
ReplyDeleteWorthy adversaries" ought never be called "enemies"! ...At least in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteCain is out and Newt is on top. What else can you say about his philosophy of governing?
ReplyDeleteLiking him more and more---he has cahones, smarts, and refreshing ideas. Whether those ideas will get contorted and twisted into negative sound bites remains to be seen. The battle begins big time----Newt's debate with Donald Trump will give the Dems further fodder to trample Newt. But Trump is threatening to run again, himself---how dare he? He has no experience and keeps saying the most outrageous things about bringing America back---he's a clown, a business man, and worst of all he's---rich!!! Off with his head!!!
ReplyDeleteThis may have been a simple typo, but Newt is not scheduled to debate the Donald. He's planning to participate in a debate moderated by Trump. Ron Paul has refused to sign up for this one, even though he's number two now, because he says Donald Trump shouldn't be a moderator and a candidate at the same time. (Yes, Donald may throw his hat back into the ring.) I'm glad you agree with the clown thing. I don't know anything about Ron Paul. Do you?
ReplyDeleteNot a typo, just not good sentence construction---WITH Trump, as in with him on the stage, not debating him. I knew what I meant! I do not agree that the Donald is a clown--I was just repeating the name calling that the media indulges itself in. The Donald may be many things, is a bit too verbiose in my book, but is nobody's clown or fool. I hate name calling and find it a form of bullying that says much more about the person calling the name than the intended target. RE Ron Paul, the Libretarian--the guy is smarter than he looks, but is too off the charts with some of his ideas, such as American isolationism---he keeps running and losing, but he does have a following. The media doesn't touch him, because he's not a threat. However, the Repub. pres. race is still so fluid at present, anything could happen.
ReplyDeleteI think you know more about Ron Paul than most of the rest of us. I think as soon as he became a serious contender, were that to ever happen, and people got to know him, they'd reject him. I don't think America needs a libertarian. Do you? Isn't Alan Greenspan a libertarian?
ReplyDeleteI think what America needs is a strong leader---and someone who will somehow re-instill a sense of pride and confidence once again in her people. I do not believe Ron Paul is that person. I like the fight and exquisite knowledge in Gingrich, the dignity and executive preparednesss of Romney, and the sincerity of Bachmann. I like anyone who is willing to take on the mantle of leadership and steer this country back on course.
ReplyDeleteTo what period do you refer when you say "back on course". When was the country "on course" in your opinion? We agree re. Ron Paul. I hope Gingrich gets the Republican nomination.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Ron Paul may be the king maker. Will he throw his support to Gingrich or Romney? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteFirst ,I think the country will be on course again when unemployment actually goes way down, not just appear to go down becaue people have given up looking for jobs, the housing crisis begins to heal,the national debt is taken seriously, not politically, and Americans are once again proud of their country---not bickering over the supposed 1% who according to Obama are the chief reason for all our problems.
ReplyDeleteRe Ron Paul, I doubt he'll throw his support to either Gingrich or Romney---king maker? I don't think so----
Good for you, Kellee, for rootin' for the unemployed! It isn't good enough for the economy to benefit only stockholders.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you really think of the 1% having such a disproportionate share of a country's wealth? Won't the rest of the world begin to dismiss the USA as just another Mexico? There is already more upward mobility in northern Europe, Scandinavia and Canada than here. We're still the best place on earth, but the trend, as I see it, is not in our favor.
ReplyDeleteI don't subscribe to holding a grudge against those who have more than I---not healthy or wise. They earned it, and even if it was given to them, it's not mine to lust after. I didn't earn it---should I be paid more for what I do? Maybe, in some cases, but then other cases, that is perhaps part of the problem, in that the unions have demanded more than the market place could handle. Life should be more fair, that's for sure--everybody should get an equal start, that would be great, we should all be one happy family, and that would be heaven---but this is planet Earth---not gonna happen. Still think ours is the best system, and that we are growing more enlightened all the time. Have faith---
ReplyDeleteHow sadly, unnecessarily pessimistic. But we at least agree we're developing a more enlightened civilization all the time. Yes! Faith!
ReplyDeleteYour characterization of my words amuse me--sad and pessimistic? I don't think so. I think it's reality, not la-la land thinking. But I do have faith that we as citizens and a species will become better, more honest, more concerned about each other as we evolve. That doesn't mean, however, we will be become a wholly socialistic society, having to be force fed by the government in order to become all of the above. That, in fact, would only create robots and resentment---something like China and Russia, though they are finally seeing the light---enlightment through experience of having done it the wrong way for so many years.
ReplyDeleteWhy bring up China and Russia? Even capitalism isn't working in Russia. Why not talk about places where single payer health care is working in the midst of a free society? BTW: We have identical ideas on how we hope humanity will evolve. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know about the "flat tax".
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to the Super Committee?
ReplyDeleteThey faded back into the gray mist of their fellow career politicians---and are now busily focused on winning the next election--all else pales at the moment. And I have to agree--
ReplyDeleteDo you think the next election will be a turning point in history or something?
ReplyDeleteHoping so---I think the American people are far more aware of the actual "state of the union" now and very, very concerned---and the electorate will be a more educated one this time--not just blocks of people who are told to vote this way or that.
ReplyDeleteRush Limbaugh is hardly an educator.
ReplyDeleteWhy pick on poor ole' Rush? The man has a huge following and has been on the air for a very long time, much to the chagrin of the Democrats who consider him a major threat---hardly a definition of a non-educator. you should tune in to the "Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies". Many people have and have converted ---but then perhaps you're already getting your education from Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, or John Stewart.
ReplyDeleteLet's hear it for Schultz! I just love that name! Is he the one who represents truth and common sense? Or is something educational only if it's "conservative studies"? I don't know the other folks you mentioned. ...Keep my ear tuned to NPR (91.5). Since it's not saturated with emotion, I can give my frontal lobes a chance to perform as they were meant to.
ReplyDeleteI happen to like NPR too---but, as you must know, it's funded in part by the govt., meaning the taxpayers---so, it should be at least trying to be objective---which is not the case, unfortunately. They are considered largely liberal in their political stance and view points. Educational? Yes, on many things, but only if you remember it's filtered through the liberal lens---while being paid partially by all of us.
ReplyDeleteI think about 6% if NPR's funding comes from the govt. If that were removed (and that may happen) do you think it would become more or less objective? Or are you simply raising the issue in hopes that your readers will become indignant about having a public radio station and further the movement to defund it? In any case, we both like listening to NPR. It may not be "excellent" radio, but I think it's high "quality" radio. That may be "liberal" if you're listening with the right ear or conservative if your listening with the left one.
ReplyDeleteRush Limbaugh is now after the free lunches for poor students--says it makes little hungry children rely too much on the govt. And the House of Representatives is turning down the Senate's deal to extend the tax break (FICA) for working people for two more months. Where is Santa Claus when we need him?
ReplyDeleteThere is no Santa Claus and there are no free lunches!! >:/
ReplyDeleteEven Ebenezer Scrooge found his heart at last!
ReplyDeleteAll the bleeding heart liberals come out of the woodwork at Christmas.
ReplyDeleteWe liberals have been at work the year around! We are not bleeding hearts but lovers of justice, particularly social and economic justice. It is grossly unfair that the wealthier one is the more free lunches one receives from government. Check it out. You'll discover corporate America and the wealthy have managed to get government to tilt policies so it takes from the poor and gives to the rich!
ReplyDelete