July 25, 2011 -- To raise the debt limit or not raise the debt limit, that is the question. I knew him well, Horatio, a country with infinite prosperity, of most excellent life for a populous of relative content. Or so it seems so to me. Are we left with a society, like poor Yorick, a shell of what once was?
This does appear to be a dramatic moment no matter how the negotiations turn out after which our lives may never be quite the same again. The debt crises, the deficit problem is just a culmination of a struggle many years in the making, just the trigger point most observers agree for a resolution.
A lot has been written about it. Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post says it about as well as anyone: “This is just a small version of the larger debate about the size and role of government. Far-right conservatives who harbor a radically different vision — of a much smaller government without the wherewithal to provide this kind of safety net — now control the House of Representatives and the Republican Party. In the debt-ceiling debate, they have rejected long-term solutions that have conceded most of what they demand. They want it all.”
We have two different views, then, of how society works, now is mortal combat. Let’s be as detached as possible, rise above partisan rancor and give both groups the benefit of the doubt, of really believing in what they stand for. Let’s call one group the “Leave-Me-Aloners,” or “LMAs,” the others “Tribalists.”
The LMAs believe in personal responsibility, everyone should take care of themselves, they object to being required to contribute to a pool of funds to be spent on the common good. Programs that take their money and spend to help the indigent only lead to a culture of dependency and much of it goes to people who would rather collect charity than work for it. People of wealth are the “job creators” and should be encouraged and protected and the more they accumulate the more of it trickles down to those with lower incomes. The free market should be free, unregulated and untaxed because that is the source of jobs and economic growth. Most things should be left to the state and local level, interstate highways, for instance are unconstitutional and health care, retirement programs for the elderly and any public assistance of any kind belongs at the local level. Education should be private, left to the churches as it was in the early settlements of this country. This, the LMAs see as “freedom.” Leave me alone to sink or swim. With this ironic caveat: by all means regulate a woman’s reproductive system, the personal relationships between consenting adults and acts deemed immoral by religious conservatives who people this group.
That is about as detached as I can get. Of course there are gradations of these views, but it fits at least four f the Republican candidates and all of the Tea Party members of the House like a glove.
Tribalists, on the other hand believe citizens can and should pool some of their resources for the common good, as stated in the Constitution to accomplish things that could not be done individually. They favor programs that, like insurance policies, offer protection from random disasters that can befall any of us, economic or health setbacks. Money can be used to invest in the future on education, infrastructure or research. Society needs some rules to protect the innocent. With over three hundred million people living together what one does can easily affect another. Whether one lives in Florida, Oregon, or Maine we are all members of the tribe and as a matter of morality should take care of the needy, even those who do not deserve it. The two great freedoms on which or nation was founded should be protected at all costs: freedom from an entrenched wealthy ruling class, and freedom from the excesses of any organized religion. What the LMA sees as “freedom” the Tribalist sees as “License.”
Whatever happens in coming to an agreement or not on the debt limit so much as been bargained away already that there will be change. As Robinson also pointed out the debt does need to be reduced but could be in ways that do not “kill economic growth or gut entitlements.” As is also being pointed out this next election but a few months away will probably be the most important of this century, determining what kind of society in which we will live, as “Leave-Me-Aloners” or “Tribalists.”
Meanwhile, intense efforts for a compromise on the debt issue continue, in fits and starts. Friday House Speaker John Boehner walked out of meetings with the President at the White House. After the market closed President called a press conference to explain the situation, with some vigor. He outlined the situation very clearly and called everybody back in to talk again on Saturday. If you would like to hear what he had to say, here is a link.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Speaker-Boehner-Drops-Out-of-Debt-Talks/10737423029-7/
After the President's news conference, Speaker Boehner held one of his own to explain his position, also straight forward which illustrates the differences between the two camps. Here is a link to his:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Speaker-Boehner-Drops-Out-of-Debt-Talks/10737423029-8/
A backup plan has been drafted by Senators Reid and McConnell which would give the President unilateral authority to lift the debt ceiling. This would put off the resolution of the problem until the next election, basically putting which way it swings in the hands of the voters. An “LMA” society that ignores the needs of the young, the old, and the indigent? A society of tribal cooperation? Mark your ballots.
Some politicians just don’t bother with the facts, and never have it seems. James Moore, author, columnist, and long time observer of Texas politics came up with this wonderful quote attributed to Texas governor Miriam “Ma” Ferguson who served in the twenties and thirties. On the idea of teaching foreign languages she is said to have said, “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for us.”
Moore hauled that one out for a passage he wrote about Texas Governor Rick Perry suggesting that God was urging him to seek the Republican nomination for the Presidency. “The church (Christian) and the state are Siamese twins in Texas”, Moore wrote. “These political expressions of god and faith, and, in Perry’s case, Jesus, conveniently ignore ‘the least amongst us.’ Perry and his politics are determined to protect a child in the womb but they don’t do a hell of a lot for that kid once he or she starts walking in the world.”
If God is calling Perry to run for higher office we would assume the All Mighty is doing so because of what Perry has done for Texas as governor for over a decade. If so the Saint James version of the Bible needs a rewrite.
As Moore reports, under Perry’s guidance Texas has:
- The highest percentage of children without health insurance of any state in the union.
- 6.1 million people, 28 percent of the state’s population, the largest share in the U.S., is uninsured.
- Texas is 4th in the percentage of children living in poverty and 34th when it comes to full immunization.
- Texas is 45th in SAT scores.
- Texas ranks 47th on the amount of money it spends on each public school student.
“In Perry’s case, Jesus, conveniently ignores ‘the least amongst us’” (Moore). It seems to me instead of directing him to be a candidate for the presidency, God should present him with a couple of stone tablets with some new instructions.
Sane Texans seemed to have just ignored Perry and his fanatical evangelical base, sort of, Oh well, he is a Republican, but the man is a real piece of work. Stephen Colbert captured him pretty well as you will see if you click on this link:
Now here is a test for you as to whether you are a Leave-Me-Aloner or a Tribalist, based on a column in the New York Times by Mark Bittman who writes about food for the opinion section of the paper. I would like to engage Grover Norquist in this one. Do you believe government has a role to fulfill as an agent of the public good?
Think about tobacco. Smoking was causing scores of deaths, enormous health care costs to taxpayers and second hand smoke was affecting non-smokers. But many smokers feel it is their God-given right to smoke anyway. Even so, government stepped in and greatly reduced the problem.
As a country we have steadily grown ourselves into a very serious problem with obesity. As Brittman writes, “One-third of all Americans either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with Type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits — and because our health care bills are on the verge of becoming truly insurmountable, this is urgent for economic sanity as well as national health.” What does this cost the average person? “Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government” (taxpayers) says Brittman.
A program to tax soda, French fries, doughnuts, and hyper-processed snacks would reverse the trend, save lives, save hundreds of billions of dollars, especially if the tax revenue were used to promote and develop healthier foods.
But are you willing to pay more for your Twinkie? What would Gov. Rick Perry, who vetoed a bill to make texting by adults while driving illegal because it abridged individual freedom even though it might keep a driver from being killed by the actions of another, what would he say? And how about the congressmen who voted down the legislation to foster energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs to spare the extinction of the old incandescent bulbs? (As Ma Ferguson might have said if kerosene lamps were good enough for Jesus they ought to be good enough for us). Are you an LMA, or a Tribalist willing to pay more for your Café Latte for the good of your fellow American?
You would have to say Nicholas Kristof writes from the Tribalist point of view in his New York Times columns and he gave vent this week to his frustrations with the other camp. “Why would we impose ‘Job-crushing taxes’ on wealthy Americans just to pay for luxuries like federal prisons? Why end the ‘carried interest’ tax loophole for financiers just to pay for unemployment benefits — especially when those same selfless tycoons are buying yachts and thus creating jobs for all the rest of us?”
“Unemployment benefits make people lazy about looking for jobs. Give bonuses to billionaires. Let jobs trickle down. Cut, Cap and Balance Act would eliminate 700,000 jobs in just its first year” he writes. A fine, sardonic column, available at this link should you want to read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21kristof.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
The aforementioned “Cut, Cap and Balance” is the name Republicans in the House gave to their budget bill. Washington Post’s Dana Milbank reported on the debate that ensued on the House floor as Democrats wanted to give it a new name. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, corrected them all. “Cut, Cap and End Medicare.” “It’s really Cash Cow for Billionaires,” proposed Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA.).” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) had several names for it, including “It’s the Tap Dance Losers’ Club and Bust the Benefits Bill.” I could suggest it’s the “Oligarchs Outreach” bill, or perhaps “Look Out Below” act.
Some of the meanest invective of the week came from Conrad Black in the Financial Times, about Rupert Murdoch. “He is not only a tabloid sensationalist; he is a malicious myth-maker, an assassin of the dignity of others and of respected institutions, all in the guise of anti-elitism.” That language would go over very well on FOX News, but over there they are too busy defending their boss. This scandal just reveals how skanky News Corp. really is, wherever its tentacles reach.
“Pledges (Are) spreading like kudzu on the campaign trail” writes Nancy Benac of the Associated Press. “Supporting marriage, opposing taxes, reducing the deficit, fighting abortion and gay rights. There's a 14-point ‘marriage vow, a three-pronged ‘cut, cap and balance’ declaration on the national debt, a four-point ‘pro-life leadership presidential pledge’ and a deficit-reduction promise tied to the ‘Lean Six Sigma’ method of reducing wasteful spending. Grover Norquist choose the words.”
“The Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” created by Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, commits candidates and office holders to oppose all net tax increases. The simple declaration is the granddaddy of political pledges, and has been adopted by more than a thousand candidates and public officials since its rollout in 1986.” Ronald Reagan may have talked the game then, but he actually raised taxes 11 times. Norquist apparently accidentally muddied the water this week by being quoted in a Washington Post editorial as saying that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would not violate the pledge, signed by all of the Republican presidential aspirants. From the ensuing outcry you would have thought he had come out against Motherhood. The man Post writer Greg Sargent calls the “anti-tax jihadist” quickly changed his tune to call such acts tax increases.
Why should it just be Republicans who have pledges to sign? In all fairness there should be a pledge for all Democratic candidates for office in the coming election to sign. I offer this nine-point pledge for Democrats:
I pledge:
1. To stop using the demonized word “Tax” and use the term “Revenue Enhancer” instead.
2. To brand the House Republican legislation called “Cit. Cap and Balance” a “Grim” Fairy Tale.
3. I will continue to allow Exxon-Mobile to write Energy legislation as they do for the Republicans so I will preciously how NOT to draft a bill.
4. I will oppose the Republican use of the term “Job Creators” and instead use the real descriptive term, “filthy rich.”
5. That if I feel the need to expose myself I will do it the old fashioned way with a rain coat in a busy park and not on Facebook.
6. That on the campaign trail I will try to maintain some respect for History and not distort it for political gain in the manner done so by Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
7. That I will mount a campaign to persuade conservatives who oppose the use of contraceptives to change their thinking in the hopes that it will result in fewer of them.
8. That if those organizations sponsored by the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Chamber of Commerce try to contribute to my PAC as they do to Republicans I will consider such as a Faustian pact with the Devil.
9. That when like Michele Bachmann and Gov. Rick Perry I want political guidance from the All Mighty I will listen to Nancy Pelosi.
Comments