Yesterday, July 29th, 2011, we set a record high temperature of 104° for Washington, DC. Man was it hot! However, global warming was not the source of this particular heat wave. It was from the blast of hot air issuing out of the Congress of the United States. The “Representatives” of the People were debating how they could screw the American People and get away with it. What they were doing could hardly be called civil discourse.
A few days ago my dear and deeply respected friend John sent me a quote from a Tea Party email and said that it pretty much covered his feelings. John and I have had many conversations over dinner about politics and solving the problems of the world. He is pretty much a Christian Conservative Republican and I a freethinking relatively progressive Democrat. Although we come at things from different directions, we give each other a great deal of respect to the other’s opinion. Here is his email to me and my response.
John’s Email
Hi Jim,
I received an email publication from the Tea Party today about the mess in Washington. What is interesting is what it says is far from what the media portrays. I grabbed the section I thought you might be interested in. I think it pretty well sums up my feelings today:
This is no longer about Democrats or Republicans. This is about the future of America. The current crop of politicians have ZERO credibility when it comes to promising to cut spending. Their political careers are more important than their service to their country and those they represent.
DON'T THEY GET IT?? WE DON'T TRUST THEM!
They have NEVER lived up to their promises of cutting spending, and we don't expect them to do it now.
The President has abdicated his role completely in leading this country and he is focused solely on his reelection campaign.
The Democrats in Congress are playing political games, desperately trying to maintain the bloated and unsustainable size of government, while trying to help the President get reelected.
Republican Leadership is avoiding responsibility, trying to convince the American people with their rhetoric that THIS time we can trust them, while their actions lead us down the same path that the Democrats would like to take us.
This really is a tipping point. It's time for the politicians in Washington to decide whose team they are on. If the Republicans only care about what is best for the Republican Party and the Democrats only care about what is best for the Democrat Party, then who is looking out for what is best for the American people?
My Response
Hi John,
Sorry for the delay in answering you but I had kidney stone surgery this week (still with a stent and a fair amount of pain) and I wanted to give this email some thought. In fact, I have mentally thought out about 15 different responses to you ranging from a probably deeply analytical epistle to a very short summary. This whole matter has consumed a great deal of my thinking in the past few weeks. I do know that most humans:
Sorry for the delay in answering you but I had kidney stone surgery this week (still with a stent and a fair amount of pain) and I wanted to give this email some thought. In fact, I have mentally thought out about 15 different responses to you ranging from a probably deeply analytical epistle to a very short summary. This whole matter has consumed a great deal of my thinking in the past few weeks. I do know that most humans:
- Prefer short simple explanations to complex problems
- See the world through their own particular lens of personal experiences and prejudices (which we all have).
Despite my own prejudices, I often have mental debates with myself often trying to make the argument for the side of the issue I do not lean toward. It can be very revealing to try to argue the other person's point because it forces me see their point of view and show me weaknesses in my own argument. I have been doing that all week. And, naturally, I usually still see my own belief as the better argument, but not always. This is just the way we humans are.
So...what do I think about the excerpt you quoted? Not much. There are assumptions built into the statement that are not true.
I heard a guy on the radio yesterday or the day before make a very interesting and revealing analysis. I will be grossly approximating his remarks, as I don't recall his exact words.
So...what do I think about the excerpt you quoted? Not much. There are assumptions built into the statement that are not true.
I heard a guy on the radio yesterday or the day before make a very interesting and revealing analysis. I will be grossly approximating his remarks, as I don't recall his exact words.
The American people want a large budget deficit not a reduction! Huh????? If you ask most Americans, they will tell you that they really want the deficit to be reduced or eliminated. But at the same time most Americans do not want Social Security, Medicare, or the Defense budgets cut. In addition, they don't want an increase in taxes. Those "wants" are exactly what make a large budget deficit! Basically what we say and what we want are diametrically opposed to each other. And Congress cannot figure out how to meet both desires.
I think he is pretty much right.
The sorry fact is that just about EVERY American drinks from the Government trough and no one wants to be thirsty. Let's take a look at a few examples of how we all benefit from government largess:
The sorry fact is that just about EVERY American drinks from the Government trough and no one wants to be thirsty. Let's take a look at a few examples of how we all benefit from government largess:
- Farm subsidies: Farmers get money from the government for a variety of reasons much of it in price supports. Why do people who favor market economics support this? By their own argument, the market should determine prices and profits for farmers. So farmers are on the dole.
- Defense: The United States sinks 7-8 times the amount of money into the military that Russia and China do. Who are the enemies that we are defending against? Why do we have bases in countries that can afford to defend themselves? Couldn't we defend ourselves with only 4 times the amount the Russians and Chinese spend? Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial complex and he was right. We have so many defense contractors out there that anyone who works for them derives their incomes from tax dollars. Therefore, anyone connected with military/defense is on the dole.
- Business: Tax loopholes and various other scams are depriving this country of much needed income. How in the world can GE pay no taxes in 2010 and yet have a very good profit and pay me (I own GE stock) a dividend? A dividend is a portion of profits, so why did they not pay taxes? I won't even get into the insane tax breaks the oil companies enjoy that you and I don't. So.. much of the business community is one the dole.
- Homeowners: Most people who own homes get a big fat deduction for the interest they pay on their mortgages. Why? The theory is that this encourages home ownership promoting stable communities etc. Recent studies show that it does no such thing. So why are we subsidizing people who have mortgages? The homeowners of America are on the dole.
- Charitable contributions: Why should anyone be allowed to subtract from their incomes monies paid to charitable organizations and most notably organizations that are NOT charitable organizations - churches/synagogues/mosques? If you want to be a do gooder then do so out of your own pocket not mine. Why get a tax break? I especially don't understand why church offerings are considered charity. Most money collected by churches is used to support a variety of church functions only a small percentage of which is used for real charitable purposes. In fact, why are churches exempt from all kinds of taxes? So....anyone who contributes to their religion is also on the dole.
In my mind, all of these tax evaders are no different from the relatively small number of welfare cheats that we all know exist. It is easy to point at them as a drain on our system but they are a minuscule factor. We don't have a bloated unsustainable government. Our tax rates are among or are the lowest in the industrial world. No, the real issue is we are greedy. We want all this "stuff" but we don't want to pay for it.
Traditionally Democrats do not want social programs cut because they see these programs as important to a civilized society. They believe it is their moral duty to protect the elderly, the sick, and the poor. All of them, not just the "deserving" elderly, sick, and poor. (This notion probably derives from a deeply held Christian belief that we should take care of those less fortunate than ourselves.) Traditionally Republicans take an approach that supports individual initiative, a strong work ethic, and a desire for each individual to stand on their own two feet. I personally support all of these things.
Democrats also believe that the federal government can solve problems that individuals, corporations, and state governments cannot. I believe that there are problems that only the federal government can deal with, but not ALL of them. Republicans believe that limited government keeps big brother from interfering in our choices and our personal lives. I agree. I certainly do not want the government telling me what choices I should make, who I can associate with, or what I should believe. Yet many Republicans see nothing contradictory in saying the government should define who I can marry, whether or not to terminate a pregnancy based on the individual merits of my circumstances, or allow religious majorities to force their morals on people not of their faith.
As to the "debate" going on, I see many different agendas few of which have anything to do with what is best for the country. Here is what I see. The Tea Party members of Congress have decided that the deficit is the issue on which to make a fight. They adamantly adhere to the idea that the debt can only be managed by severe cuts to the federal budget. I think most Americans know there is waste and fraud in our system and want to see that cut out. However, waste and fraud are a very tiny part of the money we are talking about.
Traditionally Democrats do not want social programs cut because they see these programs as important to a civilized society. They believe it is their moral duty to protect the elderly, the sick, and the poor. All of them, not just the "deserving" elderly, sick, and poor. (This notion probably derives from a deeply held Christian belief that we should take care of those less fortunate than ourselves.) Traditionally Republicans take an approach that supports individual initiative, a strong work ethic, and a desire for each individual to stand on their own two feet. I personally support all of these things.
Democrats also believe that the federal government can solve problems that individuals, corporations, and state governments cannot. I believe that there are problems that only the federal government can deal with, but not ALL of them. Republicans believe that limited government keeps big brother from interfering in our choices and our personal lives. I agree. I certainly do not want the government telling me what choices I should make, who I can associate with, or what I should believe. Yet many Republicans see nothing contradictory in saying the government should define who I can marry, whether or not to terminate a pregnancy based on the individual merits of my circumstances, or allow religious majorities to force their morals on people not of their faith.
As to the "debate" going on, I see many different agendas few of which have anything to do with what is best for the country. Here is what I see. The Tea Party members of Congress have decided that the deficit is the issue on which to make a fight. They adamantly adhere to the idea that the debt can only be managed by severe cuts to the federal budget. I think most Americans know there is waste and fraud in our system and want to see that cut out. However, waste and fraud are a very tiny part of the money we are talking about.
The second sticking point is that the Republicans in Congress do not want to give the government ANY increase in income. The government's income comes from taxes that they adamantly refuse to consider raising. The Democrats firmly stand on principle on making sure that the old, sick, and poor don't get screwed. And they are willing to raise taxes to do so. Our problems are not going to go away by just raising the debt limit. We need to deal with this and now is the perfect time. Obama and Boehner both could benefit politically by actually making a big step in solving these problems long term. And they pretty nearly had a deal that would cut spending (even in social programs!) and add some income by asking the very profitable and the very rich to contribute a bit more. Congressional Tea Party Republicans DO NOT want a long term solution, and it is solely for political reasons. It would make Obama and Boehner look good. Tea Partiers and some other Republicans have already stated forcefully and loudly that they will do ANYTHING to stop this president from being able to govern. This has nothing to do with what is good for the country. They are like a bunch of snotty kids who don't like the way the ball game is going so they are going to take their ball and go home. It is disgusting.
And I am shocked that these Tea Party fools will put not only the economy of the USA on the line but in fact the entire world economy will be in jeopardy since the global economy is intricately intertwined based on US treasuries and the "good faith and credit" of the United States. CEOs of major corporations, the US Chamber of Commerce (both very big Republican supporters) have begged Congress and the President not to allow default to happen. Everyone in the financial world is saying this should not be allowed to happen. No one really knows what will occur but nearly everyone who understands financial markets fears very dire consequences of a default. Do you think 9% unemployment is bad? What do you think 25% unemployment will look like? We had that during the Depression and it was VERY UGLY. How dare people like Bachmann, Palin and other Tea Partiers suggest that a default will not cause big problems? They have no idea what will happen and are willing to throw away everything we Americans have sacrificed for since the Depression on a stupid principle. This is dangerous, irresponsible, infantile, and not even remotely in the best interests of the American people. I am outraged that a small group of ignorant children are about to ruin the greatness of this country.
During the Continental Convention in 1787, a number of state representatives insisted that they had "unyielding principles" from which they would not vary and that no constitution would be approved unless those principles were adopted. They boycotted meetings and threw as many wrenches into the process as they could in order to force the convention to give in to their demands. Ben Franklin was disgusted with their lack of willingness to compromise and had this to say:
And I am shocked that these Tea Party fools will put not only the economy of the USA on the line but in fact the entire world economy will be in jeopardy since the global economy is intricately intertwined based on US treasuries and the "good faith and credit" of the United States. CEOs of major corporations, the US Chamber of Commerce (both very big Republican supporters) have begged Congress and the President not to allow default to happen. Everyone in the financial world is saying this should not be allowed to happen. No one really knows what will occur but nearly everyone who understands financial markets fears very dire consequences of a default. Do you think 9% unemployment is bad? What do you think 25% unemployment will look like? We had that during the Depression and it was VERY UGLY. How dare people like Bachmann, Palin and other Tea Partiers suggest that a default will not cause big problems? They have no idea what will happen and are willing to throw away everything we Americans have sacrificed for since the Depression on a stupid principle. This is dangerous, irresponsible, infantile, and not even remotely in the best interests of the American people. I am outraged that a small group of ignorant children are about to ruin the greatness of this country.
During the Continental Convention in 1787, a number of state representatives insisted that they had "unyielding principles" from which they would not vary and that no constitution would be approved unless those principles were adopted. They boycotted meetings and threw as many wrenches into the process as they could in order to force the convention to give in to their demands. Ben Franklin was disgusted with their lack of willingness to compromise and had this to say:
"Declarations of a fixed opinion, and of determined resolution never to change it, neither enlighten nor convince us."
http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc-0611.txt
I'm with Ben. Giving a little on both sides of an issue results in solutions. Standing pat on principle is a recipe for disaster. In this instance, the Democrats have given in on modest cuts to social programs. Why can't Republicans give in a little on taxes from the rich? Only 2% of Americans are "rich." Why are Republicans protecting 2% at the expense of 98% of us?
Tomorrow I will send you a "scenario" that may perhaps simplify and illustrate why I think the way I do on these matters.
Do you get the sense that your question touched a nerve? I hope you and your family are doing well and surviving the terrible heat we're having this summer. Maybe when Congress stops trying to ruin the country we will get some relief.
Best wishes-
Jim
