DEEPER CUTS!!

by Ruth Sheets

Every news report this week has begun with the information that no compromise has been reached in raising the debt ceiling and the economy.  And, every report has an interview with at least one of the “Tea Party” congressmen who just keep saying that the spending cuts need to be deeper with no tax increases of any kind.

Since the Federal Government is so abhorrent to the Tea Partiers, I suggest that the deeper cuts begin in their own districts and states. If these super conservative, government-hating congress people received votes from more than 50% of those voting in their districts in 2010, my modest proposal is as follows:

1. Close military bases in their districts.

2. Cut Social Security payments to everyone in those districts who earn more than $100,000.

3. Increase the amount people in those districts have to pay toward Medicare up to the full cost of the insurance depending on their income.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to farmers, corporations, oil companies, etc. in those districts.

5. Eliminate the pensions, medical insurance, and other perks their retired Congress people and senators receive from the Federal Government.  They should have to be part of the same system everyone else depends on.  This is for every representative from now on.

6. Eliminate most contracted jobs in the military that soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen used to do.  If we don’t have enough military personnel to do those jobs, we can’t deploy.

I understand that none of this is in the “Tea Party” plan because their philosophy is “cut the government, but don’t cut my parts of it.  Everyone else is draining the system, not me or mine.”  This is hypocracy, of course, but isn’t that the subtitle for their whole movement?  We are paying less in taxes by percent than we have in generations, yet they cry “Taxes are too high."  The citizens in their districts benefit significantly from Government services and subsidies, yet they insight fear of the Government in the people

Tea Partiers refuse to see (or, perhaps are even glad to see) that the income gap between rich and poor continues to increase.  They can’t even imagine that fairness would demand the wealthiest Americans help to support the nation that gave them the opportunity to be where they are. 

Of course, it is easier to support the wealthiest and most powerful than to champion the most vulnerable.  You can just guess where the money for their next election is coming from.  And, an unmoving “pledge” not to raise taxes is easier than actually thinking about what is best for America, even what is best for the people of their own districts. 

Maybe the deeper cut we need is to cut them out of the Congress next year.  In the meantime, perhaps the media should place less emphasis on their childish whining and ranting.

Ruth

LOOKING FOR PC

One might think from the title that this piece is about buying a home computer or expecting people to be politically correct.  Neither is the theme for this blog.  I want to discuss “Political Courage.” 

As our president and congress are working their way toward some kind of deal for raising the ceiling on our ability to borrow money, and on cutting the deficit, I have heard a lot of talk about political courage. 

It began with Paul Ryan’s proposed budget proposal which was called “courageous”, particularly in the media.  When examined more carefully, it showed little courage.  How much courage does it take to cut critical programs and funding for the most vulnerable people?  It seems only the “bleeding heart liberals” will fight to stop that (and we all know how effective they are).

Republicans, especially the Tea Party variety, are so tax-averse that they can’t conceive of even the wealthiest 2% paying a bit more to help get the country on an even keel.  Where is the courage?  Since no one is exactly thrilled with having to pay taxes, it does not require courage to stand unmoving against any kind of tax increase.  There is no problem with cutting the poor, elderly, and disabled off because even inept representatives and senators will never be in that position.  Once one is in Congress, health care and pensions are taken care of for life (through taxes, of course).

The Democrats are desperately watching the programs to improve the well-being in the country evaporate.  They've always supported these programs and, thus,  cling stubbornly to every aspect of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  These programs do need reworking and reshaping to reflect the needs of 21st Century America.  One can  understand their fear and reluctance to touch those programs because reworking them could devastate these supports, so desperately needed by so many.  Political courage requires respected Democrats to stand up and make realistic, practical suggestions for changes that would benefit everyone (e.g., have Social Security taxes paid on all income, raise the age to 70 years for collecting, discontinue Social Security for people earning more than $100,000.00 a year, but still allow Medicare when needed). 

And then there’s the military industrial complex!  Who has the guts to stand up to that monster?  No courage here!

There seems to be little courage on the state and local levels either.  Some governors and mayors are getting media attention by cutting programs, laying off state workers, blaming them for the state’s/city’s  woes.  It plays well, but isn’t true.  Now there are more folks unemployed.  Again, they hit programs that serve the disadvantaged who won’t make much of a fuss.  The politicians look like heroes because budgets are “balanced.” 

Political courage is standing up for what will be most helpful to the largest number of people.  It means holding personal standards of excellence and integrity that are reflected in one’s words and actions.  It requires one to explain positions to constituents in clear, honest language.  It also means acknowledging one’s weaknesses and mistakes and being able to grow in wisdom and understanding.

  

Courageous leaders might not be reelected, but they would certainly set a good example for the rest of America.  Maybe it could start a trend. 

Peace,

Ruth