Un-Debated Issues

Not long ago I wrote an article where I laid out the presidential candidate’s stands on 14 keys issues. We also have had all the presidential and vice presidential debates. But it seems to me that there were several keys issues that just plain were ignored by one or both candidates. On Bill Moyer’s broadcast Sunday Kathleen Hall Jamieson (of Factcheck.org) and Marty Kaplan brought up several of these issues.

Jamison wisely pointed out that neither candidate talked about what sacrifices the citizens are going to have to make in order to get the economy running again. Romney plan is economically impossible in the same way Ronald Reagan’s plan was; both lack the sacrifices  needed now and in the future that need to be made. Obama does not seem to push hard enough and talk through sacrifices needed to get a better society.

Kaplan bemoaned the fact that the issue of Plutocracy (or Oligarchy) vs. Democracy needs to be addressed. Or, in other words, how can we get the wealth of the country distributed on a more equitable basis? I would add to this the whole issue of election reform so that citizens have equal voice in the political debate.

There was also little discussion about the Wall Street and Bankers ethics and downright illegality and the needed regulations needed to control these industries. Again, money talks and influences both parties.

Likely the biggest issue that was and is ignored was climate change. Both seem to take the popular ostrich head in the sand approach and just ignore the issue. I suppose since we are recently back from Alaska and have seen up close and personal the effects of our current policy or lack of policies we have on the environment. Obama talks about the need for alternative and clean energy but does not seem strong enough on this issue. Romney on the other hand seems to be a drill baby drill dude, and use coal (dirty or clean if there is such a thing) without any regard for environmental impact.

All politicians like to talk about cutting taxes – Romney for everyone including the rich so trickledown economics gets another chance and Obama asking for a little bit from the rich. It will take more than a little bit. Romney wants to spend more on defense for some unknown reason and Obama has concern for social programs but neither talk enough of how we can get this done.

And both candidates go on about the national debt as a great evil. Sure, debt has an impact on future generations and the accusers of Obama said he has generated more debt than anyone which is misleading. Realistic numbers should come from the percentage of national debt to Gross Domestic Product and that changes the picture. I have written on this before with charts showing debt was much higher in the past when we recovered from the Great Depression and During WWII than now percentage wise. And the way we fought through those economic dilemmas was increase debt to get the economy going rather than reducing the debt which depresses an economy. Or, the accusation of the failed stimulus plan is bogus, it did not fail, but it did not go far enough to have a greater impact on society. Why are all the Keynesian economists not attacking this false argument? Likely because the average voter cannot distinguish between government spending influence on the economy and individuals business or home budgets which have to balance; or there is a big difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Kaplan is more partisan of the two who is clearly disenchanted with Romney and points out Romney shifts his point of view constantly depending on where he is and who he is talking to. I agree and see many Romneys: The religious Romney who seems good hearted and kind and caring for others; there is the capitalist Romney with his hedge fund Cain Capital who was all about making money with the ethic of a bottom line; there was the primary candidate Romney catering to the extreme right wing Republicans (Tea Partiers etc.) that have become the radical center of that party; and then there is the Presidential candidate Romney who is much more centrist just agrees with Obama on foreign policy and seems more presidential and moderate. He can claim to be able to create 12 million jobs, but that will happen if we elect Felix the Cat as president according to almost all economists. Romney appears to be a chameleon pragmatically changing his color whenever is works. It is pragmatic but lacks integrity.

Obama just has not come on strong enough; he has done a lot in an almost impossible presidential setting. Who could possibly follow following the Bush administration and the unprecedented damage he did to the economy, society programs and in international relations and the over 3 decades of short sighted supply side economics that drove the nation to its knees with a congress who Republican contingent openly admitted their prime directive was to get rid of him rather than look after the best interest of the nation and its citizens.

The next president will have a hard job, but it will be a piece of cake in comparison to the last four years.

Finally, there is the rampant misdirection, spin and downright lying that been in this election. Here in Wisconsin 100 people from outside the state have spent millions of dollars trying to smear and defeat democratic congressional candidates. The only good that has come from this is the general disgust over negative politicking (though it remains effective) and more folk going to fact checking sites on the internet and some newspapers have been better at calling out this falsehoods.

Bill Moyers twosome pointed out the power of presidential debates and how they make all such races tighter than those in the past. But they also point out that our voters have very limited attention spans and memories. Do we get the politicians we deserve and then condemn them all and do little about righting the system?

Future Uncertainty.

No one has a crystal ball to see how the future will come out, but Romney and others often complain the businesses are afraid to invest and spend because they are uncertain about the future economy. This is strange as Romney has said absolutely nothing, no specifics of how he would change that.

He says he would repeal Obamacare, the Affordable Health Care Act, but does not say what he would replace it with; we’re supposed to just trust him. Oh he would give coverage to people with pre-existing conditions – how, health insurance won’t do it unless they get paid, so where does that money come from?

He would get rid of the Dodd-Frank Act; then what? Deregulation is what cause the 2008 Wall Street collapse and we with it. He gives no indication of how he would deal bank requirements or how to do orderly bankruptcy.

He wants a $5 trillion tax cut (going primarily to the rich) and reduce debt. How does that work. Oh, he going to work with congress, trust them? They have blocked every proposal to reduce the budget deficit.

He says he will end loopholes and deductions for the wealthy, again no specifics. He said he would cap deductions at $17,000 then in a few days he said $25,000.

So he attacks Obama for creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and gives us more uncertainty.

Talk about uncertainty, Romney/Ryan scare me to death on economics. The only thing I fairly certain of is that as a retired, fixed income family, things will be worse for us as the ultra wealthy make out like bandits.

I do know that Romney thinks it’s fair for him to pay only 14% on his capital gains income “because it stimulates growth.” Horse pucky, it we middle class folk who will spend if we have it and grow the economy. But he has the audacity to say he will grow the middle class ~ how?

Be Informed: Don’t Read Newspapers or Watch TV

When I was an active pastor I would tell congregations occasionally to quit reading newspapers and watching and listening to mass media and to spend more time reading the Bible and they would have a more realistic, a more wholesome and better view of the world in which we live. They usually would give me an odd look.

I still believe what I said then. Newspapers and media today primary function is not to report news but to sell the news, or make money. That may not have always been true but it is certainly true today for the most part. As a result, news media generally reports bad news because it seems to sell better than good news. Would you go to a car race if there were no wrecks? Naw, folk like wrecks. Man bites dog is still the way news is sold.

Scripture on the other hand is more even handed. It reports good and bad news pretty evenhandedly  Interpreters of scripture will skew it one way or the other, but in my opinion it is pretty neutral and I would say it is more good news than bad news. With that said, interpreters of scripture have lens through which they interpret what they read; so, as another professor wisely told us, “The interpreter is part of the data.”

A similar thing can be said about political campaigns, do not listen to any political ads if you want to get at the truth of a candidate’s positions. Political ads intent is to sell their candidate not reveal that candidate and they want to demonize their opponent not give you a fair look at him or her. Again, bad news wins over good news and negative ads sell candidates better than positive ads. Sad but true. And today is especially realistic to realize that those with the most wealth have the greater say on the media. A good case in point is the massive amount of money coming from outside the state to demonize Tammy Baldwin. It was over $10 million a few weeks ago. And today I see Karl Rove’s political action group was going to be spending an additional 1.2 million airing a new ad attacking Baldwin. The same source said there is more than 300 million spent on election ads by super PACs coming from 100 people across the country. (from WMTV in Madison, WI.)

Despite all the crap on the internet, if you dig, you are more likely to come up with good and accurate data about news and political candidates. There is many good fact checking sites that are very helpful to folk who want to find out where politicians really stand and reliable news. You have to dig, but you can find it.

Again I say forget the news and political ads. Read your scriptures of your faith and search for objective internet resources. That seems so strange, but I think it is the way to go.

Now reading a book or two every now and then is a good idea as well as they can develop into a subject more deeply. Especially read some books by folk who positions you don’t agree with to keep balance in your mind.

Oh, I forgot magazines. I think they are better than newspapers, again they can write in more depth but they have degenerated as well but often you know their biases. I remember in seminary we had a professor that encouraged us to read Forbes magazine to get a picture of the world our parishioners live in and I think it was right then. Today, under Steve Forbes leadership it has just become a right wing political rag. Note the recent news that Newsweek will be available solely online in the near future. It’s a sign of the times.

So read a gospel, the word even means “good news.” Then surf the internet and pray for wisdom to discern the truth.

Romney’s Gantt Chart

The New York Times recently ran a rather flattering article on Mitt Romney as a manager who is unhurried and Socratic and a great detail man. Robert Reich had a problem with the article and so do I. [Isn’t the political right always accusing the NY Times of being too liberal?]

The piece tells how folk would come into Romney's office to be fired and leave thinking they had been promoted and surrounded himself with folk who could do his bidding well. They opine that Romney is a man who could run a government well.

This seems odd to me as throughout his campaign he and Ryan offer no details at all. He rattles off a number of platitudes and ideological blather but details? He will create 12 million jobs – no details and all based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Oh yes, he wants to get rid of Obamacare and do away with Dodd-Frank, but that is not doing anything. It sounds like he would replace Obamacare with Obamacare to me. Ah yes, then there is the little detail of his tax returns or rather no detail.

My guess is that Romney has a lot of detail men around him like he had at Bain Capital when it came to personal gain but as for the building of the great middle class – no details.

It seems rather like the last debate on foreign policy when Romney to answer questions with, “Yeah, whatever he (Obama) said.”

Oh yes, the Gantt chart for those of you who are not familiar with it; it was the invention of Henry Gantt who made a project schedule chart with start and finish dates of the essential things that needed to take place to get a project done. It’s great and I used them frequently in the ministry to get projects done clearly and keep everybody up to date and on time. Romney’s chart might look something like this.

[Goal:  get elected president]

/-last couple of years as governor --------------------to present/

    /--make lots of claims---/

                 /----mislead as much as possible----/

                      /-----condemn Obama policies--------/

                            /-----spend huge amounts of negative PAC $’s ---/

After election:

  /-------------------uhhhhh-------------------/ (We’ll figure that out later.)

I know, it’s not a very good Gantt chart but you get the idea.

As to the Socratic part? The Socratic method is to ask questions that guide and lead the listeners and responders to a logical choices you intend for them to make. It is a directive means to a truth to be understood and shared. Perhaps the best teaching method ever conceived. Romney as Socratic………….um, just can’t see it.

Visibility of Pros Souls

How do you feel when you see a basketball player cross themselves prior to making a freethrow? How about when Tim Tebow takes a knee in prayer after a touchdown? Or, when Bubba Watson or Webb Simpson attest to their belief in Jesus as Lord and savior after a win in a golf match? Steward Cink is quoted in Golf Digest, “I’m out here to win souls. I want people to ask me why I’m the same guy if I shoot 64 or 77. So happens, the better I play, the more cameras are on me, the more people can see how I am.” There was as whole article in that November 12^th edition of Golf Digest on the mix of golf and religion (some make no differentiation). They conclude moments like those I described make people uncomfortable and I have to admit I am among them, which may seem to some as an odd reaction from a preacher.

Golf Digest also noted that church attendance between 1990 to 2010 decreased from 42% to 37% and those figures are likely overstated (folk claim the go when they don’t.) Well of course, they’re watching or preparing to watch golf, or car races, football, basketball, tennis, underwater basket weaving etc. Well maybe, but it does seem to me that more people express religious fervor over their favorite sports and are far more knowledgeable about them than they are about religion. We are a nation of biblical illiterates but can quote totally worthless sports statistics until the cows come home (perhaps they are coming home from cow sports.) Frankly, I don’t care if you know all that sports trivia or not, but it does not compare in importance to eternal matters or ethical matters that affect our lives.

I would also like to tell Stewart Cink, who I think is a fine golfer and a good man, that he never saved anyone in his life or ever will; that lies entirely in the work of a savior; evangelicals also seems to get confused on this point.

I also taught school where prayer and scripture reading was done daily between second and third period of each school day. Fortunately, I had a free period then, but I didn’t like it. I didn’t like it because I believe in the separation of church and state, it was in essence a meaningless practice not taken seriously by most students, and not done well. And now we have cheerleaders demanding to right to have their players burst through banners with scripture messages on them; a wee bit obscene in my eyes.

Evangelicals in general make me uncomfortable as they often have the tendency to make discussions combative rather that mutual seeking; where you are wrong and I am right. I like my religion and bit more thoughtful and sympathetic as we are in a common struggle to come to grips with our own spirituality or lack of it.

Then there is that old saw that “you can talk about everything except religion and politics.” That is total hogwash to me, as they are the most important things we can and should be talking about, but we need to learn to talk about them civilly; which seems to be a lost art, yet it is the reason I write this blog, because I believe it.

Politics and especially religion I believe should be part of our normal daily conversation as natural as breathing or at least as common as talking about sports. Assuredly there is more at stake in religious conversation than there is in sports and that may be the reason folk are reluctant to talk about religion, and more comfortable talking about sports (but fights are notorious there as well) but it need not be so.

One fellow clergy member once described me something like this, “
Hugh, you are so comfortable with your religion that when you talk you sound like a heretic.” I liked the sentiment and he meant it kindly. In other words he said was the I have no practically no sense of piety; piety not in the good sense, but in the sense when we put on airs and importance about our religion and our role in it – stuffed shirt piety.

In my opinion God is active in every moment of our lives affecting us in all ways. It just seems reasonable to talk about it regularly and comfortably. If we accept Pascal’s wager, and bet on eternity with God, then it also makes sense we should spend some time on this earthly plane getting ready for conversations there. And if we’ve bet wrong, it has made for some interesting conversation; and I mean conversation not battles of egos.

Aside from that I thought the presidential debates were rather interesting. Now if we could just get rid of the bloody ads and bad conversations there as well.

How to Tell if You Are a Liberal

Lee Siegal in his mini book, Harvard Is Burning, blasts what he calls “elite liberals”. He is a New York writer writing in many periodicals who penned this very short book which is a bit funny but sheds little light on the subject. It is a bit like thumbing your nose at your parents.

Siegal presents his liberal beliefs with this list of beliefs: as believing in a single -payer health care system, redistribution of wealth via a more equitable tax code, a significant raise in minimum wage, expanding entitlements for the poor, sick, and elderly, against capital punishment and privatizing education, for gay marriage, basic rights for illegal aliens, and gun control.

So now you have a list which is better than his book. If you agree with those principles you are a liberal, even if you think otherwise.

An Athenian Fear of Oligarchy

Marilyn Wedge, PhD in Psychology Today writes about how the Athenians feared that their democracy would turn into oligarchy. They drew lots for government officials, we vote.

This is still an important fear for those who those who support democracy in our country. Plato describes their fears well in The Republic. Plato believed oligarchy was government by “greedy men” who love money and are reluctant to pay taxes for the common good. Plato bends the word oligarchy (government by the few) a bit to government by the few wealthy.

The greedy oligarchs believe they are their fellow rich should be given wealth  into their hands while the rest of society is reduced to poverty. Bill Moyers recently noted this similarity to the Athenians when referring to the recent Supreme Court decision that changed the law of the land to make corporations persons which in turn gives them more say that others in the electoral process; or better, a louder voice via media ad purchases.

Athenians saw the dangers of democracy polarizing their country and we certainly see that in evidence today. Again, as Plato puts it, “hate and power plot against one another” or oligarchy by nature is a breeding ground for class warfare.

Plato goes on to speak of the moral cost of oligarchy, “he is not really one person, but in some way a double man” or oligarchs try to appear respectable but are not really virtuous. Oligarchs lose the ability to have genuine concern of the well beings of persons and society.

In my opinion the Athenians have much to teach us as I fear we have already become an oligarchy and need to find a way back to democracy.

Wealthy Pessimists

Thomas B. Edsall writing in the NY Times about a Northwestern University economists research paper that looks at the future trends from an economic perspective (via Bill Moyer’s blog.)  Robert Gordon who wrote this paper talks of 3 industrial revolutions: steam and railroads (1750-1830); electricity (1870-1900) and computers (1960 to the present). He does not see a fourth.

All of this has to do with the economic imbalance of money in our society. Edsall believes that the wealthy are very pessimistic about the future and are working hard just to protect the wealth.

He says: “Affluent Republicans – the donor and policy base of the conservative movement — are on red alert. They want to protect and enhance their position in a future of diminished resources. What really provokes the ferocity with which the right currently fights for regressive tax and spending policies is a deeply pessimistic vision premised on a future of hard times. This vision has prompted the Republican Party to adopt a preemptive strategy that anticipates the end of growth and the onset of sustained austerity – a strategy to make sure that the size of their slice of the pie doesn’t get smaller as the pie shrinks.

It is an interesting premise that explains why the wealthy are so resistant to building up the middle class and creating real economic growth ~ as seen in the positions of Romney and Obama.

Now contrast this to a video on YouTube video by Nick Hanauer, a capitalist who understands that only consumers create jobs rather than capitalists. His video is well worth watching and stands in sharp opposition to the views of the affluent Republicans Edsalls mentions. Please take a look. http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplI

Here’s to optimism over pessimism. In my view it is more realistic and pragmatic.

Thank Liberals For Saving American

Reflection and more on Alan Colmes book of How Liberals Saved America. Colmes is a Fox News radio host, go figure. He is known for his wit and human and his intellect and he works for FOX news; it fairly boggles the mind. Some thoughts that come forward include the following.

America was founded on a liberal idea – a representative democracy without a state religion. That makes it left of England where the Church of England dictated laws and mores. Freedom of religion was created here to get rid of the oppression of religion.

There are no religious tests to hold office – liberal.

The commander and chief of the army is a civilian – liberal.

Taxation shall have representation – liberal.

A three part government for checks and balances – liberal.

The constitution is based upon English Law dating back to the Magna Carta (1215) not the bible – liberal.

Common law comes from the people night a “higher authority” – liberal.

No titles of nobility, or centralized power vested in one person – liberal.

The Declaration of Independence stated legal and natural rights – liberal.

All people are equal – liberal.

And the list goes on today liberal ideas of social security, Medicare, assistance to the elderly, government safety nets, governmental roles in regulating economic fluctuations, etc.

This is the heritage of liberal thinking and liberals continue to lead the way for the common good and sharing our nations prosperity among all our people.

Colmes shows in his book how liberals define our nation and move it forward. He promotes the idea that we must continue to become ever more liberal, progressive, for us to remain the beacon of freedom and democracy for the world.

For those who are old enough you will recognize the liberal ideas were not solely embodied in the Democratic Party but was also historically integral in the Republican party. Lincoln was a liberal. Look at the medical proposals of Richard Nixon, among many Republican leaders prior to the Reagan era which were more liberal than Obamacare. Liberality, which the extreme right today often uses as a dirty word today, extends beyond party belief. It stands at the foundation of our democracy and continues in programs and legislation that reflect care for all Americans today.

Separation of Church and State

One of the fundamental and important principles of our country’s founders was the separation of church and state. That stance has been largely accepted and followed throughout most of our history and is wise. Unfortunately such is no longer the case.

We can see the beginning of that change in the election campaign of Ronal Reagan who found willing political allies among the religious right, the more extreme religious right and made use of them.

In the many years I served as a pastor I always encouraged members of my congregations to be politically active as members of this country. I also encouraged them to use their religious values in determining who they voted for. These were privileges, rights and obligations they had both as Christians and as citizens. With that said, I never ever once said who they should vote for in a sermon or in my role as pastor. I looked upon that as an absolute abuse of a sacred office and unethical for a pastor to do. I still believe that. It is one of joys I have as a retired pastor is that I no longer have to worry about the public role I had as a working pastor and now have the freedom to express my political views along with my religious views; thus the reason for this blog.

I wish my brothers and sisters of the cloth on the religious right had a similar stance. I find their use of the pulpit as a bully pulpit for a particular candidate repugnant, unethical, and an abuse of their office and often reflecting incredibly poor biblical understanding.

In the years since Reagan we have seen more and more of the religious right pursuing this unethical behavior in their pulpits. The Republicans have accepted and embraced this support to their shame as it stands counter the constitution and reflects a mix of religion and politics that was honored by politicians of character.

The type of pandering to these vested interests by political candidates (Rick Santorum is an example of one of the worst of these) I find revolting. There have been great leaders such as President Kennedy and others when pressed responded with integrity to both their religious beliefs and the political beliefs while affirming the belief in the separation of church and state.

The presidency has been used and used properly as a bully pulpit for national issues by many presidents and they used their office to push forward ideas and legislation that would benefit the nation and educated the nation; Teddy Roosevelt was a master of this and as a result we have the many protected national parks we have today for all to enjoy.

I repeat again that I find it incongruent and morally wrong for folk attempting to push the religious values upon others in national law when those issues clearly belong to the church. It is counter the teachings of both parties but the conservatives have shown over and over again this inconsistency in their political platforms and stances. If you cannot see the difference between protecting individual freedom and the inflicting of moral practices upon others you reflect muddy logic and inconsistent beliefs, and reflect badly upon both your religion and our civic duty.

Romney’s 12 Million Jobs Claim

Pretty bold claim huh? Only two presidents have seen more than 12 million jobs created during their administrations – Reagan and Clinton.

Romney says he would create 500,000 a month, however, he would only need half that, 250,000, to reach his claim. We currently add about 150,000 a month.

If we avoid a recession if the year-end budget is not reached, the Congregational Budget Office believes that 9.6 million jobs will be created in the next 4 years, not matter who is president. Moody’s analytics predicts 12 million as well as others.

So my guess is that we Romney’s prediction is most likely to come true, especially if he does not become president and institute even worse trickle down economics.

Extreme Positions ~ for example health care

It always amuses me to see all the political ads the proclaim the extreme positions of “Liberals” when they are the ones that really promote the more extreme positions.

In particular in our state Tammy Baldwin is attacked as nearly demonic in her extreme, radical support of national health care. The question is extreme by whose criteria?

Here is a list of countries with forms of universal health care:

Country	Start Date of Universal Health Care	System Type
Click links for more source material on each country’s health care system.
Norway	1912	Single Payer
New Zealand	1938	Two Tier
Japan	1938	Single Payer
Germany	1941	Insurance Mandate
Belgium	1945	Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom	1948	Single Payer
Kuwait	1950	Single Payer
Sweden	1955	Single Payer
Bahrain	1957	Single Payer
Brunei	1958	Single Payer
Canada	1966	Single Payer
Netherlands	1966	Two-Tier
Austria	1967	Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates	1971	Single Payer
Finland	1972	Single Payer
Slovenia	1972	Single Payer
Denmark	1973	Two-Tier
Luxembourg	1973	Insurance Mandate
France	1974	Two-Tier
Australia	1975	Two Tier
Ireland	1977	Two-Tier
Italy	1978	Single Payer
Portugal	1979	Single Payer
Cyprus	1980	Single Payer
Greece	1983	Insurance Mandate
Spain	1986	Single Payer
South Korea	1988	Insurance Mandate
Iceland	1990	Single Payer
Hong Kong	1993	Two-Tier
Singapore	1993	Two-Tier
Switzerland	1994	Insurance Mandate
Israel	1995	Two-Tier
United States	2014?	Insurance Mandate

Will the United States join this list in 2014?

[1] Roughly 15% of Americans lack insurance coverage, so the US clearly has not yet achieved universal health care. There is no universal definition of developed or industrialized nations. For this list, those countries with UN Human Development Index scores above 0.9 on a 0 to 1 scale are considered developed.

[2] The dates given are estimates, since universal health care arrived gradually in many countries. In Germany for instance, government insurance programs began in 1883, but did not reach universality until 1941. Typically the date provided is the date of passage or enactment for a national health care Act mandating insurance or establishing universal health insurance.

Are these countries all extreme? 32 of 33 developed nations. Not to have universal health care seems extreme in my humble opinion.

A couple of charts for those who like those.

Social health protection:^[9] Proportion of the population covered by law, latest available year (percentages)^[10]

  Less than 10%

  10-40%

  40-70%

  70-95%

  More than 95%

  No data

Or perhaps this from Wikipedia is more helpful.
The U.S. stands almost entirely alone among developed nations that lack universal health care.