The Conservative Right may have dug themselves into a very deep hole. As I last reported, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, which was first enacted by Democrat President Bill Clinton, has been repealed. Although technically “illegal” until the appropriate bureaucratic steps are completed, it’s now essentially legal to be openly gay in the US military (there are already 23 other countries where gays openly serve in the military. So much for that ole “first in freedom” line I suppose).
So, here’s the next quandary for the Republicans and the Conservative Right (especially for the socially Conservative). If it’s now ok to volunteer to fight, and possibly die or become disabled in the defense of this country, why isn’t ok to marry the person they love regardless of their gender? Now I can just see some finger wagging Conservative hyperventilating and accusing me of not being “pure enough” to be a Conservative and that’s ok. It’s a “relatively’ free country at the moment, but it also doesn’t change the argument.
Vice President Biden recently said that he would support a measure to make gay marriage legal, which in my opinion is no big deal. I personally couldn’t care less what Biden thinks, but it does give some indication as to which way the White House will lean on the issue. Of course, “Hollyweird” and “Left Coast” has long been a proponent of gay marriage and all things liberal. Perhaps more important that the Vice President’s opinion is Oprah’s opinion, and she is an ardent supporter of gay marriage.
On a personal level, I’ve always believed that marriage should be between a man and woman. When I ran for State Representative in 2004, the issue of allowing gay marriage was on the ballot, and I, for one, opposed it. My opponent, Denver Butler, a Democrat and perhaps more tellingly, a conservative Catholic, opposed it too. In fact, you were hard pressed to find anyone outside of Jefferson County (Louisville) who supported it (it was hard to even find someone in Jefferson County, which is perhaps the most “liberal” of Kentucky’s 120 counties, who supported it. The issue failed overwhelmingly by the way). My logic was that marriage was something that formed the nucleus of society; the very foundation of civilization itself. People got married for the purpose of creating and raising a family; passing on knowledge; adding to the workforce; it created familial units which in turn, created villages, communities, towns, and cities. All this, of course, increased the exchange of ideas and thus, systems of government and religions were created. Well, I’m sure you get my point.
However, in looking back at history, I found the gay relationships openly existed. In fact, they were generally quite common. The Sumerians had them. So did the Babylonians. The Hittites and Assyrians, both notably militaristic, had them, as did the Persians and Greeks (remember Alexander the Great?). Even the mighty Roman Empire had openly gay relationships. On the other hand, I didn’t find any evidence that the Egyptians did or for the matter, the Chinese. In fact, some ancient civilizations down right forbid it on pain of death, such as the Huns, Vandals, Mongols, Goths, Norse, Celts, and Germanic tribes.
Of particular importance was that I didn’t find mention of acceptance among the certain nomadic Semite tribes, such as the Hebrews. Their reasoning, as was the Egyptians by the way, was that the desired outcome of a sexual encounter was to produce offspring, which was seen as a form of wealth in what was an agricultural or nomadic society. It seems to me that gay relationship seemed to be more openly accepted as the complexity of a given society increased and/or became more settled.
In today’s society, relationships are not always about procreation any more. They are just as often about companionship or financial arrangements. Technology has made knowledge available to everyone equally. As we become more global, we are exposed to more cultural traditions and religions. No longer are we just Judeo-Christian society. As such, does society therefore have a right or obligation to impose what is chiefly Judeo-Christian values system onto others? There’s a tenet in the ancient nature oriented religion of Wicca which says “Do as you will, but do not harm to others”. Should an otherwise upstanding individual be denied what you and I take for granted, that is, the legal right to share our lives with whomever we chose? We’ve agreed they have the right to fight and die for the freedoms this country stands for, and yet we as a society have said that they don’t have the right to legal relationship with someone of the same gender.
Of course, there are many other issues to consider, such as the right of survivorship, insurance coverage, healthcare coverage, joint ownership of property, a tax deduction, right to adopt, etc. By repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the GOP and its Conservative allies, have opened Pandora’s Box, and perhaps it’s a box which needs to be opened. Certainly, we as a society need to reexamine what constitutes a legal as well as moral relationship and what, if any, are its boundaries.
The Gouge Gage
As just about every holiday traveler will tell you, gas prices across the country are outrageous. The AAA reported on 12/10/10 that the average price for a gallon of unleaded was $2.98. A week before, it was eight cents cheaper? So what happened in one week to see that kind of an increase? Well, oil company officials will tell you some cockamamie story about a price adjustment due to oil production on a rig in BFG being affected by the flight pattern of birds. The truth as you and I know is much simpler. It was an opportunity to gouge consumers while knowing damn good and well that the government won’t do a thing to interfere. In fact, it’s government’s job to clear the way for the oil companies by creating the illusion of “protecting” us.
Former Shell Oil Chief, John Hofmeister predicted that by 2012, the price of a gallon of gas will be $5.00. He’s not far off the mark. Already, the average price where I live is over $3.00 a gallon. People who are making at or just above minimum wage are already talking about it becoming to expensive to go to work. With bus routes being cut, what are lower income people supposed to do? I don’t see this as a Democrat or Republican issue. I see this simply as corporate greed running amuck and being all but sanctioned by the government. Perhaps the time to nationalize the oil industry is about to dawn.
A few months ago I reviewd a book by Dr. Ida Lichter entitled “Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression” which is published by Prometheus Books, New York. If you haven’t read it yet, you seriously need to. This is perhaps one of the most important books ever written about conservative Islam and its treatment of women you’ll ever read. Recently, Dr. Lichter wrote an article for the Huffington Post (12/20/10) about an often overlooked relgious group, the Bahai and the human rights violations they suffer daily in Iran. I thought you would find the article as compelling as I did.
Baha’is in Iran are Easily Forgotten
Wikileaks has revealed government and diplomatic violations of the truth while paradoxically keeping their own sources secret. In the process, editor in chief and whistleblower Julian Assange has become a hero for human rights defenders. Sadly, the intense publicity surrounding Wikileaks diverts attention from serious injustice and continuing human rights violations, some already on the back burner and badly neglected. A good example is the state-sponsored persecution of Baha'is in Iran.
The 300,000-strong Baha'i community, the largest religious minority in Iran, represents less than 1% of the population. Over the past 30 years, they have suffered torture and execution. They have been denied tertiary education and government jobs, their shops and properties are often seized, cemeteries desecrated and children harassed at school. In addition, Bahai's are facing stepped-up persecution and have been falsely blamed for organizing and inciting anti-government protests although they abstain from partisan political activity on religious principles. Charges against them include espionage, "propaganda activities against the Islamic order" and "corruption on earth," the latter a capital offence. Baha'i communities around the world insist these charges are spurious and part of a campaign to scapegoat members of the faith.
During the Shah's era, Baha'is strove for education and became successful and prominent, creating envy and suspicion, and although police sometimes protected them against Islamic extremists, they were victims of periodic outbreaks of violence.
A major source of ideological friction with Islam is the doctrine of a hierarchy of traditions that subsumes previous ones. According to Baha'is, the Prophet Mohammad was not the last prophet but one in a progressive line, and the next one is not due for a thousand years!
Women's rights are central to Baha'i teaching and in stark contrast to the discriminatory sharia laws implemented by the Islamic Republic of Iran. These rights include full support for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
There are numerous documented stories of violent arrests and incarcerations in the hundreds of prisons situated in basements of houses in Tehran.
Rozita Vasseghi is a Baha'i prisoner. In Kafkaesque fashion, a man claiming to be a 'postman' arrested her three years ago after a knock on the door, and during repeated interrogations while blindfolded, her captors threatened her with death. Throughout her ordeal, she was denied a lawyer. Following release from prison, she found a job but government authorities exerted pressure on her employers to have her fired. A few years later, she was arrested at her home, and for the next six months, found herself in solitary confinement. Her elderly mother, who was allowed visits of only five minutes, was horrified by her wasted appearance. Accused of insulting Islam, acting against national security and teaching the Baha'i religion, she is serving a five-year sentence.
Rozita's sister Rosa, suffered multiple incarcerations before escaping Iran. She was on her way home in a shared public taxi when the driver asked about her religion. Discovering she was a Baha'i, he stopped and made a phone call. A car with several people soon showed up, the women fully covered in chadors. Rosa was blindfolded and forced into the vehicle and when they reached their destination, she was thrown onto the pavement, her hands were tied and she was dragged down stairs to a room and beaten. Her captors repeatedly called her an infidel and declared her blood would be impure until she renounced her faith and converted to Islam. Over several years, she was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned.
As proponents of a religion originating from Islam, stamped by modernity, universal human rights and compatibility with many Western values, Baha'is are vulnerable targets for persecution by the Iranian theocracy. Baha'i women are doubly at risk, being female and Baha'i, and as victims of severe injustice, they deserve more outrage and support than Assange and Wikileaks.
Ida Lichter is the author of Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression, published by Prometheus Books, New York.
Showing posts with label Don't Ask Don't Tell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don't Ask Don't Tell. Show all posts
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Care
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is currently the byword of US military personnel policy, and yet something about it smack of a lie; something to be hidden or only whispered about. Perhaps it’s just me (which I wouldn’t doubt in the least), but I can’t understand all the fuss. I served in the US military during the later years of the Cold War, following America’s first military defeat in the jungles and swamps of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (our defeat was, I want to remind our readers, the result of inept American politicians and politicalized US generals and not the rank and file Solders, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. They were and remain the best and bravest).
During my tour of duty, there was two fast ways to a General Discharge (as opposed to an honorable one). One was to publicly announce that you hated officers and the other was to be gay. I knew two Navy Corpsmen who were gay while I was stationed at NS Treasure Island in San Francisco in the 1970’s. In checking out their personnel records, I discovered that both were on their third enlistments. Both had volunteered to serve with Marines in Vietnam. Both had outstanding evaluations. Both were excellent at what they did and had the ribbons and citations to prove it. Had I “ratted them out”, both these outstanding sailors would have literally been given a General Discharge and would been out of Uncle Sam’s Yacht Club within 24 hours.
Before I go any further, I should point out that I’m 100% hetro. I didn’t even like playing with the same toys growing up! The issue was what to do? Well, I did nothing, and why should I? Both men were outstanding sailors. Besides, I personally didn’t care what anyone’s sexual orientation was then or now. Who you’re attracted to is, frankly, none of either my business or for that matter, society’s. Now, if either of these gentlemen had deviated one iota from what was expected of them as either sailors or Corpsmen, you bet your “Dixie cup” I would have taken whatever steps were necessary to have them removed from this man’s Navy; not because they were gay, but because they weren’t doing their jobs and that could get people hurt or killed.
It has been my experience that today’s youth doesn’t see someone’s sexual preferences as an issue. The overwhelming majority of those who would be military age either know of or are friends with individuals who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, or even transgendered. To them, it’s no big deal. So, if they are the ones who are actually serving and they aren’t bothered by it, why should the military “Brass” and politicians? I liken it to women serving onboard Naval ships. At first, everyone was complaining about how they would “be in the way” or “be a distraction” and result in injuries, pregnancies, or cause disciplinary actions. But you know what? Not much happened after all, and nowadays, not many even notice.
In doing some further research on the subject, I found that 72% of those surveyed either didn’t care or supported gays openly serving in the military. Twenty three other militaries in the world allow gays to openly serve in their militaries. Of the key group, those who were between 18 and 34 years of age, 73% favored gays being allowed to serve while 23% favored Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (the remaining 4% felt that gays shouldn’t serve at all). Augmenting this, 83% said they had gay friends.
When it came to politically ideology, there really weren’t any surprises. 46% of Conservatives supported the current Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, with 14% saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all. Only 41% felt that gays should be allowed to serve openly. Moderates, regardless of party registration, favored allowing gays to openly serve by 66% to 30% against with the difference not wanting gays in the military at all. Naturally, Liberals were the most open to allowing gays in the service with 86% approving. When it came to gender, women were more open than men were by 79% to 68%.
Lastly, when former military personnel were asked about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, 57% of those who were enlisted favored doing away with DADT compared with 54% of officers who agree. Interestingly, 74% of those who never served supported gays openly serving.
I really don’t care and don’t really need to know about someone else’s preference, be it in the military, school, or in the business world. The bottom line regarding our Armed Forces is, at least to me, that we should be more concerned about the quality of our military and not about their sexual orientation. Our emphasis should be on the emotional stability, education, and training of our military personnel as individuals, not who they are attracted to. It’s performance not preference.
As I put the final touches on this article, I read where Don’t Ask Don’t tell has been repelled by the US Senate by a vote of 65 to 31. 8 Republicans joined with 57 Democrats to overturn the current law which came into effect under President Bill Clinton in 1993. An estimated 14,000 servicemen and women have been discharged since the law’s passage. But don’t look for the any changes soon. The president, Congress and Joint Chiefs of Staff have to certify that the change will not negatively impact any of the military branches. Then the Pentagon has 60 days to create a program for the changes to be implemented. In total, we’re looking at 6 to 9 months at least. You just gotta love bureaucracy.
For further information, please visit: (http://blog.hunch.com/?p=14704&SEMref=Google5&kw=gays%20in%20the%20military&gclid=CMPoxp725qUCFdk65Qod6CsY1w and http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt)
Playing Roulette With the Country's Future
By Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson,
Authors of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis
A new and updated version is due out in January. Find out more at PublicAgenda.org
There's something about playing roulette that makes everyone feel a little like the uber suave James Bond. You can picture the actor of your choice (we're not doctrinaire here), but they all make gambling seem glamorous. Not knowing exactly what will happen adds an agreeable tension to the drama. A clever screenwriter has labored long and hard to insure a satisfying outcome. Casablanca makes roulette alluring too. Remember when Rick steps in to fix the results so a dewy-eyed ingénue and her husband win enough money to escape the Nazis? It's one of the best scenes in the movie.
The problem is that things don't always work out so nicely in real life - - and rarely does anyone step in to fix a game of roulette in your favor. That's why it's so disturbing to see the country's leaders playing roulette with the country's economic future by procrastinating on tackling our massive debt and budget problems.
Basically, they're betting that the government can continue to spend more than it takes in, because people around the world will be glad to keep lending to us by buying our Treasury bonds. In the short term, it's not a bad bet. Given the world's shaky economy, the U.S. government is still a better investment than most.
And in the long run? As David Brooks so succinctly puts in, "The bond markets are with you until the second they are against you. When the psychology shifts . . . the shock will be grievous: national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain." 1 FDIC chair Sheila Blair, who certainly knows a thing or two about what happens when investors lose confidence, warns of danger too: "Financial markets are already sending disquieting signals," she recently wrote.
It's no secret that the most bipartisan position in Washington has been the determination of both parties to live beyond our means for decades. And outside of government, public frustration is high, but realism remains low.
On the right, the Tea Partiers furiously demand that government get dramatically smaller, slashing spending by huge amounts to balance the budget now. Some even argue that Congress should slam the brakes on borrowing overnight, by refusing to raise the government's debt ceiling. The Tea Partiers rage against the machine, but seem unprepared for any frank discussion of how the federal government really spends its money, or the human consequences of its ideas.
But even if the Tea Party's champions in Congress could get their agenda through - - and governing is considerably balkier than complaining and criticizing -- such a sudden lurch into smaller government would be wrenching. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling could be disastrous. Tens of thousands of federal and state workers would lose their jobs in the middle of the Great Recession. Schools and colleges around the country would face massive cutbacks. The global bond markets, already nervous about the debt crisis in Europe, might start dumping U.S. bonds as well. The right likes to slam big government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there are millions of human beings depending on them. You don't make major changes in these programs overnight.
The situation on the left is as just as bad. Despite careful, non-partisan assessments from multiple analysts inside and outside government detailing Social Security's shaky future funding, there is a profoundly disingenuous mantra coming from some progressives: "Don't worry. Don't touch it. There's no serious problem. The Trust Fund is good until 2037."
Yes, but Trust Fund is filled with government bonds, and Social Security will start drawing on the bonds in about five years. Those bonds guarantee that Social Security benefits are first in line when the government pays its bills - - people will get their checks. But that money has to come from somewhere, and the government's own auditors say the only way to do that is by raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing from someplace else. In other words, something else in the budget has to give.
Do progressives really believe the country will suddenly be flush enough to cover Social Security and still pay for all the other spending these very same progressives want? And by claiming there's no problem, they undercut public backing for the ideas they do support, like raising the income cap on Social Security taxes. Why would people want to raise Social Security taxes on anyone if there's no problem?
There's a reasonable discussion about how quickly to move to bring the country's spending in line with its revenues given how weak the U.S. economy is. Huge, abrupt program cuts, big sudden tax hikes, pulling the plug on infrastructure and educational spending that is crucial to having a competitive economy down the road - - these are all risky, both economically and socially. Boring old long-term planning and gradualism are probably the only sensible ways out. But there is no time to delay on starting a reality-based discussion.
A recent Public Agenda survey of Washington insiders - - people whose careers revolve around the federal government - - showed that a whopping 8 in 10 agreed that the only way to solve the country's federal budget problem is to combine spending cuts and tax increases. Why don't these people step up to the plate and say something? Largely, they're silent. Meanwhile, we have profiles in cowardice in Congress and relentless volleys of self-serving spin coming from both the left and the right.
The trouble with roulette is that the house nearly always wins, and players who don't know when to quit lose their shirts. What American needs now is leadership that understands when it's time to leave the roulette table and leave the gambling to others.
1 The New York Times
2 The Washington Post
© 2010 Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, authors of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis.
Author Bios
Scott Bittle, author of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, is the Director of Public Issues Analysis at Public Agenda and is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.
Jean Johnson, co-author of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, is the Director of Education Insights and Director of Programs at Public Agenda, is a co-founder of PublicAgenda.org. She is the author or co-author of studies on education, families, religion, race relations, manners and civility, retirement, welfare, and health care.
For more information please visit PublicAgenda.org and follow the authors on Facebook and Twitter
Book Review
Drowning in Oil: BP and Reckless Pursuit of Profit
By Loren C. Steffy
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” uttered by Jack Nicholson’s character Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men is one of the most famous lines in cinematic history. Author Loren C. Steffy has written the literary equivalent. His book, Drowning in Oil: BP and the Reckless Pursuit of Profit reads a like a Tom Clancy novel. It’s packed with intrigue, rich oil barons and sheiks and kings, as well as political and industrial skullduggery against a backdrop of backroom politics and corruption. In the name of profit, 18 lives were lost, countless lives and businesses impacted as well livelihoods (some generations in the making), destroyed. And did I mention the 200 million barrels of crude oil which flowed into the delicate ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico and onto the bayous, and beaches as far away as Florida?
The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon was a time bomb which didn’t need to happen as Steffy deftly explains, but it did. Steffy takes the reader on an engrossing journey through the boardroom and backrooms of a very elite club to revel the reasons why the greatest man-made disaster to date happened, and who, in reality, was to blame.
The book is 259 pages of excitement. Well written and researched, Drowning in Oil hooks the reader like the best mystery novel, but the events described are all too real. An excellent book for anyone interested in political or corporate corruption, energy, the environment, current events, or just likes an engaging book. This book tops my recommendation list! Can you handle the truth?
During my tour of duty, there was two fast ways to a General Discharge (as opposed to an honorable one). One was to publicly announce that you hated officers and the other was to be gay. I knew two Navy Corpsmen who were gay while I was stationed at NS Treasure Island in San Francisco in the 1970’s. In checking out their personnel records, I discovered that both were on their third enlistments. Both had volunteered to serve with Marines in Vietnam. Both had outstanding evaluations. Both were excellent at what they did and had the ribbons and citations to prove it. Had I “ratted them out”, both these outstanding sailors would have literally been given a General Discharge and would been out of Uncle Sam’s Yacht Club within 24 hours.
Before I go any further, I should point out that I’m 100% hetro. I didn’t even like playing with the same toys growing up! The issue was what to do? Well, I did nothing, and why should I? Both men were outstanding sailors. Besides, I personally didn’t care what anyone’s sexual orientation was then or now. Who you’re attracted to is, frankly, none of either my business or for that matter, society’s. Now, if either of these gentlemen had deviated one iota from what was expected of them as either sailors or Corpsmen, you bet your “Dixie cup” I would have taken whatever steps were necessary to have them removed from this man’s Navy; not because they were gay, but because they weren’t doing their jobs and that could get people hurt or killed.
It has been my experience that today’s youth doesn’t see someone’s sexual preferences as an issue. The overwhelming majority of those who would be military age either know of or are friends with individuals who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, or even transgendered. To them, it’s no big deal. So, if they are the ones who are actually serving and they aren’t bothered by it, why should the military “Brass” and politicians? I liken it to women serving onboard Naval ships. At first, everyone was complaining about how they would “be in the way” or “be a distraction” and result in injuries, pregnancies, or cause disciplinary actions. But you know what? Not much happened after all, and nowadays, not many even notice.
In doing some further research on the subject, I found that 72% of those surveyed either didn’t care or supported gays openly serving in the military. Twenty three other militaries in the world allow gays to openly serve in their militaries. Of the key group, those who were between 18 and 34 years of age, 73% favored gays being allowed to serve while 23% favored Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (the remaining 4% felt that gays shouldn’t serve at all). Augmenting this, 83% said they had gay friends.
When it came to politically ideology, there really weren’t any surprises. 46% of Conservatives supported the current Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, with 14% saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve at all. Only 41% felt that gays should be allowed to serve openly. Moderates, regardless of party registration, favored allowing gays to openly serve by 66% to 30% against with the difference not wanting gays in the military at all. Naturally, Liberals were the most open to allowing gays in the service with 86% approving. When it came to gender, women were more open than men were by 79% to 68%.
Lastly, when former military personnel were asked about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, 57% of those who were enlisted favored doing away with DADT compared with 54% of officers who agree. Interestingly, 74% of those who never served supported gays openly serving.
I really don’t care and don’t really need to know about someone else’s preference, be it in the military, school, or in the business world. The bottom line regarding our Armed Forces is, at least to me, that we should be more concerned about the quality of our military and not about their sexual orientation. Our emphasis should be on the emotional stability, education, and training of our military personnel as individuals, not who they are attracted to. It’s performance not preference.
As I put the final touches on this article, I read where Don’t Ask Don’t tell has been repelled by the US Senate by a vote of 65 to 31. 8 Republicans joined with 57 Democrats to overturn the current law which came into effect under President Bill Clinton in 1993. An estimated 14,000 servicemen and women have been discharged since the law’s passage. But don’t look for the any changes soon. The president, Congress and Joint Chiefs of Staff have to certify that the change will not negatively impact any of the military branches. Then the Pentagon has 60 days to create a program for the changes to be implemented. In total, we’re looking at 6 to 9 months at least. You just gotta love bureaucracy.
For further information, please visit: (http://blog.hunch.com/?p=14704&SEMref=Google5&kw=gays%20in%20the%20military&gclid=CMPoxp725qUCFdk65Qod6CsY1w and http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt)
Playing Roulette With the Country's Future
By Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson,
Authors of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis
A new and updated version is due out in January. Find out more at PublicAgenda.org
There's something about playing roulette that makes everyone feel a little like the uber suave James Bond. You can picture the actor of your choice (we're not doctrinaire here), but they all make gambling seem glamorous. Not knowing exactly what will happen adds an agreeable tension to the drama. A clever screenwriter has labored long and hard to insure a satisfying outcome. Casablanca makes roulette alluring too. Remember when Rick steps in to fix the results so a dewy-eyed ingénue and her husband win enough money to escape the Nazis? It's one of the best scenes in the movie.
The problem is that things don't always work out so nicely in real life - - and rarely does anyone step in to fix a game of roulette in your favor. That's why it's so disturbing to see the country's leaders playing roulette with the country's economic future by procrastinating on tackling our massive debt and budget problems.
Basically, they're betting that the government can continue to spend more than it takes in, because people around the world will be glad to keep lending to us by buying our Treasury bonds. In the short term, it's not a bad bet. Given the world's shaky economy, the U.S. government is still a better investment than most.
And in the long run? As David Brooks so succinctly puts in, "The bond markets are with you until the second they are against you. When the psychology shifts . . . the shock will be grievous: national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain." 1 FDIC chair Sheila Blair, who certainly knows a thing or two about what happens when investors lose confidence, warns of danger too: "Financial markets are already sending disquieting signals," she recently wrote.
It's no secret that the most bipartisan position in Washington has been the determination of both parties to live beyond our means for decades. And outside of government, public frustration is high, but realism remains low.
On the right, the Tea Partiers furiously demand that government get dramatically smaller, slashing spending by huge amounts to balance the budget now. Some even argue that Congress should slam the brakes on borrowing overnight, by refusing to raise the government's debt ceiling. The Tea Partiers rage against the machine, but seem unprepared for any frank discussion of how the federal government really spends its money, or the human consequences of its ideas.
But even if the Tea Party's champions in Congress could get their agenda through - - and governing is considerably balkier than complaining and criticizing -- such a sudden lurch into smaller government would be wrenching. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling could be disastrous. Tens of thousands of federal and state workers would lose their jobs in the middle of the Great Recession. Schools and colleges around the country would face massive cutbacks. The global bond markets, already nervous about the debt crisis in Europe, might start dumping U.S. bonds as well. The right likes to slam big government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there are millions of human beings depending on them. You don't make major changes in these programs overnight.
The situation on the left is as just as bad. Despite careful, non-partisan assessments from multiple analysts inside and outside government detailing Social Security's shaky future funding, there is a profoundly disingenuous mantra coming from some progressives: "Don't worry. Don't touch it. There's no serious problem. The Trust Fund is good until 2037."
Yes, but Trust Fund is filled with government bonds, and Social Security will start drawing on the bonds in about five years. Those bonds guarantee that Social Security benefits are first in line when the government pays its bills - - people will get their checks. But that money has to come from somewhere, and the government's own auditors say the only way to do that is by raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing from someplace else. In other words, something else in the budget has to give.
Do progressives really believe the country will suddenly be flush enough to cover Social Security and still pay for all the other spending these very same progressives want? And by claiming there's no problem, they undercut public backing for the ideas they do support, like raising the income cap on Social Security taxes. Why would people want to raise Social Security taxes on anyone if there's no problem?
There's a reasonable discussion about how quickly to move to bring the country's spending in line with its revenues given how weak the U.S. economy is. Huge, abrupt program cuts, big sudden tax hikes, pulling the plug on infrastructure and educational spending that is crucial to having a competitive economy down the road - - these are all risky, both economically and socially. Boring old long-term planning and gradualism are probably the only sensible ways out. But there is no time to delay on starting a reality-based discussion.
A recent Public Agenda survey of Washington insiders - - people whose careers revolve around the federal government - - showed that a whopping 8 in 10 agreed that the only way to solve the country's federal budget problem is to combine spending cuts and tax increases. Why don't these people step up to the plate and say something? Largely, they're silent. Meanwhile, we have profiles in cowardice in Congress and relentless volleys of self-serving spin coming from both the left and the right.
The trouble with roulette is that the house nearly always wins, and players who don't know when to quit lose their shirts. What American needs now is leadership that understands when it's time to leave the roulette table and leave the gambling to others.
1 The New York Times
2 The Washington Post
© 2010 Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson, authors of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis.
Author Bios
Scott Bittle, author of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, is the Director of Public Issues Analysis at Public Agenda and is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.
Jean Johnson, co-author of Where Does the Money Go? Rev Ed: Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis, is the Director of Education Insights and Director of Programs at Public Agenda, is a co-founder of PublicAgenda.org. She is the author or co-author of studies on education, families, religion, race relations, manners and civility, retirement, welfare, and health care.
For more information please visit PublicAgenda.org and follow the authors on Facebook and Twitter
Book Review
Drowning in Oil: BP and Reckless Pursuit of Profit
By Loren C. Steffy
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” uttered by Jack Nicholson’s character Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men is one of the most famous lines in cinematic history. Author Loren C. Steffy has written the literary equivalent. His book, Drowning in Oil: BP and the Reckless Pursuit of Profit reads a like a Tom Clancy novel. It’s packed with intrigue, rich oil barons and sheiks and kings, as well as political and industrial skullduggery against a backdrop of backroom politics and corruption. In the name of profit, 18 lives were lost, countless lives and businesses impacted as well livelihoods (some generations in the making), destroyed. And did I mention the 200 million barrels of crude oil which flowed into the delicate ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico and onto the bayous, and beaches as far away as Florida?
The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon was a time bomb which didn’t need to happen as Steffy deftly explains, but it did. Steffy takes the reader on an engrossing journey through the boardroom and backrooms of a very elite club to revel the reasons why the greatest man-made disaster to date happened, and who, in reality, was to blame.
The book is 259 pages of excitement. Well written and researched, Drowning in Oil hooks the reader like the best mystery novel, but the events described are all too real. An excellent book for anyone interested in political or corporate corruption, energy, the environment, current events, or just likes an engaging book. This book tops my recommendation list! Can you handle the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)