Advice and consent

When I got home from class the other evening, Sherry was watching some PBS show about Dolly Madison.  I knew the name from the snack cakes, but never understood why her name was associated with them.  Other than that, all I really knew about her was that she was the wife of James Madison and all I really knew about him was he was President after Jefferson and during the War of 1812 (something else I didn't know a great deal about, which sounds pretty sad as I type that sentence out).  I now have a great deal more respect for him.  Although accused of cowardice and all sorts of things, he strongly believed that the rule of law was important.  In a time of war, he felt it important that the opposition voice be heard and refused to jail his opponents (as had been done by some of his predecessors who are held up by some as almost gods).  It was a very interesting program, especially in light of my view that Washington is currently crippled by a lack of civility.  It was apparently worse in the early 19th century, although they weren't doing it to posture in front of TV cameras then.  At least, today congresscritters aren't killing each other in duels (and/or otherwise physically assaulting each other) that spill out from arguments on the floor of the Senate or House.  I wonder if Michelle Obama could pull of what Dolly Madison did getting members of both parties to at least talk civilly to each other in a social setting at the White House.  I guess we'll never know because I just don't think it could happen today.  Anyway, my rant today is because several Senators (Bunning is the latest) have used a silly Senate rule to block all judicial appointments.  I know this isn't the first time that either party has played this game, but I think it is time to consider changing the Senate rules.  Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives the President the power "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" to appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law" (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html).  I have no problem with that provision of the Constitution.  I also don't really have a problem with the Senate voting down a nominee on ideological grounds, that has been happening since 1795.  I would, however, like to see them at least have an up or down vote on the nominees so that the positions don't remain vacant for years on end.  As I said, I know this has been a problem for both parties, but I think it is abusing the advice and consent power granted in Article II.

The Founding Fathers and meandering thoughts on healthcare and economic meltdowns

First off, a note.  I probably should not have begun this after taking an Ambien this evening.  I desperately need a good night's sleep tonight, but that means this post will probably wander all over the place.  Perhaps, I'll find out if anyone besides me even reads any of my rantings.  Oh, well.  Onward.  Now, don't get me wrong.  The folks who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US did something amazing.  I think those documents hold up very well more than 230 years later.  A friend pointed me at a post the other day that mentioned (correctly) that the right to free speech isn't granted by the 1st amendment, it is protected by it.  I'll agree to a point (but then my next post will include a pointer to a post about rights and John Calvin who would argue there are no rights), but then that very same post seemed to have problems with the fact that some of us believe that there are other rights that deserve protection.  So, let me get right to the point of this post.  While they were courageous and perhaps ahead of their time, the men who founded this country were not perfect, they were not saints, and they were not gods.  They made mistakes.  Remember, to them "all men are created equal" meant all white males who owned land were created equal.  Women?  Nope.  Farmhands?  Nope.  People of color?  Are you insane?  Remember, two of our first three Presidents owned slaves and one of them had children by at least one of his slaves (and I still think he was a pretty amazing guy).  They were right to make it difficult to change the Constitution.  It isn't something that should be done lightly, but the document isn't sacred though some would have you believe it is.  It took a civil war before men of color were "officially" treated as men and another 100+ years after that before practice even started to match the words on paper (and, in many ways, I think we're still not there).  Women haven't even had the right to vote for 90 years yet, let alone equal treatment under the law.  Is there a "right to privacy" (whatever that means)?  Does it even make sense to say something like that in 1776?  The founders had no conception of a world of electronic surveillance and warrantless eavesdropping.  They couldn't have been expected to protect a right that was probably obvious to them against a future they couldn't foresee.  That's in part why the 9th amendment reserves those rights not specifically enumerated "to the people."  In fact, here are the exact words of the 9th amendment.  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Now, there is no question that after seeing the abuses of the government in England, the founders intended the federal government to be fairly weak.  Over the years, the general consensus has drifted a little from that original mindset (though there are clearly those out there who want a weak federal government), but many of us believe that there are certain functions best served by government.  Going back 100 years, there have been efforts to include healthcare as one of those rights that ought to be protected.  Heck, Richard Nixon who sat on some of McCarthy's hearings, so could hardly be called soft on communism proposed extending Medicare to every citizen in 1974.  Unfortunately, for those of us who are concerned about possibly losing our health insurance (or our homes after a loss of health insurance), the Democrats in Congress thought they could get an even better deal in 1976 when surely a Democrat would be elected President.  They didn't seize what was probably the best opportunity presented to date.  They were arrogant.  If it wasn't already obvious, I think ultimately, "single payer" is the way to fix healthcare as most other industrialized countries have already concluded, but even the watered down "public option" now seems to not be included in what will come to the Senate floor for debate next week.  By the way, in the comments to a blog post that I'll link to in my next post, it was pointed out that the current healthcare debate is really mostly/entirely about the middle class and the poor.  The rich will always be able to afford whatever healthcare they want, why isn't anyone really talking about that?  There are folks who are all up in arms about the size (in $$) of the debt that would be incurred by the proposals to jumpstart the economy and take care of health care, but Nobel Laureate economists point out that it isn't actual dollar amounts that matter.  What matters is what is it as a percentage of GDP (by the way, did you know that the stimulus implemented by the Chinese government was 25% of GDP? the equivalent by the US government would have been in the vicinity of $2 trillion).  And there, we're actually in relatively moderate territory.  Yes, by the time all the stimulus and bailouts and getting health care right are done, the deficit could be around 50% of GDP.  That sounds large until you consider that it was 120% of GDP at the end of World War II.  Many industrialized nations (primarily in Europe) have successfully exited periods where there debt loads were in the 80-90% range.  To get out of the economic melt down that started almost exactly 12 months, the federal government became the spender of last resort.  Individuals were frightened so they started burying money under the mattress metaphorically (paying down credit card bills and getting by with less).  Well, if the consumers aren't buying, if demand dries up, then the supply side of the equation has to slow down.  You can't build and build and build if there is no one there to buy.  So, you cut back production, you lay off some workers, which frightens the consumers even more so they start hoarding.  When the demand side of the equation goes to zero, the spender of last resort has to come in to prevent entire industries and segments of society from going back to trying to farm their front yards.  The only entity with the ability to do that (in part, because they are allowed to have unbalanced budgets -- a federal balanced budget amendment would have caused the events of this past year to devolve into a second great depression --) is the federal government which must come in and spend stimulus money (that it doesn't have) to buy some of the goods just sitting around rotting and put people to work (some in almost "make work" jobs), but get them working and earning an income again.  It is what FDR seemed to have understood and Keynes articulated that led to the early programs of the New Deal.  Alas, just as things were starting to pick up steam but had not yet reached self-sustainability, the other party started whining about the debt and FDR gave in and started to cut back.  Many of us who have studied it believe the Great Depression could have ended in 1936 or 1937 at the latest, had FDR not given in and started cutting back for fear of the size of the deficits.  The result, the improvement slowed and drifted, not quite breaking out of the depression, not really falling further back in.  Conveniently (in economic terms if not in terms of world peace), World War II came along less than 3 years later and again we have the government push to build things beyond all proportion and to keep that up from 1941 - 1945 (or 1946).  At which point, it was possible to slow down a bit, but we now had so many skilled workers who had brought home a decent wage and they wanted to have a little fun with that.  And so, with the economic growth that came out of WWII (including new markets to sell to after we rebuilt them) that incredible 120% of GDP debt that we had in 1945 quickly shrunk as the economy grew and diversified and through the '60s, '70s, and '80s even with oil shocks and "stagflation" the debt as a percentage of GDP got small.  Ah, well, I really need sleep now.  Sorry for rambling.  Good night.

A little bit of respect

I've been more than a little dismayed at the venom directed at President Obama over his planned address to school children on Tuesday.  Whether you agree with everything he stands for or not, it seems pretty strange to me that there is so much objection to the President of the United States telling kids to work hard and stay in school.  I mean from everything I've seen, it looks like the script could have just as easily been written by Laura Bush (and I doubt if anyone at Fox News would have been upset with her telling kids to stay in school).  Anyway, as I was preparing to write this, I read Bob Cornwall's post that says much of what I wanted to say and says it better, so go read it there, especially this sentence, "Even if we don't like the holder of the office, we need to respect the office or we will find ourselves in deep trouble."  Oh, and here's another one that makes the point pretty well.  I think that is one of the things that has been bothering me the most.  Disagree on policy, okay, but even when I haven't particularly cared for the person, I've tried to respect the office.  These nutjobs praying for the death of the President of the United States have gotten way out of line and I'm dismayed that more conservatives have allowed that to go unchallenged.  Okay, end of political rant for the day.  I hope anyone out there reading this is having a great Labor Day weekend.

Shalom,
Jim

The true impact of McCain/Obama on personal income tax

By now, you've no doubt seen the ads by the McCain campaign stating that if Obama is elected your taxes are going to go up.  It turns out, the Washington Post analyzed the tax plans of the 2 campaigns back in June and your taxes will indeed go up if you make over $603,403/year.  For those making less than $111,000 you'll get a bigger tax break under Obama, from $111,000 to $226,000 about the same and from $226,000 to $603,000 you won't see any significant change in your taxes.  [start_sarcasm]Yeah, that's going to really hurt the middle class.  Oh, wait, the middle class goes up to $5,000,000/year, right?[end_sarcasm]  I have to admit, I didn't notice this story at the time, but Fred Anderson took note of it here (though he also got it elsewhere).  Oh, and you remember those temporary tax cuts in 2000 (2001?)?  That's where the increases come from, we just go back to where the tax rates on the top end of the scale were during the boom times of the late 90s.  They were a real drag on the economy, right?    I love the graphic, so I'm including it here, too.

That kind of reminds me of another graphic that Fred found that I thought was amusing (and unfortunately too true).

Check these out

Okay, these links are to a couple of posts in Fred Anderson's blog, but he actually is pointing to stories written by two others.  I thought they were both pretty good, so I figured I'd share them.  The first was written by a Unitarian (not sure who the author actually is, I haven't followed the links to see if NonnyMouse is identified further in the original) and discusses forgiveness after the tragic shooting at the church in Knoxville on Sunday.  The second is actually from the Huffington Post and I agree with Fred, I wish the Obama campaign would follow this advice.  By the way, where did the McCain campaign come up with the notion that calling his add "low politics" was somehow "playing the race card"?  McCain used to be someone that I admired even if I didn't entirely agree with him, but lately, not so much.  He's abandoned some of the positions I admired and is falling in line with everything that I detest about the current administration.  It makes me sad.

McCain, Hagee, and Parsley

Well, the media didn't give John McCain the crap he deserved for his "Jeremiah Wright"-problem, but at least he has finally cut his ties with John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

Bill Moyers gets it

I found this link on Kent Siladi's blog. I've always admired Bill Moyers and in this clip he says a lot of what I've been thinking about this whole Jeremiah Wright/Barack Obama "controversy". Note, it is almost 6.5 minutes long and I think some of the most important parts are in the last half.

Christian Principles in an Election Year

I first saw this over on the UCC blog (the original from the National Council of Churches is here), but I thought it was good enough to repeat here.

Your church, your communion, and the National Council of Churches USA do not endorse any political party or any candidate.

Be that as it may, our Christian faith compels us to address the world through the lens of our relationship to God and to one another. Public discourse is enhanced as we engage civic leaders on the values and ethics affirmed by our faith. At the same time, religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy will be protected as candidates refrain from using faith-based organizations and institutions for partisan gain. We offer these 10 principles to those seeking to accept the responsibility that comes with holding public office.

1. War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers. We look for political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict.

2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. We reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness. We look for political leaders who will re-build our communities and bring an end to the cycles of violence and killing.

3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well being of our global neighbors. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice is an urgent concern.

4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor.

5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice and equal opportunity for everyone.

6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. We look for political leaders who recognize the earth's goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creation.

7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We look for political leaders who will pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia.

8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all.

9. Because of the transforming power of God’s grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with each other. We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it.

10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God’s children is a moral imperative. We look for political leaders who advocate for equal educational opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services.

IRS v. UCC

You may have heard by now that the IRS is investigation the UCC (and threatening loss of tax exempt status) because of the speech that Sen. Obama gave at last year's General Synod in Hartford, CT. There has been plenty of coverage, so I won't rehash too much of it, but it still seems an awful lot like it is politically motivated (whether by more fundamentalist members of the UCC as has been rumored or by someone out to embarrass Sen. Obama remains unclear). The invitation (one of dozens of speakers including Bill Moyers and Lynn Redgrave) was to a UCC member to discuss how his faith affected his life in politics. The invitation was extended before he became a presidential candidate and the leaders at Synod went out of there way to make sure that there was no campaigning allowed and didn't come close to an endorsement, so it is hard to see how they could have violated the tax exempt status. Regardless, after 7 months (and coincidentally just before the Ohio primary?), the IRS makes it public that they are investigating. While they probably have an obligation to investigate to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the facts here would seem so overwhelming that they ought to quickly end the investigation by finding that the denomination did nothing wrong. The facts are so overwhelming that a prestigious Washington, DC law firm has agreed to take the case on for free and the lead is a former Solicitor General of the United States who (I believe) has never lost a case before the US Supreme Court. Sigh....

Some random thoughts

It has been a while since my last entry. I've just been busy. Erin's season ended with a heartbreaking 3 point loss to UC-Clermont in the ORCC semifinals. OU-L led most of the game (by as many as 10 in the second half), but some questionable officiating late and just not hitting some of their late shots cost them. It was a disappointing ending, but they had a pretty good season (18-14 or something like that)

Ohio got a lot of attention due to the tight Democratic race for President. I was actually kind of hoping that this past Tuesday would put an end to it until the conventions because, frankly, I'm tired of it. Alas, that was not to be, but at least I won't get all those automated calls in my answering machine (at least until Oct).

The Buckeyes men's basketball team got the win they needed to keep any hope of an NCAA bid alive when the upset #15 Purdue in overtime on Tuesday. Now they need to do the same to Michigan State and get a win in the Big Ten tournament or they'll be going to the NIT.

They're calling for the biggest storm since 1993 (I honestly don't remember a bad storm in 1993, but that's what they said on TV this evening) in the next 2 days. We've been getting hit with storms every Tuesday and Friday for the last 2 months, but they're talking about 5-12" out of this one. I don't mind, I love snow.

Thoughts from a middle-aged middle-class guy

I read two interesting posts on the God's Politics blog today that got me thinking and I wanted to put some of those thoughts down in writing, but I may not be able to do them justice in such a short time. The first post was this one by Tony Jones. I have to say that a great deal of what is coming from the "emergent" community resonates with me. Anyway, I agree that

Carried into the modern world by the French and American revolutions, individual rights became the foundation of liberal democracy, clearly the most robust and equitable of all systems of government yet conceived. And although it happened more slowly than many people would have liked, the concept of individual rights brought about great goods like ending government-backed slavery, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement.

But as he points out, it goes further than that. We who call ourselves Christians are called to go further than be concerned with our own individual rights, we are called to be concerned with the individual rights of others. Part of me thinks that is easier for a middle-aged (or approaching it) middle-class guy like me who isn't worried about if I'll have anything to eat tonight or whether my kids have jackets and socks and underwear and a roof over their heads. On the other hand, I'm constantly reminded of those who have practically nothing who still seem to find it in their hearts to be more concerned about others than themselves. I wonder if I could do the same. I'd like to think so, but I honestly don't know. Sherry just got back from El Salvador and the stories she tells of the people they worked with there (and in Ukraine where she is going again in April) are gut-wrenching. The stories she tells of some of the people who went down to "help" are sickening (maybe I'll expound on that later). Anyway, I'll be interested to see what he says in part 2.

The second article was this one by Becky Garrison. She writes about discovering she is directly descended from Rev. Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island. He had some very strong views on the separation of church and state based on the very real persecution that he was fleeing. As far as her question about whether religious leaders should be endorsing candidates, they are human beings, too. As individuals they have every right to support the candidate of their choice, but as she points out, they must be careful not to become "political pawns." To borrow a phrase from the Quakers (see also this) religious leaders have an obligation to "speak truth to power." When they cease to be able to take their chosen leader to task for his/her failure to do the right thing (like torturing prisoners to name just one example), then they lose their moral authority. The other extreme though, and something that bothers me a little about this year's election, is the apparent requirement that candidates have to have some strongly held religious beliefs. While I don't think that is necessarily a detriment, it also certainly isn't a requirement to be able to govern and I'd rather the politicians be going to church for reasons other than political expediency.

The US has lost all moral authority

This makes me embarrassed to be an American. The CIA director just admitted in testimony before Congress that the CIA did waterboard some detainees (remember, they aren't prisoners). Now the White House press secretary says we could do it again. I'm waiting to hear John McCain to respond to this. As a former prisoner-of-war, I'd expect him to come out strongly against this. He, better than just about anyone on the national scene, should be able to tell you that (episodes of 24 not withstanding) when you torture prisoners, the information you get (I won't call it intelligence) is worth almost nothing. They'll tell you anything just to get you to stop. I could go on, but it was covered better than I could ever do it here and here. I especially liked the last paragraph of that first story:

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French historian, politicist, and observer of 19th century America, observed that "America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." It is important for people of faith to impress upon Americans and our leaders in Washington that America's goodness, and hence its greatness, is seriously compromised by the practice of torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments of detainees.

As the LA Times pointed out, Congress has twice passed laws requiring the military and the CIA to obey the Geneva Convention, but the White House (and the apparently spineless Attorney General) continue to be unable to see what the rest of the world knows...

I like this guy

I was browsing some of the blogs I follow and today came across two posts that I enjoyed from a Disciples of Christ pastor in St. Joseph, MO. The first one was an interesting look at Lent from someone who didn't observe it growing up, and only discovered it in seminary. As a UCC PK, I've known what Lent was for as long as I can remember, but that doesn't mean that I always take it all that seriously (hey, I'm human), but this did get me to stop and think for a moment. This year, I'll try to be more serious about my observance of it. The second one was about the movie Juno which I haven't seen yet, but probably will. By most accounts it seems to be a good movie, though in the last day or two, all of the sudden I'm seeing arguments on whether the movie is "pro-life" or "pro-choice" or whether Hollywood is selling out to the "Religious Right" (as if they'd have each other), give me a break. I couldn't help but chuckle at this passage on abortion though (as it largely describes my feelings, though obvious the particulars are his -- and in case you're counting there are at least 5 hands there).

I feel more than a bit conflicted about it. On the one hand, I'm a card-carrying liberal with a lot of white male guilt, so the last thing I want to do is tell a woman what to do with her body. On the other hand, I'm a father, because two women felt very strongly that abortion was wrong for them and made an adoption plan instead. On the other hand, that was their choice and who am I to say what is the right choice for someone else when it comes to such a personal and painful issue? On the other hand, even if I remain unconvinced that life begins at conception or even the first trimester or even beyond that--I'm not sure when it begins, I still believe the potential for life is there. I've counseled couples who grieved over a miscarriage and that grief was real--we did not have a funeral but we did grieve together. On the other hand, so many anti-abortion people are just so arrogant and mean and ridiculous--you want to stop abortion but you're against sex education and birth control! What's up with that? I could go on.

Oh, and finally, I was also amused by a story in today's Columbus Dispatch about the problems being caused by the fact that St. Patrick's Day falls during Holy Week this year (drinking your green beer to excess doesn't exactly seem appropriate during Holy Week).

Martin Luther King, Jr Day

I was only 6 when Dr. King was assassinated, I remember the TV coverage very well. I knew of him, but I didn't really understand what he was all about at the time. It was in the mid-70s that I finally read about him and Gandhi and really came to appreciate what he stood for. Today is the holiday celebrating his birth/life/legacy and to remember that there is still work to be done. Pastor Bob Cornwall has two excellent stories up on his blog today. The first talks about a sermon Dr. King gave a month before his death entitled Unfulfilled Dreams. The second one discusses remarks that Barak Obama made yesterday at Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta (Dr. King's former church). I especially appreciate the second quoted passage. I am so sick of all the negativity and mud-slinging in politics today. All these politicians who claim to be Christian/religious don't seem to remember the Golden Rule, do they? I sometimes yearn for a parliamentary system where the legislature can be dissolved and new elections called in a matter of weeks rather than the current system here in the US where Congrescritters essentially have to start running for reelection before they are even sworn in and the Presidential race lasts 2 years. If more folks running for office felt the way Sen. Obama speaks here, perhaps so many of our young people wouldn't be disillusioned by the process. Ah, well. I hope you all had a good holiday.

The Middle East

I hesitated a long time before even starting to type this because I really don't plan for this blog to become too political, but with Shane still in Iraq, these things are on my mind. While I have some theological disagreements with Pastor Nathan, I find myself mostly in agreement with this sermon of his and I appreciated Deanna Mershed's response. It was also heartening to hear the Israeli Prime Minister last week admit that continuing to expand the "settlements" and otherwise not keeping their agreements wasn't helping the situation. I fear that it will take generations to rebuild the good will we, as a nation, enjoyed around the world as recently as the immediate aftermath of 2001-09-11. Sigh...

Bumper sticker

On the way home from church today, I saw a bumper sticker that made me chuckle. It read "A WOMAN'S PLACE IS IN THE HOUSE...AND THE SENATE"

Religious discrimination in the political process

I also came across this item today. With ~80,000 citizens of Nevada identifying themselves as Jewish, you'd think they might have thought this one out a little better. It is particularly disturbing to me that the Republican party official wasn't even aware of the problem. Have the Republicans completely written off the Jewish community? Do you think they would ever even consider holding the caucuses on Sunday morning at those times? And, of course, no coverage of this in the mainstream media that I can tell.