The Debt Ceiling Debate and Lovely Sweet Potato Puffs

We used to have an elderly relative who would invite us to her house for dinner.  I always warned my kids before we went that we would, like it or not, eat the first serving.  If they got to serve themselves, then make it a small one if they knew they wouldn’t like it.

Like the infamous Sweet Potato Puffs!  She always passed these with, “Have a lovely sweet potato puff”.  No matter how many times she said “lovely”, they were very hard to swallow.  I’m not sure what was in them, but for sure there was no hint of any salt or spice, making them taste like so much cardboard. 

During these debt talks, whenever John Boehner or Eric Cantor, or for that matter almost any Tea Partier, is on TV, I am reminded again that no matter how many times Boehner, et al, pontificate about how rational and reasonable their bills to lower the debt ceiling are, saying so doesn’t make them rational and reasonable.  Just like those lovely sweet potato puffs.

Running Government Like a Business

I have to admit upfront that I really don’t like John Boehner.  I’m sure that he is not an evil man, but he allowed himself to be pushed around by a bunch of Tea Party ideologue bullies, stood in front of a microphone on national TV the other night, verbally insulted the President of the United State, lied about the President wanting a blank check (which isn’t possible since Congress controls the purse strings), and Boehner didn’t even cry about it. 

The main subject of this blog, however, is something else Boehner talked about.  He told about the small business he ran before he was elected, and how distressed he was when he got to Washington because government isn’t run like a business.  Well, of course not.  Government is not a business; it is government.  Basically, a business is concerned with making money.  Government is concerned with spending it.  If government can be likened to any occupation, it would be that of someone involved in keeping house.  Think about this for a moment.  Usually there is a specific amount of money coming into the household.  All bills need to be paid from that, and also the various needs and wants of household members.  During times of stress, credit can be used judiciously, making sure that credit never exceeds the ability to repay it.  Imagine trying to function as a household without ever taking on debt.  No house and no car until the family had saved enough to pay cash.  Not likely!  Not in these times of living paycheck to paycheck.

It was about the time Ronald Reagan (Ronnie Baby) became involved in politics that we began to hear the mantra that we have to run government like a business.  It was in 1986 when I first was a candidate for county supervisor that I began to hear, “If you haven’t made a payroll, you don’t know anything”. This, of course, made no sense to me whatsoever, since making a payroll had nothing to do with philosophy, politics, music, literature, at least rudimentary economics, and most other subjects which I believed were necessary to be in government.  These subjects give one an idea at the very least, of the mistakes that have been made by governments, secular and religious, over the millennia.  One needs to study the mistakes of others to make sure one does not repeat them.

But we still have this mantra of “running government like a business”.  Refer to my blog, Unholy Alliance, for a moment or two.  In there I discuss why I believe that forces are in play to actually bring down our government – on purpose – so the corporations, or business, can actually run Washington, D.C., instead of hiding behind some paid legislators.  I also quote somewhere the infamous line, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  The repetition of this lie, running government like a business, is to get the idea into the minds of the American people that if government should be run like a business, then why not have a business running it?

Your friendly Chamber of Commerce Koch Machine in action.

Elected Officials

Recently someone nice person left a complimentary comment on this blog regarding the fine line one has to walk when in elected office, and this started me thinking about some of my experiences when elected to a county level office – that of a county supervisor; what one would call a commissioner back east perhaps. 

I had already been on our county planning commission, an appointed position, for eight years, so as a candidate for supervisor (the next step up, so to speak), I made only two promises.  The first was to return phone calls within twenty-four hours, and the second was to only promise to do the best I could every day.  Because of my time with the planning commission, I knew that occasionally there are things one simply has to vote for because the applicant has a legal right to the permit, and that there were no environmental constraints that I could use as an excuse.  Therefore, I knew that occasionally similar situations would arise as a Board of Supervisor’s member where I had no choice, and since I could not know what these were in advance, I made no promises because I knew I might not be able to keep them.  A promise to me is something that one keeps, so best not to make one.  Fortunately for me, technology had not reached the point where people had cell phones with cameras, and videos of me blithering on were never on YouTube!  The written word was bad enough simply because one would make a comment in a letter based on a prior conversation which letter could then be badly misconstrued. 

Probably the worst experience with the best outcome was a proposed conservation easement on the Hearst Ranch at San Simeon.  I had been involved while on the planning commission contending with the management of the Ranch over a rather large development on the Ranch.  I won’t go into detail here, except to say in my opinion that level of development in a remote area was absurd on many levels.  In fact, I ran on my opposition to those developments.  Subsequently, the management changed and a   young family member took over.  I had been in office about six months when this occurred, and Steve Hearst and I met.  It took us about two years to become comfortable with each other because of my earlier opposition, but he was about the age of my own kids, so I just treated him like one of them.

He had been trying to meet with the environmental community in the county for some time but they refused to meet with him.  So I put together a meeting with members of the community from the north coast area closest to the ranch.  These included the school superintendent, the manager of the local services district, a representative from the agricultural community, two environmentalists, and some others.  It did not occur to me to invite people from outside our local area, since the meeting was to discuss the impacts of a huge development on our local community. 

Well!! The radical left in our county freaked out that they had not been invited.  One would think that I had turned into an instrument of the devil – actually conversing with a member of the Hearst family.  Traitor, etc.  Time went by, and Steve and his local attorney, a gentleman in the best sense of the word, Roger Lyon, asked me to meet with them, and I agreed.  Steve and Roger presented me with a proposal for a conservation easement, with some minor development consisting of 27 home sites and one 100 room motel in the old town of San Simeon, on the 82,000 acres.  It was a one page document with statements like, “Houses shall be built on existing roads only.”  Short, using the word ‘shall’, that is a term that brooks no interpretation, and is to the point.

I took the document home with me, and my husband who one of the most intelligent people I know, and I wrangled that thing for three days.  We tore it up one side and down the other, and when we were finished, I knew it was a good, positive document that I could rely on.  The radical left had another fit that I had not taken it to them for approval.  I laughed because they were not the ones who had to make a final decision to approve it – I was, and I needed to know that it was good.

After some four hearings in Sacramento for approval of the state funds to be used for the conservation easement, and much howling from the radical left that one couldn’t believe any of the reports, that I had “become a wholly owned subsidiarity of the Hearst Corporation”, that one couldn’t believe a Hearst, that Steve was a sneaky so-and-so, the conservation easement went through.  The State of California paid less than $100 million dollars for 18 miles of California coastline, plus 82,000 acres of virtually pristine land that can never be developed.  But, as Steve Hearst has phrased it, “We all had to do some pretty heavy lifting”. 

The reason I am telling this story is because I have been constantly reminded of it these past few weeks with the debt ceiling crisis and Barack Obama and the attacks he is receiving from the radical left.  One expects it from the radical right, but when I hear left-wing pundits declaring that Obama has caved, Obama is abandoning his base, Obama is this that or the other thing, I can feel my irritation level going way up.  What I had to deal with was miniscule with what Obama is dealing with now.  I can’t imagine what he is going through.

There is no way anyone can know what it is like to be in elected office unless one has been, nor the balancing act one has to practice and practice, or the constant rein one has to have on one’s speech since every word is parsed to prove the point of the listener.  We trusted him enough to elect him, now let’s trust him enough to get the job done the best he can, considering the monumental opposition he is facing.  Again, what I went through is miniscule compared to what he is dealing with.  If at the end of his term he hasn’t done what we think he should, then don’t vote for him.

 In the meantime, I am reminded of a line kids would hurl at each other as teen-agers, and one I then hated.  I now find myself saying it over and over at the TV – “Get off his case, toilet face”. 

The Los Osos Sewer

To any and all who may read this blog, I do not wish to discuss the Los Osos Sewer project with any one on this blog or on any other blog.  In short, what part of NO do you not understand?  This is my final comment on this matter.  From now on, I will delete all Los Osos Sewer comments, and put you all in the SPAM folder.

Abortions?

Abortion?

Ordinarily I do not write about an issue such as this one, but an otherwise good article at National Catholic Reporter online (ncronline.org) on July 05, 2011, “Catholic social teaching vs. the cult of individualism”, Robert Christian, as the title suggests discussed the difference between a community view of society and the exaltation of individualism.  The author equated abortion (and euthanasia, but this is only about abortion) “…to values of utility and enlightened self-interest,  which are often better than base selfishness, yet can lead to dehumanizing policies, such as the legalization of abortion…”

Make no mistake here.  I am not “pro-abortion”.  I value life at all of its stages, and am opposed to the death penalty as well. I apologize to flies when I swat them.  But neither do I believe that any group of men, regardless of how spiritually holy they may be, or how steeped in theology or canon law they may be, can possibly comprehend the economic, psychological, emotional, or physical trauma a woman might be experiencing that would even cause her to consider an abortion.  The argument is used that women just use abortion as a method of birth control.  I would assume a minority of women might do that.

But the fact remains that the majority of pregnant women who are considering abortion did not become pregnant voluntarily.  There can be myriad reasons why (not how) this occurred, and I don’t believe that is necessary to go into detail.  The trauma these women face is extraordinary.  Because of this trauma, women from the beginning of time have had abortions, for myriad reasons.  And many have died. 

The push for legalized abortions with Roe vs. Wade was the recognition on the part of women, and some men, that legal, safe, and rare abortions were much better than women dying after “back alley” abortions by abortionists who did not use safe or sterile instruments, or by botched abortions by the women themselves.  Legalizing abortions was not the result of extreme individualism, but as a result of a community effort on the part of women to save the lives of their sisters.  I asked one very conservative retired police officer whether he supported abortion rights.  His response was, “I hate the thought of abortion.  But I have called the ambulance for too many women in my younger days before Roe vs. Wade who were either bleeding out or had bled out from botched abortions to ever want to go back to those days”.

Men honor “team efforts” or “The Band of Brothers” or fraternal solidarity.  What the majority of men don’t realize is that women also have this communal sense of protecting their own.  It is the responsibility of the churches and others who profess that they are pro-life to protect the lives of women as well.  This can best be done not by working to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but by making sure that women who might otherwise consider abortion have the emotional, economic, psychological, and physical help they need to either bring the baby to term for adoption, or the assistance they need to keep the baby and care for it responsibly.

The vision is not to have any abortions.  The goal is to determine how to achieve that vision.  If I were in charge I would invite married women of child-bearing age to brainstorm with me what it is that they believe women need to survive a pregnancy in this day and age.  When Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius was Governor of Kansas she began several programs directed at vulnerable women.  As a result, the abortion rate in Kansas dropped significantly.  “Just say no” does not work.

This is not a simple issue.  It is extremely complex, and simplistic solutions are no solutions at all.

Response to "Anonymous"

Ron does not bother me at all, but thank you for your thoughtfulness.  His last post said something like, "Now we are going to play hardball", and my thought was, that is OK, but not in my court.  So I deleted all of his comments, and if he continues, I'll simply put him in SPAM.  One of these days I'll figure out how to respond to comments in the comment section!

An Unholy Alliance

An Unholy Alliance

With the debt crisis we are in right now, it seems to me that there are three alliances that have converged at just the wrong time.  These are the would-be oligarchs, the rugged individualists, and the evangelical fundamentalists.  The following descriptions are ones that I have formed after much reading and much thought.  I have distilled from these thoughts the bare bones which I offer here.

An oligarchy, by definition, is a government run by just a few who also form the rules.  Right now in our country these would-be oligarchs are the CEOs of corporations, and other wealthy elites.  The most notable at this time is the Koch Machine.  These oligarchs really do not want a government that requires tax dollars to be spent on any social justice safety nets, such as Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid, unemployment insurance, infrastructure building by the government, and definitely no environmental protection laws.  In short, anything that requires them to pay taxes for the benefit of anyone else.  They wish to “maximize” their profits to the fullest extent possible, not to create jobs for anyone other than the few people who cater to their every want.

The second group, are the ones I refer to as suffering from the John Wayne syndrome of taking nothing from anyone and solving all problems by oneself.  Ayn Rand is the guru of this group.  These are the rugged individualists.  Since the individualists believe in personal responsibility to the extreme, they do not want government involved in social justice programs because they believe that this weakens the resolve of the individual.  They are fond of telling stories about feeding wild animals in one location, taking the food away, and the animals starve because they have lost the ability to take care of themselves.  I’m not sure this ever really happened, but it makes a good story for them, although people are not wild animals.  These people tend to ignore the long lines of people standing in front of the “help wanted” signs who are willing and desperate for work, and who are, and who may or may not have been receiving government benefits, but they do want to work.

And then we have the evangelical fundamentalists who don’t like government because they believe that people will then rely on government instead of God.  From what I understand they believe that God will cure an illness if one prays hard and sincerely enough, or find a job, or answer any prayer pretty much the way the petitioner asks.  This always reminds me of the story of the man on his roof in a flood.  He prayed very hard for God to save him.  Shortly thereafter two people came by in a row boat and offered to take him to safety.  He refused because he said God would save him.  The water rose higher, and some people in a motor boat came by to rescue him.  Again he refused because he said God would save him.  He had faith.  Finally he was sitting on top of the chimney because the water was so high.  He prayed even harder, and a helicopter came by, but the man refused again.  God would save him.  He drowned, and when he got to Heaven he berated God for not saving him.  To which God replied, “What did you want?  I sent a row boat, a motor boat and a helicopter.”  These people really have an ideological antipathy toward government, even though the government assistance they decry might just be the row boat, motor boat or helicopter that God sent in response to prayers. 

Be that as it may, these three forces have come together to wreck our economy, and they are, in my opinion, doing it absolutely on purpose.  I do not mean to infer that everyone who falls into any one of these three groups wants to bring down our economy, but there are enough true believers among them who absolutely do.  The next few weeks will, I profoundly hope, prove me wrong.

Ron and Los Osos

Ron – Being somewhat a computer illiterate, I haven’t as yet figured out how to reply to comments, so am using this method of reply.  What seemingly I could never get through to some people in Los Osos was that the District was a separate governmental entity from the county, and I had absolutely no authority in their actions whatsoever.  I could rant and rave in private with them, and often did, but that was the extent of my involvement.  Just prior to my leaving office Sam Blakeslee and I worked together to take authority for the sewer away from the District, which as you know required a State action, which was, by the way unanimous in the State Assembly, Senate, and the Governor.  This should tell you something about the idiocy that was going on in Los Osos. Congress had no authority either, so don’t blame Lois Capps for what the people of Los Osos did to themselves.  I have now been out of office and away from anything to do with Los Osos for over 4 years.  My perception of what occurred there and yours are obviously quite different, and frankly, never the twain shall meet.  Sincerely, Shirley

Todd Akin and God

When Congressman Todd Akin announced after NBC had cut the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance during a sports event, “I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism, really, is a hatred of God and a belief that government should replace God,” the Internet really hopped, or as the expression goes, went viral.  There have been numerous postings about whether his statement is true, wise, relevant, completely false, and on and on.  In my opinion, these postings miss the point entirely.

Define what we mean by God!  At one time before I loaned it out and lost track of it, I had a book authored by Juan Arias, “The God I Don’t Believe In”.  And, frankly, I doubt very much that I could believe in a God who demands His (never Her) followers give up all reason and believe that the universe was created in six days, or a God who will take up just a few followers to heaven (leaving their clothes behind in a heap) and condemn the rest to horrors here on earth before they end up in Hell.  Or a God I can understand completely.  If I can understand God, then I would be God as well, and that doesn’t sound quite right, either.  Or a God who would insist that all there is to know, one can find in one fairly small book, the Bible – science, economics, government, you name it, that is word for word, valid for all academic subjects until the end of time. 

And while I am on the subject of a limited God, Jesus was so concerned about abortion and homosexuality that He never mentioned them once.  Now it is the responsibility of theologians and Bible students to study and explain what Jesus and the Apostles had to say.  But I question the responsibility to study and explain what He and they didn’t say.  Extrapolating from what was said is a valid exercise, but I doubt that one can condemn others on that extrapolation.

If I were an artist I would depict God, as the Trinity since I am a believing Christian who does not hate God, as dancing and whirling in Joy through the entire universe, holding it and us, metaphorically speaking, in the palm of Their hand.  At times weeping over our cruelty, but at the same time smiling and thrilled when we humans follow our good consciences in works of compassion, whatever our religious and philosophical beliefs.  This is the God many of us love and serve, because we recognize that God has no hands here on earth but ours, and we all have much compassionate work to do.

 To insist that we are trying to supplant God with government is such a limited view of either.  Jesus recognized that there is a place for both when He said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s”.  Government has its own place in our society, and using government to help people cannot in any way undermine or diminish the God some of us liberals and progressives love.  He, or She, or They are simply too much more than that.