I’m reading about the the debt ceiling negotiations http://www.nytimes.com/... when I come up on this:
But it remained a tough sell, with Mr. Boehner in danger of losing the vote, particularly after a Congressional Budget Office report showed that the House plan fell short of the savings estimated by the speaker. The leadership regrouped, beefed up the savings in the measure, used the party meeting to make its case and appeared to gain ground headed into Thursday’s floor fight
.
Is this for real? Can you imagine this bunch passing last minute bills about something that would effect corporations? The leadership “beefed up the savings?” What does that mean? They eneemeenee mayneemoed which “freedom effecting" programs they didn’t like and cut it a little more here and there?
Republicans are fond of saying there should be a cost/benefit analysis of how regulations effect corporations. Well where is the cost/benefit analysis here? Since when is it acceptable to “beef up” cuts in programs that benefit millions of peoples, not as a result of careful cost/benefit analysis, but as a simple number, a ploy to try to appeal to those in the GOP who don’t believe in the existence of these programs to begin with? This whole debt ceiling debate has become nothing but an ego trip between the White House and the GOP, not a debate about what should be cut and more importantly why, but about who does the damage.
It is time for someone, anyone of national significance from our side to make the point that New Deal programs are not chips to be negotiated away any time some certain ideologue throws a temper tantrum. These programs are an expression of our values. They may not be the best method ever known to express our values, but they are our collective good faith effort, based on historical experience.
Let’s take slavery for example. It’s an extreme example you protest? It’s a slander? No respectable lover of liberty would ever condone slavery? Well explain something ‘cause I’m confused. The reason official slavery was not outlawed until a few dozen decades ago, the reason it had been a part of human history since before writing was invented, was because there were people who believed they should own slaves. Not only that, they were absolutely certain that owning a slave was perfectly consistent with their noble values. In other words they were the Conservatives of their day. So to any modern day conservative who is adamantly against slavery, I am not questioning the authenticity of your belief, I am questioning the SOURCE of your belief. If you say opposition to slavery is an innate part of human nature, then why didn’t the slave owners of the past exercise it, just like they would exercise their innate need to drink water when thirsty. And if it is not then I ask: ” Take every ounce of your present values, and transport yourself to a time and location where slavery was practiced. Further imagine that you had the means to oppose it effectively. What would you do? If you did nothing, then we will have to reassess just how adamant you are about being against slavery. But true to your present beliefs, you would fight it, and fight it fiercely. And to the extent of your fierceness, judged by the standards of that time, you would no longer be a conservative, but a Progressive and even a revolutionary.
We are the children of Enlightenment, for if the Enlightenment stands for anything, it stands for the notion of the legitimacy of questioning absolute truth. It means if you are absolutely certain that the Earth is flat, and I show you a picture that it is round, you won’t bludgeon me to death for disagreeing. And if I question your absolute certainty that cutting taxes is the most efficient way for a society to promote the general welfare, then justify it. Don’t repeat your certainty, justify it. Don’t tell me God says so, justify it. Don’t tell me it’s just “common sense” and “human nature”, justify it.
Every program, every regulation that the GOP and its enablers oppose has been a direct result of trying to deal with the consequences of those who were absolutely certain, specially about economics, in their respective times. Lets go back a few decades. You are a manufacturer and you put a product on the market and it harms consumers. Not too long ago the courts would have held that since the manufacturer did not sell directly to you, there was no “privity of contract”. You as an injured person would only have recourse against the last poor slob in the chain who sold you the product. So somebody, somewhere, had an idea, a certain idea, an absolutely certain idea, that a manufacturer does not owe any responsibility to the ultimate user of its product. As more and more were harmed, people began to expect, to demand, that the Government, as the provider of general welfare, provide a remedy.
We are being challenged to the core of our values. And unlike “our friends on the other side of the isle” who are absolutely certain in the truth of their values, we have come to the logic and legitimacy of our values as a reaction to the inevitable abuses of those who are absolutely certain in the truth of their values. And its about time we stand for our values, our imperfect values, our evolving values, our engaged values, unapologetically and immediately.
