Weekly Musings© – “No Solomon”

Weekly Musings© – “No Solomon”
J Sweeney
9/1/04
Many Americans recognize that one duty of citizens in a democracy, perhaps the first duty, is to be an educated voter. While our two-party system has some weaknesses, one of its undeniable strengths is that via the national conventions voters are offered the opportunity to learn more about the people and platforms allied with each candidate. It is a chance for us to listen for what they say and don’t say. By reading the documents and listening to speeches we can gain some insight regarding potential policy directions and perhaps even how a candidate might respond to unforeseen events.

So in an effort to be an informed voter and a good citizen, I patiently sat through the speeches of the Democratic Convention. This week, during the Republican Convention, I am actively listening to the speeches that are aired and trying to find online the content of the speeches that the various commentators think we can live without hearing for ourselves.

During the Democratic Convention the dominant theme from the candidate, Senator John Kerry, was his record as a war hero, a defender of our nation. But, that was not the only theme of the convention. Former President Bill Clinton gave an impassioned speech about choices, particularly in domestic policy. The media appointed heir-apparent of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama called for recognition of our unity as a people and our need to establish a society that more equally distributed the prosperity created by our capitalist system.

I was never a fan of President Clinton. I thought his Presidency lacked focus and his economic policies benefited from a surge in productivity due to information technology that Former Vice-President Gore had more to do with as a senator than either of them did while in the executive branch. Our standing in the world may not have been diminished by unpopular policies but our workers were negatively impacted by NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and his personal choices served as an opportunity to divide our country. However, his speech was the clearest articulation of values and choices given in recent political history. He set the stage perfectly for the democrats to remind Americans about the gravitas of decisions outside the arena of international terrorism.
Kerry however demurred and spent his time highlighting four-months of heroic service thirty years ago instead of submitting evidence from his legislative record to earn our trust and ensure his election to high office. John Kerry may have been a war hero, but his twenty-four years in the Senate apparently do not support adequately in his mind the claim that he is a strong leader.

Now we are in the midst of the Republican Convention. Not surprisingly the party has chosen to disingenuously highlight the presence of socially moderate republicans during the prime time speaking slots. It is a blatant attempt to show a reasonable, compromising, big-tent party that welcomes dissent, discourse, and the exchange of ideas. I call it disingenuous because the platform statement is right-wing diatribe of exclusion and government enforced morality.

Of course the speakers like Former New York Mayor Rudolph Guliani and Senator John McCain are popular with swing-voters and independents specifically because of their socially moderate positions on choice, stem-cell research, campaign finance and fiscal responsibility. However, they are not permitted to speak to those very issues where they differ from the President. Indeed they are carefully presenting the argument that their differences are not important in the face of international terrorism and that they support the President because he is a strong leader in the “War on Terror.”

Even Barbara Bush as she spoke last night merely mentioned policy initiatives like “No Child Left Behind” on her way to saying that such issues were not the big reason to support her husband’s re-election, that the main factor in her mind was his single-minded pursuit of evildoers.

The only two issues that most Republicans are grudgingly willing to talk about outside of terrorism are tax-cuts and the Presidents decision regarding stem-cell research. The first is promoted proudly as an effective stimulus of the economy and a wise decision in the face of criticism. All economic evidence to the contrary social conservatives continue to claim that the tax cuts have been good for the economy. Even moderate republicans, and fiscal conservatives recognize that the massive deficits are having, and will have a nearly incalculable negative impact on our economy.

Please allow me this small diversion from the larger theme for an economics lesson. Tax breaks can be economic stimulators. If the tax break serves to concentrate capital into the hands of the financially savvy the long-term impact can be greater investment into capital improvements and business development. Such investments serve to drive down prices, increase jobs, and can lead to increased tax revenues. However, the increased revenues in such a scenario traditionally come from higher corporate profits and income growth for the middle-class. This tax break will have a different effect.

Corporate taxes are a dwindling percentage of total revenues as collected and reported by the IRS. Due to the globalization of the economy, free-trade agreements, and tax breaks given to corporations in an effort to compete for their presence in our local economies (so as to stimulate job growth) tax revenues will not appreciably grow from the corporate sector in the near future. Our leaders have been required by necessity to shift the tax burden from corporations to individuals. This means that any increase in corporate profits will have a smaller impact on tax revenues than traditionally.

Meanwhile, middle-class tax revenues now make up a larger portion of the tax base then before the targeted tax cut. This means that any loss of revenue from the tax break must be compensated for by a significant increase in middle-class incomes or a net increase in tax rates on the individual. The only other possibility is a surge in the employed population. The challenge is that increases in the employable population and wage increases are economic counter-balances. The more people that compete for jobs the lower wages can go in order to attract qualified employees. This is true locally as well as when US workers compete against foreign compensation models. So, because of modern realities regarding international competition, free trade, and tax burdens, the traditional stimulus effect of a tax break will not necessarily improve the economy to the degree necessary to return higher revenues.

In addition the tax cut was introduced during a time of peak housing prices coupled with both historically low interest rates and increased federal spending due mainly to the war in Iraq. Neither low interest rates nor the war in Iraq are causes of economic insecurity. The low interest rates were a primary factor in rising individual wealth, as home values increased. The financial costs of the war in Iraq are low when compared to other large-scale wars from American history in light of total gross domestic product, GDP. Yet, because the federal budget moved from surplus to deficit thereby requiring the government to borrow money from the marketplace in the form of bonds interest rates are beginning to rise even as the Federal Reserve was already inclined to raise rates in order to stem inflation.

Deficit spending raises interest rates. Because housing prices are so high when compared historically as a multiple of household income and because lending practices have loosened, people around the country at all income levels are carrying more debt then was considered tolerable by financial institutions even 5 years ago. We have already seen a substantial increase in personal bankruptcy (up 45% since 2002). This means that housing prices are going to slow and are likely to begin declining for a period of correction.

Median Household Income declined last year by 9% according to US Census figures. Any decrease in household incomes puts further downward pressure on housing prices, more importantly in the short-term it decreases tax revenues exacerbating the budget problem and leads to increased borrowing by the federal government.

That was a longer diversion than I had hoped for, however the material is complicated and required the space.

Now, back to the conventions.

The President’s economic policy can be summed up in one phrase, Tax Cuts. I personally think the tax cuts and deficits are an intentional plan on the part of republicans to starve the federal budget and create popular support for drastic cost cutting measures. But, that may be unfairly cynical and I accept the proposition that they enacted the tax-cuts from a principled position of letting people keep more of what they earn and a belief that the cuts would stimulate the economy.

The simplistic choice based purely on historical models is I think indicative of the mentality of this white house. They look at the past, choose a previously successful strategy and then pursue it with determination regardless of differences between the situation studied and the present one.

During this week’s convention you’ll also be treated to verbiage comparing President Bush’s policy on stem cell research to Solomon’s famous handling of the two women, one baby, situation.

I’ve heard this comparison before and it got me thinking. I began to muse, as I’m wont to do from time to time.

King Solomon had two women standing before him both claiming to be the mother of a child. Each woman had given birth recently. One morning they found one child dead and one living. Both women claimed the living child as their own.

Solomon said that the child should be severed in two and then each could have half.

One woman agreed to his proposal. The other woman begged him not to kill the child. She claimed she would rather he be given to the other woman than destroyed.

Thus Solomon knew by their choice which woman spoke truthfully and he returned the child to the real mother.

Now let’s consider the stem cell issue.

Before I begin I should disclose my bias. I am the Founding President of Monsignor Bonner High School’s Pro-Life Club. I have marched in Washington, DC against abortion, and Ali and I adopted a child rather than pursue any fertility program.

So, now let’s consider the stem cell issue.

Bush very publicly expressed his consternation with the issue of whether stem cells from embryos should be used for experimentation. His pressroom made it known that the President was carefully weighing the decision and called upon ethicists, scientists, and clergy to help him navigate the issue. He took some time away from DC and reflected in Crawford, TX on his ranch before announcing his choice.

In a well-orchestrated media blitz the administration announced its “Solomon Like” decision to compromise. The President had “wisely” determined that federal funding could not be used to destroy human life, but that federal funds could be used to conduct experimentation on the cells from life already destroyed. He attempted to capitalize on the issue with social conservatives and moderates. He would fund research with tax dollars and allow private culling and experimentation but no federal funds could be used to generate new lines of research.

Solomon like? I don’t think so. Solomon did not seek a compromise. He used a false compromise to demonstrate the insincerity of one side and thereby legitimize the claim of the rightful mother.

President Bush’s decision offers no such legitimacy to either party. At first it sounds wise. It sounds like a policy of compassion to those that might benefit from stem-cell research and protection of the unborn. But, if you really examine the issue closely you’ll see it is a fraudulent compromise. It is splitting the baby in half and trying to please both women.

Let’s pretend that one woman is the pro-life movement the other the scientific community. That’s a little simplistic, I know, but it is useful for the following mental exercise. The two women go before the President and make their case that the child, the issue, is theirs. President Bush deliberates and decides to split the baby. Solomon would have expected one woman to protest and the other agree. Well, let’s see what happens.

The Christian Right has decided to back Bush’s decision. They agree with his wise choice to split the baby. Let funds be used for some experimentation on embryonic stem cells. Since they were created in the dark of the night before, it is the fair thing to do. The scientific community continues to protest. They claim that splitting the decision is paramount to killing the baby, as weak federal funding won’t do enough to keep the US competitive.

Weird isn’t it? I would have expected the religious right to decry the decision and thereby demonstrate moral consistency and clarity. Instead they fall lockstep behind President Bush and call him wise. Wasn’t there a woman in the story that praised the false compromise offered by the king?

If President Bush believed that research done on unwanted embryos created during fertilization treatments was more morally reprehensible than their outright destruction he could not allow federal funds to be used to pursue research on strains of stem-cells already culled. If on the other hand he believed it was reasonable to use already discarded embryos for stem cell research, then to deny the funds for political cover with his base is a disingenuous choice.

Put simply he is saying that he won’t use your tax money to experiment on embryos that will be thrown out, but he will use your tax dollars to experiment on those that have already been thrown out. In other words the arbitrary line in the sand is the time when the President made his decision. If he had made it 3 years earlier none of the embryonic stem cells would have existed and if he made it 3 years form now perhaps 50 more lines would have been available.

He’s no Solomon. On the choice of the economy he used an old, outdated model to make a decision and continues to pursue that single solution disregarding good economic science.

On the choice of protecting life President Bush decided to split the baby, but unlike Solomon before him, he actually split the baby thereby undermining the entire Right to Life platform.

In both cases, and similar arguments could be made regarding Iraq, gay marriage, the fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, social security, and Medicare, President Bush and his advisors lack the intellectual integrity and creativity to effectively lead in a world so strikingly different from the time in which they were raised.

They are not capable of deeply considering long-term consequences or recognizing new opportunities and threats before we suffer the impact. As long as he is President we will continue to be a step behind the terrorists, a cycle behind economically, a generation behind technologically, and a lifetime behind morally.

President Bush is no Solomon and from what I’ve seen so far, Senator Kerry is not a leader.

But, let’s just argue about who did what 30 years ago.