Say it Ain’t So, O[bama]

Some speculation has arisen as to the strategy of the President in these opening weeks of his second term. The speculation regards his motives. Motives are difficult to discern. In any case, I find the comments, from both liberal and conservative sources, to be disturbing. Let us explore it for a few moments.

According to the Washington Examiner, President Obama is just 42 days into his second term in the White House but he is already done governing. As The Washington Post reported this weekend, Obama is already “executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president.” “The goal,” The Washington Post reports, “is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.”

As they see it, Obama is done trying to work with Republicans in 2013 and 2014. He is abandoning any real effort for bipartisan immigration, gun, or energy reform. The bulk of his effort will now be devoted to eliminating all Republican power in Washington. The first step in the campaign for the mid-term election is to maximize the amount of pain the sequester inflicts on the American people. ABC News reports: “Now that the sequester has gone into effect — bringing on the spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never happen — the president is in the awkward place of rooting for it be felt as he and his administration has predicted.”

Their conclusion is that for perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. They think that Obama could have spent the last 16 months preparing to mitigate sequestration’s impact on the American people, as any responsible manager would have. Instead, he has done the opposite, explicitly ordering government agencies not to prepare for the worst. And he has refused all Republican efforts to pass legislation that would minimize the sequester’s pain.

I hope I am not being unfair in suggesting that this approach reminds me of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.” One way to interpret the behavior of the Administration is to create in the imagination of government workers and citizens the worst possible scenario during these next few months.

Michael Barone said it appears Obama prefers delivering such messages to crowds of adoring supporters over actually governing. For support, he points to Washington Post's Bob Woodward. He is continuing to make it clear, as he did in his book "The Price of Politics," that it was Obama's then-chief of staff and now Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who first proposed the dreaded sequester. The point is that the president who first proposed the sequester, then promised it would never happen and then denounced it when it seemed clear it would.

Tom Brokaw said in an interview that the fact is that Speaker Boehner is right. Let the Senate come in here and start to play with this a little bit. Where is their budget? The president can start his budget process over there. He thinks the president spent entirely too much time in the last two weeks campaigning, in effect, all around the country, lining up that Saturday Night Live parody. All those people who will be affected, when he ought to have been at Camp David and said to Boehner and his team, and members of the Republican side in the Senate, 'Bring the leadership up here, let's spend five days showing the public that we are interested in trying to make a heroic effort to get a deal here. Can't make any calls out to anybody else except maybe your press representatives but not to your caucus members. We're going to sit here and negotiate this. You're the leaders of the Congress, I'm the leader of the country. We've got to find a way to work this out.' (The Cycle, March 4, 2013)

Yet, this strategy is consistent with Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, RULE 10: "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign. The rule suggests to me that any cooperation with the House, any actual solution to the matters before the nation, would ease the pressure on Republicans.

I would like to think that these persons I have mentioned, from conservative and liberal sources, are wrong. Further, I am not comfortable trying to discern the motives of a person. Even if true, all it might mean is that the President thinks that Democrat control of every branch of government would be best for the country, so it is worth inflicting some pain now on citizens to accomplish that objective. Yet, even then, such a tactic seems devious.

I share this because it seems as if conventional wisdom is that Obama has an interest in inflicting as much as pain as possible through the sequester, confirming in the minds of some voters the evil intent of Republicans. It runs counter to the previous conventional wisdom that for at least a few months, the President and Congress would actually govern in the best interest of the nation.

Let me say it directly. If I were in his shoes, I would have welcomed the opportunity to cut “waste, fraud, and abuse” of the system, including all the expensive retreats about which we have been reading. The President wants us as citizens to assume that the level of federal government spending is “lean and mean,” and therefore, any cut must be to essential services. As I write this, I find it ridiculous, but I assume also that many Americans lean toward accepting its truth. The President wants a “balanced” approach, when in reality, major tax increases are already in place. The sequester, as designed by Obama and approved by both houses in Congress, is about spending. Its design, by our political leaders, was not balance, but spending.

Divide Among Voters

February 23, 2009, President Obama:

 

“And that's why today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half at the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges that we have long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now in this administration for getting our spending under control."  

One sign of the divide in the country might be some that a majority of voters think he meant it and has been trying hard to do it. His years in office have gone the opposite direction because of Bush or Republicans or ... something else. They will give him much credit for trying. Another group suspects (thinks it knows) that he never meant it to begin with.  

In a similar sense of the divide among voters, George Will suggested: The sequester has forced liberals to clarify their conviction that whatever the government’s size is at any moment, it is the bare minimum necessary to forestall intolerable suffering. To add to this, the conservative will say that the present level of government is part of the problem and it needs actual reduction.

At this point, just wondering if that is the case.

Honesty on Tax Increases

I appreciate a February 2013 editorial in the New York Times about raising taxes. They emphasize the need to raise taxes because of fairness, but ... Well, here is how they say it:

 

new taxes on high-income Americans are a matter of necessity and fairness; they are also a necessary precondition to what in time will have to be tax increases on the middle class. …As the economy strengthens and the population ages, more taxes will be needed from further down the income scale… But there will never be a consensus for more taxes from the middle class without imposing higher taxes on wealthy Americans, who have enjoyed low taxes for a long time.

 

Frankly, I appreciate the honesty. The reality is that there is not enough money there, even if you confiscated it, to eliminate the deficit. Further, If you confiscated the money, it would be there only for one year. They would find ways to avoid going over the amount that would be confiscated.

 

One of the stated concerns of the United Methodist Social Principles (163) is sound fiscal policy. Although the principles go a quite different direction than what I am suggesting, John Kennedy admitted the difficulty in believing in the positive effect of low taxes. It does not seem fiscally responsble, but he points out why it is. "It's a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." Those are the words of President John F. Kennedy in 1962. He went on to say, "The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." What's more, in Kennedy's annual message to Congress, in 1963, he said, "In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction, even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit. ... Reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

 

I recognize that the rates were quite different in the day of Kennedy, but the change he brought was in the right direction. Part of the point is that higher tax rates leads to more energy put into hiding income. What I think is a more important point is that the present tax rates, which leads to many people giving over 50% of their income to various levels of government, is simply unfair. People have a right to what they have earned.

 

Sequester 2013 By Numbers

The United Methodist Church, Paragraph 163, says that "we recognize the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies." I imagine most of us agree with that statement. The current debate regarding sequester deserves some attention from us as citizens. It is a rather borning numbers game. I will keep it brief.

The sequester was the result of an actual law - the Budget Control Act of 2011, now known as Public Law 112-25. A bill becomes law (in most cases, including this one) when it is passed by the House and Senate then signed by the President of the United States. It does not matter whose idea it was first. As law, it is the idea of Senate, House, and President.

According to Larry Kudlow, the $85 billion "spending cut" is actually budget authority, not budget outlays. According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What’s more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget. Further, these "cuts" come off a rising budget baseline in most cases. So the sequester would slow the growth of spending. They’re not real cuts in the level of spending.

From Dick Morris: Concerning sequester and the military, Defense spending, as a percent of federal revenue, has been relatively constant, however. It peaked at 29 percent during the Reagan Cold War era and then dropped to 23 percent as George H.W. Bush wound down spending. In 2000, after the Clinton years, it absorbed 18 percent of the budget, swelling to 20 percent under George W. Bush and returning to 19 percent in 2012. The additional $40 billion in sequester cuts will drop its share to 18 percent -- hardly cause for alarm.

Jonah Goldberg says that if the sequester goes into effect, the federal budget for this year will still be larger than last year's ($3.553 trillion in 2013 vs. $3.538 trillion in 2012). With the sequester in effect, federal non-defense spending will still be 10 percent higher than it was in 2008.

The point is simple. The sequester does not come close to the type of setting of spending priorities that the politicians need to make. It does not mean the sky will fall if it goes into effect. Such language assumes that the level of spending the federal government has now is efficient and well spent. Saying that makes most of us realize how silly the entire discussion actually is. In fact, what needs to happen are real cuts in budget outlays, and they need to occur sooner rather than later. That would appear to be "sound fiscal" policy.

The Gift of Time

            The best gift any of us has is time. God made time and created room for us. In giving us time and space, God has given us enough independence to determine what we will do with the brief time we have.

What will we do with our time?

So often, we are in a hurry. We are too busy. We do not make time for each other the way we could. We do not make time for the things that are important to us. We know they are important, but somehow we are just too busy. We let trivia get in the way. You know how it is. We might even let the past get in our way with regrets or with resentment toward others. We obsess over small things. We let things the things that demand our attention now consume our lives. We never quite figure out how to organize our lives so that we avoid the trivia and stay focused on what is important to us.

When we are young, we always feel that life has not yet begun. We will begin life next week, next month, next year, after the holidays – whenever. Before we are aware of it, we are old and wondering what in the world we did with the time we had.

            For most of us, friends and family are important. Yet, unless something happens to wake us up, we often let so many other things crowd them out of our lives. We just do not have the time.

            The death of a friend or family member can be one of those precious moments that make us stop or pause long enough, in the midst of the rush of life, to consider what is important to us. Do we have our priorities aligned right? Such a moment can make us reflect upon the life of another person, as well as what that person meant to us. What qualities did we admire? Can we incorporate some of those qualities into our lives?

I have thought of many images for the point I want to make. One could use the image of a pattern we make with sewing, of the story we might write, or of the picture we paint. Today, however, I am thinking of the song we sing. Most of us like music, whether we are good at singing or not. Think of your life as a song your life is singing. The song is not over yet, of course. So far, do you like the song?

            Think of your song as influencing the song other people are singing with their lives. Your contribution may be large, contributing major themes. However, it may also be a simple note, a change in tempo, or a rest. You have the privilege of contributing to their song.

            Of course, ultimately, we have a connection to God. We need to find a way to connect our song with the song God is inviting us to sing.

            None of us knows how much time we have. The song continues with additional themes, measures, and verses.

The thing is, for some people, to continue with their song is one of the toughest things they will ever do. It might be after a major disappointment, a disruption in a relationship, the realization that you could have done so much more with your life, or the loss of one close to you. Whatever the circumstance, it can seem almost impossible to continue with your song. The way of a human life is not straight or easy. We may well have to dig deep into matters of who we are, whom we desire to be, matters of character and values. Truth is, you never know how strong you are, until being strong is the only choice you have.

            One further word might be helpful. When you have reached your limit, you may well find that God, whose creative love knows no limits, is there.

Why I do not do Resolutions

            I recently read a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin says to Hobbes, “Resolutions? Me? What are you implying? That I need to change? Well, buddy, as far as I am concerned, I am perfect in every way.”

My lack of interest in making resolutions is not a fear of a change. Rather, because I value change, I do not make such resolutions. Obviously, if you have found a way to make them work in your life, you need to keep at it. My assumption is that most of us need to change. At the end of the year, in that entire span of time from Thanksgiving to the New Year, I like to engage in some meditation and reflection that. I like to think it helps me see some things about me that need change. If the end of the year encourages you to do that, the people around you will be grateful.

I do not make resolutions in part because I believe that moving toward being the person God wants me to be is a daily charge I have from God. Daily, I want my life transformed into the image of Christ. I always need to be willing to leave behind the sins that hold me back from being that person God wants me to be.

            One disturbing element of resolutions is that we often “resolve” to do at that time of year things we ought to have started doing far earlier. From what I have read, resolutions tend to be around matters related to time with family and doing more things to improve self-care, whether for the mind, the soul, or the body. We are into “wellness” this time of year. Even Anytime Fitness in Logansport was full a few days ago. I have also read that many people want to spend less time on Facebook. Of course, they posted this … on Facebook.

            According to Psychology Today, resolutions fail because they do not get to the real heart of what is going on inside of us. Here is how Michael Bader puts it:

"We don't develop self-destructive behaviors because we're weak, or because 'they just became a habit,' or because everyone around us was doing them, or because of our neurobiology or heredity. The meaning of these behaviors is unconscious and we develop them because they serve unconscious beliefs and needs. These beliefs and needs are important, albeit unconscious, building blocks of our identities. They provide a sense of unconscious safety, and changing them is unconsciously experienced as dangerous."

            What I read here is that we do things, or do not do things, because they reflect either conscious or unconscious needs or desires that already reflect whom we are and what we want to be. More pointedly, such rules may pull us back from who we desire to be. Your life is already following a rule, whether you have consciously chosen it or not, a rule that accomplishes something that you need, desire, or want, again, whether you are aware or not. That explains why so many resolutions fail. They tinker around at the edges, instead of helping us look honestly at the person we have become and the person we desire to be.

            Marjorie Thompson, in Soul Feast (1995) concludes her book by reflecting on the importance of developing a rule of life. She uses some examples of the rules of life others have developed. Her point is that if we are to grow our souls, we will need some type of structure. We need to look honestly at our character and our circumstances as we develop a realistic rule of life for this stage of our lives. If we are to be successful at incorporating a new structure in our lives, we will need to share with a friend or spiritual director and be part of the Body of Christ.

            As I have reflected on the notion of having a rule of life, I realize that I have developed some rules, some of which are quite good, while others, not so much. I will not bore you with them, but being able to state the rules that already guide our lives could be a helpful exercise.

            One more thing that disturbs me about New Year’s resolutions is the assumption that you are strong enough to resolve to make a change that you probably needed to make years ago. The fact is, I think, we are all quite frail in our attempts to make needed changes. We need the type of help to which Marjorie Thompson refers. We need the encouragement to keep on the path when we fail or succumb to the temptation to fall away.

            Yes, I am all for change. I am all for taking time on a regular basis to reflect prayerfully on our lives, and the end of the year may be a good time to do that. Yet, change is also a daily openness to God and to others. Make the changes as you see the need to make them.

            By the way, I can think of many passages in the Bible that can be of help in our desire to be a new person, a better person. I bet you can as well.

Stories of the Patriarchs

           I am think of the stories in Genesis 12-35 today. The caution one needs to have in these stories of the Patriarchs is to refuse the temptation to important too much later theology into their story. If we see value in discerning the ways of the God of Israel into these vignettes from family life, then we need to be modest about their theological implications. The period of the Patriarchs was simply one of a family struggling to find two significant things. One was progeny. The typical account of barrenness is a clear statement as to how fragile life could be for the nomadic family. Children were the primary way the nomad could think of connecting with something beyond him or her. Connecting to the future with a sense of hope is an important connection for human beings to make. The struggle to offer the gift of children to the future was quite real. Two was to own land. In agrarian society, owning land was vital. Ownership made the clan at home.

            Beyond these two objectives, we find the struggle of a family to work out its relationships. Abraham and Lot must deal with discord. Abraham must let his son and servant-girl depart from the clan in order to appease his wife. Jacob deceives his brother and his father, departs from his parents, experiences deception at the hands of a relative, and carries with him the guilt of what he had done. In order for this family to survive, it would need forgiveness. Esau is the one who extends forgiveness.

            The meaning of their lives would move in quite different directions than they, their immediate descendants, or their neighbors, could have envisioned. These stories remind us that the meaning of human life is never completed, even at death

            Why would a sacred text, achieving its final formation in the exilic period, want to remember such mundane stories?

            For a sacred text, these stories remind readers of the risk God has taken. God has entrusted to weak and frail human beings the task of faithfully carrying out the divine purpose. These stories remind us of the patience of God in working with imperfect creatures over long periods in order to bring a family, a people, or a world, to the place God wants. Think of it. Abraham was anxious and fearful. Sarah was mean-spirited. Abraham showed lack of courage in facing his wife when she had done wrong. Jacob deceived others. Yet, these actions did not define who they were. In fact, these actions, honestly recorded for posterity, awaited a further fulfillment they could not imagine. In the case of the Patriarchs, their commitment to work out the mundane, intimate, and often dysfunctional family matters opened them to a future they never imagined. They did not know of covenants, laws, priests, kings, temples, Sabbath, circumcision, and the like. They did not offer the future a set of theological ideas or systems. What they did offer was their imperfect lives. In the process, unknown to themselves, they became the family that prepared the way for a new people of God.