PERCEIVED INCIVILITY IN POLITICS AND THE TRUE PERIL OF THE USA-57

Let me contribute a few cautionary comments from my perspective of decades of observing the contemporary scene and being a student of history that one need not fear for our country because of perceived incivility in the body politic today. The history of politics in our country is replete with more personal attacks, vitriolic discourse, and shameless slanders since the founding of the Republic than what takes place today. Two of the Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were political allies and personnel friends in the revolutionary days and during the George Washington presidency. In the contest to succeed Washington, Adams and Jefferson became bitter enemies accusing each other of particularly unflattering calumnies and down right falsehoods. Fortunately, Abigail Adams, the accomplished and intellectually gifted wife of John Adams, had been a good friend of Jefferson and her persistence in trying to reconcile the pair finally allowed the two former friends, turned enemies, to resolve their differences during the last 17 years of their lives, after their political careers were over. Thus were created and preserved many priceless letters exchanged between them in those 17 years. As a matter of historical note they both died (Adams was 7½ years older than Jefferson) on the same day; the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Republic.

In 1856, leading up to the Civil War, antislavery Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made an intemperate speech on the floor of the Senate criticizing proslavery Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Three days later Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a relative of Butler, walked up to Sumner who was seated at his desk in the Senate chamber and beat him with his cane so severely that Sumner was absence from the Senate for three years while recovering. The people of South Carolina sent Brooks dozens of canes to replace the one he had broken while he was pummeling Sumner. For weeks afterwards many of the senators and representatives carried pistols and knives on them while they were in the Senate or House chambers and in their offices. Still think there is relatively gross incivility in politics today?

Even, along with George Washington, our most respected, admired, and honorable president, Abraham Lincoln, was not above nasty politics in his youth as a politician in Illinois. As people were wont to do at that time, Lincoln anonymously wrote a scathing, not to say slanderous, parody in the local newspaper of one of his political opponents. Lincoln was soon discovered to be the author and his opponent challenged him to a duel. Friends of both of them interceded so that the dispute was settled without the antagonists resorting to shooting at each other – fortunately, else the country might have been deprived of one of its greatest presidents.

Historians have well documented that during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, what was called the era of “yellow” journalism, newspapers and politicians put forth the most outrageous and villainous descriptions of their opponents than anything that could be imagined today.

Audrey, a little advice from an old codger who has seen it all. If you use an example to illustrate a finer point make sure the example has validity. Other than former respected civil rights activist and now Representative in the House, John Lewis (D-GA) who allegedly said he heard the “N” word used against him by the Tea Party protestors in Washington D.C. there is no evidence that it occurred. Lewis would not go on any TV network, not Fox News or the other left leaning networks, and repeat that claim. Lewis himself had used over the top and therefore uncivil criticism during the presidential campaign, calling John McCain and Sarah Palin segregationists and comparing them to George Wallace. Prior to that Lewis was the first major House member to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush.

A website owner and conservative Jew, Andrew Breitbart, was suspicious of the claim that Tea Party participants had used foul or racist language toward black members of congress so he offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce any camera cell phone recording or other evidence that it happened. He had no takers so he increased the amount to $100,000 and is still waiting. Given how ubiquitous camera cell phones are now (just consider what happened to the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones. If you have not heard the story this past week I could relate it to you) one would think that someone would have recorded it. Also not one of the dozens and dozens of Capital Police has said they heard anything untoward directed toward black members of congress. I am just saying be sure your “facts” can not be reasonably disputed by someone like me.

There are always fringe people in any group and the current government protestors are no exception. These yahoos go beyond acceptable bounds and Bill Clinton was right to point this out a couple of days ago. However, if one is to be a moral arbitrator, then it is imperative to be consistent in this position. Where was Clinton a few years ago when some of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan wars protestors were calling George W. Bush a murderer, liking him to Hitler, and displaying signs with crosshairs on the forehead of a picture of Bush? It is necessary to be fair and consistent when impugning the character and motives of others in order to avoid the appellation of hypocrite.

Is there a reason to be concerned about the course of our country today? Yes there is, but it is not about incivility in politics – it has to do with the economic well being of the country. The vast majority of the protestors today are deeply concerned about the explosive growth of and expansion of the power of the federal government and the burgeoning, seemingly out of control, federal dept. The cause of the rapidly increasing dept is bipartisan and the solution to this grave problem will have to be bipartisan also.

During the first five years of the Bill Clinton administration the federal government ran what by now seem like exceedingly small budget deficits and during his last three years and the first year of the Bush administration (thanks to the Clinton and congress policies) there were budget surpluses. In the entire eight year Clinton administration there was a modest $700 billion increase in the national dept, which, because of the growth in the GDP (gross domestic product), actually caused the debt to became a smaller percentage in relation to the GDP. Whatever the moral failings of Bill Clinton and his under emphasis on the Islamic Terrorist threat during his presidency, there is no denying that the Clinton administration was fiscally conservative and responsible.

For the eight years of the Bush administration the national dept increased by circa $5 trillion, from $5½ to $10½ trillion. Much of this debt increase was due to the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increase in the subsidies of the Medicare/Medicaid prescription drug program. In my opinion this was highly irresponsible because if wars are worth fighting and federal subsidies worth granting then they are worth paying for by either cutting other federal expenditures or raising taxes or both.

In the 21 months of the current presidential administration the national debt increased by $3 trillion, from $10 1/2 to $13 1/2 trillion. A severe financial crises and recession were inherited, true enough, yet instead of sensibly concentrating on improving the economy, lowering unemployment, and trying to control the rapidly increasing national debt, the Obama administration zeroed in on healthcare reform as its primary program.

The debt and its projected growth over the next ten years are unsustainable and if not reversed will do irreversible damage to our economy and society. As of Oct. 2007 the national dept has increased an average of $4.16 billion per day! This explains why the idea of a VAT (Value Added Tax) which means that in every step of the manufacturing or production of goods a tax is added. The concept of going to a VAT in this country is now starting to be bandied about by both liberals and conservatives, but for political reasons will not be proposed before the November bi-year elections. There is simply not enough money available from raising income taxes on the rich to have a significant impact on the dept. As it is, according to the latest figures from the IRS, 47% of the bottom income group of USA households does not pay federal income taxes. In fact the lowest 40% of income households actually receive subsidies from the federal government each year to the tune of $70 billion. The top 1% of income earners (making $390,000 or more per year) pay about the same amount of federal income tax ($450 billion) as the lowest 95% (making $150,000 per year or less). The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all federal income tax leaving the bottom 50% paying only 3%. Thus the only realistic alternative of raising significant amounts of revenue for the federal government is the VAT which will be paid by everyone. The estimate is that every 1% of VAT in this country would generate about $100 billion in revenues. Therefore a 10% VAT would mean one trillion dollars for the government coffers. That is quite a temptation for politicians.

The European nations pay for their welfare programs with income taxes and a VAT. In Western Europe the top income tax rate varies from 40% to 54% with the average being 48% and the VAT varying from 16% to 25% with the average being 20%. In Eastern Europe the top income tax rate ranges from 10% to 45% with the average being 22½% and the VAT from 15% to 23% with an average of 19%. Do we really want to go down the road to European socialism?

In the United States the top federal income rate is currently 35%. When the so called Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 the top income tax rate will go back to 39.6%. What is a comparable tax in this country to the European VAT is the state and local sales tax. In Plano it is 8¼%, not quite at the 20% European level. If a VAT were enacted here it would be added to, not replace, the sales tax.

Is there any justification for the USA to have a VAT to help bring down our dangerously high and rapidly increasing national dept? I think yes – with several caveats. (1.) It should not be enacted until our economy and unemployment level have shown clear signs of improvement. (2.) It should be a temporary tax of “X” years where “X” is just long enough to have a measurable and significant impact on lowering our debt. (3.) It should expire after “X” years with a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress required to extend it. (4.) Congress has to enact legislation, signed by the president, for major reductions in government spending including the military and entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) as well as pork barrel spending so favored by the rascals in congress (Is it any wonder that congress has a 50 year high disapproval rating of 75% to 80%?).

I may be overly optimistic, but I believe when the ever increasing national financial peril of our country is at last appreciated by a large majority of the voters then our elected representatives will finally act to correct this dire situation. Not this year perhaps; still the way the national dept is mushrooming, not so far in the future that it will be too late to save this great nation.