Separation of Church and State

 

Many people seem to be confused over the meaning of the term “separation of church and state”. How is it relevant to our lives in America?

Beginnings

The very concept of the “separation of church and state” dates back to Roger Williams and the founding of Rhode Island in 1636. He was the first American to advocate and activate complete freedom of conscience, dissociation of church and state, and genuine political democracy. He also founded the first Baptist Church in North America. He settled in Providence with 13 other householders and in one year formed the first genuine democracy, as well as the first church-divorced and conscience-free community in modern history. Williams felt that government is the natural way provided by God to cope with the corrupt nature of man. But since government could not be trusted to know which religion is true, he considered the best hope for true religion rests with the protection of the freedom of all religion, along with non-religion, from the state. In that way, whichever religion was true would never find itself subservient to one that was false. The truth of a religion doesn’t lie in the number of it’s believers but in its message.

Separation of Church and State

The logic behind the concept is flawless, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the forward thinking of the founders of this country. With the diversity inherent in a pluralistic society, including a multitude of Christian sects, as well as representation of every faith on the planet, including those with no beliefs at all, the only conceivable way to ensure that no amount of favoritism is shown through legislation to any one belief, in preference to any other, is to create an environment in which all religious beliefs compete with each on a level playing field based on their own merits.

Some have argued that what that does is establish atheism as something having a favored religious status. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism is not a religion. It’s the absence of religion. It holds a secular position. The default position of the government is one that shows no favoritism to any religious view. That is the definition of secular. In order to maintain religious freedom, which is the core of democracy, government must not concern itself with religious subjects. In this way each religion rises or falls of it’s own accord without the assistance of the government. The success and purity of a religion should be based on faith, which is its message. Not government sponsorship. Government corrupts religion.

The atheist has no interest in religion and simply holds the same default position, and that position is one of democracy. Religious freedom and the freedom of ones conscience is fundamental to democracy. Atheism, for example, doesn’t introduce something into the legislative action of government based upon a belief. It doesn’t concern itself with belief at all. Therefore it, like the government, which must address the needs of all of its people, can only address matters that effect everyone regardless of their beliefs. Knowing that no religion can prove itself as more real or accurate than any other, government can’t possibly legislate the beliefs of one over the beliefs of another on issues that are simply matters of faith. The only result from that kind of action is religious tyranny. Society is reduced to a matter of who has the most adherents to a belief. Having more believers doesn’t mean that the belief is necessarily true.

Jefferson said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Holding to this principle insures the concept of religious freedom that is the cornerstone of democracy. Opposition to this principle begs the question put forth by Justice O’Connor when she asked, “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?“ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of our historical, legal and political/social heritage and preserves and protects our religious liberty.

References

Roger Williams - Champion of Liberty: by Ian Williams Goddard. eighth great-great-grandson of Roger Williams

Thomas Jefferson: Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson Writings. Library of America

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: United States Supreme Court

The copyright of the article Separation of Church and State in American Affairs is owned by Larry Allen Brown. Permission to republish Separation of Church and State in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Latest Articles by Larry Allen Brown

Become a freelance writer!

Larry Allen Brown (aka) adagio4639

Larry Allen Brown is the author of Poltical Logic: Defeating Conservative Theories of Rationality.

He has also recorded three CD’s:

Cobb Lane

Music for the High Country

Stories that we wrote

He is also a teacher having recorded the DVD:

Open Tunings for the Guitar – Open D

He is published by Decent Hill Publishers.

He lives in Vermont. He’s a liberal iconoclast.

Patriots Day

April 15 2013. It’s Tax Day in the United States. Not really a favorite day in the country. But in Boston Massachusetts it’s Patriots Day and the entire state of Massachusetts celebrates a state holiday with pride, as the state that is the home of the American Revolution. It’s the Boston Marathon, the oldest continuous Marathon in the world. It’s “The Big Daddy” of all Marathons. It’s the Red Sox kicking off the day at home. It’s famous Boylston Street, the 5^th Avenue of Boston. It’s Newbury Street with its fashionable bars and shops. It’s 27,000 runners and thousands more watching and cheering the runners on giving their support. 26 miles and each mile dedicated to the 26 people murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut just several months earlier. Many of the runners are raising money for charity. It’s a beautiful spring day of celebration and the finish line is just up ahead, a few blocks from the Berklee College of Music where I went to school. It’s Copley Square. I know the neighborhood well.  It’s human beings at their best. And suddenly it’s a horrific battle scene as two bombs go off within seconds of each other killing 3 people, and severely injuring 170 others.

Bill Richard from Dorchester, was running. His family was there to see him cross the finish line. As he approached the finish line, his son Martin, 8 years old, ran to give him a hug. His 6 year old sister followed along with his wife Denise.  The  blast of the bomb killed little Martin. His sister lost a leg, and Denise suffered brain injuries. And Bill Richard went home that night, alone. He had run the Boston Marathon. Now he faces a lifetime of agonizing grief.

There is little doubt that he will second guess his decision to run the marathon. He’ll tell himself, that if only he hadn’t done it, his life wouldn’t have been destroyed and he will blame himself. That’s how grief works. Of course it has nothing to do with his decision to run. He could have taken the family to Fenway Park for a Red Sox game, and the very same thing could have happened there. In fact, this kind of thing could happen at any time and any place, and Bill would tell himself…if only. It’s how we rationalize what happened.  It’s an act of terrorism and it strikes at any time and any place, and doesn’t care who falls and how it impacts their lives. Terrorists demand to be heard regardless of the consequences and agony they inflict on the innocents. Their ideology is more important than life itself. Life is expendable to the ideology.

There is no way to erase this from his mind, and convince him that this had nothing to do with him and that it’s just his mind hard at work looking for a way to make sense out of the actions of a maniac. The mind will look for a rational explanation and a grieving parent will always point blame at himself. His son is gone forever. His daughter’s lost leg will be a reminder of that horrific day for the rest of his life, and his wife’s injuries will only add to the agony of what he’ll deal with from now on.

We don’t yet know if this was the actions of foreign or domestic terrorists. Until we know who did this, we can only deal with the reality of the moment. That’s Bill Richard’s reality. Knowing who was responsible for this may help keep him from torturing himself. In grief, we always look for answers. Until we get some answers, we look at ourselves. What could we have done differently?

My heart goes out to Bill. He’s enduring unimaginable torture right now, and it’s just beginning. As the shock wears off, the reality sinks in, and a life of agonizing pain is what he has to look forward to.

No amount of education or religious training can prepare us for the magnitude of this kind of agony. In most instances, we deal with our loss and although you never get “over” it, time has a way of helping us get through it. In Bills case, the injuries to his wife and daughter will block that process and make it more difficult than we can imagine. The lasting images are seared into his brain and leave an indelible scar that will never go away. The last thing this man needs is platitudes. If even one person says, “I know how you must feel”, they should be ashamed. They can’t know how he feels. They never walked in his shoes. Having lost a child myself, I can’t begin to know how this man might feel or how he’ll cope. It demands that we look for strength that we never had to summon at any other point in our lives. In Bill Richard’s life, that burden is more than then anyone should have to bear.

I wish that I could offer words of advice, or something to help ease his pain. But what can I say? There are no words. So I write this just to get it out, and ease my own sadness for another man’s pain. I can only hope that Bill understands that while he feels more alone than he’s ever felt in his life, our hearts and prayers go out to him.

No more hurting people. Peace.

Larry Allen Brown

 

Dogma

Anytime a person defines something; they set borders around what lies within the definition.They cannot be more or less than what they describe. They limit themselves to their own definition. 

Dogma is like living as a sheep lives in a fenced corral. It’s very safe….at least until the rancher decides he wants some lamb chops for dinner. Outside the fence of the corral is freedom. But it’s also a scary place where anything can happen. So you forsake the freedom for the safety of the corral. Freedom takes a bit more guts I guess. So the sheep justify their existence in the corral as being orderly and safe and the right way to live. They claim that they are the ones that are all about freedom which they loudly proclaim from within the corral surrounded by the fence. It’s the conservative approach. They must maintain the existing institution of the corral. They may talk about Freedom, but what they are really concerned with is safety. They are very timid. They may act tough on the outside, but they lack the guts necessary to pursue freedom.

The liberal is probably the “black sheep”. He sees freedom beyond the fence. Beyond the dogma of the corral. It could cost him his life. Or it could present a whole new world. But he thinks it beats waiting around to die in a place that never tries anything new. How can he realize his potential from within a prison of dogma? The sheep in the corral call him a misfit, and a lot of other things. He doesn’t believe in the morality of the flock of sheep. He sees them as hypocritical to claim a love for freedom while living inside the fence in a corral. What do they know of freedom? What is the authority that they speak from? What justifies their claim that they are free? Well it’s always been this way. It’s the tradition. But that doesn’t justify remaining inside the corral. The appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy and the black sheep knows that. The black sheep is only interested in  the truth, and he’ll never get it from within the dogma of the corral. The truth extends beyond the dogma of the fenced corral. And the Truth will set him free. 

 

The Medal of Honor as a tool

Today I was watching the TV and I saw something I never saw before and never thought that I’d ever see. It was a recruiting commercial for the Army and at one point toward the end there was SSgt Salvatore Guinta standing before a mirror in full dress uniform putting on his Medal of Honor that was presented to him in a solemn ceremony by the President of the United States. You can see the commercial on TV or on YouTube. He stood there before the mirror, all spit and polish and wearing the highest medal that the United States presents to a soldier for valor and courage on the field of battle. And here the Army thought it wise to use SSgt Guinta and his Medal of Honor as a recruiting tool. So the United States Army has now commercialized the Congressional Medal of Honor. It’s now being used as a recruiting tool. I wonder what the person that authorized this was thinking. Did he actually say to himself or others, “let’s put SSgt Guinta in the commercial? That’ll get em’ to join.” They’re actually selling the idea of “winning” a Medal of Honor, as if it’s something that you “win”.

It seems to be working. The comments on YouTube are probably 98% positive. Many of the young men are thrilled at seeing SSgt Guinta and his Medal of Honor. They’re ready to go. As the father of a soldier who serves in the Army Special Forces, and did three tours of Iraq, I don’t know what I’m more appalled at; the Army commercializing the highest honor given to an American soldier to be used as a recruiting tool, or the fact that not one person looked at that ad and said, “ What???” There are some things that are beyond commercialization, some things that you simply don’t reduce to a mere tool for selling a product. I used to think that was the case. I used to think that the Army understood that.

I suppose that it’s only a matter of time before they use the Towers falling on 9/11 as a recruiting tool. Perhaps the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier will be next. As the father of a soldier who serves in the Army Special Forces and did three tours of Iraq, I’m shocked and appalled that the Army would be this crass, but I’m even more shocked that it raised no questions as to the tasteless commercialization of the nation’s highest honor.

The Blunt Amendment

Women across the country breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate voted down the Blunt-Rubio bill. It’s surprising that the vote was even as close as it was. It’s not surprising that Nelson, and Manchin voted for it. Bob Casey…I guess that shouldn’t surprise us either.

This entire thing was an exercise in grandstanding by the Republicans. It’s an appeal to the religious right to let them know that their social agenda is being addressed. The problem is that the vast majority of the country has no interest in this in light of more pressing issues such as jobs or the general state of the economy. Once more the American people are witness to a dysfunctional congress.

Unlike Republicans like Mitt Romney, Speaker John Boehner, and Sen. Marco Rubio, the President has proved he is willing to take a stand for a woman’s right to make decisions about her health. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, beginning August 1st, the cost of preventive care will no longer be a barrier to health.

And it’s not just birth control at stake. More than 20 million American women could lose access to mammograms, prenatal screenings, cervical cancer screenings, vaccines, domestic violence counseling, and a host of preventive services that shouldn’t be up for debate in 2012.

The issue is ridiculous for the simple unavoidable fact that the first Amendment, (Religious Liberty)which the Republicans are claiming is their basis, clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. The Republicans are leaping with both feet on the “Free- Ex” clause of the amendment and waving it wildly in the air, while ignoring the “Establishment Clause”. That won’t get them anywhere.

The First Amendment forbids not only establishments, but also any law respecting or relating to an establishment. Most importantly, it forbids any law respecting an establishment of “religion.” It does not say “a religion,” “a national religion,” “one sect or society,” or “any particular denomination of religion.” It is religion generically that may not be established.

Compare these two phrases:

• Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

• Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.

Clearly the first example makes no sense on its own. It must refer back to the establishment clause to get its meaning. When Rick Santorum stands on his soap box and preaches “Whatever happened to the first amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion?”; he says this being completely oblivious to the wording of the amendment he is citing. His argument is over birth control, which is not a religion. However, he’s framed it as such. He is claiming birth control as religion. When he cites the free exercise of religion he must refer back to the establishment clause for his definition.

If the framers meant what they said and said what they meant, then Congress may abridge the free exercise of religion so long as Congress does not prohibit it.

The establishment clause does more than ban the federal government from establishing religion; it bars even laws respecting establishment. The Blunt Amendment establishes religion.

The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of religion. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Whether “respecting” means honoring or concerning, the clause means that Congress shall make no law on that subject. The ban is not just on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be unconstitutional. Again…the Blunt Amendment constitutionally fails on these grounds.

An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among Republicans, and especially Rick Santorum…the lawyer who should know better, is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of “religion.” The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of “religion,” while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise “thereof.” Logically, the word “thereof” must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as “religion” for one clause must count as “religion” for the other.

The free exercise clause makes no sense unless the word “religion” is read to encompass more than a church, denomination, or sect. The state abridges free exercise when it interferes with only small parts of an individual’s religious practice. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it must provide contraception coverage even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. The Obama Compromise deals with this. Private prayer and contraception are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitutes religions in and of themselves.

If prayer and contraception count as “religion” for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as “religion” for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so too does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it must provide contraception coverage, so too does it establish religion when it makes a law that would deny contraception coverage to people based on a religious exemption to those outside the realm of the church at public expense. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes “religion” for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that Republicans want to read the “thereof” in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of “religion” in the establishment clause.

The Blunt Amendment was an absurd and totally transparent attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. It opens a loophole that you could drive a battleship through. It gives a religious or moral exemption to anything an employer may object to. If an employer decides that prayer cures all, then he could deny any kind of health care to his employees based on a religious or moral objection. It introduces government mandated discrimination based on religious or moral objections outside the title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act for the church. If held as valid, then logically that same argument could be used for denying a veteran a job because the employer doesn’t believe in War, and it could also introduce discrimination based on a host of other moral or religious objections.

Discrimination appears to be a common thread running through conservatism. It appeals to a sense of individualism. But we live in a pluralistic society whether we like that or not. We all sacrifice certain amounts of our individualism in order to function in that society. The object is to balance that important sense of individuality within the framework of our society. We cannot function with 300 million people making decisions over what laws they will follow based on moral or religious objections.

We cooperate with each other in order to make that society work. To the extent that some of us are unwilling to make that effort, our nation is suffers the consequences.

 

Arabs!?

Arabs

Driving from New York into Pennsylvania on Interstate 90 we stopped at the first rest stop  to stretch our legs, get a snack, and let the dog, Dipstick,  do his thing.  The plaza was well lit and quite modern. In fact the entire plaza was bathed in light, front and back. The back stretched out a good 50 yards to a fence. Beyond the fence was acres of hedge-rows,  that could have been corn rows, but it was much too dark to tell for certain.  Nevertheless, thinking that it would be best to take Dippy for his stroll in the back of the plaza, he and I headed for the back and could clearly look into the rest stop itself which was a wall of glass window running the full length of the plaza. Inside I saw a little old man waving wildly at me, and pounding on the glass.  He was obviously trying to get my attention. Dippy and I looked at him, and then looked at each other and began to head back the way we had come and the man was following us inside to the door. As we came to the end of the building, he emerged from the building wildly gesturing to us completely out of breath saying, “don’t go out there”. I asked him “what’s the problem”? and still out of breath he looked at me and said, “it’s dangerous back there…bad things happen”. I looked out at the area which was completely lit up and said, “What kind of things?” He looked at me like I was crazy, and said,” Arabs!”.  At this point, I wish I’d had a picture of my face as I was trying to absorb what he was saying.   My mind is racing as I’m trying to process what I heard. “Arabs!!???”  I said. Arabs!!?”.  He then said, “It’s dark out there”.  I looked at him, and then,  at the dog who was looking at me as if he was nuts, and I said, “well,  which is it, Arabs or the darkness?”  He then threw his hands up in the air with complete exasperation as if I was the crazy one here and said, “it’s dangerous back there. I stood there in total amazement at what this guy was all worked up over.  I looked out beyond the fence at the hedge-rows which stretched out for acres into the darkness and thought, “this guy has visions of terrorists running through his head”,  and they’re all gathering in a cornfield in Pennsylvania… and he thinks I’m going to take my dog out beyond the fence and into the hedge-rows  in total darkness where I’ll disappear forever or get captured …by Arabs no less.  I had no idea that Arabs had a predisposition to hanging out in dark hedge-rows off the interstate in Pennsylvania just waiting for unsuspecting tourists who are walking a dog and decide to climb over a fence..with the  dog, and then wander through acres of darkness.  I mean…is that something that’s part of Arab culture? Do they just sit there and wait, as if anybody is going to actually say to themselves…I think I’ll climb over a fence with my dog and simply take a stroll into acres of dark hedge-rows.  Maybe I’ll meet some Arabs. I mean, it’s midnight and I’m just making a pit stop here, but on second thought, maybe I’ll just jump a fence and explore acres of dark fields in Bumfuck, Pennsylvania . I’m trying to put together in my head why Al Qaeda , who I have to assume this guy is referring to ( aren’t all Arabs members of Al Qaeda?) , would have any interest in launching a terrorist attack from some cornfield in Pennsylvania off the interstate.  I finally said, “What the fuck are you talking about man? Why would I even consider taking my dog out beyond the fence that I have to climb over at midnight into some dark hedge-rows or cornfield or whatever it is? Does that sound sensible to you? Is that something that you would do? “hey honey, go wait in the car. Me and the dog are going to wander through some cornfield for a while. If we don’t come back it’s because the Arabs got us”. My dog needs to take a crap and we’re walking right outside this window and you’re freaking out about Arabs or the dark, or maybe both.”  Finally a woman co-worker told the guy, “let him go and walk his dog”. “Go ahead sir.” “Nevermind.”

ARAB’s ???.  In a cornfield in Pennsylvania?

My Hometown Died

Defining the Job Creators

In this election, Governor Romney is running on the concept of his experience at Bain qualifying him as a “job creator”.  He’s on very thin ice here for a number of reasons.

1. The purpose of Bain Capital was not “job creation”. The purpose of Bain was wealth creation. Bain’s objective was to maximize profits for investors. That could be done many ways. One of the ways was through “creative destruction” of companies that would be dismantled and their assets sold off piece meal.  The employees were always expendable.  If a company could be profitable without laying off its work force. Fine. If not, fine.  Profits for the investor can be obtained through “creative destruction” of the company in order to provide the investors with a return. The workers were always a secondary consideration at best. Mostly they are of no concern at all, and people are fired, and then possibly offered their jobs back at a lower pay scale. Their insurance is gone. Their pensions are looted.
2. A Venture Capitalist is not a “job creator”.  That isn’t what they do. Maximizing profits of investors is the only function.  Creating jobs is not on the list of things to do in Venture Capital Private Equity companies.  If you own a private equity company and you tell your clients that you are more interested in creating jobs than you are in profits, you won’t be serving your clients and you aren’t doing the job of private equity.  Most certainly, your own business won’t survive. The most obvious way to maximize profit is to reduce operating costs.  Employees represent a cost. A smart business man only hires people when there is a demand for his product. If he can produce the same product using fewer people it increases his profit margin.
3. Some industrialists create products. However, a product is not a job.  It is an idea. If the idea is good it will sell through marketing of the idea. That idea MUST be sold to somebody willing to buy it. The more people willing to buy it, the more demand there is to provide the product idea.  What creates jobs is the demand made on the company to fill the orders for their product. It is the consumer demand that creates jobs.

Who exactly are the so called “job creators”? They are none-other than the public itself; the consumer who is willing to spend his money on the product or service being offered.  The idea that a wealthy industrialist is a job creator is completely false. Hiring a person must always benefit the wealthy industrialist in filling the demand for his product made by the consumer. The consumer always drives the hiring of personnel. Consumer demand creates the job.  A company will only hire people based on the demand for the product or service that it offers.  Hiring people in hopes of having people walk through the door to buy something is like demanding that the stove gives you heat before you put in the wood.  The thing that creates jobs is the demand for a product made on a company by consumers of that product. The public/consumer is the job creator. A company provides a product or a service. It doesn’t provide jobs. That is not what it’s in business for. To suggest otherwise is false, ludicrous and totally and completely illogical. No business man ever started a business with the idea of creating jobs for people. He started a business to make money from his product.

So, what happens in a recession, or worse, a depression such as that which we faced in 2008? For one thing we saw the stock market fall.

 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Stocks skidded Monday, with the Dow slumping nearly 778 points, in the biggest single-day point loss ever, after the House rejected the government’s $700 billion bank bailout plan.

On October 9, 2007, the Dow closed at 14,164.43, an all-time high. However, fourth quarter GDP growth was -1%, announcing the start of the recession.(It was later re-estimated at 2.9%) The Dow started declining gradually. After the failure of Bear Stearns in April 2008, and a negative GDP report in Q2 2008, the Dow dropped to 11,000. Many analysts felt that this 20% decline was the market bottom.

However, on Monday, September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. On Wednesday, panicky bankers withdrew $144 billion from money market funds, nearly causing a collapse. In response, the Dow plummeted 13% in October. By November 20, 2008, it fell to 7,552.29, a new low. This was not yet the true market bottom. The Dow climbed to 9,034.69 on January 2, 2009 before screeching down to 6,594.44 on March 5, 2009. Between its peak and its bottom, the Dow dropped over 50% in just 17 months.

Added to this was the crash of the housing market. People lost nearly all the equity in their homes. Mortgages were upside down. People were now paying on mortgages that were for more than their homes were worth.  Foreclosures were epidemic.

Interest rates on credit cards skyrocketed. 3.8% interest rates went to 30% overnight.  A credit card payment of $250 per month was now over $1200 a month all coming out of the existing family budget. Decisions on whether to pay on a credit card or make a car payment or mortgage payment were now imposed on family budgets. Skipping a payment on one card, now affected the interest rates on other cards that a family might have. Their credit was now ruined. The only things that mattered were making a car payment and keeping a roof over a families head.  The car was needed to get to a job. And the job was needed to pay for the home and the food that the family would survive on.

As credit dried up, both individually and commercially, local business couldn’t finance their payrolls. Companies were forced to lay off employees.  Those people were now without a job that would pay for their cars and homes. They’d also lose their health insurance. As these numbers grew with unemployment figures reaching 10%, fewer people would be spending money that they didn’t have. Without spending, companies weren’t selling their goods and services. When companies aren’t selling their products, they lay off more people compounding the problem. The Republican solution to this was more Tax Cuts. Cutting taxes for people without a paycheck doesn’t solve the problem. What possible difference can a tax cut mean to a man or woman without a job? Cutting the taxes of a corporation won’t inspire it to hire more people. You could cut their taxes to zero and it still won’t bring more people through the doors to buy a product they can’t afford. Since people without jobs cannot afford to spend money on products, companies would not be hiring. There was no demand for the products they offered. This is a death spiral to an economy and there is no solution outside of government intervention. The government is responsible for the national security of the nation, and the economic security of this country was at stake. Since the United States is the single most powerful economy in the world, the effects of what happened here would be felt globally.

This transcends any ideological arguments over socialism vs. capitalism. Allowing the country to collapse over ideology has no logical basis. An ideology cannot demonstrate itself as being true. There is no rational basis for any ideology. Arguing over the merits of socialism and capitalism are meaningless if the country falls. Ultimately capitalism requires elements of socialism in order to exist. It depends on socialism for the infrastructure needed for its foundation. It needs roads, highways, rail systems, ports, bridges, an electrical grid; school’s to educate a work force.  In order to save free market capitalism, elements of socialism that provide the infrastructure that capitalism is based on can be addressed as a focal point to restore the economic solvency of the country.

The United State along with every major industrialized nation in the world has operated on a mixed economy. We have been a blend of socialism and capitalism for decades. There is not one example of a pure capitalist society on earth. It doesn’t exist because capitalism left unchecked will devour itself. Like all systems devised by man, it’s fallible and prone to error. No man made economic system or system of government is infallible. When we find errors, an intelligent human being corrects the error and does so hopefully without compounding the error.

Solution

President Obama has come up with a logical solution for addressing the economic problems in the country. His stimulus was the right approach. Unfortunately it was too small and 40% of it went to tax cuts.

What is needed is the president’s jobs bill. We need a committed overhaul of the entire infrastructure of the United States. We need a 10 year commitment to rebuilding the roads, bridges, railways, airports, seaports, levees, schools, electrical grid, tunnels that are the foundation of a capitalistic system. Nation building begins at home.

Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire will save $4 trillion dollars over the next ten years. The war in Iraq is over and the war in Afghanistan will soon be over as well. That saves the country another trillion dollars.  We can apply the savings from these two things to rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure and bringing the country into the 21^st century.

This will take an army of construction workers; probably in the neighborhood of 100,000. But that is only a match that lights the fuse.  Those workers will need materials. They’ll need clothing, boots, gloves, hard hats all supplied by manufacturers of those things. Those manufacturers will need to hire more people to fill the constant demand for their products. They will need earth movers and graders supplied by John Deere or Caterpillar who will be selling that equipment to the companies that have contracted with the government to do the job. They will need trucks made by Ford or GM or Chrysler. Those companies will need to hire more personnel to meet the demand for those products. All the companies that supply the vehicles will need to purchase tires, batteries, windshields, and whatever else is needed to make the vehicle. Mechanics will be needed to service the equipment needed at the work sites.  All the peripheral companies that support the companies that support the workers will need to hire additional personnel to meet the demand brought about as a result of the restoration of America. This even bleeds down to the small service companies that provide lunches for the workers.

The hiring of people is increased exponentially in this way. What begins with 100,000 touches 1 million people now employed to service those people directly involved in rebuilding the infrastructure of the U.S.  All these people have paychecks and all these people will spend money on new cars, homes, college for their kids, computers, TV’s, washers and dryers, new clothes, food, music lessons for their kids. Each place that these people spend money at will need to hire additional personnel to meet the demand for what they sell. And those people will spend money as well.  

During WWII, we employed millions in the service to the war effort. It was the massive spending on WWII that pulled us out of the Great Depression.  In 1940 unemployment in the US was at 14.6%. By 1942 it had dropped to 4.7% and by 1944 it was at 1.2%; the lowest in recorded figures going back to 1920. All this was due to the war effort.  According to President Truman’s address to Congress in 1948, he stated that the US had contributed about $341 Billion to World War 2. Assuming he mean 1945 dollars, that works out to be about $4.1 TRILLION in 2009 dollars.

It doesn’t take a war to do this. It takes a commitment to rebuild the infrastructure of the United States.

We can drastically reduce the unemployment numbers in this country and ignite a firestorm of consumer driven spending in this country which is what creates jobs. 

Spending money is what drives the economy. It doesn’t matter who is spending the money. It only matters that money is spent.  At this point in time, the public doesn’t have money to spend. You can’t spend money if you don’t have a job. And the so-called “job creators” aren’t creating jobs.  A rich man isn’t interested in creating jobs. He’s interested in being rich. But then creating jobs isn’t what they’re about.  The people create jobs. The consumer is the Job Creator.  A demand for products is the only thing that creates jobs, and nobody is going to demand a product when they are unemployed.

The President needs to focus on Governor Romney’s claim that he is a job creator and dismantle that publicly. Romney has avoided any mention of his tenure as governor. His focus is on his career as a CEO of a private equity company. The focus of that company is profit. He has no experience that he will claim in running a non-profit, and that’s exactly what the United States Government is. It’s a non-profit organization.  The President is absolutely correct in pointing out that his job is not about creating profits.  Romney has no experience in that area.

The title of Job Creator needs to be defined.  The Consumer is the Job Creator.  The very notion of not raising taxes on the rich because they are the “job creators” is absurd. The so-called “job creator” doesn’t make decisions on hiring people based upon his personal tax rate. He doesn’t pay his staff out of his personal bank account. It comes from a business account. I doubt that any wealthy corporation CEO ever said, “My personal taxes are too high. I’m not going to hire anybody at my company”. This argument should be mocked and ridiculed for how absurd it is.

This election should be a contrast in the ideology of the conservative mind, and the philosophy of the liberal mind. We’ve seen the results of 8 years of conservatism that no conservative will claim as “real conservatism”.  Republican policies have resulted in 2/3 of our national debt. We have a president in office today that will be met with every obstacle that his opposition can devise.  For some, it’s vital that the first minority president be limited to one term. In doing this it will justify their argument that, “We tried that once before and it didn’t work”. The last thing that they would want is for the first African American to succeed.  As a result of Citizens United, they will pour limitless amounts of money into bringing this president down.

It’s vital to deny the claim of Job Creator from their argument. Nothing could be further from the truth.