The "City on a Hill" is a Gated Fortress

Over time,  that "City on a Hill"  seems to have endured a whole slew of incarnations  ---  with one constant:   its portrayal as an ideal,  a pinnacle of triumph.   Its earliest known reference appears to  have been a biblical citation (Matthew 5:14).  

Centuries later,  a Puritan, John Winthrop,  cited the embryonic city of Boston as "a city on the hill being watched by the world":   perhaps the earliest reference to American exceptionalism.   Nor did its use as a metaphor escape "The Great Communicator",  Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.

Since then,  that "City on a Hill",  has become a place most of us can only dream about.   As  the late,  lamented comic genius George Carlin used to say,  "Why do they call it the American dream?   Because you have to be asleep to believe it!" 

Speaking of the '80s,   here's how  income gains have been distributed nationwide since then.   Specifically,  between 1979 and 2007,   gross income for the lowest 20% of households has increased by 16%:  not nearly enough to keep pace with mounting everyday expenses.  On the other hand,  the top 1% has reveled in a 281%  income jump.

Just as a basis for comparison,  here's the way it pans out:

       -Lowest 20% (of households):    16%
       -Middle 20%                          :     25%
       -Top     20%                          :     95%
       -Top    1%(within that top 20%): 281%!

(Source:  Congressional Budget Office)

Yet the Republicans in Congress stubbornly refuse to consider raising taxes on that priveleged 1%,  with no concern for the consequences:  the likelihood that millions of people,  right here in the United States of America could well be condemned to lives of despair, hopelessness, and even premature death as  vital programs get scuttled.

It's looking as if that "City on a Hill" is now the exclusive property of  our nation's  paymasters.   Believe me,  I'd like to be proven wrong.   In any event,  we need to keep trying to facilitate change,  even if  like Don Quixote,  we're just tilting at windmills.

In the meantime,  that  "City on the Hill"  has been locked and latched!

It's Great That They're Communicating, BUT ....

Yes,  it's comforting to know that Obama and members of Congress have begun a dialog regarding the sequester.   It would be nice to reach an agreement before we begin experiencing the direst consequences of a prolonged impasse.

Still,  it's kind of discomforting to hear reports that the Obama administration is apparently proposing cuts to vital social programs as items up for discussion --- much to the chagrin of many fellow Democrats.  I guess they're being offered in the spirit of compromise.

Yet I find myself asking:  "Where was this will to negotiate and compromise back in 2011?"   A lot of pundits claim that there's ample blame to go around in reference to the sequester;  after all,  both parties signed off on it. 

True,  but it seems to me that the Democrats cosigned under duress.   If my memory serves me,  congressional Republicans insisted that they would not authorize a normally routine action:  raising the national debt ceiling.  They got their way by throwing a collective tantrum.   When a li'l kiddo  throws a tantrum,  there are several options available:  1) Some  "quiet time",  2) issuing a pacifier,  or maybe 3) a well-placed "potch" on the fanny.   Or 4) caving!  

Well,  it seems as if Obama and the Dems chose Option  4. (Admittedly,  Option 3 would have been a tad awkward).
In fact,  House Speaker,  His Orangeness John Boehner,    was ecstatic.  He was quoted,  declaring,  "I'm very happy!  I got 98% of what I wanted!"  Yet now,  the Democrats are being expected to compromise?

Don't get me wrong,  the bipartisan dinners  and other outreach efforts are fine.   I also realize that many Republicans in Congress are concerned about being "primaried"  from the right,  so they feel as if they're beholden to  the Tea Party line,  even if it's against their better judgment. 

But if the Republicans can't get a handle on their internal squabbles,   the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it.   On the other hand,  the Democrats ought to realize that the progressives in their midst have policy priorities in synch with majority sentiments.   Every national, issue-oriented poll confirms this.

If the Dems don't start asserting themselves,  many of their supporters,  especially young and minority voters might decide to go "missing in action" in 2014.  That seems to be what happened in 2010.

Let's not go for an encore.

The Grownups' Answer to the Sequester

As I write,   a mandate imposing draconian budget cuts, also known as the sequester,  has just kicked in.   Air travel is expected to be affected within a few days;   air traffic controllers and TSA security personnel will be cut back to four-day-a-week work schedules.   Major delays are expected.

Unless Congress changes course,   vital programs and services are likely to be severely affected over the next few months.   Essential services such as police and fire protection, education and disaster relief will not be spared.   Nor will vital programs such as Head Start and WIC, (the latter which emphasizes health and nutrition counseling for women, infants,  and children).   Conservatives who try to trivialize the consequences of such cuts never consider the human costs.  ("Oh,  tut-tut",  they stutter dismissively,  "It's only a piddling bit of each program's overall budget that's getting cut."    Well uh,  those piddling bits translate to denied opportunities for many folks  ---  especially kids ---  who'd just like to have the chance to enrich their own lives as well as those of their communities'   ---  and break the cycle of poverty and despair).    That translates to potential "human capital"  that's lost to all of us;   we could all be the poorer because of that. 

What really boggles the mind is that the sequester could be repealed in the bat of an eyelash if only majorities in both houses of Congress had the will to do it.   But instead,  congressional Republicans have cynically passed the buck to President Obama  by giving him the opportunity to "rationally target"  the cuts, presenting him with a scalpel to replace the meat cleaver.   In other words,  they want him to "own" the  sequester.

The reality is that an assortment of revenue increases mandating that corporations and Wall Street poobahs pay their fair share of taxes (partially by closing loopholes and cutting subsidies)  could largely cover the $85 billion a year in cuts mandated by the sequester.   But  Mr.  McConnell and Mr. Boehner,  speaking in behalf of their Republican colleagues and their collective tantrum,  are insisting that revenue proposals are off the table.   It's all about spending cuts!  Spending cuts!  Spending cuts!  We gave you your nasty ol'  tax increase,  they say.   (Last time I checked,   that "tax increase"  was simply a partial restoration of the Bush-era  tax cuts for the wealthiest households).

When a child throws a tantrum,  a little quiet time generally works.   But when an entire party stages a collective tantrum, the only real solution is to show the nation who the congressional grownups are.    The members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus seem to be prominent among the adults in the room.

Although it  gets precious little exposure in the mainstream media,   the Caucus has crafted a measure called "The Balancing Act".   As the title implies,  it has proposed a combination of revenue increases and budget cuts, but with a focus on humane priorities.  Here's  the link:  The CPC's Balancing Act .  

For starters,  this measure would repeal the sequester,  replacing it with seemingly common-sense reforms that would help reduce the deficit over the long-term,  but do so without mortgaging the future of generations to come.
Here are some of the other highlights:

--- Meaningful taxes on Wall Street speculators, particularly
       hedge fund managers.
--- Closure of loopholes for private jets and yachts.
--- Elimination of incentives for "off-shoring"  of both jobs and
       corporate profits (the latter specifically for tax avoidance)
--- The end of corporate subsidies,  especially for oil and
       agriculture.

And on the military side of the ledger:

--- Reduction of compensation for private defense contractors
        to that of civilian Pentagon employees.
--- Elimination of Cold-War era weapons programs.
--- Adjustment of procurement priorities to 21st Century
        needs.

On the investment side of the ledger,  the Balancing Act specifies increased funding for education at all levels as well as improvements in our decaying infrastructure.   In other words,  more jobs!   Other vital social programs would apparently at least be spared from the meat-axe.  So would programs benefitting veterans.

If this budget proposal was to ever receive a respectable level of coverage in the dominant media --- enough to result in popular awareness ---  then maybe,  just maybe,  Congress could be pressured to act on it.

In the meantime,  the recurring congressional tantrums really ought to be addressed.   Pacifiers,  anyone?