After recently writing about the institution of marriage, it occurs to me to write now about something that should be less controversial, namely the mixture of government, politics and religion.
Yeah, right, like anything these days won't be controversial.
If you had asked me a month ago if this would be a worthy subject for one of these postings, I probably would have replied by saying "It's worthy, but there doesn't seem to be any immediate reason to do so; let's put it on the list for future reference." Well, the Republican presidential nominating contest has caused the future--or this piece of it--to arrive ahead of schedule.
Specifically, candidate Rick Santorum has recently pronounced--or perhaps he implied, or maybe speculated, or possibly just mused--that he, as President, would intend to link religion and government in America. It's not clear to me how he would do so, or even if this is going to get amped-up into a major campaign theme. Other than his reference to personal regurgitation, his remarks in the last few days on this subject seem to be not entirely coherent. There's a summary of Mr. Santorum's contributions to this conversation on the web site of USA Today, which can be seen by clicking here. Read it and draw your own conclusions on what he has been trying to communicate, and on the coherence of his message.
My conclusion is this: Either Mr. Santorum doesn't fully understand the issues that he is talking about, or he has simply been pandering for votes.
If it is the latter--that is, if he was only trying to appeal to a certain segment of the Republican voters in that party's nominating contests--then we let it go at that and hope and expect that the subject doesn't come up again. All politicians are entitled to pander to voter segments, and most do so at one time or another. There's no reason to deny that entitlement to Mr. Santorum or any other politician. The pandering fades into the background as the real business moves forward. After all, we don't hear much now about Newt Gingrich's remarks on colonizing the Moon as a way of pandering for votes along the Florida "space coast" in advance of that state's primary, do we?
(In full disclosure here, I should mention that I like the ideas of colonizing the Moon, and of exploring Mars and the universe beyond Earth. But now is not a good time to be talking about these things because the great majority of people in this country have other and more immediate things on their minds as they choose a President.)
If, on the other hand, Mr. Santorum is intending to introduce a new campaign theme, then his remarks so far indicate to me that he has a faulty understanding of the results of a close linkage of religion and government. So, here are a few related historical factoids to set the stage for any future discussion on this topic.
First, regarding the U.S. Constitution -- it has nothing to say about religion except in the 1st Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." That's all, that's it, there's nothing else there. Translated into 21st Century American standard English, the 1st Amendment says "America makes no law that will either support or restrict the existence of any religion, and everybody in the country is entitled to participate or to not participate in religious worship." In other words, we have a secular government. Individuals participating in the government, or in the governing processes, might or might not embrace religion as a part of their lives, but the government and its processes are secular.
Long before the United States was even a gleam in somebody's eye, religion, politics and government were combined all the time. In ancient days, most people couldn't imagine any other way to run a country or a city-state or a what-have-you; those who did have an active imagination about such things were typically severely discouraged from engaging in such mental shenanigans by the representatives of the divine powers-that-be. In the end, such mixing of religion and state usually didn't work out well. Consider these few examples --
Egypt, c1250BCE -- the Kingdoms of Egypt had been combining religion (Pharaoh, gods, ceremonies, temples) with government (ministers, bureaucrats, military) for at least a couple of thousand years, only to reach a point in time where Pharaoh, et al, had developed a real itch about the monotheistic religion of some undocumented migrant workers ("Israelites") who were resident in Egypt. The "mono" part of their religion didn't sit well with the god-king Pharoah, who heaped abuses and brutality upon his Israelite slaves. In retaliation, there followed protracted nasty events, such as plagues and pestilences, that sorely afflicted the Egyptians. As a result, Pharaoh let those people go, and the Egyptians lost a hard-working labor supply.
Greece and Troy, c1200BCE -- a blind fellow named Homer is famous for chronicling the life and times of the Mycenaean Greek civilization in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The sightless one surely took literary and poetic license with the facts as he knew them--he lived some five centuries after the events in his stories--but there is plenty of corroborative evidence to establish the reality of the involvement of Zeus, Hera, Athena, Ares, Aphrodite, Apollo and the full panoply of Greek gods in everyday life, including governing. Those gods were petty and cruel, and so were their human servants.
Europe, early 1600s -- the Thirty Years' War, an extraordinarily complex conflict of overlapping territorial ambitions, was ignited by the passions of religion that was often incited and sustained by the rulers who harbored those ambitions; it squandered the lives and wealth of a continent.
And, of course, we are all well-acquainted with the failings of the two contemporary bogey-men of religious governments: the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban of Afghanistan.
It comes down to this: it doesn't matter one bit what the religion is -- religion and government should be kept separate and apart from each other. Individually they can be good; but putting them together is setting the stage for a nightmare.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Marriage -- further thoughts from others
Articulate comments on the subject of same-sex marriage have been submitted by other readers and are viewable by going to the older posts--published on 22 and 23 February--and clicking on the "comments" link for each one.
"Tiger" is eloquently supportive in commenting on the 2/23/12 post. But there's an econo-politico statement included in that comment with which I will have to take issue. Here's the statement, lifted directly from the more extensive comment: ". . . I would like to live in a society where our main purpose and goal is to do all we can to ensure that every person can be the best person they can be. Yes, that means the talented and gifted do "more" and contribute more to those who are less abled. I realize that this sounds like socialism . . ."
"Tiger" is eloquently supportive in commenting on the 2/23/12 post. But there's an econo-politico statement included in that comment with which I will have to take issue. Here's the statement, lifted directly from the more extensive comment: ". . . I would like to live in a society where our main purpose and goal is to do all we can to ensure that every person can be the best person they can be. Yes, that means the talented and gifted do "more" and contribute more to those who are less abled. I realize that this sounds like socialism . . ."
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Marriage -- continued
A couple of comments have been attached to yesterday's post on marriage. You can read them by clicking on "comments" in the highlighted section at the end of the post.
The first one expresses disagreement, citing historical and cultural precedent. That's a good point, since there seems no denying the reality of those things. It occurs to me, though, that historical period during which the cultural behaviors were developed also coincided with general avoidance of the reality of gay and lesbian members of the population. (Using the word "avoidance" here as a surrogate for a variety of other verbs that could also be used, most of them being harsher.) Since this segment of the population had minimal recognition and acceptance, it was therefore also not able to participate in certain cultural norms. Nonetheless, I have to admit that there's no changing history.
The first one expresses disagreement, citing historical and cultural precedent. That's a good point, since there seems no denying the reality of those things. It occurs to me, though, that historical period during which the cultural behaviors were developed also coincided with general avoidance of the reality of gay and lesbian members of the population. (Using the word "avoidance" here as a surrogate for a variety of other verbs that could also be used, most of them being harsher.) Since this segment of the population had minimal recognition and acceptance, it was therefore also not able to participate in certain cultural norms. Nonetheless, I have to admit that there's no changing history.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
On marriage, justice and equality
Few things rub me the wrong way as much as injustice and inequality.
Denying rights to a minority when those same rights are enjoyed by the majority is, by definition, unequal and unjust. It's that simple.
Marriage is a right that is clearly entitled to the majority in this country. Some would deny that same right to a minority, that minority being those who would participate in same-sex marriages.
The judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acted properly on February 7 in rendering their decision against California's Proposition 8--the referendum that sought to deny the right of same-sex marriage. Understandably, many supporters of Proposition 8 are unhappy with this event. I know some of these people, and can vouch that they are of good conscience and sound mental faculties, so there is hope that they can be convinced to change their minds. Perhaps my meager written thoughts can contribute to that change.
Denying rights to a minority when those same rights are enjoyed by the majority is, by definition, unequal and unjust. It's that simple.
Marriage is a right that is clearly entitled to the majority in this country. Some would deny that same right to a minority, that minority being those who would participate in same-sex marriages.
The judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acted properly on February 7 in rendering their decision against California's Proposition 8--the referendum that sought to deny the right of same-sex marriage. Understandably, many supporters of Proposition 8 are unhappy with this event. I know some of these people, and can vouch that they are of good conscience and sound mental faculties, so there is hope that they can be convinced to change their minds. Perhaps my meager written thoughts can contribute to that change.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Abolish--or at least neuter--the Electoral College
How many votes will it take to elect the President of the United States in the November 6 election this year? Millions? 50% plus 1 of the votes cast?
The answer is 270. And those votes won't be cast until December.
When we vote in November we will actually be voting for each state's Electors. Those Electors will then vote in December by casting their ballots for a presidential candidate.
There is no provision in the US Constitution for a popular vote for President and Vice President. Instead, Article II Section 1 of the Constitution describes in about 400 words how the Electors determine who holds these offices. It also directs the Legislatures of the States to establish the manner in which the Electors are to be appointed to their positions and to carry out their duties. Consequently, the Electors operate under a variety of State laws.
(The Constitution does not make use of the term "Electoral College" and refers only to "Electors." This use of the word "elector" seems to originate with the Holy Roman Empire. The National Archives and Records Administration has facts and history about the Electoral College; you can see it by clicking here.)
This is an antiquated way of electing our President and Vice President. At its best, it is a cumbersome way of achieving a democratic election. At its worst, it elects the losing candidate, as has been the case in four presidential elections. Most recently this occurred in the year 2000 election; it also happened in 1888, 1876 and 1824.
The answer is 270. And those votes won't be cast until December.
When we vote in November we will actually be voting for each state's Electors. Those Electors will then vote in December by casting their ballots for a presidential candidate.
There is no provision in the US Constitution for a popular vote for President and Vice President. Instead, Article II Section 1 of the Constitution describes in about 400 words how the Electors determine who holds these offices. It also directs the Legislatures of the States to establish the manner in which the Electors are to be appointed to their positions and to carry out their duties. Consequently, the Electors operate under a variety of State laws.
(The Constitution does not make use of the term "Electoral College" and refers only to "Electors." This use of the word "elector" seems to originate with the Holy Roman Empire. The National Archives and Records Administration has facts and history about the Electoral College; you can see it by clicking here.)
This is an antiquated way of electing our President and Vice President. At its best, it is a cumbersome way of achieving a democratic election. At its worst, it elects the losing candidate, as has been the case in four presidential elections. Most recently this occurred in the year 2000 election; it also happened in 1888, 1876 and 1824.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Follow-up on Comments -- Fiscal Responsibility
It's great to receive comments to these postings. Many have shown up and they deserve attention. For the moment, let's start with the newest.
Two reader's comments appear at the end of the most recent post from February 8. If I am understanding them, the message from both comments seems to be summed up in the closing statement in the first one. In that statement, the writer is advocating for a governmental fiscal policy "that is tied to well defined objectives of balance and growth."
Makes sense to me.
We can accomplish this here in America if we choose to make electoral decisions that support "balance and growth" as the writer concluded in the comment.
Current events in Greece and Europe are showing us what can happen to any country that does not plan for appropriate balance and growth. Greece is much different from the United States, but what is learned at that country's expense can be applied here and help us to do better without experiencing the pain and suffering that the Greeks are sustaining now.
The Greek government has just accepted the austerity measures demanded by its lenders of last resort: Germany, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others. Apparently, Greece will now receive funding that its government needs to continue running the country and to avoid a "disorderly default" on its sovereign debt.
So far, so good, but only for the short run.
The only long-term solution for Greece is lots of growth, and it should be growth that begins sooner rather than later. The growth must be accompanied by good governance and compliance with balanced tax laws on the part of its people and its businesses. They got themselves into a lot of debt in the past, and now they either have to pay it off or default on it in some way. Those are the only choices, and both will cost them dearly for many years yet to come.
The long-term solution is a pretty basic formula, but we don't hear much about the growth part of that equation in all the debt relief drama that's been going on over in Europe.
Without growth the situation for Greece just gets worse, no matter how much fiscal austerity is imposed on the country. In fact, additional austerity is likely to exacerbate the problem.
Buried deep within today's Los Angeles Times story on Greece is a prophetic comment by the German Finance Minister. Here's the excerpt from the story: "Last week, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told lawmakers in Berlin that the bailout plan would leave Greece's debt as high as 136% of gross domestic product by 2020. That's even more unbearable than the 120% foreseen in the deal being negotiated." (The emphasis is mine; it's not in the newspaper.) You can read the entire article by clicking here.
It comes down to this: Without some kind of planning and stimulus for growth, the sovereign debt problems in Greece will become worse over time, even with the so-called bailout plan. Fiscal austerity by itself creates a sucking bog for those who are forced to become austere, especially if there is no end in sight to the regime of austerity. This is irresponsible fiscal and governing policy on the part of the European governments.
Here's what this means to me: Beware of politicians bearing only austerity gifts, because that is just half of the fiscal equation.
Two reader's comments appear at the end of the most recent post from February 8. If I am understanding them, the message from both comments seems to be summed up in the closing statement in the first one. In that statement, the writer is advocating for a governmental fiscal policy "that is tied to well defined objectives of balance and growth."
Makes sense to me.
We can accomplish this here in America if we choose to make electoral decisions that support "balance and growth" as the writer concluded in the comment.
Current events in Greece and Europe are showing us what can happen to any country that does not plan for appropriate balance and growth. Greece is much different from the United States, but what is learned at that country's expense can be applied here and help us to do better without experiencing the pain and suffering that the Greeks are sustaining now.
The Greek government has just accepted the austerity measures demanded by its lenders of last resort: Germany, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others. Apparently, Greece will now receive funding that its government needs to continue running the country and to avoid a "disorderly default" on its sovereign debt.
So far, so good, but only for the short run.
The only long-term solution for Greece is lots of growth, and it should be growth that begins sooner rather than later. The growth must be accompanied by good governance and compliance with balanced tax laws on the part of its people and its businesses. They got themselves into a lot of debt in the past, and now they either have to pay it off or default on it in some way. Those are the only choices, and both will cost them dearly for many years yet to come.
The long-term solution is a pretty basic formula, but we don't hear much about the growth part of that equation in all the debt relief drama that's been going on over in Europe.
Without growth the situation for Greece just gets worse, no matter how much fiscal austerity is imposed on the country. In fact, additional austerity is likely to exacerbate the problem.
Buried deep within today's Los Angeles Times story on Greece is a prophetic comment by the German Finance Minister. Here's the excerpt from the story: "Last week, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told lawmakers in Berlin that the bailout plan would leave Greece's debt as high as 136% of gross domestic product by 2020. That's even more unbearable than the 120% foreseen in the deal being negotiated." (The emphasis is mine; it's not in the newspaper.) You can read the entire article by clicking here.
It comes down to this: Without some kind of planning and stimulus for growth, the sovereign debt problems in Greece will become worse over time, even with the so-called bailout plan. Fiscal austerity by itself creates a sucking bog for those who are forced to become austere, especially if there is no end in sight to the regime of austerity. This is irresponsible fiscal and governing policy on the part of the European governments.
Here's what this means to me: Beware of politicians bearing only austerity gifts, because that is just half of the fiscal equation.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Needed: fiscal responsibility, not fiscal austerity
Usually, the title for one of these blog postings comes after writing most or all of the article. Sometimes I begin writing by entering a couple of words that are indicative of the subject and intended only as a place-holder for the eventual title, and then return later to replace or augment those words and make them into the finished title. Every so often, when using the place-holder approach I forget to return and complete the title before publishing, invariably causing an "aw, shucks!" moment (or something similar).
At this point, I have started writing with what seems like a truly momentous title, only to find it difficult to organize my thoughts enough to write a coherent article that will do justice to the title. This isn't for lack of ideas and material. Instead, it's because there is so much to be said on this subject.
"Fiscal austerity" is a term that has been bruited about ad nauseam for the last three years. The political and economic discourse here in America and throughout Europe is saturated with demands for fiscal austerity. Fiscal austerity is supposed to be a virtuous path and a worthy goal for governments, people and societies.
It's time to recognize that all this talk of fiscal austerity is sucking up far too much oxygen in the political and economic atmosphere. Atmospheric oxygen has an important use: it is to make things live and grow. The promotion of fiscal austerity has very little in the way of new life or growth to show for itself.
Fiscal austerity might work for individuals and households when they have made poor choices or have unexpectedly lost a job; sometimes austerity is the only remaining option.
But fiscal austerity does not work for governments; the financial benefits to be gained will be temporary and will soon be overwhelmed by the additional damage that is done through austerity.
Maybe it's just me, but I cannot think of anybody in the public eye who has been caught on camera smiling, or even looking slightly pleased, while talking about fiscal austerity. That should be our first clue that somebody has brought something to the picnic without tasting it first.
"Fiscal responsibility" is a better goal. (Opposing viewpoints are welcome, but if you have one you might want to hold on to it until you read the rest of this article.) This is a goal that can be voiced with a smile--even if it's only a Mona Lisa type of smile--if there's a feeling that responsible actions lead to worthy growth.
In actuality, Americans have already begun to act with fiscal responsibility. Household debt has been reduced, consumer confidence measures are increasing, and consumer credit has started an uptrend. Individual situations vary, of course, and for some, these events have come about with pain from adopting frugal ways or accepting reduced circumstances. Overall, though, there has been enough progress in debt reduction so that more household resources are now being directed towards purchases of items that have been delayed for years. These items include significant and durable things like automobiles, appliances and furnishings.
Responsible actions yield positive results. In aggregate, American households have acted responsibly, and now they are building on those actions.
The other side of the coin is that irresponsible actions yield negative results. To incur obligations that are known to be impossible to be upheld in the future is irresponsible, and inevitably leads to distress--financial or otherwise--and to the need for living in reduced circumstances, at least during a period of repair and rebuilding.
Memo to Congress and all political candidates in this election year: Whether it's household debt or national debt, we get it. We've been living through the household debt thing, and have been cutting it down, for years. Now it's your turn; work on reducing the national debt. But do it responsibly; we have acted that way, and so should you.
Total austerity is also irresponsible. It immediately shuts down economic activity and reduces circumstances for people without regard for the consequences. Based on their current consumer behavior, the American population--taken as a whole--seems to recognize this.
National debt and household debt are two very different things. It would be a misstatement and a disservice to imply that national debt can be managed and reduced in the same way as household debt.
But national debt and household debt share two common characteristics.
First, both a nation and a household can take on additional debt until potential lenders decide to not offer any more loans of money because they fear lack of repayment.
Second, national debt and household debt both contribute to economic activity.
Which brings us to national governments, and how they should act--or at least, how our own government should act--so as to be as responsible as the people they represent and govern.
To witness the irresponsibility of governing fiscal austerity in action, all that is needed is to take a look at current events in Europe. The European Union is teetering on the brink of recession. National debt is the underlying problem. The cause of economic recession, though, it not simply that debt; instead, it is how the debt issues are addressed.
Governmental fiscal austerity is the theme of choice in Europe for addressing the issues caused by excessive debt. It's an irresponsible choice because it is not working. The countries with the most excessive debt problems--notably Greece--now have shrinking economies. The other less indebted countries--such as Germany, France, Finland and others--are being dragged down, too, by the fact that the debtor countries are buying less of what the creditor countries have to offer because they have a diminished capacity for consumption.
A fiscally-responsible governing program in Europe would have been to balance policies and actions to stabilize the debt issues with policies and actions that would promote growth. Instead, there has been no evidence of any concerted effort to promote growth. The focus is on fiscal austerity as a precondition for fiscal assistance. In the meantime, the national economies shrink, which makes the issues associated with the debt load even worse than they were when the whole thing started.
Without growth, any attempts to address the issues of national debt just become a vicious circle of tail-chasing. That is what you get with fiscal austerity.
What the Europeans need--and what we need here in America--is a government that acts with fiscal responsibility. We need a governing plan that addresses the issues of national debt at the same time that it promotes national economic growth.
This will not be a simple plan. It cannot be the immediate slashing and reducing of government and its expenditures. That's what is being done to Greece, and Greece is a basket case now.
Instead, the reductions will have to be gradual and accrued over time. Additional near-term investments to promote growth must be given full consideration, and some of them will be adopted.
This would be fiscal responsibility, and it's also just plain common sense.
At this point, I have started writing with what seems like a truly momentous title, only to find it difficult to organize my thoughts enough to write a coherent article that will do justice to the title. This isn't for lack of ideas and material. Instead, it's because there is so much to be said on this subject.
"Fiscal austerity" is a term that has been bruited about ad nauseam for the last three years. The political and economic discourse here in America and throughout Europe is saturated with demands for fiscal austerity. Fiscal austerity is supposed to be a virtuous path and a worthy goal for governments, people and societies.
It's time to recognize that all this talk of fiscal austerity is sucking up far too much oxygen in the political and economic atmosphere. Atmospheric oxygen has an important use: it is to make things live and grow. The promotion of fiscal austerity has very little in the way of new life or growth to show for itself.
Fiscal austerity might work for individuals and households when they have made poor choices or have unexpectedly lost a job; sometimes austerity is the only remaining option.
But fiscal austerity does not work for governments; the financial benefits to be gained will be temporary and will soon be overwhelmed by the additional damage that is done through austerity.
Maybe it's just me, but I cannot think of anybody in the public eye who has been caught on camera smiling, or even looking slightly pleased, while talking about fiscal austerity. That should be our first clue that somebody has brought something to the picnic without tasting it first.
"Fiscal responsibility" is a better goal. (Opposing viewpoints are welcome, but if you have one you might want to hold on to it until you read the rest of this article.) This is a goal that can be voiced with a smile--even if it's only a Mona Lisa type of smile--if there's a feeling that responsible actions lead to worthy growth.
In actuality, Americans have already begun to act with fiscal responsibility. Household debt has been reduced, consumer confidence measures are increasing, and consumer credit has started an uptrend. Individual situations vary, of course, and for some, these events have come about with pain from adopting frugal ways or accepting reduced circumstances. Overall, though, there has been enough progress in debt reduction so that more household resources are now being directed towards purchases of items that have been delayed for years. These items include significant and durable things like automobiles, appliances and furnishings.
Responsible actions yield positive results. In aggregate, American households have acted responsibly, and now they are building on those actions.
The other side of the coin is that irresponsible actions yield negative results. To incur obligations that are known to be impossible to be upheld in the future is irresponsible, and inevitably leads to distress--financial or otherwise--and to the need for living in reduced circumstances, at least during a period of repair and rebuilding.
Memo to Congress and all political candidates in this election year: Whether it's household debt or national debt, we get it. We've been living through the household debt thing, and have been cutting it down, for years. Now it's your turn; work on reducing the national debt. But do it responsibly; we have acted that way, and so should you.
Total austerity is also irresponsible. It immediately shuts down economic activity and reduces circumstances for people without regard for the consequences. Based on their current consumer behavior, the American population--taken as a whole--seems to recognize this.
National debt and household debt are two very different things. It would be a misstatement and a disservice to imply that national debt can be managed and reduced in the same way as household debt.
But national debt and household debt share two common characteristics.
First, both a nation and a household can take on additional debt until potential lenders decide to not offer any more loans of money because they fear lack of repayment.
Second, national debt and household debt both contribute to economic activity.
Which brings us to national governments, and how they should act--or at least, how our own government should act--so as to be as responsible as the people they represent and govern.
To witness the irresponsibility of governing fiscal austerity in action, all that is needed is to take a look at current events in Europe. The European Union is teetering on the brink of recession. National debt is the underlying problem. The cause of economic recession, though, it not simply that debt; instead, it is how the debt issues are addressed.
Governmental fiscal austerity is the theme of choice in Europe for addressing the issues caused by excessive debt. It's an irresponsible choice because it is not working. The countries with the most excessive debt problems--notably Greece--now have shrinking economies. The other less indebted countries--such as Germany, France, Finland and others--are being dragged down, too, by the fact that the debtor countries are buying less of what the creditor countries have to offer because they have a diminished capacity for consumption.
A fiscally-responsible governing program in Europe would have been to balance policies and actions to stabilize the debt issues with policies and actions that would promote growth. Instead, there has been no evidence of any concerted effort to promote growth. The focus is on fiscal austerity as a precondition for fiscal assistance. In the meantime, the national economies shrink, which makes the issues associated with the debt load even worse than they were when the whole thing started.
Without growth, any attempts to address the issues of national debt just become a vicious circle of tail-chasing. That is what you get with fiscal austerity.
What the Europeans need--and what we need here in America--is a government that acts with fiscal responsibility. We need a governing plan that addresses the issues of national debt at the same time that it promotes national economic growth.
This will not be a simple plan. It cannot be the immediate slashing and reducing of government and its expenditures. That's what is being done to Greece, and Greece is a basket case now.
Instead, the reductions will have to be gradual and accrued over time. Additional near-term investments to promote growth must be given full consideration, and some of them will be adopted.
This would be fiscal responsibility, and it's also just plain common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)