Why the Deficit Deal May Pass -- But Can't Stand

By Carl Pope

Chairman, Sierra Club

Posted: 8/1/11 10:00 PM ET

So we won't default -- unless the extremist Tea Party gets its way. But we don't have a long-range fiscal plan, either, whatever the press releases say. Since the plan on the table is horrendous, that's a good thing. Indeed, the idea of detailed ten-year fiscal plan was, at its heart, absurd. (Ten years ago, the U.S. government was beginning to agonize about a burgeoning budget surplus.)

Here's why the fiscal pathway laid out in the "Deficit Compromise" is not going to happen, regardless of what Congress does this week:

1. The current agreement cuts only Defense and government services/ infrastructure investments. But those two components eachaccount for only 20 percent of the total federal budget -- $700 billion each. Sixty percent of the federal budget -- interest payments, medical care, retirement costs, food stamps and income support, and corporate tax subsidies -- are not touched. The deficit is $1.3 trillion -- you would have to eliminate both the entire military and all of the public services provided by federal government to balance the budget by cutting those two functions. Not even Grover Norquist would go that far.

2. The agreement contains a series of foolish, unpopular, and profoundly unserious trade-offs. A serious country wouldn't retain tax subsidies for the governments of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, while cutting medical research. A serious country with the least-competitive infrastructure in the advanced world would not accelerate its disinvestment in its bridges, highways, mass transit systems, and electrical grid, while giving hedge fund managers uniquely privileged tax treatment.  A serious country whose greatest fiscal challenge is cutting the cost of health care would not slash activities like cleaning up pollution, developing new health care technologies, and improving nutritional education that are the cheapest way to cut health care burdens. A serious country whose children fall farther behind global standards for science and math every year would not devastate educational funding while continuing to give tax breaks to corporations that move jobs overseas to find a better-educated workforce. A serious country whose economy is being destroyed by a $300 billion a year imported oil bill would not eliminate funding for the very programs that might enable it to kick its long-standing oil addiction, while refusing to touch subsidies to the world's most profitable (and often foreign) oil companies. It would also rethink its repudiation of a deficit-reducing tax on carbon.

3. Environmentally, the proposed cuts in domestic spending would be incredibly damaging and would effectively preclude the government from giving Americans the environmental safety net they want. There wouldn't be enough money to invest in clean energy research. We wouldn't be able to restore our dilapidated, leaking, unhealthy system of sewers and sewage treatment. Research into the toxic chemicals that are sickening and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans would be hampered. Fundamental environmental law enforcement would slow. Parks would continue to decay. Ecosystems on which our communities depend would unravel. Mass transit would rust. The clean energy future would be strangled in its crib -- it's really not Hercules. Coal and oil would rule our future.

4. Fortunately, the short-term deficit came from factors we can reverse: the Bush tax cuts, two wars, the Bush prescription drug plan, and (hopefully) the Great Recession. It's obvious how to fix the first two -- restore taxes to their 2000 levels and bring the troops home.

5. To deal with the fiscal impact of the recession, we need to restore economic growth. But we need greater domestic demand to get the economy going -- and the default package actually cuts demand, putting us deeper in the hole. A serious country would do that only if it thought of itself as part of the "Anglo-American world." Britain is being as foolish -- and it's not working there either. But in my next post I'll offer a fix for this.

6. The Bush prescription drug plan is only one part of the one long-term fiscal challenge we face -- bringing down the cost of health care. That is urgent and will take time, but if we solve the rest of the fiscal imbalance, we have time.

The good news is that very few of those who voted for this "compromise" have any illusion that it is a true fiscal blue-print. It avoided a default, which was incredibly important, and it made the next election a campaign about the role of government. Democrats are demoralized, as they should be, by their lack of an effective negotiating strategy. And Republicans (the sensible ones, at least) are terrified because they don't have a solution and their settling on this fig leaf shows it.

This profoundly unserious plan has set up a profoundly serious national debate -- are we going to be Europe or yesterday's Latin America? It's revealing that the reactionary Tea Party Right consistently frames the choice facing America as whether we are going to become like Europe -- when the reality is we more and more resemble a dysfunctional 1970s Latin American oligarchy.

I'll close this post by pointing out an irony. Francis Fukuyama, widely viewed as a hero to the conservative movement, has just published a new book, The Origins of Political Order. In it he frames what he thinks is the fundamental question facing the 21st century. Surprise, it's not "How do we get government off our back or drown it in a bathtub?" No, for Fukuyama, it is axiomatic that what people want today is to become -- DENMARK. The big question is how to create government institutions that can do what the Danish state has accomplished.

I think he's right. What people in Somalia and Afghanistan want is to become more like Denmark. But for the United States, I think there is a different question -- how do we remain America?

Denmark is probably not an option. We are not yet Paraguay. But we are headed somewhere in that direction.

Fortunately, because we have been so foolish and wasteful, we have some simple solutions. That's the great advantage of stupidity. It is optional.

So my next post will discuss what to do and why, in fact, there is a free lunch!

Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope

Great Male Survey: The Generation Gap

Great Male Survey: The Generation Gap

Smartphone pictures pose privacy risks

Quan Yin

How Do You Sort Your Inner Continuum?

Dreams,Meditations,Yoga,Kundalini,Self realization

Dreams,Meditations,Yoga,Kundalini,Self realization

Caring for Your Introvert - The Atlantic

Caring for Your Introvert - The Atlantic

Parentified Children

The Post-StandardSusan Hartman Brenizer is a licensed marriage and family therapist.

By Susan Hartman Brenizer
Guest columnist

Lately we've heard lots about parents who overindulge children to produce the "me" generation. Little attention has been given to those quieter, sensitive children who, even with a well-intentioned parent, can fall into a role therapists call "the parentified child."

In healthy families, very clear boundaries exist between the generations. Adults are the caretakers, giving the love, attention, instruction, and daily care to the children.

A "hole" in the family--(death of a parent, divorce, serious illness or addictions in one parent, long military deployments)--leaves a parental vacuum, and the more emotionally sensitive or responsible child can very easily become "parentified." That child behaves as if he or she were one of the parents, caring for younger siblings and becoming the remaining parent's confidante. Some families even brag of the 10-year-old boy being "the man of the house" after his father dies, or the 11-year-old girl who is "the little mommy" after the divorce.

We used to believe this happened to the first born child, but we now know that is not necessarily so. Usually, it is the more vulnerable or sweet-natured child who shows compassion early on and can be trained easily. Once parentified, this child carries adult responsibilities, as well as secrets and stories, that he or she is not equipped to comprehend.

Why is this so destructive for the child?

Each of us gets one childhood. It's our time for innocence, to play with abandon, to make mistakes, to have one's own fears soothed. A child who is parentified mortgages his or her childhood to the parent. He or she is not allowed to make the normal mistakes of childhood; his or her own emotional authenticity is given up to acting like the responsible one. It is a lonely existence for the child who cannot turn to a parent for help getting through the family trauma, because they are in the position of being there for the parent. Additionally, the other children in the family may come to resent the parentified child.

Research has shown that the practice of parentifying children passes from one generation to the next, which means the parentified child may choose one of his or her own children to play the role later. This has serious consequences for the marital partners one may choose. Commonly, therapists see the grown up parentified child choosing a needy partner, or growing up with unresolved anger that leads to a "controlling" relationship. Both circumstances can produce serious marital problems.

For most parents, casting a child into this role is not a conscious decision. So, what can one do to guard against parentifying a child?

* Should your family suddenly become a single parent household, be aware that you need to pre-empt and shield any of your children from this role.

* If a sensitive, aware child begins to slip into this role, reassure him or her again that you are fine and that his or her job is to play, not to take care of mommy.

* After a divorce or death, say things to the children like, "Just because Daddy is sad right now does not mean that he is not going to get up and make dinner in a few minutes. It also does not mean that I will not be able to take care of you."

* Keep routines and discipline the same as before. This reassures children that the parent is in charge.

* Showing some sadness is normal, and healthy. Save the sobbing or ranting for trusted adults only.

* If you are feeling overwhelmed, don't turn to the children. Seek help from adult friends, extended family, neighbors you trust, a church congregation, a minister or spirtual leader, other single parents, or a therapist or support group.

* Correct, in front of the children, those who may say to your eldest, "Now you are the man of the house," with something like, "Grandma, he may be the eldest, but he is still a child. I have things well under control."

* Talk to your children frequently about their feelings. This can give you a good read on whether a child is feeling responsible or slipping into a parentified role.

* Remember always that children fear abandonment. Continually reassure that just because Mommy left does not mean Daddy will leave.

* Consider consulting a therapist if a child shows signs of excessive worry or concern, depression, or slipping into the parent role. This is more helpful sooner, so the role does not become calcified.

Designing the Good Life

Designing the Good Life

Senate Democrats send Boehner letter saying they won't vote for his debt ceiling plan

Senate Democrats send Boehner letter saying they won't vote for his debt ceiling plan

What's John Boehner promising to the teabaggers?

What's John Boehner promising to the teabaggers?

Republicans hold America hostage for tea party fringe

Republicans hold America hostage for tea party fringe

Attachment and Differentiation in Couples Therapy By Ellyn Bader, Ph.D.

This year's couples conference has now come and gone.  Once again we enjoyed dynamic presentations from state of the art thinkers and practioners, such as Harville Hendrix, Pat Love, Cloe Madanes, Terry Real, Dan Siegel, Stan Tatkin and Jeff Zeig. I meant to share some highlights with you sooner, but got swamped with commitments that always crop up at the end of the training year and then had a wonderful trip to France with Pete and Molly.

I especially loved the panel on "Attachment and Differentiation in Couples Therapy" that I did with Stan Tatkin. I structured this panel into the conference because I believe it is time for people our field to begin integrating the best of these two theories.  Couples therapy is most effective when the therapist knows how to use both attachment and differentiation based interventions and conceptualizations.

For so many couples attachment and connection occurs easily at the beginning of the relationship, when all the endorphins in the brain are supporting the intensity of "falling in love". However, sustaining love is much more difficult.

Primary attachment patterns from early in life become increasingly dominant as partners hurt or disappoint each other.  For example, a woman with an avoidant childhood attachment with her mother may become increasingly avoidant in her marriage as she feels hurt by her husband's deep involvement with his work.  She may shut him out of her social involvements or withdraw into internet chatting. An aloof distance will begin to infect the couple.

Stan discussed the importance of using a modified attachment interview early in therapy to delineate one of four types of attachment: Secure, Resistant/Clinging, Anxious Avoidant or Disorganized for each partner. This interview is conducted with both partners together, so that they can deepen their experience of one another.  Stan also described his experience that using this interview helps avoidant partners become more invested in therapy for themselves.

He stressed the necessity of both therapists and married partners understanding that the adult couple relationship is a primary attachment relationship. And as such it is significantly different from all other relationships. It provides an opportunity for growth as well as a haven of care and protection.

I then discussed differentiation theory. As time passes, partners begin to define their own thoughts, feelings, and desires.  The love chemicals recede and the majority of clinical couples aren't able to maintain a strong positive connection. Instead they encounter moments of deep disappointment with one another and become increasingly self protective, using unsuccessful coping strategies such as blame, withdrawal and resentful compliance.

This propels them headlong into a developmental dilemma. Their self protective mechanisms result in undermining differentiation in one another, and they devolve into pervasive conflict avoidance or serious angry escalating, hostile-dependent patterns.

They are hurt and reeling from the effects of competition, brutal accusations, intermittent accountability, passivity, and too little time together. I described my belief that to overcome this we must be able to help partners develop resilience and manage their inevitable differences to find solutions that incorporate both partners' desires.

When we work to help partners strengthen their differentiation, we enable them to be authentic and open with one another without compromising core values and beliefs. They learn to work effectively with their conflicts and differences, and to negotiate successfully. In this way, differentiation adds to the strengthening of the couple's attachment, and a synergy develops in which the new developmental capacities support ongoing closeness and connection.

I also stressed the need to recognize that differentiation is not:

·         Avoidance or avoidant attachment

·         Pseudo-Autonomy as described in the Gestalt Prayer

·         Individuation-unfolding of unique skills and talents which lead to increased self-esteem, capacities that are often developed away from the relationship in schools, community activities, and hobbies.

Differentiation occurs interpersonally. Sadly, unfolding differentiation frightens many partners because it signals that "we are different". I believe this can trigger primitive anxiety - fear of being left or cast out. In their attempts to calm this anxiety, partners often try to inhibit growth in one another. They may also expect a lot from the other and little from themselves. They may deceive themselves about their own role in the problem.

One glorious part of being a couples therapist is the daily opportunity to support loving connection and individual growth at the same time, which brings me back to my opening thought: it is time for our field to begin integrating the best of Attachment and Differentiation theories.

ALERT! Watch Bath and Body Works soap!!!

Sometimes I don't wash my hands with soap and water. I just can't bring
> myself to use a product that causes all sorts of health problems and will
> exist in our environment forever. What ingredient is so repulsive that I'm
> willing to walk to find dish soap in the kitchen to use or just forgo the
> soap all together? Triclosan.
>
> I wonder what it is about Bath & Body Works' "antibacterial" soap that
> people are so drawn to. It comes in gift baskets and as prizes at baby
> showers and bachelorette parties, and it's in my friends' bathrooms. While
> it may come in sweet or fruity scents like "sugar lemon fizz" or "tangelo
> orange twist" to get the attention of young girls and women, their
> antibacterial soap contains a toxic chemical called triclosan. I can't help
> but wonder if the audience that Bath & Body Works targets even knows what
> triclosan is, and whether the company even cares.
>
> Can you ask Bath & Body Works to discontinue the use of triclosan in their
> products?
>
> Triclosan poses serious environmental health hazards by disrupting hormones,
> even lowering sperm counts in animals. After it is washed down the drain, it
> pollutes our waterways and can transform into dioxins, a class of chemicals
> some consider to be the most toxic. Bath & Body Works heavily markets their
> products containing triclosan to girls and young women, leading them to
> believe that they need antibacterial soaps. But the truth is, antibacterial
> soaps are no more effective than regular soap and water. In fact, using
> antibacterial soaps may be worse, even leading to antibiotic resistant bacteria.
>
> We need to ask Bath & Body Works to stop using triclosan. Other major
> companies, like Colgate Palmolive, have agreed to eliminate triclosan from
> some of their products. Why can't Bath & Body Works stop using triclosan
> too?
>
> Send the Bath & Body Works' CEO a message today:
> http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7319
>
>
> Thanks for taking action,
>

Please Tell Me if I'm Getting This Right

Please Tell Me if I'm Getting This Right

House Democratic Leaders To Obama: Use The 14th Amendment

by Jennifer Bendery/HP

First Posted: 7/27/11 12:18 PM ET Updated: 7/27/11 03:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders emerged from a Wednesday Caucus meeting with a message for President Barack Obama: Invoke the Constitution to resolve the debt standoff.

If Congress can't reach a deal on a long-term debt limit increase by August 2, Obama should "sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment," said Assistant Minority Leader James Cyburn (D-S.C.).

"I am convinced that whatever discussions about the legality of that can continue," Clyburn said. "But I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) acknowledged that Obama has previously expressed doubts about his legal authority to unilaterally raise the debt limit. But circumstances have changed, Larson said, and "we just want to let him know that his Caucus is prepared to stand behind him" if Congress fails to pass a long-term deal.

"We have to have a fail-safe mechanism," Larson said. "We believe that fail-safe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States."

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Essentially, Democrats are arguing that since the "public debt" cannot be questioned, then the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

Democratic Senators have been eying this option since late June. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, predicted at that time the the constitutional option may get "a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

With time running out on Congress to come up with a bipartisan plan by next Tuesday to avert a debt default, Clyburn put the constitutional option back on the table in the Wednesday caucus meeting and got strong support from Members. But he said he has yet to bring it back up to Obama.

"I speak with the White House often," Clyburn told reporters. "I have not spoken to them today."

Former President Bill Clinton has said he would invoke that option "without hesitation" and leave it to the courts to figure it out.

UPDATE: 3:35 p.m. -- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney again ruled out the possibility of Obama using the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt dispute.

"Our position hasn't changed," Carney said during his Wednesday briefing. "There are no off-ramps. ... Only Congress has the legal authority."

John Boehner lied. A bunch

 The author supposes you’ll be wanting some details. Steven Benen has a few. Noting that Speaker John Boehner’s response to President Obama’s Monday night speech was characterized by its “breathtaking dishonesty,” 


John Boehner lied. A bunch

Near-Death Experience: A Deeply Inspiring Near-Death Experience

Mellen-Thomas Benedict is an artist who survived a near-death experience (NDE) in 1982. He was dead for over an hour and a half. During that time, he rose up out of his body and went into the light. Curious about the universe, he was taken far into the remote depths of existence, and even beyond, into the energetic void of nothingness behind the Big Bang. Eminent near-death experience researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring has said, "His story is one of the most remarkable I have encountered in my extensive research on near-death experiences."

TO CONTINUE, CLICK LINK:

Near-Death Experience: A Deeply Inspiring Near-Death Experience