IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?

The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .

The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?

The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**

If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.

Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****

*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:

http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html

****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/

OUR CONSUMERISM SOCIETY

The U.S. economy is largely built on consumerism - about 73% (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Daily-Reckoning/2011/0322/Consumers-won-t-save-the-US-economy), and advertising is used to make the consumers want ever more.

Now consider that most Americans' incomes are stagnant or falling or non-existent (long-term unemployed) and have been for years now. Only the wealthy are seeing their incomes increase. On the other hand, state and local governments are having to balance their budgets and are shedding employees - 39,000 in June alone, with a total of about 400,000 state and local government jobs lost so far,* and I've read about estimates that they will shed another 250,000 jobs before it is all done. Also in June, the Federal government shed 17,000 jobs. All the talk is about cutting the Federal budget. To the extent that the Federal budget is cut, we will see more Civil Servants and government contract employees let loose that will add more to the unemployed. Businesses are making good money with their current employee levels. Under these conditions, why should a company expand? In fact, in view of the future, they might even be considering to retrench.

So we are in our Catch 22. Business won't expand and increase employment unless consumerism picks up or at least it looks as if consumerism will pick up. But the consumers don't have any increased income to allow them to consume more, in fact the trend is that they will have less. So what to do?

No one seems to have any good answer. Government has tried doing "prime the pump" by borrowing money and giving it to the public. A lot of this, however, has been futile. For example, about a third of the Stimulus Package went out in tax cuts that gave an inefficient pulse to the economy, inefficient because a lot of it was used to pay down debt by the rank and file, and the wealthy largely put it into bonds of various sorts or used it toward buying things like chalets in Switzerland that maybe helps the global economy, but doesn't help the U.S. economy.** And once these one shot pulses have been used in some way, there is no further benefit. Unfortunately, it looks as if this approach will be continued though decreased pay roll taxes used for programs that also face financial problems (e.g. Social Security and Medicare). More one shot deals seem to be on the table that may be used further to pay down debt by the rank and file and the purchase of bonds and foreign goods by the wealthy. Whatever is used to buy American goods is just a pulse that is soon over. Why would a company expand its production under these circumstances when they can meet these pulses of consumerism without hiring more employees?

A number of things have been done. Obama has shut down the return of man to the Moon program (though some contracts have to be fulfilled by law.), he has frozen Federal salaries, and he has followed through on George W. Bush's shut down of the Space Shuttle Program (estimated to cost 4,000 jobs). The number of Federal employee now is about average for the Federal government,* but everyone talks about this just being the beginning.

So it would seem that the present state of affairs will continue farther than the eye can see. It will take something extraordinary to jolt us out of the present situation but there is nothing on the horizon that would do so.

* http://www.businessinsider.com/size-of-the-federal-workforce-under-obama-2011-7

**http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/07/trouble-with-income-tax-cuts.html