"Having our own police department in this day and age is a luxury we can't afford"

-- Pontiac, Mich., Mayor Leon Jukowski

Mayor John Dickert of Racine, Wisc., may well have a deeper stake in the system than his fellow mayors around the country.

His congressman is U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, who proposed the virtual end of Medicare; his governor is Scott Walker, whose anti-union policies inspired a political revolution; and one justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court accused another justice of choking her inside her office.

Dickert joined the other mayors to urge Congress to speed up the end of the Middle East wars and spend the money on urban needs. Their demand was presented in a resolution prepared by the U.S. Conference of Mayors when meeting in Baltimore in late June.

Creation of the resolution coincided with two other developments which offered hope that at last the government might finally pay adequate attention to America's cities and other communities.

Soon after, President Obama announced a careful drawdown of troops in Afghanistan as even many Republicans balked about our continued involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

It is also evident that a healthy proportion of Americans want higher taxes for the wealthy and big business.

Perhaps this confluence of events inspired Obama to rebuke Republicans in Congress for attempting to dictate the economic agenda - especially, their refusal to end business tax breaks and tax cuts for the wealthy.

The most vigorous of these initiatives was launched in Baltimore when the U.S. Conference of Mayors released its resolution, which states: "The United States Conference of Mayors calls on the President and U.S. Congress to end the wars as soon as strategically possible and bring these war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy and reduce the federal debt."

We have spent $1.3 trillion in the past decade to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which amounts to $126 billion yearly. In a sample breakdown, an MSNBC television host reported that Los Angeles would receive $1.2 billion and Philadelphia would be given nearly enough fill the $629 million gap in its school system's budget.

Members of Congress in both major parties are opposing or questioning our military ventures. It certainly reflects the prevalent war-weariness among Americans.

Democrats like Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland is consistent with his anti-war positions. Some Republicans may well be speaking up now because they were always sincerely concerned about these wars and are only willing to go public now since the current president is a Democrat.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky conceded as much during a breakfast session on June 21. "I think some of these views were probably held by some of my members even in the previous administration," he said. "Party loyalty (to President Bush) tended to kind of mute them.

"A lot of our members, not having a Republican in the White House," McConnell continued, "feel more free to kind of express their reservation, which might have been somewhat muted during the previous administration."

No doubt many other Republicans suddenly have a problem with our wars solely because Obama is a Democrat.

It is also becoming safer for politicians to vote for ending corporate tax breaks and increasing taxes on the wealthy. I see more frequent letters to the editor and hear more phone calls on C-span condemning Republican strategy.

So far, 33 Republican senators voted in June to eliminate a 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol tax credit, joining 38 Democrats and independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, according to The New York Daily News.

The Tribune Washington Bureau reported that Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, referring to tax breaks for corporate jets, said on June 29, "I'm not sympathetic to all these jets myself, so I'd be willing to consider that."

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, sounding much different than other Republicans in his state, said, "I'm willing to take a look at the special deals. I would love to do away with special tax breaks, but not legitimate business deductions."

A week before Obama's scolding, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "Look, taxes aren't gonna be raised."

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, "Sen. McConnell's demand is being contradicted by many in his own party. It seems he ventured out on a limb, and many in his own caucus are sawing it off."

All these developments buttresses the drive to attend to our domestic needs, though it is a long, uphill road. Wherever Obama stands on specific issues at any given time, such situations strengthen the longterm agenda of the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.

The American public is sufficiently aroused to press for progressive change. Mayors throughout the nation are bombarded by residents outraged by the horrendous cuts in services; the public is exhausted with the wars; and Republican members of Congress no doubt hear rising complaints from their constituents and monitor controversies over Republican policies in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and other states.

Maybe this is wishful thinking, but future candidates who represent a sensible approach to governing, including incumbents with shaky levels of popularity, will likely benefit. Candidates and incumbents who espouse extreme concepts promise to become an endangered species.

_______



About author Bruce S. Ticker of Philadelphia blogs at Bruce S. Ticker of Philadelphia blogs at www.constitutioncon.blogspot.com