A Washington Post-ABC News poll reveals what we have all sensed, that most Americans are increasingly concerned about the growing gap between rich and poor in this country. The issue quickly divides along partisan lines, as do so many, with liberals urging government to do more to reduce this gap and conservatives opposing such measures. (Overall, when you include independents, a significant majority does favor government action.)
But on an issue even more significant than income inequality, there appears to be agreement with both conservatives and liberals: the importance of social mobility. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) accurately noted that “upward mobility from the bottom is the basis of the American promise.”
Some believe we are still doing fine. In his address to the Heritage Foundation last month, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) declared, “Class is not a fixed designation in this country. We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.” Ryan contrasted social mobility in the United States with that in Europe, where “top-heavy welfare states have replaced the traditional aristocracies, and masses of the long-term unemployed are locked into the new lower class.”
But Ryan is wrong.
In fact, over the past decade, growing evidence shows conclusively that social mobility has stalled in this country. Time Magazine asked, “Can You Still Move Up in America?” The answer, citing a series of academic studies was, “NO...not as much as you could in the past and not as much as you can in Europe.”
In other words, you have a better chance of moving upward in income and class in one of those European "socialist" countries.
The most comprehensive comparative study, done last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that “upward mobility from the bottom” was significantly lower in the United States than in most major European countries, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Another study, by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Germany in 2006, concludes that "the U.S. appears to be exceptional in having less rather than more upward mobility."
A 2010 Economic Mobility Project study found that in almost every respect, the United States has a more rigid socioeconomic class structure than Canada. Sons of fathers in the bottom tenth of earners are more likely to remain in the bottom tenth of earners as adults than are Canadian sons (22 percent vs. 16 percent). And U.S. sons of fathers in the bottom third of earnings distribution are less likely to make it into the top half as adults than are sons of low-earning Canadian fathers.
Surveying all the evidence, Scott Winship, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, concludes in the National Review: “What is clear is that in at least one regard American mobility is exceptional…in our limited upward mobility from the bottom.”
When you think about it, these results should not be so surprising. European countries, perhaps haunted by their past as class-ridden societies, have made serious investments to create equality of opportunity for all. They typically have extremely good childhood health and nutrition programs, and they have far better public education systems than the United States does. As a result, poor children compete on a more equal footing against the rich.
In the United States, however, if you are born into poverty, you are highly likely to have malnutrition, childhood sicknesses, and a bad education. The dirty little secret about the U.S. welfare state is that it spends very little on the poor – who don’t vote much – lavishing attention instead on the middle class.
The result is clear. A student interviewed by Opportunity Nation, a bipartisan group founded to address these issues, put it succinctly, “The ZIP code you’re born in shouldn’t determine your destiny, but too often it does.”
Tackling income inequality is a very difficult challenge. Tax increases on the rich will do relatively little to change the basic trend, which is fueled by globalization, technology and the increasing gains conferred by education. (Getting back to the 1990 levels of income distribution in the United States, for example, would mean hundreds of billions of dollars of redistribution every year, which is exponentially larger than the biggest tax hikes anyone is proposing.)
But we do know how to create social mobility – because we used to do it. In addition, we can learn from those countries that do it so well, particularly in Northern Europe and Canada. The ingredients are obvious: decent health care, nutrition for children, good public education, high-quality infrastructure – including broadband Internet – to connect all regions and all people to market opportunities, and a flexible and competitive free economy. That will get America moving again – and all Americans moving again.
Taken from: The downward path of upward mobility, by Fareed Zakaria
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Are you paying attention?
The GOP made the decision to react to the news of Obama working with NATO to help Libyan revolutionaries fight for their freedom – precipitating Qaddafi’s death – as the small minded, spiteful people that they are. Two Republican senators stepped up to the microphones to express their gratitude to our French and British allies – well deserved by the way – each taking great care to avoid crediting the Obama strategy for any part in this success.
Appearing on Fox, Sen. Graham (R-SC) had this to say when discussing the future of Libya: “We can go over there and help them build their infrastructure up.”
What?! (…I say with my head spinning around…)
On the very day that Senate Republicans – including Graham – voted down a proposal to authorize money that would keep teachers teaching and firefighters ready to fight fires and policemen policing, Graham said that we need to spend taxpayer money to build up Libyan infrastructure. Graham has a perfect voting record in blocking badly needed infrastructure investment here in the United States, such as repairs to schools and bridges. Yet he declares his enthusiasm for spending a bunch of money to engage in another nation building exercise.
Why? Why is Graham so eager to invest in Libya’s infrastructure while gladly allowing his own nation to crumble in ruin?
The answer is… wait….wait for it…. drum roll… because there is lots of money for the United States to make in building the future in Libya!
Oh, yesssss…you read that right. Senator Graham’s position could not have been expressed any more clearly.
Onward contractors! Onward oil companies!
Who needs to provide American children with an education or rebuild bridges and roads to save American lives when you can use taxpayer money to set things up for the U.S. oil barons to steal huge supplies of oil that belong to the Libyan people? So what if a few folks in Minneapolis fall to their death when the bridge collapses. We are talking billions in profits lying around in the African desert just waiting to be lapped up.
The most important thing to note here is that Republicans want to spend taxpayer cash to make the oil producing investments that they do not want to ask the oil companies to do on their own. Let's use taxpayer money to make millions of dollars for the oil companies and their shareholders.
Now that the French and English (let’s not give Obama any credit here) have succeeded in helping to free the Libyan people, the Libyans must now submit to America’s oil monopoly – or else. There is no surprise in learning that McCain and Graham, along with that DINO, Joe Lieberman – who never met a Muslin nation they do not wish to invade – would respond to being proven strategically wrong by attempting to pretend Obama’s clever plan to bring down Qaddafi never happened. Graham openly and boldly pitched the idea of spending taxpayer money to grab Libya’s oil without so much as saying one word about the importance of having helped the Libyan people achieve their freedom.
Now, I realize that this horrible Republican behavior will never register on the millions of Americans who cannot be bothered with paying attention to the greedy leaders they have chosen to get behind, no matter how shocking their decisions may be. They are too busy watching American Idol.
But to the many Independent voters – the ones who actually decide the elections in this country – I ask:
Are you paying attention to this?
Appearing on Fox, Sen. Graham (R-SC) had this to say when discussing the future of Libya: “We can go over there and help them build their infrastructure up.”
What?! (…I say with my head spinning around…)
On the very day that Senate Republicans – including Graham – voted down a proposal to authorize money that would keep teachers teaching and firefighters ready to fight fires and policemen policing, Graham said that we need to spend taxpayer money to build up Libyan infrastructure. Graham has a perfect voting record in blocking badly needed infrastructure investment here in the United States, such as repairs to schools and bridges. Yet he declares his enthusiasm for spending a bunch of money to engage in another nation building exercise.
Why? Why is Graham so eager to invest in Libya’s infrastructure while gladly allowing his own nation to crumble in ruin?
The answer is… wait….wait for it…. drum roll… because there is lots of money for the United States to make in building the future in Libya!
Oh, yesssss…you read that right. Senator Graham’s position could not have been expressed any more clearly.
Onward contractors! Onward oil companies!
Who needs to provide American children with an education or rebuild bridges and roads to save American lives when you can use taxpayer money to set things up for the U.S. oil barons to steal huge supplies of oil that belong to the Libyan people? So what if a few folks in Minneapolis fall to their death when the bridge collapses. We are talking billions in profits lying around in the African desert just waiting to be lapped up.
The most important thing to note here is that Republicans want to spend taxpayer cash to make the oil producing investments that they do not want to ask the oil companies to do on their own. Let's use taxpayer money to make millions of dollars for the oil companies and their shareholders.
Now that the French and English (let’s not give Obama any credit here) have succeeded in helping to free the Libyan people, the Libyans must now submit to America’s oil monopoly – or else. There is no surprise in learning that McCain and Graham, along with that DINO, Joe Lieberman – who never met a Muslin nation they do not wish to invade – would respond to being proven strategically wrong by attempting to pretend Obama’s clever plan to bring down Qaddafi never happened. Graham openly and boldly pitched the idea of spending taxpayer money to grab Libya’s oil without so much as saying one word about the importance of having helped the Libyan people achieve their freedom.
Now, I realize that this horrible Republican behavior will never register on the millions of Americans who cannot be bothered with paying attention to the greedy leaders they have chosen to get behind, no matter how shocking their decisions may be. They are too busy watching American Idol.
But to the many Independent voters – the ones who actually decide the elections in this country – I ask:
Are you paying attention to this?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
We are not islands
Time and again we are told that we have to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, by ourselves, for ourselves, yet that is the exact same system that has been in place for decades and is in fact not working. The ideas put forth by the Republican Party are based on feeling no loyalty to anyone or anything; do only for yourself in everything all the time and let everyone else fall by the wayside. Within this “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” belief system, the person who fails is considered lazy – therefore it is okay if he starves to death or dies from disease if he cannot afford healthcare.
That is a grim picture of the world – a dog eat dog viewpoint – one that is full of suffering and strife for millions of our citizens.
Middle class spending is the engine of our economy. But the middle class is losing ground with the typical family's take-home pay now at 1996 levels. Businesses are tied to the middle class, whether through direct sales and services or indirectly through government contracts paid for with our tax money. If the middle class is squeezed and refuses to spend what little resources they have left, then business profits will fall. It becomes a non-ending downward cycle.
Instead of trying to reach your business goals using people as stepping stones within a mountain of suffering humanity, what would it be like to realize how connected to one another we truly are – and how connected businesses are to the general welfare of the public. It is time for small businesses to hire people in a concerted effort to bring down the unemployment numbers so the middle class will feel secure enough to start spending again. No matter which party is in power, government can only do so much with tax cuts, small stimulus packages, etc.
It is businesses, both big and small, that will pull this economy out of the doldrums by their willingness to stop sitting on trillions of dollars of cash and, instead, investing it in American workers.
We are not islands within our own nation; nor is our nation an island within the world. We are all tied together and integral to each other’s survival. Only when we act in a manner where we acknowledge, strengthen, and participate in that connection will we fix the "middle class squeeze."
That is a grim picture of the world – a dog eat dog viewpoint – one that is full of suffering and strife for millions of our citizens.
Middle class spending is the engine of our economy. But the middle class is losing ground with the typical family's take-home pay now at 1996 levels. Businesses are tied to the middle class, whether through direct sales and services or indirectly through government contracts paid for with our tax money. If the middle class is squeezed and refuses to spend what little resources they have left, then business profits will fall. It becomes a non-ending downward cycle.
Instead of trying to reach your business goals using people as stepping stones within a mountain of suffering humanity, what would it be like to realize how connected to one another we truly are – and how connected businesses are to the general welfare of the public. It is time for small businesses to hire people in a concerted effort to bring down the unemployment numbers so the middle class will feel secure enough to start spending again. No matter which party is in power, government can only do so much with tax cuts, small stimulus packages, etc.
It is businesses, both big and small, that will pull this economy out of the doldrums by their willingness to stop sitting on trillions of dollars of cash and, instead, investing it in American workers.
We are not islands within our own nation; nor is our nation an island within the world. We are all tied together and integral to each other’s survival. Only when we act in a manner where we acknowledge, strengthen, and participate in that connection will we fix the "middle class squeeze."
Friday, October 7, 2011
The killing was justified
All this upset about the rule of law over the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is nonsense. How does the rule of law require that we deal with a Yemen-based terrorist who is waging war on us and is a U.S. citizen any differently than how we deal with a Yemen-based terrorist who is waging war on us and is not a U.S. citizen?
Answer: A non-citizen terrorist and a citizen terrorist get treated the same. If they both have operational roles in waging war against the U.S., they are both potential targets. What is substantively true and important about Awlaki is not that he was a United States citizen, but that he was an enemy of the United States!
Anwar al-Awlaki was more than just someone with an opposing political viewpoint. He wanted to destroy the United States. In his many online sermons (Youtube), he declared war against the U.S. He was actively engaged in waging war against the U.S. – as shown in the several plots he was involved in: the attempted Times Sq bombing, the attempted Detroit Christmas bombing, and the Ft Hood shooting where 13 Americans were killed and 29 wounded on American soil. Investigations before and after the shooting discovered e-mail communications between Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Yemen-based cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who quickly declared Hasan a hero for "fighting against the U.S. army – an Islamic duty."
To those who say that just sending email back and forth with Hassan does not make Anwar al-Awlaki guilty of murdering Americans: Bin Laden did not ‘pull the trigger’ either. He was not in those airplanes that hit the World Trade Center. The emails show Major Hassan asking permission to kill American soldiers on American soil and Anwar al-Awlaki giving the permission. This is no different than what Bin Laden did – just on a different scale (for now).
Since the Ft. Hood shooting, the U.S. classified Anwar al-Awlaki as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist; and the UN considered Awlaki to be associated with al-Qaeda. As such he was an enemy combatant and could be designated as “capture or kill.”
When you cast your lot with our enemies, you become our enemy and should expect to be treated the same as them. We have the right to defend ourselves. The President was carrying out one of the most fundamental obligations in his post: to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
To those who say the killing was not legal: The government did not just "think" this guy was a danger. Anwar al-Awlaki happily announced, admitted, and took great pride in plotting against America. This man went on Youtube and admitted to being a terrorist – not once, not twice, but over and over. He admitted his role in Major Hassan shooting many tens of Americans at Fort Hood – and openly admitted that he would like to see more killings. He provided material support to make that happen. How many times does it take for someone to say "I'm going to kill Americans" and prove out their words with actions until our killing them is justified? Was he ever going to stop unless he was killed? No.
Drone-based killings of jihadists have been going on steadily since the start of the Obama administration – hundreds more than under Bush. Did you ever complain about these killings before? No. The killing of Awlaki (plus the unplanned but welcome killing of his jihadist pal and fellow U.S. citizen Samir Kahn) is simply a part of that campaign which presumably most Americans have welcomed and supported. So, again, what relevance does Awlaki's U.S. citizenship have to this issue? None. He was an enemy waging war on us and seeking to mass murder us.
Our government has not suddenly started "killing U.S. citizens," which is the way those who are against this killing are painting it; rather, the government is continuing to do what it has been doing all along, which is killing Al-Qaeda jihadists.
I am not going to lose sleep over the death of a traitorous man who made terrorist threats and took terrorist actions against our country. Yes, he was an American citizen – but there was an imminent danger of Anwar al-Awlaki contributing to further attacks on U.S. citizens around the world and on American soil. Killing him was clearly justified in an act of American self-defense – to protect thousands of American lives.
Ron Paul is wrong. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was justified.
Case closed.
Answer: A non-citizen terrorist and a citizen terrorist get treated the same. If they both have operational roles in waging war against the U.S., they are both potential targets. What is substantively true and important about Awlaki is not that he was a United States citizen, but that he was an enemy of the United States!
Anwar al-Awlaki was more than just someone with an opposing political viewpoint. He wanted to destroy the United States. In his many online sermons (Youtube), he declared war against the U.S. He was actively engaged in waging war against the U.S. – as shown in the several plots he was involved in: the attempted Times Sq bombing, the attempted Detroit Christmas bombing, and the Ft Hood shooting where 13 Americans were killed and 29 wounded on American soil. Investigations before and after the shooting discovered e-mail communications between Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Yemen-based cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who quickly declared Hasan a hero for "fighting against the U.S. army – an Islamic duty."
To those who say that just sending email back and forth with Hassan does not make Anwar al-Awlaki guilty of murdering Americans: Bin Laden did not ‘pull the trigger’ either. He was not in those airplanes that hit the World Trade Center. The emails show Major Hassan asking permission to kill American soldiers on American soil and Anwar al-Awlaki giving the permission. This is no different than what Bin Laden did – just on a different scale (for now).
Since the Ft. Hood shooting, the U.S. classified Anwar al-Awlaki as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist; and the UN considered Awlaki to be associated with al-Qaeda. As such he was an enemy combatant and could be designated as “capture or kill.”
When you cast your lot with our enemies, you become our enemy and should expect to be treated the same as them. We have the right to defend ourselves. The President was carrying out one of the most fundamental obligations in his post: to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
To those who say the killing was not legal: The government did not just "think" this guy was a danger. Anwar al-Awlaki happily announced, admitted, and took great pride in plotting against America. This man went on Youtube and admitted to being a terrorist – not once, not twice, but over and over. He admitted his role in Major Hassan shooting many tens of Americans at Fort Hood – and openly admitted that he would like to see more killings. He provided material support to make that happen. How many times does it take for someone to say "I'm going to kill Americans" and prove out their words with actions until our killing them is justified? Was he ever going to stop unless he was killed? No.
Drone-based killings of jihadists have been going on steadily since the start of the Obama administration – hundreds more than under Bush. Did you ever complain about these killings before? No. The killing of Awlaki (plus the unplanned but welcome killing of his jihadist pal and fellow U.S. citizen Samir Kahn) is simply a part of that campaign which presumably most Americans have welcomed and supported. So, again, what relevance does Awlaki's U.S. citizenship have to this issue? None. He was an enemy waging war on us and seeking to mass murder us.
Our government has not suddenly started "killing U.S. citizens," which is the way those who are against this killing are painting it; rather, the government is continuing to do what it has been doing all along, which is killing Al-Qaeda jihadists.
I am not going to lose sleep over the death of a traitorous man who made terrorist threats and took terrorist actions against our country. Yes, he was an American citizen – but there was an imminent danger of Anwar al-Awlaki contributing to further attacks on U.S. citizens around the world and on American soil. Killing him was clearly justified in an act of American self-defense – to protect thousands of American lives.
Ron Paul is wrong. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was justified.
Case closed.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Saving the dream?
Conservative columnist Cal Thomas published an article on September 7 in which he advocated adoption of a plan developed by the Heritage Foundation to amend the tax system, reform government spending, and balance the federal budget.
I read through this very complicated document. The section regarding federal spending on healthcare is so bad that it requires comment. The plan advocates the provision of tax credits that families can use to buy insurance instead of employer-purchased plans, whether they are working or not.
The consequences of such actions would be disastrous!
Here’s why:
Currently, people who are employed and are lucky enough to have a group health plan supplied by their employer are insured regardless of their health history or that of their dependents. The same is true of governmental employees. The same goes for people who are able to obtain Medicaid (which is becoming increasingly difficult) and for people who are able to obtain Medicare.
Private insurance companies operate to make a profit, which is certainly understandable. They use the premiums collected to pay for medical services used by their customers. To the extent that they can collect premiums and not pay for services, they increase their profits. When they provide insurance to members of large groups, they are able to spread the risk of large payouts across many individuals and increase their chances of operating profitably.
For the vast numbers of people who are not eligible for such coverage, individual or family plans are extremely expensive; and if there is any negative health history, these plans are either unaffordable, the relevant health problem is excluded, or the plan provides minimal coverage. Private plans costing more than $1,000 per month all too often pay for essentially nothing. And anyone who has employer-based insurance is subject to the same problem. If they become sick and can no longer work, they lose their employer-based insurance – and if their family is dependent on this insurance, all will become uninsured.
The Heritage Foundation plan addresses none of these problems. It is a ‘you are on your own, sucker’ plan that saves the government money but puts a majority of Americans at risk. Without Medicaid and Medicare, those with significant medical problems would be unable to obtain coverage. The relatively small tax credit or voucher offered by the Republican Heritage Foundation would not fix the problem.
Furthermore, unlike “Obamacare,” no one is mandated to have healthcare insurance. This will reduce the pool of healthy people paying into the system. It leaves people with serious problems – who cannot afford insurance – to use emergency rooms to obtain acute care and no way to pay for chronic treatment.
The devil is in the details! The plan is posted on a website called “Saving the Dream’. Saving the dream? I don’t think so!
Heritage Foundation Healthcare Plan (touted by Congressional Republicans): www.savingthedream.com
I read through this very complicated document. The section regarding federal spending on healthcare is so bad that it requires comment. The plan advocates the provision of tax credits that families can use to buy insurance instead of employer-purchased plans, whether they are working or not.
The consequences of such actions would be disastrous!
Here’s why:
Currently, people who are employed and are lucky enough to have a group health plan supplied by their employer are insured regardless of their health history or that of their dependents. The same is true of governmental employees. The same goes for people who are able to obtain Medicaid (which is becoming increasingly difficult) and for people who are able to obtain Medicare.
Private insurance companies operate to make a profit, which is certainly understandable. They use the premiums collected to pay for medical services used by their customers. To the extent that they can collect premiums and not pay for services, they increase their profits. When they provide insurance to members of large groups, they are able to spread the risk of large payouts across many individuals and increase their chances of operating profitably.
For the vast numbers of people who are not eligible for such coverage, individual or family plans are extremely expensive; and if there is any negative health history, these plans are either unaffordable, the relevant health problem is excluded, or the plan provides minimal coverage. Private plans costing more than $1,000 per month all too often pay for essentially nothing. And anyone who has employer-based insurance is subject to the same problem. If they become sick and can no longer work, they lose their employer-based insurance – and if their family is dependent on this insurance, all will become uninsured.
The Heritage Foundation plan addresses none of these problems. It is a ‘you are on your own, sucker’ plan that saves the government money but puts a majority of Americans at risk. Without Medicaid and Medicare, those with significant medical problems would be unable to obtain coverage. The relatively small tax credit or voucher offered by the Republican Heritage Foundation would not fix the problem.
Furthermore, unlike “Obamacare,” no one is mandated to have healthcare insurance. This will reduce the pool of healthy people paying into the system. It leaves people with serious problems – who cannot afford insurance – to use emergency rooms to obtain acute care and no way to pay for chronic treatment.
The devil is in the details! The plan is posted on a website called “Saving the Dream’. Saving the dream? I don’t think so!
Heritage Foundation Healthcare Plan (touted by Congressional Republicans): www.savingthedream.com
Alan Grayson was right!
Wolf Blitzer asked Rep. Ron Paul a great question at the September 12 CNN/Tea Party Express Republican debate in Tampa, Fla. "What should happen," Blitzer asked, "if a healthy 30-year-old man who can afford insurance chooses not to buy it – and then becomes catastrophically ill and needs intensive care for six months?" When Dr. Paul ducked the question, fondly recalling the good old days before Medicare and saying that we should all take responsibility for ourselves, Blitzer pressed the point. "But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?"
At that point, the audience erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"
This was indeed an appalling, mob-mentality moment – more Dark Ages, even, than the crowd applauding Gov. Rick Perry for winning the death-penalty derby at the previous debate. What it clarified was the absurdity of the healthcare positions of all of the Republican candidates. The GOP contenders relentlessly attack "Obamacare" as socialized medicine, but they will not speak of the other two choices available to us: the arguably more socialized system we presently live with or the Blitzer option of letting the uninsured die in the streets.
The first is a system with an individual mandate of the kind included in the Obama bill, or what Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006. Under this kind of system, individuals are not given a choice about whether to insure themselves. If they fail to meet the insurance requirement, they pay money, which you can call a fine or a tax, as you prefer. Under this alternative, the costs incurred by Blitzer's young man are not broadly socialized because they are covered by the fine on those who avoid signing up for insurance.
The second option is our current system, or other systems without mandates. In this universe, our hypothetical young man receives at least emergency care because hospitals are required to treat the urgently ill without regard for their ability to pay, thanks to a bill signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. But the costs of his treatment are not absorbed by the hospitals. They are passed on to consumers, employers, and the government in the form of higher insurance premiums. One 2009 study estimated the cost absorbed by those who are insured for those who aren't at $1,100 per family. This is one of the ways in which the pre-Obama health care system is socialized—indirectly, inefficiently, and unfairly.
The third option is that of the Tampa Tea Party mob: Let the young man die! You can sugar-coat this, as Ron Paul tried to, by suggesting that private charity will step in to help. But we no longer have an extensive system of charity hospitals. If emergency rooms treat the uninsured, whether because of a legal requirement or because they are good Samaritans, they will be passing the bulk of the cost along to the rest of us—and we're back to our current system of socializing the costs of treatments for the uninsured.
Of the Republican candidates, only Romney clearly supports a version of the first choice: the mandate. To his credit, the bill Romney signed in Massachusetts has led to his state having the lowest percentage of uninsured people in the country. Where his current position falls into absurdity is in its race for a federalist life-raft. Romney now says that states should come up with their own systems, the way his did. But each state having its own healthcare system would be the bureaucratic nightmare to end all nightmares.
And unless you believe all 50 states will embrace individual mandates (and many clearly will not), the costs produced by Blitzer's hypothetical young man will continue to be socialized – or they put him out on the street to die.
Jon Huntsman has moved from the first to the second category. He flip-flopped. In Utah, Huntsman preferred a plan with an individual mandate. But he lost that fight with his legislature. Without a mandate, his bill has been far less effective at covering the uninsured than the one in Massachusetts. Fourteen percent of Utah's population remains uninsured, compared with only 5 percent in Massachusetts. Huntsman touts his system as superior to Romney's because it has no mandate. But the real distinction is that in addition to not doing much for the uninsured, it continues to pass along their expenses to the rest of society.
Newt Gingrich's position is muddle and gibberish, if anyone even cares. Historically, Gingrich has supported an individual mandate. In May, he went on Meet the Press and told David Gregory that health insurance should be required, like automobile insurance. People should either buy it or "post a bond" (a version of a mandate). But then the right wing went nuts, and Gingrich posted a video saying, "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong and, I believe, unconstitutional." He flip-flopped and kowtowed to the Teapublicans. But Gingrich will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann seem to share some version of Ron Paul's libertarian position that death is a great instructor of personal responsibility. Details remain to be worked out around the disposal of corpses and the distribution of orphans. But theirs is definitely not a socialist approach.
It looks as if Alan Grayson (D-FL) was right when he said that the Republican healthcare plan was “die quickly”.
This is an edited copy of "Let Him Die"
from Slate Magazine
At that point, the audience erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"
This was indeed an appalling, mob-mentality moment – more Dark Ages, even, than the crowd applauding Gov. Rick Perry for winning the death-penalty derby at the previous debate. What it clarified was the absurdity of the healthcare positions of all of the Republican candidates. The GOP contenders relentlessly attack "Obamacare" as socialized medicine, but they will not speak of the other two choices available to us: the arguably more socialized system we presently live with or the Blitzer option of letting the uninsured die in the streets.
The first is a system with an individual mandate of the kind included in the Obama bill, or what Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 2006. Under this kind of system, individuals are not given a choice about whether to insure themselves. If they fail to meet the insurance requirement, they pay money, which you can call a fine or a tax, as you prefer. Under this alternative, the costs incurred by Blitzer's young man are not broadly socialized because they are covered by the fine on those who avoid signing up for insurance.
The second option is our current system, or other systems without mandates. In this universe, our hypothetical young man receives at least emergency care because hospitals are required to treat the urgently ill without regard for their ability to pay, thanks to a bill signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. But the costs of his treatment are not absorbed by the hospitals. They are passed on to consumers, employers, and the government in the form of higher insurance premiums. One 2009 study estimated the cost absorbed by those who are insured for those who aren't at $1,100 per family. This is one of the ways in which the pre-Obama health care system is socialized—indirectly, inefficiently, and unfairly.
The third option is that of the Tampa Tea Party mob: Let the young man die! You can sugar-coat this, as Ron Paul tried to, by suggesting that private charity will step in to help. But we no longer have an extensive system of charity hospitals. If emergency rooms treat the uninsured, whether because of a legal requirement or because they are good Samaritans, they will be passing the bulk of the cost along to the rest of us—and we're back to our current system of socializing the costs of treatments for the uninsured.
Of the Republican candidates, only Romney clearly supports a version of the first choice: the mandate. To his credit, the bill Romney signed in Massachusetts has led to his state having the lowest percentage of uninsured people in the country. Where his current position falls into absurdity is in its race for a federalist life-raft. Romney now says that states should come up with their own systems, the way his did. But each state having its own healthcare system would be the bureaucratic nightmare to end all nightmares.
And unless you believe all 50 states will embrace individual mandates (and many clearly will not), the costs produced by Blitzer's hypothetical young man will continue to be socialized – or they put him out on the street to die.
Jon Huntsman has moved from the first to the second category. He flip-flopped. In Utah, Huntsman preferred a plan with an individual mandate. But he lost that fight with his legislature. Without a mandate, his bill has been far less effective at covering the uninsured than the one in Massachusetts. Fourteen percent of Utah's population remains uninsured, compared with only 5 percent in Massachusetts. Huntsman touts his system as superior to Romney's because it has no mandate. But the real distinction is that in addition to not doing much for the uninsured, it continues to pass along their expenses to the rest of society.
Newt Gingrich's position is muddle and gibberish, if anyone even cares. Historically, Gingrich has supported an individual mandate. In May, he went on Meet the Press and told David Gregory that health insurance should be required, like automobile insurance. People should either buy it or "post a bond" (a version of a mandate). But then the right wing went nuts, and Gingrich posted a video saying, "I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone, because it is fundamentally wrong and, I believe, unconstitutional." He flip-flopped and kowtowed to the Teapublicans. But Gingrich will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann seem to share some version of Ron Paul's libertarian position that death is a great instructor of personal responsibility. Details remain to be worked out around the disposal of corpses and the distribution of orphans. But theirs is definitely not a socialist approach.
It looks as if Alan Grayson (D-FL) was right when he said that the Republican healthcare plan was “die quickly”.
This is an edited copy of "Let Him Die"
from Slate Magazine
Saturday, September 10, 2011
U.S. is spiraling into decline
The world leadership of the United States, once so prevalent, is fading fast. Our people no longer have the qualities it takes to lead the world. We once set the standard for industrial might but our manufacturing has been sent to third world countries for the sake of greater profits. We once set the standard for the advanced state of our infrastructure but we have allowed it to crumble while Asia and Europe build better highways and high speed rail. We once set the standards for an excellent education system but we no longer want to support our teachers or rebuild crumbling schools – having led the world in high school completion rates throughout the 20th century, the United States ranked 21st out of 27 advanced economies. Now we lay off teachers due to lack of money, pile too many students into the classrooms, including those who are incapable of learning much, and then expect the teacher and students to excel.
As for the quality of our citizens’ lives, we rank 17th in the world.
The United States is experiencing significant decline. According to the United States College Board, the U.S., once the world’s leader in the percentage of young people with college degrees, has fallen to 12th among 36 developed nations. Eleven other nations have more 20- and 30-somethings with college degrees.
According to a report from the College Board, the U.S. ranks 12th among developed nations in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees. The report said, “As America’s aging and highly educated work force moves into retirement, the nation will rely on young Americans to increase our standing in the world.” The problem is that today’s young Americans are not coming close to acquiring the education and training needed to carry out that mission. They’re not even in the ballpark. In that key group, the number of 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree, the U.S. ranks behind Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Israel, France, Belgium and Australia.
That is beyond pathetic.
Among high schoolers, the U.S. ranks 15th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. While the nation struggles to strengthen the economy, the educational capacity of our country continues to decline.
Everybody is to blame – parents who do not discipline nor challenge their children; teachers who do not assign challenging homework or essays because they do not want to grade them; students who sign up for the easy courses in high school so that they are not “burdened” with homework; the educational establishment (teacher colleges and educational researchers) that keeps coming up with kooky ways to teach while ignoring Piaget’s findings on when students can learn what – forgetting the basics and introducing abstract concepts too soon; government leaders who think that all children, regardless of ability, can work on “grade level” by 2014; fundamentalists who demand that religious pseudoscience be taught in the schools instead of religious education being left to the church; the news media that compares the U.S. educational system where everyone, regardless of ability, must be taught in the same classroom to European and Asian schools that separate the gifted from the average from the below average and only test the gifted; and selfish communities who are unwilling to pay taxes to support their schools.
The old saying “you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink” comes to mind.
At a time when a college education is needed more than ever to establish and maintain a middle-class standard of living for the majority, America’s young people are moving in exactly the wrong direction! A well-educated population is crucially important if the U.S. is to succeed in an increasingly competitive global environment. But instead of exercising our minds, we are allowing ourselves to become a nation of the clueless, obsessed with the comings and goings of Lindsay Lohan and Snooki. U.S. citizens are increasingly oblivious to crucially important societal issues that are screaming for attention.
Instead of watching American idol, reality shows, and FOX (faux) “news”, our citizens should be doing something about the legions of jobless Americans, the deteriorating public schools, the debilitating wars, the scandalous economic inequality, the corporate hold on our government, the commercialization of the arts, and the deficits. Why is there not serious and widespread public engagement with these issues? That kind of engagement would lead to creative new ideas and would serve to enrich the lives of individual Americans and the nation as a whole. But it would require a heavy social and intellectual lift that our citizens do not want to do because it requires too much thinking, too much reading, too much participation – too much time. A majority of American citizens prefer to check their brains at the door and allow their fundamentalist, anti-education preachers and FOX entertainment “news” to pour in the “facts”. It is easier to do than to actually have to reason.
These are grim times in the United States. A child drops out of high school every 26 seconds. It is now expected that the educational level of the younger generation of Americans will not approach their parents’ level of education.
We are moving backwards.
What is the matter with us? Whatever happened to the American dream? In some states, the public schools were closed on 17 Fridays during the past school year for budget reasons. Why are we not willing to pay for good schools? We have foolishly applied the brakes to American education because we do not want to pay taxes to support it.
When this is the educational environment, you can say goodbye to the kind of cultural, scientific and economic achievements that make a nation great. The majority of our citizens read very little, cannot do math without a calculator, and write like uneducated third world hicks. We have increasingly turned our backs on the very idea of hard-won excellence and reward everyone for just showing up.
No wonder Lady Gaga and Snooki from “Jersey Shore” are cultural heroes.
The future of our country looks grim. A society that closes its eyes to the most important issues of the day, holds intellectual achievement in contempt, and is more interested in hip-hop and Lady Gaga than educating its young is absolutely guaranteed to spiral into a decline. The United States needs able and articulate men and women to stand up and reintroduce the American Dream, a dream that is dependent upon higher education.
Once a Leader, U.S. Lags in College Degrees
Closing the College Attainment Gap between the U.S. and Most Educated Countries
As for the quality of our citizens’ lives, we rank 17th in the world.
The United States is experiencing significant decline. According to the United States College Board, the U.S., once the world’s leader in the percentage of young people with college degrees, has fallen to 12th among 36 developed nations. Eleven other nations have more 20- and 30-somethings with college degrees.
According to a report from the College Board, the U.S. ranks 12th among developed nations in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees. The report said, “As America’s aging and highly educated work force moves into retirement, the nation will rely on young Americans to increase our standing in the world.” The problem is that today’s young Americans are not coming close to acquiring the education and training needed to carry out that mission. They’re not even in the ballpark. In that key group, the number of 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree, the U.S. ranks behind Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Israel, France, Belgium and Australia.
That is beyond pathetic.
Among high schoolers, the U.S. ranks 15th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. While the nation struggles to strengthen the economy, the educational capacity of our country continues to decline.
Everybody is to blame – parents who do not discipline nor challenge their children; teachers who do not assign challenging homework or essays because they do not want to grade them; students who sign up for the easy courses in high school so that they are not “burdened” with homework; the educational establishment (teacher colleges and educational researchers) that keeps coming up with kooky ways to teach while ignoring Piaget’s findings on when students can learn what – forgetting the basics and introducing abstract concepts too soon; government leaders who think that all children, regardless of ability, can work on “grade level” by 2014; fundamentalists who demand that religious pseudoscience be taught in the schools instead of religious education being left to the church; the news media that compares the U.S. educational system where everyone, regardless of ability, must be taught in the same classroom to European and Asian schools that separate the gifted from the average from the below average and only test the gifted; and selfish communities who are unwilling to pay taxes to support their schools.
The old saying “you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink” comes to mind.
At a time when a college education is needed more than ever to establish and maintain a middle-class standard of living for the majority, America’s young people are moving in exactly the wrong direction! A well-educated population is crucially important if the U.S. is to succeed in an increasingly competitive global environment. But instead of exercising our minds, we are allowing ourselves to become a nation of the clueless, obsessed with the comings and goings of Lindsay Lohan and Snooki. U.S. citizens are increasingly oblivious to crucially important societal issues that are screaming for attention.
Instead of watching American idol, reality shows, and FOX (faux) “news”, our citizens should be doing something about the legions of jobless Americans, the deteriorating public schools, the debilitating wars, the scandalous economic inequality, the corporate hold on our government, the commercialization of the arts, and the deficits. Why is there not serious and widespread public engagement with these issues? That kind of engagement would lead to creative new ideas and would serve to enrich the lives of individual Americans and the nation as a whole. But it would require a heavy social and intellectual lift that our citizens do not want to do because it requires too much thinking, too much reading, too much participation – too much time. A majority of American citizens prefer to check their brains at the door and allow their fundamentalist, anti-education preachers and FOX entertainment “news” to pour in the “facts”. It is easier to do than to actually have to reason.
These are grim times in the United States. A child drops out of high school every 26 seconds. It is now expected that the educational level of the younger generation of Americans will not approach their parents’ level of education.
We are moving backwards.
What is the matter with us? Whatever happened to the American dream? In some states, the public schools were closed on 17 Fridays during the past school year for budget reasons. Why are we not willing to pay for good schools? We have foolishly applied the brakes to American education because we do not want to pay taxes to support it.
When this is the educational environment, you can say goodbye to the kind of cultural, scientific and economic achievements that make a nation great. The majority of our citizens read very little, cannot do math without a calculator, and write like uneducated third world hicks. We have increasingly turned our backs on the very idea of hard-won excellence and reward everyone for just showing up.
No wonder Lady Gaga and Snooki from “Jersey Shore” are cultural heroes.
The future of our country looks grim. A society that closes its eyes to the most important issues of the day, holds intellectual achievement in contempt, and is more interested in hip-hop and Lady Gaga than educating its young is absolutely guaranteed to spiral into a decline. The United States needs able and articulate men and women to stand up and reintroduce the American Dream, a dream that is dependent upon higher education.
Once a Leader, U.S. Lags in College Degrees
Closing the College Attainment Gap between the U.S. and Most Educated Countries
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Christian Dominionism - a threat to the United States
There are some in this country who constantly worry over American Muslims and Sharia law being forced upon the citizens of the United States – although Muslims are less than 1% of U.S. population according to Pew Research. But there is a religious group to be very worried about: we have our own home grown radical religious sect. Christian Dominionism is religious-political extremism wrapped in an American flag and carrying the cross. This religious sect is a bible-based cult that has co-opted Christianity, the Republican Party, and is redefining “conservatism.” It is “a belief that states Christians have a God given right to rule all earthly institutions.”
For those who thought the Tea Party was a product of GOP masterminds or the Great Recession, think again. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell examine the origins of the Tea Party movement. They say that the Tea Party is basically just the latest iteration of the Christian Right. The Tea Party is intertwined with Dominionism. According to Putnam and Campbell, next to being a Republican, the best predictor of a Tea Partier was the desire to see more religion in politics:
"Tea Partiers seek deeply religious elected officials, approve of religious leaders engaging in politics, and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government."
So what did they find that the Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do. More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 – opposing abortion, for example – and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.
The Tea Party’s and Christian Dominionists’ desire to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Dominionists say they are non-denominational and include organizations such as the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, and a variety of randomly named churches that incorporate names such as Foursquare and Hillsong. Christian Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors varying franchises of religious sects that may or may not necessarily agree with each other. There are the New Apostolic Reformationists, the Transformation Network, the pre-millennialists, the post-millennialists, the Calvinists, the Rushdoony followers, the Francis Schaeffer followers, the deceased Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy followers, the Pat Robertson believers…and many, many more.
Even though there are many different groups mentioned above, Dominionism is the glue that binds them. The actual root word – dominion – means to literally take control. These religious zealots take their beliefs directly from the Book of Genesis, chapter 1: 26-28 wherein they believe God is speaking directly to them and telling them that it is their Mandate to dominate the U.S. government – and eventually the world.
Defined in its simplest form, Christian Dominionism is a political approach to Christian faith based on a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 verses 26 – 28 of the Christian Bible. Believers perceive themselves as the “chosen” or the “elect”, commanded by God to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over all living creatures. The movement began in the sixties with Christian Reconstructionism when Calvinist R. J. Rushdoony advocated for Old Testament Biblical laws to replace or be added to current American laws; such laws would permit the death penalties for homosexuality and abortion setting the rights of many Americans back centuries. While current Presidential candidates Bachmann and Perry have brought the movement back to the forefront, it was present during the Bush administration. The Dominionists place emphasis on Biblical verses like the one in Genesis where God tells Adam to take dominion over all the world.
The goal of Christian Right Dominionism is to abolish Separation of Church and State, establishing it as a distinctively Christian Nation based upon Old Testament Mosaic Law. Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors many divergent franchise groups claiming a foundation in Christianity. They see the “real” Christian as being “born again”, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and professing a personal relationship with Christ.
In his article “Church and State”, Rob Boston noted that while the Constitution does not mention the name of God in any form, the word “Creator” does appear in the Declaration of Independence – a fact that seems to elude many Americans – and causing a state of confusion that fundamental Christian right wing religious groups are perpetuating to further their cause.
Combining church and state is historically un-American.
In 1773 New England Baptist minister Reverend Isaac Backus said, "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischief that have ensued." A few years later that concept became a part of the Constitution for the new country known as the United States of America when as a part of the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and the press it was written that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The common phrase used today of separation of church and state does not appear anywhere in the Constitution itself but was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church of Connecticut in 1802.
It is time for moderates to acquaint ourselves with our very own homegrown version of radical Christian fundamentalists. Do not confuse them with the majority of Christians in America who are mainline Christians. Mainline Christians are those who actually follow the teachings of Christ that promote kindness, compassion and love thy neighbor; don’t judge lest ye be judged; let them know you by your good deeds; and it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But don’t make the mistake of thinking, “Well, I’m a Christian so they would accept me.” No, not true…unless you have a born-again birth certificate and personally hang with Christ, you are what they refer to as “not the right kind of Christian.”
Christian Dominionists believe that we are in the End Times and that they must proactively make the way for the 2nd coming of Christ. They ignore passages from the Bible where Jesus said “you will not know the day, the hour…I will come like a thief in the night”. Instead they have a laundry list of duties that they must implement before Christ can return. Some of these include fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 16-20 ) which they interpret to mean that they are to go forth and aggressively hound the people of the world into conversion, “harvesting as many souls” as possible.
Additionally, they believe that it is their mandate to prepare Israel for the return of all the Jews from around the globe – hence their pro-Israel rhetoric and schizophrenic “love the country – not the Jew” policies. (We have all witnessed how they apply that, the “love the sinner – not the sin” when they try to mask their homophobia). So, in order to have room for all these Jews who they see making their way to Israel soon, as was pointed out by Sarah Palin, there is no land to spare! Palestine just doesn’t fit into this plan, so negotiating a two-State solution is out just of the question. It makes no difference that they discriminate horribly against the Jews otherwise, calling them “Jesus-killer”, “anti-Christian”, “the Yiddish are coming!”, and a plethora of hate-filled name-calling all in the name of God. Remember, they love the country – they are just not so fond of the inhabitants.
The same confusion applies to their obsessive concern for the rights of the fetus to the point that they are spending millions to redefine person. They helped to redefine personhood to include corporations. And they now have “personhood” legislation pending in several states re-defining a person as a citizen the second that a sperm hits an egg. Yet once a child is born, if he/she has the misfortune of being born to a heathen and/or god forbid it is poor, indigent and in need, the Dominionist position becomes Ayn Randian. The poor and their children are on their own! In their world, it would be socialist to expect the Dominionist Christian to care for their fellow man/leeches on society.
There are a number of different Christian denominations in the United States with some variations on interpretation of the Bible. There are also quite a few believers of other faiths who call themselves Americans. Perhaps religious candidates who seek to rewrite national documents that are over 200 years old should remember that they are not the only persons of faith in this country. While most Americans have no problem respecting the beliefs of others, we strongly object to having someone else’s beliefs and Biblical interpretations shoved down our throats.
As Putnam and Campbell point out, the religious inclination of the Tea Party explains why disapproval of the Tea Party is actually on the rise – even as Americans have grown slightly more fiscally conservative as a whole, they have become more opposed to mixing God and politics. A recent NYT/CBS poll revealed that 40% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party, compared to just 18% in April 2010. Meanwhile, Tea Party (Christian Right Dominionists) supporters have slipped from 21% to 20% in the same period. The Tea Party ranks lower in public opinion than Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, and atheists.
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said, "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." We no longer have the luxury of simple partisan politics in America. According to Leah Burton, an expert on Dominionism, after the infestation of the Republican Party by the political wing of the Dominionists we can no longer think in terms of Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative… it is now a matter of freedom versus theocracy.
Sources:
Following the Dominionist Thread, By Leah L Burton
Crashing the Tea Party, By David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
For those who thought the Tea Party was a product of GOP masterminds or the Great Recession, think again. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell examine the origins of the Tea Party movement. They say that the Tea Party is basically just the latest iteration of the Christian Right. The Tea Party is intertwined with Dominionism. According to Putnam and Campbell, next to being a Republican, the best predictor of a Tea Partier was the desire to see more religion in politics:
"Tea Partiers seek deeply religious elected officials, approve of religious leaders engaging in politics, and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government."
So what did they find that the Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do. More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 – opposing abortion, for example – and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.
The Tea Party’s and Christian Dominionists’ desire to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Dominionists say they are non-denominational and include organizations such as the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, and a variety of randomly named churches that incorporate names such as Foursquare and Hillsong. Christian Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors varying franchises of religious sects that may or may not necessarily agree with each other. There are the New Apostolic Reformationists, the Transformation Network, the pre-millennialists, the post-millennialists, the Calvinists, the Rushdoony followers, the Francis Schaeffer followers, the deceased Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy followers, the Pat Robertson believers…and many, many more.
Even though there are many different groups mentioned above, Dominionism is the glue that binds them. The actual root word – dominion – means to literally take control. These religious zealots take their beliefs directly from the Book of Genesis, chapter 1: 26-28 wherein they believe God is speaking directly to them and telling them that it is their Mandate to dominate the U.S. government – and eventually the world.
Defined in its simplest form, Christian Dominionism is a political approach to Christian faith based on a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 verses 26 – 28 of the Christian Bible. Believers perceive themselves as the “chosen” or the “elect”, commanded by God to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over all living creatures. The movement began in the sixties with Christian Reconstructionism when Calvinist R. J. Rushdoony advocated for Old Testament Biblical laws to replace or be added to current American laws; such laws would permit the death penalties for homosexuality and abortion setting the rights of many Americans back centuries. While current Presidential candidates Bachmann and Perry have brought the movement back to the forefront, it was present during the Bush administration. The Dominionists place emphasis on Biblical verses like the one in Genesis where God tells Adam to take dominion over all the world.
The goal of Christian Right Dominionism is to abolish Separation of Church and State, establishing it as a distinctively Christian Nation based upon Old Testament Mosaic Law. Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors many divergent franchise groups claiming a foundation in Christianity. They see the “real” Christian as being “born again”, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and professing a personal relationship with Christ.
In his article “Church and State”, Rob Boston noted that while the Constitution does not mention the name of God in any form, the word “Creator” does appear in the Declaration of Independence – a fact that seems to elude many Americans – and causing a state of confusion that fundamental Christian right wing religious groups are perpetuating to further their cause.
Combining church and state is historically un-American.
In 1773 New England Baptist minister Reverend Isaac Backus said, "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischief that have ensued." A few years later that concept became a part of the Constitution for the new country known as the United States of America when as a part of the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and the press it was written that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The common phrase used today of separation of church and state does not appear anywhere in the Constitution itself but was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church of Connecticut in 1802.
It is time for moderates to acquaint ourselves with our very own homegrown version of radical Christian fundamentalists. Do not confuse them with the majority of Christians in America who are mainline Christians. Mainline Christians are those who actually follow the teachings of Christ that promote kindness, compassion and love thy neighbor; don’t judge lest ye be judged; let them know you by your good deeds; and it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But don’t make the mistake of thinking, “Well, I’m a Christian so they would accept me.” No, not true…unless you have a born-again birth certificate and personally hang with Christ, you are what they refer to as “not the right kind of Christian.”
Christian Dominionists believe that we are in the End Times and that they must proactively make the way for the 2nd coming of Christ. They ignore passages from the Bible where Jesus said “you will not know the day, the hour…I will come like a thief in the night”. Instead they have a laundry list of duties that they must implement before Christ can return. Some of these include fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 16-20 ) which they interpret to mean that they are to go forth and aggressively hound the people of the world into conversion, “harvesting as many souls” as possible.
Additionally, they believe that it is their mandate to prepare Israel for the return of all the Jews from around the globe – hence their pro-Israel rhetoric and schizophrenic “love the country – not the Jew” policies. (We have all witnessed how they apply that, the “love the sinner – not the sin” when they try to mask their homophobia). So, in order to have room for all these Jews who they see making their way to Israel soon, as was pointed out by Sarah Palin, there is no land to spare! Palestine just doesn’t fit into this plan, so negotiating a two-State solution is out just of the question. It makes no difference that they discriminate horribly against the Jews otherwise, calling them “Jesus-killer”, “anti-Christian”, “the Yiddish are coming!”, and a plethora of hate-filled name-calling all in the name of God. Remember, they love the country – they are just not so fond of the inhabitants.
The same confusion applies to their obsessive concern for the rights of the fetus to the point that they are spending millions to redefine person. They helped to redefine personhood to include corporations. And they now have “personhood” legislation pending in several states re-defining a person as a citizen the second that a sperm hits an egg. Yet once a child is born, if he/she has the misfortune of being born to a heathen and/or god forbid it is poor, indigent and in need, the Dominionist position becomes Ayn Randian. The poor and their children are on their own! In their world, it would be socialist to expect the Dominionist Christian to care for their fellow man/leeches on society.
There are a number of different Christian denominations in the United States with some variations on interpretation of the Bible. There are also quite a few believers of other faiths who call themselves Americans. Perhaps religious candidates who seek to rewrite national documents that are over 200 years old should remember that they are not the only persons of faith in this country. While most Americans have no problem respecting the beliefs of others, we strongly object to having someone else’s beliefs and Biblical interpretations shoved down our throats.
As Putnam and Campbell point out, the religious inclination of the Tea Party explains why disapproval of the Tea Party is actually on the rise – even as Americans have grown slightly more fiscally conservative as a whole, they have become more opposed to mixing God and politics. A recent NYT/CBS poll revealed that 40% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party, compared to just 18% in April 2010. Meanwhile, Tea Party (Christian Right Dominionists) supporters have slipped from 21% to 20% in the same period. The Tea Party ranks lower in public opinion than Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, and atheists.
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said, "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." We no longer have the luxury of simple partisan politics in America. According to Leah Burton, an expert on Dominionism, after the infestation of the Republican Party by the political wing of the Dominionists we can no longer think in terms of Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative… it is now a matter of freedom versus theocracy.
Sources:
Following the Dominionist Thread, By Leah L Burton
Crashing the Tea Party, By David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Libertarianism would cause an unstable society
The libertarian leaning Tea Party is now fully in charge of the Republican Party – and that scares me. If you put Libertarians in charge of this country, they would turn it into an oligarchy. Without societal protections in place, the wealthy few would lord it over the rest of us. Our country would fall back into the 19th century when the Robber Barons ruled and the remainder of the country had very little.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that places emphasis on individual freedom over all other values. As such, it is often placed in contrast to traditional political notions that advocate some limits to freedom, such as liberalism (economic regulation, but personal freedom) and conservatism (personal regulation, but economic freedom).
Libertarianism can seem appealing. Why have a government interfere with my life, telling me what I should and should not want – or can and cannot do? As long as I do not interfere with the ability of others to pursue their personal goals, I should be free to pursue my own ends unhindered. But libertarianism makes for an unstable society. Common habits, customs, and traditions – as well as common moral values – bind a community together and encourage cooperation. A highly libertarian society, with a vast diversity of values and customs, is a fractured society without the bonds of common culture except those that emerge in small groups as people of similar preferences gather together (and, I would suggest, establish rules of behavior, which limit personal freedom).
It is not the most popular political orientation. A recent PEW study found only 9% of Americans polled fell in to the libertarian category. However, libertarianism appears to be particularly popular among those who are wealthy and well educated because it would allow them to hang onto their all of their money and not have to support the country that gave them the freedom to do well. It is also popular among many economists who believe in totally free market economics that is driven totally by self-interest. For these true believers, interference in their behavior restricts their ability to pursue their goals (greed). From this point of view, the only role of the government would be to enforce property rights, manage contracts and provide a few public goods such as defense and basic infrastructure. Everything is left to individuals to provide for themselves to the best of their ability.
All schools would be private (charging tuition), creating a well-educated upper class and little to no education for the lower classes. Unequal educational opportunities would create a cheap work force allowing business to once again get by with paying barely a living wage.
Welcome back to the future.
Reasonable limits on freedom advocated by both liberals and conservatives bind communities together and encourage cooperation. Liberals do this by limiting the ability of some to gain disproportionate power over the group and exploit that power for their own ends. Cooperation also lifts up the most disadvantaged, bringing more people in to the pool of cooperators rather than letting them drop off the edge of society.
Conservatives, on the other hand, seek to regulate personal freedoms – customs, habits, practices, etc. Taboos are common, with behaviors steered towards a common ground. This also binds communities together through like beliefs, traditions and prohibitions. Food taboos in religion are like this in that they might start as health initiatives, but they rapidly become instruments of conformity. A conforming community is more likely to trust each other and cooperate.
Libertarians – at least extreme libertarians – sacrifice the egalitarianism of liberalism and the social binding of conservatism for hyper-individuality at all cost – no matter who is hurt in the process. It is an attitude of “I have mine, you get your own. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if they break.” With Libertarianism, there is no philosophy of "a rising tide lifts all boats." The only rising tide will be for the wealthy, by the wealthy. The peasants can drown for all they care.
A regulated market enables high levels of cooperation that brings about high levels of production. But a strongly libertarian market is largely unregulated. This causes great inequities to emerge leading to the destabilization of society through the creation of an ‘oligarchy of corporations’ and a possible violent uprising of the used and abused masses.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that places emphasis on individual freedom over all other values. As such, it is often placed in contrast to traditional political notions that advocate some limits to freedom, such as liberalism (economic regulation, but personal freedom) and conservatism (personal regulation, but economic freedom).
Libertarianism can seem appealing. Why have a government interfere with my life, telling me what I should and should not want – or can and cannot do? As long as I do not interfere with the ability of others to pursue their personal goals, I should be free to pursue my own ends unhindered. But libertarianism makes for an unstable society. Common habits, customs, and traditions – as well as common moral values – bind a community together and encourage cooperation. A highly libertarian society, with a vast diversity of values and customs, is a fractured society without the bonds of common culture except those that emerge in small groups as people of similar preferences gather together (and, I would suggest, establish rules of behavior, which limit personal freedom).
It is not the most popular political orientation. A recent PEW study found only 9% of Americans polled fell in to the libertarian category. However, libertarianism appears to be particularly popular among those who are wealthy and well educated because it would allow them to hang onto their all of their money and not have to support the country that gave them the freedom to do well. It is also popular among many economists who believe in totally free market economics that is driven totally by self-interest. For these true believers, interference in their behavior restricts their ability to pursue their goals (greed). From this point of view, the only role of the government would be to enforce property rights, manage contracts and provide a few public goods such as defense and basic infrastructure. Everything is left to individuals to provide for themselves to the best of their ability.
All schools would be private (charging tuition), creating a well-educated upper class and little to no education for the lower classes. Unequal educational opportunities would create a cheap work force allowing business to once again get by with paying barely a living wage.
Welcome back to the future.
Reasonable limits on freedom advocated by both liberals and conservatives bind communities together and encourage cooperation. Liberals do this by limiting the ability of some to gain disproportionate power over the group and exploit that power for their own ends. Cooperation also lifts up the most disadvantaged, bringing more people in to the pool of cooperators rather than letting them drop off the edge of society.
Conservatives, on the other hand, seek to regulate personal freedoms – customs, habits, practices, etc. Taboos are common, with behaviors steered towards a common ground. This also binds communities together through like beliefs, traditions and prohibitions. Food taboos in religion are like this in that they might start as health initiatives, but they rapidly become instruments of conformity. A conforming community is more likely to trust each other and cooperate.
Libertarians – at least extreme libertarians – sacrifice the egalitarianism of liberalism and the social binding of conservatism for hyper-individuality at all cost – no matter who is hurt in the process. It is an attitude of “I have mine, you get your own. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if they break.” With Libertarianism, there is no philosophy of "a rising tide lifts all boats." The only rising tide will be for the wealthy, by the wealthy. The peasants can drown for all they care.
A regulated market enables high levels of cooperation that brings about high levels of production. But a strongly libertarian market is largely unregulated. This causes great inequities to emerge leading to the destabilization of society through the creation of an ‘oligarchy of corporations’ and a possible violent uprising of the used and abused masses.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The Ayn Rand Cult running amok in Congress
Once one realizes that most of the Tea Party members of Congress really believe that government is a parasitic organization that sucks the life out of our society, rather than how society determines and implements national policy for itself, then one must conclude that they will try to force a default. They have faith that the rest of the Congress will cave into their demands.
The Tea Party lives in an intellectual bubble where the answers to every problem lie in books by Ayn Rand and Glenn Beck. Rand’s anti-government writings, regarded by her followers as modern-day scripture – Rand, an atheist, would have bristled at that comparison – are particularly instructive. When the hero of Rand’s breakthrough novel, “The Fountainhead,” does not get what he wants, he blows up a building. Rand’s followers see that as gallant. So perhaps it should not surprise us that blowing up the government is no big deal to some of the radical narcissistic individualists in our House of Representatives. Republicans need to decide whether they want to be responsible conservatives or whether they will let the Tea Party destroy the House That Lincoln Built in a glorious explosion. Such pyrotechnics may look great to some people on the pages of a novel or in a movie, but they are rather unpleasant when experienced in real life.
The Tea Party’s followers are endangering our nation’s credit rating. They are also endangering the Republican Party by pushing both House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor away from compromising with the Democrats to solve this problem. Cantor worked amicably with the negotiating group organized by Vice President Joe Biden and won praise for his focus even from liberal staffers who have no use for his politics. Yet when the Biden group seemed close to a deal, it was shot down by the Tea Party’s champions – and Cantor walked out since he serves as a spokesman for the Tea Party.
Twice now, when Boehner came near a bigger budget deal with President Obama, the same extreme right-wing rejectionists blew this up, too – or maybe Boehner always planned to walk out when the time was right (after the close of the markets). Boehner and Cantor owe their House majority in part to Tea Party supporters so they are in a box and pretty much must do what they are told to do by the Tea Party freshmen in the House. Neither of the two House leaders seems in a position to tell the obnoxious Tea Party that it is flatly and dangerously wrong when it claims that default is of little consequence. Rarely has a congressional leadership been so powerless.
The evidence suggests that both Boehner and Cantor understand the risks of the game their Republican colleagues are playing; and they know we are closer than we think to the credit rating of the United States being downgraded. This may actually happen before August 2, which is the date everyone is using as the deadline.
It is not much better in the Senate. Compare the impasse Boehner and Cantor are in with the aggressive maneuvering of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. He knows how damaging default would be and has been working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to figure a way out – although I understand this deal is dead in the water in the House. McConnell can do this because he does not have a Tea Party problem in the Senate that so bedevils Boehner and Cantor. Many of the Tea Party’s Senate candidates – Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Alaska – lost in 2010.
Capitol Hill looks like a lunatic asylum to many of our own citizens and much of the world as the Ayn Rand Cult runs amok in Congress. Quite simply, it appears that the Tea Party’s legions are not interested in governing – at least not as governing is normally understood in a democracy with separated powers. They believe that because the Republicans won one house of Congress in one election, they have a mandate to force upon this the nation whatever the right wing wants. The Democratic president and Senate are dismissed as irrelevant nuisances, even though they, too, were elected.
Our country is on the edge of an economic abyss. We need to act now to restore certainty to the markets and the economy by extending the debt ceiling through the end of this Congress – past January 2013. Republicans are going to have to cut loose from the Tea Party and get with the Democrats to increase the debt ceiling.
I hope it will not be too difficult for Americans to figure out who is truly to blame if this country defaults (the 'no new revenue', 'my way or the highway', 'we will never compromise' Party of No). If we truly default, I pray that this will be the beginning of bringing back the moderate wing of Republican Party in America. It may have to fracture into an ultra-right party and a center/fiscally cautious party which will bring many Independents and right-leaning Dems with it. Of course, the price for this welcome political development would be a 15% unemployment rate, higher inflation, and higher 30-year mortgages. But clearly, the Tea Party does not seem to care, or understand how government is all about compromise. I would love to see every one of the Teabaggers become a pariah.
And I wish the entire country will learn that this extremely dysfunctional gridlock is what happens when you elect members of the Ayn Rand Cult to Congress – but it won't.
Hopefully, we will be witnessing the demise of Tea Party in the next election. But I will not be holding my breath because the more I watch the political process, the more I realize how malleable the electorate is – especially those on the right. I have become concerned that we may be seeing a huge shift to the right that will last a decade until the 20-somethings who helped to vote Obama into office become more involved.
The Tea Party lives in an intellectual bubble where the answers to every problem lie in books by Ayn Rand and Glenn Beck. Rand’s anti-government writings, regarded by her followers as modern-day scripture – Rand, an atheist, would have bristled at that comparison – are particularly instructive. When the hero of Rand’s breakthrough novel, “The Fountainhead,” does not get what he wants, he blows up a building. Rand’s followers see that as gallant. So perhaps it should not surprise us that blowing up the government is no big deal to some of the radical narcissistic individualists in our House of Representatives. Republicans need to decide whether they want to be responsible conservatives or whether they will let the Tea Party destroy the House That Lincoln Built in a glorious explosion. Such pyrotechnics may look great to some people on the pages of a novel or in a movie, but they are rather unpleasant when experienced in real life.
The Tea Party’s followers are endangering our nation’s credit rating. They are also endangering the Republican Party by pushing both House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor away from compromising with the Democrats to solve this problem. Cantor worked amicably with the negotiating group organized by Vice President Joe Biden and won praise for his focus even from liberal staffers who have no use for his politics. Yet when the Biden group seemed close to a deal, it was shot down by the Tea Party’s champions – and Cantor walked out since he serves as a spokesman for the Tea Party.
Twice now, when Boehner came near a bigger budget deal with President Obama, the same extreme right-wing rejectionists blew this up, too – or maybe Boehner always planned to walk out when the time was right (after the close of the markets). Boehner and Cantor owe their House majority in part to Tea Party supporters so they are in a box and pretty much must do what they are told to do by the Tea Party freshmen in the House. Neither of the two House leaders seems in a position to tell the obnoxious Tea Party that it is flatly and dangerously wrong when it claims that default is of little consequence. Rarely has a congressional leadership been so powerless.
The evidence suggests that both Boehner and Cantor understand the risks of the game their Republican colleagues are playing; and they know we are closer than we think to the credit rating of the United States being downgraded. This may actually happen before August 2, which is the date everyone is using as the deadline.
It is not much better in the Senate. Compare the impasse Boehner and Cantor are in with the aggressive maneuvering of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. He knows how damaging default would be and has been working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to figure a way out – although I understand this deal is dead in the water in the House. McConnell can do this because he does not have a Tea Party problem in the Senate that so bedevils Boehner and Cantor. Many of the Tea Party’s Senate candidates – Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Alaska – lost in 2010.
Capitol Hill looks like a lunatic asylum to many of our own citizens and much of the world as the Ayn Rand Cult runs amok in Congress. Quite simply, it appears that the Tea Party’s legions are not interested in governing – at least not as governing is normally understood in a democracy with separated powers. They believe that because the Republicans won one house of Congress in one election, they have a mandate to force upon this the nation whatever the right wing wants. The Democratic president and Senate are dismissed as irrelevant nuisances, even though they, too, were elected.
Our country is on the edge of an economic abyss. We need to act now to restore certainty to the markets and the economy by extending the debt ceiling through the end of this Congress – past January 2013. Republicans are going to have to cut loose from the Tea Party and get with the Democrats to increase the debt ceiling.
I hope it will not be too difficult for Americans to figure out who is truly to blame if this country defaults (the 'no new revenue', 'my way or the highway', 'we will never compromise' Party of No). If we truly default, I pray that this will be the beginning of bringing back the moderate wing of Republican Party in America. It may have to fracture into an ultra-right party and a center/fiscally cautious party which will bring many Independents and right-leaning Dems with it. Of course, the price for this welcome political development would be a 15% unemployment rate, higher inflation, and higher 30-year mortgages. But clearly, the Tea Party does not seem to care, or understand how government is all about compromise. I would love to see every one of the Teabaggers become a pariah.
And I wish the entire country will learn that this extremely dysfunctional gridlock is what happens when you elect members of the Ayn Rand Cult to Congress – but it won't.
Hopefully, we will be witnessing the demise of Tea Party in the next election. But I will not be holding my breath because the more I watch the political process, the more I realize how malleable the electorate is – especially those on the right. I have become concerned that we may be seeing a huge shift to the right that will last a decade until the 20-somethings who helped to vote Obama into office become more involved.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
When you lie down with dogs
The once Grand Old Party is in trouble – as in Tea Party trouble – and it could soon get worse because of three factors:
1) A government default: House Republicans may be in the process of overreaching. Rank-and-file members, many of them elected with Tea Party support last year, seem intent on using the August 2 expiration of the debt ceiling to draw a line in the sand. If the Democrats do not agree to huge cuts without an increase in revenue (my way or the highway), they will refuse to pay our country’s debts. Many Tea Partiers say that there will be little effect on the economy – but they are misinformed. Almost $5 trillion is held by U.S. banks, U.S. pension funds, and individuals like me (such as savings bonds and Treasuries). About that same amount is held by other branches of the U.S. government itself. Only about 1/3 of U.S. debt is held by foreign countries, which includes China’s less than $1 trillion. So, who will get hurt the most if the government defaults? Americans will.
Evidently Speaker Boehner may have no choice but to go along with these ignorant Tea Partiers, since championing a compromise with the White House will inevitably prompt cries of "Treason!" These ‘true believers’ in the GOP conference could easily depose Boehner in favor of Eric Cantor, the Tea Party leader who is known to covet Boehner's post. Thus, for fear of losing his job, the potential exists for Boehner to lead the House GOP into a default on our country’s “full faith and credit” worthiness.
2) The far-right governors: This has been a surprising source of damage to the GOP brand. Newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Ohio (John Kasich) and Florida (Rick Scott) have all chosen to address their states' budget issues with devout, literal adherence to the Tea Party playbook. In terms of polling, the results have been catastrophic. A poll this week put Scott's approval rating at under 30 percent – and Walker and Kasich are only a few points better in their states.
Their struggles have the potential to spread across state lines. Walker's protracted fight over collective bargaining rights has been one of the biggest national stories of the past few months. Voters in and out of Wisconsin are siding with Democrats and against the Republican governor. For the national GOP, the danger is that voters across the country are seeing Walker, Kasich, and Scott not as individual state governors waging provincial fights but as how the Tea Party governs in America.
Governors Walker and Scott both won their gubernatorial primaries last year with considerable Tea Party support. Scott, in fact, overcame a fierce effort from the party establishment to deny him the nomination. Without the Tea Party, the national Republican brand would probably not now be burdened with the public relation problems that these governors have caused.
3) The Tea Party itself: The movement – which is really just a synonym for the Republican Party base – was a source of strength for the GOP last year in that it helped to inspire and activate previously dejected Republicans after the 2008 presidential election. It was also a liability because Tea Party activists propelled utterly unelectable candidates to GOP nominations for several important Senate and gubernatorial contests. On March 31 about 100 of its members gathered in Washington for a rally regardless of the fact that the Tea Party has become a clear liability for the GOP. In the past 12 months, the number of Americans expressing a negative view of the Tea Party movement has increased by 21 points. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that the Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by half of Americans. This can partly be chalked up to the negative press the movement has received thanks to the often crazy and extreme antics of its supporters.
You can argue that all three of the above threats to the GOP label should be condensed under the Tea Party label. After all, if a shutdown does happen, it will be because Boehner was unable or unwilling to cut a deal thanks to pressure from House Republicans who were elected last year with Tea Party support or who fear the Tea Party's wrath (or both).
The Republicans made their bed – now they must lie in it.
When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. In fact, the entire country may end up with fleas due to these Tea Party dogs.
1) A government default: House Republicans may be in the process of overreaching. Rank-and-file members, many of them elected with Tea Party support last year, seem intent on using the August 2 expiration of the debt ceiling to draw a line in the sand. If the Democrats do not agree to huge cuts without an increase in revenue (my way or the highway), they will refuse to pay our country’s debts. Many Tea Partiers say that there will be little effect on the economy – but they are misinformed. Almost $5 trillion is held by U.S. banks, U.S. pension funds, and individuals like me (such as savings bonds and Treasuries). About that same amount is held by other branches of the U.S. government itself. Only about 1/3 of U.S. debt is held by foreign countries, which includes China’s less than $1 trillion. So, who will get hurt the most if the government defaults? Americans will.
Evidently Speaker Boehner may have no choice but to go along with these ignorant Tea Partiers, since championing a compromise with the White House will inevitably prompt cries of "Treason!" These ‘true believers’ in the GOP conference could easily depose Boehner in favor of Eric Cantor, the Tea Party leader who is known to covet Boehner's post. Thus, for fear of losing his job, the potential exists for Boehner to lead the House GOP into a default on our country’s “full faith and credit” worthiness.
2) The far-right governors: This has been a surprising source of damage to the GOP brand. Newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Ohio (John Kasich) and Florida (Rick Scott) have all chosen to address their states' budget issues with devout, literal adherence to the Tea Party playbook. In terms of polling, the results have been catastrophic. A poll this week put Scott's approval rating at under 30 percent – and Walker and Kasich are only a few points better in their states.
Their struggles have the potential to spread across state lines. Walker's protracted fight over collective bargaining rights has been one of the biggest national stories of the past few months. Voters in and out of Wisconsin are siding with Democrats and against the Republican governor. For the national GOP, the danger is that voters across the country are seeing Walker, Kasich, and Scott not as individual state governors waging provincial fights but as how the Tea Party governs in America.
Governors Walker and Scott both won their gubernatorial primaries last year with considerable Tea Party support. Scott, in fact, overcame a fierce effort from the party establishment to deny him the nomination. Without the Tea Party, the national Republican brand would probably not now be burdened with the public relation problems that these governors have caused.
3) The Tea Party itself: The movement – which is really just a synonym for the Republican Party base – was a source of strength for the GOP last year in that it helped to inspire and activate previously dejected Republicans after the 2008 presidential election. It was also a liability because Tea Party activists propelled utterly unelectable candidates to GOP nominations for several important Senate and gubernatorial contests. On March 31 about 100 of its members gathered in Washington for a rally regardless of the fact that the Tea Party has become a clear liability for the GOP. In the past 12 months, the number of Americans expressing a negative view of the Tea Party movement has increased by 21 points. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that the Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by half of Americans. This can partly be chalked up to the negative press the movement has received thanks to the often crazy and extreme antics of its supporters.
You can argue that all three of the above threats to the GOP label should be condensed under the Tea Party label. After all, if a shutdown does happen, it will be because Boehner was unable or unwilling to cut a deal thanks to pressure from House Republicans who were elected last year with Tea Party support or who fear the Tea Party's wrath (or both).
The Republicans made their bed – now they must lie in it.
When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. In fact, the entire country may end up with fleas due to these Tea Party dogs.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
AAARRRGGGGG!
The lessons of the 2008 financial crisis have been forgotten! The policies that got us into the crisis (deregulation, tax cuts) and the idea that what’s good for the bankers is good for America have once again taken hold. Trickle-down economics, the idea that anything that increases corporate profits is good for the economy, is making a comeback.
This is NUTS! Schizophrenic!
Over the last two years profits have soared while unemployment has remained disastrously high. The corporations have not used their increasing profits to hire more people. Why would anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations in the form of bigger tax cuts with no strings attached would lead to faster job creation?
Trickle-down “economics” is clearly rising again – and even some very stupid Democrats are buying into it. Look at the arguments Republicans are using to defend outrageous tax loopholes. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets?
A spokesman for Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, told Greg Sargent of The Washington Post: “You can’t help the wage earner by taxing the wage payer offering a job.” He went on to falsely say that the tax breaks at issue mainly help small businesses (they are actually for big corporations). But the basic argument was that anything that leaves more money in the hands of corporations will mean more jobs.
Okay, you dummies, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you – or how about some forestland in Arizona! It has only been slightly burned!
What about all those trillions in profits from overseas subsidiaries that U.S. corporations are supposed to pay taxes on? They are supposed to pay taxes when those profits are transferred back to the U.S. But these corporations want to bring all that money home to give to the CEOs and the shareholders without paying any taxes. So, now there’s a move afoot by their Republican friends in Congress to offer an “amnesty” under which companies could move funds back home while paying hardly any taxes. And there are some very stupid Democrats supporting this idea, claiming that it would create jobs.
NO, IT WON’T! We have been here before!
A similar tax holiday was offered in 2004, with a similar sales pitch. It was a total failure! Companies took advantage of the amnesty to move a lot of money back to the United States. But they used that money to pay dividends, pay down debt, buy up other companies, and buy back their own stock – everything except creating jobs. There is no evidence that the 2004 tax holiday did anything at all to stimulate the economy. What the tax holiday did do, however, was give big corporations a chance to avoid paying taxes. They would eventually have brought the money home anyway, and paid taxes on it. In return for all the untaxed money, these companies moved even more jobs overseas. Now they now they are pushing their Republican friends to once again let them bring overseas profits home nearly tax-free.
How can anyone imagine that lack of corporate cash is what’s holding back recovery in America right now? After all, it’s widely understood that corporations are already sitting on large amounts of cash that they are NOT using to grow their businesses here at home and hire more Americans. In fact, that idle cash has become a major conservative talking point, with right-wingers claiming that businesses are failing to invest because of political uncertainty.
That is false!
The evidence strongly says that the real reason businesses are sitting on cash is lack of consumer demand. Americans are only buying necessities and growing their savings. If corporations already have plenty of cash they are not using, why would giving them another tax break that would increase their piles of cash do anything to help the recovery?
Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending. Claims that a corporate tax holiday would create jobs, or that ending the tax break for corporate jets would destroy jobs, are nonsense.
What our economy needs is direct job creation by the government and mortgage-debt relief for stressed consumers.
What America does not need is a transfer of billions of dollars to corporations that have no intention of hiring anyone except more lobbyists.
AAARRRGGGG!
Edited version of: Corporate Cash Con, By Paul Krugman. NY Times
This is NUTS! Schizophrenic!
Over the last two years profits have soared while unemployment has remained disastrously high. The corporations have not used their increasing profits to hire more people. Why would anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations in the form of bigger tax cuts with no strings attached would lead to faster job creation?
Trickle-down “economics” is clearly rising again – and even some very stupid Democrats are buying into it. Look at the arguments Republicans are using to defend outrageous tax loopholes. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets?
A spokesman for Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, told Greg Sargent of The Washington Post: “You can’t help the wage earner by taxing the wage payer offering a job.” He went on to falsely say that the tax breaks at issue mainly help small businesses (they are actually for big corporations). But the basic argument was that anything that leaves more money in the hands of corporations will mean more jobs.
Okay, you dummies, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you – or how about some forestland in Arizona! It has only been slightly burned!
What about all those trillions in profits from overseas subsidiaries that U.S. corporations are supposed to pay taxes on? They are supposed to pay taxes when those profits are transferred back to the U.S. But these corporations want to bring all that money home to give to the CEOs and the shareholders without paying any taxes. So, now there’s a move afoot by their Republican friends in Congress to offer an “amnesty” under which companies could move funds back home while paying hardly any taxes. And there are some very stupid Democrats supporting this idea, claiming that it would create jobs.
NO, IT WON’T! We have been here before!
A similar tax holiday was offered in 2004, with a similar sales pitch. It was a total failure! Companies took advantage of the amnesty to move a lot of money back to the United States. But they used that money to pay dividends, pay down debt, buy up other companies, and buy back their own stock – everything except creating jobs. There is no evidence that the 2004 tax holiday did anything at all to stimulate the economy. What the tax holiday did do, however, was give big corporations a chance to avoid paying taxes. They would eventually have brought the money home anyway, and paid taxes on it. In return for all the untaxed money, these companies moved even more jobs overseas. Now they now they are pushing their Republican friends to once again let them bring overseas profits home nearly tax-free.
How can anyone imagine that lack of corporate cash is what’s holding back recovery in America right now? After all, it’s widely understood that corporations are already sitting on large amounts of cash that they are NOT using to grow their businesses here at home and hire more Americans. In fact, that idle cash has become a major conservative talking point, with right-wingers claiming that businesses are failing to invest because of political uncertainty.
That is false!
The evidence strongly says that the real reason businesses are sitting on cash is lack of consumer demand. Americans are only buying necessities and growing their savings. If corporations already have plenty of cash they are not using, why would giving them another tax break that would increase their piles of cash do anything to help the recovery?
Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending. Claims that a corporate tax holiday would create jobs, or that ending the tax break for corporate jets would destroy jobs, are nonsense.
What our economy needs is direct job creation by the government and mortgage-debt relief for stressed consumers.
What America does not need is a transfer of billions of dollars to corporations that have no intention of hiring anyone except more lobbyists.
AAARRRGGGG!
Edited version of: Corporate Cash Con, By Paul Krugman. NY Times
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Christian faith and evolution
Christian anti-evolutionists claim their rejection of evolution is not a rejection of science. Phillip Johnson, widely considered the leader of the Intelligent Design movement, states that all he is rejecting is the atheistic lens through which evolutionary scientists view the world. Evolution, he argues, is "based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly philosophical presupposition."
And to a certain extent, this line of argument makes sense. Science is not a neutral enterprise. Prior beliefs undoubtedly influence interpretation. If one believes God created vertebrates with a similar design plan, one can acknowledge their structural similarities without believing in common descent. No amount of radiocarbon dating evidence will convince someone the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if that person believes God created the world to look old, with the appearance of age.
But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.
The belief that scientists can discover truth, and that, once sufficiently debated, challenged and modified, it should be accepted even if it creates tensions for familiar belief systems, has an obvious impact on decisions that are made everyday – and it is that belief Christians reject when they reject evolution. In doing so, they have not only led America astray on questions ranging from the value of stem cell research to the etiology of homosexuality to the causes of global warming, they have also abandoned a central commitment of orthodox Christianity.
Christians must accept sound science, not because they do not believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
This post is an excerpt from: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution by Jonathan Dudley, author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics
And to a certain extent, this line of argument makes sense. Science is not a neutral enterprise. Prior beliefs undoubtedly influence interpretation. If one believes God created vertebrates with a similar design plan, one can acknowledge their structural similarities without believing in common descent. No amount of radiocarbon dating evidence will convince someone the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if that person believes God created the world to look old, with the appearance of age.
But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.
The belief that scientists can discover truth, and that, once sufficiently debated, challenged and modified, it should be accepted even if it creates tensions for familiar belief systems, has an obvious impact on decisions that are made everyday – and it is that belief Christians reject when they reject evolution. In doing so, they have not only led America astray on questions ranging from the value of stem cell research to the etiology of homosexuality to the causes of global warming, they have also abandoned a central commitment of orthodox Christianity.
Christians must accept sound science, not because they do not believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
This post is an excerpt from: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution by Jonathan Dudley, author of Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics
Monday, June 13, 2011
Where libertarian ideology fails
It has long been a central tenet of libertarian (hard-right conservative) ideology that government should not be expected to pick up the bill for providing that which people should be providing for themselves. While we may battle over what those things might be, that ideology has never, to the best of my knowledge, been extended to deny help to those who clearly cannot provide for themselves due to a dramatic and overwhelming catastrophe such as what has been experienced in Joplin and the many other American towns devastated by recent weather emergencies. And yet, this is the ideology that Congressional Leader Cantor expects his party to adopt in dealing with the tragedy that has been visited upon our fellow countrymen.
Before Alabama was devastated by tornadoes on May 27, 2011, Joplin, Missouri was ravaged by a tornado on May 23 that took the lives of 134 people and displaced thousands as a result of their homes and businesses being destroyed. Yet House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a libertarian leaning Republican, has made it clear that he has no intention of coming to the aid of Joplin, Missouri unless and until budget offsets can be found to pay for any federal aid to help these Missourians in need.
Cantor has brought to the front the false and perverted choices embraced by those who would subscribe to his libertarian approach, including the followers of the Tea Party ideology.
Setting aside what most of us may feel about Congressman Cantor’s rather heartless comment about this situation, it turns out that Joplin is represented in Congress by a Tea Party backed Republican named Billy Long – one of the angry freshmen elected to Congress on a platform of being ‘fed up’ with career politicians and who ran on the motto that he was “Tea Party before Tea Party was cool’ which means he ascribes to libertarianism. So, what is a Tea Party Congressman – dedicated to smaller government and individual responsibility – to do when the very people who are hurt and in serious need of billions of dollars of assistance are the same people who sent him to Congress in support of his ultra-conservative beliefs?
His answer has been to do nothing as he weighs his ideological commitment against the dramatic needs of his constituents and the political damage that might follow whatever decision he makes. Upon learning of Cantor’s position on the subject, Long clammed-up, refusing to say where he stands.
Big mistake.
Even Tea Partiers want the federal government to open up the wallet and begin spending when their own lives are the ones engulfed in pain and disarray through no fault of their own.
Long’s fellow GOP Member of Congress from the Missouri Delegation, Jo Ann Emerson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has had no problem whatsoever in working out where she stands. Her own district buried under 12 feet of water as a result of the storm, Emerson has not held back in her criticism of Cantor for holding these unfortunate people hostage to his ideology. She then added something that goes right to the heart of the matter when addressing the ideological conflict raised by asking the federal government to provide the needed assistance:
“People all of a sudden have a change of heart on spending when it becomes personal. My own constituents would be horrified if I didn’t do everything I could.”
Another are where people quickly drop ideology is in discussing the realities of healthcare when serious illness strikes one of their own loved ones. People no longer care about things like conservative versus liberal ideologies that has nothing to do with the one thing people do care about – making their loved one healthy again. Such is the case in Joplin, Missouri and the many lives from many towns that have been destroyed by extraordinary weather.
When your home or business – and possibly even the life of a loved one – has been snatched from you in an instant, political ideology is the last thing on your mind. When you need help as a result of an overwhelming circumstance where only the very wealthy among us could handle on their own, you will look to your fellow countrymen to stand by your side and do what it takes to provide that which is necessary to help you begin pulling your life back together.
Many of the folks in Joplin, Missouri – a district that sent a self-professed Tea Party devotee to represent them in Congress – have no doubt spent countless hours decrying the federal government’s involvement in anything not specifically allocated to it by the United States Constitution. These same people have spoken out loudly about how government’s role is not to spend for everyone who has a problem and reinforced the notion that Americans should be expected to take care of themselves and not look to government to solve their problems.
And then a devastating tornado took out half their town and killed 142 of their citizens.
These very same people are now finding that they currently see the issue very differently despite the fact that the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to bail out a city devastated by Mother Nature.
And who could possibly blame them?
As Americans, we understand that politics and ideology go out the window when such a crisis happens. Joplin citizens have now learned that it’s about humanity. When a fellow American is in this kind of trouble, we set aside our allegedly deeply held political beliefs and we do what we must to help people in such deep distress.
Eric Cantor does not get it. And in using this horrible circumstance to make his ideological point, Cantor reveals that there is something very wrong with his commitment to a twisted libertarian ideology rather than a commitment to people.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Remember that it was Eric Cantor who, when asked by a Virginia constituent what an uninsured relative (due to the relative’s having lost her job) who was dying of stomach cancer should do to get the operation she so badly needed to save her life, Cantor heartlessly advised that the dying relative should ‘find a charity’.
And what about Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri – a self-professed deeply conservative Republican with the voting record to back it up? Blunt has been quick to say that he wants the federal government to completely reimburse the devastated towns of Missouri and has asked the federal government to assume a larger share of the cleanup costs than what the government would normally take on in these circumstances.
It’s easy to be an ideologue when you can’t see the faces or don’t know the names of the people you are hurting. Funny how Blunt's ideology took a 180 degree turn when it was about his own state.
Certainly, Blunt is reacting to the serious needs of his constituents and is to be praised for doing so. He understands the small value ideology holds when it is his neighbors who are in trouble. So far, Blunt has not even placed a condition on his request that offsets be found to pay for his wishes – and I don’t expect he will be doing so.
But Blunt also voted for the Ryan Budget that would devastate Medicare and Medicaid, forcing future senior citizens into a highly precarious position when it comes to their healthcare when they reach 65.
There is a terrible lesson in Joplin, Missouri for GOP lawmakers:
It’s all ‘personal’ to those who are affected.
It’s time for Republicans to turn away from Eric Cantor and libertarian Tea Party style ideology and remember that, at the end of the day, it’s all about people. And while we can differ on the solutions that will have the best result, there are certain needs that supersede ideology and politics – and Joplin, Missouri is clearly an example of such a need.
Libertarian ideology fails when it comes to community and people in need.
Before Alabama was devastated by tornadoes on May 27, 2011, Joplin, Missouri was ravaged by a tornado on May 23 that took the lives of 134 people and displaced thousands as a result of their homes and businesses being destroyed. Yet House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a libertarian leaning Republican, has made it clear that he has no intention of coming to the aid of Joplin, Missouri unless and until budget offsets can be found to pay for any federal aid to help these Missourians in need.
Cantor has brought to the front the false and perverted choices embraced by those who would subscribe to his libertarian approach, including the followers of the Tea Party ideology.
Setting aside what most of us may feel about Congressman Cantor’s rather heartless comment about this situation, it turns out that Joplin is represented in Congress by a Tea Party backed Republican named Billy Long – one of the angry freshmen elected to Congress on a platform of being ‘fed up’ with career politicians and who ran on the motto that he was “Tea Party before Tea Party was cool’ which means he ascribes to libertarianism. So, what is a Tea Party Congressman – dedicated to smaller government and individual responsibility – to do when the very people who are hurt and in serious need of billions of dollars of assistance are the same people who sent him to Congress in support of his ultra-conservative beliefs?
His answer has been to do nothing as he weighs his ideological commitment against the dramatic needs of his constituents and the political damage that might follow whatever decision he makes. Upon learning of Cantor’s position on the subject, Long clammed-up, refusing to say where he stands.
Big mistake.
Even Tea Partiers want the federal government to open up the wallet and begin spending when their own lives are the ones engulfed in pain and disarray through no fault of their own.
Long’s fellow GOP Member of Congress from the Missouri Delegation, Jo Ann Emerson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has had no problem whatsoever in working out where she stands. Her own district buried under 12 feet of water as a result of the storm, Emerson has not held back in her criticism of Cantor for holding these unfortunate people hostage to his ideology. She then added something that goes right to the heart of the matter when addressing the ideological conflict raised by asking the federal government to provide the needed assistance:
“People all of a sudden have a change of heart on spending when it becomes personal. My own constituents would be horrified if I didn’t do everything I could.”
Another are where people quickly drop ideology is in discussing the realities of healthcare when serious illness strikes one of their own loved ones. People no longer care about things like conservative versus liberal ideologies that has nothing to do with the one thing people do care about – making their loved one healthy again. Such is the case in Joplin, Missouri and the many lives from many towns that have been destroyed by extraordinary weather.
When your home or business – and possibly even the life of a loved one – has been snatched from you in an instant, political ideology is the last thing on your mind. When you need help as a result of an overwhelming circumstance where only the very wealthy among us could handle on their own, you will look to your fellow countrymen to stand by your side and do what it takes to provide that which is necessary to help you begin pulling your life back together.
Many of the folks in Joplin, Missouri – a district that sent a self-professed Tea Party devotee to represent them in Congress – have no doubt spent countless hours decrying the federal government’s involvement in anything not specifically allocated to it by the United States Constitution. These same people have spoken out loudly about how government’s role is not to spend for everyone who has a problem and reinforced the notion that Americans should be expected to take care of themselves and not look to government to solve their problems.
And then a devastating tornado took out half their town and killed 142 of their citizens.
These very same people are now finding that they currently see the issue very differently despite the fact that the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to bail out a city devastated by Mother Nature.
And who could possibly blame them?
As Americans, we understand that politics and ideology go out the window when such a crisis happens. Joplin citizens have now learned that it’s about humanity. When a fellow American is in this kind of trouble, we set aside our allegedly deeply held political beliefs and we do what we must to help people in such deep distress.
Eric Cantor does not get it. And in using this horrible circumstance to make his ideological point, Cantor reveals that there is something very wrong with his commitment to a twisted libertarian ideology rather than a commitment to people.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Remember that it was Eric Cantor who, when asked by a Virginia constituent what an uninsured relative (due to the relative’s having lost her job) who was dying of stomach cancer should do to get the operation she so badly needed to save her life, Cantor heartlessly advised that the dying relative should ‘find a charity’.
And what about Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri – a self-professed deeply conservative Republican with the voting record to back it up? Blunt has been quick to say that he wants the federal government to completely reimburse the devastated towns of Missouri and has asked the federal government to assume a larger share of the cleanup costs than what the government would normally take on in these circumstances.
It’s easy to be an ideologue when you can’t see the faces or don’t know the names of the people you are hurting. Funny how Blunt's ideology took a 180 degree turn when it was about his own state.
Certainly, Blunt is reacting to the serious needs of his constituents and is to be praised for doing so. He understands the small value ideology holds when it is his neighbors who are in trouble. So far, Blunt has not even placed a condition on his request that offsets be found to pay for his wishes – and I don’t expect he will be doing so.
But Blunt also voted for the Ryan Budget that would devastate Medicare and Medicaid, forcing future senior citizens into a highly precarious position when it comes to their healthcare when they reach 65.
There is a terrible lesson in Joplin, Missouri for GOP lawmakers:
It’s all ‘personal’ to those who are affected.
It’s time for Republicans to turn away from Eric Cantor and libertarian Tea Party style ideology and remember that, at the end of the day, it’s all about people. And while we can differ on the solutions that will have the best result, there are certain needs that supersede ideology and politics – and Joplin, Missouri is clearly an example of such a need.
Libertarian ideology fails when it comes to community and people in need.
This is an edited version of: Deadly Tornados Reveal The Failure Of Today’s Perverse GOP Ideology by Rick Ungar
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Palin’s babbling
What you heard in Palin’s recent statement about Paul Revere is of such poor quality that – even without her political positions – it is anathema to the educated, whether they lean left or right.
She sounded like an airhead – her usual Modus operandi.
Asked about what she had seen in Boston, as usual, she blathered on mindlessly: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
Over and over, we have seen Palin’s statements dissolve into something we could call fact-mishmash as she tries to say something important off the cuff, but what comes out of her mouth is the sort of nonsense you would expect to find coming from the mouth of a stroke victim who, unable to understand the nature of his injury, or even that he is injured, babbles incoherently not realizing that the brilliant discourse he has prepared in his mind sounds like babble to the world around him.
Palin's comments were the epitome of bumbling semi-literacy. In too many of Palin’s utterances, the facts are sort of there – and she intends to use them – but her ability to order them into something other than babble is absent.
It is safe to say that every American over the age of twelve has some version of our historical stories in his or her head. Palin had just visited a history center that should have reinforced what she already knew about Paul Revere’s famous ride. Yet, instead of coming up with a simple, sequential capsule version of the Revere story or even saying ‘Wow! That trip to the center was beautiful,’ out of her mouth tumbled something akin to psychobabble. It was a bucketful of fact-mishmash, delivered to a reporter who asked a simple, off-the-cuff, softball question. In a later interview on Fox, she said the ‘lamestream’ reporter had asked her a ‘gotcha’ question.
Yea, right. It's only a gotcha question if your head is half empty.
But the important issue here is not what she said, irrespective of its importance or how much time she had to prepare, nor is it her stubborn defense of her “position” in subsequent interviews; it is the image of her in a position of power as president of the United States and reacting to events that require quick, decisive thinking and action. I envision her responding to the office’s demands on her powers as president by releasing clouds of psychobabble. What makes intelligent, educated people shudder is the thought of a President Palin filled with the milk of conservative values whose every thought gushes forth in a language indistinguishable from that of a stoner who is ripped out of his mind.
Even scarier are Palin's supporters who went into Wikipedia to make the history of the midnight ride of Paul Revere match the words of their heroine. That set off a bit of a war at Wiki between the editors who are not insane and the Palinites who are.
It appears that the biggest problem in this country is willful ignorance, particularly on the right, and particularly among Palinites. All over the internet you can see debates between right and left – but on the right, if a politician's statements do not fit reality, well, then reality must be wrong. So they attempt to change history books and Wikipedia to fit their own ‘facts’.
Here is a suggestion of what she should have said (paying homage to her view on gun rights):
“Being in the city where Paul Revere’s famous ride to warn his fellow Patriots that British troops would soon be on the move in an attempt to capture stores of weapons that would prove crucial for the nascent rebellion, was a moving experience. I’m not sure of one thing: did he put a lamp or lantern in the church belfry or did he ring the bells in the church? I cannot remember. It’s been a long time since grade school. Whatever the details, thank God he warned the patriots who, in turn, foiled the British plan to seize their weapon stores, demonstrating once and for all the value of our traditional right to bear arms. Thank God for his courage.”
But a statement like this would be too intelligent for her – there is not enough babbling.
She sounded like an airhead – her usual Modus operandi.
Asked about what she had seen in Boston, as usual, she blathered on mindlessly: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
Over and over, we have seen Palin’s statements dissolve into something we could call fact-mishmash as she tries to say something important off the cuff, but what comes out of her mouth is the sort of nonsense you would expect to find coming from the mouth of a stroke victim who, unable to understand the nature of his injury, or even that he is injured, babbles incoherently not realizing that the brilliant discourse he has prepared in his mind sounds like babble to the world around him.
Palin's comments were the epitome of bumbling semi-literacy. In too many of Palin’s utterances, the facts are sort of there – and she intends to use them – but her ability to order them into something other than babble is absent.
It is safe to say that every American over the age of twelve has some version of our historical stories in his or her head. Palin had just visited a history center that should have reinforced what she already knew about Paul Revere’s famous ride. Yet, instead of coming up with a simple, sequential capsule version of the Revere story or even saying ‘Wow! That trip to the center was beautiful,’ out of her mouth tumbled something akin to psychobabble. It was a bucketful of fact-mishmash, delivered to a reporter who asked a simple, off-the-cuff, softball question. In a later interview on Fox, she said the ‘lamestream’ reporter had asked her a ‘gotcha’ question.
Yea, right. It's only a gotcha question if your head is half empty.
But the important issue here is not what she said, irrespective of its importance or how much time she had to prepare, nor is it her stubborn defense of her “position” in subsequent interviews; it is the image of her in a position of power as president of the United States and reacting to events that require quick, decisive thinking and action. I envision her responding to the office’s demands on her powers as president by releasing clouds of psychobabble. What makes intelligent, educated people shudder is the thought of a President Palin filled with the milk of conservative values whose every thought gushes forth in a language indistinguishable from that of a stoner who is ripped out of his mind.
Even scarier are Palin's supporters who went into Wikipedia to make the history of the midnight ride of Paul Revere match the words of their heroine. That set off a bit of a war at Wiki between the editors who are not insane and the Palinites who are.
It appears that the biggest problem in this country is willful ignorance, particularly on the right, and particularly among Palinites. All over the internet you can see debates between right and left – but on the right, if a politician's statements do not fit reality, well, then reality must be wrong. So they attempt to change history books and Wikipedia to fit their own ‘facts’.
Here is a suggestion of what she should have said (paying homage to her view on gun rights):
“Being in the city where Paul Revere’s famous ride to warn his fellow Patriots that British troops would soon be on the move in an attempt to capture stores of weapons that would prove crucial for the nascent rebellion, was a moving experience. I’m not sure of one thing: did he put a lamp or lantern in the church belfry or did he ring the bells in the church? I cannot remember. It’s been a long time since grade school. Whatever the details, thank God he warned the patriots who, in turn, foiled the British plan to seize their weapon stores, demonstrating once and for all the value of our traditional right to bear arms. Thank God for his courage.”
But a statement like this would be too intelligent for her – there is not enough babbling.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The kind of nation we really want
With Tea Party conservatives and many Republicans balking at raising the debt ceiling let me offer an example of a nation that lives up to their ideals:
This particular nation has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs. This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled. The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.
So where is this Republican Eden, this Utopia?
I will tell you shortly – keep reading.
The United States is, of course, in no danger of actually becoming a European socialist country any more than we are going to become a third world country at the other extreme. But as America has become more unequal, as we cut off government lifelines to the neediest Americans, as half of the states plan to cut spending on education this year, including colleges, let’s be clear about our direction – and about the turnaround that a Republican budget victory would represent.
Developing countries, from Congo to Colombia are typically characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. In Latin American, African or Asian countries, one will sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft – but schools have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the result is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, and held back by a limited sense of common purpose.
Wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.
I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Maybe that’s why the growing inequality in America pains me so. The wealthiest 1% of Americans already has a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions. Mass transit is underfinanced; after all, Mercedes-Benzes and private jets are much more practical, no? And maybe the most striking push for reversal of historical trends is the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a universal health care program for the elderly.
The long trajectory of history has been for governments to take on more responsibilities, and for citizens to pay more taxes. Now we’re at a turning point, with Republicans arguing that we need to reverse course. So during the 2012 political debates, let’s remember that we’re arguing not only over debt ceilings and budgets, but about larger questions of our vision for our country.
Now would you like to know which country I described at the beginning of this article?
It is Pakistan.
When many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services – slashing everything but the military – those are steps toward a third-world-type government.
Do we really want to take a step in the direction of a low-tax laissez-faire Republican Eden like Pakistan?
History of Medicare: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
This op-ed is an edited version of: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?ref=opinion
This particular nation has among the lowest tax burdens of any major country: fewer than 2 percent of the people pay any taxes. Government is limited, so that burdensome regulations never kill jobs. This society embraces traditional religious values and a conservative sensibility. Nobody minds school prayer, same-sex marriage isn’t imaginable, and criminals are never coddled. The budget priority is a strong military, the nation’s most respected institution. When generals decide on a policy for, say, Afghanistan, politicians defer to them. Citizens are deeply patriotic, and nobody burns flags.
So where is this Republican Eden, this Utopia?
I will tell you shortly – keep reading.
The United States is, of course, in no danger of actually becoming a European socialist country any more than we are going to become a third world country at the other extreme. But as America has become more unequal, as we cut off government lifelines to the neediest Americans, as half of the states plan to cut spending on education this year, including colleges, let’s be clear about our direction – and about the turnaround that a Republican budget victory would represent.
Developing countries, from Congo to Colombia are typically characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. In Latin American, African or Asian countries, one will sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft – but schools have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the result is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, and held back by a limited sense of common purpose.
Wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.
I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Maybe that’s why the growing inequality in America pains me so. The wealthiest 1% of Americans already has a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent, based on Federal Reserve data. Yet two-thirds of the proposed Republican budget cuts would harm low- and moderate-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions. Mass transit is underfinanced; after all, Mercedes-Benzes and private jets are much more practical, no? And maybe the most striking push for reversal of historical trends is the Republican plan to dismantle Medicare as a universal health care program for the elderly.
The long trajectory of history has been for governments to take on more responsibilities, and for citizens to pay more taxes. Now we’re at a turning point, with Republicans arguing that we need to reverse course. So during the 2012 political debates, let’s remember that we’re arguing not only over debt ceilings and budgets, but about larger questions of our vision for our country.
Now would you like to know which country I described at the beginning of this article?
It is Pakistan.
When many Republicans insist on “starving the beast” of government, cutting taxes, regulations and social services – slashing everything but the military – those are steps toward a third-world-type government.
Do we really want to take a step in the direction of a low-tax laissez-faire Republican Eden like Pakistan?
History of Medicare: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
This op-ed is an edited version of: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?ref=opinion
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Conspiracy theories abound
Barack Obama waggled his birth certificate in our faces 10 days ago to prove he is a United States citizen. Then, just to underline the point, he sent troops to kill Osama bin Laden last Sunday, bagging a trophy that had eluded George “Bring It On” Bush for more than seven years. In fact, Bush got so frustrated about not being able to find bin Laden that he announced it did not matter. He said that bin Laden was no longer important.
Now President Obama is being accused of faking bin Laden’s death by the rightwing fringe that sees our president as conniving and full of sinister machinations.
Just how dumb are these Americans, anyway? When will the mainstream news media do its job and stop enabling these crackpots?
I was aghast on April 27 as the president of the United States went on television to persuade his fellow countrymen that he is indeed a fellow countryman. It was mortifying. No other president has had to do such an abasing thing. It was racist to the core.
You are unlikely to find an African-American who does not see racism in Obama having to show his ‘long form’ birth certificate. There are many Caucasian-Americans, like me, who feel the same way. But Obama felt he had to show us the birth certificate.
On Monday, a sizable number of rightwing Americans still said they believe the birth certificate is a fake – and added that bin Laden’s death is a hoax.
Sigh….
Conspiracy theories always slither around the edges of public discourse: Lyndon B. Johnson was behind John F. Kennedy’s assassination; Dick Cheney brought down the World Trade Towers; the world is really flat…
…and the moon landing never really happened.
From: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/10/2864205/commentary-media-needs-to-ignore.html
Now President Obama is being accused of faking bin Laden’s death by the rightwing fringe that sees our president as conniving and full of sinister machinations.
Just how dumb are these Americans, anyway? When will the mainstream news media do its job and stop enabling these crackpots?
I was aghast on April 27 as the president of the United States went on television to persuade his fellow countrymen that he is indeed a fellow countryman. It was mortifying. No other president has had to do such an abasing thing. It was racist to the core.
You are unlikely to find an African-American who does not see racism in Obama having to show his ‘long form’ birth certificate. There are many Caucasian-Americans, like me, who feel the same way. But Obama felt he had to show us the birth certificate.
On Monday, a sizable number of rightwing Americans still said they believe the birth certificate is a fake – and added that bin Laden’s death is a hoax.
Sigh….
Conspiracy theories always slither around the edges of public discourse: Lyndon B. Johnson was behind John F. Kennedy’s assassination; Dick Cheney brought down the World Trade Towers; the world is really flat…
…and the moon landing never really happened.
From: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/10/2864205/commentary-media-needs-to-ignore.html
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Does this make sense?
Repeat after me:
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
Got it?
The CBO found that spending cuts in the Republican plan would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax cuts for the rich. I do NOT understand why the press doesn’t shove this fact in front of every Republican who says the debt limit cannot be raised unless their new spending cuts are put in place. The Republican plan – written by Paul Ryan – contains everything Republicans can think of in terms of spending cuts and would add more debt than we have ever seen over a 10-year period in American history! Yet Ryan and other House GOP leaders continue to make outrageous statements to the contrary – without being embarrassed and without anyone calling them on it.
In contrast to the Republican budget, the CBO said, "the economic feedback from the President’s proposals would increase their cumulative impact on deficits from 2012 through 2016 – which is estimated to be nearly $1.0 trillion excluding any aggregate economic effects – by between $10 billion and $30 billion. From 2017 to 2021, the effects of the proposals on the economy could further boost the cumulative increase in deficits – estimated to be about $1.8 trillion, excluding any aggregate economic effects – by as much as $217 billion or could reduce it by up to $8 billion" because "projected deficits fall due to the tax base increasing even when gross national product (GNP) decreases."
It is ironic that the Republicans always talk about how the Democrats are always trying to redistribute wealth. Yet you get redistribution of wealth with this plan – except the money is being redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich. They say it is so that the rich will create new jobs for America. Yeah, right. If you believe that, have a look at George Bush's record of job creation. We lost millions of jobs to other countries like Mexico and India during his two terms.
Robbing from the poor to pay the rich. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.
Got it?
The CBO found that spending cuts in the Republican plan would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax cuts for the rich. I do NOT understand why the press doesn’t shove this fact in front of every Republican who says the debt limit cannot be raised unless their new spending cuts are put in place. The Republican plan – written by Paul Ryan – contains everything Republicans can think of in terms of spending cuts and would add more debt than we have ever seen over a 10-year period in American history! Yet Ryan and other House GOP leaders continue to make outrageous statements to the contrary – without being embarrassed and without anyone calling them on it.
In contrast to the Republican budget, the CBO said, "the economic feedback from the President’s proposals would increase their cumulative impact on deficits from 2012 through 2016 – which is estimated to be nearly $1.0 trillion excluding any aggregate economic effects – by between $10 billion and $30 billion. From 2017 to 2021, the effects of the proposals on the economy could further boost the cumulative increase in deficits – estimated to be about $1.8 trillion, excluding any aggregate economic effects – by as much as $217 billion or could reduce it by up to $8 billion" because "projected deficits fall due to the tax base increasing even when gross national product (GNP) decreases."
It is ironic that the Republicans always talk about how the Democrats are always trying to redistribute wealth. Yet you get redistribution of wealth with this plan – except the money is being redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich. They say it is so that the rich will create new jobs for America. Yeah, right. If you believe that, have a look at George Bush's record of job creation. We lost millions of jobs to other countries like Mexico and India during his two terms.
Robbing from the poor to pay the rich. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)