Another one bites the dust

Republicans have a penchant for lying in order to get their way.  One of their biggest lies – that Social Security is going broke – was dealt a blow by the latest Social Security trustees report which found that the program will be able to pay every benefit from tax money coming in until 2033 – and after 2033, if Congress does nothing, there is enough in reserve to pay three-quarters of future benefits for a long time.

The report is basically the same as last year. Social Security is fine for the next twenty years. The report also contained good news for Medicare, as it is now projected to be solvent until 2026. In a statement, Senator Bernie Sanders stressed that these findings confirmed what the reality based political world already knew. Senator Sanders said, “The report from the Social Security trustees confirms what many of us have known, that Social Security is not ‘going broke,’ that it can pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20 years and that after 2033 there is enough in reserve to pay three-quarters of future benefits.”

Republicans have been claiming that Social Security is going broke for years in order to justify the privatization of the program. The right has also argued that Medicare needs to be replaced with a voucher system because it is going broke. It turns out that both of these claims are absurdly false. While this report is bad news for those Republicans who are trying to sell privatization, it is also bad news for President Obama. The president has made the argument in the past that cost of living adjustments need to be cut by moving to a chained CPI. Today’s report illustrates that there is no need for impulsive steps in the name of getting a deal on entitlements.  The program simply needs tweaking, such as raising the ceiling on how much income can be taxed.

Do not get me wrong, Medicare and Social Security both have revenue problems, but these problems are not imminent. There is still a long term systemic problem looming. Some action will have to be taken in order to shore up the two beloved programs. However, there is a huge difference between tweaking the programs and what Republicans want to do, privatize both programs. Contrary to what Republicans have been saying, there is no need to gut and privatize the programs. Social Security is not going broke, and Medicare is not in immediate danger.

There is one simple solution out there that could keep Social Security strong for decades to come. The cap on the payroll tax should be raised or eliminated so that the wealthy are paying more into the Social Security Trust Fund. As long as millionaires and billionaires continue to pay payroll tax only on only the first $113,700 that they earn, Social Security will always be just a decade or two away from crisis.  Let's raise the cap to $250,000.

Senate Democrats are on the record as opposing any cuts to Social Security.  Today’s report should strengthen their resolve. This has not stopped Republicans from trying to spin the report by exaggerating the potential future problems, but their cries of “we must privatize and put the money with Wall Street” have been largely discredited.

Republicans lie, but the numbers do not. Social Security is not going broke.

Voting against Obama even if it kills us

Pat Toomey (R-PA) has admitted in an interview that the bill for expanded background checks for gun purchases was defeated because Republicans opposed the bill out of a desire to deny the president a victory.  This is regardless of the fact that over 90% of Americans want stronger background checks. Here is what Toomey said, according to a write-up in the Times Herald:

“In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it.” In subsequent comments, he tried to walk that remark part-way back by noting he meant to say Republicans across the nation in general, not just those in the Senate. “The toughest thing to do in politics is to do the right thing when your supporters think the right thing is something else.”

According to Toomey, what doomed Manchin-Toomey is that Republicans across the country opposed it because the president supported it. Having a Republican on record confirming this is useful. As Steve Benen notes, it makes the accusations that Obama needs to “lead” and “twist arms” look ridiculous – in fact, it makes those who say this look ignorant.

Toomey’s concession is particularly relevant to the ongoing debate over Obama’s remarks at his latest press conference. He said:

“…Their base thinks that compromise with me is somehow a betrayal. They’re worried about primaries. And I understand all that. And we’re going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure for them to be able to do what’s going to be best for the country. But it’s going to take some time.”This is no different from what Toomey said about his own party.

Toomey took a very big political risk by entering into negotiations on a proposal to expand background checks. He knew would it rile up the “gun rights” portion of the GOP base. Toomey and Joe Manchin — both Senators from states with deep gun cultures – negotiated a compromise that went to great lengths to show deference to the gun culture and gun owners. It exempted private transfers through non-commercial portals, so transfers among family members, friends, gun hobbyists and hunters would not be touched, and strengthened prohibitions against the national gun registry conservatives claimed to fear. The idea underlying the proposal was backed by over 80% of Americans. It had the support of a majority of the Senate – including Republicans like John McCain.

Toomey spent weeks trying to talk fellow Republicans – officials and voters alike – into accepting this compromise. But it did not work – virtually all Republican Senators voted against it.  And there is no mystery as to why.  According to Toomey, Republican voters across the country would not support this common sense effort to address a problem that is killing thousands of Americans every year simply because Obama supported it. 

Speaking of biting off your own nose to spite your face…that is just what Republicans are doing.  They will vote against Obama to keep from giving him any type of victory, even if it kills the rest of us.

Destroying public schools will destroy democracy

Free-market conservatives view government schools (public education) as a socialist experiment. They want public schools privatized in the same way they support privatization of Medicare and Social Security. They believe that the private sector does everything well and governments do everything badly. They also believe that the masses should not be educated. An educated population demands better wages and working conditions, skewing the free market.  They also do not want a true democracy where the people have a say in how the country (company) is run.  They believe the old adage that what is good for General Motors is good for the country – meaning what is good for corporations is good for the country.

There are two groups aligned with the free-market conservatives.  Religious fundamentalists – who resent secular education – want public schools to let religion, including prayers, back into schools. Otherwise, they want to see public schools destroyed.  More disturbing are the legislators who proclaim their support for public schools.  They show up at school events, work their way into photo-ops with students and shower praise on teachers.  And all the while, these two-faced liars sponsor ALEC bills and cast votes that undermine public education. 

Through ALEC, the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, behind closed doors, these corporations hand state legislators fully written out laws they desire to be passed in each state. These laws directly benefit the corporate bottom line. Both legislatures and corporations have membership in ALEC.  Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses as their own brilliant ideas – without disclosing that corporations crafted the bills.

Let's look at Alabama as an example:

Recently, the Decatur Daily – one of the few independent newspapers left in the state – included two stories that were a reminder of the insidious attack on public education. One story was about local stores that, like others around the state, are losing ground to online retailers. The state sales tax goes to the Educational Trust Fund, which finances K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities. An exception to that rule, passed in the 2012 legislative session, instead directs 75 percent of Internet sales taxes to the General Fund. Not a big deal, it seemed, because not many people pay sales tax on their Internet purchases.

But after the law passed, however, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley supported a bill in Congress that would require the largest Internet retailers to withhold sales taxes and remit them to the state of the purchaser. It was a surprisingly pro-tax position for a governor that consistently opposes tax increases. The Marketplace Fairness Act would send up to $200 million in sales taxes to Alabama, Bentley predicted. This would be huge for the state’s perpetually underfunded school system if it were not for the 2012 law redirecting Internet sales taxes to the General Fund.

The second story in the Decatur Daily was about increasing support among Republican lawmakers, who hold a super-majority in both houses, for an increase in the tobacco tax. Showing unusual 'concern' for the poor, they tied their support to an elimination of sales taxes on groceries. Here’s the problem: They want the tobacco tax to go to the General Fund. Currently, the sales tax on groceries goes to the Education Trust Fund. The revenue-neutral financial impact, therefore, would be to transfer money from the ETF to the General Fund. This is a devious scheme to divide those who believe it is immoral both to tax the poor on food and to deprive children of a solid education. And as if not enough damage has been done, the State budget passed would saddle the ETF with $16 million in mental health spending previously included in the General Fund budget, while cutting $10 million from the nationally respected Alabama Reading Initiative. 

All this comes, of course, after last month’s passage of the Alabama Accountability Act, an act of legislative gamesmanship that duped the superintendent of the state Department of Education. He supported a school 'flexibility' bill. At the last minute, the bill tripled in size and morphed into a scheme to provide tax credits – paid for by the Education Trust Fund – to any citizen to send their children to private schools. Budget estimates make clear that legislators expect the only significant impact of the law will be to provide tax credits to families whose children already are enrolled in private schools. If they are correct, the law will slice about $60 million from public schools. If they are wrong, it will reduce funding by much more - upwards of $300 million.

  

Both the Accountability Act passed this years and a school 'grading' law passed last year penalize schools whose students perform poorly on standardized tests, an odd policy for a state Legislature that for years has griped about the emphasis on standardized tests imposed by the federal No Child Left Behind law. 

Former President John Adams, in 1785, wrote:

“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.” 

Lawmakers are persistently and aggressively decreasing the resources that public schools have at their disposal. And very little of the public knows about this because the state’s three largest newspapers are run by a right leaning corporation out of New York City.  I often find that many important issues are left out of these three newspapers – and many legislative issues that are written about are whitewashed.  The Alabama public remains ignorant as to what these Republican scoundrels are doing to education in this state.

The public schools in Alabama are much worse off because of this Republican dominated, ALEC-affiliated legislature. If lawmakers continue without public resistance – if voters continue to be ignorant of the consequences due to lack of locally-run newspapers in the major metropolitan areas of the state – then public education will be destroyed.

I may be biased on the value of public schools. I attended public schools, taught in public school for 25 years, and I have family members that work for them or are retired from them. I do not see them as a socialist entitlement but as a cornerstone of opportunity and of effective democracy. 

But, of course, Republicans do not really want an 'effective democracy' where all citizens get to participate, but instead prefer to establish a plutocracy – rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. Destroying public schools ought to do it just fine.

 

Being the Family Scapegoat

I am back from my sabbatical. I am still learning to live with Celiac Disease, but I am no longer in terrible pain.  I am actually staying out of bed now, and doing some mild daily activities.  I have learned what products contain hidden gluten; and the gluten-free bread that I have learned to bake for myself is no longer failing.  Yea!

So here is my first post of the year.  It is about being the family scapegoat – which I have been since the day I was born.  My very first memory from age two is one of extreme fear because my little brother had just fallen and was screaming. Already, at age two, I knew I would be blamed and get a beating.

Being the Family Scapegoat

Scapegoating is a seriously insidious dysfunctional family problem where one child in the family is blamed for everything that goes wrong – where this one child is picked on, constantly put down, and too often physically ‘punished’ (abused) for an imagined wrongdoing. In scapegoating, one of the authority figures has made a subconscious decision that somebody in the family is the bad girl or boy. The mother or father makes one child bad and then looks for things (sometimes real, but most often imagined) that are wrong in order to punish or belittle the child.

The scapegoat, the outcast of the dysfunctional family, is made to carry the hidden blame and shame of relatives who refuse to acknowledge their own problems. Dysfunctional families are steeped in shame, and cannot look at their own issues. They have poor insight into their own behaviors and problems, and will do anything to appear normal or exceptional to outsiders, despite the fact that in reality, they are terribly crippled by their fears, addictions, mental disorders, abuse, neglect and insecurities.

While dysfunctional parents dance around the obvious real problems right before their eyes, they play a toxic game with the scapegoated child. The game is called, “You are the reason for anything and everything that is bad or wrong in my life.” The scapegoat cannot escape this role, which is typically assigned by the dysfunctional parent during the child’s first years, long before a child can think objectively about messages given to them.

Some Examples of Scapegoating in the Home:
• A parent who systematically singles out one child for blame when things go wrong in the family.
• A parent who punishes one child more severely than the siblings.
• A parent who assigns undesirable responsibilities and chores to just one child in the family.
• A parent who humiliates the child in front of the child’s friends.
• A parent who routinely speaks more negatively to or about one child in the family.

There are different reasons one child is singled out to be scapegoated. Perhaps the child is vulnerable – or the child is hyperactive or noncompliant or questions authority or reminds the parent of someone he/she hates. Sometimes the scapegoated child is viewed as weak – one who cannot defend herself. At times the parent heaps on the blame because he cannot stand the child who has traits and characteristics that are similar to his own or personality traits similar to a disliked relative. Other children in the family eventually pick up the scapegoating pattern and join in taunting and hurting the scapegoated child – even throughout adulthood. In extremely dysfunctional families, the parent may goad the other children to pick on the disfavored one – or, at the very least, brainwash the siblings to see the child in the same way the parent(s) does.

Sometimes one child is favored and given special status by the parent. This child can do no wrong. So, if the favored child does something ‘wrong’ it is laughed at as funny, whereas, if the scapegoat were to do the exact same thing, punishment is swift and fierce. All members of the family are affected. Children who are scapegoated often feel insecure and develop a victim mentality. They learn that they are at the bottom of the pecking order in the family and often automatically gravitate to that role at school or at work. Meanwhile, the child who is favored often develops her own form of pathology in that she grows up feeling special and entitled. One woman told me, "For years I resented my sister who my mother adored. I wished I had been special to my mother. Now I see how messed up my sister is and I'm glad I was not the chosen one of a very emotionally ill mother and/or father."

This dynamic of making one child "good" and another child "bad" in the family is a vicious generational theme learned and passed down from parents to children.

Scapegoating is manifested in abuse. Often an insecure parent will be aggressive with one of the children to vent his own sense of frustration at not doing well in life or at having made terrible mistakes at one point in time. Aggression in families creates poor self-esteem in the children – and not just the one being picked on and abused. Aggression, the use of force against another human being, is always present in scapegoating, usually in the form of extreme beatings with an object such as a belt, enabling self-righteous discharge of aggression and blame towards another.

Some humans need someone to take their anger out on and make that person the reason for anything that goes wrong. The aggressive person, the one doing the blaming, is one who tries to dominate others – often the father. But if the mother is treated cruelly by a domineering father, she will often become emotionally and physically aggressive toward the same child the father is abusing. Aggressiveness can take several forms. The aggressive person is frequently rude and humiliating, ("What do you mean, you aren't going to do it?"), or the aggressive person can become self-righteous ("I am only insisting on this for your own good."), or she/he can resort to being manipulative ("If you refuse, what will everyone think of you?")." Scapegoaters tend to have extra-punitive characteristics. Often it is insisted that a beating hurts the parent more than the child getting the beating – which, of course, is not true. The parent actually gets a perverse satisfaction from beating the child.

Scapegoating is a hostile social/psychological discrediting routine by which people move blame and responsibility away from themselves for their own failures and towards the targeted person or group. It is also a practice by which angry feelings of hostility toward an inaccessible person is projected, via inappropriate accusation, toward a child or other accessible person. The abuser is an insecure people driven to raise his or her own status by lowering the status of their target. The target receives misplaced vilification, blame and criticism; she is likely to suffer rejection from others whom the perpetrator is able to influence such as her siblings.

Bullying is always scapegoating. Physical and emotional abuse is always scapegoating. In scapegoating, feelings of guilt, aggression, blame and suffering are transferred away from the scapegoating bully so as to fulfill an unconscious drive to resolve or avoid bad feelings about oneself or one’s failures in life. This is done by the displacement of responsibility and blame onto another who serves as a target for both for the scapegoater and his supporters (the rest of family members). Scapegoating is the projection of a parent’s bad feelings about him or herself or about a hated relative onto the targeted child. It provides narcissistic gratification to him or her. It is the abuser saying:

"If I can put the blame on you, I don't have to recognize and take responsibility for the negative qualities in myself. What I can't stand about myself, I really hate in you and have to attack you for it in order to deny that I have the same quality." This distortion is always a feature of scapegoating. The displaced negative characteristics are blown out of proportion into something horribly bad.

The perpetrator's drive to displace and transfer responsibility away from him or her is not done with full consciousness – self-deception and denial are often features. In so far as the process is subconscious, it is more likely to be denied by the perpetrator if approached about what is being done. In such cases, any bad feelings – such as the perpetrator's own shame and guilt – are also likely to be denied.

The dysfunctional family cannot allow the role of scapegoat to go unfulfilled, because it serves an important purpose – it gives them a place to toss their unwanted psychological garbage. If they did relinquish the need for the role, they would have to face the problems they have found impossible to accept and address. In time, the role eventually becomes the scapegoat’s internalized false identity: “I am bad; I am wrong; I am the reason people are unhappy; I am worthless; and I am at fault for everything…” all too often become the scapegoat’s deeply-held beliefs. These self-depreciating beliefs are carried throughout their lifetime causing problems in decisions, relationships, and physical health (such as PTSD). Only counseling with a therapist trained specially in PTSD and working with adult survivors of child abuse can help alleviate some of the suffering.

The scapegoat experiences exclusion from family social events, ostracism, constant criticism, and embarrassing putdowns in front of outsiders. The scapegoat is often negatively gossiped and complained about even when not around. Children who grow up as the family scapegoat are likely to develop trust issues, resentment and low self-esteem. Children often blame themselves for such treatment and look for rationalizations for the way they are treated. They may begin to feel worthless, ugly, stupid or incompetent. They may do the opposite of overachieving and, instead, struggle academically and avoid opportunities which are deemed competitive. Adult children who have been scapegoated may struggle with explosive anger, pessimism and resentment in relationships, employment, and peer friendships.

Some children who are victims of scapegoating may try to prove their worth by becoming over-achievers in whatever the parent wants them to do, often to the detriment of their own aspirations and interests in life. Children who are victims of parental scapegoating are somewhat vulnerable to predatory groups and individuals who seek to take advantage of them. Religious cults, criminal gangs, terrorist organizations and thieves and violent or sexual predators often lure their victims by initially offering validation to people who have low self-worth.

The target's knowledge that she is being scapegoated usually builds slowly – over a lifetime. Complete realization of what has been happening usually does not occur until well into adulthood.

What Should You Do if You Are/Were the Family Scapegoat?

If you were designated the black sheep of the family, then studying this dynamic is the way to release yourself from its poison. Learn to recognize the negative family patterns of blame and shame and vow to stop doing them in this generation! Stop trying to win the favor of a parent who did not like you when you were growing up. A parent who rejects their child has some severe personality disturbance and is not likely to change. Don't expect the parent to "own" up to their mistreatment. Most likely, they will only deny and blame you again for being ungrateful.

In the case where a parent or parents refuse to own up to what they did (or possibly are still doing), children who were scapegoated should have as little to do with the abusive parent as they can when they grow up. In fact, moving many hours away to a different part of the country or to a different country altogether will enable the scapegoated child to build a better life as an adult. The ‘scapegoat’ should get into therapy and talk out her problems that have developed from being constantly abused and belittled. Therapy will help the scapegoat to learn to believe she is a valuable person in her own right. If therapy is not utilized, scapegoated children often end up in abusive relationships and possibly repeat the hateful pattern with their own child.

Even if the scapegoat eventually leaves the family, they are usually still considered the cause of all the family’s difficulties, no matter how much time has passed since they last saw the designated black sheep family member, because the family’s need to place blame and project shame onto another person still exists. They typically continue to carry the disdain and disgust toward the original scapegoat for decades – until death actually.

The role of scapegoat/black sheep/whipping boy/fall guy is a timeless classic that is typical of virtually all dysfunctional families. Parents with addictions and parents with personality disorders usually scapegoat at least one child.

Coping with Scapegoating - What NOT to Do:

• Don't blame yourself or assume that you did anything to deserve the way a person with a personality disorder treats you.
• Don't accept scapegoating as normal or allow it just to "go with the flow".
• Don't persecute someone else who is being scapegoated. That is participating in the abuse.
• Don't ignore it when someone else is being scapegoated. That is condoning abuse.
• Don't try to justify your worth by becoming an over-achiever. Don't work yourself harder to earn the love of a parent or family member. Real love is a free gift; it doesn't require people to jump through hoops.
• Don't immediately trust everybody or every organization who offers you validation. Save your trust for people who will treat you well and don't have a hidden agenda of their own.
• Don't waste your time and energy trying to change another person's opinion of you. That will only lead to circular conversations. As painful as it is to admit, you have no power or control over another person's thoughts, words and actions.
• Don't retaliate or try to hurt a person who scapegoats you. Try, as best you can, to disengage from them. Remove them from your life.

Coping with Scapegoating - What To Do:

• End the conversation and remove yourself from the house whenever anybody treats you badly. Leave.
• Call the police if anybody hurts you physically. If you are young, report it to a responsible caring adult.
• Try to base your own opinion of yourself on your good qualities – learned through counseling – not on other people's negative emotions.
• Get support. Find validating and healthy friendships and relationships where people will appreciate your worth, show grace and love toward you, and encourage you to be the best that you can be.
• Escaping the family’s toxic blame through removing oneself from the family – possibly by moving away to a new town or state – is best.
• If you choose to return to visit the family after therapy and years of distance – if you believe you have healed and can handle your family’s negativity – then do so. But keep your eyes wide open since your family members will not have changed. Their treatment of you will be the same – possibly worse.

What I have done to help myself heal

After years of therapy due to a childhood full of abuse and scapegoating, I still kept finding myself in the position of scapegoat whenever I visited with my family. Whenever this happened, I felt a primal sense of desperation and pain that seemed to threaten my emotional survival. I didn't understand that when I found myself in an old familiar situation (being around my parents and siblings) I kept reacting just as I did as a child.

I looked outward to my husband for relief rather than inward to myself, because I viewed my scapegoat mantel as something only my family and/or others could undo. I was frantic to get them to see this – to get my family to love and accept me. I didn’t realize that it was something that cannot be done. It took me a long time to realize that by becoming defensive and engaging in old arguments, I was wearing my scapegoat mantle every time I went ‘home’. It wasn’t until I put time and space between myself and my family that I could heal enough to stand confidently in my own experience and extricate myself from the scapegoat role. Putting time and space between me and them – basically divorcing myself from my family – was not easy to do.

Finding a good counselor with whom I could talk about my childhood abuse (which still continues) was extremely important. Validation of me as a good person from my counselor and my husband was the key to ridding myself from a wide array of childhood traumas. The trick is to differentiate from those who are supportive and those whom we want to be supportive and are not.

Whenever anyone suggested that I was wholly responsible for my childhood abuse or family estrangement (such as my sisters), or told me that I needed to be accepting and forgiving toward them, I learned to not accept what they said and changed the subject. Over a period of many years, with the aid of supportive individuals – who did “get it” – I learned to set and guard my boundaries. I learned that I wasn't responsible for my mistreatment by my family – it was undeserved. Nor was I responsible for the dysfunction of my family.

Eventually, I realized I had to break things off with my parents and siblings in order to heal. They will never stop scapegoating me. The constant criticism, blame, and belittling will never stop. So, I have removed myself from their lives. I have built a life without them. I have found love, grace, and acceptance with my husband’s family. My husband’s family is now my family, too. As far as I am concerned they are my only family.

I believe that I have now found my path to healing and finding peace if I can only be strong enough to walk it to the end and not look back.

Taking a break

I need a break. I need to rest.

I was recently diagnosed with Celiac Disease (a genetic disease) and cannot have wheat, barley, rye or oats. Yes, that not only means no bread, but all the products that contain any wheat, such as Campbells soup. I am overwhelmed with the changes I must make to my diet -- but I am so glad to know why I have been plagued with numerous illnesses all my life. They are all rooted in Celiac Disease -- from my asthma to the osteoporosis to the chronic fatigue to the debilitating stomach problems, and perhaps the fibromyalgia, too.

I never realized how many packaged products have gluten in them -- from Campbell Soup to ketchup to tuna. Often it is the added "flavorings" and the msg. Sometimes it is hidden -- and I have not yet learned the many, many names it is hidden under. It took forever to learn to recognize all things derived from corn. Now I must learn the names of gluten derivatives, too.

Everything gluten-free offered in the stores is high in calories (like I really need to gain more weight), full of soy or corn (terrible allergy to both), or full of salt (instant blood pressure rise). So, I am having to learn to bake gluten-free bread and re-learn how to shop. So far, every gluten-free bread recipe has been a flop.

Anyway, as I said above, I am overwhelmed with it all. I already have had a plate overflowing with life's difficulties. 

I will probably be back blogging by summer when I have hopefully resolved my own situation and the political season is in full swing. Until then:

‘Happy trails to you, until we meet again.’

Broken bootstraps

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

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? 

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."

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.