cast a shadow

Hey, Republican - reconcile this...

2010-12-09T22:14:00.004-05:00

With the elections just two years away, campaign season will soon be in full swing. Dems should be armed with questions that cut through the muddled, nonsensical thangs that are so much of the R philosophy and that will separate the women from the girls. Or, in the R's case, the old white men from the other old white men. And the young beauty queen. Is it just me, or does the Republican party sound like your typical strip joint? (I don't intend to insinuate that Sarah Palin is a stripper, or any other degrading sex object. I respect her as a woman and former Governor, who quit halfway through her first term. On second thought... that's worse.) Some ideas:

Stem Cell Research

Scientists generally agree that embryonic stem cell research poses the greatest promise for uncovering a new way to heal people from diseases like cancer and injuries, including spinal injuries that result in paralysis. If your daughter / son was in a car accident and they became paralyzed from the neck down due to a spinal injury, would you still oppose embryonic stem cell research that could one day allow your child to walk once again and to play with your grandchildren? Would you oppose this research that could allow your own child to lead a normal life, out of the confines of a wheelchair?

Abortion

1) You are vehemently opposed to abortion on the grounds that it is the taking of a human life. If your daughter became pregnant as a teenager, would you demand she have an abortion or would you just talk with her about this choice? If you wouldn’t demand it, why do you seek to demand it for every daughter in the country?

2) I understand that you are someone who believes that abortions are the murder of a fellow human. Given that abortions are occurring everyday across America, do you believe there is a genocide going on in your own country? And would you intervene militarily, if need be, to save these human lives? Would you intervene militarily in foreign nations that allow for abortions, since you truly believe these are human lives being lost?

Torture

1) If US forces captured a high level al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan with potentially valuable information on future planned attacks, what if water-boarding doesn’t yield results? Would you allow our forces to pull their fingernails off or surgically remove limbs if conventional interrogation techniques did not work? And if not, why would you put American lives at risk just to uphold the human rights of a single terrorist?

2) Would you permit water-boarding or other forms of torture to be employed on American criminal suspects in local police stations across the country if the suspect had information that could save lives? If not, why not?

Sexual Orientation

1) So much of politics is considering the world from someone else's shoes. If your son or daughter were gay, would you be disappointed? And would you sit them down and explain to them why you don’t believe they should ever have the right to get married?

2) As a gay man, I am telling you that I never chose to be gay. I grew up in a normal two parent household in the suburbs, went to public schools, and played with toy trucks as a kid. My father was a journalist who loves basketball and my mother a preschool teacher and small business entrepreneur. Like many gay people, I spent many years wishing I weren’t gay, trying not to be gay, because people in society like you told me it wasn’t normal, that it wasn’t natural, and that I had a choice. Do you still think being gay is a choice and do you think that message coming from many national leaders is harmful to children and encourages prejudice at all levels of society?

3) If you are open to the idea that being gay is a choice, when did you choose to be straight? And could you choose to be gay right now? If so, my number is 555-658-5326.

4) Do you believe there is rampant homophobia in America, and if so, do you see it as a problem?

Taxes

1) Due to the estate tax, when someone dies, all of their money over the $5 million mark will be taxed at 35% once it is inherited by their heirs, and I understand you are opposed to this tax. At a time of record deficits, why do you believe a person should not pay any taxes on the money they inherit above $5 million, while a working mother making $35,000 each year who doesn’t come from a wealthy family should pay taxes on her hard earned income?

2) You seem to believe that taxing wealthy Americans to pay for programs for the poor is a destructive redistribution of wealth. At a time when the financial divide between rich and poor in America is setting records - with the wealthiest 1% owning more than the bottom 50% of Americans combined - do you believe that taxes should be raised on the poor so they can finance their own social programs?

3) Much has been made of the statistic that 50% of Americans are too poor to pay federal income taxes. Does this statistic outrage you? If so, which part is outrageous - that 50% of Americans are that poor, or that the wealthier 50% of the country has to pay federal income taxes? Would you suggest raising taxes on the poorest Americans to rectify this divide?

4) Do you support the flat tax? If so, wouldn’t that be the largest tax increase in history on the middle class and an enormous tax break for the wealthiest? If not, what do you say to Republicans who would accuse you of punishing the rich by making them pay a higher tax rate than the poor pay on some of their income?

5) Most economists agree that unemployment insurance is an exponentially greater economic stimulator than tax cuts for wealthy people. In the name of stimulating the economy, why do you support debt financed tax cuts for the rich but insist on paying for unemployment benefits with cuts in federal programs?

6) Since President Bush lowered taxes and then initiated two wars, do you believe we should ever raise taxes again in order to pay for those wars or should we always just cut spending on domestic priorities when we are forced into foreign conflicts?

Gun Rights

Do you believe Americans should be allowed to own pistols, machine guns, bazookas, and grenades since the Second Amendment guarantees the people “the right to keep and bear arms”? It does not specify which arms, so what information informed your activist interpretation of where the Constitution draws the line? At the time our nation adopted that amendment, with the blessing of our Founding Fathers, “arms” were quite different than they are now.

Climate Change

We all learned in elementary school about CFC’s from manmade products damaging the ozone layer. Did you believe the experts at the National Academy of Sciences when they came forward with this research? And if so, why do you not believe the National Academy of Sciences and NASA when they say that strong evidence from countless sources of research suggests that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are significantly contributing to climate change

Racism and Civil Rights

It wasn’t but half a generation ago in the 1970s that “Whites Only” signs really came down in the South. Do you believe racism is still a significant problem in America, and do you believe there is any lasting fallout from the very recent days of impoverished segregation that lingered for over a century after slavery was abolished? If so, is there anything the government can do about it, seeing as the hangover poverty among this community is largely considered to be a product of systemic policies and mainstream racism that disadvantaged black Americans for generations?

What Democrats Got Wrong: 2008-2010

2010-12-07T22:53:00.005-05:00

If Democrats wish to win coming elections, and I know I, for one, do, it would be productive to examine what we got wrong during these past two years in power so that we can practice what we preached to President Bush and learn from our mistakes. Here's my shot.

We need to 1) perfect the art of compromise, 2) offer more effective soundbites, 3) take better credit for our accomplishments, 4) focus our agenda more concisely, 5) assign blame where it belongs more frequently, and, finally, 6) we need to pick our heads up ‘cause we ain’t doing so bad.

1) If a compromise is made in Congress but no one knows it's a compromise, does it make a sound?

Dems, and President Obama in particular, made a bad habit of proposing moderate legislation riddled with good Republican ideas. Why is that a problem? Because the Republicans wouldn't support those ideas unless they were publicly able to take credit for them. Negotiation 101: come to the table with your ideal offer knowing it will be whittled down through negotiations. The stimulus, Wall Street reform, even health care reform were largely composed of moderate ideas that Republicans previously supported. When one third of the stimulus was devoted to tax cuts at its inception, what was President Obama expecting the Republicans to do? Be thankful that the President came out with such a moderate proposal?

When compromises were publicly made, Democrats did not highlight them, even when they were major. The public option was far and away the most controversial component of the Democratic health care proposal. Liberals held it up as a holy grail, conservatives pointed to it as a communist government takeover of the health care system. Wouldn't you know it, the public option was not in the final health care bill, but liberal Democrats neglected to even claim credit for conceding this high priority component in the name of bipartisanship. In fact, just about every provision in the health care bill that ultimately passed has been supported by Republicans in the past - even the mandate for Americans to purchase insurance was proposed by Republicans in the Senate in 1993 as an alternative to the Clinton proposal. That is the only provision in the Obama bill that receives less than 50 percent public support in polls, and it was previously proposed by Republicans.

2) Soundbites have cooties.

President Obama and Democrats seem loathe to resort to concise, persuasive statements that can be easily echoed by members across the spectrum in support of their policies. Why? Perhaps they feel that they are above this alleged dumbing down of complex issues, or perhaps they are just disorganized. Either way, the message does not always get out.

For example, the recession could easily have been dubbed "the Bush recession" to lay the blame where it belongs with every mention of the struggling economy, yet Republicans claimed Obama owned the economy after month three in office and Democrats never responded with a consistent message. As for the economic recovery, Clinton adviser James Carville, who coined the phrase "It's the economy, stupid," widely regarded as the most effective message of Clinton's campaign, rightly pointed out that Obama had the wrong message on the economy. Instead of saying, as President Obama does, "What we are doing is working," which could understandably anger the millions of Americans who haven't felt the "working" piece of that statement, Carville rightly suggests the message should be, "We are standing up to the Wall Street CEO's who got us into this mess, and we are fighting for you every day to make this economy better." The unprecedented 24/7 news cycle is having an untold effect on the public debate, and seems to make messaging on complex matters that much more difficult. President Bush was the first President to really be confronted with the ups and downs of that cycle, and President Obama is still experimenting with governing techniques that work in that environment.

3) We won! Unfortunately.

There are a whole host of Democrats in Congress who have decided upon the worst political strategy ever - support legislation, but only after letting it be known far and wide how absolutely terrible they believe that legislation is. Perhaps if Democrats learned to withhold some of their most aggressively angry whining about their fellow Democrats and proposals that they will ultimately end up supporting, they would be better off. Every individual member of the party is stronger when the party as a whole has a unified and clear message. By all means, air concerns and offer critiques, but maybe try to avoid damning legislation to hell before casting a vote for it. I'm looking at you, Mary Landrieu (and tons of House members) during health care reform. And Barney Frank with the Senate Wall Street reform bill. And Mary Landrieu again during the latest tax cut deal between President Obama and top Republicans. If you hadn't heard, she called the deal "almost morally corrupt," before adding, "If I end up voting for this bill..." I'm sorry, after calling it morally corrupt, voting for the deal is still an option?! Great way to build the public's confidence for a vote you are going to have to defend when you're up for reelection.

Keep the infighting to a toned-down minimum as much as possible, and try to stay positive while looking out for the interests of the home district.

4) Lack of focu... oh, oh, oh, something shiny!

A common criticism of the Democrats' recent performance is that the Dems were not focused on the priorities of the American people. In the midst of a fragile recovery, Democrats took on the broken health care system. I understand this concern, but I don't believe that tackling health care was the wrong decision for President Obama to make. Given that health care reform was his most ambitious, and perhaps most important, campaign promise, it would have been nothing short of criminally disastrous were he to avoid this issue while he had historic Democratic majorities in Congress and enough political capital to actually get it accomplished. That being said, politically speaking, there may well be a lesson to be learned here. Following 9/11, George W. Bush devoted several of the ensuing years in office almost exclusively to fighting terrorism, and, for a time, his singular focus worked for him because it was similarly the highest priority on the minds of the American people. There is always something to be said for simplicity and focus.

5) The other guy filibustered and it's all your fault.

One problem is the mindset of some citizen Democrats – we may forget how difficult governing can be in a Democracy, and too often, we have ended up blaming other Democrats for the obstruction by Republicans. This is in part a result of the failure of effective messaging from the Democratic party, but it's also a problem in its own right. We have little patience and at times seem to forget that, when change ultimately does happen in the form of legislation passing through Congress, it is the product of hours, days, months, or years of negotiations and consensus building - and ultimately, agreement.

Case in point, Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. President Obama is President, not dictator, and there are 60 Senators and 218 House members who also must support any given bill for it to pass. As for DADT, Republicans in the Senate have so far been intent on filibustering the repeal, going so far as to delay funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent this repeal from taking effect. All of this after President Obama has spoken forcefully in favor of repeal during his campaign, at public rallies, and in his State of the Union address earlier this year, worked with the military leadership to come up with a path to repeal, ordered the largest survey of the military ever to build support, instructed his Republican Secretary of Defense to rally support for the legislation in Congress and in the military, requested hearings be held on the issue, and asked repeatedly that Congress pass the repeal bill. Yet, the frustration among Democrats appears to be aimed at President Obama, of all people, and not at Senator McCain and his fellow filibustering friends.

It is important that we direct our anger at our opposition, our advice and advocacy toward our allies, and try to understand the positions of both. As Middle East envoy George Mitchell said of his experience with the Northern Ireland peace accord he helped broker years ago, "if the objective is to achieve a peace agreement, until you do achieve one, you have failed to do so. In a sense, in Northern Ireland, we had about 700 days of failure and one day of success." Wise words, Mr. Mitchell. Wise words. Let us not call ourselves failures every day we don’t succeed.

6) Last, and most importantly...

Put it all in perspective. Everything listed here as something Democrats at times got wrong is also something we often got right. And governing decisions are made after careful analysis of the realities of the moment – the future is unpredictable, so good decisions of the moment may prove to have been terrible decisions down the road, but what more can we do? These are also issues that every President and Congress wrestle with, some more successfully than others. None of these problems is unique to Democrats, or to President Obama.

The Democrats, led by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid, have accomplished great things for the American people at a pace unmatched in perhaps seven decades. Without reviewing all of the details of our accomplishments, it is safe to say that the economic stimulus plan, health care reform plan, and the Wall Street reform plan enacted by the Democrats (with the help of a few straggling Republicans) were each historic in their own right, and together are... ultra-historic. After fighting each of these massive battles in the midst of a faltering economy with unprecedented economic anxiety and a national unemployment rate of around 9.8 percent, President Obama maintains an approval rating of 45 percent or higher, depending on the poll - a rating greater than either Clinton or Reagan enjoyed following their first midterm losses in Congress. So chin up! We must be doing something right.

Tax Cuts for All! My 4 cents on why the latest Obama tax cut deal is all good

2010-12-07T22:51:00.002-05:00

1) From my liberal standpoint, the worst part of the deal is our ideological opposition to lower tax rates on the wealthy at a time when America needs to be as fiscally responsible as possible without damaging the economy. However, the tax rates are only extended for two years (not five or ten) at a cost of about $160 billion (including the lower estate tax rate), and in return, we got a host of needed middle class tax cuts, funding for unemployment insurance for a full year, hopefully avoided deadlock on the New START treaty and Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, and a major symbolic compromise with Republicans to follow up the disastrous midterms, giving moderates (if not liberals) a little more confidence in government, and in Obama.

2) Additionally, three other potential benefits of this deal: 1) the tax cuts for the wealthy are estimated to help create jobs to some degree, just not as high a degree as other stimulative measures would, including the unemployment insurance that is part of this deal. 2) Obama has disarmed the potentially effective Republican talking point that the recovery was not as robust as it could have been because Obama raised taxes. 3) The two year extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy ensures the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will be an issue during the next election, just as it was heavily debated in 2008 - and look who won that argument.

3) Down side - for the next two years, the richest Americans, who have more money in a society facing a greater class divide than ever before, will not be paying their fair share to our country at a time when our deficits are historically high and our economy is struggling to gain steam. The harm that comes with $160 billion over two years, however, in the grand scheme of things, is more in the form of psychological/ideological repugnance than actual long-term economic damage.

4) The alternative to this deal is NOT a better deal - other options likely would have been worse for the economy, psychologically abusive to the country, and politically damaging to the Democrats. This was (pathetically) the single most important item to Republicans in the last two years, and they were not about to let it go. Obama could have turned down any deal that extended tax cuts for the wealthiest people, which would have continued Republicans on the path of obstruction for the next two years and sent a message to the public that Obama is unwilling to compromise. The tax rates for the middle class may have expired, at least temporarily, if we couldn't get a vote to extend them, putting the country on a bit of a roller coaster ride in the middle of our fragile economic recovery, and START, DADT, and every other priority of the Democrats would have immediately gone by the wayside. With Republicans set to take the House come January 1, Democrats have very little leverage to work with and a limited time frame. Perhaps Obama ultimately could have gotten slightly more concessions from Republicans, but it is no sure thing, and it would have taken time and cost valuable capital better spent on other priorities, all for very little policy gain.

Sweet Links

2010-05-09T13:12:00.012-04:00

Illegal Immigration:
Undocumented Dreams
Boston Globe Opinion
April 28, 2010
By Steve Almond
Most of all, I’d suggest to those who trumpet the alleged evils of undocumented workers to spend some time in cities like El Paso and Juarez. What they’d discover is an ancient and enduring truth: immigration is not about spreading evil. It’s about poor people seeking to become less poor. It is about the very human beings whose honest labors built our nation, and whose dreams honor its most sacred tenets.

Crime and Punishment:

Norway Builds World's Most Humane Prison
Time
May 10, 2010
By William Lee Adams
It embodies the guiding principles of the country's penal system: that repressive prisons do not work and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society.

Obama Rules:
Obama Q&A with House Republicans. Awesome.
January 29, 2010
First two minutes are muffled. Def worth watching.

Manners:
The death of the RSVP
New York Times Opinion
March 14, 2010
By Rand Richards Cooper
What’s clear is how hard the R.S.V.P. rubs against the grain of contemporary life. In requesting people to anchor a plan in the distant future of a month hence, you are demanding a kind of navigation that Americans increasingly do not practice. We prefer to remain flexy, solidifying our plans incrementally as the date approaches. Let’s talk tomorrow. I’ll call you when I’m on the road. Cellphones in hand, we microadjust our schedules as they unfold around us. We’re like the air traffic controllers of our own lives.

Founding Fathers:
Immaculate misconception and the Supreme Court
Washington Post Opinion
May 7, 2010
By Joseph J. Ellis
the constitutional doctrine of original intent has always struck most historians of the founding era as rather bizarre. For they, more than most, know that the original framers of the Constitution harbored deep disagreements over the document's core provisions, that the debates in the state ratifying conventions further exposed the divisions of opinion on such seminal issues as federal vs. state jurisdiction, the powers of the executive branch, even whether there was -- or should be -- an ultimate arbiter of the purposefully ambiguous language of the document. Moreover, several of the most prominent Founders changed their minds in the ensuing years.

Stevens's Real Legacy: Why Empathy Matters
Newsweek
April 9, 2010
By Dahlia Lithwick
If John Paul Stevens's career stood for anything, it's the proposition that walking a few miles in the other guy's moccasins will always make you a better judge. As Americans now begin the ritual clamor for a court that looks more like them—for more racial, gender, and ethnic diversity at the court—it's worth taking a moment to recognize that often more than anyone else at the court, it was an 89-year-old white Protestant guy who devoted his judicial career to standing in the shoes of teenage schoolgirls, pregnant women, gay Boy Scout leaders, and poor African-Americans.

Citizens United: What is the First Amendment For?
New York Times Opinion
February 1, 2010
By Stanley Fish
The Majority believe that free trade in ideas with as many trading partners as wish to join in will inevitability produce benign results for a democratic society. And since their confidence in these results is a matter of theoretical faith and not of empirical or historical observation — free speech is for them a religion with long-term rewards awaiting us down the road — they feel no obligation to concern themselves with short-term calculations and predictions. Stevens also values robust intellectual commerce, but he believes that allowing corporate voices to have their full and unregulated say “can distort the ‘free trade in ideas’ crucial to candidate elections.” In his view free trade doesn’t take care of itself, but must be engineered by the kind of restrictions the majority strikes down. The marketplace of ideas can become congealed and frozen; the free flow can be impeded, and when that happens the only way to preserve free speech values is to curtail or restrict some forms of speech, just as you might remove noxious weeds so that your garden can begin to grow again. Prohibitions on speech, Stevens says, can operate “to facilitate First Amendment values.”

Economics:
Why the Obama Economic Plan is Working
Business Week
April 8, 2010
Michael Dorning
Little more than a year ago, financial markets were in turmoil, major auto companies were on the verge of collapse and economists such as Paul Krugman were worried about the U.S. slumbering through a Japan-like Lost Decade. While no one would claim that all the pain is past or the danger gone, the economy is growing again, jumping to a 5.6% annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses finally restocked their inventories. The consensus view now calls for 3% growth this year, significantly higher than the 2.1 % estimate for 2010 that economists surveyed by Bloomberg News saw coming when Obama first moved into the Oval Office. The U.S. manufacturing sector has expanded for eight straight months, the Business Roundtable's measure of CEO optimism reached its highest level since early 2006, and in March the economy added 162,000 jobs—more than it had during any month in the past three years. "There is more business confidence out there," says Boeing CEO Jim McNerney. "This Administration deserves significant credit."

Pursuit of Happiness:

What Makes Us Happy?
The Atlantic
June 2009
By Joshua Wolf Shenk
Last fall, I spent about a month in the file room of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, hoping to learn the secrets of the good life. The project is one of the longest-running—and probably the most exhaustive—longitudinal studies of mental and physical well-being in history. Begun in 1937 as a study of healthy, well-adjusted Harvard sophomores (all male), it has followed its subjects for more than 70 years.

common misunderstanding

2009-03-18T00:00:00.004-04:00

Progressive taxes in America do NOT mean that all income for wealthier people is taxed higher. We have a bracketed system, which means that people in the top tax bracket are only taxed at the top rate on their income that falls above the top bracket minimum. For example, no matter how rich they are, a married couple would be taxed at the 10% rate on the first $16,700 they make. Any income they earn between $16,700 and $67,900 is taxed at 15%. Any income they have in the next bracket will be taxed at 25%, followed by 28%, 33%, and 35% for any income over $372,500.

For 2008, the Federal tax brackets for a single (unmarried) person are:

1) 10%: from $0 to $8,025
2) 15%: from $8,026 to $32,550
3) 25%: from $32,551 to $78,850
4) 28%: from $78,851 to $164,550
5) 33%: from $164,551 to $357,700
6) 35%: $357,701 and above

And here is the breakdown of American wages by household (not individual):

28.22% earn less than $25,000 per year
26.65% earn between $25,000 and $50,000
18.27% earn between $50,000 and $75,000
10.93% earn between $75,000 and $100,000
15.73% earn over $100,000
Just a small fraction earn millions

bar stool economics

2009-03-16T22:02:00.006-04:00

Here is an interesting conservative story that's being forwarded around the internet. Below this one is my progressive rebuttal. The battle of the philosophies, made easy.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

###
###

Progressive version:

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer. A lot of beer. If they paid their bill the way fiscal Conservatives WANT us to pay our taxes (21% rate for everyone, which would amount to an enormous tax reduction for the richest and the largest tax increase in history for the poorest), it would go something like this:

The first four people (the poorest) make $50 a day and would pay $11.50, leaving them with $38.50 to survive.
The fifth makes $200 a day and would pay $42, leaving her with just $158.
The sixth makes $300 and would pay $63.
The seventh makes $400 and would pay $84.
The eighth makes $500 and would pay $105.
The ninth makes $1,000 and would pay $210, leaving her with $790.
The tenth man (the richest) makes $10,000 and would pay $2,100, leaving him with $7,900.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten people drank in the bar every day under this arrangement. The poor had to sacrifice birthday gifts for their children and healthcare for one member of their family in order to buy that beer. The wealthy still enjoyed their healthcare, college, 401k retirement savings, their gated home and clean and healthy organic lifestyle, and their yacht, but they couldn’t afford a second yacht because of that beer!

One day, the bar owner threw them a curve. Instead of paying 21% of their income each for the beer, they could each pay 15%! The bar owner proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The first four people (the poorest, most strapped for cash) save $3 (6% savings).
The fifth saves $12 (6% savings).
The sixth saves $18 (6% savings).
The seventh saves $24 (6% savings).
The eighth saves $30 (6% savings).
The ninth saves $60 (6% savings).
The tenth saves $600 (6% savings).

Each of the people had more expendable income than before. But while the poorest struggled to buy just one additional teddy bear for the new baby with the savings, the rich saved enough that they actually could afford that second yacht after all! In fact, they saved many times the sum of the poor people’s income, and that was just their savings!

However, despite the additional income, not everyone was better off. Even though the beer was cheaper, the healthcare assistance for the poor disappeared, the public transportation system in America deteriorated, the country could no longer invest in medical research or fund job training centers or police stations around the country. So, in actuality, the poor, who were the financially worst off to begin with, became even worse off, despite the extra $3 bucks a day they saved. Working class people also happen to represent the majority of America. Despite the crumbling surrounding community, the small rich minority were astronomically better off! Their healthcare rates didn’t change, they kept their Lexus, they could still afford college, and although they decided against buying the second yacht, because, why would you need two?, they were able to throw even more money into derivatives!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our fiscal conservatives want our tax system to work. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of their income in taxes, the people who pay the highest taxes are the only ones to benefit from a tax reduction, while the poor, struggling to get by to begin with, struggle even more regardless of whether taxes go up or down.

No one is attacking anyone for “being wealthy,” as some assert. (I wish I were rich, and I certainly wouldn't complain about my taxes if I were.) But the rich got rich in America, on the shoulders of their working class employees and using the infrastructure the working class have built and the security and structure America provides. Numerically equal tax rates do not amount to equal burden. It does not amount to "fairness." It utterly ignores the common good, and it is the antithesis of equal opportunity. The world just don’t work that way.

Nobody Special
University of New Hampshire alumnus
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, just think about it. You’ll get there. Doesn’t take a PhD, just some perspective.

the case for marriage

2008-04-19T22:24:00.005-04:00

Inspired by Barack Obama's speech on race...

Humanity's Self-Evident Truth

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…" It was by no mistake that these were the first words America spoke. This cause of "equality," of justice, was the purpose of the Revolutionary War when our ancestors and founding fathers took a brave stance against the tyrannical British King and in favor instead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "Equality" is the basis of Democracy, and more, it was the promise on which America was founded.

These self-evident truths, however, have not always been accepted; our nation's promise has not always been kept. Even today injustice persists, though enormous improvements have been codified into law and attitudes have changed over time. For close to a century after Thomas Jefferson declared these truths to be self-evident in 1776, slavery remained lawful and common. Women were unable to cast a vote in this Democracy until 1920 – for well over half of this nation's history. Marriage between blacks and whites was widely banned until 1967 – just 41 years ago. For a wide variety of causes, the civil rights movement that began with that Declaration on July 4th, 1776 has marched on in the direction of progress ever since.

Compared to those examples, the campaign for equal lesbian and gay rights - for my equal, axiomatic rights - has been no less gradual, generally more subtle, and often waged within the privacy of families rather than on the national stage. Homosexuals have traversed a rocky path of public perception, from "mentally ill" to "criminal" to "deviant" to "alternative in lifestyle." There is little doubt that today lesbians and gays are more understood and more accepted by more people than at any other time in our history. But still that inherent human truth on which our country was found continues to elude us.

We are treated as equals until our sexuality is the issue. Laws have been passed (and overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional) to regulate our sexual positions; to serve our country in the military, we must pretend to be someone we are not; in many states, employers can still fire us if they are bigoted against our sexual orientation and face no penalty; and gay marriage, as well as all the benefits that would accompany it, is banned in the vast majority of the country, thus ensuring we never can do that which is most American, most important – it ensures we can never begin a family with the one we love.

And on a more personal level, many of us are on the receiving end of a torrent of hatred, religious condemnation, and offensive judgments grounded in ignorance. We must come out every day of our lives to new people, always uncertain of what reaction to expect. We are harassed when we show affection for our partners in public. We are slandered by some of our own representatives in our government. We are called animals, criminals, and nasty epithets. Some of us are abandoned by our families when we confess to them our nature. Some of us encounter discrimination as physical harm.

All of this for merely living as we are, for loving as we know how.

Marriage equality is an ideal I believe to be central to the modern civil rights movement. As President Bush would agree, marriage and family build and strengthen American society. Marriage gives rise to family and signifies love and commitment the way no other institution can. The opportunity for lesbians and gays to live by the same laws as heterosexuals would be an opportunity to function within a common social tradition and to demonstrate our shared sentiments about love and life. Beyond the fact that it is our right, the commonality of marriage equality would serve to help humanize and normalize the gay community in the public arena.

Many in the gay community have been scolded for being too loud for the good of our own cause. We have at times been told we provoke our opposition by pursuing marriage equality when America is not ready. Perhaps we are terrible politicians. Our parades of pride in ourselves to counter the prejudices we daily face are interpreted by some as an affront to the masses. Hand holding disgusts onlookers. Our openness, communities, and cultures offend. We are told we are too pushy in our fight to claim our civil rights. Well, in my view, no person should have to live a political strategy to convince others that they are worthy of a right that is self-evident. No person should have to play politics before being allowed to live freely.

But as much as we may shudder at the idea that our equal opportunity is in the hands of Washington politicians, as impatient as we may be, we must come to terms with reality. Neither of the two dominant political parties in this country stand for marriage equality, though there are notable exceptions among individuals serving in public office who are to be commended for standing strong for what is right. And the Democrats thankfully band together to support non-discrimination laws and to prevent the Constitution from being altered for the very purpose of permanently ending all hope for marriage equality. We must also remember that politicians in Washington are elected because they best reflect the values of their constituents. If we wish to make progress, it is imperative that we continue to educate and advocate within the political arena as well as out. And to do so, we must be willing to make our case for justice in patient, political terms.

When it is said that marriage is largely a religious institution, we should acknowledge that the truth is being spoken. Millions of Americans deeply feel that their marriage is connected to their faith. People perform marriage ceremonies in churches, synagogues, mosques, every day. These ceremonies are certainly meaningful, spiritual; there is no denying a prominent link between the tradition of marriage and organized religion. And we must add that no church should ever be required to perform a ceremony that flies in the face of that church's beliefs, even if many lesbians and gays would take great pride in being included as part of such religious tradition.

The purpose of equality in marriage is by no means to encroach upon the freedom of any other. The right to worship freely, to speak freely, to feel freely is essential to the stated goal of this nation, and is in fact what proponents of marriage equality are promoting. But just as those who say religion plays no role are wrong, so are those who claim marriage to be determined by religion alone. Marriage is indeed also deeply linked to family and to American society, and as evidence of this, it is today a civil declaration, recognized by our government and awarded with legal partnership rights.

Included with marriage is the right for a wife to visit her ailing husband in the hospital. Included with marriage is the right to live in America with a partner from a foreign country. Included with marriage are rights over inheritance, medical decisions, tax benefits, and taking leave from work to care for an ill spouse. Allowing gays to marry in America's courts or in churches that support and consent to marriage equality is no breach of religious boundaries or freedoms. It is upholding the rights and freedoms that make this nation great for all people.

When it is claimed that civil unions offering the full menu of rights that accompany marriage is “enough,” we should speak up. Civil unions can never be equal, and therefore can never satisfy this right – all people are entitled to the very same right to marry. Civil unions are undoubtedly a step closer to recognizing civil rights for lesbians and gays, but it is not “enough” because it is not the same. As a great and wise leader of a civil rights movement once famously observed, "equality is not only a matter of mathematics and geometry, but it's a matter of psychology. It's not only a quantitative something but it is a qualitative something; and it is possible to have quantitative equality and qualitative inequality. The doctrine of separate but equal can never be."

The eloquent words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are no less true today than when they were spoken. Civil unions are established to appease gay couples hoping to one day marry. They are absent history and tradition, void of emotional connotations, sterile imitations of the real deal that all other relationships are entitled to. Even if they were nationally recognized, the mere fact that they would create a separate institution specifically for gay couples is inherently unequal. The distinction is one created by those very advocates of civil unions claiming there is no difference, but gays should not be allowed to marry. Then we say, if there is truly no difference, then surely no distinction is necessary.

And yes, when it is asked what distinguishes gay marriage from marriage between human and dog, a response is warranted. To ask such a question requires a warped vision of our Constitution, of humanity. Offense may not be intended, but those who ask must get how it is painful for me to have my relationship with my partner compared to an owner's relationship with a dog. It implies that allowing marriage between loving and committed gay people will somehow justify marriage with other species of creature, as if there is no difference.

Such an uneducated and confused question warrants a question in return. I would ask: Should crocodiles have the right to a speedy trial because gay citizens do under the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution? Since homosexuals are entitled to obtain a gun permit, would anyone suggest we extend that right to dogs? When our founding fathers declared our inalienable right of equal treatment under the law, did they mean equal treatment under the law for humans as well as horses? It is time to put to rest this thoughtless assertion that the right of two people to marry is a "slippery slope" to the right to marry barnyard animals.

I submit instead that barring homosexuals from the institution of marriage is a slippery slope leading back to a time when marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I submit instead that if we are to continue to make exceptions under the law as to what group of our countrymen is entitled to what right, we are slipping back down the mountain face of history that we as a nation have taken such great pain and spilled so much blood to climb.

Marriage is more than a word, as we all agree. It is more than tradition, and more than tax benefits. And it is more than a civil right. The right to marry is the right for two people who deeply care for each other to decide together to form a family. It is about a lifetime spent with a husband or wife, in love and devoted, in sickness and in health, sharing moments and memories until death do they part. It is about cherishing our life partners, our soul mates, and celebrating a connection between two people that is perhaps more special, more meaningful than anything else we will encounter in this life. And the ability to find that unique connection transcends race; it transcends religion; it transcends class and age; it transcends sexual orientation. Lesbians and gays do share the ability to love, and so we fight for the right to honor it.

I cannot imagine living life as anyone other than me. This is very personal. I cannot help but feel that I have been left out of the great American dream because of who I am. People prejudge me. People criticize me for loving the good, smart person I do. I hear that 20% of all homeless children in this nation are homosexuals abandoned by their families upon coming out, and I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to consider myself lucky to have an accepting and loving family. I always thought that acceptance and love in the face of anything was what defines family.

There are challenges and discriminations we all face, and being lesbian or gay in this society is but one of many triggers. Racial tensions still simmer, the class divide continues to grow, even comparative health and attractiveness are determining factors in people’s lives. We all face our share of challenges to our personalities and beliefs. Amidst it all, we can always find common interest with each other. People are not either black or gay; either poor or white; either obese or conservative. Life must never devolve into a battle of "us" versus "them," because we are them and they are us. We are all people, entitled to a level of respect and compassion. We are all Americans, inherently deserved of American rights and the pursuit of American dreams.

And so the marriage equality movement, made up of millions of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, is reaching for this nations highest ideals. We reach for a common purpose, a common freedom, a common humanity. In 1776, it was declared to be "a Law of Nature and Natures God" that we are all created equal. Today, let us live as equals.

brilliant ad

2008-03-25T17:25:00.004-04:00

Mr. W

It comes together... Not to raise expectations, but it's incredible.

top secret: the gay agenda

2008-03-22T20:07:00.002-04:00

Equality.

my god

2008-03-21T08:11:00.001-04:00

I believe in God. How could anyone not? We are the ultimate proof. The universe is without limit. We evolved as a species from single-celled organisms out of the depths of the ocean. The elements of this world, from gravity to oxygen to DNA, are strange and magnificent, unlikely and flawless. The complexity of our mere being is beyond the scope of fathomability, save to say that the reality in which we function is no more than a single time and place out of the vastness that is existence. Divinity is not a concept of which I can claim to be unfamiliar - it extends before our eyes and inside our hearts and minds. Nature is truly an inspiration.

So, as I just hinted, the God I believe in is not the stereotypical bearded, wise man depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Instead, God is the force of energy that propels all of the laws of the world to work together. I suppose if I were to depict my God on a canvass, I would paint a tree in a meadow. Serene, beautiful, and powerful, Mother Nature would lie among the branches and gaze out over her kingdom. I have come to use the terms `God' and `nature' interchangeably. Shakespeare was right - that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

It is a view of the world that I have developed after considering many philosophical possibilities and common religious perceptions. God provided us humans the ability to think for ourselves, to ask questions, and to search for our own answers. These very qualities distinguish humanity on Earth in a class of its own. My questions have led me to an understanding of the universe that brings me great comfort and provokes me to make the most of what I've got.

Even though I do not worship a traditional image of God, I still believe, as do a number of organized religions, that we are never alone - our common humanity and circumstances connect us all. I believe that it is not the job of God to ensure justice, but rather God has given us the tools of thought and soul that assign justice as our own responsibility. Life is not fair unless we, as brothers, sisters, and neighbors, make it so. We have come to own the ability to think rationally and to reason right from wrong without the help of any higher authority.

Rest assured, living without angels and supernatural miracles is not a meaningless, lonely, and dreary existence as some in society assert. I, personally, find meaning in my life through relationships with my friends, foes and family. The world would only lack meaning if there were no other people whom with I could experience life. I believe that life continues after death, but not in a heaven or hell. We each will leave parts of ourselves behind with those who survive us, and our influence will pass down through the ages, leaving only history as our judge.

I believe that we each are a part of something greater than ourselves. Individual life is extraordinary but fleeting, while life itself is an unrelenting force to be reckoned with. Life beyond ourselves is a phenomenal reality that we have the honor and opportunity to affect.

These beliefs, which I am sure are shared by many others, guide my decisions and place on me a sense of obligation to others. This world is an inspiring place, greater than any single institution or individual, yet upholding each entity as fundamental all the same. My God may be without intention and lacking a grand plan, but that means the future is left to us.

update on the ban on gay blood donors

2008-03-16T19:49:00.006-04:00

The Food and Drug Administration shockingly denied all scientifically and medically based appeals in favor of reducing the ban on sexually active gay blood donors from a lifetime ban to a year ban.

The permanent ban remains intact as of March 16, 2008.

This is not the first time the FDA has ruled in favor of Bush ideology over scientific evidence, and it raises significant questions as to the politicization of the Bush appointed FDA leadership.

ABC News article here.