Bread and Circuses and Showtunes

A very intelligent young man of my acquaintance asked not too long ago, “Can somebody somewhere tell me where I can find a news source that has the depth and breadth of reporting that I want without the blatant and unabashed in-story advertising for corporations? “

There is, of course, only one answer.  There isn’t one.  There is no one single source where one can find both depth and breadth of reporting or information in the world.  There really never has been, but if we pretend for the sake of discussion that there was at one point, there certainly isn’t any more.  If one is going to be moderately well-informed on one subset of topics then one will have to spend a lot of time filtering out the detritus.  If one is going to be moderately well-informed on a wide variety of subjects then one will have to work very hard, indeed.  And, if one is going to be truly informed on many subjects, then one will have be able to either be independently wealthy in order to devote one’s time to achieving that aim, or one will have to be able to earn a living doing so.

It is precisely this which allows the system to have developed to the point that it has.  Bread and circuses.  Keep the “unwashed masses” distracted with bread and circuses, though truthfully these days it’s more more about tits and asses.  “Mitt Romney and Barack Obama?  No, thanks.  I’m much more interested in Russell Brand’s latest antics and Kim Kardashian’s ass.”

There is nothing wrong with entertainment.  Entertainment of whatever type is a good thing.  It relaxes and eases the mind.  It enables us to refocus on the things that are important.  However, what does become a problem is that all too often, and over the last century in particular, as the flow of information has become more immediate, we have allowed entertainment to become dominant.  The History Channel, for example, presents history and pseudo-history as edutainment.  E!, TMZ and a hundred other shows are devoted to nothing but following the ridiculous antics of people who are famous for nothing other than being famous, or at best, for being entertainers.

Many people do not pay attention to the actual news.  The local and national news shows contain very little actual news, and are more about entertainment and crime blotters.  What little news is there is often lost.  The 24 hour news cycle is a farce, because the little tid bits of news that come out are blasted to the corners by the entertainment of circuses and crime, the modern arenas of sports and tits and asses.  (I have long joked about starting a new news service called, “This is not news”.  I would watch the mainstream news and then send out a report of all the items that they showed which didn’t actually qualify as news.  The problem is that it would be such a long list, and it would bore more people than it would interest.)

Which brings us back to the original question.  Where does one go to find real reliable news?  You cannot go to just one source.  One has to go to a variety of sources.  Demonstrably, one cannot rely on “Fox News”.  Despite recent claims, it has been shown over and over again that they lie to their viewers and fail the most basic test of journalism, which is to inform their viewers.

Quoting from page 19 of the “Misinformation and the 2010 Election A Study of the US Electorate”

For each topic, the news source with the lowest level of misinformation among its daily consumers was as follows:

• most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created only a few jobs or caused job losses: MSNBC, 65% misinformed

• among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law, more think it will increase the deficit: Public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), 38%

• the bank bailout legislation (TARP) was passed and signed into law under Pres. Obama:MSNBC, 38%

• the US economy is getting worse: Public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), 34%

• the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts: MSNBC, 34%

• the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred under President Obama only: MSNBC, 32%

• since January 2009 the respondent’s federal income taxes have actually gone up: MSNBC, 27%

• it is unclear whether Obama was born in the US—or, Obama was not born in the US: Public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), 24%

• when TARP came up for a vote, Democrats were opposed or divided: Fox News, 21%

• when TARP came up for a vote, most Republicans opposed it: CNN, 28%

• it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending foreign money to back Republicans: Fox News, 23%

• most scientists think climate change is not occurring or views are divided evenly: MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), both 20%

In other words, they are all misinforming us, which we knew.  Again, you cannot rely on any one source to be even reasonably well-informed.  We can see though that some sources are more reliable than others.  Further, we can see that depending on the topic, some sources are more reliable than others.  This makes sense, given that it is easier to slant the truth in a particular direction depending on what the topic is.

A lot of people simply do not want to be informed.  They get overwhelmed and give up.  They get lost or  don’t know where to look.  They want the easy way out.  Or, maybe they want that one single source.  If they care, they want a source which is always reliable and always unbiased.  Again, it doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t exist because each news outlet is made up of people, and most of the outlets are now giant corporations with stock owners.  Companies which have as their primary purpose to make a profit rather than to fulfill a journalistic purpose.  While we can recognize and respect a need to return an operating expense so that they can stay in business, at least as long as they are functioning in a capitalist system, as long as a profit motive is ahead of a journalistic motive, we have a problem.  Woodward and Berstein did not investigate and uncover Watergate because of a profit motive.

What does exist though, and is very easy to find are outlets which are what more people really want these days. Outlets which do not actually inform, but that arm.  That arm with partial truths that reinforce what they already believe.  Outlets, in other words, which are biased in the same way in which the listener is already biased.

So, what is the answer?  If you’re going to be informed you have to avoid those sources which are known to be unreliable more often than not.  Faux News being the biggest offender.  NPR is the most reliable mainstream source.  From there you will have to look all over the place.  Al-Jazeera, alternet.org, alternativeradio.org, reddit, various blogs, Rolling Stone, news aggregators like Google, your local newspapers, and a thousand other sources.  And from those sources you will be able to piece together a small fraction of understanding.

Or, you can focus on a 55 hour marriage by a self-destructing pop star, or a 72 day marriage of a woman who is famous for being famous and who made enough for that wedding that she could feed some nations for several years.  Not that she would, mind you.  And, then, you can claim that it is allowing two men (or two women) who love each other to marry that is a threat to the institution of marriage.

Meanwhile, ignore that your government, you, are taking steps to further remove your freedoms, to reduce your freedom on-line, to install indefinite detention, to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians in 29 states, and a thousand other things that you don’t care about because American Idol is on….

Sorry to interrupt.  Please carry on.  How about them Yankees?  Oh?  Not doing well?  Sorry to hear that.

Being an active participant is a lot of work.

A question of faith

I generally have tried to stick to facts and primary sources here, and truth be told, I am not varying from that format today.  However, some of you may take issue with that statement.  I recognize that in advance.  It doesn’t change reality.  In fact, that is precisely what we’re going to address today.  Reality.

The simple truth is this.  Modern Conservatism is not based on logic and reason.  It is a religion.  It is based on a faith and belief which does not respond to the presentation of data and causal relationships when demonstrated.  This is the essential difference between Liberal and Conservative positions.

Really, it always has been.  Liberalism is based on scientific thought processes and evolving.  Seeing what isn’t working and finding a solution to make it better.  Conservatism, on the other hand, used to be based on holding on to what was known and trusted.  It was an unwillingness to try the new, because “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”  Modern Conservatism though is even worse.  Even in the face of the facts showing that it can’t be trusted, the dogmatic religiously held beliefs can’t be let go.  This does not imply that Liberal thought is incompatible with any religion any more than Conservative is incompatible with other religions.  It only indicates that sociopolitically, Liberals are more adaptable and better able to survive in the long run.  (The ‘fun’ part is that today’s Liberals are all too often tomorrow’s Conservatives.)

For example, the Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett (appointed to replace Jan Brewer when she became Governor in 2009) is still demanding of the state of Hawai’i confirmation of President Obama’s birth certificate, which the state of Hawai’i is saying he will need to prove a legitimate need for, again.  How many times do we have to go through this?  I have been abundantly clear that I am not an Obama fan, nor am I even a supporter of the Democratic party, since I am actually a Liberal, but why are we still wasting time on this?  Hawai’i has repeatedly confirmed he was born there and he did finally release his full birth certificate.  So, again, why are we still having these discussions?  At an official level even?  Because for many on the far right, this is an article of faith.  It is an article of faith that Obama wasn’t born in the US and is therefore an illegitimate pretender to their throne.  No amount of presentation of fact will convince them otherwise.  Let us not forget that they ignored the fact that we knew for certain that John McCain was born in Panama, and thus there are legitimate questions that could have been raised about his eligibility to serve as POTUS.

Another example is the experiment with supply side economics of the last 40 years, and particularly of the last 12.  This is the true heart of the modern “Conservative position, and they have failed utterly.  The beloved banks and other corporations of the far right have failed to thrive under these policies, and, in fact, would have failed to survive if not for a bail out from the rest of us.  The “free market” failed, and when it did, what did the Conservatives do?  Did they stand by their espoused principles and let those businesses fail?  Absolutely not!  They leapt in to save them.  To the tune of $700 billion, in the first round alone!  Then, not only did they not learn from this and adjust their policies, but they continue to insist that these policies must be continued, and even strengthened.  “We haven’t done enough!” they cry.  The icing on that cake is that then, the far right Republicans use this as an attack point on the center-right Democrats, when in truth it was passed first under the Republican administration and then continued under the Democrat administration.

As has been demonstrated, over and over again, these policies not only don’t work, but they are actually the cause of the economic crisis we’ve been facing.  These policies created false bubbles and then when they collapsed, the right screamed that the solution was to use the same policies which created the bubbles in the first place.  They are incapable of achieving long term success.

We have to rehash the same arguments over and over again, because we are not actually having an argument or a debate.  We are foolishly struggling to attempt using reason to convince someone to change their religion.  So, the question is, what brings on a religious conversion?  Fear, obviously has worked on a great number of people, but as a liberal we choose not to use fear.  That is a tool of the right.  Hope?  Well, hope works but it’s a slow dull tool that only works when the more base needs on Maslow’s hierarchy have been met.  Given the current environment in America, a lot of people have been taken over by their pressing economic needs (actual or perceived) or the fears which have been so carefully inculcated by the two dominant wings of the monolithic party, people are too preoccupied with their basic needs.  So, what are we going to do?

I was rereading a 77 year old anti-war brochure by a highly decorated USMC Major General named Smedley Butler, called War is a Racket.  I was struck by many points in it that are relevant to today.  Not from an anti-war perspective, though I am.  (Honestly, I believe that the vast majority of people of all political persuasions are.  I sincerely believe that it is a very small percentage of people who are actually pro-war.  Unfortunately, there is a much larger percentage who are persuaded by fear, but I digress.)  What struck me though was how much of it was relevant to our problems from an economic and political stand point.  Not only the famous Eisenhower quote warning of the military industrial complex that I referenced last week, but through our entire economy.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.

Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have used this fear to keep America on a war footing for decades.  Whether it be the War on Drugs, the Cold War, the War on Terror, or what have you, by keeping the people constantly distracted and afraid, then it feeds into the bubble of higher profits.  The real difference over the last 40 years is that the far right has succeeded in removing any responsibility for paying for this.  They are succeeding with their “Starve the Beast” campaign to bankrupt America.

In the short term, there really isn’t much we can do except to keep fighting the good fight.  In the long run though, history is a clear march of progress.  There are bumps in the road.  Some of them are quite severe.  (Dark ages any one?  Brought on by a radical conservative reaction!)  In the end though, we as a species continue making progress.  Or, we will die out.  Those are really the only two choices.

In 2006 at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, Stephen Colbert put it quite nicely in his disarmingly humorous way, “And, reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

The Soul of a Party

There are those who still believe that the Democratic party can represent the liberal positions in America.  In fact, there are still those who still somehow believe that the current Democratic party does actually represent the liberal positions in America today.  This is really ludicrous.  There are the occasional positions which do qualify as center-left which the Democrats loosely support, but there are very few, if any, which the party has supported broadly and seriously which actually qualify as liberal in the last 30 or so years.

Any party will have some variation.  That is to be expected, of course.  It is normal and healthy even.  But, when a party ranges from center to center-right, and then the far right tries to label it as liberal, well, “Houston, we have a problem.”  Of course, it’s only a problem when the public buys in.  And, that is precisely what the public has done, because the media has been complicit in the game.  Whether that is through laziness or ignorance, I honestly don’t know, but the impact has been the same.

There are a few candidates out there though who cast themselves in with one party or the other only because they know that the majority of the voters firmly believe that any vote for a “third party” is a wasted vote.  The majority of voters have not yet recognized that the true wasted vote, and the wasted political dollar, is the one cast to the “two major parties.”  These are candidates, like Ron Paul on the far right, who still maintains that he is a Libertarian (the refuge of the truly far right and a few extremely socially liberal and otherwise politically ignorant persons, or socially liberal and extremely far right fiscally, which is a cop out position), but run under a party banner in order to try to take advantage of the machine and to not lose voters who automatically dismiss the “third party” candidates.

Today though, let’s take a look at two candidates that are running under the Democratic banner.  One that actually qualifies as a progressive liberal and one that is clearly not.  Our regressive candidate is Nathan Russo, running for U.S. House of Representatives Georgia District 1.  Our progressive candidate is Nicholas Ruiz, III, running for U.S. House of Representatives Florida District 7.

This is not about personality, education, or even experience.  However, should you wish to compare those things you can find that information on their sites, linked above.  This is strictly about comparing their platforms and positions as staked out on their sites.  Russo’s platform is found here and  here, and all quotes below are taken directly from there.  Ruiz’ platform is found here, and likewise all quotes below are taken directly from there.

And I would take our National Guard soldiers and put them on the boarders until we could approach a near 100% closure for illegal aliens.

Curtail use of National Guard troops in Ongoing Military Actions by increasing army size through draft initiative.

Promote the introduction of a bill to reintroduce the draft for all men (after they have completed high school or are over the age of 18-whichever come first by lottery) to increase size of army and let National Guard patrol our boarders.

(I am going to leave aside the need for spelling education.)

These are not liberal, or even center-right positions.  These are dangerously right positions.  These are taken directly from Nathan Russo’s platform.  Reinstate the national draft?  Excuse me?  First, the draft is still in place.  That is why all young men are required to sign up with selective service at 18.  So, we’ll ignore the ignorance of the law for the moment.  Second though, and more importantly, because I understand what he actually means, which is that he wants to actually start reimplementing the draft.  And, why?  To INCREASE the size of the military.  Increase it?  Really?

Now, look just a wee bit closer.  What did he say?  “after they have completed high school or are over the age of 18-whichever come first by lottery”  Whichever comes first?  So, first, we’re throwing back to excluding women from this requirement.  So, apparently this policy will remain sexist.  Second, if a young man turns 18 but hasn’t graduated high school and his number comes up, too damn bad.  Get your ass in the military, boy!  *sigh*  Has this man thought through what he’s saying?

Even a self-described “progressive Republican” in his final address as president in 1960 warned against this kind of foolishness:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Now, to attempt to seal the borders in this way is not only not a liberal approach to the situation, but it is a laughably ineffective solution.  And, then what?  Are we going to keep these troops on the border forever?  It’s not an actual solution.  It is a dog and pony show of epic proportions.

Another example from Russo:

We need to review the loop holes that allow American companies to move their headquarters offshore to avoid paying taxes i.e Transfere Pricing Arrangements through offshore subsidiaries. Most corporations in America never pay the 35% corporate tax but somewhere in the range of 20-25% which is similar to rates of other western countries and China. So if we remove the loopholes and return the corporate tax rates to this range maybe we can get the Corporations to bring the jobs back to America.

Okay.  This starts off center-right.  Closing loopholes seems pretty reasonable, but then he starts showing that far right leaning again.  Reducing the rate even further?  So, the net effect is to leave it precisely where it is.  What then is the point?  I am really not sure.  I know though what the effect would be.  The effect would be to actually cut jobs.  It would cut accountant and tax lawyers.  I am not a fan of tax lawyers, necessarily, but unless there is a reason to cut jobs, there is no benefit to this position, and what it appears to be is a sneaky presentation of a far right position.

While Liberals and Conservatives agree that there is fat in the Federal budget, that Russo would reference:

Ask Tom Coburn- Senate Republican

Tom Coburn well known for his fiscal and social conservatism is an odd choice.  See where we often disagree is where the bloat is.  It is clear from the parts of Russo’s platform above that he doesn’t see any bloat in the military and, in fact, wants to increase it.  That, my friends, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is nothing but a conservative, and a very far right conservative position.

In fairness, Russo does have some interesting and center-left ideas in his platform, as well.
But real immigration reform means redlining the bureaucratic paperwork in Washington to make it easier for our farmers to bring foreign field workers to this country and develop a healthcare fund for them that both the worker and the farmer would contribute to. The farmer could take a 1 and ½ time tax credit for his contribution and the foreign worker would not be a burden on our healthcare system any more.

This is an interesting idea.  It is not a truly liberal idea, but it is not the far right ideas that we’ve seen above.

Another good idea that Russo has on his platform and that mainly I put here because I think it should be shared, is:

Introduce a bill eleminating Presidential Signing Statements

I am not sure that counts as a liberal idea, because to me it is just a good idea.  However, as I said, I think it needs to be spread around!

Now, let’s look at our other Democratic candidate’s platform.

I’ll start a New Deal Caucus in our U.S. House of Representatives – The New Deal Caucus will embody every successful aspect of FDR’s New Deal, with upgrades for the 21st century circumstances that we face. A primary component of the New Deal Caucus agenda, would be to implement a new Works Progress Administration, that puts people to work doing jobs they can do, to help our country and to help one another to survive, prosper and move ahead in these difficult times.

That’s a big claim.  To start a New Deal Caucus would require others to join in.  We’ll leave that aside for the moment, because what matters to this discussion is that his platform is the claim that he will!  This is progressive.  This is Liberal.  Even though it is a throw back to an earlier time, it is still a progressive solution to our current issues.  To create a new Works Progress Administration is an idea that should have been done already.  That is precisely what should have been done with the stimulus package.  America has a crumbling infrastructure.  Our bridges and roads are falling to pieces.  We could have put people to work rebuilding  these.  This is a liberal idea.  This is problem solving rather than sticking one’s head in the sand.

We need to harness the power of the financial Market (i.e. Wall Street) for the Public – I will support and/or sponsor legislation for the creation of a Public Trust, that is, a 10% issuance of public shares of all publicly traded companies, and a 10% issuance of all tradable derivatives (e.g. crude oil, gold, etc.) for the financing of public interests (e.g. healthcare, education, social security, etc.). The financial bailouts of 2008-2009 have proven that we have the political will to connect the Market sphere to the Public sphere in ways previously unimaginable, for the benefit of financial stability and reinvestment in American interests. If the American government (i.e. public) can help to support the financial markets, the financial markets can reciprocate the favor. The Market should work for the Public, as well as the reverse.

This is both brilliant and liberal.  If we can bail out the markets, then we can make the markets work for us.  We have been investing in the markets for years.  All of our 401(k)s, money markets, pensions, etc are invested in the markets.  We bought into Detroit, the banks etc when we bailed them out.  Now, why wouldn’t we do this?

Equality – I am absolutely in favor of equality for same sex marriage rights in every conceivable fashion. It’s one of the great civil rights questions of our era – and like other civil rights battles before it, total equality is the only answer.

There is no more liberal position.  Every movement towards equality has been brought to you by liberals.  It has been fought against by conservatives.  This is not an attack.  It is simply a statement of fact.

Every single position on Ruiz’s platform is actually a liberal position. It is a position that I can whole-heartedly support.  My one regret is that I neither get to vote for Ruiz, nor against Russo.  They are simply two candidates that have come to my attention for various reasons.  However, should you be in their districts, I do hope you will take these facts into consideration.

Reagan the moderate?

Let me be clear from the outset.  I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40^th President of the United States of America.  I think that it is very clear that the man did a lot of damage to this country.  Certainly there are a few positive things that can be said of him, but I am sure if we looked hard enough we could find positive things to say about anyone.  And, I am one of those who really does believe that he was really too far gone by the time he was president to actually be making very many decisions himself directly.  I tend to believe him when, during the Iran-Contra disgrace investigations, he repeatedly said, “I don’t recall.”

Having said that, today’s point is to illustrate fairly clearly that the demi-god of the right, Reagan would by today’s standards be considered too liberal to get a seat at the conservative table, much less be considered a conservative leader.  Let’s look at some examples.

Pro-choice/Anti-choice – In today’s world, this is a litmus test for many on the right.  “Are you opposed to a woman’s right to choose?  Would you support all moves to overturn Roe v Wade?”  So, what was Reagan’s record?

In 1967, Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act while governor of California.  While this was a move he later came to claim to regret, it was significant in that it dramatically increased women’s rights and made abortions safer.  It also increased the number of abortions in the state from approximately 5000 to over 100,000.  This was later followed by a clear recanting of this position, but simply having done this would have disqualified him forever more in today’s conservative world.

Can you imagine a Republican/conservative presidential nominee today who was not, at least publicly, staunchly anti-choice?  I know they’ll call themselves “pro-life”, but they give up the right to that title when they also support the death penalty and the movement as a whole gave up the right to that title in the 1980s when members started killing doctors and there was fairly widespread support of it.  There is still fairly mainstream support for it!

Taxes – Grover Norquist is one of the most powerful men on the right of whom most people have never heard.  Since, 1985 Norquist has managed to twist arms and exact a pledge against raising taxes from so many Republicans that he has played King maker.  He has mythologized it to claim that he came up with the pledge when he was 12 years old.  Here’s the list of 2012 candidates that have signed, just to illustrate the reach today.  If a candidate refuses to sign, then Norquist supports his opponent and funnels massive amounts of money and other resources in to defeat the resister.

“In the 112th Congress, 238 House members and 41 Senators have taken the pledge. On the state level, 13 governors and 1249 state legislators have taken the pledge.”

The pledge reads in part:

          ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates

I will leave aside the ridiculousness of this position for another time and discussion, and simply compare this to Reagan’s own positions, as that is my point today.  As we discussed in a previous blog (Abe Lincoln paid $1,296 in income taxes in 1864), the top marginal tax rate when Reagan took office was 70%.  Reagan came into office promising to reduce taxes, and he did.  Dramatically.  He then had to continually raise taxes.  A total of 11 times, and close tax loop holes like he did with the Tax Reform Act of 1986.  The two things that Norquist has squeezed out of the Republican party in the intervening years.

Where are the modern Republicans/conservatives that are willing to raise taxes or close loop holes in order to deal with the mess we’re in?  To pay for the two wars we fought?  To pay for the prescription drug coverage that was needed, “after all, Republicans created it”, and enacted under George Bush, but was not paid for? That would be far too liberal for a modern conservative, but that is precisely what their hero Reagan did.

Immigration – The conservatives have stood firmly against any “amnesty” for the last 20ish years.  They have used this to block every serious attempt at compromise from the center-right (Democrats) to reach a “solution” to the undocumented immigrant “problem” in the US.  At another time we’ll get into the issues surrounding all of that.  However, while the conservatives rallying cry on this issue has been “No amnesty!”, in 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act.  This act gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants AND their families that had been in the country prior to 1982.

Again, do you see any modern conservatives being willing to allow for this?  If it is even remotely suggested, then that person is attacked for being “outside the mainstream” and being a liberal.

LGBT Equality – Though we now see the advent of the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, it is still very difficult to argue that the modern conservative movement is not solidly and broadly opposed to LGBT equality in any form.  While we cannot argue that Reagan was pro-LGBT equality, we do find interest facts.  For example, Reagan was instrumental in defeating the 1978 Proposition 6 in California which would have allowed the firing of teachers for being gay or lesbian.  He also was the first president to host an openly gay couple at the White house when for Nancy’s 60^th birthday party, they hosted Ted Graber and Archie Case in the guest suite.  Hell, he even was the first president to give the highest possible security clearance to an openly gay intelligence officer!  In the days before  Bill Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was supposed to be such a bit step forward.  All of which are significant for the time.

We do, of course, have to contrast that with his administration’s delayed response to the AIDS epidemic that was coming on at the time, and his own prescription that abstinence was the best way to respond, which were both unacceptable.  As I said, we can’t argue that he was pro-LGBT equality, but he was by comparison a lot further along than most of the right is today.  Compare that to what happened in the last few days with Richard Grenell who was driven out of his position as Mitt Romney’s spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues because he is gay.  We can compare that with Renew America’s statements regarding Romney’s appointment of Grenell:

 Since, as the saying goes in D.C., personnel is policy, this means Gov. Romney has some ‘splaining to do. This clearly is a deliberate and intentional act on his part, since he was well aware of Mr. Grenell’s sexual proclivities and knew it would be problematic for social conservatives. It’s certainly not possible that there are no other potential spokesmen available, men who are experts in foreign policy and who at the same time honor the institution of natural marriage in their personal lives.

So this has all the appearances of a deliberate poke in the eye to the pro-family community, and a clumsy one at that, coming right on the heels of endorsements from Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas and the National Organization for Marriage, and right after the governor accepted an invitation to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University.

There was much about Reagan that would still be considered conservative even today.  These positions. though. are so “liberal” by today’s standards (even though they really aren’t), that the Gipper couldn’t even get a seat at the table with those who worship his name.  And, yet, the scariest part is that he has so much more in common with Obama, than their differences.

This is what I mean when I say that the right has been successful at dragging the political center to the right.  So far to the right that the “center” is now buried deep in “enemy” territory!  We have to reclaim the dialogue and let Liberal mean liberal again.  Not continue to allow them define liberal as center right!

The power and importance of the economic vote!

There are many types of voting.  We are typically focused on the political vote where we go into the booth and cast a ballot.  That is important!   It truly is.  However, we must never forget the other types of voting that we engage in much more frequently, and which are equally important.  In fact, for as long as money from corporations and the uber-wealthy can play an unlimited role, then other types of voting are more important.

Our economic vote is the most important.  Ask yourself this question.  Where do the corporations get the money to influence the campaigns and the elections the way that they do?  They get it from us.

We have some fundamental realities to deal with.  Most of us are frequently faced with a situation where a choice must be made and the deciding factor is “Which can I afford?”.  This is our economic need potentially outweighing our principles.

Another issue is that it is often difficult for the average consumer to identify where their dollars are going.  Who are they going to be supporting when they buy this particular item?  However, it is important to be as aware as possible.

Let’s take a few real examples.  From those examples, we can extrapolate out.  And, let me be clear, though it should be by now.  I support buying from small businesses whenever possible, but the same principles apply.  If you know that a small business or its owner violates the principles that you support, then you have the responsibility to shop elsewhere.  As an individual, you’re unlikely to make much impact on your own.  However, if we all do this, then the power of the group boycott comes into play and the impact can be quite large!  (Look for examples throughout history at the Montgomery Bus Boycott that really launched the Civil rights movement of the 50s & 60s, or the Grape Boycott of the 60s and 70s. or others.)

The Koch Brothers , David and Charles, are well known ultra right wing activists.  They are ridiculously wealthy having fortunes tied to manufacturing, trading, and investments.  Their primary activism has been in funding the astroturf Tea Party movement, PACs and in funding SuperPACs.  But, how would one, as an individual consumer, avoid contributing to them?  A lot of their products are industrial products and very hard to trace.  However, their paper products and a few other products are more readily identifiable and therefore avoidable.  You can easily vote with your dollars and keep some of your dollars out of their pockets, and thus start to defund some of their activities.  So, what products do the Koch brothers continue to make their billions off at the retail level?  Some very well known names.  Brands like AngelSoft, Quilted Northern, Brawnie and Dixie, for example.  A longer list can be found here.

Chick-Fil-A with those oh so yummy, and yet, really unhealthy original chicken sandwiches.  Personally, I can’t shop there.  I refuse to support a business which is so openly bigoted.  I do not have an issue with them being true to their Christian founding and thus choosing to not be open on Sundays.  I found that frustrating a few times since I really wanted a sandwich or their nuggets, but I could respect that choice.  However, upon learning that they openly discriminate against gays, I must choose to vote economically against them, by not giving them my dollars.

Zynga Games makes a lot of games that are very popular.  Even some that look like they might be fun to play with my friends.  And, they’re free!  w00t!  They’ve developed almost every game on Facebook these days, haven’t they?  Castleville, Cityville, Farmville, and their latest big hit Words with Friends.  I enjoy Scrabble ®.  However, because I find the business practices of Zynga to be offensive, I won’t play any of their games.  Why?  Because, when trying to build their business up, in order to attract and retain talent, they gave stock out in lieu of better pay.  Then, when preparing to go public, they demanded that stock back and threatened to fire the employees if they failed to comply.  Because, they didn’t want to create a “Google chef” situation.  I find that to be a deplorable example of greed and an unacceptable abuse of their employees, and will not support them in any way.  Particularly, when if I am going to play games, there are many free alternatives.

These are just some examples.  It is important though to be aware of who and what we are supporting with our dollars.  Pay attention to the companies where you shop.  Always shop locally when possible.  Always avoid the mega-super big box stores when possible!  Always share information with others to make sure that they know about the evils of the businesses that you’re aware of, so that they too can stop contributing to the madness.

The contrary is true also.  When you find out about businesses that are exhibiting the kinds of policies that you expect from a business, then take your dollars there, and spread the word.  We must use our economic vote and social networking as a tool to change the world in which we live.

We have to get the money out of politics, and we have to act directly to achieve that.  However, we have to act indirectly to achieve that also.  This is one of those ways.

Whatever others do, be the change you want to see in the world.

All contracts being equal under the law

In yet another example of how there is no significant difference between the two wings of the great beast, the Democrats and the Republicans, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have steadfastly stood against same-sex marriage.  Let me be absolutely clear.  This is indefensible.

I have spent a fair amount of time looking for any coherent argument against legal recognition of same-sex marriages.  Truthfully, I can’t find any.  I wanted to present it.  I wanted to give you a counter point.  I wanted to present a reasoned argument from the other side and then rebut it.  I can’t, because as far as I can find, none exists.

The arguments against legal-recognition of same-sex marriages are based in one of three categories:

1. Religious arguments
2. Social damage claims
3. The thus it has always been belief

None of these actually stands up to any sort of reason test, and each is intertwined with the others.

The most obvious first.  For many people it is about comfort.  They feel that it has always been one man and one woman, because that is all that they have known.  No, it has not always been thus.  It isn’t even always thus now.  There are many, many academic works available on the subject for those who have the interest.  This snippet from one of those, Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political by Kathleen A. Lahey, Kevin Alderson provides a nice summary though.

Additionally, though let us not forget that not only in America, but in the bible, one man one woman marriage was not the only way that marriage was.  Many of the most revered patriarchs in the bible had many wives and concubines.  How many wives, for example, did Solomon have?  700 wives and 300 concubines!  (And, for the record, the downfall of Israel is attributed not to the number of wives, but rather to the fact that Solomon started worshiping other gods, which was blamed on his wives.  Talk about a War on Women!)

There was a very clear historical tradition of polyandry in many places around the world, including Tibet prior to Chinese take over and both male-male and female-female marriages in China, particularly in the Fujian region.

So, we can wholly dismiss the thus it has always been argument.

The social damage claims are essentially the same ludicrous arguments that were made during the racial civil rights movements in relation to anti-miscegenation laws.   They are ridiculous and have been disproven by every credible bit of research that has been put forth.   And, yet, they just keep getting repeated.  *sigh*

One of the most infamous, er, concise examples of this is from *cough* Dr. *cough* James Dobson, who at least openly tries to base his bigotry on Christianity, in his Eleven Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.

1. “The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family”

Again, this was the same claim made as to why black and white Americans couldn’t be allowed to marry.  We saw then, and we have seen now what we should know intuitively – that this is simply a ridiculous claim.  Just as who my neighbor loves has no impact on who I love, who my neighbor marries has no impact on who I marry.

He also uses this as the slippery slope position, i.e., that it will lead to “other alternatives to one man/one woman unions.”  Though that is not the topic under consideration here, let me digress for a moment and say, so?  To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, one man/one woman is not normal, it is just more common.  So long as the relationship is made up of consenting adult humans, why does it matter what their genders or numbers are?  The dynamics and any separations may become more complex, but those are situations that adults must handle, period.

2. “Children will suffer most.”

This is because, of course, of the gay agenda to turn all little children into gay adults or some such ridiculousness.  Oh, no.  Wait.  It’s because, children that have both a father and a mother raising them are:

to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

Actually, the non-biased research, not that faux stuff funded and twisted by the likes of Dobson, shows precisely the opposite.  Either that there is no statistically different outcome, or that, in fact, LBGT parents may be better for kids, which may make some sense, since they’ve had to face so many of their own obstacles.  If they’ve overcome them to be well adjusted adults, then they are better prepared to help their children do the same.  (Just my own theory.)

What I find really offensive about this section of his paper is that he starts with the tired and untrue assertion that many are still making, “Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going.”

3. “Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.”

As opposed to what?  Are we to have our public schools teaching the right wing bigoted position that homosexuality is wrong?  And, that is exactly what they want.  Thank you, no.  How about we all agree that the morals be taught at home and at churches if you choose to take your children to them?

4. “Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.”
5. “Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.”

Addressing 4 and 5 , what they mean is that states, like Florida, for example, will no longer be able to prohibit placing children with parents based solely on their sexual orientation.  Of course, unless you have already bought into their bigotry, this isn’t a valid objection.  In fact, with a system that is already overloaded, getting additional stable, loving parents available is good thing.  Without the bigotry against one type of love, this would be universally accepted.

6. “The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.”
7. “Social Security will be severely stressed.”

Addressing 6 and 7 together, this is just more silliness.  The claim is that there will be more dependents.  Literally.

Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee.

Remembering that Dobson comes from the same camp that says that AIDS is a punishment, not only to gays but to a country that “tolerates” them.

Again, with millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy? If it does collapse, what will that mean for elderly people who must rely totally on that meager support? Who is thinking through these draconian possibilities as we careen toward “a brave new world”?

It is blatant hate and fear mongering.  Truthfully, if anything, it decreases strain on the Social Security system as these “additional dependents” would still otherwise be working.  What Dobson is suggesting is that legally recognizing same-sex marriage would encourage sloth, and I personally find that offensive to stay at home moms and dads.  I find it offensive to home makers of all ilks and to other disabled persons, as well as a host of others.

8. “Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.”

The basis for this appears to be that if you give others rights, yours are diminished.  I am spending no time on it for it is sad, really.  It is there for you to read in the link given above.

9. “Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.”

Really?  13 other nations in the world already recognize same-sex marriage either by performing them or by recognizing their validity when performed in other countries.  Meanwhile, we have evangelical organizations that are working to have homosexuality declared illegal around the world and punishable by death!  That is what disgusts me!  (Update: The law has currently had the death penalty removed, and replaced with life in prison, but has not officially passed.  Yet.)

Dobson’s final two points are specifically related to the religious arguments:

10. “The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.”
11. “The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).”

The problems with this are legion.  From a fundamental misunderstanding of history of his own religious institution on, this reasoning is flawed.  There was a time when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite.

“Argument” 10 rests on the family having been destroyed:

The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning. Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children.

This, of course, gets back to his paranoid belief that the gay agenda includes destroying every Christian family.  The ironic part of this is that what is implicit in this belief is that those families are not strong enough to withstand the assault.  Leaving that thought behind, and recognizing that there is no Secret LGBT Conversion Army, the Christian family will still be able to convey their beliefs to their children.  That will be their right.

The larger issue though is that it is simply wrong to restrict rights from one group based on the bigotry of another group.  There is no justification for it.  Marriage is a civil contract.  Whatever church or religious institution may or may not choose to bless or otherwise sanctify that contract is up to that church or religious institution.

The benefits and responsibilities that come with being married (joint ownership, tax free inheritance, medical decision making, etc) should not be denied based on the gender of the person to whom one is in love.  There is no basis for it in any historical or factual sense.  If your religion dictates that you must be against it, that’s fine.  Your religion is not the law in the US.  That is fundamental to the US.

Why are we still arguing about this?

The One Party Road Show

President Obama was “swept” into office in 2008 on a “wave of hope and change”.  Except that wave turned out to be another mirage.  This is truly not at all surprising.  It really shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention.  It returns us back to a point that I have been making for years.

The POTUS recently made the point so eloquently, I’d like to let him do so because he was speaking to a bunch of reporters at the  Associated Press Luncheon on April 3, 2012, and we all know that means it wasn’t actually reported!  My reference is the official transcript from the White House, which can be found here.  Video for your viewing pleasure below.

Our POTUS has a habit of comparing himself to others.  He has compared himself to Eisenhower, his change to Gandhi and Mandela’s struggles, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, and to Ronald Reagan.  And, in this speech he has reiterated a shared belief with all of these and more, though I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a comparison with them.

What is interesting is that in doing so he often makes the point that there is no significant difference remaining between the Republican and Democratic parties.  As I have said in the past, both parties have done great things for the country, and we should never forget that, but now, they have both become so corrupt that there is no saving either party.  The belief that voting for a third party candidate is throwing away your vote is what allows these two factions of the great beast to maintain their systemic abuse of the country and its people, but we have to recognize our own complicity in that abuse!

Okay, back on track.  Mike Lux blogging on Huffington Post was just thrilled to see Obama “explicitly tie Ryan and Romney to their Social Darwinist ancestors”.  I grant that Obama talks a great game.  Much like Ronald Reagan, he is a great communicator.  Unfortunately, his actions have belied his words.  Apparently, like so many people, Mr. Lux has only been listening and not watching.

This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate.  I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It’s why I ran in 2008.  It’s what my presidency has been about. It’s why I’m running again.  I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can’t remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.

The problem, of course, is that we are not shown an actual competing difference in visions.  Obama campaigned on ending Bush’s policies on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, yet when he had the opportunity to do so, he essentially carried out the precise same time table that the dear ol’ Shrub cabal had been proposing.  He campaigned on getting us out of Guantanamo, and yet, here we are, still in Guantanamo.  His “signature” legislative piece, the Affordable Care Act, he sat on the sidelines for until the very end, and then, caved on almost every significant part of.  He caved so badly that the vast majority of it doesn’t even go into effect until after he would have to be re-elected.  In other words, there is a very good chance it might never go into effect, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, because subsequent congresses and the next president, if he isn’t re-elected, may pull the plug on it.

So, the really telling part of POTUS’s comments come in the Q&A at the end.

 And so I think it’s important to put the current debate in some historical context.  It’s not just true, by the way, of the budget.  It’s true of a lot of the debates that we’re having out here.

I agree, Mr. President.  Lets.  I’ll allow you.

Cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems.  The first President to talk about cap and trade was George H.W. Bush.  Now you’ve got the other party essentially saying we shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection; let’s gut the EPA.

Right.  So, the so-called Democrats, essentially admit taking the Republican idea and running with it.  Part of the conservatives dragging the entire political center to the right and the political “left” not having a backbone to stand up and say no.  But, let’s continue.

Pages: 1 2

Why there oughta be a…

So, let’s jump to the end first.  Term limits are neither necessary nor are they advisable.  Was that anticlimactic?

I was having a short discussion the other day that turned to the topic of legislative branch term limits and it led me to doing a bit of research.  It was a topic of which, honestly, I knew very little about the background.  I knew that I was not in favor of them, but from an historical perspective, my knowledge was limited.  It still is, but I know more now than I did.  (More on that in a bit.)

Let me be absolutely clear.  Term limits of this kind are a bad idea because:

• They are a treatment of the symptom not the disease.
• They are a way for the electorate to remain uninvolved rather than to encourage an educated and active electorate.
• They force out the few good men & women along with the many who get rich(er) or become enamored with the power and prestige of the position.
• They do not achieve the goal that is intended.

There appear to be essentially two variations on the concept, with multiple variations on the theme.

• Hard limit – The current most popular version on the national stage seems to be 12 years.  That is, 6 terms for Representatives and 2 terms for Senators.  There are, of course, other variations.  After this hard limit is hit, the individual is ineligible to serve in that role again.  Some proposals would couple this with removing any eligibility for any other elected office of the same rank, others would not.  Most seem to also include removing residual benefits, though this is not strictly speaking a term limit proposal.
• Rotational – While less common, it is out there, and it has a historical basis.  This is a concept that a person is only eligible to serve x number of years in y period.  It too has a number of variations.  (This version was entirely new to me in the conversation referenced above, but as I will get to, has a LONG historical basis.)

The specific proposal put forth in the discussion went like this: Don’t allow anyone to run for a second term while still serving.  Make them take a term off, and then they can run again while not in office.  The thought behind this is that they would have to think long term.

I don’t agree that this would cause them to think long term.  However, leaving that aside because it is a much deeper and longer discussion than this is the immediate venue for, my immediate response was that this was a knee jerk reaction which sounded good on the surface, but that the practical effect would be to actually further entrench only those with money in the political seats of power.   It was immediately apparent to me what this meant.

The off term would consist of finding a job, working, then, quitting that job, in order to campaign, and then returning to office.  Assuming, of course, that one won the election.  Unless, of course, one is already wealthy, a business owner that can afford to not be on the job, etc.  In other words, part of the entrenched elite already.  Otherwise, it is impractical.  If we’re going to do that, we don’t need a rotational term limit arrangement.  We can just have them commit to a Bonded Term Limit.

Now, for that research I mentioned.  I found that this rotational concept has existed in the past.  In fact, it has existed in American history.  That’s right.  In Section 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania – September 28, 1776:

No person shall be capable of being elected a member to serve in the house of representatives of the freemen of this commonwealth more than four years in seven.

And, in Section 19:

… Any person having served as a counsellor for three successive years, shall be incapable of holding that office for four years afterwards….

And, in Section 31:

… No person shall continue in the office of sherlit more than three successive years, or be capable of being again elected during four years afterwards…

So, yes, this rotational term limits has a historical precedent in American history.  However, lets think about the time period.  Who was eligible to participate in the counsel and the other offices?  According to Section 6:

Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one Years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole Year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty-one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.

So, while there was no land owning requirement in this Constitution for voting or holding office, it did require the paying of taxes, which at the time was only being paid by the wealthy.  The effect was the same.  Only the upper crust were eligible to vote and to participate in governing the state.

The fifth article of the Articles of Confederation (Ratified 1781)  also specified that (emphasis added):

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

And, we note that this was not kept in the Constitution which replaced this ineffectual document just a few short years later.

Though there is reason to believe that many of the “founding fathers” did, in fact, believe in term limits, it appears that these were to be self-imposed or imposed by the voters.  They were not to be arbitrarily imposed by the documents forming the basis of our government.

If we the people are not educated enough and aware enough to make informed choices about our candidates, then we cannot rely on an automatic term limit to save us from ourselves.  That would only guarantee that one fool is out and another is in.  It would not guarantee that the next one is better.

Some arguments put forth in support of term limits include:

• Voters overwhelmingly prefer term limits (more story here)
  • While this may be true (it is a Fox news poll after all!), it is not a valid reason for them to be enacted.  Voters often support views which are not right.  See my post two weeks ago regarding torture!
• Term limits increase competition and encourage new challengers
  • Actually, this isn’t borne out by the experiments which have been conducted by states that have enacted term limit laws at the state levels.  Here’s one good article about California’s results.
• Term limits break ties to special interests
  • On the contrary, it just gets them in the game earlier.  Campaign finance reform breaks the ties to special interest lobbying.  However, special interest lobbying isn’t actually the issue.  It is the undue influence of high dollar special interests to the detriment of other interests that is the actual issue.  All interests have a right to be heard in a free country.  So, this issue, while completely valid, is not addressed through term limits, but rather through campaign finance and privilege reform.
• Term limits improve tendency to vote on principle
  • Actually, again, this has not been borne out.  Please do see the article on California’s results.  The result actually seems to be a higher tendency to vote on party lines.  Almost as if they’re buying their future jobs knowing they’re only going to hold this one for a short time.

As a side point, there was a rotational term limit system of sorts in the Roman Republic too.  It too was used to train the elite ruling class to maintain their elite ruling class.  (Read up further if interested.  Cursus honorum;  Roman Republic; Pre-Constitution Term Limits)

There are other reasons put forward, but they all run the same lines and they all make little to no sense when you start to look at the state experiments and the real results.  Term limits have an emotional appeal.  I admit this.  In a practical sense though, they do not have the desired result.

That is the real deciding factor.  Forget the fact that we would have to throw out the good guys when we finally find them.  Forget any other logical reasoning, and just look at it from a practical stand point.  It has been tried, and it simply does not achieve the desired result.  Let us learn from this.  It is time to move on.

BONUS:

Just because I stumbled on it and it amused me.  I thought I would share it here.

A Brain Dead Voter’s Guide to Term Limits

Abe Lincoln paid $1,296 in income taxes in 1864

Fact: The average top marginal tax rate in the US since the institution of the Federal Income Tax in 1913 through 2011 is 59.4%.

Fact: The average top marginal tax rate from 1913 through 1989 was 66%.

Fact: The average top marginal tax rate from 1990 though 2011 is 36.3%.¹

Already we can start to see a problem.  Let’s look closer at these numbers though.  (The income tax did not, as many believe, actually start in 1913 with the passage of the 16^th Amendment.  The first personal income tax in the US was in 1861.)

Yeah, President Abraham Lincoln paid $1,296 in income taxes in 1864.  That’s a copy of the record.  5th line down.

I don’t really care to get into a full history of the personal income tax in America though.  The bottom line is that if we want government services, such as roads, protections, Social Security, Medicare, Veterans services, etc then they have to be paid for.  We long ago left the world where those services can be paid for by tariffs.  A sales tax is a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the lower income side of the economy.  It cannot be used as the sole funding mechanism for the services that we demand from our shared society.  It could be considered as part of a total taxation system, but even that is not a progressive or fair system.

The income tax rate has varied through the years.  As it should.  When the needs have been higher, the rate has gone up.  With one noticeable exception.  The last 30 years or so, beginning with Reagan, though it really kicked into high gear with Bush the Elder.

From 1913 to 1915, the top rate was 7% then it doubled to 15% in 1916, then jumped up to 67% in 1917 and peaked at 77% in 1918-19.  hmmm … Oh, yeah.  World War I.

It started to come down, slowly as we continued to deal with the debt we had over the next few years until it was back down to 25% in 1925.  Wall Street Crashed in 1929 and eventually, in order to rebuild the economy, the Revenue Act of 1932 raised the top rate to 63%.  With the New Deal, it was raised to 79% to fund the recovery.

Along comes World War II, and the top rate peaks at 94% in 1945!  The Korean war during the 1950s kept it hovering around 91-92%.

It was lowered under Johnson to 77% and then to 70% from 1964 on.  In 1982, the top rate was lowered to 50% where it stayed until ’87.  A brief dip down to 28% from 1988 to 1990 back up to 39.6% under Clinton.  Oh, yeah.  That was when we were projected to have budget surpluses, if you’ll recall.

Now, here’s where the real stupidity hits.  9/11, two wars, and the top marginal tax rate drops!!  It drops to 35%.  Which doesn’t seem like much until you consider that no one is actually paying this top rate.  Mitt Romney, for example, made $21.7 million in 2010 and paid just 13.9% in taxes.  Warren Buffet, in 2010, made $62,855,038 and paid just 17.4% in taxes.  This is largely due to two factors that are not available to most of us.  One, the deductions which are available for charitable giving and so forth make a huge impact.  Two, investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than labor income.

Correlation is not causation, of course, but the economy has tended to do the best when taxes on unearned income were high. Economic growth was great during the 1950s, when dividends were taxed at very high levels and capital gains rates were 25 percent, much higher than they are now. Since 2003, tax rates on unearned income have been at their lowest levels ever, and economic growth has been sluggish.

I am not advocating war here.  I abhor war.  I wish I lived in a world with out it.  I don’t live in that world.  The point though is that in the past we paid for the wars that we were in.  When we needed to rebuild the economy, we paid for it.  We raised taxes.  We didn’t build up the massive and devastating debt that we have now.  We didn’t pretend that higher taxes were devastating to the economy.  Clearly they aren’t.  Look at how we grew through these times.  We didn’t shy away from having the wealthy paying their fair share.  Those who benefited the most from our shared society, our shared growth, have the most to return to our shared recovery, and, in return, will get the most from the shared recovery.  That is how the society works.

So, while there is certainly bloat in the system and efficiency to be found, we need to return to a more reasonable tax rate on the upper end of the income spectrum.  Neither the Democrat nor the Republican wing of the One twoo party is truly arguing for this.  Given our current debt and the bail outs for the wealthy that we recently made, that rate is probably in the neighborhood of 75%.  We need to remove most if not all of the loopholes that have been implemented in the system that allow for the avoidance of taxes by the uberwealthy.  It was the existence of these very loopholes which led to the creation of the Alternative Minimum tax, which was a good idea, but fails to achieve its purpose because it, like so many things, was not updated.

We need to also look at the capital gains rates and other unearned income tax rates.  We’ll tackle that soon.  Suffice it to say for now, that the same holds true.  The periods of most solid growth and lowest debt in our country’s history have not been the periods of lowest taxation.  This is a myth that has the veneer of truth only because the conservative marketing machine has been so effective.  The facts speak for themselves.

¹ - Calculations made from raw data.  Raw data available from The Tax Foundation.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here?

There’s a new report out from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.  It is highly detailed with pages of analysis of the voting population and their current and recent historical views.  This report, The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election,   The short version is that there is an ever-widening generation gap between the Silent Generation (ages 66 to 83) and the Millennials (age 18 to 30), with a predictable concentration of Republican identification at the older end of the spectrum and Democratic identification at the younger.  However, that is an over simplification.  For one thing, the younger generations are, thankfully, not as heavily identifying with either party!

There are many really interesting details, comparisons and facts throughout the report.  It is a fascinating and long read.  What really caught my attention and brought me to a screeching halt though was the section on Generations and Civil Liberties which is under Section 8: Domestic and Foreign Policy Views.

 

Honestly, this section makes me want to scream.  I look at this across the board, regardless of age and I think, “We’re lost.”

Only 24% agree that “Torture against suspected terrorists to gain important information can be justified” never?!!  And, when we look across all age groups, that doesn’t vary much, but the highest is in the Silent Generation at only 26%.  To quote, Ric Santorum, it makes me want to throw up.  I find it not even a small comfort that this is a larger percentage than the group who responded with “often” at 19%.  How many of our “leaders” have repeated that we do not torture?  Guess what?  Apparently, an awful lot of you think it really is okay.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin

How interesting that it is only the youngest who remember this truth by such a large majority.  The rest of the age groups are so divided, with roughly half being willing to give up liberties in order to feel safe.  When, in fact, the steps we have taken since 9/11 have not increased our safety, but rather had no effect or actually made us less safe.  Airport security in Israel, whose government has many crimes to answer for, but who does also face many legitimate terrorist threats, for example, is very different than here in the US.  Experts on the Israeli system laugh at the security show that takes place here.  I am not advocating profiling.  I am just pointing out that what we are doing it not accomplishing anything.  Our TSA cannot point to any one, single success.   The PATRIOT Act is a horrible abuse of our rights which has been continued and renewed under Obama.  The NDAA 2012 further expanded the encroachment on our civil liberties in the name of security.  HR 1981.  The list goes on and on.  And, yet, by and large, as long as people have their bread and circuses, their American Idol ….

Are we really willing to allow this to continue unchecked?  I am reminded as I so often am of the Martin Niemöller quote:

First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.