Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Newer Entries »

Vote Like Your Life Depends On IT

October 25, 2010

Here comes the November 2 election, and those who genuinely care about our society and our future need to vote like our lives depend on it because, in fact, they do. The last election was about changing the guard; this one is about guarding the change.

At the federal, state and local level, Democrats have been standing up for us, visibly present in our community and helping us improve our lives individually and collectively and making government serve our needs. They’ve earned your support to continue working for you.

Remember when the Bush administration rammed through TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program or the “bank bailout?” my Democratic Congressman Ciro Rodriguez voted “No” for all the right reasons — lack of accountability, rewarding greed and mismanagement.  Then the Democratic administration took office and imposed accountability and efficiency. They recovered over 70% of the money and turned a bailout into a successful recovery program.

Democrats voted on our behalf to pass financial reform, which prevents taxpayer-funded bailouts and increases regulatory control over fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation of the financial system. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established to help millions of us who have suffered abuse at the hands of credit card companies, banks, mortgage companies and payday lenders.  Financial reform was essential because the excesses of the banks, mortgage lenders and Wall Street were the proximate cause of this great recession. Yet Republicans advocate the same old “free market” that didn’t work and rail against “big government” that would hold big business accountable and call for tax cuts for the wealthy.  It’s very clear whose interests they serve.

Democrats know how the economy works and have been applying effective measures to recover from recession.  What creates jobs is demand for goods and services, not tax cuts for the rich. And when consumer spending drops off, the government must — and sometimes is legally required — to step in with spending to restore the economy. That’s what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or “The Stimulus” was all about. It included tax cuts benefiting 98% of working Americans and grants to state and local entities for transportation, public safety, housing and community development, education and energy projects.  And, despite claims to the contrary, it IS working. Seventy percent of the $787 billion has been spent, deadlines for distributing the funds have been met with few complaints of fraud or abuse. Most importantly, it will save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year, including critical jobs such as police, firefighters, teachers and emergency responders.  Getting back the millions of jobs we’ve lost is going to take more time, but the economy is recovering.

But hear this: Congressional Republicans have openly said that, if they regain control, they will de-fund the stimulus and thus kill the recovery.  What they deride as “excessive spending” is simply our tax dollars returning to us.  In my state of Texas projects have so far received $14 billion, second only to California among state recipients.  And my county alone has received $8.7 million. Yet Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry spouted threats of secession. Even with this boost to our economy, our state government is in the red around $20 billion as a result of his poor leadership.

Then there’s health insurance reform, which Republicans have openly said they intend to take from YOU and give back to the corporate profiteers in health insurance. This reform established that, in the United States as in every other advanced country, access to health care is a right, not a privilege. On September 23, a number of requirements that stop insurance company abuses went into effect. Republicans claim we didn’t want this reform, but the truth is that a clear majority demanded it and many are dissatisfied now only because they are unaware of benefits that have just started. Furthermore, of those dissatisfied with the reforms, by a 2 to 1 margin it is because they wanted more, not less, reform.

There’s a long list of other Democratic accomplishments — college student aid reform and expansion, children’s health insurance expansion, improved veterans’ services, enhanced border security through both federal programs and grants to border sheriffs. In fact and despite Republican opposition to everything, even things they previously suggested, this has been one of the most productive Congresses in history.  We wanted change, we voted for it, we got it — and now it’s imperative to protect it.

Time has long passed for Texas Republican Governor Perry to graze his corporate-funded pastures. Aside from the state’s $20 billion shortfall, there is also the problem of public education funding. When federal stimulus funds of $3.2 billion were designated for Texas education, Perry used it for other purposes in violation of the Texas Constitution. Then, as a condition for receiving $830 million more for education, Texas must guarantee no drop in education funding for 3 years. Amazingly, instead of using this money for Texas school kids, Texas Attorney General Abbott filed suit against the feds and Perry proposed a $260 million cut in education.  Meanwhile, Texas ranks 32nd among states in per-pupil spending and near the bottom on graduation rates and SAT scores.  Rick Perry doesn’t know or care that our future depends on Texas education. And Attorney General Abbott doesn’t know the law. It’s time to replace these incompetents with Democratic public servants of quality – Bill White for Governor and Barbara Ann Radnofsky for Attorney General.

Furthermore, Republicans advocate a Texas law like Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, and Abbott entered the federal lawsuit on the side of Arizona. This law is really about suppression of our Hispanic community as a whole, citizens and non-citizens alike. But our governor and attorney general are not interested in representing all the people of Texas; Democrats are.

The Republican Party has turned itself entirely over to the tea party ideology of divisiveness, prejudice and obstruction of progress. Their demagoguery, laced with lies about their opponents and misrepresentation of how government works, will motivate some to vote. Yet the public policies they advocate of low taxes, low services and deregulation would empower big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of small businesses and average Americans.

This is why it is imperative that the Aware Who Care vote like our lives depend on it. We have to keep saying “Yes, we can” or the Party of No certainly will take us back to the Dark Ages.

Tags:,
Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Senator Hutchison Misinforms on the Economy

September 12, 2010

It’s a shame that Texas is stuck with Senators Hutchison and Cornyn, Republicans who never fail to support corporations and big money over middle income Texans, and small businesses.  Senator Hutchison lately used her bully pulpit to spread misinformation about the economy in her op-ed titled “Low taxes and spending restraint are key to economic recovery.”   The title and article are historically and economically wrong.  It has been debunked by factcheck.org.  See http://factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/

She claims the Bush tax cuts of 2001 resulted in job creation and increased economic activity. In reality they drove up the deficit, created no new jobs, were a huge giveaway to wealth and contributed to economic collapse.  This “trickle-down” economics was so wrong for our country that it barely squeezed through Congress on budget reconciliation with a 10-year expiration. Bush then took us into two unfunded wars and held war spending out of the general budget so it wouldn’t show in the deficit.  These maneuvers were budgetary time bombs left to explode today. Yet Republicans pretend that President Obama created most of the deficit.

Senator Hutchison must think we’re very forgetful.  But, we remember, what she doesn’t mention – the tax cuts that 95% of working Americans received in the stimulus last year.  The Recovery and Reinvestment Act she voted AGAINST, contained tax cuts, credits and grants to individuals, businesses, states and local government to mitigate the recession. Republicans now claim the stimulus hasn’t worked; in truth it kept us from falling into total depression, and saved or created millions of jobs, partially offsetting huge losses.  Of the total $787 billion, Texas has spent over half of its $23.3 billion allocation.  Those are our tax dollars coming back to help us.

The stimulus should have been larger (no thanks to Republicans) and more is needed now with economic growth still too slow and unemployment too high.  Each dollar of certain stimulus spending, such as unemployment insurance, infrastructure improvements and assistance to state and local government, generates more than a dollar in economic growth.  Tax cuts don’t do that and they increase the deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that if we had done as Republicans wanted in 2009 we would today have fewer jobs and higher deficits. Still, Hutchison advocates the same-old same-old.

She falsely claims President Obama intends to raise everyone’s taxes, calling it the “largest tax hike in our nation’s history.”  Not true!  The expiration of the tax cuts is coming up, but the Obama Administration proposes to keep the cuts that benefit middle America and small businesses.  The taxes for incomes over $200,000 single and $250,000 per couple would rise a measly 3%.  Only 3% of those above those incomes are small business owners.

They claim raising taxes will harm the economy and reduces job creation. However, tax cuts on high incomes do not create jobs or boost the economy.  When those in that income range have extra income they tend to save not spend it. Also, historically when higher incomes were taxed at a much higher rate, our economy was strong.

When middle- and low-income Americans receive a tax cut, they spend it immediately. This demand for goods and services creates jobs and those jobs, in turn, create more demand and other jobs. Consumer demand accounts for 70% of the output of the economy.  Plus, taxes are paid on those salaries, which helps reduce the deficit. We can only dig ourselves out of recession by boosting demand and fight deficits by building back a strong economy.  Recently, CEOs were polled as to why they were not expanding their businesses and creating jobs now with the tax incentives they’ve been given.  These business owners validated the demand-driven economy by saying they were holding off because they were uncertain that demand for their products and services was going to rise.  Apparently, we need to create more demand not give more play money to the wealthy.

Senator Hutchison summoned our hankies to mourn the “unfair death tax.”  Give me a break!  They call it a “death tax” to obscure what the estate tax really is, a tax on inherited wealth, the least deserved form of income.  The heirs did nothing to earn it except pick the right parents.  Historically, we have taxed large estates at a high rate in recognition of the fact that accumulation of such wealth is enabled by government infrastructure, economic rules, and subsidies.  The heirs owe some of that largess back to us.  Furthermore, this tax encourages charitable and philanthropic donations.  This year the estate tax is zero, but it will revert to older rates next year because Republicans refused to negotiate on the estate minimum size criteria and the tax rate.  Several bills are pending that capture this much-needed revenue while excluding small businesses. To please their large estate-holding supporters, the “Party of No” opposes them.

Republicans have destroyed their credibility by opposing every single measure to truly rebuild our economy. The last thing they enthusiastically supported was the TARP bailout for big financials enacted in the fall of 2008.  Yes, that’s right, the bank bailout was Bush’s deal, not Obama’s.  Now, President Obama has been somewhat successful in getting that money back.  And Republicans further damage their credibility by attacking deficit spending needed to boost demand. Yet when advocating tax cuts for the wealthy, they claim the deficit is irrelevant. And, America, when they repeatedly yelled “No” they were saying it to all of us!

Here’s the bottom line:  This recession was not caused by working Americans and small businesses, nor by the poor, homeowners, minority groups or immigrants.  It was caused by the banksters, large corporations and Wall Street with the help of the government they dominated and from which they got tax cuts, deregulation and subsidies over a quarter century. Republicans want to keep that sweet deal going and they will demonize and misinform to do it. Democrats are applying the right remedies, but it is going to take some time. They’re on our side so let’s keep them working.

Tags:,
Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Immigration – We not only can handle it, we need it

August 13, 2010

A friend recently opined that our country can’t handle the immigrants coming here, especially unauthorized immigrants.  This is linked to other perceptions that the unauthorized don’t pay taxes and over-utilize public services.  But these claims don’t match reality.

To discuss this rationally, (unfortunately) we need to throw out some numbers about the relationship between unauthorized immigrants and the U.S. population.  As of June, 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated our total civilian, non-institutional population as 237.7 million.  Of those, the labor force is 153.7 million, 139 million of whom are employed and 14 million are unemployed in this recession.  These figures INCLUDE immigrant workers regardless of status.

Based on Department of Homeland Security estimates, the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population is around 11 million.  That works out to about 4.6% of total population.  Under the extreme assumption that all of the 84% of unauthorized immigrants age 18 to 54 yrs are workers, that would be a maximum 6% of the workforce.  So, we’re not talking about huge percentages of either the population or the workforce.  We can accommodate that.  In fact, we’re already doing it!

Unauthorized immigrants most certainly ARE paying taxes.  They pay sales taxes on their purchases and user fees on services just like everyone else.  They pay property taxes directly and indirectly.  They even pay income taxes, Social Security and Medicare when these are taken out of their wages by the government.  (Social Security is holding over $400 billion in funds that immigrants paid but can’t receive in benefits.)

They also contribute to the US economy through their spending which creates other jobs.  Investigations have revealed they are not sending all or even most of their earnings back to their country of origin.  Furthermore, they often work in low-wage industries, which results in savings for employers and purchasers of their products.

Determining the costs and benefits of immigration to our economy is complicated, with different results derived from differing assumptions.  However, most analysts find immigration likely is an overall benefit (some have estimated $13 billion per year or 1% of the whole economy). Some employers and consumers benefit and taxpayers in some states, like Texas, have higher immigrant populations and costs.

While claiming to be business-friendly, the leadership of Arizona has just dealt an economic blow to their own people during a deep recession.  After implementation of their prejudicial law, even with the federal stay of the worst parts of it, LEGAL immigration has dropped 17%.  It hasn’t had any effect on crime, of course, but the businesses of Arizona are already hurting.

Do unauthorized immigrants “overuse” government services? Contrary to what you may have heard, as a group, immigrants, especially unauthorized immigrants, tend NOT to utilize government services. When they do, the cost is short-term; in the long run they more than reimburse us for the services they receive.

There are only three services government is legally bound to provide to unauthorized immigrants:  Public education K-12 for children, emergency medical care and veteran’s benefits for those who have served.

In 1982, the US Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v Doe that public education must be provided for all children regardless of citizenship.  An NEA guide explains this decision in this way:

The court in Plyler noted that education is a child’s only path to becoming a “self-reliant and self-sufficient participant in society.” A public school education, the court reasoned, “inculcat[es] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system” and “provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives.”  According to the court, denying children access to a public school education could doom them to live within “a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens.”

Before we violate this Supreme Court ruling with the intent of saving taxpayers the cost of educating these children, consider this:  The difference between whether or not an immigrant is a net gain (beyond even the cost of educating them) or net loss for our economy depends upon whether or not that person obtains a high school education.  In other words, denying education to unauthorized immigrant children would not only be immoral, it would also be economically short-sighted.

What about other assistance immigrants might receive?  It’s a no-brainer that all those who serve in the military, including non-citizens, must be provided their earned veteran’s benefits.  The only other service that legally must be provided to everyone regardless of citizenship or ability to pay is emergency medical care. We don’t want EMTs to ask our citizenship before they rush our injured or severely ill bodies to the hospital.  And we want the doctors in the emergency room to focus first on our health, not our pocketbook.

A good argument can also be made that our other non-mandatory services also help immigrants become “self-reliant and self-sufficient,” just as does education.  There’s no evidence that they create a permanent class of dependant people.

The US fertility rate, the number of children per woman, is at 2.1, below the population replacement level of 2.5.  (Those births INCLUDE the vilified “anchor babies.”)  Without immigration, we will progressively have a smaller and older population and a smaller workforce in the future.

Our rate of net immigration is not extremely high, either, 2.92 migrants per 1,000 residents in 2008.  In the 1990s, legal and illegal immigration ballooned because of the recession in Mexico and a baby-boom generation of workers could not find employment. Immigration from Mexico is trailing off now, especially with the recession.

We had illegal immigration, not because the immigrants are bad people, but because we needlessly restricted legal immigration.

We need these young people to come work and enrich our culture.  Now is the time to establish comprehensive immigration reform that provides a guest worker program for those who have no current plans to become citizens and, for those who do, a path to citizenship like the path all other immigrants follow.   We became a great nation by being “a nation of immigrants” and we became that by according dignity and respect and assistance to those who came here to work and build our nation.  Let’s keep it up.

Tags:
Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Crime and Immigration Reform

July 18, 2010

We do need comprehensive immigration reform.  And, like all other areas of public policy, change must be based on facts, not propaganda, if it is to bring real improvement.  Many misconceptions are circulating regarding crime as it relates to illegal immigration or immigration reform.  In this article, I focus just on crime and will address other issues regarding immigration reform in subsequent articles.

Anti-immigrant groups claim we on the border are suffering a violent crime wave caused by illegal immigration.  It’s just not true.  The FBI reports that the top 4 safest cities in the country are San Diego, Phoenix, and two Texas cities, El Paso and Austin. San Diego, with 1 in 4 residents an immigrant, has the lowest per capita violent crime rate.

While Arizona Governor Brewer claimed a dramatic rise in crime, the FBI reported that violent crimes in AZ actually decreased by more that 30% in the last two decades. In Texas, the violent crime rate dropped 10% from 1998 to 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 12% over the same period.  And a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said, “The border is safer now than it’s ever been.”

Part of the reason for misperception about border crime is the increased violence in northern Mexico. In an attempt to link the two separate issues, AZ Governor Brewer claimed that most undocumented immigrants were involved in drug dealing. Simply NOT true! The violence in Mexico is the drug cartels at war with each other and with Mexican authorities.  It’s an entirely separate issue from immigration and cannot be addressed by changing immigration laws.

Furthermore, there are good reasons why immigrant communities across the nation have been found to have lower overall crime rates than citizen-dominated communities and why immigrants tend NOT to engage in criminal activity.  Think about it:  If you were a foreigner in this country, working, perhaps tending a family, what would you do?  Wouldn’t you avoid calling attention to yourself and avoid contact with law enforcement for fear of deportation?  That’s just what they do.  As a result, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants.

For the purpose of drumming up fear of immigrants, the xenophobes claim that we risk terrorists coming across the border intent on doing us harm.  Again this defies logic and known facts.  Most terrorists who have acted or attempted to act in this country were either US citizens or came here legally.  Here in Brewster County, Texas, where I live, law enforcement spotted one person with such potential – a US citizen who came here from the “interior,” not of Mexico, but from the USA, apparently scouting a location for a training camp.  Those with terroristic intent are seldom going to place themselves at risk of apprehension which crossing the border without documentation involves.  We do, of course, need to be watchful at our borders for terrorists, but don’t be thinking that Mexican workers are equivalent to al queda.  They’re not.

Immigration gets lumped in with the drugs and terrorism for two reasons.  First, US Customs and Border Protection enforces violations of all three.  Second, anti-immigrant groups actively seek to demonize immigrants by associating them with drug dealers and terrorists.  These separate issues need to be addressed by different policies.

There are some areas of crime that ARE related to illegal immigration:  Vandalism and house break-ins in border-adjacent areas, human trafficking, the misdemeanor crime of entering the country without approval, and hate crimes.  The first three of these crimes can be reduced if we provide a way for people to legally enter this country at appropriate crossing points to work, shop or visit.  In a good system, the origin and destination of the entrants would be known to authorities and a network with employers established.

The failure to implement such a system creates the market for human trafficking just like drug prohibition creates the drug market, cartels and violence.  And the inability to enter at legal entry points sends entrants across the land and strips them of resources, which motivates theft and break-ins of private property.  Finally, instead of administering a less expensive system of legal entry and accountability, we are wasting federal dollars in court hearings, deportations and incarcerations.  This cruel system tears apart families and causes death and injury.

The last category of crime related to the issue of illegal immigration is hate crimes directed at immigrants and at citizens who even look like immigrants.  These crimes are rising dramatically.  And beyond reported crimes, there are the countless occurrences of verbal attack, discrimination, etc., that Hispanic people increasingly suffer.  The lies and exaggerations such as those addressed above that demonize and dehumanize immigrants are part of that harassment.

And so are laws such as Arizona’s, which draw local agencies into enforcement of federal laws.  Based on, as we’ve seen, inaccurate claims of rising crime rates, the Arizona law will do NOTHING to reduce crime at all.  Read it and you will see it has no mechanism to reduce crime since it’s supposed to be used only after some crime has occurred.  It will cost local and state governments dearly and draw their attention away from truly serious crimes.  It places a barrier between immigrants and law enforcement because, for fear of arrest, they will not report crimes or seek help when needed.  It leaves men, women and children open to abuse they dare not report.  And, for the first time in history it requires US citizens who simply look like undocumented immigrants to carry papers proving their “innocence.”  This in a land where we’re all assumed innocent until proven guilty.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution applies to EVERYONE, citizen, non-citizen, documented or not, when it says, “… nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

We need comprehensive immigration reform to put an end to harassment of Hispanic immigrants and citizens, to save lives and to preserve families.

Tags:,
Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

No Atheists in Foxholes, No Libertarians in Crises

June 8, 2010

“Free market capitalism!”  Sounds sorta good, kind of liberating, all about freedom and all.  That’s where the libertarians got their name, apparently, as that’s what they advocate.  But wait, what exactly IS a free market?  Do they really exist, and if they do, are they a good thing or not so good?

Let’s concede there may be free markets in small isolated settings.  Think of a farmer’s market where the producer supplies directly to the consumer.  They agree over the price of the goods, full disclosure about the quality of the goods and each is free to walk away from the deal if they choose.  The price may be paid in money or barter.  And both parties to the transaction are known and accountable to the other.

But in modern America there are virtually no real free markets.  In our transactions today, one party or the other has the upper hand.  Markets must be defined, enabled and regulated to some extent by governments federal, state and local, for good reasons.  Some regulations are intended to protect consumers, i.e., human beings, and some protect the environment in which all living things reside.  And some regulation is intended to help businesses operate, to give good business owners guidance as to how to proceed with their chosen occupation.

In my working career, I managed a metropolitan food safety and inspection program.  The prime purpose of the regulations we enforced was to protect consumers from food- and water- borne illness.  What I learned from restaurateurs and food suppliers was that the good ones, the ones who sought to provide a safe and tasty product, didn’t resent our being there, looking over their shoulders, pointing out this or that to improve upon.  On the contrary, they knew that good sanitation brought customers in their door.  And they saw how quickly something like a food-borne illness outbreak could put them out of business. (This really happened to some fancy, up-scale restaurants.)

The “good guy” food purveyors asked of us at the health department these three things:  That the regulations be based on the science of food safety not on hunches or opinions; that we first educate them before enforcement; and that the regulations be applied equally to them as to their competitors.  We tried to live up to those standards and, for the most part, they held up their end of the bargain.  Those who fought regulation were the ones who wanted to be free to make money whether or not people suffered.

Notice how calls for free market capitalism are always couched in terms of personal, individual, human-being freedom.  That’s not what they’re talking about, however; it’s not about the freedom of individual persons to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It’s not even so much about the economic freedom of individuals to purchase as they can and want.  The call for free market capitalism is a call to liberate businesses from control, to leave them free to make money at the expense of human beings.

In the libertarian topsy-turvy world, businesses have priority over people, over living, breathing human beings.  Does that match your reality?  Not mine.  Businesses are created by humans to help us go about our day, meet our needs, live our lives.  It’s “we, the people” who should be in control and are given priority under the US Constitution through which we empower our government to regulate businesses.  Despite the recent opinion of the capitalist-friendly US Supreme Court, businesses are not people.

Free market capitalism brought us the “great depression” of the early 20th Century. The stock market and capitalists took advantage to the detriment of our economy.  Perhaps someone didn’t remember, or it had just been too long ago, but in the 1980s deregulation and free market capitalism re infected public policy.  “Government was the problem, not the solution,” we were told and “Greed is good.”  We looked to the stock market to tell us how “the economy” was doing, instead of focusing on the real economy of creating and distributing goods and services.

In the quarter century since then, infection has turned virulent, and it seems all wounds are festering at once these days.  The lack of control over the health insurance industry resulted in millions excluded from coverage; thousands have died.  The stock market was left free to trade fake assets. The mortgage industry was allowed to rope people into debts they could not pay.  Banks were allowed to gamble with our invested dollars and credit card companies were free to inflate rates and add fees.  Corporations were free to outsource jobs to other countries.  Trade agreements gave advantage to capital over labor.  Unions were busted.  Heavy industries, especially energy, were allowed to cut corners on things like mine safety and oil drillers could write their own regulations.  And it’s a “mell of a hess” we’re in now, folks.  Thank a libertarian next time you see one.

Libertarian economic policy just does not work, and the reason it does not is because it ignores this simple principle any businessman knows:  The first purpose of a business is to make money.  I’m not putting that down as a bad thing; it’s entirely natural.  Furthermore, businesses also have other goals, such as helping people and making our communities better.  It’s just that, unless they meet their first purpose, they can’t serve any other purposes.

Furthermore, the larger the business, the more divorced from the secondary missions the first purpose becomes.  It becomes more and more about money because more and more money is at stake.  Capitalists will fight harder against regulation than will local small businesses.  They’ll buy media outlets to influence public opinion and skew the information we get. They’ll spend millions every day, day after day, manipulating elections and elected officials.  And they will demonize anyone who would, through regulation, restrain their primary purpose by calling them socialists and communists and accusing them of taking over health care, being un-American, etc.  Sound familiar?

But notice that, come a crisis, libertarians will be quick to demand that the old evil government step in to make things right.  And this they do without even the grace to admit they caused the problem in the first place.  No wonder several economists have recently said words to the effect that “there are no atheists in foxholes and no libertarians in crises.”  Free market capitalism will certainly drive us into a ditch, as it has done once again, but it can’t get us out of it.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Does the ultra-right carry water for the ultra-rich?

May 7, 2010

To paraphrase the Wicked Witch of the West in the “Wizard of Oz,” “How ‘bout a little truth, scare mongers?”

In my last article, I debunked the myth that our tax dollars are taken against our will and given to lazy people who refuse to work. Nevertheless, up popped a letter repeating that we’re “immorally taxed against our will” which apparently has origins in libertarian doctrine.  A corollary myth is that the only true purpose for the government is to “protect our freedoms” presumably meaning the military and police.  These are a poor reading of American history and a distortion of the Constitution and the government it established.  Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion here, but we’re not entitled to invent facts.

For American revolutionaries, taxation was an issue, but it was not, as implied by current “tea partiers,” an issue of high taxes.  For the colonists, the issue was taxation without representation – paying taxes when they could not elect voting representatives.  Other economic issues, which led directly to the Boston Tea Party, were favorable treatment for the British East India Company and restriction on colonial trade with countries other than Britain.

The East India Company was perhaps an early capitalistic, multinational corporation.  It was granted monopoly status by Britain and given preferences to supply the only tea colonists were allowed.  So colonists smuggled in tea from other sources and refused to buy British tea (even though it was cheaper).  In 1773, they attempted to send tea back to Britain and, when that failed, dumped it in Boston harbor.  There was reaction from Britain, counter-reaction from the colonists, eventually the Declaration of Independence and war.

After throwing off one government, the Americans turned around and formed what?  Another government more to their liking. The Preamble to the US Constitution gives the overall mission statement, the purposes, for the government.  I’ve covered this in a previous article, but repeat that the mission to “promote the general welfare” includes a large number of activities that are appropriate, constitutional governmental roles.  Saving an economy in free-fall and aiding the least of us in our society – the sick, the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the children – are entirely appropriate roles for government, as are financial, and environmental and safety regulation.  Over the years, we have demanded that these roles be fulfilled.  We love this most about our country: Here we care about each other.

American revolutionaries believed in government and accepted taxes set by elected representatives.  And that’s just what we have today.  Whether born here or becoming citizens or legal residents by choice, we enjoy the blessings of this society and we have obligations to follow the laws and pay taxes.  How is this coercion or taxing us against our will when we are free to live elsewhere? Without our government we would effectively have no income and our assets would have no legal standing or even a record.  Without government we may think we have individual rights, but there is nothing to assure them, no one to truly “protect our freedoms.”

With funding and misinformation from capitalistic, multi-national corporations, today’s tea partiers (about 80% are Republican), libertarians and ultra-conservatives, wrap themselves in the “patriot” flag.  However, ideologically they bear a stronger resemblance to the secessionist southerners than to American revolutionaries.  They even talk of states’ rights and secession. For the policies they advocate, they would be on the side of the British and the East India Company were we back in revolutionary days.  They support the anti-tax, anti-government policies that serve the mega-rich. They protest high taxes when they, themselves, just received a huge tax cut enacted as a stimulus to the economy. Income taxes in 2009 were at an historic low.

They claim, but have no evidence, that the government is intruding on their individual rights.  On the contrary, it is these extremists who pose the greatest risk to individual rights.  Where they have been able to gain power themselves, instead of solving real problems they have enacted laws that certainly do intrude on the constitutional rights of millions (e.g., Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, Oklahoma’s invasion of the doctor/patient relationship regarding abortion, and some state denials of equal protection under the law to all).

They complain that the deficit is too large yet said nothing when most of the deficit grew by tax cuts for the wealthy and two unfunded wars.  The portion of the deficit caused by recent spending was essential to turn around this deep recession caused by, you guessed it, the mega-rich. They don’t see that we can more quickly pay down the deficit if we rebuild middle America and return to fair taxes for the wealthy than if we destroy the safety nets just to keep top tax rates low. Despite ample evidence that the stimulus did work to prevent economic free fall, they call it a failure.

They want to “take back” a country that they haven’t even lost. Many are proud of their faith, some even proclaiming this is a Christian nation.  How is it, then, immoral for us to be taxed but perfectly moral to eliminate our social programs that fulfill the “Golden Rule?”

Middle and low income Americans have every reason to be angry these days.  They have been dealt a raw deal – an unprecedented reduction in their economic wellbeing.  But some are directing their ire in the wrong direction.  It’s not the government, workers, immigrants, or minority group members who have harmed us.  It’s the banksters, the Wall Street stalkers and “free-market” capitalists.  Yet those same capitalists use their billions now to feed back to the uninformed all the talking points of the ultra right.  Their purpose is have us detest the government because that is the only force that can stand up to their unbridled greed.  They want us to repudiate the mission of the government to care for the least among us just so they can avoid their fair share in taxes.  And their vision for America’s future is…. what?  Future?  What’s that?  If it’s beyond their next quarterly earnings, it doesn’t matter.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Newer Entries »