People I'd Like To Meet - Part Deux

Have you ever noticed that, when they can think of enough child-like words to string together, tea baggers make a lame attempt to discuss complex political issues? More often than not, they will, at some point, make a reference to the Second Amendment as though gun violence has anything remotely related to political dialogue in a democracy.

When they do, I immediately think of, perhaps, the most famous psychologist in world history. This man's groundbreaking research has covered many topics, but his most famous research is related to firearms and conservatives, especially those who glue tea bags to their heads.

In 1975, Dr. Charles M. Noodick, using a grant funded by a private foundation and the National Institutes of Health, assembled to team of 120 researchers to survey 60,000 conservative gun owners across the United States. The research methodology included printed surveys and telephone interviews conducted from 1975 to 1985.

The survey questionnaire and telephone interview included questions regarding gender, age, income ranges, and physiological questions. Of the 60,000 participants, one-half agreed to a thorough physiological and psychological examination. These were conducted over a period of several years.

In late 1985, Dr. Noodick's research team completed the last examinations that involved follow-up questionnaires for research participants. The final report of the research team was completed in early 1987.

Among many interesting conclusions reached as a result of Dr. Noodick's research, the most revealing was that the average conservative male who owns multiple weapons was ten times more likely to be physically and verbally abused as a child primarily by an overbearing father. Based on physiological examinations, conservative males, owning more than one firearm, had, in general terms, a penis several times smaller than the average American male. As the number of guns possessed increased, research indicated penis size became smaller.

Dr. Noodick stated, in a 1990 interview, that generally speaking conservative males possessing multiple weapons also suffered from severe penile inadequacies including an inability to satisfy sexual partners.

Dr. Noodick surmised that multiple gun ownership provides, in a small measure, conservative males with a sense of the male adequacy they lack and while the gun can go off, they can't!

See: www.gunsandtinypenisconservatives.com

People I'd Like To Meet - Part Un

Today, I begin a series of short articles related to famous people I'd like to meet.

On days when you're feeling an extremely low, or non-existent, level of self-esteem, do you ever find yourself using the remote control to entertain yourself by flipping through endless boring channels on Comcast or Dish Network?

Perhaps, in a moment of loathing self-abuse, you've found yourself staring at the Faux News Channel. If so, you've noticed the frequency with which Ann Coulter appears on Faux News. Each time I see Coulter, it brings to mind one of the people I'd most like to meet.

His name is Dr. Chang E. Yu, an internationally recognized surgeon, who several years ago, using the most advanced surgical techniques of the time, miraculously transformed Dan Coulter into "Ann" Coulter who, according to Sean Hannity, is a remarkably handsome woman albeit with manly knuckles.

Dr. Yu's techniques were so precise he was able to transform Dan Coulter's tiny, conservative-sized penis into "Ann's" female genitalia that has become very appealing to conservative men and more than a few conservative women.

www.danasann.com

102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes

The folks at Addicting Info have created a list for conservatives who hate taxes. It's a convenient list of "Things NOT to Do" if you hate paying taxes.

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.
11. Do not put your trash out for city garbage collectors.
12. Do not live in areas with clean air.
13. Do not drink clean water.
14. Do not visit National Parks.
15. Do not visit public museums, zoos, and monuments.
16. Do not eat or use FDA inspected food and medicines.
17. Do not bring your kids to public playgrounds.
18. Do not walk or run on sidewalks.
19. Do not use public recreational facilities such as basketball and tennis courts.
20. Do not seek shelter facilities or food in soup kitchens when you are homeless and hungry.
21. Do not apply for educational or job training assistance when you lose your job.
22. Do not apply for food stamps when you can’t feed your children.
23. Do not use the judiciary system for any reason.
24. Do not ask for an attorney when you are arrested and do not ask for one to be assigned to you by the court.
25. Do not apply for any Pell Grants.
26. Do not use cures that were discovered by labs using federal dollars.
27. Do not fly on federally regulated airplanes.
28. Do not use any product that can trace its development back to NASA.
29. Do not watch the weather provided by the National Weather Service.
30. Do not listen to severe weather warnings from the National Weather Service.
31. Do not listen to tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake alert systems.
32. Do not apply for federal housing.
33. Do not use the internet, which was developed by the military.
34. Do not swim in clean rivers.
35. Do not allow your child to eat school lunches or breakfasts.
36. Do not ask for FEMA assistance when everything you own gets wiped out by disaster.
37. Do not ask the military to defend your life and home in the event of a foreign invasion.
38. Do not use your cell phone or home telephone.
39. Do not buy firearms that wouldn’t have been developed without the support of the US Government and military. That includes most of them.
40. Do not eat USDA inspected produce and meat.
41. Do not apply for government grants to start your own business.
42. Do not apply to win a government contract.
43. Do not buy any vehicle that has been inspected by government safety agencies.
44. Do not buy any product that is protected from poisons, toxins, etc… by the Consumer Protection Agency.
45. Do not save your money in a bank that is FDIC insured.
46. Do not use Veterans benefits or military health care.
47. Do not use the G.I. Bill to go to college.
48. Do not apply for unemployment benefits.
49. Do not use any electricity from companies regulated by the Department of Energy.
50. Do not live in homes that are built to code.

The fact is, we pay for the lifestyle we expect. Without taxes, our lifestyles would be totally different and much harder. America would be a third world country. The less we pay, the less we get in return. Americans pay less taxes today since 1958 and is ranked 32nd out of 34 of the top tax paying countries. Chile and Mexico are 33rd and 34th. The Republicans are lying when they say that we pay the highest taxes in the world and are only attacking taxes to reward corporations and the wealthy and to weaken our infrastructure and way of life. So next time you object to paying taxes or fight to abolish taxes for corporations and the wealthy, keep this quote in mind…

“I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.” ~Oliver Wendell Holmes

You can see the remainder of the list by using the link.

The Conservative War Against Woman

You have to love George Carlin, and his monologue about the conservative war against women is hilarious. CAUTION: The language may offend some.

Earth Calling Right Wing Bigots

On what planet do right wing haters of President Obama live? Let's examine the right wing's response to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

First, conservatives claimed the president was lying and bin Laden was still alive. Next, they claimed the president was lying and that bin Laden had been killed months earlier but Obama covered it up until he could use it to distract from the birther issue. Their next ploy was to concede bin Laden was dead but claimed Obama was hiding the deaths of his wife and children by not releasing photos. Then, they claimed that burial at sea was to cover up the fact that bin Laden had been tortured before he died. Glenn Beck, a hero to the most extremist conservatives, claimed the burial at sea was a deliberate "show of respect" so that bin Laden could "get his 72 virgins in heaven." Bill O'Reilly, who has repeatedly lied about his "working class" roots, led the charge of "Obama is taking credit for the Navy Seals and really had nothing to do with it" nonsense. Finally, they went fully psycho and tried to credit George Bush for Obama's success. And let's not forget the Freudian Fox "News" headlines: "OBAMA bin Laden Dead"

Right wing extremists claim Obama is responsible for civil unrest in the country. However, the civil unrest in this country was instigated BEFORE Obama took office, before he even was nominated, and it was instigated by the racist right playing the full deck of race cards starting with the birthers and going on to the "secret Muslim" connection, the attacks on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the nonsensical "palling around with terrorists" attacks, and so forth. It is conservatives who continually play the race card at the slightest opportunity, or often out of thin air, and the only thing the right's disgusting bigots ever say is "President Obama is playing the race card." I have a tip for them and one that might keep right wingers from getting beaten to a pulp in a bar fight one day ---> CALLING A RACIST A RACIST IS NOT RACISM!!! NO ONE has ever called someone a racist for opposing President Obama's POLICIES. It is in the opposition to President Obama's EXISTENCE that right wingers manifest their racism in virtually every statement they make that is based on the President's skin color.

Finally, another topic dear to the hearts of right wingers is the U.S. poverty level and the War on Poverty. They make grandiose claims about the failures of the programs but fail to mention funds for the programs were cut by Richard Nixon and subsequent conservative presidents. The fact is the two presidents who saw the greatest DECREASE in the national poverty level have been Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. They showed a small rise under Reagan and are skyrocketed thanks to George W. Bush.

It's bad enough to be a right wing bigot but to be a completely uneducated right wing bigot is worse.

Adam And Teddy

I feel compelled to warn conservatives this isn't a story about two homosexuals but is an economic story. The moral is modern-day "conservatives" are , based upon the words of two men greatly revered by conservatives, actually modern-day economic extremists.

"The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich, and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." (Emphasis added)

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." (Emphasis added)

The first quote comes from Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book Five-Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth (1776). Smith argues not only that the rich should be taxed in proportion to their income but further argues they should be taxed at an even higher rate.

The second quote is from Theodore Roosevelt's The New Nationalism. Roosevelt supported, in direct opposition to modern-day Republican and tea party economic extremism, a progressive income tax. He also argued that inheritances should be taxed to ensure major wealth was not passed on to descendents who hadn't earned it by competing in the free market.

When do modern-day right wing economic extremists begin to claim Adam Smith and Theodore Roosevelt were socialists?

The bottom line is modern-day economic extremists, found among Republicans and their allies in the tea party, have a radical agenda for corporate feudalism in America.

Random Thoughts, Part Deux

It's obvious, except to tea party members, that I haven't written much for this blog in the past few months. However, you should know I've been giving a lot of thought to some of life's most intriguing questions.

Is it wetter underwater if you're there when it rains;

Is it shorter to New York than it is by plane;

Is it hotter down south than it is in summer;

If a grocery store offers flu shots, do they give them in the meat department because the meat industry has so much experience injecting hormones into meat; and,

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Earlier this year, Virginia had an earthquake! This raises an important question. Whenever an earthquake hits California, crazed fundamentalists, such as Pat Robertson, claim God is punishing the state for its pro-gay policies. Very well! Since Virginia is one of the most conservative states in the United States and is controlled totally by conservatives, many of them born-again Christians, for what crime is God punishing Virginia?

Last year, during the Michigan governor's race, I commented on the absurdity of Rick Snyder's belief that government should be run like a business. At the time, I mocked Snyder by asking, based on the current Michigan economy, what the hell did he plan to do, lay off Michigan residents. It turns out the mocking was correct.

In August of this year, Snyder signed a law limiting welfare payments to 48 months. The result of the law is that welfare payments for approximately 41,000 Michigan residents ended on October 1 at a time when the Michigan economy continues to remain in the doldrums. In effect, Snyder and his anti-working class, anti-poor allies in the state legislature downsized 41,000 people. Don't hold your breath waiting for Snyder to limit tax subsidies, for the wealthy and Michigan corporations, to four years.

Since last year's mid-term elections, we've seen right wing extremists, such as Snyder and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, wage total war against the working class, the poor and collective bargaining rights. Meanwhile, tax subsidies for the wealthy and corporations continues. In Congress, right wing extremists attack workers' rights, Social Security, and health care reform. Although they gained control of the House of Representatives on a jobs platform, Republicans have yet to pass a single jobs bill. The only proposals they offer are continuing the failed policies of the past, namely, more tax cuts for the and more subsidies for corporations.

During another era, when the Republican Party was less extreme, a Republican president wrote, on November 8, 1954 in a letter to his brother, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Fox News is designed to give ignorant people delusions of adequacy.

For at least the last three presidential elections, we've heard much rhetoric from Republicans lamenting the fact the party can't seem to garner much support among Latino voters. You'd think Latinos would be a natural constituency for the Republican Party since Latinos oppose same-sex marriage, have strong religious values and are very pro-family.

Have you seen any of the Republican presidential candidate debates? During a debate, several weeks ago, one of issues debated was immigration.

It's clear, to most observers, the Republican/Tea Party candidates are clueless. If the party holds out any chance of gaining a significant share of the Latino vote, conservative candidates will have to do a better job of debating the issue other than moving farther to the right.

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, has stated numerous times "It is not safe on that border.” However, Perry's claim, similar to the claims made about the extremist Arizona immigration law, are undermined by the fact numerous law enforcement officials who work along have stated the border is than it has been in years. Furthermore, as I previously noted in this blog, federal crime statistics indicate that, even as the number of undocumented immigrants has increased, the U.S. crime rate has continued to drop.

Another approach, advocated by the more cerebrally-challenged Republican/Tea Party candidates is the "Let's Deport Them!" mantra. I doubt most of these people can count higher than ten, but can you imagine the costs associated with arresting and deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants? The only possible solution to solving this issue is comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States.

The only other tactic of Republican/Tea Party candidates is to praise Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If you aren't familiar with the name, he's the notorious anti-immigrant Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. For those of us old enough to remember, Arpaio is the Bull Connor of the present generation.

Did the name, Chenille, originate with a French woman who, in labor, looked down at the bedspread and decided it was a pretty name for a girl?

"The economic well-being of a country is not measured exclusively by the quantity of goods it produces but also by taking into account the manner in which they are produced and the level of equity in the distribution of income, which should allow everyone access to what is necessary for their personal development and perfection. An equitable distribution of income is to be sought on the basis of criteria not merely of commutative justice but also of social justice that is, considering, beyond the objective value of the work rendered, the human dignity of the subjects who perform it. Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen." (The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, 303)

Immigrants - Documented And Undocumented - Are Important Assets To The United States

Immigrants contribute more benefits to the United States than they receive in services. Contrary to American conservative propaganda, millions of undocumented immigrants pay taxes and, even if some don't pay taxes, they contribute in other ways such as consumer taxes. They perform millions of jobs including harvesting crops and play an important role in constructing new homes. If the American conservative position is correct - that undocumented immigrants violated U.S. laws by coming to the U.S. and should be arrested - American conservatives must demand, with the same level of intensity - the arrest and prosecution of U.S. business owners who hire undocumented workers. Research indicates strong enforcement efforts have a negative economic impact.

Undocumented and documented immigrants contribute to the enrichment of the United States with their culture and languages. Despite the rhetoric of American conservatives, immigrants learn English quickly and are willing to die for the United States. As of 2008, 65,000 immigrants had fought or were currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A report by the National Research Council, fulfilling a mandate by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform {a congressionally appointed organization was asked "to examine the effects of immigration on the national economy, on government revenues and spending, and on the future size and makeup of the nation's population."

The study, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, was released on May 17, 1997. The conclusion: immigrants - regardless of legal status - contribute more to the United States than they receive in benefits.

James P. Smith, RAND Corporation senior economist and one of the group's chairpersons, stated "Immigrants may be adding as much as $10 billion to the economy each year. The vast majority of Americans are enjoying a healthier economy as the result of the increased supply of labor and lower prices that result from immigration."

What would be the impact of providing a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the United States? The best answer is examining the result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. "That legislation came about in the middle of a financial downturn, when unemployment was on the rise. What's interesting is that while the economy fell and we found ourselves in a recession, taxes on the recently legalized undocumented immigrants helped contribute to the economy."

A study by the libertarian Cato Institute stated that legalizing undocumented immigrants "would improve wages and working conditions for all workers." Two of the most important conclusions are that a national program to legalize current undocumented workers in the United States, with a law providing for new immigrants in the future, would increase productivity among immigrant workers and create jobs for other American workers. The gain would be approximately $180 billion over a ten year period. A more interesting conclusion concerned enforcement-only efforts. The study concluded such efforts would shrink the U.S. economy, reduce opportunities for high-skilled U.S. workers and the U.S. economy would lose $80 billion over a ten year period.

Note: In another posting, a discussion regarding job creation and the impact on health care.

Sources:

Jorge Ramos, A Country for All: An Immigrant Manifesto, Vintage Books, 2010, pp. 41-43.

James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston {Editors}, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, Washington, D.C., 1997 {Link: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?booksearch=1&term=Search+This+Book&record_id=5779&bottom_Search+This+Book.x=13&bottom_Search+This+Book.y=18}

Peter B. Dixon and Maureen T. Rimmer, Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform, The Cato Institute, Trade Policy Analysis No. 40, August 13, 2009 {Link: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438}

Maribel Hastings, "Economic Arguments for Legalization," America's Voice, March 25, 2009

President Dwight D. Eisenhower On Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Labor Laws and Farm Programs

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." (Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother, Edgar, on November 8, 1954).

Culture Of Death

Last night, the State of Georgia may have executed an innocent man. If so, it wouldn't be the first time the United States has executed an innocent person. Here's what I find most appalling about the death penalty in the United States, and it speaks to high level of hypocrisy one currently finds among the "law and order" types on America's political right.

These people will tell you they are opposed to government because government is inefficient, can't do a job properly and there are high levels of fraud in government. At the same time, these people have an abiding faith in the "system" when it comes to executions. On this issue, many on the political right believe the state can do no wrong, is always right and the state never makes a mistake.

Today, the United States, in using the death penalty, stands next to such bastions of individual liberty as Saudi Arabia and China. It's a sad day when any human being dies and, yes, there are evil people in the world. I'm liberal, even very liberal, however I totally reject the liberal idea that, well, deep down everyone is a good person. That's completely wrong and, as I stated, there are some very evil people in this world. However, the death penalty has outlived whatever usefulness it had if, in fact, it ever had any.

Pope John Paul II -- who will one day be a Saint -- spoke to this issue in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). He said that, in our modern age, instances when the state is unable to protect the public through nonlethal means "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." In other words, if nonlethal means are available and sufficient then the state should avoid using the death penalty in keeping, as the Catechism states (2267), "the dignity of the human person." More specifically, the argument of death penalty proponents that we must kill a person in order to protect society are increasingly invalid because there are other methods to protect the public such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The Catechism, (2269-2269), speaks to unintentional killing and notes that such killing is not as imputable as homicide but a person who unintentionally kills will not be exonerated from "grave offense" if they act in an irresponsible way that causes the death of another person although the intention to kill didn't exist. Here, Georgia officials and, for that matter, the entire United States Supreme Court can't use this defense. The clear intention was to kill Troy Anthony Davis and, if Davis was innocent and those who recanted their court testimony were truthful in recanting, both the State of Georgia and the United States Supreme Court acted in an irresponsible and, I would add, an immoral manner by not staying the execution until a court could determine if those who recanted their previous court testimony were being truthful.

In the end, if Davis was innocent, I seriously doubt death penalty proponents in the United States will lose any sleep over that fact. They have committed themselves to an extreme culture of death wherein they place an unshakable faith in the same government they despise and criticize when it, for example, strives to protect the most vulnerable of American society. When it comes to life and death, there's rank hypocrisy on both the right and left, but I shall leave that discussion for another day.

The United States will be the bastion of morality and goodness many Americans claim it is when we no longer use the death penalty. Until then, the United States should refrain from preaching morality to any other nation on this planet and, for once, admit we employ barbaric methods in meting out punishment. The death penalty is not, in any way, related to justice.

Is there a petition or statement, where I can add my name, telling Americans, and every other human being on this planet, that when the United States employs the death penalty it doesn't do so in my name because I, for one, understand the sanctity of human life?

Frankly, I'm not proud to be an American today. Then again, considering the sorry state of affairs that have existed in this country for most of my life, ranging from a national refusal to acknowledge the richest nation on the planet does virtually nothing about the thousands of Americans who sleep on our streets yet obscenely spends billions of dollars for weapons of mass destruction, a national refusal to provide health care for all Americans, a tendency to use the most extreme militarism to get our way in the world, the barbaric use of the death penalty, a tendency to ignore international law, and a tendency to commit heinous war crimes by using depleted uranium ammunition that violates, on at least four levels, humanitarian law, I'm not that proud to be an American any day.

The Real Tea Party Story

I've commented on this previously, especially in the article pertaining to Rick Snyder's endorsement of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) agenda. This is scary stuff folks, and the goals of the ALEC and the Koch brothers is very apparent. Their primary goals are to privatize the U.S. government, destroy unions and turn workers into serfs. In the process, their goals increase the power and wealth of the richest two percent and undermine the working class.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11603/publicopoly_exposed/

"As Kate Zernike noted in our October 2010 cover story, 'Tea Party Confidential,' Armey and the group's president Matt Kibbe wrote an op-ed article in 2007 proposing the Boston Tea Party as a model for putting grassroots pressure on a central government. She writes, 'Presaging Tea Party tactics in the summer of 2009, they described how Samuel Adams packed town hall meetings with his supporters to drown out Tory voices and used each new British policy or tax as 'an excuse to rally new recruits to the cause of American independence.' They wrote, 'Adams was the first American to recognize that 'it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather, an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.'

"Beginning in 2009, FreedomWorks was instrumental in creating the faux-populist Tea Party. The mainstream media uncritically hyped the scores of Tea Party tax day protests orchestrated by FreedomWorks and the National Taxpayers Union (another Koch-funded ALEC group headed by former ALEC executive director Duane Parde), thus helping enable unprecedented Republican legislative majorities in states across the nation.

"Case study: Arizona

"Documents released following a public records request to the office of then-Arizona Senate President Bob Burns (R-Peoria) indicate that in 2009 and 2010, Arizona ALEC lawmakers requested more than $60,000 in reimbursement for travel, lodging and registration fees from ALEC’s scholarship fund for their time at ALEC functions—including the December 2009 event at which State Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) submitted his draft of SB 1070 for approval as a piece of ALEC model legislation, the law known as 'breathing while Brown' to its critics. (See 'Corporate Con Game: How the private prison industry helped shape Arizona’s anti-immigrant law,' In These Times, July 2010.)"

Thus, the tea party movement isn't, as it claims, a grassroots movement but, rather, a political movement financed by some of the wealthiest conservative Americans and corporate America. The fact that the corporate media, and in that definition I include ALL cable news programming, has promoted the false grassroots claim is disturbing but not surprising.

Never forget the Koch brothers, the ALEC, FreedomWorks, the tea party movement and the extreme conservatives they support promote the irrational idea that government -- local, state and federal -- should and can be operated like a business. There's no way any government can be operated as a business unless, of course, governmental organizations are privatized. As Michael Parenti so eloquently states it, "Conservatives insist that government should be 'run more like a business. 'One might wonder how that could be possible, since government does not market goods and services for the purpose of capital accumulation.'"

In reality, the goal of corporate thugs like the Koch Brothers, parliamentary whores like John Boehner and extremist governors like Rick Snyder and Scott Walker is to make a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and only for the wealthy.

Conservative Economic Solution Doesn't Work

Previously, in this blog, I've mentioned the idea, held by conservatives, that low tax rates lead to economic growth.  This idea has become a kind of religious belief among conservatives, and it's how often they use this argument.

For example, Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said "We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment and more people paying taxes.”

Senator Jim DeMint has been quoted as saying, "But we also need to just cut the top marginal rate for individuals and corporations so that we're more competitive and companies can look way out in the future and know they'll have a competitive tax rate.”

And, finally, the Club for Growth states, “To stimulate GDP growth, a tax cut has to cut the marginal tax rates upon which the decision makers in the economy base their decisions to work and, above all, to invest.”

There's only one big problem with this conservative argument.  It's false and, as I've mentioned several times, has no historical validity.

Michael Linden, Director of Tax and Budget Policy at American Progress, addresses the fallacy of this long-held conservative belief in an article posted on the American Progress.

See: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_charticle.html

"The top marginal income tax rate has ranged all the way from 92 percent down to 28 percent over the last 60 years. With such a large range, it should be easy to see the enormous impact of lower rates on overall economic growth, as conservatives routinely claim. Years with lower marginal rates should boast higher growth, right?

"That’s definitely not what happened. In fact, growth was actually fastest in years with relatively high top marginal tax rates. Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that."

You'd think that prominent conservatives who, more often than not, are criticizing the rest of us for our alleged lack of knowledge regarding the history of this country would be embarrassed to use this historically false economic argument but, when it comes to being parliamentary whores for the wealthiest Americans including corporate elites, it appears Boehner, et al have no shame.

Based on their extreme ignorance of American economic history, and American history in general, I have to question whether Boehner and his crowd were frequently socially promoted while attending the public schools they now want to destroy.

Conservative Claims U.S. Muslims Have No Free Speech Rights

"The right to freedom of religion guaranteed in the United States Constitution doesn't apply to Muslims, according to a blogger writing for a conservative Christian organization.

"Bryan Fischer, a blogger for the ultra-conservative American Family Association (AFA), declared Thursday that Muslims have no First Amendment rights in the United States.

'The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity,' he wrote in his column at Renew America. 'They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary.'

"Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy, Fischer continued.

"Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam.

"Fischer added that Muslims have no constitutional right to build mosques.

'They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States,'" he said.

Yes, folks you read that correctly.  Bryan Fischer, a batshit crazy conservative, is claiming Muslims have no constitutional protections in this country.  My question is where the hell does the conservative movement find people like Bryan Fischer?   Let's be clear about Fischer's tactics.

In 2004 another hateful, mentally deranged religious bigot, Michelle Malkin, authored a book advocating concentration camps for Muslims.  Combined with Fischer's false claim regarding First Amendment rights of Muslims, the intent of far-right conservatives is quite clear.

Fischer, Malkin and others of their loathsome ilk, are working to dehumanize, disenfranchise and segregate Muslims.   The words and proposals of Fischer and Malkin sound eerily familiar to the societal and legal restrictions placed on Jews by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany. 

Folks, this is an anti-American as it gets!

Here, readers might be thinking the [Friedrich Gustav Emil] Martin Niemöller quote " First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist" is soon to appear.  However, you'll never find me quoting a despicable character like Niemöller.  Why?

It's goes to the fact that German Christians, Protestants and Catholics, strongly supported the Nazis.  In the case of German Protestants, their support for Hitler and the Nazis was based, in part, on the party's opposition to modernism.  As for Niemöller, he welcomed Hitler's ascension to power in 1933 believing it would bring a national revival. 

He only began to oppose the Nazis when Hitler threatened to attack the churches via the Aryan paragraph.  The Aryan paragraph is a clause in the statutes of an organization, corporation, or real estate deed that reserves membership and/or right of residence solely for members of the Aryan race and excludes from such rights any non-Aryans, particularly Jews or those of Jewish descent, as well as to those who were then referred to as Negroes. Aryan paragraphs were an essential aspect of public life in Germany and Austria from 1885 to 1945, and they were also used in many suburban real estate deeds in the United States up until the late 1950s (as an aside, during his confirmation hearings, William Rehnquist defended Aryan paragraphs). 

However, the dark side of Niemöller can be seen in the fact that, even as he gradually abandoned his sympathies for the Nazis, he continued to make pejorative remarks against Jews.  For example, in a 1935 sermon, Niemöller employed the oldest pillar of Christian anti-Jewish bigotry, the deicide canard.  He remarked: "What is the reason for their obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!"

In the same hateful vein as Niemöller, today we're witnessing the worst elements of conservatism and Christianity demonize Muslims.  The similarities between the words and actions of Martin Niemöller, Bryan Fischer, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and hundreds of other conservatives and Christians cannot be ignored if we are to remain a society that protects the rights of all Americans.  We cannot remain silent in the face of attempts to deny American freedoms to a group based on religion. 

Let's recognize Bryan Fischer for what he is, namely a hateful anti-American religious bigot.

Source: 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/24/fringe-conservative-group-claims-u-s-muslims-have-no-free-speech-rights/

New Milestone: 1 in 6 in U.S. A Hispanic

Today, the Census Bureau is releasing its first data related to the 2010 census.   For those of us who've observed the changing demographics of the United States, this is what we expected.

Examination of the data reveals Hispanics accounted for half of the increase in U.S. population over the last ten years, overall rapid minority growth, growth of suburbs and an aging white population.  

"Racial and ethnic minorities are expected to make up an unprecedented 90 percent of the total U.S. growth since 2000, due to immigration and higher birth rates for Latinos. Currently the fastest growing group, Hispanics are on track to exceed 50 million, or roughly 1 in 6 Americans; among U.S. children, Hispanics are now roughly 1 in 4."

The growth in the Hispanic population wasn't confined to states most of us traditionally think of as having significant Hispanic populations, i.e. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.  The Census Bureau data indicates there were significant jumps in Hispanic population in Alabama, Louisiana, and North Carolina.

In addition to the tremendous growth in the Hispanic population, Asians had a larger gain than African Americans, and Americans who identify themselves as "multiracial" increased by more than 25 percent to total 8.7 million.

White Americans, according to the latest Census Bureau data, saw their numbers drop from 69 percent of the population in 2000 to 64 percent in 2010.  The primary reason is declining birth rates; the median age for white Americans is now forty-one.  

What does this mean for the United States?  One important topic is Social Security and the changing face of the workforce. 

This issue was the topic of research for "Burden of Support: Young Latinos in an Aging Society." The book,  written by David Hayes-Bautista, Werner Schink, and Jorge Chapa and published by Stanford University Press,  discusses the fact that, as baby boomers age and retire, the labor force will be increasingly comprised of minority workers and, therefore, the costs of maintaining Social Security and Medicare will increasingly fall to non-white workers while a large number of recipients will be white.

What societal issues may arise from this change in demographics?

We'd be better served if we stepped off the anti-immigration train and began understanding that one of our highest priorities should be educating every member of our changing society.  This means investing in education not balancing budgets on the backs of children and, yes, it means paying higher taxes to fund infrastructure such as new schools, new textbooks and better pay for teachers.   It's time we, as a society, stopped using teachers and teachers' unions as scapegoats for the economic mess created by giving unneeded tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent, tax subsidies rewarding corporations that take jobs offshore and two unnecessary wars created, in large part, by outrageous lies.  

Otherwise, we'll see a quicker decline of the American empire than we're already witnessing.   

Rich People Don't Create Jobs

The following is excerpted from the Baltimore City Paper and includes an excellent primer on how business works. For liberals, this is a delightful read.

http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2009/11/the-maryland-millionaire-count-tax-scams-and-train-wrecks/

"Critics of the millionaire tax say they’ve never heard of a poor man hiring a worker. Only the rich do that; therefore, to render the wealthy less so by taxation is to destroy jobs.

"The theory presumes that the wealthy hire people out of charity. In this model, jobs are bestowed upon lucky workers by the industrious entrepreneur, who derives his own wealth from some magical practices (having nothing to do with the workers he may hire) which are anyway unfathomable to outsiders.

"To hear self-proclaimed capitalists make this argument is irritating, because it suggests they don’t understand how our economic system is supposed to work. They have the process exactly backwards.

"In a capitalist system, investors make money not despite hiring workers, but because they hire workers who, if they are adequately managed, create value in excess of the wages and benefits they are paid. This value is called 'profit,' and the business’ owner gets to keep that, after paying taxes.

"In a properly functioning capitalist economy, rich people don’t 'create jobs' for workers; workers, upon having jobs, create rich people."

Waging War Against American Workers

Today, across the United States, working class Americans are under assault in an all-out war  being waged by some of the wealthiest conservative billionaires and corporate America.  Unlike the old days of corporations hiring street thugs or using state police power to crush workers, the current thugs come in the form of newly-elected Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures.

The current targets are teachers and public employee unions.  With images supplied by conservative, Chickenhawk sleazebag Karl Rove, conservatives are attempting to portray teachers as thugs.  Rove and his minions are working to strip the teachers of America of some very basic American rights, namely the right to assemble and the right of free speech.

The following is instructive of the new type of conservative taking power in the United States.

In 2010, Michiganders witnessed a most unusual governor's race.  It began with the Republican primary that included some rather well known politicians and one newcomer, Rick Snyder.  Snyder used a variety of political advertisements against his primary opponents, but they are had two messages.  One message was the labeling of his opponents as "career politicians;"  the second message was that Snyder was a different type of politician.  The general election campaign featured more of the same against Snyder's Democratic opponent.

Thus, in November 2010, Michiganders elected a new type of politician.  A Republican!

Is Rick Snyder truly a new type of politician or just the same warmed over pro-corporate, anti-workers' rights conservative we've seen in the past?  It was very amusing to conduct the research and learn some rather interesting facts about Snyder. 

First, on social issues, Snyder is staunchly anti-gay and would deny equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians who simply want to marry the person they love.  One wonders if Snyder has ever read the Fourteenth Amendment.  Snyder claimed to be anti-abortion but  contributed $2,000 to the 2008 campaign to overturn Michigan's ban on embryonic stem cell research.  Considering his strong pro-business attitude, the obvious question is whether Snyder accepted campaign funds from companies that will financially benefit from the research.  Of course, there may be underlying reasons for Snyder's positions on these issues but more about that later.

As for the business environment and, in particular, film industry in Michigan, Snyder has stated government should not "pick winners and losers."   Sounds like a cop-out to me.  Snyder does favor lower taxation on businesses, across the board, and would scale back the Michigan film subsidy. 

Snyder's mantra related to picking winners and losers is laughable considering that, via the tax code, government picks winners and losers all the time.  I imagine Snyder didn't complain about the government picking "winners and losers" when Gateway benefited from corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and incentives.  For an excellent example of government picking winners and losers, one need only look at the pharmaceutical industry or the oil industry. 

A good question for Snyder and other current right wing conservative governors is, what do the Erie Canal, the Panama Canal, the Interstate Highway System, and the transcontinental railroad have in common?  Answer?

They were all ventures paid for with taxpayer dollars, and they all benefited the country despite strong opposition from individuals like Rick Snyder.  Perhaps Ronald Reagan's greatest, and worst, legacy is that he taught Americans to hate their government.

Scott Walker, Chris Christie and several other prominent Republican governors have voiced strong opposition to unions.  Is Snyder anti-union? 

Brian Calley, Snyder's running mate and current Lieutenant Governor, is strongly anti-workers' rights and supports making Michigan a right to work state.  More bluntly, Snyder chose an extreme right winger as a running mate and, in effect, tipped his hand.  He is staunchly anti-union and, if he seriously believes right-to-work laws will make for better schools, better jobs and a higher standard of living in Michigan, he needs only to look at Mississippi.  I don't know about anyone else in Michigan but I don't, for a moment, want Michigan to mirror Mississippi.

It's interesting individuals like Walker, Christie, Snyder and Calley oppose collective bargaining for workers but support collective lobbying by the retailers associations, the Chamber of Commerce, and other pro-business groups. 

Should Michigan become a right-to-work state, several things are certain.  Government services will be necessarily, and greatly, reduced, businesses will have more power to determine state budgets, education will suffer and Michigan schools will mirror Mississippi and wages will drop dramatically.  It's more than interesting Snyder never utters a damning word about the tremendous gap between rich and poor in the United States or, in particular, Michigan.

During last fall's campaign, I wrote that one of the first things Snyder would do is propose cutting funding for education.  I was right.  Snyder's education policy sounds lofty and, in some respects, one can easily believe Snyder is sincere.  However, the real Snyder is revealed when he cites, as a source, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). 

For those not familiar with the ALEC, it's an extreme right wing group:

1) that has strong ties to major corporations, trade associations, right wing organizations and right-wing politicians including the National Rifle Association, Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Milliken Foundation, DeVos Foundation, Bradley Foundation, and the Olin Foundation.  In fact, ALEC has over three hundred corporate sponsors including the American Nuclear Energy Council, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco, Chevron, Coors Brewing Company, Shell, Texaco, Union Pacific Railroad, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Phillip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco;

2) that has an agenda including rolling back civil rights, challenging government restrictions on corporate pollution, limiting government regulations of commerce, and privatizing public services (it's no wonder Snyder is staunchly anti-union);

3) that claims to be bi-partisan but all of ALEC officers who are state legislators are Republicans;

4) that has proposed public services, such as schools, prisons, public transportation, and social and welfare services, be taken over by for-profit private businesses; ALEC argues that market competition will force public schools to improve or be put out of business.

I submit this is Snyder's true education agenda and, as a whole, the agenda of the current conservative Republican governors and legislators across the country.  Suggesting that public schools be operated as businesses is an insane as permitting private corporations to operate prisons.  Government doesn't exist to make a profit but, among the Rick Snyders and Scott Walkers of this world, that approach appears to be a holy grail.

In its early years, ALEC vocally opposed abortion, women's rights and supported prayer in public schools.  Of course, it supported the latter so long as the prayer was a Christian prayer.

There you have it, folks.  When I began research on Snyder's positions, I didn't expect to find the ALEC.  However, I believe the fact Snyder relies so heavily on it for source data is revealing and, when one delves into the agenda of the ALEC, one finds extreme right wing positions not consistent with the message Snyder sold to a majority of Michigan voters.  Of course, as mentioned above, Snyder clearly tipped his hand when he chose Brian Calley as a running mate.

No doubt, one of Snyder's arguments would be that government places too much regulation on business.  It's a fallacious argument because our current economic mess is due to TOO LITTLE regulation not too much.  During the Bush administration, regulations were loosened and, historically, unfettered capitalism has been a monumental failure. 

Additionally, if one examines the history of capitalism in the United States, one finds it's been a monumental failure with countless recessions and depressions especially in the nineteenth century leading up to the Great Depression of the 1930s.  The latter was, again, created by too little government regulation not too much.  Proof lies in the fact we haven't had a depression since the 1930s.  That fact isn't due to the self-restraint of capitalists; it's due to the governmental watchdog agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Another holy grail for conservatives like Snyder is the oft-repeated mantra about lowering tax rates and that lowering tax rates creates economic expansion.  However, the facts belie this conservative mantra. 

In 2008, Larry Beinhart wrote an article regarding conservative "fog facts" about taxes.  Beinhart used two completed sets of data, historic income tax and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rates in the United States and concluded that high tax rates correlate with strong economic growth.  The four periods of greatest economic growth in United States history, by pretty much any measure, are:

a)  World War II (1941 - 1945) - The top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent

b)  Postwar under Truman and Eisenhower: The top tax rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent.

c)  The Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's [George Herbert Walker] top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent.

d)  The first two administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1940).  When Roosevelt came into office, Herbert Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 to 63 percent.  Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.

As an aside, conservatives have spent a lot of time and used a lot of ink trying to prove the New Deal did not end the Great Depression.  Regardless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time FDR came into office to when the United States entered World War II.[1]

The bottom line, according to Beinhart, is that tax increases create economic growth whereas moderate tax cuts are followed by stagnant growth.  One need to look no further than George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent to prove the point.  Furthermore, contrary to conservative claims, the wealthy do not create jobs nor does increasing military expenditures create jobs.  The best way to create jobs is a combination of investment in home construction and tax cuts targeted to working middle class families and the working power who spend money that, then, fuels economic growth.

Another frequent economic argument from the right is what one would call the Horatio Alger myth.   The "Horatio Alger myth" is a criticism of the rags to riches message in books by nineteenth century author, Horatio Alger, Jr. Alger wrote more than 100 books for young working class males; the first, "Ragged Dick" was published in 1867.  His books have been described as rags to riches stories. “By leading exemplary lives, struggling valiantly against poverty and adversity” Alger’s protagonists gain both wealth and honor, ultimately realizing the American Dream.[2] 

Michael Moore, Academy Award winning filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator, has expressly voiced opposition to the Horatio Alger myth.   In 2003, Moore remarked, “So, here's my question: after fleecing the American public and destroying the American dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word?   How can that be?   I think it's because we're still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug.   Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.”[3] 

Harlon L. Dalton, Professor of Law at Yale University, not only objects to the Horatio Alger myth, but also maintains that it is socially destructive. Dalton explains that the Horatio Alger myth conveys three basic messages, “(1) each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits; (2) we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits; and (3) Each of them is, to be charitable, problematic. The first message is a variant on the rugged individualism ethos…In this form, the Horatio Alger myth suggests that success in life has nothing to do with pedigree, race, class background, gender, national origin, sexual orientation—in short, with anything beyond our individual control. Those variables may exist, but they play no appreciable role in how our actions are appraised."[4]

Dalton further asserts the myth serves to maintain the racial pecking order. It does so by mentally bypassing the role of race in American society, by fostering beliefs that themselves serve to trivialize, if not erase, the social meaning of race. The Alger myth encourages people to blink at the many barriers to racial equality (historical, structural, and institutional) that litter the social landscape” and believe that all it takes to be successful in America is initiative, persistence, hard work, and pluck.[4]

According to Dalton, a fundamental tension exists between the realization of the American Dream based on the Alger myth and the harsh realities of a racial caste system. Obviously, the main point of such a system is to promote and maintain inequality.  Another point of the Alger myth “is to proclaim that everyone can rise above his/her station in life. Despite this tension, it is possible for the myth to coexist with social reality. Not surprisingly, then, there are lots of Black folk who subscribe to the Alger myth and at the same time understand it to be deeply false. They live with the dissonance between myth and reality because both are helpful and healthful in dealing with ‘the adverse events of life.’  Many Whites, however, have a strong interest in resolving the dissonance in favor of the myth.   Far from needing to be on guard against racial ‘threat[s] or challenge[s],’ they would just as soon put the ugliness of racism out of mind.   For them, the Horatio Alger myth provides them the opportunity to do just that."[4]

The myth suggests we are judged solely on our individual merits, in turn implying that the caste has little practical meaning, apart from race-based advantages of disadvantages. Generally Whites are more successful than African Americans, as they are facilitated by their preferred social position, while African Americans believe that they can “simply lift themselves up by their own bootstraps”. It is in America's national interest, Dalton believes, to give the Horatio Alger myth a rest, because it is a mythology that assures us we can have it all, when in reality, “we live today in an era of diminished possibilities.[4]

Max B. Sawicky, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute who worked in the Office of State and Local Finance of the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is another who refutes the Horatio Alger myth.   In a column on the five leading concerns for populist economics, Sawicky wrote, “trade policy alone is woefully inadequate to significantly lightening the burdens of the working class.  Populism's point of departure is the domination of monied elites who jury rig commerce and call it free enterprise, who marginalize dissent and call it democracy. It rejects the Horatio Alger myth, with its false promise that if you study, work hard, and play by the rules, economic security will be yours.”[5]

Another important point here is that the richest Americans didn't 'earn' their fortune; they inherited it.    An example are the wealthy heirs of Sam Walton.  Other wealthy individuals who inherited wealth include Donald Trump and Bill Gates.  The latter inherited, at age 21, $1 million which, of course, was a lot of money in 1973.   Yes, Gates did use his inherited wealth wisely, and one has to admire the fact that Gates has given a large portion of his fortune to the Gates Foundation.  However, Gates'  additional wealth - and the same goes for Steve Jobs - was created by the labor of workers at Microsoft and Apple.  Although we never discuss it in the United States, social class is an important indicator of success.

One has to wonder why, if he was truly the outsider he claimed to be, Snyder opted to run as a Republican.  Since he spent his own money to run, why burden himself with the Republican label?   As I noted previously, this isn't the Republican Party of Edward Brooke or, for that matter, Gerald Ford.  Examine recent comments by mainstream Republicans, like Haley Barbour, regarding President Obama.  A significant number of Republicans incorrectly believe President Obama was born in Kenya.  They've pushed the socialism lie for so long they no doubt believe it.  Obama's policies aren't socialistic; if that argument was true then one could argue George W. Bush was the quintessential socialist since he approved loans to U.S. auto manufacturers and advocated the bailout of failed banks.  It's an absurd argument with no factual validity.  However, I would argue Snyder, by virtue of the fact he was a corporate CEO and corporations benefit tremendously from U.S. tax policy as well as other economic incentives given to American businesses, cannot possibly be an 'outsider.'  He's the quintessential insider!

As I noted previously, Snyder relies heavily on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as a source.  In addition to the problems with the ALEC I previously noted, another important one is it's preaching of "federalism...federalism...federalism..."  One can appreciate the fact that the founding fathers created a federalist system of government but, when one considers the ALEC's extreme right agenda, one has to question what the ALEC means by federalism.  I suspect it's the same message currently heard from Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and the Attorneys General, of several states, who have filed lawsuits against health care reform.  Their argument is that the states can refuse to abide by any federal legislation or federal court decision they oppose based on the notion that some state law may conflict.  This is the doctrine of interposition,  and it's  an absurd argument with no legal standing in current U.S.  law.   It's more than interesting, and quite revealing, that some of the leaders of the right are making the interposition argument since the last people to use it were southern conservatives who were proponents of Jim Crow laws and fighting integration of public schools.  Rand Paul has even gone so far as to suggest, despite current U.S. law, that a restaurant should have the right to refuse service to a person based on skin color.  Since he relies so heavily upon the ALEC, I believe it's valid to ask Snyder if he accepts the right's current federalism argument.

One might argue Snyder is the quintessential capitalist and no doubt believes the "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" mentality one finds in the United States.  It's hypocritical, at best, for someone like Snyder to argue the average American should pull himself/herself up by the bootstraps and, at the same time, advocate significant tax breaks/subsidies for businesses.  If laissez-faire is good enough for working class Americans, why isn't it good enough for businesses?   I doubt anyone in the corporate-owned media would dare ask him, but it would be interesting to hear Snyder explain the tremendous disparity between rich and poor in the United States as well as in the State of Michigan.  As I noted previously, the richest nation on the planet, the United States, has the greatest disparity between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.  Despite all the grandiose claims about the success of capitalism and global markets, I doubt Snyder has a credible explanation for the fact that approximately three billion people live on less than $2.50 per day, that according to UNICEF 24,000 children die each day due to poverty, or that the wealthiest nation on Earth (the United States) has the widest gap between rich and poor of any western industrialized nation.

If we are, indeed, our brothers' keeper, we're failing miserably at the job.  When fifty-one percent of the world's richest bodies are corporations, there's something terribly wrong.   

Yet, you'd never hear Rick Snyder, Scott Walter, Chris Christie, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or virtually any other conservative political leader questioning the capitalist mantra or the Horatio Alger myth.   

Almost half a century ago, a young president had the Rick Snyders and Scott Walkers of his day in mind when he so eloquently said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."  Those words ring as true today as they did almost five decades ago.

Sources:

1)  Holland, Joshua. The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (New Jersey:  John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2010), pp. 95 - 97, 230 - 231, 27 - 29

2) Alger, Horatio The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. 2007. Columbia University Press. 13 Apr 2008

3) Moore, Michael. Face It, You'll Never Be Rich. The Guardian. 09 Oct 2003. 15 Apr 2008.

4) Dalton, Harlon L. Horatio Alger. Racial Healing: Confronting the Fear Between Blacks and Whites. 1995. 16 Apr 2008.

5) Sawicky, Max. The Five Boxes of Populist Economics. Talking Points Memo - The Coffee House. 11 Dec 2006.