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.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
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)
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
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).
Thursday, September 22, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)