A modest proposal: Expand Medicare to
college-age young adults
Even after Michael Moore
A modest proposal: Expand Medicare to
college-age young adults
Even after Michael Moore
Call this an open letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos called on President Obama to step up hostility against the Iranian regime. He also called the president, who endures more personal attacks daily than Graham is showing much awareness of, “timid” and “passive.”
The kicker is that Sen. Graham employed the old Quaker expression “Speak truth to power” to convey his rhetorical bellicosities.
I myself was a Quaker for years, although I left my meeting several years ago–a local Religious Society of Friends meeting, here in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. In my opinion, Graham is wittingly or unwittingly engaging in something offensive to people of conscience. It is no more appropriate for Mr. Graham to lift one of the oldest Quaker expressions, and to 180 its message to boost hostilities, than it would be for him to use the Mormon temple as backdrop for an open-bar party, etc.
Anyway, the “speak truth to power” phrase is not applicable to the United States government vis-a-vis the Iranian government in the first place. Speaking truth to power is David versus Goliath, the self-exhortation the weak give themselves in positions where they are materially powerless, the self-reminder that in the worst circumstances they may voice something that will live after them. The U.S. government is not the weak facing the strong here. That may be the position of some of the protestors in Iran. But it would be morally presumptuous for a comfortable U.S. senator to exhort Iranian protestors to go out into the streets and die for their cause, whatever their cause is. Besides, the Iranian regime is hearing all kinds of speech.
The very vagueness of these pseudo-spiritual exhortations by some of our GOP spokesmen should be a clue to the media outlets that give them a platform their ersatz message has hardly earned. What exactly are they recommending, after all? –parachuting American soldiers into Tehran? Invasion? (Not yet.) It is a measure of the limitlessness of presumption that some rightwingers can–even given their track record re Iraq, the Palestinians, Afghanistan–presume to put themselves forward at this juncture, just for the narrow political objective of undermining a measured response to Iranian violence by a U.S. president. Further demonstration, if proof were needed: They figure that every war ultimately benefits them. Crisis benefits them. Violence benefits them. So the political talking points get trotted out–whatever talking points make crisis worse–that’s the ticket.
What would be best and safest for this country and for the world would be a peaceful transfer of power in Iran. The Iranian people have the best hopes and wishes of the majority of the U.S. public in that regard. But that message could be conveyed much more effectively, and constructively, if the individuals most culpable for getting this country into war in the Middle East would pipe down.
One thing all this irrational exuberance (for bloodshed) signals is a continuing lack of transparency and accountability in the corporate news media. When media outlets stand to profit–materially–from actions and policies they support, the public should have access to that information in order to make an informed judgment.
The right to bear arms already—if your gun is already drawn
Targeting the Internet versus scrutinizing the NRA:
Following up on last night’s post—
We’re not off to a good start. In the aftermath of rising gun sales and recent fatal shootings including the killing of security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns by James von Brunn at the Holocaust Memorial Museum yesterday, we need to let the sunshine in on U.S. firearms trafficking and the political insolence of the gun lobby.
A quick run-down on how those issues are surfacing in major newspapers today:
One newspaper article today, in this generously resourced nation of ours, does bring up the issue of firearms in connection with von Brunn’s actions—to argue that gun control is futile. A gun advocate writing for the Examiner, owned by conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz, reportedly considering buying the Boston Globe from the Times company, argues that what von Brunn was doing is illegal already:
“Item #1: As a convicted felon, von Brunn could not legally own a firearm, so when he carried what has been described as a “long rifle” or a “long gun”, he was already in violation of that particular statute.
Item #2: It is illegal in Washington, D.C. to trot around with a gun, and illegal everywhere to enter a federal building with a firearm.
Item #3: It is illegal to criminally assault someone with a firearm, yet that is exactly what the suspect did Wednesday.”
Ergo, laws do not work. So we should not have them.
As the argument continues,
“When is the last time anyone heard of a mass shooting at a gun range, gun show or an NRA convention? Never? Well, DUH! There’s a reason for that. As exemplified by last month’s NRA gathering in Phoenix, AZ, there was a definite armed presence; a gunman would have been met with a fusillade.”
The author seems not to connect the fact that guards at the museum were armed, although to do him justice he does mention the fact:
“This is all the more reason why law-abiding American citizens should be allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms virtually anywhere. Placing restrictions on legal concealed or open carry has been proven time and again to provide a risk-free working environment for lunatics bent on harming a lot of innocent people. Gun-free zones are killing fields for madmen.
Of course, the museum is not exactly a gun-free zone. Security officers, including Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns, who was fatally wounded, are armed. This incident happened very fast, Metro Police Chief Kathy Lanier said the suspect opened fire immediately when he entered the doorway of the museum. It is not clear whether Johns was able to engage and exchange shots or whether one of the other guards shot the suspect.”
So the difference between the museum—not, as the writer points out, “a gun-free zone”—and “a gun range, gun show or an NRA convention” is what? Not the presence on the scene of guns. No. The difference must be the sheer number of guns on the scene, sufficient to be a deterrent presumably, although that word is not used. But this gunman was clearly suicidal as well as homicidal, broke and in debt, barely able to make ends meet. The tragic events look like what police call “suicide by cop,” varied only slightly to become suicide by armed security guard.
Or is the difference that the guns at the museum were not already drawn? “This incident happened very fast.” In other words, as news reports indicate, von Brunn fired before the guards had time to draw their guns. Clearly guns being fired at a gun range are already drawn. But are the guns at “a gun show or an NRA convention” also already drawn? New news, if so.
Along these lines—Come to think of it, it would be illuminating to know what precautions the NRA takes when it fires someone.
[Editorial disclaimer: This article, deleted by the system among hundreds of articles and blog posts in summer 2011, is re-posted using archives and Word files.]
Fitzgerald tried to get Obama, came up with
CNN INTERVIEW WITH DICK CHENEY: WHY DIDN
Sexual Abuse of
Minors by a WA Judge
—
horrible story I have ever been told about a judge came from around
there was a judge in the area
Politicized Justice Department Firings Are Not the Only Investigation Needed
That Karl Rove and Harriet Miers are finally going to testify in some fashion before the House Judiciary Committee is encouraging news. It is to be hoped that ultimately their testimony 1) will be open to the public, and 2) will actually clarify something about politicized hirings and firings in the Bush Justice Department.
But we must remember that other issues besides politicizing Justice, however grave that was, have left residual dangers for this country.
Now, with an avalanche of economic news and the continuing drain on our resources of occupation in Iraq and strife in Afghanistan, among other issues, the entire topic of illegal wiretapping has faded from view.
For eight years, the Bush administration and its allies in the GOP and the corporate media portrayed illegal wiretapping as an irreconcilable clash of fundamental civil liberties against the need for security. Much of the press and the Democratic Party fell into this rhetorical trap.
To this day, too few of our leaders have challenged the Bush White House claim that any illegal actions were committed in order to protect and defend Americans.
This issue is not merely political, not merely ethical. It has intrinsic connections to domestic security for the United States.
A few reminders here, still relevant from a much earlier post:
All these issues raise questions still unanswered to this day, and all of them are relevant to security.
As said, political consequences are by no means the most important consequences. Still, the danger to our political system, the enfeebling of a vital participatory democracy that replaces its public officials rather than keeping them for life and makes their positions hereditary, is significant. Flying in the face of reason, evidence and common sense, the Bush White House got away for eight years with arguing that government secrecy must be the sign of something good. We’re doing this for you.
The argument would be reasonable if law enforcement and intelligence personnel were eager to admit incarcerating the wrong person or other mistakes. But observation and experience remind us that secrecy is much more often the sign of a cover-up than of anything effective, favorable or beneficial.
Questions remain regarding the Cole bombing; the assassination of Massoud at the same time as 9/11; the deaths of so many Loya Girga soon after 9/11; the head of the ISI in the U.S. during 9/11; the 9/11 hijackers’ involuntary trips around the U.S., including to Las Vegas; and Riggs Bank’s financing persons of interest. Questions still remain regarding the anthrax mailings. Questions still remain regarding vote suppression and other anti-election efforts under the previous administration. Questions remain about even the lead-up to the Iraq war and the conduct of the war, the issue that has been most nearly investigated thoroughly. Questions remain about the construction of the world’s biggest U.S. embassy in Iraq and about the construction of so many U.S. installations encircling Saudi Arabia.
It is an open shame that current GOP officeholders, probably all of them, are eagerly urging President Obama to ‘look forward’ rather than ‘backward’—the metaphor used to justify failing to apply reasonable standards of professional responsibility. But the Democrats have no obligation to go along with a rejection of accountability and a ratification of false history. Quite the contrary.
[This article, deleted by the system among hundreds of articles and blog posts in summer 2011, is re-posted using archives and Word files.]
Holder Does the Country a Favor —
General Eric Holder released seven legal opinions authored by the
Bush administration
There Was Never Going to Be ‘Bipartisanship’
President Obama is receiving credit, rightly, for being considerably more polite and decent to his strident opponents—neocon media personalities, the GOP in Congress, former Republican candidates for office—than George W. Bush and his cohorts ever were to Democrats. He didn’t even wear garlic, going to dine with George Will, Bill Kristol and a host of other neocons in a house presumably free of mirrors. But it’s a good thing the news cycle moves so quickly nowadays. Otherwise, that quick set-up by the GOP in DC, to make ‘lack of bipartisanship’ the putative hallmark of presidential failure, might not have been so quickly seen through–and shot down.
The simple truth, to coin a phrase, is that there was never going to be bipartisanship from Republicans in Congress and/or angling for office. That’s not what they’re there for. They’re there to protect the interests they have always protected, at least at the highest party echelons.
Hence the rapidity and the blind rigidity with which the GOP already attempts to represent every fiscal move by the new administration in the old tax-and-spend light, ‘positioning’ Republicans in Congress as in favor of ‘cuts’ and Democrats as the reverse. Disregarding budget-busting amendments to the stimulus offered by the GOP, some media outlets have gone along with this line.
Predictably, one of the biggest differences between the House version of the stimulus package and the Senate version, the latter more affected by GOP demands, was that the Senate version included more, and more regressive, ‘tax cuts’. Thus the ‘cut spending’ line—actually, a rise in deficits—melds neatly with the ‘cut taxes’ line.
It’s a neat formulation but an Orwellian distortion.
When the GOP, which recently brought about the biggest wave of government spending in U.S. history and capped it off with a Wall Street bailout for some of the biggest beneficiaries of that spending, talks about ‘cutting taxes,’ in practice the ‘cuts’ boil down to two policies:
1) Shifting the tax burden from the wealthy and corporations to the middle class; and
2) Shifting the burden of raising taxes from the federal government to states and localities.
Both of these shifts are in practice regressive, bearing down hardest on those least able to bear any further financial strain. Over-all, what happens to ordinary taxpayers—especially hardworking, non-indigent individuals who have to watch every dime—when the Grover Norquist types go to work drowning the government in the bathtub?
We are seeing the answer right now, most prominently in Schwarzenegger’s California. In general, taxes imposed by state and local governments tend to burden ordinary individuals more than they do the affluent or corporations (which often operate above the aegis of state law). As today’s Washington Post sums it up, the new cuts being passed in California fit the typical pattern:
“The budget measure would trim spending by $15 billion, including $8.6 billion from funding for public schools. It would raise $14 billion in taxes by increasing the sales tax by 1 percent and the gasoline tax by 12 cents a gallon, by doubling vehicle registration fees and by levying a 2.5 percent surcharge on income taxes. The rest would come from new borrowing.”
It’s like reward-the-billionaire pinball. Of all forms of broad taxation, the most regressive is the sales tax. Such sales taxes as gasoline tax and fuel tax hit individuals and businesses dependent in transportation and housing particularly hard. Vehicle registration fees and other so-called ‘user’s fees’ are generally just a form of sales tax under another name, and btw not doing much to enhance the health of our automobile industry or our transportation sector generally. After all, the only way to avoid paying more in these sectors is to do without a car or to keep your old one. (And if you do without, you are still paying more, lately, for mass transit. See below.)
Ditto for all the ‘recordation fees’ and other fees so beloved of states and localities, imposed on you—“They’re gonna nick you every way they can,” an older guy around here commented—when you go to record your will or the deed to your house, or get a driver’s license or become a notary public, or buy a boat or hunt or fish, etc. For all the talk about a ‘death tax’—actually a very lenient estate tax—tax policy proposed by every Republican administration in memory is much like a tax on everyday living.
Property taxes are only somewhat less regressive—and they are pinned to a ‘market’ that may be nonexistent and is skewed to start with. Full discussion of the way the term ‘markets’ is used is far beyond the scope of this article, but just try to imagine what would happen to housing prices in your neighborhood if—here’s the paradox—your neighborhood became the most ideally stable in the country, with everybody paying off the mortgage and nobody moving. The effect: Since the most recent house sales, on a totally-paid-up block, would be years in the past, house prices as set by the ‘market,’ without correcting for lack of indebtedness, would be destructively low.
Be it noted that ‘small business,’ which we sometimes hear about a lot from GOP lawmakers, who have recently emphasized the talking point about reducing the tax burden on small business, is also hit hard by the most regressive taxes. As with individuals of modest means, genuine small businesses struggle the most with higher fuel prices, more recording and other user’s fees. They also have the hardest time maintaining adequate paperwork for ever-increasing sales taxes, which can also eat into their sales.
Then there’s the steadily rising cost of getting to the store or other place of business. Unsurprisingly, customers are numerous for delivery businesses–UPS, FedEx—and for online shopping centers—eBay, Amazon. That rise, good news in a commercial sense for some buyers and sellers, is directly related to transportation costs (as well as to the desire to save time and effort).
As I have noticed before, the subway and train station near my home illustrate the effects of federal ‘tax cuts’ connected to reduced federal transportation subsidies. Parking at the nearest Metro station, while limited, used to cost $1.75 per day, and you could get out for free if you left before 3:00 p.m. Now, the price has more than doubled and stays the same regardless of what time you leave.
A small item, by itself. But multiply $1.75 by 5, and you get a weekly increase of $8.75; multiply that by 4, and you get a monthly increase of $35.00; multiply that by 12, and you get a yearly increase of $420.00, give or take a little for either vacations or overtime. Meanwhile, both train fares and subway fares have also gone up, partly because of the pressure of fuel costs and maintenance costs.
Obviously, increases in the cost of transportation hit those people hardest who can least afford to pay. They hit the middle class, the going-to-work-class, much harder than the wealthy. But the nation’s counties, cities, towns and states have to levy such increases to pay for services. We have a growing population that requires transportation, and a shrinking proportion of the over-all percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy and by corporations.
NOTE
Below is a partial list, which used to be passed around by email, of taxes-by-any-other-name. None of these taxes have gone down in any state or locale:
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes) Dog License
Fishing License Food License
Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon [dated])
Hunting License Tax Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Service Charge Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers) Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax Road Toll Booths
School Tax State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridges Toll Tunnels
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation) Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
This partial list does not include every ‘recordation fee,’ mentioned above, for everyday official documents like deeds and wills, or the raft of ‘license fees’ levied on entrance to most occupations or professions, or the extra sales taxes levied on airport parking and airplane tickets. Again, all these measures become more essential to small governments when they can count on neither federal support nor general economic prosperity.
Soaking the middle class, of course, goes much farther even than fees and indirect taxes, as everyone knows who has faced rising college tuition and rising health care costs. If people are now hoping fervently that President Obama will be a new FDR, it is in large part because President Bush implemented the unstated platform of reversing everything positive accomplished by FDR’s New Deal.