Congress seems to have finally come to agreement on a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid an unprecedented default by the US government. To no surprise the "deal" is composed of only spending cuts, with no new revenue. Even closing tax loopholes were left out of the final agreement. This "deal" once again ignores common sense and the history books and instead looks to just slash spending, and especially spending that hurts everyday Americans the most. It rewards the Tea Party and Republican extremist who essentially defied the constitution to extract spending cuts on what should be a routine increase to the governments ability to borrow money that has already been authorized to be spent.
As I have reflected on this so called crisis and pondered how we got to this place I am struck by how absolutely ridiculous this story is. This so called crisis was not created over night. Both parties are responsible for our budget deficit. However, one party is completely dishonest about their role in running up our long term deficit. George W. Bush cut taxes and dramatically increased our expenditures by passing the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and then foolishly starting the war in Iraq while never actually putting the wars in the budget. All this fiscal irresponsibility was done while times were good. This was before the Great Recession. This was a time where government should have been paying down our long-term deficit rather than running record deficits.
These irresponsible budgets were coupled with a lack of interest in any kind of regulation of wall-street or big business. Big banks lent money to anyone and everyone, whether they could afford it or not. Investment firms and banks leveraged themselves to the extreme, and used credit default swaps and lies to create a huge bubble that ended up bursting leading to bailouts and long-term unemployment of almost 10%. These policies have hurt everyday middle-class and lower class Americans. And yet these same people will now bear the brunt of the burden as the government goes down this path of austerity.
Income inequality continues to grow, class mobility continues to shrink, real income in every class except the upper class has stayed even or decreased over the last 30 years, and yet we continue to look to Republicans and their policies as answers to a question we have already missed over and over again. Even the stimulus bill (which was too small to begin with) was 1/3 tax cuts. And yet here we are, looking at how we can slash spending in the midst of high long-term unemployment, and actually arguing that Dodd-Frank is regulating business too much , and that taxes are too high despite the fact that they are at their lowest point since the 50's.
Not quite a year ago, Great Britain unveiled dramatic austerity measures in hopes of restoring confidence to the markets and resuming economic growth. However, the exact opposite has occurred. Business has continues to contract, contrary to what the conservative party predicted. Hoover tried the same thing during The Great Depression. We are now repeating the same story all over again. Cutting spending at exactly the wrong time. We should be raising spending, and raising taxes at the same time.
Yes you herd me correctly we should be raising taxes on both high wage earners, hedge fund managers and those who get most of their income from investments and finally on businesses. Contrary to Republican talking points raising taxes on business is actually good policy. Higher taxes actually encourages businesses to reinvest profits into their business creating jobs, increasing consumer spending and leading to higher tax receipts.
Simply cutting spending, though simple and straight forward and easy to sell to an uninformed public, is not good policy nor does it make economic sense at a time when the economic recovery continues to limp back at a pace not likely to reduce the employment rate. And yet here we are. President Obama continues to negotiate against himself, and allow Republicans who control only one house of congress to manufacture crisis after crisis and extract demand after demand from the president to the detriment of the country. If we continue to reward the hostage takers they will continue to take hostages.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Debt Limit
So I have been a bit busy the last couple months. I finally worked a FT job for a couple months, became a father, and went back to work at my PT job. So posts have been rather sparse. But I have been dying to comment on the whole debt ceiling debate. I hope there are many people out there paying attention, because it has been a real pleasure to watch the Republicans absolutely look like the purely political hacks they are. If after following this debate you still think they have the best interest of the country in mind, and care about anything other than keeping corporate and upperclass tax burdens as low as possible then you are not paying attention. Here are my quick thoughts on how this has progressed and how ridiculous the Republicans look.
1. This is a manufactured crisis. There is no crisis. Just raise the debt limit like congress has done so many times before. It was done 7 times during the Bush presidency. SEVEN TIMES! There was no crisis then, it just got done. No one likes this vote, but it has to be done.
2. Congress has already passed bills authorizing the spending, the debt limit is just an artificial accounting number. Why does it even exist? It is like voting on spending twice. When I order something online, I only have to approve my spending once, I don't press order and then have to go to my bank and authorize the spending again. You would think the party that claims to be the party of "family values" would see the honor in paying your debts, and following through on your word, rather than passing bills calling for spending only to change your mind and decide our debts can be ignored.
3. It's unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th amendment clearly says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,. . . shall not be questioned." This portion of the amendment was added after the civil war for the explicit reason so that the debt of the country would not be subject to politics. And yet that is exactly what Republicans, the party that claims to defend the constitution, is doing, playing politics with the nation's debt.
4. Republicans are just not reasonable. It is their way or the highway. Our system was designed to work on compromise. Without compromise the system breaks down and we are unable to solve the very serious problems that face our country. President Obama, has up to this point in his presidency, negotiated with Republicans to a degree where many Democrats have questioned his liberal roots. (remember the "deal" over letting the Bush tax cuts expire, where Republicans got everything they wanted) The president currently is proposing a 3 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, and Republicans who claim tackling the debt is their #1 issue after the mid-terms are balking at this deal. The president is attempting to make real long-term progress on our deficit, and Republicans are balking at the idea because he wants to close corporate tax loopholes and tax high earners. They are just not reasonable, they cannot govern, and are so ideologically driven that they are willing to put the full credit of the US government at risk.
5. Social Security should not be part of the grand plan to reduce the deficit. It is not in trouble. It is fully funded until 2037, making it perhaps the most well funded program in the federal budget. The best way to fix SS is to simply increase the cap on wages that are taxed. Doing this would ensure every person pays the same percentage of tax toward SS and would shore up its funding for a very long time. Medicare, on the other hand is another story, and one much more involved. The issue of Medicare is tied much more to our healthcare system overall, and really needs to be dealt with via a single payer system, but I will leave that for another time.
If you have watched this so called crisis you have seen Republicans say the debt limit doesn't matter, say there are not enough spending cuts in the proposed deal, say the deal doesn't go far enough, walk out of a meeting because the president proposed closing loopholes on oil companies and corporate jets, say that even a single increase in revenue is too much, and then inexplicable say that they are punting on the whole debt limit increase and just putting it in the presidents hands. What? You could've done that two months ago. Oh, wait never mind, they won't actually do that. They'll continue to hold the country hostage for as long as possible, and will refuse to do what is best for the country. No compromise, No retreat. This seems to be their motto, and it will kill the country.
For once republicans seem to be the ones misreading the political climate, finally they have allowed themselves to be seen for what they are. Partisan hacks, who only care about the upper class.
1. This is a manufactured crisis. There is no crisis. Just raise the debt limit like congress has done so many times before. It was done 7 times during the Bush presidency. SEVEN TIMES! There was no crisis then, it just got done. No one likes this vote, but it has to be done.
2. Congress has already passed bills authorizing the spending, the debt limit is just an artificial accounting number. Why does it even exist? It is like voting on spending twice. When I order something online, I only have to approve my spending once, I don't press order and then have to go to my bank and authorize the spending again. You would think the party that claims to be the party of "family values" would see the honor in paying your debts, and following through on your word, rather than passing bills calling for spending only to change your mind and decide our debts can be ignored.
3. It's unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th amendment clearly says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,. . . shall not be questioned." This portion of the amendment was added after the civil war for the explicit reason so that the debt of the country would not be subject to politics. And yet that is exactly what Republicans, the party that claims to defend the constitution, is doing, playing politics with the nation's debt.
4. Republicans are just not reasonable. It is their way or the highway. Our system was designed to work on compromise. Without compromise the system breaks down and we are unable to solve the very serious problems that face our country. President Obama, has up to this point in his presidency, negotiated with Republicans to a degree where many Democrats have questioned his liberal roots. (remember the "deal" over letting the Bush tax cuts expire, where Republicans got everything they wanted) The president currently is proposing a 3 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, and Republicans who claim tackling the debt is their #1 issue after the mid-terms are balking at this deal. The president is attempting to make real long-term progress on our deficit, and Republicans are balking at the idea because he wants to close corporate tax loopholes and tax high earners. They are just not reasonable, they cannot govern, and are so ideologically driven that they are willing to put the full credit of the US government at risk.
5. Social Security should not be part of the grand plan to reduce the deficit. It is not in trouble. It is fully funded until 2037, making it perhaps the most well funded program in the federal budget. The best way to fix SS is to simply increase the cap on wages that are taxed. Doing this would ensure every person pays the same percentage of tax toward SS and would shore up its funding for a very long time. Medicare, on the other hand is another story, and one much more involved. The issue of Medicare is tied much more to our healthcare system overall, and really needs to be dealt with via a single payer system, but I will leave that for another time.
If you have watched this so called crisis you have seen Republicans say the debt limit doesn't matter, say there are not enough spending cuts in the proposed deal, say the deal doesn't go far enough, walk out of a meeting because the president proposed closing loopholes on oil companies and corporate jets, say that even a single increase in revenue is too much, and then inexplicable say that they are punting on the whole debt limit increase and just putting it in the presidents hands. What? You could've done that two months ago. Oh, wait never mind, they won't actually do that. They'll continue to hold the country hostage for as long as possible, and will refuse to do what is best for the country. No compromise, No retreat. This seems to be their motto, and it will kill the country.
For once republicans seem to be the ones misreading the political climate, finally they have allowed themselves to be seen for what they are. Partisan hacks, who only care about the upper class.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Oregon Schools
Since moving to Portland, Oregon in the summer of 2007 it was always apparent that the way the State of Oregon and the State of Washington fund and support their schools differed drastically. Coming from Washington where the state constitution includes K-12 education as the paramount duty of the state, the lack of support in Oregon has been shocking. This lack of support hurts Oregon's competitiveness and is a long term drag on the state's economy.
My wife and I moved to Portland in part to attend graduate school to get our Masters in Education. For me the delusion of Oregonians as to the actual state of their public schools began to take shape in our masters classes. Many of our professors praised Oregon's reforms and accountability as a model for the rest of the nation. Yet the state does not adequately fund education in a method that allows students to reach the high standards the state has set forth. Setting high standards is important to achieving great results, but as anyone who works in a high pressure job will tell you, that unless you have the tools needed to achieve those results those high standards are pointless.
Oregon does not provide its students or teachers the tools needed to achieve the results needed to be successful in an increasingly more competitive global economy. Oregon has one of the shortest school years in the country, and often when funding is cut Oregon school districts simply shorten the school year even more, lopping days or weeks off the school year. Most experts believe US schools need to increase the number of school days, not decrease them.
The Portland Public School District is the biggest district in the state in the biggest city in the state, and has an overall graduation rate of just 66%. This is due to many factors, including declining state support, buildings that average 65 years old, and increasing mandates and requirements which funnel money from the general student population to a small percentage of students with special needs. Just this week the people of the City of Portland voted down a $548 million bond measure that would have made a significant dent in the districts declining and unsafe buildings, and prevented capital maintenance from siphoning off funds from the general operating budget. To their credit voters did approve an operating levy saving the district from having to cut $19 million from the budget from next year.
Not approving the capital bond is just one example throughout the state where voters have decided not to fully fund education. Many communities this past Tuesday voted down measures designed to shore up their local schools, and prevent draconian cuts that are sure to devastate our children and have long-term consequences for the states economy.
My wife and I now both work in secondary education, however instead of finding jobs in our local community we have been forced across the river and into Washington State to work in Vancouver, where jobs are more plentiful and support more evident. We are now on the verge of having our first child and despite purchasing a house in a neighborhood we really like, in Portland, a city that is just wonderful we find ourselves questioning how long we can stay in Oregon. Are we willing to risk the education of our soon to be son by staying in Oregon? And while we believe in public education, we would consider private school if that is what was best for our child, yet as public school teachers it is unlikely to be a realistic option due to cost.
How long before we decide to leave the State of Oregon? And if we are taking the education system into account even with our limited middle class income, who else is thinking the same thing? Portland a medium sized city with fewer large corporations than many cities its size is always looking to create jobs, and does not need one more thing working to dissuade young educated middle income professionals from relocating to the city. Oregonians are delusional about the state of their schools and how it effects the state in general. Oregon needs to diversify its funding sources, decrease its budgeting volatility and just plain support its schools more. Until then it will continue to be an outdoor lovers dream, a hipster paradise with great food choices, but also just a bad place to raise a middle class family that puts a high value on education. I wonder how long before we call the moving trucks.
My wife and I moved to Portland in part to attend graduate school to get our Masters in Education. For me the delusion of Oregonians as to the actual state of their public schools began to take shape in our masters classes. Many of our professors praised Oregon's reforms and accountability as a model for the rest of the nation. Yet the state does not adequately fund education in a method that allows students to reach the high standards the state has set forth. Setting high standards is important to achieving great results, but as anyone who works in a high pressure job will tell you, that unless you have the tools needed to achieve those results those high standards are pointless.
Oregon does not provide its students or teachers the tools needed to achieve the results needed to be successful in an increasingly more competitive global economy. Oregon has one of the shortest school years in the country, and often when funding is cut Oregon school districts simply shorten the school year even more, lopping days or weeks off the school year. Most experts believe US schools need to increase the number of school days, not decrease them.
The Portland Public School District is the biggest district in the state in the biggest city in the state, and has an overall graduation rate of just 66%. This is due to many factors, including declining state support, buildings that average 65 years old, and increasing mandates and requirements which funnel money from the general student population to a small percentage of students with special needs. Just this week the people of the City of Portland voted down a $548 million bond measure that would have made a significant dent in the districts declining and unsafe buildings, and prevented capital maintenance from siphoning off funds from the general operating budget. To their credit voters did approve an operating levy saving the district from having to cut $19 million from the budget from next year.
Not approving the capital bond is just one example throughout the state where voters have decided not to fully fund education. Many communities this past Tuesday voted down measures designed to shore up their local schools, and prevent draconian cuts that are sure to devastate our children and have long-term consequences for the states economy.
My wife and I now both work in secondary education, however instead of finding jobs in our local community we have been forced across the river and into Washington State to work in Vancouver, where jobs are more plentiful and support more evident. We are now on the verge of having our first child and despite purchasing a house in a neighborhood we really like, in Portland, a city that is just wonderful we find ourselves questioning how long we can stay in Oregon. Are we willing to risk the education of our soon to be son by staying in Oregon? And while we believe in public education, we would consider private school if that is what was best for our child, yet as public school teachers it is unlikely to be a realistic option due to cost.
How long before we decide to leave the State of Oregon? And if we are taking the education system into account even with our limited middle class income, who else is thinking the same thing? Portland a medium sized city with fewer large corporations than many cities its size is always looking to create jobs, and does not need one more thing working to dissuade young educated middle income professionals from relocating to the city. Oregonians are delusional about the state of their schools and how it effects the state in general. Oregon needs to diversify its funding sources, decrease its budgeting volatility and just plain support its schools more. Until then it will continue to be an outdoor lovers dream, a hipster paradise with great food choices, but also just a bad place to raise a middle class family that puts a high value on education. I wonder how long before we call the moving trucks.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Book Review: Hunger Games Trilogy
I recently finished reading the Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins. The series of three books takes place in a sort of post apocalyptic United States, Panem, where 12 districts all with a unique means of production support the one ruling district, The Capital. As reminder of their loss in a rebellion the capital requires each district send two children to fight to the death in a once a year gladiatorial 24 on 24 death match. Katniss Everdeen, is our brave heroin, who volunteers to take her young sisters place in the games.
Katniss, is your typical flawed hero, she appears brave to those on the outside, but in reality is torn and scared. Through her actions and bravery as a Tribute in the Games Katniss, becomes a national hero throughout both the districts and the Capital. And of course any good teenage novel is not complete without a love triangle, where our young lady must chose between two equally handsome young men.
Katniss', choice is between Gale, her best friend whom she has spent her entire life with and Peeta, a fellow tribute in the games whom we learn has quietly loved Katniss from afar for many years. Katniss, has feelings of some kind for both, but has difficulties sorting them out. Her struggle to understand her feelings and decide who she will choose continues throughout the series.
The Hunger Games trilogy is a quick read, short on details but very good for its intended audience of middle school age kids. The series has a little bit for everyone, there is the gore and action of the games paired with the romance and longing of the love triangle. Parents should not be worried as though there is violence, it is short on details and true gore, probably 'PG 13' at best. The romance is strictly rated 'G' with little physicality and mostly just talk of feelings and speculation on as to what the three parties are thinking. This would be an easy series to get both genders engaged in reading and offers many avenues to teach creative writing, reading strategies and elements of literature such as theme and character development.
For the adults reading the series it will seem a bit familiar. The books pulls from many similar plots over the years. The Running Man comes to mind in particular to me. It incorporates the standard love triangle of teenage fiction and at times the characters are frustrating and predictable. Being that it is aimed at teenagers the writing and details can be a bit simplistic and lacking in details. However, the quick pace of the plot and shear typical shock value of the post apocalyptic setting will keep you reading and wondering what happens next.
The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay, are mindless entertainment books that I'd recommend. Perfect to read on an airplane, or beach or somewhere where intense concentration is not possible. Middle School aged children, especially the latter grades should enjoy these books and they'd be a great way to attempt to pry them away from a screen and engage them in reading of some kind.
Katniss, is your typical flawed hero, she appears brave to those on the outside, but in reality is torn and scared. Through her actions and bravery as a Tribute in the Games Katniss, becomes a national hero throughout both the districts and the Capital. And of course any good teenage novel is not complete without a love triangle, where our young lady must chose between two equally handsome young men.
The Hunger Games trilogy is a quick read, short on details but very good for its intended audience of middle school age kids. The series has a little bit for everyone, there is the gore and action of the games paired with the romance and longing of the love triangle. Parents should not be worried as though there is violence, it is short on details and true gore, probably 'PG 13' at best. The romance is strictly rated 'G' with little physicality and mostly just talk of feelings and speculation on as to what the three parties are thinking. This would be an easy series to get both genders engaged in reading and offers many avenues to teach creative writing, reading strategies and elements of literature such as theme and character development.
For the adults reading the series it will seem a bit familiar. The books pulls from many similar plots over the years. The Running Man comes to mind in particular to me. It incorporates the standard love triangle of teenage fiction and at times the characters are frustrating and predictable. Being that it is aimed at teenagers the writing and details can be a bit simplistic and lacking in details. However, the quick pace of the plot and shear typical shock value of the post apocalyptic setting will keep you reading and wondering what happens next.
The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay, are mindless entertainment books that I'd recommend. Perfect to read on an airplane, or beach or somewhere where intense concentration is not possible. Middle School aged children, especially the latter grades should enjoy these books and they'd be a great way to attempt to pry them away from a screen and engage them in reading of some kind.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Budgets, Budgets, Budgets
Last week Congressman Paul Ryan, representative of Wisconsin's 1st district released the Republican "Roadmap for America's Future," what has become the Republican House long term budget plan. In the last week this budget has been picked apart and written about ad nauseam. Details of the plan are found here. In short his plan cuts taxes on the rich, replaces the current Medicaid system, with a system of block grants to states, and gives seniors vouchers (which will decrease in buying power over time) to purchase health insurance rather than the current Medicare program, and severely cuts social programs and safety net spending.
This plan will reduce the deficit, but it will also decimate the poor and elderly among us. Ryan proposed drastic cutting to the discretionary non-military portion of the budget. (See earlier post as to how small a portion of the budget this is.) Such drastic reductions in domestic spending, (of which Ryan is very vague on actual details) coupled with the proposed changes in Medicare, will essentially eliminate any security or safety net for the poor or elderly. Healthcare is the largest single variable in retirement planning, and the current Medicare system allows for seniors to be much more sure and secure about the cost of that care. However, Ryan's vouchers will eliminate most of this security.
After looking beyond the basic fundamental problem that Ryan's plan punishes seniors and the poor in order to tackle the deficit while asking nothing of the rich, it becomes clear that Ryan's math just does not work out. Ryan proposes reducing the top tax rate to 25%, and reducing tax rates for those under $100,000 to 10%. He also eliminates all capital gains taxes, taxes on interest, and the estate tax. He proposes to completely change the corporate income tax and replace it with a business consumption tax of 8.5% which greatly reduce corporate taxes.
Somehow after all this tax reduction, Ryan still believes that tax revenue will increase. Stop me if you've heard this before, we decrease taxes rates and tax revenue goes up? Mmmm, may math must be off, because I believe we tried that in the 80's with Reagan and trickle down economics and then again with Bush and his recent tax cuts for the rich, and both times deficits exploded. How many times will we replay the same story? If you reduce tax rates revenue will decrease. Simple enough. Ryan also claimed that unemployment would hit 2.8% with his plan. Yes, that is correct 2.8%. See here to see how crazy the 2.8% number is, and of course he uses the Heritage Foundation to back up his numbers, the ultra conservative and ideological think tank which seems to value ideology much more than basic math or reality. (to be fair the 2.8% number once questioned has been largely removed from much of the plan. Funny how Republicans feel free to lie until caught and then just act like it never happened. See: Jon Kyl's recent flub.)
And yet despite all the problems with Ryan's plan, the media seems to be in love with Paul Ryan. After all, he has boyish good looks, works out everyday, has two first names and has proposed a bold plan to reduce the deficit. Once again our media has failed to actually look at the actual proposal and instead just analyzed what two sides say about the proposal and the political ramifications of Ryan's proposal. (remember this is his third try at getting a plan people will actually take seriously.)
So while the media may portray Ryan as bold and brave for releasing an unrealistic, unbalanced and unfair plan to reduce the deficit, that has no possibility to be passed, I will commend him for continuing the conversation. The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission was the first step, and gained little traction, and now Ryan has continued to push the need to reduce the deficit.
This gives President Obama the perfect stage to truly lead in the way of deficit reduction. It gives him the opportunity to fix his disastrous tax deal with republicans he made in December to extend the Bush tax cuts. (we cannot pretend to be able to reduce the deficit without some tax increases) Obama, very shortly will make a speech on his proposal for reducing the deficit. I just hope he decides to lead on the issue. He must be specific, realistic, and progressive to conquer such a huge problem. He must frame the issue as more than just an issue of spending but an issue of values and priorities. Budgets are moral documents and reflect our values. Obama must be a leader and be more than a compromiser or negotiator between the two parties. If he can embrace and lead on this issue, he may be able to remind us of the inspirational candidate that had so many of us chanting, "Yes We Can."
This plan will reduce the deficit, but it will also decimate the poor and elderly among us. Ryan proposed drastic cutting to the discretionary non-military portion of the budget. (See earlier post as to how small a portion of the budget this is.) Such drastic reductions in domestic spending, (of which Ryan is very vague on actual details) coupled with the proposed changes in Medicare, will essentially eliminate any security or safety net for the poor or elderly. Healthcare is the largest single variable in retirement planning, and the current Medicare system allows for seniors to be much more sure and secure about the cost of that care. However, Ryan's vouchers will eliminate most of this security.
 |
| The very Handsome, Brave, and Bold Paul Ryan |
Somehow after all this tax reduction, Ryan still believes that tax revenue will increase. Stop me if you've heard this before, we decrease taxes rates and tax revenue goes up? Mmmm, may math must be off, because I believe we tried that in the 80's with Reagan and trickle down economics and then again with Bush and his recent tax cuts for the rich, and both times deficits exploded. How many times will we replay the same story? If you reduce tax rates revenue will decrease. Simple enough. Ryan also claimed that unemployment would hit 2.8% with his plan. Yes, that is correct 2.8%. See here to see how crazy the 2.8% number is, and of course he uses the Heritage Foundation to back up his numbers, the ultra conservative and ideological think tank which seems to value ideology much more than basic math or reality. (to be fair the 2.8% number once questioned has been largely removed from much of the plan. Funny how Republicans feel free to lie until caught and then just act like it never happened. See: Jon Kyl's recent flub.)
And yet despite all the problems with Ryan's plan, the media seems to be in love with Paul Ryan. After all, he has boyish good looks, works out everyday, has two first names and has proposed a bold plan to reduce the deficit. Once again our media has failed to actually look at the actual proposal and instead just analyzed what two sides say about the proposal and the political ramifications of Ryan's proposal. (remember this is his third try at getting a plan people will actually take seriously.)
So while the media may portray Ryan as bold and brave for releasing an unrealistic, unbalanced and unfair plan to reduce the deficit, that has no possibility to be passed, I will commend him for continuing the conversation. The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission was the first step, and gained little traction, and now Ryan has continued to push the need to reduce the deficit.
This gives President Obama the perfect stage to truly lead in the way of deficit reduction. It gives him the opportunity to fix his disastrous tax deal with republicans he made in December to extend the Bush tax cuts. (we cannot pretend to be able to reduce the deficit without some tax increases) Obama, very shortly will make a speech on his proposal for reducing the deficit. I just hope he decides to lead on the issue. He must be specific, realistic, and progressive to conquer such a huge problem. He must frame the issue as more than just an issue of spending but an issue of values and priorities. Budgets are moral documents and reflect our values. Obama must be a leader and be more than a compromiser or negotiator between the two parties. If he can embrace and lead on this issue, he may be able to remind us of the inspirational candidate that had so many of us chanting, "Yes We Can."
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
ARRGGG!
Many of us are frustrated with the current two party system in the U.S. For years the call for a genuine third party has been made. (and no, the tea party, which is not an actual political party does not count) Well for those of my readers living in Massachusetts, you can now register as a Pirate. That's right the Massachusetts Pirate Party is now an official political party. At first glance, (and maybe at second) the party is a bit out there, after all who creates a political party with Pirate in their name? But the party does have some good platforms.1. Defending Your Privacy
2. Opening Up Government
3. Promoting Culture and Knowledge Through Copyright Reform
So it sounds pretty good until maybe number three, which may just be a ruse to illegally download copyrighted material via the web through such sites as bit torrents which are often associated with. . . you guessed it Pirates.
Now as for the future of the Massachusetts Pirate Party. I look forward to seeing if the party can truly become a viable third party. It may need to expand its current platform to include more issues. However I must give a brief warning that once the Pirate Party becomes an effective and powerful party, it must be careful to not succumb to the temptation to embrace the status quo. Once the Pirate Party has power, it must continue to get things done, rather than doing little to nothing to evoke real change, as our current two dominant parties embrace the status quo.
I fear without the continued push for change that the prophetic song by Larry the Cucumber could become reality for the Massachusetts Pirate Party. (so maybe not the part of going to Boston in the Fall, but you get the drift)
As I think about my preparations for Talk Like a Pirate Day, I realize that this year may have an entirely new theme. Perhaps soon there will be a Talk Like a Political Pirate Day? Political Pirates, hmm, how would I define a Political Pirate? And more importantly how would a Political Pirate dress? Perhaps we'd see a few people running around congress looking like this.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Has Dave Ramsey Hijacked Our Budget?
Dave Ramsey is a popular author and radio personality who focuses on personal finance. His teachings focus on eliminating debt at all costs, and much of his teaching has a foundation in Christianity and Biblical principles. Ramsey uses churches throughout the country to network and spread his message that all debt is bad debt. In a recent search on his website 49 separate class sites were found in Washington State alone, most being conducted by churches or religious organizations. Ramsey has published 15 books for both adults and children on the subject of money, his radio program is heard on more than 230 radio stations throughout the U.S.
This is the description on book jacket on Ramsey's best selling book:
"The Total Money Makeover is all about "renewing your mind," using God's ways of handling money (over 800 scriptures deal with money) to be "transformed" (made over). It's a plan to stop being "conformed" to the ways, of the world and as ridiculously broke as the rest of our culture. And this isn't theory. It works every single time."
While Ramsey's teachings are not bad in any stretch of the imagination they have contributed to the current false narrative, and political myth of fiscal conservatism that supposedly is sweeping the nation. Ramsey, and his students, spread across the country in Evangelical Christian churches, overwhelmingly vote Republican. Ramsey's teaching while possible and practical for individuals and families, are not reasonably applicable to the worlds largest economy. The philosophies are just not transferable, and if attempted, certain disaster will come to our economy. And yet Republican politicians continue to solicit votes by promoting simplistic, and disingenuous eliminate all debt and reduce the size of government policies.
In a family, positive cash flow is just about always preferable to negative cash flow. There are times such as going to school or starting a business or perhaps making a large purchase such as a house or a car that reasonable people will feel it is ok to spend more than you take in. However, outside of such exceptions most people will agree that spending more on monthly bills than a family earns in income is always bad. This is not necessarily the case when transferred to a government or to the economy in general.
Basic Keynesian economic theory states that in a recession as the economy contracts, and the private sector fails to produce enough economic activity to make up for that contraction, that the government should step in and make up the difference in possible economic activity through increased government spending and employment. In this case, deficit spending is good and will lead to quicker economic recovery. This is quite different than how a family or Individual should operate.
In an economy such as the US where 70% revolves around consumer spending, any dip in in economic output, especially related to job loses which dramatically curtail consumer spending is highly damaging. And yet, in the midst of the worst economic slowdown in decades, we are drastically cutting spending. In a widely reported story the Commerce Department recently released figures confirming that reductions in state and local government spending has slowed the economic recovery. Even Goldman Sachs is worried about excessive austerity measures, and how they may slow economic growth.
Dave Ramsey would question how moral our excessive federal deficit is. We are leaving a huge burden that future generations will be forced to deal with, and difficult choices will need to be made because of the massive debt. Some of those difficult choices are being made as we speak. House Republicans pledged before the election to cut $100 billion from this years budget, and are attempting to cut much of that amount. And while cuts are needed, where those cuts come from say much about our priorities and what we value.
As we examine proposed cuts and, even just look at our current budget, much like a family, where we spend our money reflects what we hold dear. Some families, decide having a new car every two years is how they want to spend their money, and lease or take out a loan in order to do so. Ramsey, suggests only purchasing a car in cash, and even trading your payments in for a fully paid off car in order to pay down other debt. Others, decide vacations and travel are important and allocate funds accordingly, some value education, or having the latest fashions.
As a nation we too must examine where our priorities are. As we enter serious budget debates we must remember that not only is the huge debt we will leave future generations a moral issue, but so too is how we decide to spend our money. Sojourners, a faith based organization that focuses on politics and culture, has long made the argument that "Budgets are Moral Documents." If our federal budget reflects our priorities as a nation, what does that say about us?
As anyone who is following the debate over the budget knows, almost 2/3 of the budget revolves around defense, social security and medicare and medicaid spending. None of these categories are currently being proposed for serious budget cuts, but rather the vast majority of these cuts are being proposed in the 14% of the budget that involves social safety net programs. The entire non-military discretionary budget for 2010 was $491 billion. The deficit for 2010 was roughly $1.3 trillion. Do the math. We can't be serious about cutting the deficit without cutting both defense spending, and continuing to reform healthcare and Social Security. Cutting the $100 billion, or even the $61 billion now being proposed, strictly from non-military discretionary spending will devastate these social programs at a time where they are more important and more needed than ever.
While, protecting seniors and the disabled, through Social Security is an important priority along with providing medical coverage through medicare and medicaid, spending 20% of our budget on national defense is a poor reflection of what our national priorities should be. As seen by the chart, the amount of resources we pour into the military compared to other countries is just staggering. Our priorities as a nation must change.
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama highlighted several areas of investment which he believed, as a country we must make a priority in order to continue to compete in the global economy. One of these areas was education. We currently spend just 3% of our federal budget on education, and while most education spending comes from the states, most states are being forced to make drastic, even draconian cuts to their education budgets. If budgets are "Moral Documents," then what does it say about us that we spend only 3% on education, vs. 20% on defense. The Bible tells us that how we treat the least of our brothers and sisters so too we treat Christ. As we contemplate taking heating assistance away from the poor, and reducing a program that helps ensure poor women, infants and children get the nutrition they need to properly develop, we must also contemplate how these cuts reflect on our priorities.
Dave Ramsey, may have a biblically based financial plan that works great for many families, but it cannot be transferred to our national budget through completely eliminating any and all debt. In fact rather than look at our national budget through Ramsey's viewpoint, as I fear many have and continue to do, we must examine our budget, and the cuts that will be needed by examining our priorities and values and how our budget reflects our priorities and morals.
This is the description on book jacket on Ramsey's best selling book:
While Ramsey's teachings are not bad in any stretch of the imagination they have contributed to the current false narrative, and political myth of fiscal conservatism that supposedly is sweeping the nation. Ramsey, and his students, spread across the country in Evangelical Christian churches, overwhelmingly vote Republican. Ramsey's teaching while possible and practical for individuals and families, are not reasonably applicable to the worlds largest economy. The philosophies are just not transferable, and if attempted, certain disaster will come to our economy. And yet Republican politicians continue to solicit votes by promoting simplistic, and disingenuous eliminate all debt and reduce the size of government policies.
In a family, positive cash flow is just about always preferable to negative cash flow. There are times such as going to school or starting a business or perhaps making a large purchase such as a house or a car that reasonable people will feel it is ok to spend more than you take in. However, outside of such exceptions most people will agree that spending more on monthly bills than a family earns in income is always bad. This is not necessarily the case when transferred to a government or to the economy in general.
 |
| John Maynard Keynes |
In an economy such as the US where 70% revolves around consumer spending, any dip in in economic output, especially related to job loses which dramatically curtail consumer spending is highly damaging. And yet, in the midst of the worst economic slowdown in decades, we are drastically cutting spending. In a widely reported story the Commerce Department recently released figures confirming that reductions in state and local government spending has slowed the economic recovery. Even Goldman Sachs is worried about excessive austerity measures, and how they may slow economic growth.
Dave Ramsey would question how moral our excessive federal deficit is. We are leaving a huge burden that future generations will be forced to deal with, and difficult choices will need to be made because of the massive debt. Some of those difficult choices are being made as we speak. House Republicans pledged before the election to cut $100 billion from this years budget, and are attempting to cut much of that amount. And while cuts are needed, where those cuts come from say much about our priorities and what we value.
As we examine proposed cuts and, even just look at our current budget, much like a family, where we spend our money reflects what we hold dear. Some families, decide having a new car every two years is how they want to spend their money, and lease or take out a loan in order to do so. Ramsey, suggests only purchasing a car in cash, and even trading your payments in for a fully paid off car in order to pay down other debt. Others, decide vacations and travel are important and allocate funds accordingly, some value education, or having the latest fashions.
As a nation we too must examine where our priorities are. As we enter serious budget debates we must remember that not only is the huge debt we will leave future generations a moral issue, but so too is how we decide to spend our money. Sojourners, a faith based organization that focuses on politics and culture, has long made the argument that "Budgets are Moral Documents." If our federal budget reflects our priorities as a nation, what does that say about us?
As anyone who is following the debate over the budget knows, almost 2/3 of the budget revolves around defense, social security and medicare and medicaid spending. None of these categories are currently being proposed for serious budget cuts, but rather the vast majority of these cuts are being proposed in the 14% of the budget that involves social safety net programs. The entire non-military discretionary budget for 2010 was $491 billion. The deficit for 2010 was roughly $1.3 trillion. Do the math. We can't be serious about cutting the deficit without cutting both defense spending, and continuing to reform healthcare and Social Security. Cutting the $100 billion, or even the $61 billion now being proposed, strictly from non-military discretionary spending will devastate these social programs at a time where they are more important and more needed than ever.
While, protecting seniors and the disabled, through Social Security is an important priority along with providing medical coverage through medicare and medicaid, spending 20% of our budget on national defense is a poor reflection of what our national priorities should be. As seen by the chart, the amount of resources we pour into the military compared to other countries is just staggering. Our priorities as a nation must change. In his State of the Union speech, President Obama highlighted several areas of investment which he believed, as a country we must make a priority in order to continue to compete in the global economy. One of these areas was education. We currently spend just 3% of our federal budget on education, and while most education spending comes from the states, most states are being forced to make drastic, even draconian cuts to their education budgets. If budgets are "Moral Documents," then what does it say about us that we spend only 3% on education, vs. 20% on defense. The Bible tells us that how we treat the least of our brothers and sisters so too we treat Christ. As we contemplate taking heating assistance away from the poor, and reducing a program that helps ensure poor women, infants and children get the nutrition they need to properly develop, we must also contemplate how these cuts reflect on our priorities.
Dave Ramsey, may have a biblically based financial plan that works great for many families, but it cannot be transferred to our national budget through completely eliminating any and all debt. In fact rather than look at our national budget through Ramsey's viewpoint, as I fear many have and continue to do, we must examine our budget, and the cuts that will be needed by examining our priorities and values and how our budget reflects our priorities and morals.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wisconsin is Outraged; Are You?
Unions, are champions for the middle class, they raise wages, improve working conditions, and greatly increase benefits such as health insurance and paid vacation. Not only do they raise wages and working conditions for union workers, but they also raise wages for non-union employees working in the same field. These things cost money and eat into profits. Corporate America, wants any and all costs to be eliminated, even at the cost to American prosperity.
Make no mistake the middle class is what made America great. And the middle class is under attack. There are many myths out there about public employees and their unions. They are not paid more than public sector workers, (adjusted for educational levels they are paid less), they are not lazy incompetent or all rude, despite the ubiquitous DMV stereotype. Yes, they have solid jobs, with good benefits, retirement, job security, and more likely than not, experience more fulfillment in their occupations than many in the private sector, yet these are not reasons to tear down public employees, but rather reasons for private sector employees to organize and fight for the same working conditions and compensation. These are benefits every worker deserves, not just those who work for the government, and they are benefits businesses and corporations can easily afford.
As the middle class dwindles, and the Right pretends to use deficits, that they created, to feign outrage and slash social spending, when does disgust and outrage turn to demonstration? In Egypt it was 30 years of oppressive one party rule. In Wisconsin, after 30 years of attacking the middle class it finally took the threat of taking away fundamental worker rights to spark mass demonstrations. The redistribution of wealth from the many to the few has been going on for quite some time now. Tax cuts for the rich are followed by cuts to services to the poor and middle class. At what point do the people stand up and decide our government was founded for "We The People" not We the Corporations, or We the Rich? At what point do the people decide to organize, vote and demonstrate to protect basic fundamental rights and our ability to pursue happiness? If not now, then when? Will it take eliminating Social Security? Or eliminating all worker rights? The destruction of our public school system? The elimination of higher ed as realistic option due to cost? What is the last straw that will re-ignite the masses who showed up in 2004 to fight for middle class? What will it take to spark you to protest?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
SB 5251
Under Washington State Senate Bill 5251, owners of electric cars would have to pay an extra $100 fee simply for the privilege of driving an electric vehicle. Why would the government punish electric car owners for making what seems to be the more socially responsible vehicle choice? Well, because electric cars in all their glory, don't use gasoline, allowing their owners to skirt paying one of the highest state gas taxes in the country.
The state relies on the gas tax to fund road and highway construction and maintenance, to the tune of $2.4 billion in the 2009-2011 biennium. You can find a nice article about the proposed bill here, in the Seattle Times. According to the article a driver who drives 12,000 miles a year, pays an average of $204 a year in gas taxes. So while $100 is an added fee (or tax depending on who you ask) it is still less that what a majority of the drivers in the state pay.
The problem with the bill is not that it attempts to ensure that those who drive electric cars help to fund the maintenance on the roads they use, but that it minimizes just one incentive to purchase an electric vehicle. To state the obvious, electric vehicles do not use gas, and thus do not contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere which along with many other sources greatly contribute to global warming. Spending less on gas, including taxes, is one major incentive to go green and buy an electric car. It is not good policy for the government to take away that incentive.
The federal government has made it a clear policy to promote the purchase of electric and hybrid vehicles. Since 2005 there has been a federal tax credit for hybrid vehicles that ranged from $450 to $3,400, depending on number of sales, and there is also a $7,500 credit for purchase of purely electric cars, such as the Chevy Volt, or Nissan Leaf. These incentives help promote the new technology until it is more able to survive in the open marketplace without the incentives. Encouraging and supporting the development of electric vehicles is good government policy. Much as the government subsidizes research for drugs, and supports military research that makes its way into consumer products so too should the government support the emerging electric vehicle industry.
The benefits of a fully developed electric car industry far outweigh the costs of the tax cuts. Weening ourselves from foreign oil, much produced in countries with populations and regimes hostile to our best interests, is one benefit. Slowing our output of greenhouse gas emissions, in order to slow or decrease global warming along with other environmental damage, is another. Being an innovative leader in an emerging industry, worth potentially billions of dollars to US companies annually, just make sense economically.
States must not not work against these incentives by imposing a special electric vehicle tax simply to shore up the short-term needs of their department of transportation budgets. Yes, electric vehicles do cause wear and tear to our roadways, however, gasoline powered cars cause wear and tear to our environment and yet the true costs of this environmental destruction is not paid by their drivers. Eventually, as electric and hybrid vehicles become more popular and eclipse gasoline powered vehicles, an entirely new system of paying for our roads will be needed. However, until then states should not impose these fees.
Rather, than punish those making the responsible choice, why not increase gas taxes in order to reflect the true costs (including environmental) of driving gasoline powered vehicles? This would mean increasing current gas taxes by perhaps a dollar or more. Yes there would be some economic consequences, and it would disproportionally hurt the middle class, but it would also provide a huge incentive for consumers and car companies to produce and consume vehicles that cause much less damage to our environment. And of course the revenue that such a tax would produce could be used for many greatly needed infrastructure investments such as those proposed in the State of the Union. Oil companies have received too many subsidies for far too long, it is time we strongly commit to promoting a more sustainable transportation policy, and states must do their part to reinforce those policies at the state level. This may be the only time I will ever agree with Tim Eyman.
The state relies on the gas tax to fund road and highway construction and maintenance, to the tune of $2.4 billion in the 2009-2011 biennium. You can find a nice article about the proposed bill here, in the Seattle Times. According to the article a driver who drives 12,000 miles a year, pays an average of $204 a year in gas taxes. So while $100 is an added fee (or tax depending on who you ask) it is still less that what a majority of the drivers in the state pay.
The problem with the bill is not that it attempts to ensure that those who drive electric cars help to fund the maintenance on the roads they use, but that it minimizes just one incentive to purchase an electric vehicle. To state the obvious, electric vehicles do not use gas, and thus do not contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere which along with many other sources greatly contribute to global warming. Spending less on gas, including taxes, is one major incentive to go green and buy an electric car. It is not good policy for the government to take away that incentive.
The benefits of a fully developed electric car industry far outweigh the costs of the tax cuts. Weening ourselves from foreign oil, much produced in countries with populations and regimes hostile to our best interests, is one benefit. Slowing our output of greenhouse gas emissions, in order to slow or decrease global warming along with other environmental damage, is another. Being an innovative leader in an emerging industry, worth potentially billions of dollars to US companies annually, just make sense economically.
Rather, than punish those making the responsible choice, why not increase gas taxes in order to reflect the true costs (including environmental) of driving gasoline powered vehicles? This would mean increasing current gas taxes by perhaps a dollar or more. Yes there would be some economic consequences, and it would disproportionally hurt the middle class, but it would also provide a huge incentive for consumers and car companies to produce and consume vehicles that cause much less damage to our environment. And of course the revenue that such a tax would produce could be used for many greatly needed infrastructure investments such as those proposed in the State of the Union. Oil companies have received too many subsidies for far too long, it is time we strongly commit to promoting a more sustainable transportation policy, and states must do their part to reinforce those policies at the state level. This may be the only time I will ever agree with Tim Eyman.
- as a disclaimer I do not own a hybrid or electric vehicle, and do not plan to anytime soon in the future.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The State Of Our Union
President Obama, produced an eloquent, informative and utterly boring SOTU speech. President Obama, is running toward the middle. His recent legislative "success" and bump in approval ratings, after capitulating to demands by Republicans to extend tax cuts for the rich, have lead him to believe that the middle is what will get him re-elected. In his speech Obama simply took easily agreeable ideas, and proposed that if adopted our country will be strengthened. His proposals crossed both sides of the aisle. They make sense, most are good ideas, and yes they will strengthen our union. However, not a single one of his proposals or ideas is one that the country desperately needs. Not a single one of his proposals is one that will revolutionize our country or dramatically change its course. Together as a single package, his proposals are solid, reasonable and in the short-term may lead to him being re-elected.
However, Barack Obama was not elected to be a mere administrator, or compromiser. Barack Obama was elected to transform our country. He was elected as the candidate of change, and hope. I expected more. I expected leadership. I expected Obama to live up to his own reputation as a great speaker and equal that reputation with great accomplishments and great action. The President failed to speak on several issues in which his leadership is sorely needed. Where was his call for increase in gun control? If there was ever a time to call to renew the popular assault weapons ban, now is the time. The President did not talk enough about unemployment. It is still way too high and when the underemployment rate is included climbs to 19%. Decreasing this number is the #1 way to improve the lives of everyday Americans. Where was the talk about global climate change? The problem is real, and has real consequences, and the President cannot ignore it. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, and its allowance of unlimited corporate spending along with the continued misinterpretation of the 14th amendment (corporate personhood) is perhaps the biggest threat to our democracy, and it was completely ignored. And finally the increase in income inequality, and decrease in social mobility over the last 30 years is a direct result of the economic policies of the last three decades, and has only grown worse with the great recession and must be met head on and confronted and reversed.
The President must do more than just compromise on these issues, he must lead. The President must stand on his principles on these issues. He must do what is best for the country and not what he thinks will get him re-elected. He must take his stand and take his case directly to the American people. Obama has claimed on several occasions that he would rather be a transformative one term president than a mediocre two term president. Well, I don't believe winning a second term and being transformative must be mutually exclusive. But Obama must remember what got him elected in the first place.
Barack Obama was elected in 2008, because of a historically high turnout by young people. These young voters, (23 million 18-29 yr olds) elected a rather young, first term senator, with an amazing ability to speak clearly and inspire them to action. Yet, it is these same young voters that are historically unreliable, and unengaged. It is these same young voters that stayed home in 2010. However, they still crave that hope, change and leadership that candidate Obama promised. They may not pay attention, or notice that it takes two branches of government to pass laws, and they may not care. Obama must engage and speak to these voters or they will stay home in 2012. What they want is leadership, and Tuesdays speech was not one of a leader but rather one from a compromiser. If President Obama wants any chance of re-election and if our country wants any hope to emerge from our recession and regain the prosperity of the middle class then let's hope that Obama decides to lead.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Guns and Arizona
It has now been over ten days since the tragedy in Arizona where six people were killed and 13 were injured including Congresswoman Giffords. The reaction has ranged from those blaming harsh and violent rhetoric, to those using the incident to become martyrs themselves. Much has been said and will continue to be said about gun control policy in the United States. I myself have had multiple conversations about gun control in light of the tragedy.
Throughout these conversations many different cliche's, analogies and arguments have been made back and forth, however throughout them all I have noticed that those on the status quo side of our gun control laws simply do not live in reality. Among arguments for keeping the status quo I have heard, "guns do not kill people, people kill people." "Where will it stop, will knives soon be outlawed?" "Cars are more dangerous than guns, so why don't we outlaw cars?" "There is only one way to interpret the 2nd amendment." "Laws only effect those who follow them, criminals don't follow laws so what good would new laws do?" "If everyone carried a gun, we would all be much safer." All these cliche's and others like them seem to be the bulk of the status quo argument.
I have not heard one argument promoting the status quo that makes any sense to me. If anyone has one or can link to one I would be most grateful if you could share. The thing is no one wants guns completely outlawed. Even finding someone who just wants handguns outlawed is very difficult. Guns are part of our culture. Americans love guns. This is ok.
However, the arguments for just reasonable, common sense gun laws are overwhelming. The assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, was just common sense legislation that even 57 percent of gun owners supported at the time. Yet, even now many people seem convinced that this common sense legislation is an outrageous infringement on their 2nd amendment rights. Even George W. Bush supported renewing the ban. Enacting similar legislation after the Arizona tragedy has been discussed, but has very little chance to actually be passed in the republican controlled house. It is really too bad, as some sort of increase in gun control laws is a mainstream popular view that a large majority of the country holds. (When looking at this poll I become even more surprised at the number of people I speak to, who seemingly are for the status quo, perhaps they are just more outspoken that those in favor of tighter laws.)
For those that support the status quo; are there no restrictions on guns of any kind that you will support? After all, what lawful citizen needs a semi-automatic Kalashnikov rifle? Does the 2nd amendment really allow any citizen to own any firearm in existence? Surely no one would make such an argument? Or would they: (skip to 3:58)
Throughout these conversations many different cliche's, analogies and arguments have been made back and forth, however throughout them all I have noticed that those on the status quo side of our gun control laws simply do not live in reality. Among arguments for keeping the status quo I have heard, "guns do not kill people, people kill people." "Where will it stop, will knives soon be outlawed?" "Cars are more dangerous than guns, so why don't we outlaw cars?" "There is only one way to interpret the 2nd amendment." "Laws only effect those who follow them, criminals don't follow laws so what good would new laws do?" "If everyone carried a gun, we would all be much safer." All these cliche's and others like them seem to be the bulk of the status quo argument.
I have not heard one argument promoting the status quo that makes any sense to me. If anyone has one or can link to one I would be most grateful if you could share. The thing is no one wants guns completely outlawed. Even finding someone who just wants handguns outlawed is very difficult. Guns are part of our culture. Americans love guns. This is ok.
 |
| A semi-automatic Kalashnikov AKM rifle |
For those that support the status quo; are there no restrictions on guns of any kind that you will support? After all, what lawful citizen needs a semi-automatic Kalashnikov rifle? Does the 2nd amendment really allow any citizen to own any firearm in existence? Surely no one would make such an argument? Or would they: (skip to 3:58)
These are the sorts of arguments I find myself listening to in the wake of the tragedy in Arizona. Not allowing people to purchase assault rifles or clips that contain 15, 30 or 50 rounds and up, or making true background checks required, is not unreasonable. In fact I would argue it is just common sense. Gun laws are not a slippery slope ending with the banning of all firearms. Instead it seems we are much closer to a slippery slope where there are little to no restrictions on gun use and ownership in the United States. Yet, status quo advocates continue to play the persecuted martyrs who at any moment will have their 2nd amendment rights taken away from them by our "crazy liberal, gun banning President."
While I realize, I have not added much to the debate in what is my inaugural issues post. I do hope, despite my skepticism, that someone may respond with a coherent rational for the status quo. I also believe that much more important than the gun control debate is a debate on what really causes violent crime. Whether it be our mental health system, economic justice, our education system, or just the state of our economy; these are the true causes of violent crime, and issues which can have much more lasting effect in our society. These issues are ones that really effect people's lives, and ones I hope to touch on more in the future.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Introduction
Welcome to my blog.
For quite some time now I have needed an outlet to express my thoughts on a variety of topics. As an unemployed school teacher currently underemployed as a grocery cashier, I have plenty of time to read and think on many topics. I spend much of my time consuming various media and forming opinions on it. I hope this blog will be a more productive expression of my thoughts than the random Facebook debates I seem to become engaged in now. I plan to post on a variety of topics, from current events, and politics to entertainment and movies. I may even touch on sports, but plan to shy away from personal or family topics. While I do not pretend to expect many followers, I do hope that my posts will offer engaging, productive and civil dialogue between myself and my readers. Thank you in advance to any who may read.
For quite some time now I have needed an outlet to express my thoughts on a variety of topics. As an unemployed school teacher currently underemployed as a grocery cashier, I have plenty of time to read and think on many topics. I spend much of my time consuming various media and forming opinions on it. I hope this blog will be a more productive expression of my thoughts than the random Facebook debates I seem to become engaged in now. I plan to post on a variety of topics, from current events, and politics to entertainment and movies. I may even touch on sports, but plan to shy away from personal or family topics. While I do not pretend to expect many followers, I do hope that my posts will offer engaging, productive and civil dialogue between myself and my readers. Thank you in advance to any who may read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)