"Democracy is where 51% of the population can vote the other 49% on to boxcars." The person who originally said this grew up during WWII. We have never had a democracy the U.S. That's a good thing. Our representative republic protects minority rights.
The fillibuster protects minority rights. The progressive narrative that it's a remnant of Jim Crow is unadulterated bulls***. it actually dates from the Senate doing away with the "previous question" rule in 1806. We
had slavery in 1806, not Jim Crow, and Vice President Aaron Burr's advice to do away with the rule had nothing to do with slavery.
The fillibuster was misused to protect Jim Crow, primarily by Democrats, just as it is being misused now by Republicans. Fix it. Don't destroy it. I'm with Joe Mancini and Kyrsten Sinema on this one.
Let's put it another way. Imagine what the GOP and Trump would have done without the fillibuster.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Big Business is NOT Creating Jobs; Corporate Tax Breaks are a Huge Waste of Money
Republicans keep telling us that only the private sector can create jobs. They claim, time and again, that reducing corporate tax rates and giving huge tax breaks to big corporations creates jobs. Maybe, once upon a time, there was a degree of truth to the idea. In today's economy it's pure bunk.
I'd like to share a recent example from here in North Carolina. Apple built a new, huge new data center here. How many jobs did that create? A whopping 50! That's right, there are only 50 new jobs there. Let me quote from an article on Yahoo! Finance, which is originally from Business Insider:
So, how can we create more jobs in this country? It's not all that hard: you hire people. It worked for FDR in the 1930s and it can work now. No, government hiring for public works projects didn't end the Great Depression, but it did reduce unemployment from nearly a third of the workforce down to 12%.
First, start by rehiring the teachers, firefighters and police officers who were let go because of state and local budget cutting and the end of stimulus funds. The "Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011", originally part President Obama's jobs bill, would have done that. It was blocked in the Senate by every last Republican, one independent (Joseph Lieberman) and two conservative Democrats (Bill Pryor and Ben Nelson). Polling shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not support the cuts to education and to first responders. The cost of the bill would have been $35 billion.
Second, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure in this country. Even the pro-business, conservative Chamber of Commerce endorsed President Obama's call for more investment in our nation's infrastructure. Once again, public support is there for repairing and building roads, bridges, the power grid, and other needed projects. Once again, the Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate. The cost would have been $60 billion.
Bare in mind that Republicans opposed closing tax loopholes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for these bills. I still have yet to hear a rational explanation from Republicans telling me how tax the breaks they defend for luxury yachts, private jets and second homes is good for the economy or will create jobs. I do know that employed people, whether in the public or private sector, spend money which helps businesses profit, creates more jobs and, in turn creates more consumer spending. Employed people pay a heck of a lot more in taxes than unemployed people too, which reduces the deficit. Coming back to my original point: corporate welfare, whether it's subsidies for oil and energy companies or tax breaks to build a new data center, are a huge waste of money which does nothing for ordinary taxpayers but does enrich a small slice of the top 1%. Corporate welfare also increases the deficit by more than enough to pay for the two jobs bills I referenced.
The plain fact is that Republicans are deliberately tanking the economy and killing job creation because they believe that people will blame President Obama and elect more Republicans next year. They are all about their own power and their wealthy and big corporate donors and to hell with the rest of us. Maybe, just maybe the Occupy movement is finally waking people up to that reality. Maybe instead of the "throw the rascals out" mentality we saw in 2010 we might just get the "throw the 1% and their lackeys out" mentality we really need. Maybe, just maybe, people will pay attention and put the blame where it belongs this time.
I'd like to share a recent example from here in North Carolina. Apple built a new, huge new data center here. How many jobs did that create? A whopping 50! That's right, there are only 50 new jobs there. Let me quote from an article on Yahoo! Finance, which is originally from Business Insider:
"Apple has chosen to manufacture its products where it can manufacture them most efficiently--outside the U.S. And Apple's shareholders are benefiting accordingly.Please note that I deliberately chose an article from a business publication, not a left-leaning political site. It seems even business reporters can see the truth now.
[...]
But the point is that the hope that a few more companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon will restore the U.S. economy to its former glory is misplaced.
The companies create amazing products and vast shareholder wealth, but they don't spread this wealth around as much as earlier industrial giants did."
So, how can we create more jobs in this country? It's not all that hard: you hire people. It worked for FDR in the 1930s and it can work now. No, government hiring for public works projects didn't end the Great Depression, but it did reduce unemployment from nearly a third of the workforce down to 12%.
First, start by rehiring the teachers, firefighters and police officers who were let go because of state and local budget cutting and the end of stimulus funds. The "Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011", originally part President Obama's jobs bill, would have done that. It was blocked in the Senate by every last Republican, one independent (Joseph Lieberman) and two conservative Democrats (Bill Pryor and Ben Nelson). Polling shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not support the cuts to education and to first responders. The cost of the bill would have been $35 billion.
Second, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure in this country. Even the pro-business, conservative Chamber of Commerce endorsed President Obama's call for more investment in our nation's infrastructure. Once again, public support is there for repairing and building roads, bridges, the power grid, and other needed projects. Once again, the Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate. The cost would have been $60 billion.
Bare in mind that Republicans opposed closing tax loopholes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for these bills. I still have yet to hear a rational explanation from Republicans telling me how tax the breaks they defend for luxury yachts, private jets and second homes is good for the economy or will create jobs. I do know that employed people, whether in the public or private sector, spend money which helps businesses profit, creates more jobs and, in turn creates more consumer spending. Employed people pay a heck of a lot more in taxes than unemployed people too, which reduces the deficit. Coming back to my original point: corporate welfare, whether it's subsidies for oil and energy companies or tax breaks to build a new data center, are a huge waste of money which does nothing for ordinary taxpayers but does enrich a small slice of the top 1%. Corporate welfare also increases the deficit by more than enough to pay for the two jobs bills I referenced.
The plain fact is that Republicans are deliberately tanking the economy and killing job creation because they believe that people will blame President Obama and elect more Republicans next year. They are all about their own power and their wealthy and big corporate donors and to hell with the rest of us. Maybe, just maybe the Occupy movement is finally waking people up to that reality. Maybe instead of the "throw the rascals out" mentality we saw in 2010 we might just get the "throw the 1% and their lackeys out" mentality we really need. Maybe, just maybe, people will pay attention and put the blame where it belongs this time.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
A Religious Argument For Being Pro-Choice
I originally posted the piece below in the first incarnation of this blog on February 27, 2006. With Republican Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates who are strongly anti-choice I felt it was time to post this again. The anti-abortion position is always portrayed by the right as somehow the correct moral choice and the position that anyone who believes in G-d must take. It just isn't true and even Christianity is hardly unified on the issue of abortion.
Anyway, here is what I wrote. It seems particularly timely in this election season when faith and politics are mixed all too often:
---
When the anti-abortion crowd states unequivocally that abortion is murder they are voicing a belief based on fundamentalist Christian interpretation of scripture. It certainly isn't based on science or medicine which would argue that you have a child at some point in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable and can live outside the mothers womb. Nobody would argue based on science that a newly fertilized egg is a distinct individual. To make that argument one must turn to religion.
Similarly, based on my Jewish religious tradition and a mainstream (Conservative or modern Orthodox) interpretation of scripture I could argue unequivocally that life begins at birth, not before, and abortion is never tantamount to taking a life.
Yes, I know conservative Christians use some of what they call Old Testament scripture to justify their position. The problem with this is that from a Jewish perspective Christians reorder the Tanakh (Bible), mixing up Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). They also weigh the whole Tanakh equally while Jews give greater weight to the Torah (Law), or the five books of Moses. So, then... what does the Torah have to say about abortion? Quite a lot, actually.
Let me quote Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, from his excellent book The Ten Commandments of Character, which I highly recommend:
Abortion is a necessary evil. The choice must belong to the woman. One would hope she would consult with her doctor, her spiritual advisor (in a Jewish setting this would be a rabbi), and, if appropriate, the father. The state, though, has no right to interfere.
In a nation where one of it's chief founders, Thomas Jefferson, called for "a wall of separation between church and state" imposing a ban on abortion based on one religious belief, no matter how prevalent, is simply wrong. If polls are right a majority of Americans are pro-choice in any case, not that numbers should matter. I, as a member of a religious minority, do not want to see any one religion or set of beliefs given supremacy over all others. That issue goes far beyond abortion. Once that happens, once the United States starts moving towards theocracy, it would no longer be a country I could be comfortable living in. Banning abortion based on Christian religious belief is, indeed, theocratic.
I certainly don't want the state or someone else's religion making medical decisions which could have severe consequences for the woman involved for the rest of her life.
Anyway, here is what I wrote. It seems particularly timely in this election season when faith and politics are mixed all too often:
---
When the anti-abortion crowd states unequivocally that abortion is murder they are voicing a belief based on fundamentalist Christian interpretation of scripture. It certainly isn't based on science or medicine which would argue that you have a child at some point in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable and can live outside the mothers womb. Nobody would argue based on science that a newly fertilized egg is a distinct individual. To make that argument one must turn to religion.
Similarly, based on my Jewish religious tradition and a mainstream (Conservative or modern Orthodox) interpretation of scripture I could argue unequivocally that life begins at birth, not before, and abortion is never tantamount to taking a life.
Yes, I know conservative Christians use some of what they call Old Testament scripture to justify their position. The problem with this is that from a Jewish perspective Christians reorder the Tanakh (Bible), mixing up Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). They also weigh the whole Tanakh equally while Jews give greater weight to the Torah (Law), or the five books of Moses. So, then... what does the Torah have to say about abortion? Quite a lot, actually.
Let me quote Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, from his excellent book The Ten Commandments of Character, which I highly recommend:
"My view is shaped by Jewish tradition, which, while strongly limiting instances in which it regards abortion as permissible (e,g., when the mother's physical or mental well-being are imperiled), categorically rejects the notion of abortion as murder. The classic case in Jewish law is one discussed in the Torah. Exodus 21:22-23 rules that if two men are fighting and one murders the pregnant wife of the other, the killer is executed. But if instead of killing the wife, he wounds her and causes her pregnancy to be aborted, "the assailant shall be fined." As this passage makes clear, whatever value the fetus has, the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call the Old Testament) doesn't grant the status of human life. If it did the punishment for killing the fetus wouldn't be a monetary fine, but the same as that for killing the woman, i.e., death. Therefore, according to the Hebrew Bible, abortion is definitely not murder."It should not be surprising that Israel, a Jewish nation in which Orthodox religious leaders have considerable sway, permits abortion on demand. Israel, unlike the United States, does not have separation of religion and state.
Abortion is a necessary evil. The choice must belong to the woman. One would hope she would consult with her doctor, her spiritual advisor (in a Jewish setting this would be a rabbi), and, if appropriate, the father. The state, though, has no right to interfere.
In a nation where one of it's chief founders, Thomas Jefferson, called for "a wall of separation between church and state" imposing a ban on abortion based on one religious belief, no matter how prevalent, is simply wrong. If polls are right a majority of Americans are pro-choice in any case, not that numbers should matter. I, as a member of a religious minority, do not want to see any one religion or set of beliefs given supremacy over all others. That issue goes far beyond abortion. Once that happens, once the United States starts moving towards theocracy, it would no longer be a country I could be comfortable living in. Banning abortion based on Christian religious belief is, indeed, theocratic.
I certainly don't want the state or someone else's religion making medical decisions which could have severe consequences for the woman involved for the rest of her life.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Stand With The People Of Tibet
When I checked my inbox this morning I was surprised to see an e-mail from Hans-Joachim Roedelius. Herr Roedelius is one of my favorite musicians. I met him in person at a performance he gave in Asheville, NC in 1999 and I have corresponded with him a couple of times, most recently after I expanded the WikiPedia page for Cluster. Herr Roedelius was kind enough to provide a photo and to fact check the page for me.
It turns out the e-mail contained a link to Avaaz.org urging people to sign an online petition to be delivered to Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 31. The petition urges restraint, respect for human rights, and the opening of a dialogue with the Dali Lama. While I have little hope that the Chinese government is at all open to or moved by international public opinion I certainly see no harm in signing the petition. Avaaz.org wants at least 2,000,000 signatures and they are more than 80% of the way there. Who knows? Maybe, against all odds it will even do a little good.
I encourage everyone to take a couple of minutes to sign the petition.
I also thank Herr Roedelius for championing this issue and giving me the opportunity to do what I can.
It turns out the e-mail contained a link to Avaaz.org urging people to sign an online petition to be delivered to Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 31. The petition urges restraint, respect for human rights, and the opening of a dialogue with the Dali Lama. While I have little hope that the Chinese government is at all open to or moved by international public opinion I certainly see no harm in signing the petition. Avaaz.org wants at least 2,000,000 signatures and they are more than 80% of the way there. Who knows? Maybe, against all odds it will even do a little good.
I encourage everyone to take a couple of minutes to sign the petition.
I also thank Herr Roedelius for championing this issue and giving me the opportunity to do what I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
