The following story has circulated on the internet before, but it just started making the rounds again.  Each time it circulates the comments that follow on various chat sites give more and more validity to the event.  The latest version ends with:  Send this to everyone you know- its just too good!

In South Los Angeles , a 4-plex home was destroyed by a fire.  A Mexican family of six, all welfare recipients and gang members, lived on the first floor, they died.  An Islamic group of seven welfare cheats, all illegally in the country from Kenya , lived on the second floor, and they, too, all perished in the fire.  6 LA, Hispanic, Gang Bangers, & ex-cons, lived on the 3rd floor and they, too, died.  A lone, white couple lived on the top floor.

The couple survived the fire.

Jesse Jackson, John Burris and Al Sharpton were furious!! They flew into LA and met with the fire chief, on camera.  They loudly demanded to know why the Blacks, Black Muslims and Hispanics all died in the fire and why only the White couple lived!

Stories like these circulate to reinforce the idea that “liberals” have a bias against working white people and that welfare is a waste of their hard earned money.  There is a serious flaw in this story….it isn’t true.  It didn’t happen.  It is nothing but a made up story to propagate stereotypes about welfare recipients and to discredit the credibility of civil rights activists.

Another version has the story taking place in New Jersey and yet another version takes place in London.  The New Jersey version adds another Black family to the mix and in London the Mexicans became Albanians.  In every story there is a date when this allegedly occured and a paper which ran the story and in every case the archives of each paper show no such event taking place (www.snopes.com).

Ladies and gentleman, this is nothing but a made up story to further political bias and ultimately is a racist agenda to propagate negative stereotypes about welfare and recipients.  To those who say, “Its okay as a straw man story to illustrate a problem that is real,”-  NO, its not.  This is a devious and intentional lie, masquerading as a legitimate example, to defame social services and to fan the flames of racism.

If the best defense of your position is to lie…then you have no position.

  “I want the next President to be a businessman” is a statement I overheard yesterday and I’ve heard that statement and ones like it many times before. It makes sense to a lot of people that during tough economic times we need a leader who “understands making a payroll” and who knows “how to create jobs.” It follows a line of thinking that also states that the Federal Budget is like a “Household Budget” where you can only spend as much as you take in. Curiously, many of the people using that analogy are up to their ears in credit debt. It has been my experience in life that very few people actually live the way they say the rest of us should live.

I want to take this concept head on, because the criteria above could very well decide the next Presidential election and the course of America and it is wrong….dead wrong.

The Federal Government is not a business. It is a government. Nowhere in our Constitution is it outlined or stated that the form of government being created therein is to be run like a business. Nowhere in the Separation of Powers and the Branches of Government does it resemble the hierarchy of a business.

“But Gary, government should be run like a business, that would be a good thing!” is the statement that I just made up so that I could counter the argument.

Let’s look at the two concepts. The demand on a business is that it produces a profit; that is how it sustains, grows and gives the shareholders their dividends. There is no guarantee that it will be a successful business and fulfill that end into perpetuity and so the responsibility for leadership falls on its CEO and the Board of Directors to make the decisions to realize that goal. If you were to compare this paradigm to a form of government, it would more closely resemble a Dictatorship; the decisions are made at the top and implemented down the chain of command. Employees (citizens) comply with the rules or lose their jobs.

A Representative Democracy (a Republic) is the form of government outlined by our Constitution and the fundamental objective is not to turn a profit for shareholders but to “represent” its constituency, according to the Charter, fairly and evenly where the quietest, least powerful voices among us are represented as vigorously as anyone else. The authority, therefore, rests in the body of the people as a whole and the leadership pyramid is turned upside down.

This pure concept of government has been lost in many ways. We have given government too much power of authority by not recognizing the principles upon which we were founded. The “people” in this great democratic experiment have marginalized their own voice by allowing special interests to invade policy; special interests are controlled by money; money has corrupted equality; and this eventually leads to a plutocratic system which is anything but a democracy.

The business model for government is the wrong concept to correct this course. In fact, it is the concept that we have been evolving toward for decades following the neoliberal economic policy since Reagan and it has led to the situation we are now in. The top of the economic pyramid have increased their holdings by 250% over the past 30 years. The top 1% controls nearly half of America’s wealth. The top 10% control 90%. This is the business-model and it has led to a deep Recession where the engine of Capitalist prosperity, the Middle Class, has been squeezed into near non-existence, and the pittance of opportunity that remains for the bottom tier is being demonized by the new ruling class as “freeloading.”

If we want to correct the course of representation in America, if we want to strengthen the Middle Class that spends the money that, in turn, grows business, if we want to end a Recession and chart a course for prosperity, the LAST thing we want to do is make America more of a “business” where the only people with the power and the wealth reside at the top.

We have programmed ourselves as a society into believing the wrong concepts. I often hear phrases like, “Let’s put someone in power who….” No! “Power” is the wrong word. It’s as if there is a collective memory that harkens back to King George when people were subjected to Absolute Rule. The people in “power” are US, but we cannot exercise our power unless we agree on certain principles. Here’s the good news– the principles are already written down, ratified and sworn to uphold; they exist in our Great Charter of Freedom, and if only everyone could work to understand the tenets that protect freedom of religion, speech, inalienable rights, impartial and egalitarian justice and equal representation, we would begin to chart a new course for better “government.”

I wish I could put this argument to rest….so often in the past couple of years I’ve heard conservatives denounce “social programs” and “financial regulations,” particularly the ones supported by this administration, as being “Socialist.” “Socialist” is, of course, that dirty word that is being used to warn good Americans that we are on a slippery slope toward government tyranny nothing short of complete oppression, i.e., “Communism.” I have attempted to explain that Communism and Socialism are not the same thing but I don’t seem to get very far. It is not difficult to understand where the confusion lies but there is a difference. “Communism” is a classless political system in which all property and wealth is owned by all the members of that society. It fails on several levels; it denies, and in fact, squashes the very real and important human motivation of competitive progress and it is vulnerable to an oppressive and tyrannical government that is created from that void of motivation. It is the realization of “Marxist socialism” but the defining and crucial difference is that Communism requires a “classless political system.”

Socialism is a system of social organization that does not preclude the absence of different class constructs (and profits), but advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution (capital, land, etc.) to be in the community interest. That does not even mean equal, or non-competitive distribution, it simply means that the distribution is influenced by what is best for the community. The function of government in a Representative Democracy (or Republic), such as what we have, is to maintain a fair distribution of our resources to promote that common good; it has roots in a social concept. We have a form of Democracy where voters choose in free elections representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies, i.e., not necessarily as directed by the majority but with enough authority to exercise initiatives in the face of inevitably changing circumstances. That was the directive of our Founding Fathers to provide for the “general welfare” of the people. The argument here is that “socialism,” while not what any good liberal Democrat is trying to create, is also not a completely dirty word when its understood and that understanding is essential in establishing better government.

A related misunderstanding is in the type of financial structure we have in the United States. I often hear that “government regulations” hamper the “Free Market” where prices are determined by supply and demand and from which our capitalist economic system, favoring private ownership, is derived. It needs to be explained that nowhere in the history of economic theory is it said that Capitalism is a perfect system and it must be noted that the concept of a Free Market is predicated on a conceit that the market is receiving “perfect information” and that competition is perfect; in other words, no company is so large as to have enough power to “set the market price.” The Great Depression proves that Capitalism is not a flawless system and that, in fact, it has a cyclical vulnerability that can be catastrophic. That is why we have a “Mixed Market/Capitalist” economic system where there are regulations to control the drastic and potentially devastating swings. “Mixed Market” is defined as an economy where there is some government intervention to manage those swings and to eliminate malfeasance and market manipulation. An example is the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and while we can argue its effectiveness until the Day of Rapture comes, its failures are primarily a result of turning a blind eye to infractions (especially when under administrations promoting de-regulation). The SEC was established during the Great Depression to regulate the stock market and to prevent the corporate abuses that contributed to the collapse.

Let’s put the Socialism/Communism/Capitalism/Free Market rhetoric to rest. We are a Republic, founded on the principles of representative government that provides for the common welfare of its people; and in doing so offers the best realization of personal freedoms, while not infringing upon the rights of others, that a civilized society can provide. Our prosperity is secured when the same principles apply to our financial system; a modified free market where judicial fairness is mandated and enforced by that representative power.

Our Constitution begins with “We the PEOPLE” not “We of Private Enterprise…”  It’s a little “socialist” (giggle, giggle).

In my view, no group of people have more at stake in this election than gay men and women of America and, perhaps, around the world, as human rights are being threatened and denied universally.  In my view, no group of people have worked harder or have been more vocal in defending their rights than the gay community but it is also from my view that I witness opposition to those rights mounting an aggressive attack in the media, on the pulpit and in the political arena.  The passage of Amendment One in North Carolina brings the issue of gay rights front and center, once again, but, while it ebbs and flows as front page news when states create ballot initiatives, Constitutional freedom can never be ignored.

Recently I saw a pundit trotted out on Fox (I watch Fox at times for the same reason Bill Belichick videotapes opposing defenses) who identified himself as gay and then confessed that he supports Republican economic plans and therefore will be voting as a Republican in this election.  I couldn’t help but think, “That’s like a beaver setting its own trap,” as the Fox commentators fell all over him, almost as if snapping towels and “horseplay” might take place in the Fox locker room immediately after the broadcast.  What the intelligent and eloquent man was not considering was the fact that the conservative ideology that he is giving his economic blessing to, would rather see him suffer than be allowed to live the life which is natural to him.  The Far Right-Christian-Conservative that has hijacked the platform of the Republican Party loves to place their blanket of sanctimonious values over gays and lesbians by saying, “We love you and care for your souls and that is why we wish to SAVE you”…but only so long as you do, in fact, go away!

I align with liberalism because historical precedents and a connection to certain values have steered me toward an ideology that has fought for the rights and opportunities for women, minorities and the poor against opposition put forth by the status quo.  I consider the rights of Gay Americans in the same vein and that is why, today, I am compelled to appeal to the gay community to become even more active in this election than ever before.   I have seen some resignation caused by frustration and a willingness to compromise (“Let’s just call it a ‘civil union’,” for example) and I believe it’s time for all of us, straight, gay or confused, to order some priorities.  Yes, these are tough economic times, and yes, there are tenuous alliances on the world stage, but Human Rights have always been the centerpiece of American strength and this is still the most important battle we wage today.

It has to bother all conservatives that Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts promising to be more responsive to gay rights “than even Ted Kennedy” and today, in his quest to prove himself to be the conservatives conservative, he denounces gay marriage.  His handlers and supporters will connect the dots to portray an ideological consistency but it has to be clear to everyone that Mitt Romney will believe whatever he needs to believe to get his party’s support.  Perhaps moderate conservatives do not join Mitt’s new objective to amend the Constitution to define marriage as “a union betweeen one man and one woman” (as has transpired in North Carolina) or Rick Santorum (who equates gay sex as the equivalent to incest or bestiality) or Michelle Bachmann (“It is part of Satan to say ‘this is gay’”…of course at the Bachmann’s that could be pillow talk) but does a moderate conservative have any voice in the Republican Party anymore?  What used to exist as the political right wing (think Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater) has been led by the nose into an extreme conservatism so afraid of losing its grip that they dress up as Minutemen in parking lots with muskets from WalMart carrying placards decrying their loss of “Freedumb.”

It also must also have bothered supporters of gay rights that President Obama’s position up to this point had been less than what was expected, especially in view of their overwhelming support for Obama in 2008, as he opposed same-sex marriage but said “gay couples should have the same rights as married straight couples.”  Not terribly convincing, but now, with his hand forced by Vice President Biden’s clear acceptance of gay marriage, Obama has admitted that he has “evolved” after speaking with gay and lesbian friends, soldiers and staff with regard to this issue and is now voicing support.  It is one thing to “flip flop” from supporting human being’s rights to a new position that limits them, as Romney did, than it is to have flipped from having a limited perspective to a more inclusive one.  Having ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is also a significant contrast to his soon-to-be-opponent, Romney, who said when it was repealed that “It should have been kept in place.”  Obama has stumbled at times in his futile desire to be politically-inclusive, but, this election is about realism and well as idealism and now it’s about experience.  Obama rode into the White House on a wave of expectation, much of which was created by our own fantasies and not by his design, and after 3 years we have seen reality take their place, but, the hope we shared is still alive and will find its roots in the highest purpose of America itself; the defense of human rights.

Bottom line?  There is no choice in terms of who needs to be in the White House from 2012 to 2016.  Obama as a second term, lame duck could become a truly great presidency in the matters of human rights, the environment, education, foreign policy, the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure, and with investment in our national health.  Over 122 million Americans voted in the 2008 presidential election and even though Obama garnered 52% of the popular vote we can essentially say that half of America voted one way, the other have, another.  It is difficult to say how many of those voters were gay, however, there are approximately 9 million Americans over the age of 18 who identify themselves as gay and that translates into over 7% of the voting public.  What’s more, is that high percentages live in crucial electoral states and if that vote is added to 90% of the 60 million non-gay Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008, this election will be decided.  Half of America always disagrees with what they do not understand, particularly in every fight for civil rights, but if gay Americans lean on the rudder of this giant ship, together we can steer American values toward a more correct heading; one that leads to human rights and dignity around the world.

Rally.  March.  Write.  Persuade.  Vote.  Put aside the frustrations caused by leaders who have been slow or confused and let’s turn frustration, born from political stalemates, into a rally cry for renewed action.  More than “lifestyles” depend on us- lives are at risk!

Sincerely,

Gary

  We will soon have a very important race for Congress here in eastern Iowa.  Congressman Bruce Braley will be challenged in District 1 by the Republican nominee and right now that looks like a race between Ben Lange, who barely lost to Braley in 2010, or popular Dubuque businessman and columnist, Rod Blum.  Lange, who benefitted from 1 million dollars from the American Future Fund to invest in negative advertising, is the acknowledged front runner but Lange and Blum are not far apart ideologically.

Let me be perfectly clear:  Bruce Braley has been a shining light in Washington as a representative demonstrating the highest degrees of integrity, intelligence and resolve in a time of crisis at home and abroad.  If we want to “improve” government, we need to keep the representatives of Bruce Braley’s caliber in office and push back the irrational, untruthful voices that challenge them.

Braley eloquently stated, “The disabled single mom in Waterloo who receives modest Social Security benefits did not cause this recession.  Grandparents in Davenport who need to see their doctor didn’t crash the stock market; yet that’s what today’s Republican budget says to Iowans and other middle class families.”  Lange and Blum support the Republican budget and agenda.

I went to Ben Lange’s website to see where he stood on the issues, and they are, essentially, as they were two years ago; casting blame for the economic crisis in the wrong directions and offering solutions that are manifest of that misunderstanding.  Blum’s website is nearly a carbon copy as they believe that going back to the policies that strangled the middle class and put more people under the poverty line are in the best interests of Americans and their party cloaks a platform to line the pockets of a rich minority with rhetorical platitudes like, “opening the free market” and calling it Constitutional integrity.  I’ve met Ben Lange and he is a friendly, and appears to be sincere, man, but he follows a political agenda that is dangerously misguided.

How could anyone stand in opposition to Bruce Braley when it comes to giving tax breaks to small businesses and middle class families?  Or his support of “Pay As You Go” spending and the “Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act” to reduce the federal deficit?  Or to decrease the growing burden placed on students by stopping increases on interest rates for student loans?  Braley’s support of the Recovery Act was to improve an economy in free fall by investing in infrastructure, education, and health care, to offset the previous economic neoliberalism that opened America’s pocketbook to a rich ruling class.  Can anyone disagree with Braley’s work to honor Iowa’s veterans by making sure they receive the benefits they deserve?

We need real integrity in Washington, not bloviated rhetoric based in erroneous claims of historical patriotism.  We need more people like the one we have representing us in District 1 in Iowa; we need people like Bruce Braley.
  Learn more, or donate to this important campaign, at http://www.brucebraley.com/?no_splash=1

  I was watching a new biography on HBO about the Great One and was awed by his mastery of the medium of television and how he connected, even failed ideas, favorably with his viewers.  No, I’m not talking about Jackie Gleason!  I’m talking about an even greater showman, perhaps, the greatest to open The Beltway Follies, since James Madison rode back into the ruins of Washington on his white stallion (even William Jefferson Clinton looks like an opening juggling act to this master of performance), I’m talking about none other than the incomparable Ronald Wilson, “Dutch,” “The Gipper,” Reagan; the 40^th President of the United States.
   The Legend of Reagan not only endures but grows, as he stands neck and neck with Abraham Lincoln as The Great Emancipator; slavery vrs taxes. It grows because the Republicans have not had a legend since Lincoln. They marginalized, their own war hero, Eisenhower, during his presidency of prosperity because America had moved to the left, post World War II, and Republicans needed to create a more extreme ideology in order to find relevance again; ergo the second Red Scare, McCarthyism, the emergence of Goldwater conservatism and finally the great alliteration: The Ronald Reagan Republican Revolution.

I hold a great deal of admiration for Ronald Reagan, truth be told. Not because I believed in his politics or policies (I don’t), but because he was (and remains) a galvanizing figure in history, who, like him or not, appeared sincere and was inspirational. I’m not ashamed (to the ire of many of my liberal friends) to say that he was once my President.

Okay…now that my disclaimer has been made, here’s my point….

Reagan’s legacy of economic success is a myth; a fable; a story woven from selective memory in order to put a noble face on failed policy.

In 1980 (Jimmy Carter’s last year in office) inflation averaged a very high, 12.5% and America was heading into a recession. Carter’s failed economic legacy was the perfect platform for the Reagan myth to begin. Reagan immediately implemented Supply-side economic policies which meant tax cuts across the board and expanding the tax base to offset revenue loss. “Reaganomics “now entered our lexicon (even though the theory was as old as Reagan himself) and certain economic indicators began to improve quickly. During Reagan’s administration, the unemployment rate averaged 7.5% over his eight years after reaching a high from the Recession in 1982 of 10.5. However, Reagan policy also meant increased defense and defense spending in his first term rose 40%

Reagan’s legacy was already set halfway through his first term because he was the man who lowered our taxes and turned the tide of a recession. Production was up, unemployment was down, Mount Rushmore here we come!
  However, there was a virus deep within Reagan’s great plan; there wasn’t enough revenue to pay for his defense initiatives and for the government programs that he supported, so along came…the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982; the largest peacetime tax increase in history, but here’s the caveat that made him the Greatest Showman on Earth- tax burden increased on the Middle and Lower classes by eliminating breaks, yet he sold this to the public with a brilliant aw-shucks appeal and even furthered the neo-con revolution. He then sold the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which “simplified” the tax code while raising the bottom bracket tax rate by 4% and lowering the top another 22%. In theory, he could say that they were tax cuts, since by and large the percentage was lower, but the burden fell to everyone BUT the wealthy. Now, because I actually have an interest in fairness, I must point out that these Acts were bipartisan; Democrats were on the Trickle Down Train, as well;
further proof of the historical journey toward Plutocracy that has seen a 250% increase in the holdings of the upper class over the past three decades. Again, my interest is in truth and it must be said that the widening gap between the rich and poor had already begun during the 1970s before Reagan’s economic policies took effect, however, it must also be stated that Reagan’s policies exacerbated that trend.  When Reagan left office there were 7 million more Americans living in poverty than when he started.

Reagan remains popular as the anti-tax hero despite raising taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, in the name of fiscal responsibility, but overall, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut. Some economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman will argue that Reagan’s tax policies invigorated America’s economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990’s, but others like another Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow argue that the deficits were a major reason why Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, reneged on his campaign promise “No new taxes” and ultimately raised them. Even Reagan opined that his greatest regret was having tripled the debt and having turned America into a debtor nation for the first time.

My take away is this— Reaganomics were a short term fix with long term, negative, consequences. Republicans today can cite the facts of an economic recovery because of neoliberal economics (Supply-side; Reaganomics, etc), but they step over huge canyons of shame such as fiscal disaster, increased burden on the Middle Class and the poor, and ultimately even a recession after his second term. What the Neo-liberal movement with Reagan and Congress (don’t confuse neo-liberal economics with social “liberalism”) did was use the concept of tax cutting incorrectly.  Lowering taxes does stimulate spending and the precedent for how its done was set with Kennedy. Reagan’s neo-cons, however, turned a blind eye to Kennedy’s progressive reform (that WORKED) because it was, after all, progressive reform, and they continued, instead, with the trend of neo-liberal economics where it is believed that the more the wealthy can keep, the more their spending will benefit the rest of us. Kennedy cut marginal taxes, and the largest percentage decrease was from the top, but he reformed tax burden by eliminating loopholes for the top tier and by giving breaks to the bottom tier. It’s REVERSE Trickle-Down; give continued opportunity to the base to increase their holdings and they will spend money, which creates more opportunity for wealth at the top.

So, revere Reagan or hate him…or you can be like me; respect him as an American President and a great communicator while disliking his mistakes (with a passion).  The proof of his successes and failures are in our history, and it will not be revealed by party rhetoric or political platitudes; it is there for serious minded people to view and decide.

We won’t necessarily agree over what we find, but just once I’d like to hear someone from the right offer an open minded political analysis.
Like me!

  In North Carolina an amendment stands before the voters called “Amendment One” which will define marriage within the state constitution as being strictly between “one man and one woman.” A few months ago, the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Proposition 8, which eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry, is “un-constitutional” and this is the same ruling the Iowa Supreme Court (New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, as well) determined a few years ago. The legality of same sex marriage is a ruling that has many Americans up in arms and, in fact, is the basis for which Iowa voters threw out the Supreme Court judges who made that determination when they came up for re-election in 2010.

I was asked recently why I write so many essays in defense of gay rights. I think they find it ironic that as a straight man I am so vocal in this matter.

The answer is very simple. All civil rights are relevant to all Americans. If we allow the justification of discrimination to any group of people, how can that not preclude a dangerous affront to the all the liberties we cherish?

That being said, I also have many gay friends that I’ve had for many, many years and I know that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but simply, who they are. How can we allow negative judgments over a group of people for being who they were born to be? I have witnessed, first hand, persecution and discrimination in the form of condescension, segregation, arrogance and even violence. This issue effects all of us, whether we know it or not, and to be silent or even passive is, in my opinion, un-American.

Many Iowans, and many of the candidates running for office, particularly in the Republican Party, have misunderstood the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court (and now California) that allows same sex marriage. While it may be true that most Iowans do not support the idea and believe that “marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” that does not mean that their determination (even as a majority) is just. I’ve heard opponents of same sex marriage say that the Iowa Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and “changed the Iowa Constitution.” No. They did not. The Iowa Supreme Court did not add language to the Constitution to include gay marriage; they ruled that the Constitution does not discriminate in the application of civil rights to all citizens. They ruled that the Constitution cannot add language that DOES discriminate.

In fact, this is how the Iowa Supreme Court ruled with regard to legalizing same-sex marriage: “Our responsibility…is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.”

Case in point The Defense of Marriage Act. While most Iowans (most Americans probably) agree with that premise (marriage being exclusive to a man and a woman) that doesn’t make it Constitutional. That is a tough distinction for a lot of people to grasp. Often I point out that the 19th Amendment was unpopular with the majority (including among women), but enough minority voices rose to make clear to Congress what was more relevant in the name of Freedom and Justice; that women should have the right to vote and to be protected by the Constitution.

Conservative candidates can scoff at this and smugly say, “I’ve got the majority behind me and we will reverse the Supreme Court decision in Iowa,” but, that doesn’t mean they’re right. In fact…as God is my witness…they are wrong. In fact, the Bible is often used to create a moral separation between gay marriage and God’s matrimonial intentions, but what we must separate is the role of government from the role of organized religion. Woody Allen once said, “I was raised in the Jewish tradition, taught never to marry a Gentile woman, shave on a Saturday night and, most especially, never to shave a Gentile woman on a Saturday night.”
His quote is silly but it humorously reveals a serious flaw in religious dogma. Religions create rules to differentiate themselves from others so as to propagate that faith, but those rules can be compounded and misconstrued so as to segregate people from one another, and can lead to injustices.

I’ve heard people say, “If we allow gay marriage where will it stop? Men will be marrying goats!” (Seriously, I heard that one).
People…slow down. Take a breath. Maybe pop a Xanax. One- the Bible is not the Constitution. Two- men (or women) and barnyard animals will not marry. We are a nation with a charter that protects such rights as they apply to Human Beings. The extension and protection of all such rights are not symptomatic of the decay of our civilization, rather it represents our collective morality and pursuit of Liberty and Justice for all; it is the advancement of civilization.

Taxes.  What a concept.  Is there any way to satisfy the debate between those who believe progressive taxation is a more fair distribution of burden, those who believe the only fair formula is that everyone should pay the same percentage and those who think that we should abolish federal taxes altogether and essentially pay as we play.  Personally, I believe progressive taxation is the best way to keep capitalism running for perpetuity (or at least until I’m gone, which ever comes first), but, I’m still listening…

It occurs to me that we are looking at the current tax structure incorrectly.  It seems that the general perception of our current tax rate is that its around 26%, but that the high earners pay more at 36%.  I’d like to change our thinking in order to make my case.  Try thinking of our current tax rate as being 36% and that middle and lower class earners pay less, averaging at 26%.  That may seem pedestrian, but it makes a point; it alters the perception that many have on the right that wealth accumulation is punished and I’m suggesting that we, instead, look at it as if lower incomes are being incentivized to invest and spend.

The question now becomes, “Is 36% too high?”  Well, if you consider that 50 years ago the highest marginal tax rate was 91% and people still accumulated vast amounts of wealth an argument could certainly be made that a rate that is 55% less is astonishingly low.  If you consider that the transfer of wealth toward the upper class has amassed three times higher in 30 years than for middle class Americans, a case can clearly be made that tax rates are working in favor of the higher earners.  But, I’m going to go out on a liberal limb here and say….”Yeah, I think 36% is too high.” (don’t get too excited, conservative friends- there’s more…)
  First of all, if progressive taxation unfairly taxes the rich, why has income inequality between the top 1% and middle incomes tripled over the past 30 years?  How have the wealthiest Americans managed to increase their holdings in that span by 250% if taxes are unfairly repressive for them?  In 1979, the middle 20% of Americans averaged $54,000 annual income (higher than the “average” household income).  The top 1% averaged $550,000.  Today, the middle 20% have increased their average earnings by 8% while the top 1% have increased their average by nearly 29% to 1.9 million dollars a year.  If progressive taxation is unfair, then it has been unfair in favor of the rich.

The tax code has been modified over the past 99 years to work toward incentivising investment and sheltering wealth by lowering capital gains tax, creating S Corp status and all sorts of investment protections and deductions.  What has clearly happened, now that we know that one of the richest men in history pays an average personal tax around 15% and a wealthy Presidential candidate has revealed the same, is that the tax codes have been their friends.  The conversation we should be having should be less about the higher bracket, which no one with even a decent accountant pays, and it should be about reforming breaks, loopholes and deductions so that the investment class remains incentivised while the middle and lower classes are given better opportunity to spend and invest.

Many people argue that a Flat Tax is the cure to end all inequities and I would like to put that concept to rest.  Unfortunately, I’ve found that the more information I offer to counter it, the less those who think a flat tax makes sense, will listen.  But, here I go….

A Progressive tax is based on a simple idea that it is more fair for those who have the ability to pay the most, to be the ones who pay the most.  The argument against a Progressive system is equally logical; it is the idea that success is being punished when rates become higher for higher incomes.  In a regressive, or flat tax system, however, the lower the income, the greater the tax burden and the difference between tax percentage and tax burden needs to be understood.  Take sales tax, for example, that is a regressive (or flat) tax where everyone pays the same percentage of a purchase.   For the sake of an illustration I’ll use low numbers, but you can add all the zeros you’d like.  If a person who makes $10,000 a year makes a purchase on a $100 item and pay a fixed sales tax of 9%, that’s .0009% of their income.  A $100,000 earner making that same purchase pays .00009% of their income; the reality of that tax as a percentage of income is, therefore, 10 times greater for the lower income; that’s tax burden.

“But Gary, a Flat Tax means that those making less are paying less!”

Actually, no.  The Americans who could barely (or not at all) afford a minimal standard of living would be paying taxes they didn’t previously pay and middle income families, while some will pay less in federal taxes, are still shouldering a greater burden from regressive taxes and rising costs of living.  Take an average American household income of about $50,000 a year and compare that to an annual income of $250,000, not because that is “wealthy,” but because it’s sort of the beginning of higher rates for incomes, that by most people’s standards, are very good.  Presume that a Flat Tax is adopted and everyone will pay 20%.  The 50k family is bringing home $40,000. They live within their means and have a modest house payment (property taxes included) of $1200 a month.  With 2 kids, groceries are $400 a month, utilities $200, car payments with insurance is $500.  Miscellaneous (gasoline, parking, union dues, newspaper, etc) is $500.  Health insurance, because they fortunately have an employer plan, is $5500 annually (with co-pays).  At the end of the year, after modestly calculated hard costs, they might have a thousand dollars in discretionary money.  No family vacation, however, Christmas is on a credit card, and there’s nothing put into savings or for a college fund.  If a water heater breaks or there’s a serious health issue, they borrow.  This, by the way, is exactly what is happening to the Middle Class.

Now, at $250,000, they pay taxes at 20% too and bring home $200,000. They can afford to live in a $600,000 house and the mortgage is $4500 a month.  They have an SUV and a nice car with payments that total $1500. The kids are in private school adding $10,000 more a year, plus they can put 10,000 a year into funds (college or trust) for two kids.  They buy groceries and often entertain and that costs $2000 a month.  Basic utilities are $1000 a month.  They have a stellar health plan and pay $10,000 a year.  In other words, they are living pretty well.  After expenses for a very comfortable lifestyle, they have $62,000.  They can take a family vacation for $7,000 and still save $55,000. They put half into retirement accounts and have $27,500 still for discretionary spending and so over two thousand dollars a month goes into the stocks and investments.  They are entitled to live this way and that is the reward of their income (no one is arguing that), but, now here’s the tough part to understand-  every dollar is more valuable to the first family and their meager $1000 is more precious than the $62,000 is to the second family- and collectively it is more valuable to our economy – because the first family is the average of 90% of America.  It is the aggregate of that disposable income that drives consumerism and feeds our economic system—allowing for success.

There is nothing wrong with having the lifestyle your earnings entitle you to but when tax rates are the same, the tax burden is not and if participation in consumerism is predicated on having a high income, the system will fail.  The reason we have economic deterioration isn’t because the progressive system is failing, it’s because we have allowed for massive loopholes, shelters and minimal capital gains tax, to where, in fact, it isn’t really progressive anymore- it favors the top.

Sprinters and distance runners are measured in terms of their speed to the finish line, but we don’t race sprinters against distance runners in the Mile and then judge them as “slow” because they didn’t have the stamina to finish the race; we change the criteria to match the event.

In golf, a handicap is given based on an amateur’s ability on a given course so players of different proficiencies can play competitively against each other.  You could call that a “Progressive” golf system- and the reason for it is to increase membership at the club and keep the course open (you can replace “course” with “economy” if you’d like).

A Flat Tax will only exacerbate inequities, strangle the Middle Class and put more people into debt; it is not the solution to an ailing economy and will, in fact, make things worse…which brings us back to “Dough.”

The Buffet Rule, rejected by House Republicans, was designed to solve the conflict this essay started with.  Adjusting the code to close loopholes that allow high earners to pay a lower percentage than the rest of us and to bring marginal rates down.  Wouldn’t 30% have placated the argument that 36% is too high?  At what point might the wealthy say, “Thanks, America!  You’ve really been a friend!”

And can you ever write “exacerbate” often enough?

I had a dream where America settled down for a day.  We all took a collective breath and did some research about social spending along with doing a little math.  My dream was inspired by a news report that I saw, as I was nodding off, about how a big part of the budget controversy, that separates the right from the left, is based on social programs.  So as I drifted off, having taken some NyQuil for my chest cold, I imagined a nation working on this problem together…

We looked at federal spending on welfare programs and subtracted social security, veteran’s pensions, children’s healthcare, and Medicare (because those are different arguments) and we looked for welfare numbers in terms of what people receive and for how many people get off welfare and go back into the tax base.  Because it was a dream, people kept changing but one of my Facebook “foes” was there, along with President Obama, who oddly turned into George Bush, and then for some reason my ex-wife showed up and turned into my mother and for reasons I can’t possibly explain, she became Charles Kuralt.
  I remember thinking, “I’ve got to make an appointment with my therapist in the morning.”  We were going to compare those numbers to those who are freeloading the system to find out how much of our tax money is being thrown into the abyss, but as fate would have it, a car alarm went off around 2 am and I woke up before finding the answer.
  But along with my coffee this morning I was inspired to finish what my dream started and I began to do some investigation.  I investigated real numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and Child Welfare Information Gateway along with my pay stubs to discover what percentage of my income that I spend on non-medical welfare.  I washed it against a current census analysis to determine what I personallyWASTE on those welfare recipients who take unfair advantage of the system and I came up with a number.  I was surprised.  Without a doubt, it isn’t right, it isn’t fair and I should get this money back!  I throw to the wind every year—- $36.

Why, I could be taking my sons to Chuck E Cheese one more time every year! (Well, not if we want drinks) and I am incensed that I have lost the freedom to decide HOW my $36 are spent!!!

For me, with a very good salary, I spend less than 50 bucks a year, or about 10 cents a day on those Welfare Queens we keep hearing about.
  I admit, this was not a truly scientific analysis but I encourage anyone to look at their own taxes, look at social spending figures, research the number of people who are on and who get off of welfare (the numbers are out there) and determine your actual burden for yourself.  And, to be fair, if we take that number based on average salaries/wages, multiplied by the taxed work force, we are looking at over 2 billion dollars compiled a year- and that is a fair chunk of change that could be used in better ways.  But, then when you consider that’s what we spend in a week in Afghanistan, perhaps there is a more useful discussion about our taxes that we should be having.

We also need to ask a couple of questions regarding the basis of our arguments:  What is the role of government?  What do we expect from government?  We need to know what it is we are for and what it is we are really against.

There are a lot of broad strokes in today’s protests. “Stop big government!” “Take America back!” “Lower taxes!”  That’s all very well and good, but what, specifically are we talking about?  We’d all love to keep more money in our paycheck, but which programs do we want to get rid of?  I met a person who admitted that an unemployment extension and food stamps made the difference in his life to bridge hardship– and today he is successful- but now he opposes those very entitlements!

I also saw on the news, as I was drifting away, some people in the South protesting “big government” who were also upset that the local high school wasn’t meeting government mandated health standards; it seems there aren’t enough inspectors to ensure safe food for their children.

I had a discussion with someone recently who used the oft quoted proverb “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”  I like the Chinese proverb, too, but here’s the ironic twist when used by modern conservatives who find social spending repugnant- it’s a “Socialist” concept.  It is the philosophy of sharing and teaching as a community.  “Socialism” is, of course, that dirty word that many believe was spawned from Satan, but I wonder how many people with signs at Tea Parties claiming that “Obama is a Socialist” can define what the word actually means.  How many of us know that our Constitution was written with strands of socialism woven into the concept of a Republic by and for the People?

So…let’s all take a breath…define a few terms…do a little math…and maybe start a new conversation.  Many of us will still disagree profoundly; some people will come up with different numbers regarding social spending and draw different conclusions; and there will always be fundamental, philosophical differences between people; but if we could collectively determine that solutions exist in our cooperative efforts and that much of our argument, on either side, is based on hand-me-down rhetoric without having done a genuine analysis of what it is we’re screaming about…maybe we can inch toward better politics….or maybe I’m just dreaming again.

Suggested reading (from all sides of the issue of welfare):

“The Welfare State Nobody Knows,” by Christopher Howard

 “Why American’s Hate Welfare,” by Martin Gilens

“Regulating the Poor,” by Piven and Cloward

“Welfare Happiness and Ethics,” by L.W. Sumner

“American Social Welfare Policy,” by Karger and Stoesz

“Flat Broke with Children,” by Sharon Hays

“The Myth of the Welfare Queen,” by David Zucchino

There is a columnist in town who has a weekly op-ed in the Waterloo Courier that, intentionally, serves no other purpose but to degrade liberalism and to raise conservatism to the ranks of flawless and divine wisdom.  His name is Dennis Clayson, and week after week I dismiss his rambling demagoguery as merely venting from a confused mind, and even though he has plenty of loyal readers, even they realize that 90% of what he writes is based on made up facts designed only to infuriate liberals. http://wcfcourier.com/news/opinion/clayson/understanding-political-terms-used-by-the-left/article_70dd9c90-907a-11e1-b440-0019bb2963f4.html
He is the archetype of the non-critical thinker who finds purpose in being oppositional, rather than to serve any greater good.

Like I said, usually I read his column, smile at his ludicrous and broad generalizations and move onto the Celebrations section (I love the wedding pictures from 50 years ago matched up against what the couple looks like today).  This week, however, Clayson surpassed his usual meandering premise with a column entitled, “Understanding political terms used by the left.”  This “legend,” if you will, to understand the minds of liberals was….well…infuriating.  He got me.  My Achilles heel is blatant hypocrisy coupled with self-righteousness multiplied by the arrogance of shallow thought.  From what I understand, Clayson is an intelligent man; he’s a professor of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa; and I’ve even heard that he’s a “nice guy” when you meet him!  Perhaps, he’s one of those people who is shy and unassuming in person but when in the darkness of their den, armed with a pen (or keyboard), becomes an aggressive, nihilistic, mercenary of bent ideology; you know…kind of like Ted Kaczynsky.

A Kaczynsky reference will not win favor from anyone here who is pre-disposed to disagree with me, kind of like Godwin’s Law and any mention of “Hitler”, but I stand by the theoretical comparison; not because I think Clayson is literally dangerous in a physical sense, but I believe he is “literarily” dangerous in a meta-physical sense.  Clayson demoralizes good people by demonizing what is good about them and he elevates his own dogma by ignoring facts and using superficial analysis.

Okay…so what’s got me in a bunch this morning?  Clayson’s article defines political terms as he believes liberals understand them, and then correcting those definitions with what he sees as the more rational conservative view.  For example…

Clayson defines “Fairness” in the mind of a liberal as: “A primitive type of equality based on demographics requiring certain groups are equal…without regard to innate abilities.  Example: It is not fair that the rich can afford (things) and the poor cannot.

Oh, Dennis…where do I begin?  Apparently you haven’t read the part of the Declaration of Independence that reminds us that “All Men Are Created Equal” and that our system of governance is predicated on equal rights and equal access to justice and freedom.  This does not mean that everyone is of equal abilities and that some will not succeed greater than others and enjoy those benefits, but it means that in the pursuit of greatness, this nation will not allow for unfair inequities to determine that access.

Clayson defines a liberal’s concept of “A Fair Tax” thusly:  “A tax on the rich.  This group must be small enough so that they cannot influence the outcome of an election…”

Oh      my       God.  Dennis, are you aware of the fact that the highest marginal rate has come down over the past 50 years by 50%?  Are you aware that loopholes and breaks are given systematically to the wealthy that bring their tax rates down to 15-17%?  Probably less than you pay.  Do you know that in the past 30 years the wealthiest Americans have increased their holdings in America by 250% and that the top 10% now control nearly half of all the wealth?  That means neo-liberal economics have been influencing everything, Dennis.  Are you so foolish as to believe that the “small” number at the top that you opine cannot “influence the outcome of an election” have no power?  Do you really think legislation has been working against that tender minority and that no lobbyists or politicians (or voters) have been influenced by the billions of dollars they spend to…influence elections?  If you are that feeble minded I hope you don’t live alone; I honestly worry for your safety around scissors.

Clayson goes on to describe the conservative definition of “Fair Tax” as:  “A flat tax which requires all income to be taxed at the same rate.” 

What is aggravatingly interesting about this is that it was not very long ago that conservatives understood progressive taxes.  What Dennis and the other Flat Taxers can’t seem to understand is that LIVING actually costs something.  Clayson suggests a 20% flat tax, regardless of income, but if someone makes 20k a year, it probably costs them close to 20k a year just to pay a low rent, have a car for work, buy gas, pay for medical insurance and purchase food modestly.  There will be no disposable income; in fact, they may be going into debt.  The average household makes around 50k a year and with Clayson’s Flat Tax of 20%, they will pay 10k in taxes.  That means a family will be paying rent or a mortgage, probably need two cars, have children to feed, medical expenses, etc on 40k.  That is about break even.  Our economy, and what makes rich people rich, is the consumer who uses disposable income to buy TV’s, refrigerators, goes on vacation, gets a boat or a van, and drives the engine of Capitalism.  Now, to be realistic, the average American is paying around 20% and the limited disposable income is exactly the problem we face, but the Flat Tax only exacerbates the problem.  What Dennis does not understand; what fries his noodle; is that the 10k in taxes that the average family pays is a far (far) greater tax burden to their budget than 100k in taxes are to the family that makes 500k a year.
  Dennis does the easy math and that’s enough for him: 100k is a lot more than 10k, and for that reason he believes the wealthier Americans pay more than their share, but what Dennis cannot, or will not, understand, is that living on 400k is a lot different than 40k and while that means “kudos to the success of income” (and no one is saying otherwise), it is still the spending of the majority of Americans (the 90%) that makes this engine run; and if they are just getting by (or sinking), no one gets rich.  It’s why we have a progressive tax scale, and when we reform it so that the wealthy are not paying a LOWER percentage than the rest of us, then we can begin to recover.  This requires critical thinking, Dennis, and I can’t imagine you’ll understand that any time soon.

Clayson writes that a liberal’s definition for “Diversity” is:  “A religion found mostly in North America (and) asserts that an earthly heaven or paradise will result if certain groups (politically defined) are treated in an equal fashion.  Believers maintain that all groups, nationalities and cultures are innately equal.”

Actually, Dennis…I think that’s God’s definition.
  Maybe you don’t believe in God, but even if you don’t, the Theists, Atheists, Christians and Agnostics that comprised our Founding Fathers believed in the Unalienable Rights of Men (it must be noted that our FF reserved politics for white, male, land owners, but as our consciousness as evolved, we have collectively realized and amended to our charter the inclusion of all human beings).  What that means is that “diversity” is the understanding of differences and that the pursuit of such is to be respected equally.  I assume that Dennis is taking what he believes is a patriotic position in favor of American values and taking a stab at….terrorists, maybe?

Clayson gets confused with concepts of Diversity, Equality and Fairness; apparently, each to him is a left wing agenda to manipulate legislation to their liberal bias.  What Dennis does not have the capacity to understand is that the liberal bias is nothing but a leaning toward equal justice in an attempt to alter the course of fear politics, divisiveness, and anti-egalitarianism that is propagated by the inevitable prejudices of human beings; so that Diversity, Equality and Fairness are actually relevant and a truer realization of the promise of freedom that America stands for.

I think…that’s actually quite patriotic…but that’s my liberal definition.