Herman Cain says 9-9-9. I say "NO! NO! NO!"

Herman Cain is surprising a lot of pundits by staying in the GOP race. I've seen several Facebook posts from people who are behind his candidacy. The appeal of his simple 9-9-9 tax policy on its face may seem like a good idea, but it is not! Like any flat tax, it is regressive. Allow me to explain.

This article from 2005 described the percentage of American families below the poverty line and, most importantly for purposes of my discussion, the percentage of American families who fall short of basic budget thresholds. In other words, they spend every dollar they make (and more) to obtain the basics. In 2005, "42% of families living in cities and 30% of families residing in rural areas f[e]ll short of basic family budget thresholds." Do you wonder what it is today? For the sake of discussion, let's just say that 40% of American families are "below budget."

Mind you, this is the poorest 40% of families in America. We are counting from the bottom up.

Wealthy people make and spend money differently that this bottom 40%. For virtually everyone, our number one expense is housing. But here the road diverges. For the bottom 20%, the second biggest expenditure is food and other absolute necessities at 17% of their earnings. For top earners, they spend 17% of their earnings on transportation.

The more we earn, the smaller percentage of our income we spend on food. The poorest 20% of Americans spends 12% of its income on food at home, while the middle 20% spends 9% on food and the top 20% spends only 6% on food. This makes sense, right? I mean, no matter how much you make, you can only eat so much.

Health care: bottom 20% spends 8% of its earnings, middle spends 6.8% and the top fifth of earners spends only 4%.

You see where I'm going. Top earners spend money on luxuries and travel, sure, but they don't spend all of their money. They save. They invest. They gift it to their kids.

So, here's my point: If 40% of America is spending every dime it makes to try to meet a reasonable budget, that means that under the 9-9-9 plan, the poorest 40% of this country will be paying 18% total tax on their earnings. Period. They get a 9% income tax - no deductions - and since they spend every dime trying to survive, they spend 9% sales tax on everything else. (Hoping they can make it with what is effectively an increase in their taxes for many of the poorest Americans.)

Under Herman Cain's plan, if you don't save, you pay 18% tax.

If you are a high earner, you could choose to live on this "necessary" budget and only pay effective taxes of 12-13%. But even assuming you lived on a nicer, more luxurious budget, you are never going to pay the full 18% unless you just go out and blow your money. Can we agree that this is not a likely outcome?

What about the third 9? That's corporate tax, and while wealthy people do tend to invest more dollars in corporations per person, many, many people in the bottom 40% have retirement accounts with stock ownership. I'm going to call this a wash.

So, when talking about individuals, under the Cain plan, everyone will pay between 9% and 18% of his or her earnings in federal taxes. Unfortunately, since the bottom 40% will always pay the full 18%, and the top earners never will, Mr. Cain has managed to create the most regressive tax policy in American history. What's more, since the wealthiest actually pay fewer taxes when they spend less, we can also count on these so-called "job creators" to be even more incentivized to sit on their money.

So, poor people get poorer, fewer jobs are created, and rich people get even richer. Sounds good if you're Herman Cain. Not so good if you are in the bottom 40%.

The thing I wonder about is this: How many Herman Cain supporters are in that bottom 40%? Ignorance is really, really dangerous. Get above your raisin' people, and stand up for yourself. No one's going to be on your side but you. Well, and me.

Pine Bluff, Arkansas - Get Above Your Raisin'! PLEASE!

The Valedictorian at McGehee Secondary School, about an hour's drive SE of Little Rock, should have been Kymberly Wimberly. (Yep. That's her name.) But she was forced to share that honor with another student - a white student - with a lower GPA. See, Kymberly is black. Letting her be the Valedictorian - the smartest, best student to graduate in the class of 2011 - would have "caused a big mess." So, the principal named another, whiter student the "co-valedictorian," even though he had a lower GPA.

What are you thinking? Are you asking yourself, "Did she take an easier course load?" Not according to the lawsuit she filed. It claims her transcript is loaded with advanced and AP classes.

Kymberly is a teen Mom, and managed to earn the valedictorian title despite this added responsibility. But, being valedictorian is not about chastity or propriety or other puritanical points of view. It's the title given to the person with the highest GPA in the graduating class. Period. Except at McGehee Seconday School.

It's 2011 and the schools is 46% African American. How could this happen?

The full truth will come out, but the allegations in the complaint are fairly detailed and easy to check with discovery and investigation. Having read about the lawsuit as summarized in the article, I'm convinced (for now) that an injustice occurred here. The case is yet to be litigated, and other facts may come out, but Kymberly's Mom works at the school and overheard her daughter's valedictory fate being discussed in the office.

Why would it be so messy if a black person was the valedictorian? Is it really so hard to accept that sometimes, the smartest person on the room is black? We should all be used to it now since this guy




is in our TV rooms nightly.

We have had decades to come to terms with our embarrassing history of slavery, segregation, civil rights abuses, and racism. But apparently, some people in Arkansas haven't gotten the memo. So, here it is:

MEMORANDUM

TO: Rednecks all over America

FROM: The rest of America

Re: Racism

Being white does not make you better, smarter, prettier or more powerful. It just makes you whiter. Get over it.

If you read this, please post and tweet the link so Kymberly Wimberly can get the recognition she earned, and so the administration at McGehee Secondary School can get the criticism they deserve.

If Fox News Viewers Only Knew the News

I have a job, so I didn't get to see all of Rupert Murdoch's unsworn testimony before the British Parliament. But what I did see was simply astonishing.

Rupert Murdoch was ranked by Forbes Magazine as the 13th most powerful person in the world in 2010. And yet, we are supposed to believe that he had no idea that his hand-picked people in the UK - people he says he trusted and still trusts - were bribing public officials and hacking people's cell phones.

It's easy to see how he can be so influential, what with having half of Scotland Yard in the pockets of his henchmen. Does his denial of EVERYTHING have any credibility at all?

It's like Emperor Palpatine claiming he had no idea that nasty Darth Vader killed those poor Jedi younglings.



(I know it's a bit childish, but be honest. There is a resemblance.)

In the aftermath of this scandal of criminal invasions of privacy and influence peddling, the commissioner and assistant commissioner of Scotland Yard have resigned, though claiming no knowledge of the bribes. But they acknowledge that they were responsible and failed to uncover and stop the corruption.

But not the Emperor. No. He denies any knowledge and insists that he is NOT responsible, despite have hand picked and groomed the culprits himself.

The most amusing part of this tragic story is that Murdoch's own FoxNews has hardly mentioned this scandal. When it was mentioned, it was brushed aside as just another hacking story. Oh, well.

The thing is, it's not just another hacking story. It's a story about criminal conduct being encouraged, condoned, and profited-from by one of the world's largest media empires, including its CEO, one of the most politically influential people in the world. When Emperor Rupertine pulls strings, powerful people in the US, the UK and Austrailia sit, stand, jump, run, bow and scrape at his command.

Ironically, the very audience who need to know that the people bringing them what they think is news are influence-peddling, cell-phone-hacking, criminal-enterprise-building liars have no idea - because their sole source for "news" hasn't told them.

The GOP's War on Women, the Poor and Gays is Not Going to Create Any Jobs

When the GOP took control of the House, they vowed that Job 1 was "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!" They lied.

And the Tea Party whackados who took control of so many states vowed that they wanted smaller government. They lied too.

The GOP apparently thinks the source of all our problems are (1) women who use birth control and who are, well, women, (2) poor people, and(3) gays who want to practice legally sanctioned monogamy (THE HORROR!).

How many jobs are created by defunding Planned Parenthood? ZERO Though this action will result in more health problems for poor women and more unwanted pregnancies - not because of reduced abortions, but because so many poor women can no longer get birth control.

How many jobs are created by prohibiting marriage equality? ZERO In fact, NY state thinks the new law permitting same sex marriage is going to bring in MILLIONS of dollars in new revenue. See, people. Love is never bad.

And how many jobs are created by outlawing "the pill," which is in the process in 8 or 9 states now. Again, ZERO unless you start counting jobs relating to dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

THE WAR ON WOMEN

Many of these new laws are just misogynistic campaigns against women. Preventing poor women from getting medical check-ups and birth control is not being "pro life," it's being "anti-women." The only justification for these laws would be the assumption that women are too immoral and/or too stupid to make good medical and reproductive decisions. I don't see anyone introducing a law to lock men up when they impregnate some unmarried woman. And I say, why not? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Plus, is there anyone more reckless, unclear, prone to bad judgment than a horny man? I think these poor men need some laws to regulate their reproductive behavior and protect them from their own judgment. Don't you?

THE WAR ON THE POOR

Whenever pols on the left suggest raising taxes on the rich, the right screams, "War on the rich!" Well, if you want to call it war ...... but the rich started it. The wealth disparity in the country continues to explode, corporations and banks are holding trillions of dollars in their coffers, and the rest of us just flounder.

It's not a war to ask those who have benefited the most from our society and laws to pay a little more. One FB friend pointed out that 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. That might be true, BUT:

(1) they do pay taxes (if they have jobs)and federal withholdings for FICA, unemployment, social security, etc. Plus, they pay sales taxes, property taxes (Even if they rent! It's included in their rent!), sin taxes, tolls, filing fees, etc. No one escapes being taxed.

AND

(2) they would pay income taxes if they earned enough money to qualify as "middle class." The best way to make sure everyone pays income taxes is to make sure everyone earns a life-sustaining income. I said EARNS. Right now, wages are LOW LOW LOW. And a Merrill Lynch wanker told me today that,"The good news is, wages will be low for the foreseeable future." How the hell is that good news? I guess it is if you earn a living sitting at home watching your portfolio. But if you work for a living, that's not really the type of economic forecast you want to hear.

WAR ON MONOGAMY

You'd think the religious right would be thrilled that gay people want to settle down and raise a family. I know the divorce rate among heterosexual couples in the US is quite high, but that's not really a reason to prevent same-sex couples from giving it a go. What exactly is so scary about two people wanting to get married? If you don't like it, don't buy them wedding presents. But how about you just MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS. Seems pretty conservative to me to just MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS. If two people want to get married, unless one of them is you, why is it your concern?

I don't know why these things are so important to some Americans when our economy is in shambles and we are trying to get out of 2 - now 3 - hostile countries. If we could all focus on FREEDOM instead of judging the sins of others, act REASONABLY instead of refusing to compromise one little bit, and actually make FACT-BASED instead of myth-based decisions, we would see our country get back on track. If only we could.

The worst thing about the wars on women, poor people, and gays is that we all lose, because the resulting policies make us all poorer - economically, socially, and morally - in the end.

Hasta La Vista, Sperminator!

Arnold Schwarzenegger TWICE vetoed gay-marriage laws in California in order to protect the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously carrying on a polyamorous relationship! WTH? Gay people only want to marry ONE OTHER GAY PERSON. It's not like the kink-fest Arnold was engaged in at all.

I think we all agree that Arnold is a scumbag. If he had done a better job of "fixing" California, and allowed the legislature to pass the gay marriage law they tried to enact TWICE, he would still be a scumbag, but he would have also been (1) a better governor and (2) less a hypocrite. I can forgive the scumbaggery. It's the hypocrisy I have a problem with.

When will people stop repeating this fantasy about the sanctity of marriage in this country? The only sacred thing about marriage is the relationship between 2 specific people. It is not a "sacred institution" as it applies to our society, and it has never been. There have always been adulterers, abusers, people who abandon their families, people who marry for money, women who trap men by getting pregnant, men who have children with maids. We even have people getting paid to go on TV to choose a spouse. Does that sound sacred to you? Half of marriages in the US end in divorce.

I do think a PERSON can hold something sacred. And if two people together succeed in cherishing their marriage, that marriage can be sacred, IMO.

We know that straight people - or at least half of them - do not take marriage very seriously. My question is: Why do opponents of gay marriage assume that two gay people will be as big a failure at taking their wedding vows seriously as two straight people?

Everything Old is Newt Again

Only a politician would explain his serial infidelity as (paraphrasing) "having received much forgiveness from God." Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, Newt Gingrich.

Here are my reasons why he won't be President:

(1) His name is Newt. Come on!

(2) He won't get the GOP nomination because, on TV, he said
a- something nice about the "individual mandate" in the Health Care Reform Act, and

b- Paul Ryan's (R) budget plans for Medicare are "radical."

(3) When you have been a pol as long as Newt, you have changed positions many, many times. Chances are, anyone reading this has disagreed with him and agreed with him about the same issue at different times. This throws people.

(4) Did I mention his name is Newt?

(5) Lots and lots of infidelity. (And forgiveness!!!)

(6) Look at the picture. Does that look like the leader of the free world to you? I know it's shallow, but honestly, don't you think John McCain's age and "dodderiness" hurt his chances of getting elected? Electing this guy would be like electing Junior Sample. (If you're laughing at that reference, you are (1) kinda old and (2) from the south.)

(7) He is NOT smart, despite people continuing to say he is. (Though for some voters, this may be a selling point. "I wanna vote for someone like me!" Why in the hell would you want to do that? I want to elect the smartest MFer we can find a long-form birth certificate for. That ain't Newt!) Here's what he said in his efforts to crawfish back into the election after sticking his foot in it TWICE on TV (see above): "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood." (See above link.)

I could list more reasons, but I want to talk about his quote.

"Any ad which quotes what I said is a falsehood." Well, Newt, if it's a quote of what you said, it cannot, by definition, be a falsehood. It may be more true to report that you were "against it before you were for it," or "for it before you were against it," but you did say it. On national TV. So, expect to see it A LOT in the future.

I think some GOP members were hopeful that Newt would be their legit candidate, quashing the Bachmans and Palins and Trumps and Santorums. I don't think that's going to pan out very well.

The problem here is really not with Newt. The problem is that his party does not tolerate any deviation from (1) absolute rejection of anything Obama is in favor of (I think I read somewhere that the GOP has banned basketball.) and (2) unwavering support of everything advocated by another Republican. I suppose this does help the party stay on message, but it is pretty distressing in a time when we have lots of problems, and intelligent discourse about alternative solutions would be beneficial to us all.

Ironically, I agree with Newt on both the individual mandate and the radical-ness of Ryan's budget. Or, I agreed with him on Sunday. I know what I think today, but since his "recantation," I have no idea where Newt stands.

Iowa Is Not a Field of Dreams, but a Land of Delusion

As the early stages of the 2012 Presidential election campaign begin to churn, pollsters are busy, busy, busy. My last blog was about a Mississippi poll. This time, Iowa gets the limelight.

Again, the polling is of "usual Republican primary voters."

Of those polled 48% do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, and another 26% "are unsure" where he was born.

(This is actually pretty close to the national data on GOP members: 51% believing he was not born in the US and another 21% being "unsure." So maybe, I'm being unfair to Iowa and I should just be mocking 72%-74% of the GOP.)

One of my colleagues at work (who I hope was playing devil's advocate) reminded me that anyone can get a forged birth certificate (as if no one had suggested that before).

Snopes
and Factcheck.org have both debunked the forgery allegations and document the many verifications and corroborating facts that prove the President's Hawaiian birth. People who persist in raising their shoulders and eyebrows and fake-innocently asking, "Why doesn't he just provide his Birth Certificate?" are either being patently dishonest (*cough Donald Trump cough*) or are suffering from some kind of FoxNews induced delusion.

I suppose you can create conspiracies in your cray-cray head dismissing every piece of evidence - like the TWO newspaper reports in Honolulu papers announcing his birth within weeks of his birthday (It's on the factcheck.org link.) - and just persist in claiming that "no one really knows." By this logic (illogic?), I don't know if my parents are US citizens, or for that matter, if I am. I mean, for all I know, I was born in Moscow and planted here as a sleeper agent and could be awakened by a phone call any day to wreak havoc on the imperialist corporatists that oppress the workers of the world!

Can we get down to the itty bitty nitty gritty? Barack Obama is "other," "different," "black." He's got a weird name and he's black. He's young and calm and cool and black. And also, he's black. A lot of this stems from a lot of white people being really out of sorts because their president is black. I mean, they hated Bill Clinton, but no one ever asked for his birth certificate. Have you ever seen it?

Early on, strong Hillary Clinton supporters got on the birther bandwagon, but they grudgingly concede Barry's Americanness when faced with the facts. But not 72% of the GOP. Facts will not interfere with their convictions and commitment to the foreignness of the black man in the white house.

In 2004, there were 55 million registered republicans in the US. That means at least 39.6 million Americans (I mean, I'm only assuming they are Americans. Anyone can get a forged birth certificate.) think the government of the state of Hawaii, two newspapers from 1961, and the federal government are (or may be) participating in a vast 50-year conspiracy to trick everyone into thinking Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in August, 1961 (when in fact he was born somewhere else) so he could be elected President of the United States in 2010. To these 39.6 million people, this absurd and completely implausible conspiracy fiction is more reasonable - or at least as reasonable - as relying on an officially issued, sealed, signed, certified Certificate of Live Birth.

America has always had problems. But have we always been this ridiculous?

And In an Addendum to His IQ Test, Bubba Would Like to Comment...

I was searching the web looking for fodder for my blog-rant, and found this:



The article he is commenting on can be found here.

The article itself is something to rant about. The state of Tennessee wants to require doctors' testimony to prove mental retardation (IQ under 70) instead of just relying on time-proven testing. (Medically, and officially, this condition is still known as "mental retardation.") I'm sure the prosecutors in Tennessee would never do something as unethical as seek out paid experts to say that every defendant is above 70 IQ despite what the testing says. *eyes rolling* Just reading about how desperately the good Christians of Tennessee want to execute their mentally challenged neighbors sends a chill up my spine.

Maybe the problem is simply that so many of them cannot pass the 69IQ threshold, that they want to lower the bar so SOMEONE can get gassed. What's the point of having the right to kill your citizens if you don't exercise it!

Ok, so maybe questioning the Tennessee population's intelligence is politically incorrect. Admitted. How about if I question their morality? Or their level of education? Or their ability to be sympathetic to someone less fortunate? Or how about if I just cut to the chase and question their so-called Christian values?

Do you know why we don't execute people with IQs under 70 for homicide crimes? Because the law presumes that individuals with IQs that low are not responsible for their actions, cannot form the necessary criminal intent, do not fully appreciate the wrongness of their actions.

Both adults and children with mental retardation may also exhibit some or all of the following characteristics:

Delays in oral language development

Deficits in memory skills

Difficulty learning social rules

Difficulty with problem solving skills

Delays in the development of adaptive behaviors such as self-help or self-care skills

Lack of social inhibitors

Citation here.

If you know someone with an IQ below 70, or if you have ever spoken with someone with an IQ that low, you know that no further evidence is needed to take the death penalty off the table. Such individuals are "innocents" despite the acts they might have committed or might commit in the future.

But the reason I decided to enter this discussion was not the article. It was the moronic comment. (See photo above)

First, there is no constitutional right to be executed, you ignorant tea bagger! In fact, the law protects these individuals' constitutional rights by preventing them from being executed without evidence of criminal intentions.

Second, the limitation on executing mentally retarded individuals is not about their being ignorant of the law. It is about their inability to form the necessary criminal intent. (Yes, I know. It is very nuanced. It requires thinkin' and concentratin' and openin' your mind and all.)

It occurred to me as I was writing this that maybe Bubba the Commenter is facing a murder trial and wanted to start building that case that his IQ is below 70. He's convinced me!

At Least 46% of Republican Mississippi Primary Voters Polled Are Racist. Are You Shocked?

This is remarkable to me in 2011, but in a recent poll of usual Republican Mississippi Primary voters, 46% said that interracial marriage should be illegal. 40% said it should be legal. The other 14% were undecided. (How does one not have an opinion about this? Are they not sure if they are racist or not?)

Mitt Romney, a Mormon, also did not fare very well in the poll (only 48% approval), although serial adulterer Newt Gingrich did OK (58% approval).

And we wonder why the GOP keeps nominating and electing idiots. Your candidates are only as good as your voters!

In Mississippi, it's better to be a professional politician and adulterer than a successful Mormon businessman who is faithful to his wife. Also, best not to date outside your race since the extreme-right-trending political climate in red states might mean your wooing efforts are in vain.

The one good sign? They apparently don't know who Michele Bachman is. That's a relief!

That's Cool, But Who Took the Picture?

Someone I follow on Twitter tweeted this picture claiming it is a picture of the Earth and its moon as seen from Mercury.

(1) Who went to Mercury and took the picture?

(2) Can we get him or her a better zoom lens?

Apparently this was actually taken by the Messenger probe in orbit around Mercury and transmitted back. Pretty cool.

Pictures like this make me feel small and actually, they kinda hurt my brain. Trying to conceive of the enormity of the universe in which we exist as relative specks of slightly warm dust just strains my weak mental capabilities.

Still, we are specks of dust that invented flying machines and then managed to get into space - and return alive - in less than a century (unless you believe the conspiracy theorists).

Seeing our own planet as a tiny reflective orb from orbit around another planet takes looking in the mirror to a new and scary level. On a personal level, it seems to me like it would be equivalent to looking in the mirror and seeing all your ancestors and all your progeny looking back. Or on a spiritual level, like looking in the mirror and seeing all your mistakes, kindnesses, lessons, failures and achievements staring you back.

I'm kinda off the deep end here. But when you consider that we have gone from the really ignorant notion that the earth was the center of the universe several hundred years ago to taking images of our own planet from orbit around Mercury, it is humbling. Does it make you wonder what amazing things we will accomplish, solve, prove and discover in the next hundred years? It is daunting and exciting!

But for now, this picture is only gonna get the conspiracy theorists going again.

It's a Scholarship for White Guys Only

This white guy in Texas has set up a scholarship for white guys. His names is Colby Bohanan, President of the Former Majority Association for Equality.

If you watch the video, you will see he is challenged by a professor from Columbia University who sums it up: "Being white is a scholarship."

The good news is you can get the White-Guy Scholarship if you are only 25% Caucasian. But applicants do have to be 100% male (I assume).

Former Majority Association for Equality? Poor white guy. It must be so hard to watch the world change into one of diversity where people of all races and cultures have opportunity and you actually have to compete instead of having it fall into your lap.

He says he's not against anyone, just trying to help poor white people. Well, ok. But why not just help poor people. Why do they have to be white?

Back when I was in high school and home sick from school one day, I watched a white supremacist group on a daytime talk show. This one white-advocating woman kept saying she was just fighting for fairness because white people had lost all power in society. Is that true? Do white people not get enough opportunity in this country?

It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

Racial minorities make up 1/3 of the total US population, but only 17% of the US House of Representatives and only 5% of the US Senate. And while women make up half the US population, they only comprise 17% of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.

White men control everything but the White House. However, since President Obama is 50% Caucasian, he is actually a "white guy" according to Mr. Bohanan's organization. (Which is just weird, IMO.)

Anyway, my point is this: Minorities and women do have more opportunities than they used to and that continues to improve (I hope), but white guys are still in charge of most things. So isn't giving a scholarship to white guys like lowering the basket for LaBron James?

I'm Not Blogging Because I'm Busy. And Also, My Head's About to Explode.

The swing in power to the far right with the last election threatens our society. Let me count the ways.

GOP House proposes cuts that will cost 700,000 jobs while securing subsidies for oil companies and the lowest tax rates in history for the richest Americans in history.

GOP governors attempting to simply eliminate collective bargaining.

Despite rhetoric to be "all about jobs," GOP seems capable only of attacking poor people by cutting any program they can find that helps the poor, defunding environmental protection, and undermining women's health by passing every stupid hurdle they can think to interfere with a woman's right to choose.

They even want to cut funding to programs that protect our borders.

There are more, but these are the big ones.

Their mantra that "everyone must do their part" is equal parts infuriating and laughable. If everyone must do their part, then why didn't we raise taxes on the richest 2% of the population? And why don't we stop subsidizing the most successful industry in the world, oil?

There is no war on the rich in this country. There is a war on the poor and middle class. And the corporations are winning. I wonder if and when the Tea Partiers who wrought this catastrophe will realize they are being used to destroy a really great country.

I take solace in the impressive protests going on throughout the country. Perhaps our best hope is the overreaching we have seen from the right that results from arrogance. People still vote in this country. I suspect we are going to see some serious push-back.

For more of my POV on this problem, see this prior blog.

Justin Bieber in Boys Don't Cry?

I'm just sayin'.

You have eyes. What do you think?

And no one should be offended. Hillary Swank makes a very pretty boy.

Upon These Unions, We Built Our Middle Class

The Gilded Age (the 1880s and 1890s - which ended with a huge depression from 1893-1897) saw great wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few and gave way to the Progressive Era (1890s - 1920s). The obscene concentration of wealth that occurred in the Gilded Age resulted in both great beneficial charitable foundations and also vast corruption, and fueled the anti-trust movement and other Progressive policies.

The Progressive Era saw journalists (Muckrakers) outing corrupt politicians and sweeping reform in how government would run, applying science, technology, and expertise to the way things were done. It also saw the rise of the women's suffrage movement, prohibition, and many other significant changes in American society and government.

There was good and bad in both. Some of the ideas we kept (anti-trust laws) and some we abandoned (prohibition).

Unions have been around since the 1800s. But the first really impactful strikes did not occur until the early 20th century.

Unions really suffered in the 1920s because of great economic prosperity. But the Great Depression changed that.

In the 1930s, the federal government passed laws helping and protecting unions.

Union membership and influence continued to grow through the 20th century, arguably peaking in the late 1960s or 1970s.

The 1980s marked a the beginning of the decline in both union membership and influence. And since that time, look at what has happened to the distribution of wealth and income in the US.

"[F]rom 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads."

From The United States of Inequality, http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026.

Well, you know what? Stop scratching your heads. The answer is obvious. And it's not like I want a war on rich people. I want to be "rich people" (just like everyone). What I do want is (1) less poverty and (2) a stronger, richer middle class. And the only way I see those things happening is with stronger unions.

When a business negotiates wages with workers, it wants to pay as little as possible to maximize profits. Is that wealth re-distribution? You betcha! Here's why: The labor performed to produce a marketable product adds value to the product greater than the sum of its parts. That additional value in part pays wages and overhead, and in part makes a profit for the business. And there has to be some profit for the business to survive, I get that. I work for a private business that advises other private businesses how to make more profit. My objections arise when I hear whining about decreased profits while paying CEOs and executive obscene salaries and bonuses (which has been going on pretty regularly for the past 30 years).

When the profits are sufficient to create a national shift in wealth distribution to such concentrations as we are experiencing, then, my friends, there are simply too many profits, too many dividends, and not enough wages and benefits paid to workers. And the best way to change that, IMO, is stronger unions negotiating better contracts. (The other way is tax redistribution. We know how popular that is.)

Have you heard this? "My grandfather raised a family of 5 with a factory job. They bought a house, a car, and sent their kids to college." You know why that happened? Unions. You know why that doesn't happen now? Weak, crappy unions combined with a decline in factory jobs.

Unions have been maligned - called commies, Bolsheviks, unAmerican, lazy, greedy - since their inception. But they are really just organizations that permit workers to have real power in a negotiation. Corporations and governments speak with one voice. Why can't labor?

If you want to start solving some of these serious problem - wealth and income inequality, high unemployment, stagnant economy, lack of manufacturing jobs, etc. - here's what you do:

(1) Raise taxes on the top 2% of income earners about 5% and use it to try and balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

(2) Keep the other tax brackets where they are (for now). When we start to see a decline in unemployment, we need to raise taxes on people making $100,000 and above per year about 4%.

(3) Medicare for everyone. This takes the cost of health care off of American businesses and health insurance negotiations out of collective bargaining. Also, we are the only democratic republic in the world that does not provide health care for all of its citizens. It's embarrassing.

(4) Stop bashing and breaking unions. I am not advocating a labor-takeover of everything. Any organization or group can become too powerful. And there are laws and regulations in place to try and avoid that. But the corporations in this country are WAY too powerful.

(5) Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act.

(6) Invest in (and reward investment in) alternative energy sources (not ethanol). In the last several centuries, great economic powers have been built on energy sources. When coal was the leading source, England ran the world. When it switched to oil, the US capitalized and grew to be an economic superpower. As oil dries up, we must be the leader of new energy sources or we will flail and drift.

(7) Repair and replace dangerously obsolete infrastructure - railroads, bridges, highways, tunnels, levees, airports, etc. When you update your house, it is both more enjoyable and increases in value. When we update our infrastructure, we are safer, happier, and better able to engage in reliable channels of commerce. This creates jobs in the short term and prepares us for better commerce long term.

(8) Everyone needs to put down the Ayn Rand (Stop bitching about poor people!) and read Indispensable By Monday (do your job better, bring more value to your company than you cost). Yes, it was written by my boss. I suppose I am pimping it a bit (to all 8 of you who read this). But if you take a look, you will see what I mean.

(9) Finally, we need to stop seeing everyone we disagree with as our mortal enemies. Labor needs corporations to be healthy and profitable to have jobs. And corporations need a good labor force to produce - and buy - its products.

I could go on. There are more things we could do. But if we did these things, I think we would be on the right track.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

I've been so busy at work, I have been neglecting my blog. Sorry. Here area few quick thoughts on stories that drew my attention.

Egypt:

Inspiring to see people rise up (relatively) peacefully and demand change. But it appears they ended a dictatorship in favor of a military regime. I'm worried their elections in September will be as big a hoax as ever. Freedom and democracy take commitment and vigilance, and a constitution that means something. Here's hoping Egypt stays on track.

Tree-cide in Toomer's Corner:

Someone poisoned large trees in Toomer's Corner in Auburn, Alabama, presumably as some act of revenge or retribution for the schools athletic success. IMO, anyone who poisons trees is a douche. Anyone who poisons really beautiful old oak trees is a huge douche. And anyone who poisons beautiful old oak trees over a sports rivalry is an embarrassingly stupid and pathetic, huge douche.

The Weeper of the House:

I thought GOP Job One was supposed to be "JOBS JOBS JOBS." Instead, it is "waste time on abortion legislation that has no chance of passing" just to pander to people who think women are too stupid and immoral to make good choices. Has anything passed in the house since the GOP took over? This guy is really bad at his job.

The rest of the Middle East:

We spent trillions of dollars to bring democracy to Iraq (whether they want it or not) while simultaneously propping up dictators all over the Arab world. Maybe, if we really want democracy in the Arab world, we should just butt out and let them choose the government they want. Isn't that what we say we believe in?

Utah trying to adopt a State Firearm:

Yes, I am embarrassed that my adopted home state is doing this. People here just love their guns. And no facts or statistics can persuade them of the inherent danger in them. Just because you have the right to something does not mean it's a good idea.

The Chrysler Detroit Superbowl ad:

I think eminem is a "Richard Cranium." His lyrics are violent and misogynistic. But that ad kicked ass! It simultaneously made me feel sorry for and proud of Detroit. And it made me want to buy (another) Chrysler vehicle.

Grammy for Best Vocal to Bruno Mars and not Adam Lambert:

Adam Lambert is proof that winning is not everything. But seeing him lose to a guy with a good but not great voice who just plead guilty to cocaine possession made my stomach turn and my blood boil. Apparently, being a convicted criminal is still preferable to being openly gay, even in the "liberal" music industry.


So, those are my thoughts. If you are interested in my POV on an issue (though I don't know why you would be) let me know and I'll blog about it.

What Does "Conservative" Really Mean?

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Some might call the President who uttered these words a socialist. Some might call him a partisan liberal. Some might call him radical or irresponsible or a commie.

But those who knew him called him "Ike." Yes, this is a quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54.

For those of you who don't know, Ike was a Republican.

Do you know which President presided over the largest peace-time tax increase in US history?

The correct answer is Ronald Reagan.

My point is this: the perception that being conservative means always opposing raising taxes and always wanting to cut social programs is simply a distortion of reality. Highly lauded and beloved GOP members have participated in raising taxes and funding social programs because they believed in doing the right thing. They were (apparently) not wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporations and billionaires.

I don't know exactly when being "conservative" required a person to exhibit moral superiority and fiscal cruelty. But somewhere along the road it did. At some point, the conservative platform became (1) judge everyone who believes something different, (2) advocate free enterprise to the point of eviscerating the environment, (3) call the poor "lazy free-loaders," (4) belittle and vaguely threaten anyone who dares to disagree with you, and (5) protect big businesses and the wealthy at all costs.

In today's political climate, neither Ike nor the Gipper would survive a GOP primary, and yet they are widely regarded as two of the better Presidents of the 20th Century. Republicans still get teary and - dare I say it, "woody" - when they utter Ronny's name. But politically, he would be to the left of several Democrats in the Senate and House right now.

I grant there is a tone of mockery in this. But really, I'm just asking for some perspective. Not all government spending is bad. Not all tax increases are bad. And I acknowledge that not all government spending is good - some of it needs to go (if we can pry the pet-project dough out of the hands of members of the House and Senate).

Remember the movie, "Dave?" Kevin Cline sat in a room with the budget and cut idiotic spending out of the budget. I love that! Don't we all? Unfortunately, budgets come from the House, not the White House. And all House members have their pet idiotic projects. As do the Senators.

The problem is actually not with medicare or social security. The problem is that we don't want to pay for them. The only solution is for we, the people, to step up and (1) turn down the money for pork projects and (2) be willing to pay for the government services we demand. And these actions takes sacrifice.

I also know that cutting medicare and social security is not going to prevent bridges to nowhere, and it is going to result in greater suffering.

The reason our politicians are so crappy is because we, their constituents, want our government services but we don't want to pay for them. We either have to pay, or give something up. When we learn this lesson, and commit to making the changes necessary, then our government can work correctly again. This is what I think it means, in part, to be "conservative." In this regard, I consider myself to be conservative. (Don't hold your breath waiting for me to staple tea bags to my straw hat anytime soon.)

Word of the day: Jingoism

Pictured is Soviet Premier Kruschev, beating his shoe on the podium while speaking to the UN, promising to crush the capitalistic west. "Vee Vill Krrush You!"

People who think God works in mysterious ways have not been introduced to my mind. By comparison, God is an open book. My mind is about as random and bizarre as anything you could ever encounter, supreme being or otherwise. I was sitting around wondering what I could blog about, and the word "Jingoism" popped into my head.

Jingoism is defined as "extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy."

I don't know if I have ever actually used this word. And I'm sure I have not heard it for months, even with all the political commentary I absorb. But you have to admit, it is a cool word.

Using it in a blog will forever commit it to my vocabulary for daily use. (I know my co-workers are really excited about that!)

Since I studied Poli Sci in college, I have rolled my eyes at the somewhat obnoxious sense of superiority some Americans walk around with. "America is the best country in the world!" I always wondered, "at what?"

We are best at basketball (usually).

We have the biggest military by a very large margin (which to other countries probably make us the scariest, even if they don't think we are the "best.")

We still have a larger economy that any other country, though that is not the case if you compare our economy to that of the European Union.

We have more than 40 million people here who do not get adequate health care because they do not have health insurance. According to a recent study, 45,000 American deaths every year are linked to lack of adequate health care.

We have some states with infant mortality rates comparable to lesser developed countries.

We have crazy people walking around with legally purchased guns with legally purchased clips that shoot 30 rounds before reloading. And they use the guns to kill and maim innocent people. Lots of them.

We have exploding debt because we want the government to serve us, but we don't want to pay for it, and because the former Jingoistic administration attacked a country that did not attack us and posed no threat to us or our allies. And lied to do it.

Patriotism is not a bad thing. There are many things about America that I love and am very proud of. Our heroic beginnings, taking on the most powerful empire in the world to be free and self-governing, for example. Or the relative peace and mutual respect that almost all of us show each other every day, even though we are very different from each other. And that we are free to vote for and choose our government, and that power changes hands peacefully and without guillotines. Also, that we reward hard work and innovation. That we protect peoples' innovations with laws protecting patents, copyright, and trademarks. That we eventually adopt changes to our laws to create more equality among our citizens (though sometimes it takes longer than it should). That we genuinely believe in freedom of speech as a core value in our society. There are others, but these are some key things.

But when I hear people belittle other countries, it kind of irritates me. Where I live, one favorite is saying, "These policies are going to ruin our economy just like they ruined Europe's." Well, first, who said Europe's economy was ruined? Greece, Spain and Portugal are messes (much like Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, and most of Texas) but the stronger European countries are helping them out (just like the northern states' federal tax dollars help southern states). But they are democratic, free countries that have health care that is more available to more people. They have higher unemployment and higher taxes, but they also get like 4-6 weeks of vacation each year. Yes, it is different, but that does not make it better or worse. They are better at some things and worse at others.

A friend of mine was given Mitt Romney's book for Christmas. He didn't get very far into it before he put it down. It was all about American superiority and being the strongest, most powerful, blah blah blah. Jingoism.

If your neighbor thought himself superior to you, you'd think him a douche bag. And yet we are shocked that Americans (though not America necessarily) are disliked by people all over the world. A little self-examination might shine some light on it. Or maybe, they are just not smart enough to understand why we are so much better than they are. Riiiiiigghhhttttt.

I will grant that there may have been a time when our society needed to think we were better than everyone else. I'm not sure of this. I just acknowledge that it could be true. But surely, that time, if it existed, has passed.

Whenever you hear someone extol the inherent superiority of the US or Americans, remember today's word of the day: jingoism. America may be great for you and me, but that does not make it "the best" for everyone.

Yes, Words Do Matter.

About 25% of Americans think this ridiculous, holier-than-thou, unthinking, hate-monger should be President. She actually targeted Congresswoman Giffords in her cross hairs map.



She's not just a joke. She's a prophet. Or a leader. She told her minions to reload, and that's just what one did. He took a gun and attacked a freely, duly elected Congresswoman, and at least ten other people, killing a 9 year old girl and a federal judge.

And now I see a bunch of GOP members on TV calling the guy a lunatic, saying that it is not about politics. Bullshit! You cannot invoke violent rhetoric, telling people to "reload" and engage in "second amendment remedies," and encourage people to come to political rallies armed, and then claim total shock and surprise when some right-wing nut pulls a gun and does what you told him to do! Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone either, but we all know he was the one responsible for those deaths.

The GOP spent a year telling Americans that the world as we know it is coming to an end. "It's the end of a free America! OMG, what are we gonna do? We're gonna feed the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots! Get your guns! Prepare for revolution!"

Most people know stupid rhetoric when they hear it. But obviously, not everyone is that discerning. Look at the murders of abortion doctors. Religious groups put "Wanted - Dead or Alive" posters online, and nuts killed them. It's really quite simple.

Words matter. Perhaps the words said in the context of political rivalry matter even more, because they trigger deep emotions. But I'm guessing there will be no political consequence for the hateful vitriol that led to this assassination, both attempted and actual.

Here's the video from the whack-job. He's a nut. But that does not excuse the violent rhetoric that fueled him.

How about an apology to the families of these victims from Sister Sarah, from Sharon Angle, from every Tea Partier that invoked violent language in a political campaign? *crickets*

This is not a banana republic. It is a modern democratic republic. It is not "American" or "Patriotic" to threaten revolution or violence when you don't get your way, and it has not been since the War for Independence ended. Oppression by tyranny justifies violence. Losing a free election does not.

This is sad and frustrating and infuriating and sickening. But what is most frustrating is that the media is totally giving a pass to the hate-mongers whose rhetoric fueled this violence. Maybe they'll get on it when the story settles, or maybe when we know more about the perpetrator. We'll see.

What Crawled Up Your Butt?

A recently colonoscopied woman was (luckily) found to be clear of any polyps or other indicia of cancer, but she was (ickily) found to have a cockroach in her colon.

The link takes you to the text of the report by the physician.

The doctor noted that the woman recently suffered a cockroach infestation in her home and must have accidentally swallowed it with food. I have my doubts.

Fist, I chew when I eat, don't you? And that cockroach is intact. So unless little cucaracha was surfing down in the soup or a scoop of yogurt, I'm not buying it.

Second, there are 2, count them, 2 routes to the colon. One begins at the mouth, and goes through the esophagus, stomach, and intestines before arriving in the colon. There are other hurdles and pit-stops, but you get the gist. The other route - the shortest route - is the same path taken by the scope for the colonoscopy.

So, which is more likely? That she accidentally swallowed a cockroach whole while eating without knowing it? Or that it crawled up her butt while she was asleep?

Think of me while you're not sleeping tonight. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA