This afternoon I'll be joining family, friends, and what promises to be several thousand North Carolinians at Pack Square in downtown Asheville for Mountain Moral Monday. There we will be exercising our rights to speech and peaceable assembly, protesting against the actions over the past few months by the Republican-held North Carolina General Assembly and the Governor, Pat McCrory.
As with those who gathered in Philadelphia in the sweltering heat of summer in 1776, our list of grievances is long. H. Brandt Ayers, publisher of the Anniston Star in Alabama, and a part-time North Carolina resident, summed things up quite nicely in his recent column.
In a column in the Raleigh News & Observer, Chapel Hill resident William Gargan wrote: "It's not low taxes or state incentives that lure high-paying jobs to a location. It's the talent pool." Yet our radical republican legislature and governor are insistent on pursuing a "Lord, help the rich, the poor can still beg" approach to economic development.
And the Democracy North Carolina has published a quick and handy two-page summary of what many observers have called the most aggressive voter suppression legislation in the nation.
So I will be there, making sure the radical republicans in Raleigh know that there are those of us who believe in the decades-long history of business-friendly, moderately progressive government in the Tar Heel state.
Coffee Time
Monday, August 5, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Questioning another's faith
Every day on the internet, good friends end up as mortal enemies over what starts out as an innocent post, or comment. I regret that I have too often initiated or escalated or otherwise supported these verbal jousts that turn into battles that drive wedges between people. Whether it's the relative anonymity, or the freedom we feel online that we don't feel in person or even on the phone, it is sad that such bitterness can erupt out of what start out to be innocent exchanges.
These estrangements are particularly evident when the subject of faith comes up. We all seem to have very strong, even entrenched positions on religion. And far too often, I am guilty of letting what I know to be true to my faith to get in the way of what Jesus described as the Christian faith: to love God and to love each other.
Scripture gives us plenty of warnings against being too sure of ourselves, or too certain of the accuracy or correctness of our religious beliefs. "Don't be quick to judge, or you will be judged yourself....Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye... Don't practice your piety in public...." All these admonitions remind us that the "foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of humans."
So how do we speak the truth to each other in love, and avoid the kind of animosities that can overwhelm our relationships and our own spirit? Well, two passages in particular seem to jump out at me whenever I find myself becoming insistent or stubborn. First, Paul writes to the church in Philippi a warning to "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling." That tells me that I don't have it all figured out, so I shouldn't be too certain in what I tell someone else. I'd better be working on that log in my own eye, because it's going to take a lot of work. And the second passage is the entire 13th Chapter of 1 Corinthians - the love chapter. "Love does not insist on its own way....now we see through a glass darkly...." I can't insist on my own way, because I don't see clearly, and don't know even part of the truth, let alone the wisdom of God.
So to my friends, I apologize for being arrogant and stubborn in my political and religious beliefs. I pray for your forgiveness.
These estrangements are particularly evident when the subject of faith comes up. We all seem to have very strong, even entrenched positions on religion. And far too often, I am guilty of letting what I know to be true to my faith to get in the way of what Jesus described as the Christian faith: to love God and to love each other.
Scripture gives us plenty of warnings against being too sure of ourselves, or too certain of the accuracy or correctness of our religious beliefs. "Don't be quick to judge, or you will be judged yourself....Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye... Don't practice your piety in public...." All these admonitions remind us that the "foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of humans."
So how do we speak the truth to each other in love, and avoid the kind of animosities that can overwhelm our relationships and our own spirit? Well, two passages in particular seem to jump out at me whenever I find myself becoming insistent or stubborn. First, Paul writes to the church in Philippi a warning to "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling." That tells me that I don't have it all figured out, so I shouldn't be too certain in what I tell someone else. I'd better be working on that log in my own eye, because it's going to take a lot of work. And the second passage is the entire 13th Chapter of 1 Corinthians - the love chapter. "Love does not insist on its own way....now we see through a glass darkly...." I can't insist on my own way, because I don't see clearly, and don't know even part of the truth, let alone the wisdom of God.
So to my friends, I apologize for being arrogant and stubborn in my political and religious beliefs. I pray for your forgiveness.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Economy Not in Crisis?
Driving in to Asheville this morning listening to Morning Joe on Sirius/XM, I almost lost control of the car when one of the guests made the remark that the economy is not in crisis. Apparently, there are those, like Mr. Scarborough himself, who are either satisfied with or oblivious to 8% unemployment in America.
Well, there is a different world view. Many watching at home or listening on the radio have a different world view - the teachers in NC who have not seen a raise in 5 years, or have lost their jobs to sweeping budget cuts; the autoworkers in Detroit who have made concession after concession in pay and benefits in order to just have a job; the construction worker just about anywhere who, because of slow demand for housing and commercial construction, may have worked only 30 weeks last year. That world view may even be shared by those in the Morning Joe studio out of the view of the camera lens, working hard behind the scenes to make Joe and his panelists look good, even if they can't make those whose images we see on the screen make sense.
During this morning's discussion, there was lots of talk about "confidence," about "certainty" from Washington, about "spurring business investment," and more supply-side nonsense. While the panel bemoaned the drop in wages for men since 1973, and the overall drop in household income over the last 3+ decades, they didn't seem to connect that with supply-side tax policies that are the obvious causes of wage stagnation among the working class. They didn't relate stagnant working class wages with skyrocketing executive compensation, or a tax code that values wealth over work and which allows the ownership class to get away with classifying much of their compensation as "unearned," or union-busting policies that favor the wealthy and treat labor as just another cost line item to be minimized at all costs.
This morning's panel didn't seem to realize that wage stagnation and 8% unemployment stifle demand for goods and services, and that businesses hire workers to meet demand for goods and services. They seem to think that businesses will somehow, out of the goodness of their hearts, start "investing" once there is some kind of "long-term" deal to "save" Social Security and Medicare.
We've had long-term "deals" before: does anyone remember Gramm-Rudman-Hollings? That was done away with 5 years after it was enacted. And remember PAYGO, which was gutted the minute Republicans decided that tax cuts didn't need to be paid for? Both were "long-term" deals intended to put our country on a sound fiscal path. The nature of Congressional long-term deals is that they are only binding until the next Congress or the one after that decides to break them.
But this morning's panel didn't seem to pay much mind to 8% unemployment, oblivious to the fact that as long as unemployment remains at depression levels, we are not going to solve the "fiscal crisis." And they apparently don't understand that putting people to work means creating demand for goods and services. Corporations, sitting on record profits, don't have any incentive to hire given slack demand. They are perfectly happy to keep their money in their mattresses, since inflation is near zero and interest rates are as well.
So it is left to the Federal government to be the customer of last resort, buying and paying for roads, bridges, schools, broadband access, wind farms, solar water heating for schools, electric vehicle infrastructure, regional high speed rail, metropolitan mass transit, teachers, firefighters, police, first responders, universal electronic medical records, energy efficiency, and a host of other infrastructure projects. A huge round of true stimulus spending is needed, not watered down with tax cuts as ARRA was. That will jump-start the economy, putting people to work, creating more and more demand for other consumer goods and services. Then the Federal Reserve OMC can perform its inflation control function normally, tax revenues will increase, and then we can start attacking deficit spending.
But please, anyone who says that the economy is not in crisis, with 8% unemployment, must be called out as myopic at best, and cruel at worst.
Well, there is a different world view. Many watching at home or listening on the radio have a different world view - the teachers in NC who have not seen a raise in 5 years, or have lost their jobs to sweeping budget cuts; the autoworkers in Detroit who have made concession after concession in pay and benefits in order to just have a job; the construction worker just about anywhere who, because of slow demand for housing and commercial construction, may have worked only 30 weeks last year. That world view may even be shared by those in the Morning Joe studio out of the view of the camera lens, working hard behind the scenes to make Joe and his panelists look good, even if they can't make those whose images we see on the screen make sense.
During this morning's discussion, there was lots of talk about "confidence," about "certainty" from Washington, about "spurring business investment," and more supply-side nonsense. While the panel bemoaned the drop in wages for men since 1973, and the overall drop in household income over the last 3+ decades, they didn't seem to connect that with supply-side tax policies that are the obvious causes of wage stagnation among the working class. They didn't relate stagnant working class wages with skyrocketing executive compensation, or a tax code that values wealth over work and which allows the ownership class to get away with classifying much of their compensation as "unearned," or union-busting policies that favor the wealthy and treat labor as just another cost line item to be minimized at all costs.
This morning's panel didn't seem to realize that wage stagnation and 8% unemployment stifle demand for goods and services, and that businesses hire workers to meet demand for goods and services. They seem to think that businesses will somehow, out of the goodness of their hearts, start "investing" once there is some kind of "long-term" deal to "save" Social Security and Medicare.
We've had long-term "deals" before: does anyone remember Gramm-Rudman-Hollings? That was done away with 5 years after it was enacted. And remember PAYGO, which was gutted the minute Republicans decided that tax cuts didn't need to be paid for? Both were "long-term" deals intended to put our country on a sound fiscal path. The nature of Congressional long-term deals is that they are only binding until the next Congress or the one after that decides to break them.
But this morning's panel didn't seem to pay much mind to 8% unemployment, oblivious to the fact that as long as unemployment remains at depression levels, we are not going to solve the "fiscal crisis." And they apparently don't understand that putting people to work means creating demand for goods and services. Corporations, sitting on record profits, don't have any incentive to hire given slack demand. They are perfectly happy to keep their money in their mattresses, since inflation is near zero and interest rates are as well.
So it is left to the Federal government to be the customer of last resort, buying and paying for roads, bridges, schools, broadband access, wind farms, solar water heating for schools, electric vehicle infrastructure, regional high speed rail, metropolitan mass transit, teachers, firefighters, police, first responders, universal electronic medical records, energy efficiency, and a host of other infrastructure projects. A huge round of true stimulus spending is needed, not watered down with tax cuts as ARRA was. That will jump-start the economy, putting people to work, creating more and more demand for other consumer goods and services. Then the Federal Reserve OMC can perform its inflation control function normally, tax revenues will increase, and then we can start attacking deficit spending.
But please, anyone who says that the economy is not in crisis, with 8% unemployment, must be called out as myopic at best, and cruel at worst.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Second Amendment
In the ongoing debate over gun laws and the epidemic of gun violence in America, many make the point that the 2nd amendment is some representation of the idea that "the people" have the right to engage in armed insurrection against the government. They point to writings of Jefferson and others who seem to advance such an argument. Yet a reading of the Constitution in its entirety does not support such a notion.
The 2nd amendment clearly defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. That militia is described in great detail in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives the Congress significant control over the militia.
First, the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to provide for "arming, training, and disciplining" the militia. The implications of this authority are clear. The Congress can under any reasonable interpretation specify the types of arms, establish training requirements including training in safe and proper use of such arms, and provide for sanctions against those who violate the arming and training rules.
The States are given specific limited authority to appoint officers for the militia, and to execute the training of the militia "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Again, the Congress is given substantial authority for the arming, training, and discipline of the militia, providing for compatibility in arms and doctrine when various state militia are called up for joint operations.
In Article 2, the President serves as Commander-in-Chief of the militia "when called into actual service of the United States." This gives the President broad authority over the militia, not differentiating between the military and the militia.
Most importantly, why does the militia exist? That question is clearly answered in Article 1 Section 8, giving the Congress the authority to call forth the militia to "enforce the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Furthermore, Article 4 gives the Congress or the President significant power to protect the states against invasion or domestic violence.
Under the weight of all this evidence, it is simply misguided to suggest that the Framers had any intention of encouraging in any way, shape, or form, any kind of "armed insurrection." It is time today to put such notions to rest, to call those out who make such arguments as either misguided ideologues or dangerous to our nation. Don't let them continue to pervert the Constitution!
The 2nd amendment clearly defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. That militia is described in great detail in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives the Congress significant control over the militia.
First, the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to provide for "arming, training, and disciplining" the militia. The implications of this authority are clear. The Congress can under any reasonable interpretation specify the types of arms, establish training requirements including training in safe and proper use of such arms, and provide for sanctions against those who violate the arming and training rules.
The States are given specific limited authority to appoint officers for the militia, and to execute the training of the militia "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Again, the Congress is given substantial authority for the arming, training, and discipline of the militia, providing for compatibility in arms and doctrine when various state militia are called up for joint operations.
In Article 2, the President serves as Commander-in-Chief of the militia "when called into actual service of the United States." This gives the President broad authority over the militia, not differentiating between the military and the militia.
Most importantly, why does the militia exist? That question is clearly answered in Article 1 Section 8, giving the Congress the authority to call forth the militia to "enforce the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Furthermore, Article 4 gives the Congress or the President significant power to protect the states against invasion or domestic violence.
Under the weight of all this evidence, it is simply misguided to suggest that the Framers had any intention of encouraging in any way, shape, or form, any kind of "armed insurrection." It is time today to put such notions to rest, to call those out who make such arguments as either misguided ideologues or dangerous to our nation. Don't let them continue to pervert the Constitution!
Friday, December 28, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff
Much has been written about the so-called fiscal cliff, which looms large on January 31, and the inability of Congress to avoid it. But what has not made the headlines is that this entire nonsense is a Republican creation, stemming largely from their inability or unwillingness to make permanent the temporary Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Everything else follows from that. But why are Republicans to blame for the current crisis?
First, Republicans continue to cling to the notion that any tax increase, on anyone, at any time, is heresy. Of course, that begs the question of why they wrote an automatic tax increase into the original Bush tax cuts, which they eagerly voted for. Even this week, the pundit class is saying that the Republican logic now seems to be it is better to "go over the cliff," then supporting legislation in early January that they could call "tax cuts," even though tax rates would simply revert back to 2012 levels for most people.
Secondly, no one seems to be talking very much about other effects of going over the cliff, particularly the effects of expiring stimulus measures that lowered the Social Security payroll tax on working class Americans, and extending unemployment benefits. There are also a number of tax credits that would expire, including childcare tax credits and tuition tax credits. Republicans seem perfectly content to impose upon working class Americans a substantial tax increase, apparently because, well, I'm not sure why. The juxtaposition of their ambivalence on the payroll tax increase against their iron-willed insistence on maintaining low marginal rates on those with incomes over $250K is baffling to this observer. It seems the only difference is whose ox is being gored, and Republicans seem to believe it is better that the working class suffer in order to reward the so-called job creators.
Finally, this whole "fiscal cliff" moniker is ill-begotten. For true deficit hawks, going over the cliff would result in substantially higher revenues and substantially lower government spending. Of course, the widespread slashing of government jobs and government contracts would mean a substantial slowdown in the economy, with the threat of Japanese-style deflation and another decade of stagnation. The "new normal" of the past five years would seem like the boom times of the 1950's in comparison.
So what is the solution? Here are four measures to avoid the fiscal cliff and put our economy back on track:
First, Republicans continue to cling to the notion that any tax increase, on anyone, at any time, is heresy. Of course, that begs the question of why they wrote an automatic tax increase into the original Bush tax cuts, which they eagerly voted for. Even this week, the pundit class is saying that the Republican logic now seems to be it is better to "go over the cliff," then supporting legislation in early January that they could call "tax cuts," even though tax rates would simply revert back to 2012 levels for most people.
Secondly, no one seems to be talking very much about other effects of going over the cliff, particularly the effects of expiring stimulus measures that lowered the Social Security payroll tax on working class Americans, and extending unemployment benefits. There are also a number of tax credits that would expire, including childcare tax credits and tuition tax credits. Republicans seem perfectly content to impose upon working class Americans a substantial tax increase, apparently because, well, I'm not sure why. The juxtaposition of their ambivalence on the payroll tax increase against their iron-willed insistence on maintaining low marginal rates on those with incomes over $250K is baffling to this observer. It seems the only difference is whose ox is being gored, and Republicans seem to believe it is better that the working class suffer in order to reward the so-called job creators.
Finally, this whole "fiscal cliff" moniker is ill-begotten. For true deficit hawks, going over the cliff would result in substantially higher revenues and substantially lower government spending. Of course, the widespread slashing of government jobs and government contracts would mean a substantial slowdown in the economy, with the threat of Japanese-style deflation and another decade of stagnation. The "new normal" of the past five years would seem like the boom times of the 1950's in comparison.
So what is the solution? Here are four measures to avoid the fiscal cliff and put our economy back on track:
- Make the current personal income tax rates permanent. This would include the top marginal rates.
- Significantly tighten the definition of capital gains. If the justification for treating income from capital gains differently from income from wages, salaries, and tips is to reward job creators, then write the law to make sure jobs are being created.
- Extend the payroll tax holiday. Revisit the issue when unemployment drops below 6%, then phase in the increase.
- Extend existing individual tax credits. Revisit these credits as part of comprehensive tax reform.
- Enact a gradual sequester plan. This plan should gradually reduce agency budgets over five years for discretionary spending, including defense.
The first order of business for the new Congress should be a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. I'll address that in a future blog post, so say tuned!
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Taking God out of Schools
Many commentators, including ordained Baptist minister Rev. Mike Huckabee, have attempted to link the shooting spree at Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut to the government "taking God out of schools." Many on the right wing have picked up on that theme, apparently referring to the landmark 1962 Supreme Court cases Engle v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp, where the court ruled that mandatory prayer and Bible readings in schools violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.
The lessons of Scripture reveal to us a God who is omnipotent and omnipresent. In particular, Psalm 139 says this: "Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there; if I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you." So we cannot flee from God's presence, because God is present wherever we flee to. God is present and powerful even in the darkness, even in the public school where "God has been banned."
The lessons of Scripture also reveal to us a God who is not impressed by flowery prayers at football games or NASCAR races or over the school intercom system. Christ Himself taught us this about prayer in Matthew 6: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." There is no virtue in public prayer, and certainly no Scriptural basis that encourages us to impose prayer on others.
So as Christians, it seems to me we should reject the notion that government has somehow "removed God from schools," because it is bad theology. The God we claim cannot be banned from any place. As the prophet Amos says, God hates our feasts, and despises our solemn assemblies as practicing our piety in public. The world will not know us because we require the world to pray our prayers or observe our holidays, rather they will know us by our fruit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
The lessons of Scripture reveal to us a God who is omnipotent and omnipresent. In particular, Psalm 139 says this: "Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there; if I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you." So we cannot flee from God's presence, because God is present wherever we flee to. God is present and powerful even in the darkness, even in the public school where "God has been banned."
The lessons of Scripture also reveal to us a God who is not impressed by flowery prayers at football games or NASCAR races or over the school intercom system. Christ Himself taught us this about prayer in Matthew 6: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." There is no virtue in public prayer, and certainly no Scriptural basis that encourages us to impose prayer on others.
So as Christians, it seems to me we should reject the notion that government has somehow "removed God from schools," because it is bad theology. The God we claim cannot be banned from any place. As the prophet Amos says, God hates our feasts, and despises our solemn assemblies as practicing our piety in public. The world will not know us because we require the world to pray our prayers or observe our holidays, rather they will know us by our fruit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Gun Violence in America
What can we do to make our schools, malls, movie theaters, office buildings, churches, and other public places safe from gun violence?
1. Immediately prohibit those on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist from purchasing or possessing firearms. It is simply astounding that the gun lobby, led by the NRA, opposes such a ban.
2. Immediately ban the manufacture and sale of large capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) for any firearm for civilian use. At the same time, fund a program to buy back and destroy existing magazines.
3. Prohibit concealed firearms in schools, malls, movie theaters, office buildings, churches, and other public places.
4. Close the "gun show loophole" by requiring a background check for any firearms sale. Crack down on illegal gun sales, with serious jail time for those found guilty of selling guns illegally.
5. Immediately put in place a national gun crime database to track firearms used in crimes. Again, it is simply astounding that the gun lobby opposes such a database. Any firearms recovered or captured or otherwise obtained in a criminal investigation should be confiscated and destroyed, similar to the way proceeds of drug cases are confiscated.
1. Immediately prohibit those on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist from purchasing or possessing firearms. It is simply astounding that the gun lobby, led by the NRA, opposes such a ban.
2. Immediately ban the manufacture and sale of large capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) for any firearm for civilian use. At the same time, fund a program to buy back and destroy existing magazines.
3. Prohibit concealed firearms in schools, malls, movie theaters, office buildings, churches, and other public places.
4. Close the "gun show loophole" by requiring a background check for any firearms sale. Crack down on illegal gun sales, with serious jail time for those found guilty of selling guns illegally.
5. Immediately put in place a national gun crime database to track firearms used in crimes. Again, it is simply astounding that the gun lobby opposes such a database. Any firearms recovered or captured or otherwise obtained in a criminal investigation should be confiscated and destroyed, similar to the way proceeds of drug cases are confiscated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)