There is a misconception about Jesus. Christ did share a gospel of love, acceptance, and service. But, he also got angry; and it was not about gays and lesbians.
The gospels illustrate Jesus' target of anger: the money changers and traders at the temple in Jerusalem. In a fit of rage, Jesus overturned tables and bemoaned the evils of greed. Theologians may argue that the cause of Jesus' rage was the disrespect shown to the temple. Such an interpretation ignores Jesus' other sermons (remember the eye of the camel analogy?).
Christ always spoke of the corrupting nature of avarice. It twists the soul. Worship of money can impede a person's salvation. The theme repeats over and over. One can celebrate success and wealth, but one should always remember: love others, serve others, and fulfill your purpose.
Given this instruction straight from Christ, a political observer would think that Republicans would adhere to its message. One large branch of the Republican party is the social conservative tent, or evangelical base. Far too often the evangelicals cozy up with those who alienate the poor.
Take two recent developments. First, the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that would eliminate the estate tax. The fiscal cost is estimated to be over $250 billion over ten years. The proposed law would only help .2% of households, or a little over 5,000 millionaire/billionaire families. When asked why there was a need to kill the estate tax, Republican representatives cited the hardship of farm owners, who may have to sell their farms because of the tax. However, none could provide an example.
Second, in Kansas, Republicans voted and passed a law that would prohibit welfare recipients from spending their assistance money on movie theaters, swimming pools, cruise ships, and nail salons. Other restrictions show a disdain for the impoverished. Again, not one lawmaker gave an anecdotal story of how they saw a welfare recipient living it up on a cruise ship.
These examples show how cruel the Republican party has become -- award the rich and punish the poor. There is a mindset now that tax cuts to the wealthy can be paid for by cutting government spending for the struggling citizen. They sell the plan by using a chimera, poor farm owners and welfare queens soaking up the sun on cruise ships. In the meantime, they secure themselves campaign war chests and wall street jobs after their congressional service.
Poverty is not a choice for millions of Americans. By the stroke of bad luck, they are born into circumstances out of their control. It is unchristian and inhuman to demonize those who work hard to get ahead but remain impoverished, with little hope. They should be treated with dignity, with respect, not ridicule.
My republican friends claim to have a monopoly on patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and Christian values. By most measures, they seem to be failing on all fronts. Is Jesus angry?
Showing posts with label Tax Cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax Cuts. Show all posts
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Saturday, February 28, 2015
The Republican Model of Governance
Four republican governors, three of whom are running for president in 2016, have shown a model for governance. The substance and style of their state leadership possibly could be adopted nationwide. By looking at the numbers, one can determine whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing -- ultimately, the voter will have to decide for himself or herself.
Wisconsin has an all-star governor, at least right now in the conservative polls. Governor Scott Walker has survived a recall election, won campaign after campaign, and stood foot to foot with aggressive labor unions. He is agnostic on the faith and patriotism of the president. Mr. Walker, on a recent trip abroad, "punted" on a question related to evolution.
On economic issues, he has some problems. Wisconsin went from a $517 million surplus in June of 2014 to a projected $2.2 billion deficit. Like you will see throughout this post, Mr. Walker implemented supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle down") tax cuts. Considered orthodoxy in conservative politics, it is believed that tax cuts can result in higher revenues because of increased economic activity. Right-leaning economists have debunked this crank theory.
In conjunction with less revenues, Wisconsin has not expanded Medicaid via ObamaCare. The costs for Medicaid are squeezing the state budget, yet Mr. Walker remains obstinate on his position. It is estimated that if Medicaid were expanded, the state could save $200 million a year. With choices having to be made, Mr. Walker has decided to cut education. The university system in Wisconsin will have to deal with a 13% cut to its operations. Naturally, students and teachers are not happy.
Hundreds of miles east, Governor Chris Christie -- known for his pugnacity and straight talk, and bridge politics-- manages the state of New Jersey. Mr. Christie faces problems of his own. Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral cuts to the state pension fund were unconstitutional. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie has to answer for a structural deficit of $7.3 billion. Since Mr. Christie refuses to raise taxes, he has proposed withholding property tax rebates, and refusing to fund state pensions. Toxicity surrounds Mr. Christie so now wealthy Republican donors are backing Jeb Bush rather than the New Jersey everyman.
Louisiana's governor is not quiet about his conservative credentials. Even after no-go Muslim zones were mocked and fact-checked, Governor Bobby Jindal stuck with it. Mr. Jindal embraces creationism, mocks climate change scientists, and courts birther voters. He isn't shy when explaining why the state's coffers are so depleted. It is all planned -- he wants to reduce the size of government.
Next year, Louisiana anticipates a $1.6 billion shortfall. Mr. Jindal has already spent money allocated for senior citizens, infrastructure, and reserve saving. His frantic strategies to pay for his own tax cuts have resulted in buildings sold and tax amnesties declared. Over $1 billion was added up from "gimmicks, games, and accounting tricks." Next year, Mr. Jindal may not be so fortunate -- the one-time sources may be dried up.
Like Messrs. Walker, Christie, and Jindal, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran passionately on his promise to cut taxes. He stated proudly that his conservative model would be a model eventually replicated across the country. Unfortunately for him, and for Kansas residents, the state is in trouble. Mr. Brownback has to find a way to fill a $280 million shortfall.
Similar to Mr. Christie, the Kansas Supreme Court declared Mr. Brownback's education cuts illegal. The schools are underfunded and the governor has to address it appropriately. One of the biggest tax cuts in history has led to fiscal ruin for the Midwest state.
One can see how a Republican would govern the nation. On the campaign trail, promises would be made about tax cuts, increased economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. When eventually it came to governance, however, reality would kick in. A president cannot fudge the numbers; they would have to find a way to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
The data is out there. We all know the Republican model for governance. Let's hope that it is not adopted at the federal level. It's not as pretty as promised.
Wisconsin has an all-star governor, at least right now in the conservative polls. Governor Scott Walker has survived a recall election, won campaign after campaign, and stood foot to foot with aggressive labor unions. He is agnostic on the faith and patriotism of the president. Mr. Walker, on a recent trip abroad, "punted" on a question related to evolution.
On economic issues, he has some problems. Wisconsin went from a $517 million surplus in June of 2014 to a projected $2.2 billion deficit. Like you will see throughout this post, Mr. Walker implemented supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle down") tax cuts. Considered orthodoxy in conservative politics, it is believed that tax cuts can result in higher revenues because of increased economic activity. Right-leaning economists have debunked this crank theory.
In conjunction with less revenues, Wisconsin has not expanded Medicaid via ObamaCare. The costs for Medicaid are squeezing the state budget, yet Mr. Walker remains obstinate on his position. It is estimated that if Medicaid were expanded, the state could save $200 million a year. With choices having to be made, Mr. Walker has decided to cut education. The university system in Wisconsin will have to deal with a 13% cut to its operations. Naturally, students and teachers are not happy.
Hundreds of miles east, Governor Chris Christie -- known for his pugnacity and straight talk, and bridge politics-- manages the state of New Jersey. Mr. Christie faces problems of his own. Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral cuts to the state pension fund were unconstitutional. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie has to answer for a structural deficit of $7.3 billion. Since Mr. Christie refuses to raise taxes, he has proposed withholding property tax rebates, and refusing to fund state pensions. Toxicity surrounds Mr. Christie so now wealthy Republican donors are backing Jeb Bush rather than the New Jersey everyman.
Louisiana's governor is not quiet about his conservative credentials. Even after no-go Muslim zones were mocked and fact-checked, Governor Bobby Jindal stuck with it. Mr. Jindal embraces creationism, mocks climate change scientists, and courts birther voters. He isn't shy when explaining why the state's coffers are so depleted. It is all planned -- he wants to reduce the size of government.
Next year, Louisiana anticipates a $1.6 billion shortfall. Mr. Jindal has already spent money allocated for senior citizens, infrastructure, and reserve saving. His frantic strategies to pay for his own tax cuts have resulted in buildings sold and tax amnesties declared. Over $1 billion was added up from "gimmicks, games, and accounting tricks." Next year, Mr. Jindal may not be so fortunate -- the one-time sources may be dried up.
Like Messrs. Walker, Christie, and Jindal, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran passionately on his promise to cut taxes. He stated proudly that his conservative model would be a model eventually replicated across the country. Unfortunately for him, and for Kansas residents, the state is in trouble. Mr. Brownback has to find a way to fill a $280 million shortfall.
Similar to Mr. Christie, the Kansas Supreme Court declared Mr. Brownback's education cuts illegal. The schools are underfunded and the governor has to address it appropriately. One of the biggest tax cuts in history has led to fiscal ruin for the Midwest state.
One can see how a Republican would govern the nation. On the campaign trail, promises would be made about tax cuts, increased economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. When eventually it came to governance, however, reality would kick in. A president cannot fudge the numbers; they would have to find a way to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
The data is out there. We all know the Republican model for governance. Let's hope that it is not adopted at the federal level. It's not as pretty as promised.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Numbers Don't Lie, Ignore the Scoreboard
Oh, math. Perhaps one of the most disdained subjects in school, but anyone in existence knows of its importance. Math is incorporated in our everyday lives. As the wise Jay-z once stated, "numbers don't lie." It's common knowledge, however, the same cannot be said of politics.
Policy should be shaped by the data -- the indisputable numbers. But, I can't remember the last time when that has been the case. Ideologues, on both sides of the spectrum -- let's be honest though, more so the Republicans -- have found a way to mislead and confuse. Conclusions are always up to debate. The truth is always relative, no matter what the experts say. And even if partisans are confronted with the truth, it doesn't seem to matter.
That is why I was not surprised when I read a study conducted by University of Michigan political scientists. They found that evidence contrary to a held position does nothing to change the opinion of the belief-holder. In fact, the belief-holders grew more adamant in their false beliefs! Brendan Nyhan summarized it as follows: "the general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong...the phenomenon -- known as 'backfire' -- is a 'natural defense to avoid ... cognitive dissonance.'"
Okay, so we already knew that no one "likes" to be wrong. What's the problem though with admitting that you're wrong, when shown concrete conflicting evidence? I ask, because as you can probably guess, some matters of policy should not be open to much debate.
I preface my comments with the fact that people should not be ridiculed or mocked. Conservatives have rightly condemned the left (some in the cable news business exaggerate) at times for "elitism." Nonetheless, liberals should not concede on the facts.
Republicans still assert a few claims that I find disturbing. "The stimulus did not work." Actually it did, and economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that it prevented another great depression. So can the talking points stop?
Here's another one: "tax cuts on the 'job creators' will boost the economy and the tax cuts will pay for itself." No, not so much in reality. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Kansas attempted to experiment with trickle-down policies and it failed. California raised taxes and the economy grew. When will the voodoo economics stop?
Let's take the controversial, and widely misunderstood, ObamaCare. "No one will sign up," and "premiums will rise exponentially." Both wrong. You may have read -- or probably did not read because of the media coverage -- that over 8 million signed up the first year. The uninsured rate is dropping fast, and even more fast in states that expanded Medicaid. And what about premiums... Yep, you guessed it: California premiums are expected to rise modestly, much lower than the average rate of growth over recent years. Other states are showing the same data.
I won't even opine about climate change. I'll spare you the "activist rhetoric."
If you are one of my conservative friends, odds are that you will likely dismiss these citations and evidence. That's too bad. I'm definitely not saying that my positions are always right. Yet, there needs to be an opposition that can accept these facts. One can still hold conservative beliefs and still accept the evidence.
In this age of polarization, I doubt anything will be agreed upon, It's too damaging politically. Well, maybe one thing can be agreed upon; The scoreboard isn't everything, it's all about how the scoreboard looks.
Policy should be shaped by the data -- the indisputable numbers. But, I can't remember the last time when that has been the case. Ideologues, on both sides of the spectrum -- let's be honest though, more so the Republicans -- have found a way to mislead and confuse. Conclusions are always up to debate. The truth is always relative, no matter what the experts say. And even if partisans are confronted with the truth, it doesn't seem to matter.
That is why I was not surprised when I read a study conducted by University of Michigan political scientists. They found that evidence contrary to a held position does nothing to change the opinion of the belief-holder. In fact, the belief-holders grew more adamant in their false beliefs! Brendan Nyhan summarized it as follows: "the general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong...the phenomenon -- known as 'backfire' -- is a 'natural defense to avoid ... cognitive dissonance.'"
Okay, so we already knew that no one "likes" to be wrong. What's the problem though with admitting that you're wrong, when shown concrete conflicting evidence? I ask, because as you can probably guess, some matters of policy should not be open to much debate.
I preface my comments with the fact that people should not be ridiculed or mocked. Conservatives have rightly condemned the left (some in the cable news business exaggerate) at times for "elitism." Nonetheless, liberals should not concede on the facts.
Republicans still assert a few claims that I find disturbing. "The stimulus did not work." Actually it did, and economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that it prevented another great depression. So can the talking points stop?
Here's another one: "tax cuts on the 'job creators' will boost the economy and the tax cuts will pay for itself." No, not so much in reality. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Kansas attempted to experiment with trickle-down policies and it failed. California raised taxes and the economy grew. When will the voodoo economics stop?
Let's take the controversial, and widely misunderstood, ObamaCare. "No one will sign up," and "premiums will rise exponentially." Both wrong. You may have read -- or probably did not read because of the media coverage -- that over 8 million signed up the first year. The uninsured rate is dropping fast, and even more fast in states that expanded Medicaid. And what about premiums... Yep, you guessed it: California premiums are expected to rise modestly, much lower than the average rate of growth over recent years. Other states are showing the same data.
I won't even opine about climate change. I'll spare you the "activist rhetoric."
If you are one of my conservative friends, odds are that you will likely dismiss these citations and evidence. That's too bad. I'm definitely not saying that my positions are always right. Yet, there needs to be an opposition that can accept these facts. One can still hold conservative beliefs and still accept the evidence.
In this age of polarization, I doubt anything will be agreed upon, It's too damaging politically. Well, maybe one thing can be agreed upon; The scoreboard isn't everything, it's all about how the scoreboard looks.
The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
“The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
“The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
We're Not In Kansas Anymore ... Thankfully
One of the benefits of living in Los Angeles is the occasional celebrity sighting. Just the other day, at the local movie theater, I ran into Jeff Garlin -- actor and executive producer of the hit show: Curb Your Enthusiasm. And by "ran into," I mean that I shouted his name awkwardly before he waved back and scurried along. Britney Spears was even in front of me at the nearby Starbucks about a year ago.
Hollywood is right around the corner and there is a lot of cinema history in the entertainment capital of the world. In fact, one of the best known American movies, The Wizard of Oz, was filmed in Culver City and was originally shown in San Bernardino for a sneak peak.
The Wizard of Oz is renowned for a variety of reasons. One, its Technicolor was groundbreaking; the yellow-brick road awed audiences. Second, the music was inspiring, including the Oscar-winning song -- "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Third, Dorothy's dog and the Munchkins were adorable. Finally, it paved the way for the oft-quoted line, "We're not in Kansas anymore..."
I often wondered whether Kansas residents ever got sick of hearing that line. But recently, I have wondered whether Kansas residents wished they had left the state.
The Republican-controlled state is having some economic problems. The conservative-leaning Kansas has aggressively implemented tea-party economic principles. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, cut taxes and promised economic prosperity. He stated in 2012 that, "[Kansas'] new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy... [it will] pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business..." He may need another adrenaline shot.
Unsurprisingly, the opposite has occurred. Kansas is now facing a huge budget deficit -- $508 million less in revenues compared to the last fiscal year. By 2019, economists expect a deficit of close to $1 billion unless something is changed.
Employment is not the "best" either. Neighboring states are increasing employment at better or similar rates and two large companies, Boeing and Applebee's, have announced that they will move thousands of jobs to other states. Kansas voters are acknowledging the failures; only 33% of voters support Gov. Brownback. The candidate running against Brownback is taking the opportunity to point out that, "The governor [championed] a red state model, and it’s truly not working."
Besides the fact that Kansas schools are being harmed, it may be difficult for Kansas to follow the state's Supreme Court ruling that more must be done for low-income districts. The Republican's policies simply cannot provide an education to a number of its young citizens.
It is truly unfortunate, but again, what can we expect at this point. Republicans will not face reality when it comes to science, facts, or reality. Predictably, the Governor has blamed President Obama...He will not take credit for the situation that he created. Kansas has not been the only state to champion "conservative" economics and been proven wrong by the data. North Carolina, also Republican-controlled, cut unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed Americans. They said that it would lead to job growth and fortune. The reverse happened: most just left the labor force in despair.
If I were in the the land of Oz, I would try to stay there. What's the point of going back to Kansas? Ironically, I have to admit that I have some personal experience with Oz. In high school, I played the "Lion." I wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards but it was a great experience. One of my favorite moments was when I sang, "If I Were King of the Forest."
In honor of that moment, I now sing, "If I were king of the forest, I would not pursue voodoo economics." Because seriously, just like Oz, it's a fantasy to think that Republican economics will benefit everyone. We're not in Kansas anymore...and that's just fine with me.
Hollywood is right around the corner and there is a lot of cinema history in the entertainment capital of the world. In fact, one of the best known American movies, The Wizard of Oz, was filmed in Culver City and was originally shown in San Bernardino for a sneak peak.
The Wizard of Oz is renowned for a variety of reasons. One, its Technicolor was groundbreaking; the yellow-brick road awed audiences. Second, the music was inspiring, including the Oscar-winning song -- "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Third, Dorothy's dog and the Munchkins were adorable. Finally, it paved the way for the oft-quoted line, "We're not in Kansas anymore..."
I often wondered whether Kansas residents ever got sick of hearing that line. But recently, I have wondered whether Kansas residents wished they had left the state.
The Republican-controlled state is having some economic problems. The conservative-leaning Kansas has aggressively implemented tea-party economic principles. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, cut taxes and promised economic prosperity. He stated in 2012 that, "[Kansas'] new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy... [it will] pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business..." He may need another adrenaline shot.
Unsurprisingly, the opposite has occurred. Kansas is now facing a huge budget deficit -- $508 million less in revenues compared to the last fiscal year. By 2019, economists expect a deficit of close to $1 billion unless something is changed.
Employment is not the "best" either. Neighboring states are increasing employment at better or similar rates and two large companies, Boeing and Applebee's, have announced that they will move thousands of jobs to other states. Kansas voters are acknowledging the failures; only 33% of voters support Gov. Brownback. The candidate running against Brownback is taking the opportunity to point out that, "The governor [championed] a red state model, and it’s truly not working."
Besides the fact that Kansas schools are being harmed, it may be difficult for Kansas to follow the state's Supreme Court ruling that more must be done for low-income districts. The Republican's policies simply cannot provide an education to a number of its young citizens.
It is truly unfortunate, but again, what can we expect at this point. Republicans will not face reality when it comes to science, facts, or reality. Predictably, the Governor has blamed President Obama...He will not take credit for the situation that he created. Kansas has not been the only state to champion "conservative" economics and been proven wrong by the data. North Carolina, also Republican-controlled, cut unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed Americans. They said that it would lead to job growth and fortune. The reverse happened: most just left the labor force in despair.
If I were in the the land of Oz, I would try to stay there. What's the point of going back to Kansas? Ironically, I have to admit that I have some personal experience with Oz. In high school, I played the "Lion." I wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards but it was a great experience. One of my favorite moments was when I sang, "If I Were King of the Forest."
In honor of that moment, I now sing, "If I were king of the forest, I would not pursue voodoo economics." Because seriously, just like Oz, it's a fantasy to think that Republican economics will benefit everyone. We're not in Kansas anymore...and that's just fine with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)