I was driving this past weekend in the Sierra Foothills of California. It was a great and scenic drive. Since it was a rural trip, the roads between the small towns I passed were recently paved and sealed and the bridges over the creeks and rivers were recently redone and widened. In the small towns that I stopped in the police were driving modern patrol vehicles that looked to have the latest in technology. As I passed through the rolling hills I spotted a recently built firehouse with up to date fire trucks and equipment in the garage which read "Volunteer Fire Department."
I also passed something that I have not seen much of in the suburbs. A sign on the side of the road that read "Tea Party Meeting," giving a time, date and location. The Tea Party whose slogan is "we're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore." The Tea Party who is for smaller government and less taxes.
It got me thinking. If you really want to draw out this theory of smaller government and less taxes, we should start with the rural areas of which there are many. There are even many rural states. The greater populous is situated in larger cities. It is somewhat ironic that some of the more rural states receive more than their fair share of tax dollars. What, "fair share?" That's right. If we have smaller government and less taxes that means less money to go around. So it would seem that the states which contribute less to the Federal government should receive fewer federal dollars if there is less to go around. These states happen to be some of the more rural: North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alaska and others all receive more than $1.50 for every $1.00 that they pay in Federal taxes. Take that Sarah Palin. Your state takes from the Federal government $1.82 for every dollar it pays to Uncle Sam. There is one state, North Dakota that receives more than $2.00 for every dollar paid to the Federal government.
There are over 30 states that received more money than they paid to The US Government in the most recent collection of data. In an ironic twist many of these states voted for a presidential candidate in 2008 that would cut federal spending and taxes.
Taxes were never a pay to play proposition...until now. Our tax dollars were distributed somewhat evenly. What this is is a re-distribution of wealth. Money comes from the wealthy states (i.e. California, New York, Minnesota, etc.) and lands in some of the rural states (Montana, Mississippi, Utah, etc.). Well, what the Tea Party stands for is lower taxes, smaller government and the ability to keep their hard earned cash.
So under this new reality it would make sense that money that comes to the Federal government should stay in the states from where it has come or have it distributed more equitably. Or at very least those that rely on a more than 1:1 ratio of our tax dollars would no longer receive more than they pay in. If we are taking this argument to its full extension, should not cities and counties that collect and pay to the state the most sales tax and property tax also receive the better services while rural cities and counties who contribute less, receive less as a result? It would appear so based on this new reality of non re-distributed wealth.
Throughout this country, whether you are in Hawaii, California, Alaska or New York there are certain standards that remain constant. You can drink the water in any of these states; it is safe. No matter if you are in the big cities or the most rural of counties you have access to safe electricity, water and other public utilities. Wherever you are, there is modern plumbing or standard inspected septic. If you go to a high school in Alabama and get good grades and high scores on your SATs you are eligible for the same schooling that someone in Connecticut or New York qualifies for. That is because our education standards are roughly the same. Every state in the country has a robust interstate highway system, safe roads and streets and our public safety services remain constant. It does not matter if you are in a "poor" state, county or city. This is the result of our system of taxes (and spending). It has been the method by which wealth and a standard of living in the form of taxes have been re-distributed. Who maintains this semblance of order between urban and rural? Our government.
So if you are member of the Tea Party and you live in the city, you will continue to be pretty comfortable. If your Tea Party brethren live in the country then, you might want to reconsider your position because you are about to lose some pretty significant tax dollars and services.
Back to the drive this past weekend. Under this new political reality that is the Tea Party, that wide, two lane rural road that I was driving on would be a thing of dreams because with little tax money to spend on roads less traveled, within a couple of years it will be a poorly maintained little better than dirt road. The bridges I were driving across, would more have resembled a path across a river or creek. That remodeled new fire station with new equipment would have been an old house with at best recycled equipment that was no longer fit for the big city from where it came. No new fire house, no jobs to build it. That would include the patrol cars too, also recycled second hand no longer able to be used in the larger metropolitan areas from the big city. So while the department may have been volunteer, the equipment was well worn, even unreliable with no real money to maintain and repair facilities or equipment. These are just some of the more visible services you will lose. Good luck getting a building or business permit or finding a courtroom in a timely manner.
If this all sounds vaguely familiar, think about a couple of places where this circumstance might exist. The biggest democracy in the world, India. It is a country of contrasts; a very wealthy and a very poor class. It is a place where those with money live in gated communities and are comfortable with modern amenities. In stark contrast many more live in slums the size of big cities with little to eat, no running water and open sewers. Think about Mexico, where pictures from Mexico City show a populated metropolitan city and in contrast where rural towns are comprised of adobe shacks, sporadic electricity and dirt roads that run for miles until they meet up with what we would consider to be a highway in disrepair. Is this the type of society we want to be a part of?
It could never happen in America? Think again and think hard. Because, that, Tea Party is what you are advocating for. There is only so much money to go around and if you have your way there will be even less. So the next step is for those who pay the greatest taxes in the most populated areas receive theirs first. They have the votes after all. Who does that leave out in the cold? Be careful for what you wish.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Now That The Dust Has Settled
With perhaps the most embarrassing moment in our modern history behind us for now, maybe we should look behind the scenes of the debt ceiling debate and talk about some of the connected issues. The debate goes beyond raising the debt. It goes beyond lowering our deficit.
We are still trying to climb out of what has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. President Barack Obama's entire presidency has been largely defined by having to clean up an economic mess that was created by the previous administration and a six year reign of Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Contrast this with what was left for G.W. Bush in 2001; a healthy economy and a balanced budget.
But here is the strange thing. Take John Boehner, now the Speaker of the House. Has he always been that fiscal conservative that he claims to be? It may surprise you that Boehner and his way right of center friends voted enthusiastically for two wars in the last ten years that the Bush administration put on our respective national debt laden credit card. He also voted for President G.W.'s prescription drug program which was completely unfunded and also added to our debt. He even voted for the financial bailout in 2008 when it was proposed by G.W. and railed against the vary same bailout when Barack Obama was administering it. So why this great change of ideology? Why are the republicans so anti spending all of a sudden? After all, only one president in the past 40 years has balanced a budget and it was not a republican.
We can get past the fact the republicans needed a partner in the Tea Party because they were so badly damaged coming out of the 2008 election. That is the obvious answer to the anti spending band wagon that they are now adopting as their own. But is the obvious answer the real answer?
There are two other advantages of showing what fiscal tight-wads the right has become since Barack Obama was elected. Presidents get re-elected showing that the general welfare of our country has inproved from election cycle to election cycle. Often this happens as the result of funds given to states, counties, cities and individual groups such as the unemployed and the elderly or to voting blocks such as unions, teachers, government workers, etc. G.W. Bush and the republicans mastered this strategy. They started two wars which made the defense industry happy. States saw a huge uptick in money coming to them for defense and Homeland Security spending. Remember all those small rural towns that got armored trucks, tasers, fences etc. because they had money they had to spend given to them by the Federal Government? An enormous hiway spending bill was passed enthusiastically by the House and Senate and signed by the President. But the best move by G.W. was giving a tax refund to the American people because the government actually had a surplus after Clinton left the White House. Paying down the debt which was smaller at that time would have won nothing for him politically. He gave many a refund and told us to go spend it. G.W. squandered an opportunity to pay down our debt because the administration knew that it would be but a footnote when running for re-election. But if he gave everyone money, that would almost be as good as buying a future vote. Where was the republican party then? Standing on the sidelines cheering the President on. What about the Tea Party? There was no Tea Party. There is no denying that when there is money to spend everyone is happy. Never mind that the money was borrowed, unbudgeted, and added to the deficit.
So how does that effect us now? It is after all the job of the legislative branch to spend our tax money. That is what they do. But according to the republicans the well is dry. All the money has been been spent and the government is now all of a sudden so irresponsible and untrustworthy. Even temporary tax reductions put into place by G.W. (giving back even more money to the weathlty) should be extended. They are simply starving the current administration of the ability to do its job. Whether you want to believe it or not, a stimulus package is a tool every president in modern times has used to re-energize the economy. Few would argue that our economy does not need stimulating. So why have the Republicans simply become the party of "no?" Do they really believe in a balanced budget and a zero deficit? History, especially recent history and the deeds contained herein would show otherwise. So why are the republicans so against the Obama agenda?
It is time we really talk about what is behind this unprecedented gridlock that we have seen not only while debating the budget last year but on this most recent stalemate which would have the republicans shutting down or having us default on our bills rather than come up with a compromise on a debt ceiling increase. Is it that they do not want a democrat to pull us out of a recession and bring down an employment level that hovered around 10%? Maybe. Is it that they do not want Democrats (Obama/Pelosi) to stimulate the economy nursing it back to health? Possibly.
But the real issue here is the issue no one dares bring up at all, most of all the President, that of race. The republicans have found a way to make sure that an African American is not successful in his job: Starve him of the ability to do it.
Never has a president has been thwarted at every turn with regards to leading the people that elected him. The debt ceiling has been lifted 73 times since the early 1960's. Yet for some reason now is the time to push our nation into default if the president does not capitulate to far right demands? Every president since Richard Nixon has proposed a national health plan, but Barack Obama who actually made it reality is called a socialist for getting that legislation passed (all but begging republicans,who refused to work him, to participate in the process). No president has ever had his birth certificated scrutinized or his place of birth questioned by the far right as this president.
All this has been a distraction so that the republicans can wait out the clock and call Obama an ineffective President knowing full well that it is their inaction that prolongs our country's economic recovery. While unemployment remains at 9.2% as this is written, not a single jobs bill has been authored in the Republican House of Representatives with repeated requests from the administration to send something to the White House to help those who are desperately looking for jobs.
It is 2011 yet we still have an undertone of racism in this country.
It started just a couple of weeks after the new president was sworn in. He had barely moved into the White House. With the banks still faltering and a question of whether two out of three auto companies would survive, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail. After some negative publicity surrounding this comment, he later corrected himself saying that he hoped Obama's policies would fail. But the message was received.
In April of this year an Orange County Republican Committee official, Marilyn Davenport, sent out an e mail depicting Obama as a monkey saying, "now you know why no birth certificate." She refused to resign saying that she simply found it amusing.
Just yesterday Doug Lamborn a Colorado Congressman referred to touching Barack Obama as not wanting to touch a "tar baby." He made these comments on a local Colorado radio program.
Mitch McConnell the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate has made it known on several occasions that his number one objective as minority leader is to make Barack Obama a one term president. Not bringing down unemployment, not making America a better place and not bringing down the deficit, but rather making sure that the presidency of Barack Obama is not successful.
Finally, also yesterday Pat Buchanan in an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC referred to Obama as "your boy." Sharpton, not missing a beat, pointed out that Barack Obama was our president. These examples are just what has made it into the public domain. One can only wonder what has been said behind closed doors?
Even if our country's reputation has been tarnished in the eyes of the world over the past 10 years, the rest of the world does look to our government and its functionality a beacon of civility. As a society we should be better than this. Those who represent us should be better and serve as leaders. We should demand better whether we are republicans or democrats. The presidential election is over a year away. But it is not too early to examine what has gone on over the past three years. Do you want these people that have favored the rich, forgotten the middle class and ignored the poor and unemployed to occupy the White House? Never in modern times have we needed government to work better. Because of obstructionist policies on the right and racism that bubbles just below the suface by those just not wanting to see a black man succeed, we all lose as a nation.
We are still trying to climb out of what has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. President Barack Obama's entire presidency has been largely defined by having to clean up an economic mess that was created by the previous administration and a six year reign of Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Contrast this with what was left for G.W. Bush in 2001; a healthy economy and a balanced budget.
But here is the strange thing. Take John Boehner, now the Speaker of the House. Has he always been that fiscal conservative that he claims to be? It may surprise you that Boehner and his way right of center friends voted enthusiastically for two wars in the last ten years that the Bush administration put on our respective national debt laden credit card. He also voted for President G.W.'s prescription drug program which was completely unfunded and also added to our debt. He even voted for the financial bailout in 2008 when it was proposed by G.W. and railed against the vary same bailout when Barack Obama was administering it. So why this great change of ideology? Why are the republicans so anti spending all of a sudden? After all, only one president in the past 40 years has balanced a budget and it was not a republican.
We can get past the fact the republicans needed a partner in the Tea Party because they were so badly damaged coming out of the 2008 election. That is the obvious answer to the anti spending band wagon that they are now adopting as their own. But is the obvious answer the real answer?
There are two other advantages of showing what fiscal tight-wads the right has become since Barack Obama was elected. Presidents get re-elected showing that the general welfare of our country has inproved from election cycle to election cycle. Often this happens as the result of funds given to states, counties, cities and individual groups such as the unemployed and the elderly or to voting blocks such as unions, teachers, government workers, etc. G.W. Bush and the republicans mastered this strategy. They started two wars which made the defense industry happy. States saw a huge uptick in money coming to them for defense and Homeland Security spending. Remember all those small rural towns that got armored trucks, tasers, fences etc. because they had money they had to spend given to them by the Federal Government? An enormous hiway spending bill was passed enthusiastically by the House and Senate and signed by the President. But the best move by G.W. was giving a tax refund to the American people because the government actually had a surplus after Clinton left the White House. Paying down the debt which was smaller at that time would have won nothing for him politically. He gave many a refund and told us to go spend it. G.W. squandered an opportunity to pay down our debt because the administration knew that it would be but a footnote when running for re-election. But if he gave everyone money, that would almost be as good as buying a future vote. Where was the republican party then? Standing on the sidelines cheering the President on. What about the Tea Party? There was no Tea Party. There is no denying that when there is money to spend everyone is happy. Never mind that the money was borrowed, unbudgeted, and added to the deficit.
So how does that effect us now? It is after all the job of the legislative branch to spend our tax money. That is what they do. But according to the republicans the well is dry. All the money has been been spent and the government is now all of a sudden so irresponsible and untrustworthy. Even temporary tax reductions put into place by G.W. (giving back even more money to the weathlty) should be extended. They are simply starving the current administration of the ability to do its job. Whether you want to believe it or not, a stimulus package is a tool every president in modern times has used to re-energize the economy. Few would argue that our economy does not need stimulating. So why have the Republicans simply become the party of "no?" Do they really believe in a balanced budget and a zero deficit? History, especially recent history and the deeds contained herein would show otherwise. So why are the republicans so against the Obama agenda?
It is time we really talk about what is behind this unprecedented gridlock that we have seen not only while debating the budget last year but on this most recent stalemate which would have the republicans shutting down or having us default on our bills rather than come up with a compromise on a debt ceiling increase. Is it that they do not want a democrat to pull us out of a recession and bring down an employment level that hovered around 10%? Maybe. Is it that they do not want Democrats (Obama/Pelosi) to stimulate the economy nursing it back to health? Possibly.
But the real issue here is the issue no one dares bring up at all, most of all the President, that of race. The republicans have found a way to make sure that an African American is not successful in his job: Starve him of the ability to do it.
Never has a president has been thwarted at every turn with regards to leading the people that elected him. The debt ceiling has been lifted 73 times since the early 1960's. Yet for some reason now is the time to push our nation into default if the president does not capitulate to far right demands? Every president since Richard Nixon has proposed a national health plan, but Barack Obama who actually made it reality is called a socialist for getting that legislation passed (all but begging republicans,who refused to work him, to participate in the process). No president has ever had his birth certificated scrutinized or his place of birth questioned by the far right as this president.
All this has been a distraction so that the republicans can wait out the clock and call Obama an ineffective President knowing full well that it is their inaction that prolongs our country's economic recovery. While unemployment remains at 9.2% as this is written, not a single jobs bill has been authored in the Republican House of Representatives with repeated requests from the administration to send something to the White House to help those who are desperately looking for jobs.
It is 2011 yet we still have an undertone of racism in this country.
It started just a couple of weeks after the new president was sworn in. He had barely moved into the White House. With the banks still faltering and a question of whether two out of three auto companies would survive, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail. After some negative publicity surrounding this comment, he later corrected himself saying that he hoped Obama's policies would fail. But the message was received.
In April of this year an Orange County Republican Committee official, Marilyn Davenport, sent out an e mail depicting Obama as a monkey saying, "now you know why no birth certificate." She refused to resign saying that she simply found it amusing.
Just yesterday Doug Lamborn a Colorado Congressman referred to touching Barack Obama as not wanting to touch a "tar baby." He made these comments on a local Colorado radio program.
Mitch McConnell the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate has made it known on several occasions that his number one objective as minority leader is to make Barack Obama a one term president. Not bringing down unemployment, not making America a better place and not bringing down the deficit, but rather making sure that the presidency of Barack Obama is not successful.
Finally, also yesterday Pat Buchanan in an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC referred to Obama as "your boy." Sharpton, not missing a beat, pointed out that Barack Obama was our president. These examples are just what has made it into the public domain. One can only wonder what has been said behind closed doors?
Even if our country's reputation has been tarnished in the eyes of the world over the past 10 years, the rest of the world does look to our government and its functionality a beacon of civility. As a society we should be better than this. Those who represent us should be better and serve as leaders. We should demand better whether we are republicans or democrats. The presidential election is over a year away. But it is not too early to examine what has gone on over the past three years. Do you want these people that have favored the rich, forgotten the middle class and ignored the poor and unemployed to occupy the White House? Never in modern times have we needed government to work better. Because of obstructionist policies on the right and racism that bubbles just below the suface by those just not wanting to see a black man succeed, we all lose as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)