Common Sense is glad that the government didn't shut down but along the way it seems that the District of Columbia, while not a state it IS part of the United States, got a taste of cultural imperialism. It seems that Congress, who must approve DC's budget, has decided that a) DC can't spend it's tax money on abortions, b) DC can't spend it's tax money on needle exchange, and c) DC must reinstate a school voucher program!
So Common Sense wonders, is it OK for Congress to tell a city, even a Federal city, how it can, can not, and must spend it's own tax money? Is it OK for Congressional Representatives who are NOT elected from a city to dictate how that city must spend it's money?
Common Sense thinks that the answer to both questions is that it's NOT OK, most emphatically NOT OK! There are many reasons why.
First, it is a basic principal of our democratic government that all citizens have some basic civil rights including representation. In the case of DC citizens do not in fact have voting representation! The reasons are historical and somewhat artificial but DC is a Federal city and not represented by any voting member of Congress. The net is that Congress is passing laws for a group of US citizens that they do NOT in fact represent. You may recall from your history class that previously this caused a bit of trouble between Great Britain and the American Colonies.
Second, the money involved isn't in fact Federal money! Rather, it is tax revenue paid by the citizens of the District of Columbia. One can only imagine what would happen if Congress attempted to tell any other US city how to spend it's tax revenue. Common Sense would grant the DC has a rather spotty history of governance but, and it's an important but, so do many other US cities. Congress can't intervene in those cities. Why then should Congress be allowed to intervene in DC?
Third, many of Congress's actions will almost certainly make the issues worse not better. They are nothing more than cultural imperialism and social purity. Consider needle exchange. Common Sense recognizes that drug addiction is bad, very bad. As a society we should combat it however we can including drug intradiction, prosecution, treatment, and anything else that might arguably help. There are several reasons for this some humane such as limiting the harm people can do to themselves and some practical such as stopping crime. But all said and done it's clear that we haven't had much luck with drug trafficking and addiction. So there will be drug users in DC. There will be needles. We can choose to provide clean, disease free needles or we can choose to treat dirty needle diseases in publicly funded hospitals. Where needle exchanges have been allowed they have generally resulted in much less disease and somewhat less drug addiction! Cultural purity isn't a substitute for common sense when it comes to real problems. Much the same sorts of arguments can be made about abortions. Which do you think is better a) an unwanted child born into poverty, likely to require social support, and almost certainly to end in crime; or b) an abortion however objectionable. When it comes to education which do you think best serves the citizens of DC a) diffusion of limited school funds to support vouchers, or b) spending trying to do something about one of the worst school systems in the country. When it's said and done Congresses cultural interference isn't good governance.
What surprises Common Sense is that this is just the sort of Federal interference in local government the Republican right normally opposed on principal. Perhaps it's not so much about principal then but just a case of aggressive ideological purity forced on US citizens not represented in Congress.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Governance and cultural and social ideology
This last weeks nonsense about the budgets has Common Sense wondering: What role should cultural and social ideology play in governance?
The question turns out to be in many ways central to democratic governance. Laws and social policies are in fact a reflection of shared values and perspectives. Some of these are widely accepted. With few exceptions it's wrong to kill each other. Others, such as abortion rights, are rather more controversial. It is in these areas where democracy struggles, where it is difficult to answer the essential question of what is good for the country as a whole and people as individuals.
While these kinds of questions are never been easy in a democracy, of late Common Sense thinks that they have become much more difficult. Indeed, it seems that increasingly idealogical purity has replaced reasoned discourse. This makes reaching a reasonable consensus not just far more difficult but virtually impossible. Sadly, this failure often threatens to aggravate the very issue being addressed, to make the problem worse, not better.
As a case in point consider the recent battle over Planned Parenthood funding. It is a fact that Planned Parenthood provides a variety of services including abortion referrals. It is also a fact that under existing Federal law it is illegal for Planned Parenthood to use Federal funds for abortions. As a consequence the organization has created a wall between it's other Federally funded activities and it's abortion services. Those are indisputable facts. A number of studies have shown rather conclusively that if Planned Parenthood were defunded that among the consequences would be serious deterioration of health among poor women and, this is the part that matters here, an increase in abortions as absent birth control services more unplanned pregnancies occur. The common sense consequence is that defunding Planned Parenthood makes the issue of abortions worse, not better. The net is that if you oppose abortion or simply regard it as a tragedy it makes good sense to fund Planned Parenthood and other agencies that help women avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Common Sense thinks that real problems, particularly difficult issues, need real common sense solutions. Abortion is a tragedy. Idealogical purity driven social and cultural chauvinism that creates more abortions is plainly immoral in Common Sense's view.
Perhaps if this were the only example Common Sense could excuse it as one of those things where feelings are so strong that common ground simply doesn't exist. Sadly, it's not. Last week saw enforcement of the Clean Air laws and Medicare privatization at issue over similar cultural chauvinism.
The Tea Party won some seats in Congress. It's caucus list 52 members. The House has 435 members. That means that the Tea Party represents about 12% of the house. It's also worth noting that 2 in 3, 66%, of Tea Party candidates LOST their election bid. The Tea Party is clearly a minority. They clearly do not represent a majority of Americans. That said, they are a significant minority. As Common Sense has previously noted, tyranny by the majority is not acceptable in a democracy. The Tea Party voice clearly deserves to be heard. However, having a voice and holding the country hostage isn't acceptable. Tyranny by a minority is every bit as unacceptable, particularly when it aggravates the very issues it purports to address, holds active duty military families hostage and threatens the welfare of all Americans.
America deserves better from Congress and our elected representatives including the Tea Party. That's just a common sense perspective.
The question turns out to be in many ways central to democratic governance. Laws and social policies are in fact a reflection of shared values and perspectives. Some of these are widely accepted. With few exceptions it's wrong to kill each other. Others, such as abortion rights, are rather more controversial. It is in these areas where democracy struggles, where it is difficult to answer the essential question of what is good for the country as a whole and people as individuals.
While these kinds of questions are never been easy in a democracy, of late Common Sense thinks that they have become much more difficult. Indeed, it seems that increasingly idealogical purity has replaced reasoned discourse. This makes reaching a reasonable consensus not just far more difficult but virtually impossible. Sadly, this failure often threatens to aggravate the very issue being addressed, to make the problem worse, not better.
As a case in point consider the recent battle over Planned Parenthood funding. It is a fact that Planned Parenthood provides a variety of services including abortion referrals. It is also a fact that under existing Federal law it is illegal for Planned Parenthood to use Federal funds for abortions. As a consequence the organization has created a wall between it's other Federally funded activities and it's abortion services. Those are indisputable facts. A number of studies have shown rather conclusively that if Planned Parenthood were defunded that among the consequences would be serious deterioration of health among poor women and, this is the part that matters here, an increase in abortions as absent birth control services more unplanned pregnancies occur. The common sense consequence is that defunding Planned Parenthood makes the issue of abortions worse, not better. The net is that if you oppose abortion or simply regard it as a tragedy it makes good sense to fund Planned Parenthood and other agencies that help women avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Common Sense thinks that real problems, particularly difficult issues, need real common sense solutions. Abortion is a tragedy. Idealogical purity driven social and cultural chauvinism that creates more abortions is plainly immoral in Common Sense's view.
Perhaps if this were the only example Common Sense could excuse it as one of those things where feelings are so strong that common ground simply doesn't exist. Sadly, it's not. Last week saw enforcement of the Clean Air laws and Medicare privatization at issue over similar cultural chauvinism.
The Tea Party won some seats in Congress. It's caucus list 52 members. The House has 435 members. That means that the Tea Party represents about 12% of the house. It's also worth noting that 2 in 3, 66%, of Tea Party candidates LOST their election bid. The Tea Party is clearly a minority. They clearly do not represent a majority of Americans. That said, they are a significant minority. As Common Sense has previously noted, tyranny by the majority is not acceptable in a democracy. The Tea Party voice clearly deserves to be heard. However, having a voice and holding the country hostage isn't acceptable. Tyranny by a minority is every bit as unacceptable, particularly when it aggravates the very issues it purports to address, holds active duty military families hostage and threatens the welfare of all Americans.
America deserves better from Congress and our elected representatives including the Tea Party. That's just a common sense perspective.
Does the President really matter? Not so much!
The ongoing nonsense with the 2011 Federal budget has Common Sense wondering: does the President really matter? Common Sense thinks "not so much!" Consider what we all just saw.
Round 1 back in 2010 when Congress was supposed to pass a budget. Remember back then when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. President Obama proposed a budget. It didn't get passed. Among the reasons was that then House Speaker Ms. Pelosi couldn't get the Democratic House to agree. Of course getting the Democrats, or as we have recently learned the Republicans, to agree is rather like herding cats. But, hey, what do you expect when you don't elect adults to Congress. The point is that President Obama didn't really matter. The House Speaker couldn't get her own caucus to agree to a budget!
Spin forward a bit. Now we have a Republican House with a radical right committed to both less spending and extreme right cultural ideology. In this case Mr. Boehner couldn't get his caucus to agree. So we still don't have a budget for the current fiscal year. In this most recent round there was a very private, that is to say the American public who has to live with the result doesn't get to know what transpired, negotiation between House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. While it's true that President Obama had a voice, when it came right down to it the Congress lead by the Speaker and Majority Leader had to act BEFORE President Obama even mattered!
That's Common Sense's point. While the President has considerable power in some areas when it comes to legislation he is virtually impotent! It's Congress that passes legislation! Without a Congress willing to act in the interest of the American people the President doesn't matter very much!
In recent years Presidents used to have rather more influence on Congress. Likewise, Congressional leaders could actually lead. But today things have changed. Today we have undisciplined political parties, particularly on the right. We have representatives that are not especially interested in good governance for the American people but in cultural ideology.
In Common Sense's view, Congress is badly broken and congressional reform long overdue. It's time we focused less on who's President and more, much more, on who we elect to Congress. It's time we stopped voting for cultural and ideological demagogues and started electing common sense adults interested in the good of the American public!
Round 1 back in 2010 when Congress was supposed to pass a budget. Remember back then when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. President Obama proposed a budget. It didn't get passed. Among the reasons was that then House Speaker Ms. Pelosi couldn't get the Democratic House to agree. Of course getting the Democrats, or as we have recently learned the Republicans, to agree is rather like herding cats. But, hey, what do you expect when you don't elect adults to Congress. The point is that President Obama didn't really matter. The House Speaker couldn't get her own caucus to agree to a budget!
Spin forward a bit. Now we have a Republican House with a radical right committed to both less spending and extreme right cultural ideology. In this case Mr. Boehner couldn't get his caucus to agree. So we still don't have a budget for the current fiscal year. In this most recent round there was a very private, that is to say the American public who has to live with the result doesn't get to know what transpired, negotiation between House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. While it's true that President Obama had a voice, when it came right down to it the Congress lead by the Speaker and Majority Leader had to act BEFORE President Obama even mattered!
That's Common Sense's point. While the President has considerable power in some areas when it comes to legislation he is virtually impotent! It's Congress that passes legislation! Without a Congress willing to act in the interest of the American people the President doesn't matter very much!
In recent years Presidents used to have rather more influence on Congress. Likewise, Congressional leaders could actually lead. But today things have changed. Today we have undisciplined political parties, particularly on the right. We have representatives that are not especially interested in good governance for the American people but in cultural ideology.
In Common Sense's view, Congress is badly broken and congressional reform long overdue. It's time we focused less on who's President and more, much more, on who we elect to Congress. It's time we stopped voting for cultural and ideological demagogues and started electing common sense adults interested in the good of the American public!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Should employees that don't do their job be paid?
The most recent nonsense about the 2011 Federal budget has Common Sense wondering, why do we continue to pay congress when they don't do their job? In the real world if you or I don't do our job for 6 months we get fired. But congressmen are apparently immune to the the realities the average citizen has to deal with. They continue to get paid and don't get fired! Why is this?
Common Sense thinks it's time that's changed. Perhaps it time congressional pay is tied to performance. Who knows, perhaps performance based compensation would put a stop to the incessant idealogical purity wars, talking points imitating for reason, and political posturing. Perhaps no pay would cause the worst of the ideologues out of congress and allow some common sense legislators to be elected. Just a common sense POV.
Common Sense thinks it's time that's changed. Perhaps it time congressional pay is tied to performance. Who knows, perhaps performance based compensation would put a stop to the incessant idealogical purity wars, talking points imitating for reason, and political posturing. Perhaps no pay would cause the worst of the ideologues out of congress and allow some common sense legislators to be elected. Just a common sense POV.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The federal budget and taxes
The Federal budget deficit is once again, or still depending on your POV, in the news. It seems time for a bit of common sense.
Lets start with the basics. There are fundamentally only two ways to balance a budget. One is to cut spending. That's really popular now with Republicans in congress. But there is another way. That's to increase income. That's not at all popular in congress since it means increasing taxes.
While much attention is being focused on spending Common Sense thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at taxes. Now Common Sense knows that no one, Common Sense included, likes paying taxes. But that said, everyone enjoys the benefits that taxes provide. So ultimately what really needs to be considered are tax rates.
Here is a link to some interesting historical tax rate information. Here's the story in an easily digested graphic.
However you feel about taxes you should note that tax rates are historically low. If you look not at the marginal rate but the effective rate (the net rate paid on total income) you get a picture like this:
What's clear here is that one cause of budget deficits is that our taxes are historically low! That's not to say, of course, that spending is an issue. It is. Rather it's that one of the reason the deficit is so large is that taxes are low.
It turns out that if you look at the data from almost all reasonably factual sources you'll find the same results.
Common Sense thinks that while we're looking at budgets and spending it makes just good common sense to also look at taxes. Just a POV.
Lets start with the basics. There are fundamentally only two ways to balance a budget. One is to cut spending. That's really popular now with Republicans in congress. But there is another way. That's to increase income. That's not at all popular in congress since it means increasing taxes.
While much attention is being focused on spending Common Sense thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at taxes. Now Common Sense knows that no one, Common Sense included, likes paying taxes. But that said, everyone enjoys the benefits that taxes provide. So ultimately what really needs to be considered are tax rates.
Here is a link to some interesting historical tax rate information. Here's the story in an easily digested graphic.
However you feel about taxes you should note that tax rates are historically low. If you look not at the marginal rate but the effective rate (the net rate paid on total income) you get a picture like this:
What's clear here is that one cause of budget deficits is that our taxes are historically low! That's not to say, of course, that spending is an issue. It is. Rather it's that one of the reason the deficit is so large is that taxes are low.
It turns out that if you look at the data from almost all reasonably factual sources you'll find the same results.
Common Sense thinks that while we're looking at budgets and spending it makes just good common sense to also look at taxes. Just a POV.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Religious bigotry and getting along
The recent events surrounding the burning of a Quran trouble Common Sense on several levels.
It's profoundly troubling that an alleged Christian pastor, Terry Jones, would burn a Quran. Book burning, particularly religious book burning, is intolerable in a country where religious freedoms are guaranteed. Mr Jones act is little more than a pathetic attempt to get his name in the news again. In Common Sense's view it is revolting and pitiable both. Had the resulting violence occurred in the United States he might well be charged with incitement to violence. That he calls himself a Christian must surely offend other Christians.
Of course course the story doesn't end with a bigoted act. Alleged Muslims in Afghanistan decided that the way to deal with the act of a single individual in another country was violent demonstration leading to many deaths and injuries including the murder of U.N. employees. People that had no part whatsoever in the act. People who weren't even from the same country. Innocent people.
Neither Mr. Jones' acts or those of the demonstrators are acceptable in Common Sense's view. Both are simple bigotry. Both are profoundly wrong. Both should be rejected and condemned.
In Common Sense's view such acts only inflame unreasoned bigotry and hatred. Such acts support the worst view of Islam and Christianity. Such acts offend decency. Such acts support the evil stereotypes of Mr. Jones and his like just as they support the evil stereotypes of hateful Mullahs.
Without speaking to my religious beliefs or lack thereof, Common Sense has read the bible, both the old and new testament. Common Sense has also read the Quran, Buddhist texts, Hindu texts, and studied comparative religion. Nowhere in these religious texts did I find support for religious hatred such as Mr. Jones exhibited. Nor did I find support for killing innocents as a remedy for alleged offense as happened in Afganistan. While there are surely hateful people of various religious persuasions that can find some out of context text to justify their hatred and evil acts, such people are in Common Sense's view not religious but rather pitiable and often ignorant fanatics that turn to religion to support their own hatreds.
Common Sense is reminded of one of the most important quotes from the 20th century:
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....They won the battle, but they haven't won the war....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out."
It's worth remembering that Mr. King was speaking after having been savagely beaten by police. His remarks should inspire us all. Common Sense thinks that we are all stuck here while we're alive and that we should all try to work it out and get along.
It's profoundly troubling that an alleged Christian pastor, Terry Jones, would burn a Quran. Book burning, particularly religious book burning, is intolerable in a country where religious freedoms are guaranteed. Mr Jones act is little more than a pathetic attempt to get his name in the news again. In Common Sense's view it is revolting and pitiable both. Had the resulting violence occurred in the United States he might well be charged with incitement to violence. That he calls himself a Christian must surely offend other Christians.
Of course course the story doesn't end with a bigoted act. Alleged Muslims in Afghanistan decided that the way to deal with the act of a single individual in another country was violent demonstration leading to many deaths and injuries including the murder of U.N. employees. People that had no part whatsoever in the act. People who weren't even from the same country. Innocent people.
Neither Mr. Jones' acts or those of the demonstrators are acceptable in Common Sense's view. Both are simple bigotry. Both are profoundly wrong. Both should be rejected and condemned.
In Common Sense's view such acts only inflame unreasoned bigotry and hatred. Such acts support the worst view of Islam and Christianity. Such acts offend decency. Such acts support the evil stereotypes of Mr. Jones and his like just as they support the evil stereotypes of hateful Mullahs.
Without speaking to my religious beliefs or lack thereof, Common Sense has read the bible, both the old and new testament. Common Sense has also read the Quran, Buddhist texts, Hindu texts, and studied comparative religion. Nowhere in these religious texts did I find support for religious hatred such as Mr. Jones exhibited. Nor did I find support for killing innocents as a remedy for alleged offense as happened in Afganistan. While there are surely hateful people of various religious persuasions that can find some out of context text to justify their hatred and evil acts, such people are in Common Sense's view not religious but rather pitiable and often ignorant fanatics that turn to religion to support their own hatreds.
Common Sense is reminded of one of the most important quotes from the 20th century:
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....They won the battle, but they haven't won the war....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out."
It's worth remembering that Mr. King was speaking after having been savagely beaten by police. His remarks should inspire us all. Common Sense thinks that we are all stuck here while we're alive and that we should all try to work it out and get along.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Sources of Federal Income
GE was in the news this mourning. It turns out that GE paid no taxes on 14 billion in corporate earnings in their last fiscal year! For most Americans, certainly for the very many that are struggling to make ends meet and looking painfully at their tax bill, this news hasn't gone down well at all. Here's some common sense.
Common Sense first notes that what GE did to eliminate their Federal Tax liability is entirely legal and above board. So if you think that it's not right that $14 billion in corporate earnings shouldn't be taxed at 0% your complaint shouldn't be with GE. After all, they are just following the tax code. You know, the tax laws passed by our elected congress whose campaigns are financed by now unlimited corporate campaign contributions (at least according to the Supreme Court).
So Common Sense thought it might be interesting to look at sources of Federal income and why corporations are taxed as they are.
In the United States the way we tax corporations, individuals including wealthy individuals has varied considerably over time. Here's a chart that's informative and a link to the data.
In the late 1930s corporate and individual taxes were about equal and most Federal income came from other sources. Starting in the mid 1940s taxes from individuals started to climb as a percent of federal spending and taxes from corporations started to fall. This trend has continued through today and is expected to continue into the future. This chart focuses on this trend.
Clearly in the mid 1940s corporate tax revenue as a percent of Federal revenue began a more or less steady decline and individual tax revenue rose above 40% where it has stayed. This change reflects changes in tax laws particularly the way we tax corporations.
The obvious common sense question is are corporations being taxed fairly or has Congress created a tax code that unfairly benefits corporations? How should corporations be taxed?
These are questions for another day. What Common Sense has shown is that over the last 70 years or so the Federal tax burden has been shifted dramatically onto individuals.
Common Sense first notes that what GE did to eliminate their Federal Tax liability is entirely legal and above board. So if you think that it's not right that $14 billion in corporate earnings shouldn't be taxed at 0% your complaint shouldn't be with GE. After all, they are just following the tax code. You know, the tax laws passed by our elected congress whose campaigns are financed by now unlimited corporate campaign contributions (at least according to the Supreme Court).
So Common Sense thought it might be interesting to look at sources of Federal income and why corporations are taxed as they are.
In the United States the way we tax corporations, individuals including wealthy individuals has varied considerably over time. Here's a chart that's informative and a link to the data.
The obvious common sense question is are corporations being taxed fairly or has Congress created a tax code that unfairly benefits corporations? How should corporations be taxed?
These are questions for another day. What Common Sense has shown is that over the last 70 years or so the Federal tax burden has been shifted dramatically onto individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)