Economic Stimulus and the Conservative Lie

 

House Republicans, citing economic conservatism, failed to vote in support of the economic stimulus plan advocated by President Obama and House Democrats. Many of these Republicans proclaimed Rush Limbaugh as “keeper of the faith” of economic conservatism. Rush Limbaugh is both wrong and lying. Rush claims that corporate tax breaks are the only way to open up employment and recover the economy. Rush claims that American companies are taxed at the highest level in the industrialized world. He also claims that the economy will recover itself if left alone.

 

In all of these claims, Rush Limbaugh is, as usual, completely ignorant of history and absolutely wrong about the workings of economics. It is certain that Rush failed Econ101 just as he failed every other of his college courses. He is a shock jock, not an economist. Why Republican Congressmen usually in possession of at least one college degree would ever listen to Rush Limbaugh’s uneducated verbal confusion escapes me. Two of the greatest periods of American economic expansion in the past century resulted after American corporate marginal tax rates were raised to eighty and ninety-four percent. Higher corporate tax rates equal economic expansion- lower rates equal retraction and recession. Rush Limbaugh claims that American companies are taxed at the highest rate (35%) in the industrialized world; this is an outright lie. The lie exists in comparing the taxation of other countries’ business after realization of subsidies and incentives with American corporate taxes before subsidies and incentives. Fact is, 68% of American businesses with five thousand or more employees effectively pay no taxes, recouping their tax burden in subsidies and incentives at the local, state, and national level. Of those who pay no taxes, many actually wind up in the black, receiving more value in incentives than they pay in taxes. But Rush and the neo-cons believe that only by reducing taxes on those businesses that already pay next to, if not in fact, nothing, will America’s economy be able to recover.  And, yet, many of these businesses, for whose legislative benefit Rush so loudly expounds in the name of “free” markets, are the ones who drove our economy into its current state. The economy has never recovered on its own; there has always been an external governmental stimulus involved in economic recovery. Those stimuli may have been in the form of a lowered federal lending rate, or a tax cut, or currency market buy-back, but economic recovery has always been presaged by government interference.

 

Rush Limbaugh has now famously said that he hopes President Obama fails. Why? Because Rush wants to prove that the Progressive/Liberal/Democratic economic model does not work. He claims that it has been proven time and time again that Liberalism fails. But, of course in Rushworld even the recent Republican policy-fueled economic meltdown is the fault of those Liberals. Bill Clinton is faulted for passing legislation which provided for market de-regulation during his Presidency. Rush, of course, ignores that those deregulating measures that the Republicans so love and that drove the economy into this wall of reality, were pushed by Republicans during Republican control of Congress after 1994. Accepting those dangerous measures was the only way for Bill Clinton to accomplish anything against a Congress filled with Conservative ideologues. And Rush of course, as is the current Republican fashion, prefers to label everything Bush’s fault. The reality is that the Republican conservative movement was energized to new heights of fiscal, as well as legal, constitutional, ethical, and moral recklessness with their total control of government achieved in 2001. According to Rush and those surviving neo-con legislators, it is all the fault of the President, or the President who preceded him; history will tell us it is the fault of conservative economic policy, philosophy, and values. Rush wants Obama to fail because he wants liberalism to fail, but he is still, after all these years, blind to the fact that Conservatism has already fallen.

 

Rush Limbaugh and the neo-con Congressional coterie want Americans to believe that only they have the true answers. They claim that the liberal Democrats want to push bigger government and deficits upon America. When it is pointed out that we have received both of these through the efforts of the late Bush administration and formerly Republican-controlled Congress, they claim that as an unfortunate necessity of the wars “forced” upon us by 9/11, and not truly representative of Conservative economic policy. If “Conservatives” were in control, then whose policy was on display? Not only did the Conservatives give us bigger government, they gave us less effective government. Regulatory bodies designed to protect American business and consumers, the environment, our resources, and the rule of law were usurped by Conservatives to further a private wealth-building spree of avarice at the expense of the people and the government. Yes, Rush and the neo-cons do have the only true answers; the answers for the question of how to rob a country and its people blind while destroying not just domestic but also world economies.

 

As they tanked our economy and drove us into chaos, Wall Street firms and executives, in the perfect representation of Republican robber-baron economic policy, doled out billions of dollars to themselves in unearned bonuses. This is the pinnacle of Republican neo-con economic theory, also known as supply-side or trickle-down; those in charge of the private money supply keep everything for themselves at the cost of those below. We have all been woefully reminded of the deficiency of conservative economic values during the first round of financial bailouts. Those begging and receiving money from the fed first spent their new-pressed money on lavish parties for themselves to celebrate their genius at having bankrupted their companies and then convincing the government to give them more money to waste. Rush Limbaugh and his Neo-con friends hope that Liberalism fails simply because, having taken active part in the failure of Conservatism, they don’t want to see anyone else succeed, and in true Conservative fashion, they don’t care who gets hurt, so long as it isn’t them.

 

 

In the US, major corporations are generally defined as those with five thousand or more employees, and wealthy is typically applied to those individuals earning $250,000 or more per year.

 

During the recent federal elections, it was revealed that the Palin family had earned over $300,000 in 1997, but that they paid only a 10% rate on a declared $116,000. The average middle class couple would find themselves facing charges and prison if they cut two-thirds off their declared income and then paid as if they were in the lowest tax bracket. This is one of the many wonders of supply-side economics.

 

Corporate marginal tax rates for the world show that while the claim of America having the highest rate in the industrialized world, it isn’t so by very much. The corporate tax rates for most of the industrialized world run between 25 and 34%, so the claim doesn’t reveal that much disparity. Also the claim ignores Saudi Arabia, part of the industrialized world, even if not considered developed, which has a corporate tax rate of 45%.

 

Supply-side economics, a major tenet of the conservative/Republican economic philosophy and the policy most advocated by Rush Limbaugh and the Neo-cons, is practiced by government giving out-sized tax concessions and subsidies to large corporations in the hope that these same corporations will use the money to expand the economic base by putting more people to work. This has not been the case for more than 30 years. In every case, one sees that while major US corporations have increased workers’ productivity, they have also trended towards reductions in the American workforce. Initially, this trend was generally expressed in layoffs and restructurings based upon the advance of production technology, but now it is seen in the increasing use of foreign-based operations and production, taking advantage not only of higher per capita productivity but also of lower foreign wage and legal requirements. These major US corporations still received tax benefits based on the number of people employed even though those people were neither employed nor taxed in the US.

 

These same major US corporations and the financial elite who control them enjoy an incredible economic advantage due to the largesse of conservative economic philosophy. Unlike any other industrialized country, 98% of the money in the US pays only 60% of the taxes, while 40% of the burden is laid upon 2%of the money. Also unlike other industrialized countries, that 98% of the money is held by only 5% of the population. So, in the US 95% of the population controls only 2% of the wealth but suffers 40% of the taxation. This means that for wealthy individuals and corporations, they effectively pay taxes on $32.66 what the average middle class earner pays on one dollar, which generally works out to be about 40 cents. It would be hard to find a reasonable person who could find much equality or freedom expressed in these figures.

 

These policies and philosophies have proven their failure in the bankrupting of an American and world economy driven by only the value of greed. These conservative economic policies promote not merit, as claimed, but raw self-interest, which is rarely enlightened enough to temper the propensity to hoarding. A financial stimulus is needed to repair the damage done by the failed economic philosophy of Conservatism. The stimulus should focus not so much on saving the greed mongers who wrecked the system as the basic wage earner who didn’t deserve the ruin wreaked by those in charge. It is time for the American economic system to be overhauled so as to more closely align itself with a new value- responsibility.

Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have to confess, I have never really given the significance of Martin Luther King, Jr’s life much serious thought. He was one of those American heroes who contributed much to American social and political thought; but I usually relegated him to the realm of specific cause rather than general benefit in terms of his impact on society. Perhaps this has been due to the quiet, latent racism that subconsciously exists in the darker, less examined corridors of most people’s minds. Upon reflection, I realize that I owe him, and his works for all mankind, tribute.

 

In my youth, like many whites of my generation, I focused on the man and his inter-personal, private, sexual morality rather than upon the much more important and glorious good found in his social morality. As I did with Bill Clinton during his Presidency, I saw the affairs and backroom deals rather than the glorious possibilities of his vision; in short, I saw and focused on what J. Edgar Hoover wanted white America to see. And I saw this even though I was not even a year old at the time of Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination. In other words, the smear of Martin Luther King, Jr. lived on in the white community long after his death. I even recall personal opposition, though neither strong nor deliberately racist, to MLK having a holiday in his honor. My reasons were simple; I perceived, as did many whites, that MLK’s accomplishments had nothing to do with me. In all of this, as in many of my youthful beliefs, I was naïve, and I was wrong.

 

I failed to perceive and understand what many white Americans then and now failed and continue to fail to perceive and understand. Growing up and living in white-dominated communities makes racism nearly invisible to those of us who don’t have it in our hearts. We don’t practice it and those who know this don’t let it show in our presence, usually. At the same time, cultural influences creep into the mentality of those not openly exposed to active racism. So, we perceive that there is no problem, because we don’t see that to which we are not exposed. It is only in the last fifteen or so years that I have come to the realization of how creeping racism had distorted my thoughts on the issue. A good portion of the realization came from the epiphany I experienced on learning that I was 1/8^th Saponi. When I claim that heritage, the most frequent response is something along the lines of, yeah, right. If I was 1/8^th black, I would have had that fact thrust in my face all of my life, and my grandfather would not have been able to deny, as he did, the ethnicity of his mother. My wife is ¼ Asian, but, as with me, that doesn’t forcefully present itself in her appearance.

 

The lessons from all of this for me are clear. No matter what definitions we seek to apply, we cannot claim Martin Luther King, Jr. as a black hero or even an American hero. While Dr. King is most definitely a hero of Black America, his message of peace, tolerance and understanding transcends the color of his skin and the ethnicity of his parentage. In fact, the power and relevance of his message even transcends the country of his birth; Dr. King is not only a hero for those whose skin is of a different cast, he is not only a hero for those living in the country most identified with freedom, Dr. King is a hero for the entire world.

 

On this day, particularly this year, we should all examine the inner workings of our hearts and attempt peaceful change and progress for the betterment of the human community. I believe that this is, ultimately, the change in man that Martin Luther King, Jr. sought 

Angie Tedder Should Check Her Facts

Mayor not behind

churches rally

To the Editor:

There have been at least two letters written to the paper regarding alcohol sales on Sunday. Both letters accused the mayor of "orchestrating" churches to attend the Georgetown City Council meeting in opposition of Sunday alcohol sales. Iwould like to set the record straight.

It was I who telephoned churches in Georgetown. It was I who contacted pastors and asked them or a representative to attend the council meeting in opposition to Sunday alcohol sales. It was I who "dared the council members to be different" from other counties. I do not believe that counties which allow Sunday alcohol sales have a better economy than Georgetown. I do believe that Sunday is set apart as a special day from any other day of the week. Lexington is not doing any better with its economy since allowing such sales on Sunday. Should the new council bring this topic up once again, then I will again contact churches and ask them to exercise their right to free speech against the sale of alcohol on Sunday. Almost every case I have involving domestic violence involves the use of alcohol. Therefore, it is also a health issue.

Again, this letter is to set the record straight, it was not the mayor who orchestrated anything ... it came from this citizen ...me.

Angie Tedder,

Georgetown

From Georgetown News-Graphic, 16 January 2009

 

What Angie Tedder Believes

I read with much amusement Angie Tedder’s letter to the editor regarding Sunday alcohol sales and what she believes. The problem is that she speaks only to what she believes and not to what she thinks or knows. She believes that counties that have Sunday alcohol sales are economically better off than Georgetown and that she does not believe that Lexington is doing better than Georgetown since Lexington has Sunday alcohol sales. Sorry, but once again, a 30 minute Google search would have given Angie a comparison of facts- you know, those troubling things? Georgetown’s deficit to population ratio is $200/person. Lexington’s is below $100/person. Georgetown’s unemployment rate is 5.7%. Lexington’s is 5.1%. Seems that, on these two major economic indicators alone, Angie Tedder is wrong.

As are the rest of her beliefs on this issue. Angie Tedder may believe that Sunday is special, and, to her, it may well be; this is a perceptual fact. The same idea of perceptual facts can apply to Judaic and Seventh Day Adventist calls for Saturday Sabbaths. A fact of perception is not empirical, and it is therefore unprovable; in short, such a fact is little more than an unfounded and un-or-misinformed opinion based, usually, upon traditional observances. If any person feels that any particular day is more special than any of the others we have been given, then allow that person to observe their special day in the way that they feel appropriate without the interference of those pushing a fascist, counter-productive agenda.

She claims that in almost every case of domestic abuse that she has seen, alcohol was involved. I can likewise say that in almost every case of marriage and pregnancy I have seen, as well as a lot of just plain sex, alcohol was involved. Of the seven cases of domestic abuse that I have personally known, five were among tee-totallers; perhaps Angie could bother to compile some convincing statistics instead of citing anecdotes? Then again, the studies to which her Sunday alcohol sales opposing friends referred in the Council meeting on December 1st have already been shown to indicate that the domestic abuse/alcohol relationship is not impacted by liquor by the drink sales on Sunday, or any other day.

As for Angie Tedder’s rather prideful claim to sponsorship of the Sunday alcohol sales opposition: this writer has doubts, as do many others, as to Ms. Tedder’s possession of sufficient intellectual acumen to have orchestrated the event presented on December 1^st in front of City Council.

 

The preceding was a letter to the editor of Georgetown’s local paper followed by the reply which I also sent to the editor. I haven’t heard back on my response; perhaps because it might be construed as insulting. Regardless, I thought that I still needed to publish this, so that others might know the mentality of those standing in opposition to Sunday by the drink alcohol sales in Georgetown, KY.

Israel: Enough is Enough!

I fully supported Israel’s recent efforts to eliminate the threat to civilian Israeli populations from Hamas-launched rockets. The Israeli blockade of Gaza which Hamas claims as its rationale for the firing of rockets on Israel was actually predicated by the rocket fire which Hamas claims to be retaliatory. Hamas fired first, and the Israelis long endured that unlawful firing with restraint. Israel enacted only what could best be described as trade and economic sanctions against Gaza in an effort to peacefully force the Palestinian people of Gaza to make their Hamas leadership cease its illegal violent aggression against Israel. While the Hamas rockets were rarely effective, they were still the moral equivalent of one’s neighbor firing blindfolded into one’s backyard. The actual risk is relatively small, but the threat is great. Israel’s overall concept and stated goals are laudable, but the results have now become unacceptable.

 

 The Israelis’ stated intention was to eliminate the threat of Hamas-controlled rockets from Gaza; to stop the launches and disarm Hamas. Although the civilian casualties were relatively high, that is due more to the planning of Hamas than the planning of Israel. Hamas has, as it always has, employed its civilians as shields for its illegal military/terrorist actions. In the opening two weeks of the current conflict, most collateral damage could be rightfully ascribed to Hamas for its deliberate positioning of civilians in harm’s way. The reasoning is simple; civilian casualties get the attention of the press and the world and spark calls for cessation of hostilities. That cessation, as it has in the past and as Israel has rightfully argued, would have been unilateral; Israel would have stopped while Hamas would keep firing and use the Israeli-only ceasefire to re-arm and consolidate.

 

This has been the thinking of the Israelis, and they are fundamentally correct. Even the fractures in Hamas leadership between those on the ground in Gaza and those safely in Syria shows the tension. The leaders in exile in Syria are safe from both the physical and political fallout that the confrontation with Israel has provoked, while those indigenous to Gaza have come to see that continued hostility is productive for neither them nor the civilians they “represent”. In driving and revealing this wedge in Hamas leadership, the Israelis have proven astute. The hostilities initiated by Hamas will not end the embargo/blockade, and they have certainly not in any sense helped the people of Gaza.

 

But Israel has today overshot the goal and fired upon the UN Headquarters in Gaza, destroying the building and tons of humanitarian aid supplies sorely needed by a severely stressed Gaza population. I have reserved judgment on certain “atrocities” committed by the Israelis. Being a former American Infantryman, I know all too well how confusing things can get “on the ground”. In the chaos and confusion of battle, anything not immediately recognized as friendly is mentally interpreted as unfriendly. The use of white phosphorous adjacent to civilian structures can be accidental or unintentional; but the plethora of reports of such use by the Israelis indicates something more than accidental and definitely points in the direction of deliberateness.

 

The basic policy of saturation, “pacification”, containment, and subsequent operational expansion is sound, but it seems that the Israelis are taking “pacification” too far. The reports are beginning to sound closer to genocide. I am not making that accusation; I am simply saying that developments in Gaza are beginning to look as though they are headed in that direction. I have neither heard nor read any word that the Israelis are making any effort to evacuate non-combatant Palestinians in Gaza to the their rear into secure areas, and that makes me wonder as to what is happening with those actual civilians who find themselves behind the Israeli “lines”.

 

So, Israel, enough is enough; take a breather, reassess the situation, and make every effort to be certain of your targets. I would prefer to have seen peaceful resolution, but I also know that when one’s opponents are bent on violence and have the means to deliver that, it becomes impractical, if not impossible to negotiate. Israel must remember that, when this is over, they will still have to live with the Palestinians of Gaza.

Alcohol Sales Argument Presented to Georgetown City Council on 12 January 2009

With the International Year of the Horse quickly approaching, Georgetown’s continuing ban on Sunday alcohol sales will have a tremendous deleterious impact on the potential economic windfall. The organic opportunity to maximize the profitability and benefit from this event already exists, but there are factors currently extant that will cause Georgetown to fail, allowing Lexington to reap the benefits and revenues to which Georgetown refuses to avail itself. One of the largest single obstacles to maximum opportunity is the current ban on Sunday alcohol sales.

 

The opponents of Sunday sales brought no legitimate evidence to the harm caused by Sunday sales because they couldn’t find any. Every horror they cited was representative of package, not by the drink, sales and in-home drinking. No responsible establishment is going to serve children, drunks, or the pregnant. All reliable scientific studies available on by the drink sales on Sunday indicate two consequences: increased local revenues with no corresponding increase in alcohol-related tragedy.

 

Since the introduction of liquor by the drink, open source DUI records indicate a continuing reduction in the number of alcohol-related traffic incidents in Georgetown and Scott County as a whole; so much for the public safety argument.

 

12,000 dollars per annum doesn’t sound like much money, but that figure is probably only one-tenth of the gains to be realized from increased Sunday commerce attracted by Sunday alcohol sales. Why would the council and mayor not help the businesses and members of the community at large rather than harming them in efforts to address the budget? Also, the $12,000 figure leaves out the $13,200 in additional licensing fees that would be reaped from just the 12 current restaurants.

 

As Brad Penn pointed out in his guest column in the News-Graphic, Restaurants currently open on Sunday would see about a 45% increase in revenue for Sunday, while the locally owned ones which would actually be open on Sunday would have an extra day’s full business. Tommy Chew of Charcoals estimated before council that opening on Sunday with permitted by-the-drink sales would show about an additional $1500 per week for his business.

 

Again citing Brad Penn’s column, each dollar increase in spending at restaurants enabled by Sunday alcohol sales would result in an additional $1.05 spent in the local community, as opposed to going elsewhere. So, the increased local dining results in more than a doubling of local spending, which, in turn, means more revenue.

 

Charcoals is one of the smaller restaurants in Georgetown, and its owner estimated $1500 in revenue if Sunday sales were permitted. That means city-wide, no less than 18,000 additional dollars would be generated in restaurant sales alone. Adding in Mr. Penn’s figures, that means an additional community spending on Sundays of $36,900 per week.

 

Looking at alcohol sales alone, 40% of 18,000 is 7,200, of which the city’s 6% take is $432, multiplied by 52 is $22,464 in additional annual revenue from alcohol sales alone. That is without regard to the revenues to be gained both from increased local dining and increased local shopping. These are standardized figures that do not reflect “surges” from special events.

 

 

 

That is pretty much all that I could cover in the time allotted. Because Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames is opposed to Sunday alcohol sales for personal religious reasons, she has refused thus far to give those favoring Sunday sales more than three minutes to speak. Initially, during the “first reading” debate on 1 December 2008, she allowed those speaking against Sunday sales as much as fifteen minutes each while giving those in favor only one minute. I have, by going to three consecutive council meetings, been able to speak for a total now of ten minutes. However, I have managed to effectively refute virtually everything that those opposed brought to the argument. That refutation is found in the above and in my earlier blog “Georgetown City Council Deceived”. 

Illinois: Roland Burris, No Hot Potato

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has appointed long time Illinois politician Roland Burris as a replacement for President-elect Barack Obama’s seat in the US Senate. This appointment comes in the face of criminal indictment and probable impeachment for the Illinois governor, who allegedly attempted to trade Mr. Obama’s vacated seat for cash and/or favors. Democrats from the Illinois state house to Washington have instructed Blagojevich to not make any appointment, but the governor has refused to heed the call and warning. In appointing Roland Burris, Rod Blagojevich has made what, at first blush, appears to be the appointment of a an acceptable, reasonable, seasoned politician to take over representation of the State of Illinois in the United States Senate; this is not the case.

 

In 1992, against the advice of his own staff, which possessed more intimate knowledge of the case and its problems than did Mr. Burris, Roland Burris authorized the re-prosecution of Rolando Cruz, and was actively seeking the death penalty. By that time, Rolando Cruz was known to have been the innocent victim of a police frame job. In 1985, Rolando Cruz, in a highly controversial case, was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10 year old Jeanine Nicario. The original conviction was secured through alleged “confessions” which were subsequently discredited as police fabrications with no corroboration. Subsequent convictions were obtained with the assistance of false witnesses, including one who was a barmaid girlfriend of one of the investigators and others who recanted in later testimony, and a return to the originally discredited “confessions”. In 1995, DNA evidence, which had been available and sufficient for analysis for many years, exonerated Cruz, but the DuPage County State’s Attorney and Illinois Attorney General Burris continued to claim Cruz’s guilt. No one ever offered an apology for the obvious railroading of the defendant. Ultimately, the prosecution of Rolando Cruz led to the investigation and prosecution of police and prosecutor’s office personnel for evidence and witness tampering, as well as perjury and other crimes.

 

Mr. Burris' support for the continued prosecution of an obviously innocent man is far worse than showing leniency to one obviously guilty. Roland Burris' actions in this case alone show him to be more interested in political preservation than in sound judgment and moral, ethical, and legal decency.

 

Roland Burris has made a career as the also-ran politician of the Chicago/Illinois system. His lack of judgment in the Cruz case along with his general lack of campaign performance do not qualify him for the Senate seat being vacated by Mr. Obama. Mr. Burris’s actual campaign to ascend to Obama’s Senate seat only began in earnest after the indictment of Rod Blagojevich. This may be because Mr. Burris did not have the resources to entice Blagojevich’s notice. It makes the case for one lackluster in-trouble politician offering a helping hand to another so that both might mitigate the apparent unsuitability for their offices. There have been no real scandals surrounding Mr. Burris, but that seems to be more a lack of opportunity than of desire.

 

Some have suggested that it would be good for the GOP to push for the seating of Roland Burris in the US Senate; this suggestion represents a problem in itself. If there is an idea among conservatives that seating Burris will help the GOP overall, then perhaps the Burris nomination is more fraught with peril for the Democrats than currently believed. I believe that Mr. Burris should be dropped like the moldy potato he is; he isn’t hot, he isn’t fresh, and he just might be poison. There are plenty of other candidates available, and Mr. Blagojevich should not, as a matter of good sense and good ethics, be involving himself in appointments for which he has been accused of crimes.