What Is a Fair Tax?/Politicians vs Statesmen

The discussions rage over what are fair taxes. And if you have read articles in this blog or elsewhere what tax rates are shown historically you know that they have changed drastically over the years. More specifically that tax rates have radically changed in favor of the rich since the Reagan years. But that is history.

What I think is more significant is how the change in personal income has changed in relation to GDP over the years. That gap has widened significantly over the last 35 years and has created the huge gap between the rich and the middle classes and the poor. The country has grown economically but most of the populace has not grown at the same rate, they have even gone backwards and that is the result of a bad tax code.

It is true that we need to provide incentives for businesses to thrive and grow but not at the expense of those who work for them. And, there are outside causes that beleaguer the small businesses of today. The foremost of those is clearly the out of control medical practices of this country which have grown completely out of proportion with the rest of the economy and has placed an enormous burden upon small business.

And then there is the incredible greed of large corporations and the mammoth banks which have contributed significantly to the difference between income of the rich and the middle and lower classes. It is also this group that through their funding of candidates that support their vested interests that we have the disparity of levels that we have today. They have literally bought the government turning into an oligarchy of the rich.

The tax code obviously needs to be simplified so that these disparities disappear. Each year it should be reviewed to see how income levels of all members of society get a fair share of the national income.

This directs me to the nature of statesmen versus politicians. Admittedly this is an artificial distinction I make, but it makes a point. Politicians, in my view, have come to depict those folk who run for office to for power and authority and cater to whatever vested interests will get them elected. They are not public servants but the lackeys of those who back them. Statesmen, as I define them, are those people who have a political point of view and understand the issues of the day and seek to good of all their constituents; they are truly public servants, who give of their time and talent to work for the good the citizenry. [Read J.F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage to see this concept full fleshed out.]

When we look at the political debates currently going on, they do not bring out the statesmanship of those candidates, but their political savvy. What can I say as a candidate, whether I believe it or not, will be what will garner me the most votes.

In my opinion President Obama is a statesman, who keeps his eye on the ball. But I fear for him as he seeks to accomplish his goals while maintaining electability.

On the Republican side, I think Romney is a good man and the best potential leader, but I also believe he sells himself short as he seeks to cater to the radical fringe groups of the Republican Party. George Will is right when he says “the Tea Party is the passionate part of the Republican party”, but that doesn’t mean they are not radical whackos who want to go back to a time that never was. Moderates, those folk who made the government work in the past, have disappeared from the scene. So, Romney does not want to be seen as a moderate, which is what I believe is what he is. Gingrich claims to be a good ol Reagan Conservative, which is the group that messed up the economy and government.

Note, I have said Republicans here, rather than conservatives, as those folk and their ideals disappeared when Reagan came into office.

Liberal and Conservative statesmen in our political history did work for fair taxes. Democratic and Republican politicians do not. They just bend where the political winds blow and the nation suffers.

Do You Know Carl Forti?

Perhaps you know Carol Rove better, now think of Carol Rove on steroids. Forti is a money guy for the Republicans, more specifically a super-PAC dude, more specifically yet, a worker bee for the ultra rich. Or, he’s an expert on how to raise money to fight your opponent by skirting elections laws. Forti ran a 82 million independent campaign in 2006, the largest at that time. He founded, get this, the Black Rock Group, what a moniker for this group. Together with other groups with which he is linked they spent $39 million during the midterm election period.

As for the future they plan to spend $240 million in the 2012 races to bash Obama and other Democrats; that’s a lot of scratch. Currently, his has given Mitt Romney $12 million during the first half of last year. They work to counter union groups and the MoveOn.org (another organization you should be aware of; and one I support.)

Forti’s forte is getting around election campaign rules, and he is very effective at it. Ah just don’t you love loophole pundits?

I’m getting my information on this from Any Kroll of Mother Jones. Forti, when contacted by Kroll said, “I’ve always tried to stay behind the scenes and I intend to keep it that way.”

We should know about him and others like the Koch brothers who work behind the scenes to mold the country to a minorities (the rich) way of thinking. MoveOn.org is much more up front.

Just so you know.

Who Says Economists Have No Sense of Humor

Good luck figuring out the following graphs.

Pee in a Cup

Most folk have heard of proposed legislation to have welfare recipients be drug tested before they are allowed to have welfare payments. It was even enacted down here in Florida before the courts threw it out as blatantly unconstitutional.

However, maybe it has merits. State Democratic representative Scott Holcomb from Georgia presented legislation that would require local congressmen the same test. A spokesman for Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) said he would be willing to do so, but when someone from the Daily Show gave him a pee cup he refused to use it. Politicians have continued to support such inane legislation to folk they don’t trust.

Okay, let’s pass a constitutional amendment that all politicians should have to pee in a cup on a daily basis in order to continue to lead us. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. With all the whacky ideas being put forth by politicians it does make one wonder if they all are on something. I suspect inertia drugs as they really quit doing things. Of course, if passed it is likely a special interest lobbyist group will likely get a contract that each cup cost $1,000 and the testing thousands more.

Or perhaps that will be a new requirement for voting. Come to the polls and pee in a cup in order to vote. Gosh, the possibilities seem limitless. Maybe that is what the friend meant when he said to Benjamin in The Graduate “Plastics Benjamin, plastics!”

To Apologize or Not to Apologize

I was struck by the current Mitt Romney political ad; you’ve probably heard it. At the end of the ad after he talks about his wonderfulness, he says, “I will never apologize for the United States of America.” It strung an odd note in my head so I listened several times to make sure that is what he said.

Now I think I know what he is implying, it might be used as a future point to combat President Obama apologies he has made to Japan and Muslims at times. Some view this is a sign of weakness. For me, it is a sign of civility.

What if you went up to a person who you, or members of your family had obviously wronged at some point or another and said, “I will never apologize to you for anything ever!” If your nose gets in the way of my fist, it’s your fault and I won’t apologize. If I cut into line ahead of you or sneak into a parking space ahead of you, tough cookies; I won’t apologize. If I walk into your home uninvited and wreck the place it’s your fault for not have good enough security. If I can screw you in a business deal it’s your problems because you’re stupid and should have known better.

There is something decidedly wrong with that type of egotistical callous thinking. A yet in politics some see it as a strength. I don’t. I would hope that others would not as well. It’s just bad manners, but then that seems to be the norm in political discourse. We hate it, but we also applaud it.

Next, there is Newt Gingrich proudly pronouncing he is a “Reagan Conservative.” What I hear in that statement is I am proud of the politics and economic processes that have gotten us into the mess we are now it. So, let’s continue those processes to solve the problem. Lunacy.

I really hate writing these negative statements but it is hard not to. What is clear to me whether it is on a personal level or a family or a national level, if you make a mistake or if you have done harm to others, the right thing to do is to apologize for it. Otherwise you’re just a jerk.

Belief and Reason

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein

“There is too much thinking in modern Christianity.” [Line from a Reformed Church magazine I read years ago.]

Sometimes it seems to me that people check their brains at the door when it comes to religion, in particular the so-called controversy between science and religion. What conflict? There is absolutely no reason for it. One researcher believes it goes back to the reformation when one of the rallying cries against Roman Catholicism was “sola scripture”, meaning by scripture alone. It was an attack against the hierarchical authority of the church versus the primacy of scripture in religious thinking. But that did not make them literalists or fundamentalists.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about Christianity is its sense, its rationality, even when it seems a bit convoluted. Perhaps I was born a theologian, perhaps we all are, but as homo sapiens, we are thinkers, we have the ability to reason and that ability gave us our unique ecological niche on this planet. Thinking is a good thing. Thus the idea that you can trap God in the Bible to me seems irrational. It is bibliolatry, turning scripture into an idol rather than a witness to God’s activity in this world as seen by people.

Let me make my own position clear at this point. I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. By that I mean that I believe the Spirit of God inspired the writers to write what they did, but that does not imply God dictated the writing. I also believe that inspiration is found in other religious writings, and in modern writing. As a preacher, it was what I relied upon to create sermons for congregations.

Now let’s see how the populace views scripture. The following graphs come from a 2007 Gallup poll. I have read higher numbers for literalists, but these were the ones I could validate the best.

----

-------

--------

----

                        

----                           -----                       ------

Religions, it seems to me should revolve around searches for truth. Jesus claimed to be the truth, the life and the way. Jesus also certainly took on the literalists of his day; the strict interpreters of the law which they used as a club over others; not unlike some fundamentalists today. But Jesus was constantly telling stories as means of helping people discover truths in these stories for themselves. Rarely did he explain his stories (parables), but left it up to his listeners to discover those truths for themselves. It is a great educational process. It is this openness and trust in people’s intelligence that has made my recent reading of Einstein’s book (see previous article) so appealing.

Another study I looked at recently made the connection between “constitutional originality” and literalism. By constitutional originality I believe the authors meant strict constructionists of the constitution as most conservatives are. I don’t put a lot of stock in this theory but on a grass roots level I understand the connection among the populace. Ah, here comes the political part.

I am amazed at the politics I hear in relation to the Iowa caucus and around the country. There appears to be a similar phenomenon of people checking their brains at the door when it comes to politics. The founding fathers were thinkers, men of reason, thought and reflection. They disagreed with each other, they had their share of cultural blinders, and were often elitist, but they reasoned together to come up with a government which would allow people to live freely and in community. If you listen to modern political debate, reason seems to be limited and emotional sound bites replace them. Truth does not seem to be sought rather falsehoods and misrepresentations of opponents seem to be the norm.

Ah, it probably happened at the country’s beginning as well, but certainly not to this extent; well there was a duel or two, which was not terribly rational.

The media is also more salacious rather than helpful in describing our candidates. It is very hard to be a well educated reasonable voter today given our methods and the behind the scenes maneuvering of special interests. It is how we got to become an oligarchy, government by the few (the rich) instead of a democracy.

God has given us brains to reason and think and to find truth. God has given us the responsibility to care for the planet and for each other. These are the gifts God has given us. I don’t care where you are politically but I do care that you use your God given gifts in making political choices.

The Morality of Expediency

My book of fascination of the moment is Out of My Later Years by Albert Einstein. Prior to this all I really knew about Einstein was E=MC² and he had strange hair and seemed like pretty nice guy that had flunked a math course in school while being a mathematical genius. I have found a whole new fascinating person now that I am reading his book.

His views on religion, science and morality are absolutely fascinating. The essence of his belief it seems to me to center around tolerance. He sees no conflict between science and religion, to which I most hardily agree. He views religion in a developmental sense in that primitive people created anthropomorphic gods with superhuman powers that could help them deal with life; lot’s of gods. This finally developed into monotheism where God is not anthropomorphic but an entity unto itself which leads us to concerns beyond self. I like his thinking; however, simply I have described it here.

His views on tolerance between religions and philosophies and science are wonderful. But as human beings we so often lose sight of the purpose and meaning of those disciplines and create conflicts in their names and thus lose the truth that they all have to give us.

In terms of morality Einstein sees religions enlarging our vision to the welfare to more than just ourselves; community concerns outweighing selfish issues. It is the essence of civilization.

For some time now I have maintaining that the dominant morality of today is the morality of expediency, meaning we are increasingly bottom line thinkers. We act in accordance to what we see as best for ourselves and ours. The higher levels or morality that Einstein sees are lessening. Thus when the bankers who bet against those they lent money to in order to buy houses that they would not be able to make their mortgage payments were practicing this morality of expediency. The bailout of these banks then as being too large to fail is another case of the morality of expediency. It is why business schools now find they have to teach their MBAs and the like the ethics of business because they don’t know them. Their parents, their schools, the religions have failed to pass along basic moral concepts to the present generation.

People may listen and even give verbal affirmation to the teachings of Jesus such as, “love your neighbor as you love yourself,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and the teachings of hospitality in Islam and elsewhere; but in practice they live out the morality of expediency.

And if we look at the political debates of the day this morality of expediency is practiced unabashedly. Politicians obviously feel it is entirely moral to lie and misrepresent their opponents and themselves, to use any means necessary to get elected. The trust the morality builds, according to Einstein, is lost as a result.

We need to be teaching living out the principles of trust and tolerance of we are to be a truly free and civilized people. This begins at the family level and should continue as part of education.

If we as a people need a New Years resolution, this would be a good one.