I marked Christmas Eve by watching the Christmas episode of TV Funhouse and the film Bad Santa. TV Funhouse was a parody of children’s programs, and the main characters are foul-mouthed cynical animal puppets. The Christmas episode lampoons Christmas in many ways, including the opening scene where the host, Doug, oscillates between singing a manic “Jing-jing-jingly time of year” and a solemn “Christ was born.” The brilliant claymation short “Tingles the Christmas Tension” can be seen on YouTube.
After a night-long orgy, high on “Cheer,” the animal characters go see the Christmas pageant starring the goose’s son. A light shines on the goose egg lying in the manger on the stage and a voice speaks “Unto us a child is born…”
Looking at that egg I thought, “the most holy day of the Christian calendar is not the day when Jesus attained enlightenment, or when he performed some meaningful miracle, it’s the day he was born. And the other major holiday is the day he died. Christians mark the beginning and the end of Jesus’ life—not what came in between. Christmas emphasizes the horrible theology that Jesus is the only son of God—Christmas is special because its the day when God came to Earth—Jesus is a special case. None of us can be like him because he’s the only son of God and we’re flawed evil creatures.
How different from Buddhism, where the tree under which the Buddha achieved enlightenment is a holy place; how different to believe that the founder of your religion “was a person just like you, who chose life undefiled,” to quote my husband’s song “Dream Messiah.”
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
End the Tax Cuts for Everyone
In my post "Obama is Pathetic" I didn't mention what I think should happen with the Bush tax cuts: I think they should be allowed to expire for everyone. Of course this is unthinkable politically, but it is what makes sense. I remember "Shrub," by the late Molly Ivins, about George W. Bush's tenure as governor of Texas. Bush pushed through tax cuts that, in Ivins words, gave enough money to the average person to buy a hamburger, but in the aggregate impoverished Texas's public institutions. Texas ranks among the worst states in terms of education, health care coverage, and pollution. In return for an extra hamburger per week the people of Texas destroyed their public institutions.
When you look at the graph I mentioned in that post, and look at what retaining Bush's federal tax cuts would put into the average person's pocket, we're talking similar amounts. The median income in this country is somewhere around $50,000. A person making $50,000 would get a $1,000 a year tax break, which works out to $20 a week.
But the cost to that average person from these tax breaks in the aggregate--$3.1 trillion over 10 years--is going to hurt far more than the loss of that $20. We will do to our federal institutions what Texas did to theirs. In order to have that paltry extra sum our politicians will say they've been "forced" to cut Social Security, Medicare, education programs, health and human services, oversight of pollution and food safety, etc. We'll be poorer, sicker, and less educated. We'll continue to speed down the declining-empire-path that the election of George W. Bush set us on.
Of course blaming President Obama is foolish. Why didn't the Democrats handle this issue before the election when they had more power? Because they are beholden to the rich, just like the Republicans.
It's time for a revolution in this country. We need to throw off the stranglehold the two political parties have on our political system.
When you look at the graph I mentioned in that post, and look at what retaining Bush's federal tax cuts would put into the average person's pocket, we're talking similar amounts. The median income in this country is somewhere around $50,000. A person making $50,000 would get a $1,000 a year tax break, which works out to $20 a week.
But the cost to that average person from these tax breaks in the aggregate--$3.1 trillion over 10 years--is going to hurt far more than the loss of that $20. We will do to our federal institutions what Texas did to theirs. In order to have that paltry extra sum our politicians will say they've been "forced" to cut Social Security, Medicare, education programs, health and human services, oversight of pollution and food safety, etc. We'll be poorer, sicker, and less educated. We'll continue to speed down the declining-empire-path that the election of George W. Bush set us on.
Of course blaming President Obama is foolish. Why didn't the Democrats handle this issue before the election when they had more power? Because they are beholden to the rich, just like the Republicans.
It's time for a revolution in this country. We need to throw off the stranglehold the two political parties have on our political system.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Obama is Pathetic
I was not a fan of Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries. Frankly I didn't like any of the Democratic front-runners, but I thought he was naive. If you think this is just an example of 20-20 hindsight, see my February 28, 2008 column called, "Just What Do We Mean By Change?"
But I never dreamed he would be such a weak president. What an immense disappointment, and this latest "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts is just plain disgusting. Ezra Klein has posted an excellent chart that makes the difference between the Democratic and Republican plans clear.
Klein writes, "The term 'tax cuts for the middle class,' which Democrats like to use, has misled. As you can see from the left side of the chart, the 'tax cuts for the middle class' also cut taxes on the rich. A family that makes $750,000 a year would pay lower taxes on the first $250,000 of their income. The question has never been whether only middle-class workers should get a tax cut. It's how much income the tax cut should cover."
The two plans give almost identical tax cuts for all income groups, until you get to the last two groups with the highest income. Under the Democratic plan, people in the highest categories-- $500,000 to $1 million, and over $1 million--would all receive a tax cut of around $6,700.
But the Republican plan would give those earning between $500,000 and $1 million a $17,400 tax cut, and a mind-boggling $103,800 tax cut to those earning over $1 million. And the Republicans say they care about the deficit--what an enormous con job they pulled on the American people this fall, the latest in a series.
And how pathetic is President Obama.
But I never dreamed he would be such a weak president. What an immense disappointment, and this latest "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts is just plain disgusting. Ezra Klein has posted an excellent chart that makes the difference between the Democratic and Republican plans clear.
Klein writes, "The term 'tax cuts for the middle class,' which Democrats like to use, has misled. As you can see from the left side of the chart, the 'tax cuts for the middle class' also cut taxes on the rich. A family that makes $750,000 a year would pay lower taxes on the first $250,000 of their income. The question has never been whether only middle-class workers should get a tax cut. It's how much income the tax cut should cover."
The two plans give almost identical tax cuts for all income groups, until you get to the last two groups with the highest income. Under the Democratic plan, people in the highest categories-- $500,000 to $1 million, and over $1 million--would all receive a tax cut of around $6,700.
But the Republican plan would give those earning between $500,000 and $1 million a $17,400 tax cut, and a mind-boggling $103,800 tax cut to those earning over $1 million. And the Republicans say they care about the deficit--what an enormous con job they pulled on the American people this fall, the latest in a series.
And how pathetic is President Obama.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin
I saw a wonderful program on PBS a couple of nights ago, “How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin” about the impact of The Beatles on the people of the Soviet Union. The director interviewed a lot of people, including a minister in Russia’s current government, all of whom had been fans in the 1960s when it was totally illegal. Many of them said that the Beatles’ influence was more profound in bringing about an end to the Soviet system than any thing else, including dissident writings.
There were amazing stories: people recorded tapes of Beatles songs off of Radio Luxembourg and stole used X-ray discs out of hospital trashcans; they took these to street recording booths (set up so soldiers could send audio recordings home) and made records. Bootleggers could roll the discs into a cylinder and slide them up their sleeve. People said they listened to their uncle’s ribs. Another story was of a man who made his own electric guitar just from looking at a photo of the Beatles with their instruments.
The Beatles’ music gave these people a feeling of liberation and opened their eyes to a world beyond the Soviet Union. No one mentioned the Rolling Stones and I thought it was telling that it was the positive music of the Beatles that made a difference, not the negative dark sounds of the Stones.
The film is really inspiring; not only does it show that the human spirit can never be extinguished no matter how authoritarian the political system, it’s also enlightening as to how change happens. We were all taught in our history classes that kings and presidents and wars were what were important in history. Maybe that was all wrong.
You can watch the entire hour-long program here.
There were amazing stories: people recorded tapes of Beatles songs off of Radio Luxembourg and stole used X-ray discs out of hospital trashcans; they took these to street recording booths (set up so soldiers could send audio recordings home) and made records. Bootleggers could roll the discs into a cylinder and slide them up their sleeve. People said they listened to their uncle’s ribs. Another story was of a man who made his own electric guitar just from looking at a photo of the Beatles with their instruments.
The Beatles’ music gave these people a feeling of liberation and opened their eyes to a world beyond the Soviet Union. No one mentioned the Rolling Stones and I thought it was telling that it was the positive music of the Beatles that made a difference, not the negative dark sounds of the Stones.
The film is really inspiring; not only does it show that the human spirit can never be extinguished no matter how authoritarian the political system, it’s also enlightening as to how change happens. We were all taught in our history classes that kings and presidents and wars were what were important in history. Maybe that was all wrong.
You can watch the entire hour-long program here.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Congress Doesn't Represent Ordinary People
Maybe one the reasons our country is in trouble is because the members of Congress do not represent ordinary people. According to the Federal Reserve website, the median net worth for families in the United States in 2007 was $120,000. This was before most people's main asset, their home, tanked in value, so the median net worth in 2010 is probably quite a bit lower. But the median wealth of our representatives is many times higher: five times higher in the House and ten times higher in the Senate. How can these wealthy people understand the needs of the average American? How can we trust them to vote appropriately and end the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% of Americans, when they are part of that 2%?
The Washington Post blog The Fed Page reported a study done on the wealth of Congresspeople last week:
Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed a few weeks ago calling the United States a banana-republic because of growing income inequality. He was strongly criticized, and he responded with another column, "A Hedge Fund Republic," making his original case even more strongly. His main question is spot-on:
The Washington Post blog The Fed Page reported a study done on the wealth of Congresspeople last week:
Times might be tough for most Americans but not for the well-heeled lawmakers in Congress.
The personal wealth of members of Congress collectively increased by 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, even as the economic downturn eliminated millions of jobs for ordinary Americans, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics released Wednesday.
In the House, the study found, the median wealth was $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008. In the Senate, median wealth grew from $2.27 million in 2008 to $2.38 million in 2009.
The new data come as lawmakers consider whether to extend tax cuts for couples making $250,000 or more - a move that presumably would benefit many of the members. The Obama administration wants to confine the tax breaks to earnings under $250,000, although it has signaled it might be open to a compromise with Republicans on the issue.
Lawmakers are required only to list ranges of wealth in the personal financial disclosures they file each May. The center used averages between the minimum and maximum numbers to estimate each member's holdings; it used a median measurement for each chamber as a whole.
The researchers at CRP also identified 251 millionaires in Congress, including eight lawmakers worth $10 million or more.
The top three on the list were Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with holdings exceeding $303.5 million; Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), with $293.4 million; and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) at $238.8 million.
"Few federal lawmakers must grapple with the financial ills - unemployment, loss of housing, wiped out savings - that have befallen millions of Americans," said Sheila Krumholz, the center's executive director.
Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed a few weeks ago calling the United States a banana-republic because of growing income inequality. He was strongly criticized, and he responded with another column, "A Hedge Fund Republic," making his original case even more strongly. His main question is spot-on:
What kind of a country do we aspire to be? Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?If you'd like to see a visual demonstration of the income and wealth disparity in this country, watch this episode of my TV show "A Question of Meaning."
Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent.
That also means that the top 10 percent controls more than 70 percent of Americans’ total net worth.
Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley who is one of the world’s leading experts on inequality, notes that for most of American history, income distribution was significantly more equal than today. And other capitalist countries do not suffer disparities as great as ours.
“There has been an increase in inequality in most industrialized countries, but not as extreme as in the U.S.,” Professor Saez said.
One of America’s greatest features has been its economic mobility, in contrast to Europe’s class system. This mobility may explain why many working-class Americans oppose inheritance taxes and high marginal tax rates. But researchers find that today this rags-to-riches intergenerational mobility is no more common in America than in Europe — and possibly less common.
I’m appalled by our growing wealth gaps because in my travels I see what happens in dysfunctional countries where the rich just don’t care about those below the decks. The result is nations without a social fabric or sense of national unity. Huge concentrations of wealth corrode the soul of any nation.
And then I see members of Congress in my own country who argue that it would be financially reckless to extend unemployment benefits during a terrible recession, yet they insist on granting $370,000 tax breaks to the richest Americans. I don’t know if that makes us a banana republic or a hedge fund republic, but it’s not healthy in any republic.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Slash Defense Spending
Eugene Robinson's column in today's Washington Post, "Trimming a Bloated Defense Budget," advocates just what I did in yesterday's post: we can go a long way towards solving the federal deficit problem by reducing the size of our military.
Mr. Robinson provides some interesting figures that put our military spending into perspective:
Mr. Robinson provides some interesting figures that put our military spending into perspective:
The United States accounts for 46.5 percent of the world's total defense spending, according to a widely accepted recent estimate. The next-biggest spender is China, which has undertaken an immense buildup to become a military as well as economic superpower - yet accounts for just 6.6 percent of the world's total.What would the world look like if we cut our military spending? Maybe it would be more peaceful.
And while the debt-ridden U.S. government shells out for nearly half of all global defense expenditures, our most loyal, stalwart, shoulder-to-shoulder allies - Britain and France - pitch in just 3.8 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively, of the world total.
Monday, November 15, 2010
You Fix the Federal Budget
It didn't take long for the deficit commission chairmen's proposals to be criticized from every section of the political spectrum. I personally think their ideas were too slanted against ordinary people--just the choice of Erskine Bowles, Clinton's chief of staff, as the "liberal" made it obvious this was going to be a joke from the progressive point of view.
But how hard is it to balance the federal budget? The Congressional battles make it seem like it is a Herculean task requiring unbearable sacrifice. The New York Times has a fun feature this week that allows you to play budget czar. Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget, published on November 13, is an interactive feature that lets you choose from an assortment of budget cuts and tax increases to balance the federal budget.
And it was easy to balance the budget! I selected all the military cuts available (relatively minor force adjustments), taxes return to Clinton-era levels, a carbon tax (because that makes good sense in terms of converting us to a sustainable energy policy) and NOTHING ELSE, and the budget for 2015 is almost balanced. Adding a few other tax increases can balance the budget in 2030--without cutting any other federal spending or cutting Social Security and Medicare.
The reason I picked so many military cuts is because the military is obscenely bloated. The military--incredibly--accounts for 54% of the federal budget. We spend more on our "defense" than the next 28 countries put together, and most of those 28 countries are our allies! See my article "Reduce the Federal Deficit by Cutting the Military Budget" (April 27).
Clearly if we had grown-ups in Washington who cared about the best interests of the nation, we could solve our country's problems relatively easily.
But how hard is it to balance the federal budget? The Congressional battles make it seem like it is a Herculean task requiring unbearable sacrifice. The New York Times has a fun feature this week that allows you to play budget czar. Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget, published on November 13, is an interactive feature that lets you choose from an assortment of budget cuts and tax increases to balance the federal budget.
And it was easy to balance the budget! I selected all the military cuts available (relatively minor force adjustments), taxes return to Clinton-era levels, a carbon tax (because that makes good sense in terms of converting us to a sustainable energy policy) and NOTHING ELSE, and the budget for 2015 is almost balanced. Adding a few other tax increases can balance the budget in 2030--without cutting any other federal spending or cutting Social Security and Medicare.
The reason I picked so many military cuts is because the military is obscenely bloated. The military--incredibly--accounts for 54% of the federal budget. We spend more on our "defense" than the next 28 countries put together, and most of those 28 countries are our allies! See my article "Reduce the Federal Deficit by Cutting the Military Budget" (April 27).
Clearly if we had grown-ups in Washington who cared about the best interests of the nation, we could solve our country's problems relatively easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)