Check It Out for Wednesday, May 27th
Ernest Partridge writes at The Crisis Papers about the "Tea Bag" Brigades and the Grover Norquists of this country.
"So here is my proposal: Make all tax payments voluntary. If all those April 15 "tea party" tax protesters find tax-paying so onerous, then they should be excused from paying taxes.
"The only provision is that if they do so, they are no longer entitled to the services that are supported by taxes.
"To wit:
- They may no longer use the public highways.
- In case of fire, they can not call the fire department to save their homes.
- In case of home invasion, armed robbery or other criminal threats, they can not call the police for help.
- They can not sue for damages in court. (Judges, bailiffs, court reporters, etc. are on the public payroll).
- They can not hire workers that were educated in public schools or universities.
- They can not use computers (micro-circuitry developed by NASA) or the internet (originated in DARPA, a federal agency).
- They can no longer purchase prescription drugs (certified safe and effective by the FDA).
- They can no longer purchase meat and dairy products that have been inspected by the Dept. Of Agriculture.
- They can not visit the National Parks or National Forests.
- They can not purchase airline tickets, (since that industry is regulated by the FAA) or use public airports.
- Their bank accounts may not be protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
- For that matter, they cannot use United States currency, since it is guaranteed by the Federal Government. Instead, they will have to conduct all transactions by barter."
"The more outrageous injustice in our tax system is the unfair distribution of the tax burden: a tax structure that allows the mega-billionaire to pay a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary or his house keeper.
"...there is in this country a tradition of the clever and resourceful tax evader as some sort of a hero. Ronald Reagan said as much in 1985 as he all but advocated rebellion against the very government over which he presided
“Government” is not the culprit – “the problem,” as Ronald Reagan put it. The authentic villains are the free-loaders who “purchase” the tax loopholes and the sweetheart government contracts through their political "contributions," and who thus leave it to the rest us to pay for the vital public services of which all of us, honest and dishonest alike, are the beneficiaries. Included among the villains are demagogues of the right-wing media who incite masses of gullible "sheeple" to protest against their own self-interest, and against their democratically elected leaders.
"Are you "mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore"? Then don't simply act angry. In addition, act smart. Don't blindly demand the abolition of taxes. Public services, supported by taxes, are both desirable and, in many cases, indispensible. Instead, demand tax justice, and insist that public officials either get with the reform program or step aside and be replaced by those who will."
Leo Drutman writes about how the poorest Americans have dropped out of the political process.
"But over the last several decades, inequality in the United States has worsened. Between 1973 and 2000, the richest one-fifth of Americans saw their family income grow by 66.9 percent, while the poorest one-fifth saw their income increase by only 12.1 percent. At the same time, poverty has become more geographically concentrated. In 1970, the average poor family inhabited a census tract where only 13.6 percent of the other families were poor; by 1990, it was double that — 27.9 percent.
"Joe Soss and Lawrence Jacobs, professors of political science at the University of Minnesota, were curious to understand how these two trends, which have typically been studied in isolation, related to each other. What they found was that over time, while the probability of voting has declined for all Americans, the declines have been the steeper among people living in low-income counties, and steepest for low-income people living in low-income counties. As Americans have become more segregated by class, the trend seems to have exacerbated the participatory balance in politics.
"Soss said it was "stunning ... to see the pattern emerge over the course of a couple of decades. We've gotten to a point where there are completely different relationships with class and voting patterns, and that's a pretty remarkable change."
"In the 1970s, whether an individual came from a low-, medium- or high-income county didn't seem to have any predictive effect on whether or not that person voted, though rich people still voted at greater rates than poor people. But over the past three decades, as the nation became more segregated by wealth, the effect of living in a poor county, independent of one's own wealth, became a significant predictor of whether an individual voted or not. In other words, while individual-level poverty has always been associated with less civic engagement, increasing class-based segregation is widening the participatory gap between rich and poor even further. The results are published in the spring issue of Political Science Quarterly.
"In general, scholars know that poor voters suffer from a number of obstacles to political participation. They tend to have weaker civic ties. Candidates are less likely to speak to their needs or to try to mobilize them. Workday voting, felony disenfranchisement and bureaucratic registration rules all reduce turnout.
"But several trends have exacerbated these obstacles, Soss and Jacobs note in their article. The rate of incarceration has increased sixfold over the past three decades. Unions and fraternal civic associations that once plugged lower-income individuals into politics have declined significantly. Meanwhile, the role of money in politics has greatly increased, and the civic groups of old have been replaced by checkbook issue groups that tend to cater to the concerns of those who write the checks.
"A second set of trends involves the changes in public policy and the messages that these policies send to the less well-off. "There are more get-tough programs," said Soss. "They are more focused on discipline. They are treating the poor as people who have suspect behavior that needs to be changed."
Leo Gerard at Campaign for America's Future writes about the US Chamber of Commerce betting against the middle class.
"Randel K. Johnson, vice president of that esteemed group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, recently revealed a corporate-squelched truth in a slip of the tongue.
"During a debate on May 15 with Stewart Acuff of the AFL-CIO about the Employee Free Choice Act, Johnson admitted – finally – that the act preserves secret ballot elections for unions. The act would allow workers – rather than employers – to decide whether to form a union by conducting a secret ballot election or by collecting signed membership cards from a majority of workers.
"Incredibly, for as much as unearned-bonus-grubbing-CEOs have lied about secret ballots in their relentless campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act, that was not Johnson’s revelation.
"No, here’s what he disclosed: If the act passes, he said, “It would be a rare union that would decide to risk a normal secret ballot election.”
"Risk. Interesting word, Mr. Johnson.
"The Chamber of Commerce knows there’s a huge risk to secret ballot elections. And the Chamber likes it that way. Employers stack the deck against workers in secret ballot elections. They don’t publicly admit it though. That’s why Johnson’s use of the word “risk” was so surprising.
"The Chamber and big corporations like Wal-Mart are intent on defeating the act because it would remove from employers the power to force workers to conduct secret ballot elections. It would strip from employers that ability to generate risk, to defeat unions, and thus to further shrink wages and the American middle class.
"A Cornell University professor, Kate Bronfenbrenner, who has researched labor issues for a quarter century, issued a new study last week that clearly illustrates the risk of secret ballot elections and how employers have labored long and hard to increase that risk in recent years. It’s called, “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organization.”
"Among the tactics she documents employers using in the weeks before the “secret ballot” election to thwart unionization are firing of union organizers, threats to close the plant or cut wages and benefits, and forcing workers to meet one-on-one with supervisors who intimidate and interrogate them to determine whether they support the union.
"Bronfenbrenner concluded, 'This combination of threats, interrogation, surveillance, and harassment has ensured that there is no such thing as a democratic ‘secret ballot’ in the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) certification election process. The progression of actions the employer has taken can ensure that the employer knows exactly which way every worker plans to vote long before the election takes place.'
"In October, Bank of America, which has received more than $45 billion in taxpayer bailout money, hosted a conference call with conservatives and business officials, including a representative of AIG, which has received more than $100 billion in taxpayer bailout money, to organize opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. Then in March, just days after the act was introduced, Citigroup Inc., which got $50 billion in bailout money, hosted a similar conference call, this one led by Glenn Spencer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"During the October call, Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, said he should be on a 350-foot boat in the Mediterranean, but he thought fighting the Employee Free Choice Act was more important because, 'This is the demise of a civilization. . . This is how a civilization disappears.'
"Yes, the Employee Free Choice Act could contribute ever so slightly to dissipation of a decadent class. Unionization is how the middle class re-emerges. America could do without a few filthy-rich boys lolling on yachts in the Mediterranean. At the heart of America, however, must be a strong and broad middle class."
Comments