Trickle down ... or trickle out?

Ronald Regan's "Trickle Down Theory" of economics (sometimes called "supply-side") goes like this:  If the rich and corporations do well, benefits will "trickle down" to the rest. So ... lower taxes on high income individuals or big business will benefit most of the population because all that money saved through lower taxes will trickle down to everyone else.  

I'm certainly not an economist (and don't even pretend to be), but my response has to be: HOGWASH!  You don't have to be an economist to have some common sense! Common sense and history make it clear that "supply-side" economics just doesn't work; it's "demand-side" economics that moves the economy.  A friend posted the best explanation of that today and I'm going to take from his explanation and then add some to it.

Let's say it takes five people to run the ABC Widget Company.  Only five.  Now let's say the state legislature - or Congress - reduces the taxes that must be paid by the company.  Nice tax break! According to the trickle down theory, ABC Widget Co. will take that tax savings and hire more people. The problem is that ABC Widget Co. doesn't need more people!  Why in the world would the tax savings be used to hire people that simply aren't needed?

Here's what really happens:  The CEO of the ABC Widget Co. will get a nice bonus ... and maybe even some jobs will end up in India.  The tax savings trickled out instead of trickling down.  You didn't benefit and neither did I.  The economy didn't benefit, either.

The company WILL hire more people, though, if they need to produce more widgets!  And that will happen only if people are buying more widgets (demand!) ... which means consumers need to have enough money to buy the product.  

Consumer spending > Corporate profits > Corporate hiring/raises > More consumer spending > Continue the cycle

Yes, there's more to it than my extremely simple timeline ... I know that.  But those ARE the basics.  Tell me how "trickle down" fits anywhere in that timeline.  It's supposed to and the concept is a fine idea, but in reality, it just doesn't happen - and history proves that.

Let's look at recent history, shall we?  Kansas governor, Sam Brownback, promised that his state would be the Republican Model so he and the tea-party lawmakers enacted a whole bunch of really deep tax cuts, right in line with the Republican playbook.  Business got huge tax cuts, the wealthy got really nice cuts, middle class and poor folks got cuts not worth mentioning because the percentage is so low.  Brownback called it a "pro-growth tax policy."  Hmmmm ... so .... what did happen?  Here's a partial list:

• Kansas trails the nation in job growth.
• No rainy day fund left - Kansas now in huge deficit.
• After just two years -  revenue shortfall of $338 million.
• Revenue even lower than the worst predictions.
• School budgets never recovered and Brownback demands even more education cuts.
• Healthcare, assistance for the poor, courts, and other state services being eviscerated.

 Brownback keeps promising economic growth, but it's not happening.  In California, though, there's a different picture.  In the middle of the recession, Gov. Jerry Brown pushed for tax increases in order to preserve the quality of state services.  Result?  California's job growth since then has left Kansas - and the country as a whole - in the dust. 

The next time a Republican talks about the benefits of trickle down or supply-side economics, ask for evidence that it works - or has worked - to improve the economy.  Then watch the stammering begin.

Yes, you ARE responsible!

Just today, I posted a link to a story about a Republican woman in Missouri who wants to be that state's next governor.  She's already the House Speaker.  She made sure to demonize women with about everything she said, including providing a "connection" between single moms and child pornography. In other words ... another Republican extremist.  Read the story yourself here.

Within an hour of posting that story, four of my Republican friends sent me private messages saying that woman does NOT speak for them.  Two of those friends even said they are not responsible for what the GOP extremists say and do.

I beg to differ.  Moderate, rational Republicans are most definitely responsible for putting the extremists in office!  And they are the only ones who can restore the GOP to the "big tent party" where differing views are welcome and rational thought is the norm.

Before I explain exactly why my moderate Republican friends are responsible for the extremists, here are a few other comments made by GOP lawmakers at the state and federal levels.

•  “In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.”  ~Texas State Senator Jodie Laubenberg, an ignorant claim that rape kits are used to abort a pregnancy (June, 2013)
•  Human-caused global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" ~Sen. James Inhofe (OK) as he cited the Bible to defend his position
• "... I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you." ~Rick Santorum, presidential candidate, explaining that rape is a gift from God (January, 2012)
•  "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!"~Herman Cain, presidential candidate
• “I would not compromise my principles for politics. You’re saying, will it become politically unpopular to have the position I’m having? If it does, so be it. I don’t compromise my principles for politics.” ~NJ Governor Chris Christie explaining why he continues to oppose marriage equality
• “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” ~Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock who also thinks God causes rape (October, 2012)
• “Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low. But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.” ~Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, claiming that getting pregnant through rape is rare therefore there shouldn’t be any exceptions for rape victims in anti-abortion bills (June, 2013)
• Life begins "from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." ~Former Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer - who needs to take a biology class, pure and simple

Many of the above quotes went hand-in-hand with the monstrous number of anti-choice bills introduced by Republicans in Congress and state legislatures.  This, of course, from the party that purports to keep government out of your life.  Uh, huh.  But they are getting elected, and my moderate Republican friends say they are NOT responsible.  That's where my friends are wrong.

They may not like the radical Republicans on the ballot but they WILL vote for them simply because of the "R" behind the candidate's name!  To vote for a Democrat would surely send them straight to hell, don't ya know!  So, they will knowingly vote for a Republican who believes the United States is a "Christian" nation ... a candidate who wants to ban contraception for religious reasons ... a candidate who is so anti-women that you wonder who brought them into the world ... a candidate who has no problems supporting - and voting for - legislation that makes it legal to discriminate against certain groups of people ... a candidate who wants to make Christian prayer mandatory in public schools. 

It's so simple.  If my moderate, rational Republican friends don't like the extremists in office, they must vote them out.  And that means voting for the other candidate.  Trust me ... you will survive with a Democrat (or 3rd party individual) in office for two or four or six years.  In the meantime, you will have sent the Republican Party a very strong message:  we will NOT tolerate being represented by the radicals any longer!

So, please ... don't tell me you aren't responsible for the extreme right-wing lawmakers now in office.  YOU put them there.

Impeach? What charges?

It appears Republicans in the House of Representatives want to impeach President Obama, despite the fact that their fearless leader, John Boehner, has expressed no interest in doing so.  But those Republicans don't need Boehner; they can do it on their own.

Most people truly don't understand the concept of impeachment.  So let's take a look, shall we?  Impeachment is a political process; it is not a criminal process.  Impeachment is set up in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The House of Representatives must file official impeachment charges (Articles of Impeachment). The U.S. Senate then hears evidence in the impeachment trial and acts as the jury, deciding whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.  A 2/3 vote of the Senate is needed for conviction.

All those Republicans calling for impeaching President Obama have yet to identify specific charges.  Just what are the "high crimes" and "misdemeanors?"  The charges in the Articles of Impeachment must be specific.

Oh, those House Republicans get their knickers in a bunch every time the president opens his mouth.  And they point to controversies, rather than high crimes or misdemeanors, as a reason to impeach.   Example:  the mishandling of the way the ACA was rolled out ... all the computer problems and delays.  Oh, pleeeeaaasseee ... that's a high crime or misdemeanor?  Treason?  Bribery?  No ... that was a government snafu and we see those every single day at some level.

Okay, how about the current crisis involving children from Central America entering the United States illegally?  Those patriotic Republicans say President Obama's handling of the situation (not immediately dumping those children back across the border) is treason!  Well, no, it's not.  The president is simply following the law!

Just before leaving office, on Dec. 23, 2008, George W. Bush signed into law the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The law describes exactly how unaccompanied children crossing the border must be treated. 

• For children coming from Mexico and Canada, countries with a border with the United States, a Border Patrol officer has the authority to determine whether the child is eligible to stay in the country. And because the child can be easily handed over to officials from his or her home country, the process can move very quickly.
• But for children from Central America, where handing them back to authorities is more complicated, the law dictates that Customs and Border Patrol must turn undocumented children over to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours.
• HHS will then hold them humanely until they can be released to a “suitable family member” in the United States.

So ... let's impeach the president for following the law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by a Republican president?  You just have to laugh.

Be prepared.  House Republicans will come up with something.  And they will fail.  And the rest of us will shake our heads at the time wasted - and the taxpayer money spent - on just the latest "nail this president" effort.

It's really RELIGIOUS COMPULSION!

Over the last few weeks, we have been inundated with "religious freedom" legislation and/or conduct.  However, it should actually be called "religious compulsion" because that's what it really is.

Consider Hobby Lobby, that wondrous store based on religious principles - that according to the owners, of course. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today. Hobby Lobby doesn't want the Affordable Care Act to force them to provide employee health insurance that includes contraception coverage.  In other words, Hobby Lobby owners believe they should make medical decisions for their employees ... based on their religious beliefs.  If the SCOTUS decision favors the oh-so pious Hobby Lobby owners, that will open the floodgates.  How about denying insurance coverage for blood transfusions?  Immunizations?

Do you want YOUR employer making medical decisions for you based on his/her religion?  That would be religious compulsion.

Weeks ago, Arizona's GOP-controlled legislature passed a bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against anyone as long as that discrimination was based on religious beliefs.  Of course, these oh-so wise lawmakers didn't really think it through.  How about a Jewish deli that would have been able to deny service to Christians?  Or a boutique owned by a straight woman that would have been able to deny entrance to lesbians? (Actually, we all know that this last example is exactly what the legislature had in mind.)  Fortunately, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed this obnoxious legislation ... but the Christian right group that wrote the bill is already planning a comeback for next year.

The question you should probably ask yourself:  When might I  be the target of discrimination based on religious belief?  You know, you could ... depending on who you are.  Again, religious compulsion.

Now let's take a little trip to that oh-so tolerant state of Tennessee.  Again (what a coincidence!) the legislature is controlled by Republicans.  The House and Senate sent a bill to the Governor's desk that would allow students to use religion in any manner they choose.  And, guess what ... that includes bullying.  These lawmakers are on a religious mission and to hell with anyone who is the target of bigotry and hatred.  They want to protect religious freedom, don't you know!  Of course, just like the Republican legislators in Arizona, they didn't think this through to the end.  But then, that's nothing new.

This Tennessee abomination will also force students of all beliefs to be subjected to the proselytizing by Christians ... that's really the group the legislature wants to protect because what do you think will happen when a Muslim student gets up and starts quoting from the Qur'an? He'll be suspended in a heartbeat and you know it.

The religious right - masked as thinking Republican lawmakers - are calling their actions "religious freedom" yet it's anything but freedom.  It's religious compulsion.

com·pul·sion

noun: compulsion; plural noun: compulsions

1.

the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

Hobby Lobby wants all its employees forced into abiding by the owners' religious beliefs.  Arizona lawmakers wanted to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs - the underlying belief being Christian - and if you don't conform, oh, well.  The state of Tennessee wants to allow students do behave any damn way they choose, based on religious beliefs and that forces all students to fall under the Christian thumb.

This kind of reminds me of a Sunday School song I learned long, long ago.  The chorus goes like this:

This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

 In the above cases, the light is shining bright ... on the bigotry and hatred running rampant throughout this country.  The attempt to hide it under the guise of "religious freedom" is a huge FAIL because most of us see it for what it is.

It's religious compulsion and it needs to stop.  The only way it will stop is at the ballot box.  It does no good to complain and then go vote Republican simply because you are a registered Republican.  You need to ask yourself if you want to be the target one day (and that could well happen). If the answer is no, then do us all a favor and vote against the GOP candidates ... or just stay home on election day.  We'll all be better off for sure.

Phyllis Schlafly quotes

I really had forgotten all about Phyllis Schlafly.  Truly, she hasn't entered my consciousness for years and years.  Until today.

Schlafly said, "many Americans" are protesting the wave toward marriage equality by dissenting with their feet.  She said they are "moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between one man and one woman."  Of course, Schlafly provides no evidence to support her claim.  Are you surprised?

In any case, I remembered a few of the wondrous things espoused by Schlafly.  If you're my age, you will nod your head ... if you are younger, this is your opportunity to get a glimpse into this woman's thinking.  Here are a few Schlafly quotes:

"Sex-education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions."

[Evidently she hasn't viewed the statistics that demonstrate comprehensive sex-ed classes reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.]

"Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women."

[Most every woman has experienced some form of sexual harassment on the job whether Schlafly admits it or not.]
  
"Feminism is doomed to failure because it is based on an attempt to repeal and restructure human nature."

[Feminism is based on equality.  Perhaps we need to give her a dictionary.]
  
"Birth on U.S. territory has never been an absolute claim to citizenship."

[Perhaps we should also give Schlafly a copy of the U.S. Constitution where Amendment 14, Section 1 declares that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."]

"ERA means abortion funding, means homosexual privileges, means whatever else."

[Here's what the Equal Rights Amendment says:   Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.]

"People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn't."

[Schlafly doesn't explain this piece of wisdom, but in my view child-support, thus child-support enforcement most certainly helps children.]
  
"After Big Media, U.S. colleges and universities are the biggest enemies of the values of red-state Americans."

[I assume that means that red-state/conservative state values don't include an education or the critical thinking skills and economic skills needed to support families and continue our nation's prosperity.  Perhaps that's why the stats show that the poorest states are the red states?]

"Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be."

[I have yet to meet a feminist female who wanted to be a man or said she wanted to be a man.  We are very happy with our gender, Schlafly, but ... now open your ears ... we want equality with men.  Gender equality benefits women and men.]

There are more delightful words from this woman, but I've done enough remembering for one day.

Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/phyllis_schlafly.html#qvceZFztPgzVFOcz.99

Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/phyllis_schlafly.html#qvceZFztPgzVFOcz.99Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.

claims that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/schlafly-claims-many-americans-moving-out-marriage-equality-states-protest#sthash.1SCCpxH5.dpuf

claims that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/schlafly-claims-many-americans-moving-out-marriage-equality-states-protest#sthash.1SCCpxH5.dpuf

The fast for discrimination and bigotry

My "mouth" has been relatively quiet these past few months, but I feel the need to let it all hang out.

A 35-year-old Utah man has been fasting since Dec. 21, 2013.  No food, no drinks except water.  He is taking vitamin supplements and has, to date, lost about 25 pounds.  

What courage!  What dedication! What commitment!  He's a man of principle and he's willing to stand his ground for those principles!

Is he fighting for the downtrodden? Hungry children? Women's equality? Veterans' benefits? Is he fighting for educational opportunities or a more responsive Congress?  Is he risking his health - maybe even his life - to bring about fairness in our justice system?

No.  Trestin Meacham is willing to starve to death so the state of Utah can deny equal rights to a certain group of people.  Let me repeat that:  This man will - if he's really that committed - starve himself to death so a certain group of people will not have the rights and legal protections that he enjoys. He has determined they are not worthy of legal equality.

Yeppers, that's right.  Meacham is extremely upset with recent court rulings that allow same-sex couples to marry in Utah.  Uh, huh.

"I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home," Meacham said.  Well, that explains it!  I sure didn't know those couples were getting married in his home!  No wonder he's upset ... I imagine his home became rather crowded when the marriages started taking place! He probably ran out of Doritos and ice!

Okay, I admit that's a bit sarcastic.  And I really want to be fair.  Meacham actually says on his blog that this has nothing to do with hatred.  In fact, I was interested to read that, "I have friends and relatives who practice a homosexual lifestyle and I treat them with the same respect and kindness that I would anyone."

I beg to differ, Meacham.  You don't respect them at all and you are certainly not kind.  You want to deny them equal protection under the law.  You want to prevent this group of people from enjoying the rights you have and the ability to lead their lives the same way you can.  That is NOT respect and it is NOT kindness.  

Oops ... here I am being unfair again.  Meacham explains: "This is about religious freedom, and an out of control federal government."

Sorry, buddy, you already have your religious freedom and allowing same-sex couples to marry isn't taking it from you.  Nobody is forcing you to marry another man.  You don't have to attend those weddings or give gifts.  It's evident, however, that you want to force YOUR religion on everyone else in Utah.  So, religious freedom is great - as long as it's yours?

Out of control federal government?  Try reading Article VI of the U.S. Constitution or the Fourteenth Amendment.  The last time I looked, Utah was in the United States and is bound by the same constitution as the other 49 states. 

I don't believe Meacham will starve himself to death.  God will suddenly appear to him and tell him to eat so he can live to fight another day.  Or, perhaps a court will step in and order a feeding tube.  Now, THAT would be an invasion of his privacy and a violation of his rights.  But allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't violate Meacham's rights at all.  Not one whit.  Unfortunately, he and his supporters will never understand that.

Takin' it to the streets!

I admire the folks in North Carolina who take to the streets every week for "Moral Monday."  They are demonstrating for - and against - a number of things.  The last time I checked, over 700 had been arrested.  Looking back through the news stories, I found that those 700 included pastors, retired people, college students, college professors, lawyers, teachers, doctors, homemakers ... those were the ones identified and quoted in some of the news stories.  I also remember reading about an electrician and a hair stylist and a short order cook.  They felt so strongly about voicing their opinions, that they risked arrest and possible fines and/or jail time.  I applaud their conviction.

During a discussion about "Moral Monday" a former colleague of mine said instead of taking to the streets, they should simply win an election.  Here's his direct quote:

"Fact: Their side lost the last two election cycles. So, if your side loses elections, the recourse is to take to the streets? What is this, 'Walk Like an Egyptian'?"

Basically, what he's saying is this ... if your side loses an election, you can just sit down, shut the hell up up, keep your views to yourself and try to win the next election because ... YOUR SIDE LOST SO YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO VOICE AN OPINION!  

Sounds like my former colleague believes the First Amendment is put on a shelf in between election cycles and it's only good for those who win, anyway.

So let me give you a fact of my own:  the First Amendment isn't there to protect the majority - or the popular speech.  It's there to protect the minority and the unpopular speech!  Come on, that's common sense; by virtue of what they are, the majority and popular speech don't need to be protected!

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech.  Immediately on attaining power, each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."  ~Herbert Hoover.

Let's be clear ... good 'ole Hoover is not my favorite president, but he's right!  And this is what's happening around the country right now.  The elected leaders (at least at the state level) are refusing to listen to the minority view even though they represent those people!  They are paid to represent ALL people in their districts or state!  And when the so-called leaders ignored the minority presence, those people took to the streets.  Should we expect them to sit quietly on their hands and watch until the next election cycle?

"You must stand for free speech in the streets."  ~Mary Harris Jones

Using my former colleague's rationale, Mother Jones should have stayed in her kitchen in 1903.  Hey, Mother Jones ... just keep your mouth shut because it's not election time!  Instead, she organized the Children's March in 1903 ... she was upset about the lax enforcement of child labor laws in the Pennsylvania mines and marched from Philadelphia to the home of then President Teddy Roosevelt in New York.  Mary Harris Jones saw an injustice and brought attention to it through the First Amendment.  Right on, Mother Jones!

Just a word to the wise (or, at this particular moment, the not-so-wise Republican leaders around the country):  If you would just listen to the minority viewpoints represented by the people in your state, they might not take to the streets.  You could at least pretend to listen, but you're not even doing that.  Leadership is more than saying ... Hey, I won and anyone who disagrees with me can go suck eggs.

You might also want to pay a bit of attention to these words ...

"To suppress free speech is a double wrong.  It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."  ~Frederick Douglass