Sidebar: VP Harris and Equity

In this week's Sunday School, remarks made by Vice President Kamala Harris were brought up by Florida's Sen. Rick Scott. 

When asked by Margaret Brennan to respond to comments made by former president Donald Trump, Scott replied that people need to come together, and then he added, 

I'd also say that what Vice President Harris said yesterday that, or the day before yesterday that, you know if you, if you have a different skin color, you're going to get relief.   

Brennan said that wasn't what Harris said; Scott argued with her. I promised I'd have some details on it, once I was able to figure out what was going on.

Let's start with how the NY Post covered it.

Vice President Harris came in for a torrent of criticism after telling an audience that “communities of color” would be first in line for relief in the  devastating aftermath of Hurricane Ian.

“We have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity,” she said during a discussion with Priyanka Chopra at the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum on Friday.

“If we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we need to take into account those disparities and do that work,” she added.

And, of course the Post included all the nasty comments, including that Harris was being racist. That type of thing was rife on social media, and in certain media circles, and, I'd add, with Republican officials like Rick Scott who decided to carefully misinterpret and then 'correct' her remarks. 

No, no, no. Wait, wait, Margaret. Margaret, let's make sure. FEMA has to be colorblind. FEMA has to provide support to everybody.

So, what did Harris really say? Let's start with the question she was asked by Priyanka Chopra Jonas, who was invited by the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum to have a 'fireside chat' with the VP. 

Can you talk a little bit about the relief efforts, obviously, of Hurricane Ian and what the administration has been doing to address the climate crisis in the states? 

But — and just a little follow up, because this is important to me: We consider the global implications of emissions, right? The poorest countries are affected the most. They contributed the least and are affected the most. So how should voters in the U.S. feel about the administration’s long-term goals when it comes to being an international influencer on this topic?

And here, in full, is Harris's answer, from the White House transcript. For the TL/DR crowd, I've added emphasis to what she said about Hurricane Ian. 

So, first of all, again, thanks to the leadership in this room, which were part of the propelling force in the 2020 election so that we could actually be in office — because one of the requests — dare I say, “demands” — of this group was, “Do something about the climate crisis.”  And so, we were able to be elected. Thank you, everyone here. 

And then have the — (applause) — but — and have, then, $370 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act dedicated to address the climate crisis — not only because it is a crisis, as it evident — as evidenced, as you have mentioned by Ian, by the wildfires happening in California, the floods, the hurricanes, but also because of America’s leadership and what it should be globally on this issue. And so that has happened, and it will propel a lot of good work.  

The crisis is real, and the clock is ticking. And the urgency with which we must act is without any question. 

And the way that we think of it and the way I think of it is both in terms of the human toll and — I know we are all thinking about the families in Florida, in Puerto Rico with Fiona — and what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response and aid, but also what we need to do to help restore communities and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient — not to mention, adapt — to these extreme weather conditions, which are part of the future.  

No talk about FEMA money going to black folks and not to white folks? Nope - no mention of FEMA at all, in fact. 

Now, here's what she had to say about disparities, in response to the part of the question about climate change.

On the point that you made about disparities: You know, when I was — back when I was District Attorney of San Francisco — I was elected in 2003 — I started one of the first environmental justice units of any DA’s office in the country focused on this issue. And in particular on the disparities, as you have described rightly, which is that it is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making. And so, when — 

Chopra Jonas interrupted here to say "and women." 

Absolutely. And so, we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity; understanding that not everyone starts out at the same place. And if we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work. (Applause.) 

But also, I will say, as a former prosecutor, part of this issue also has to be about enforcement and, where appropriate, making sure that the bad actors pay a price for what they do that is directly harming communities in terms of their health and wellbeing. 

So, when we think about policy then, there are many aspects to it, including something that the President and our administration and I are very excited about, which is the opportunity that moving towards a clean energy environment and industry — what it will do in terms of job creation and building up our economy.  It’s tremendous. (Applause.) 

So, there are many benefits to this work. 

And to your point about the global piece: Among the leaders that I have been meeting and convening — just recently, in fact — and now this was, I think, the third time — I convened the presidents and prime ministers of the Caribbean countries; there’s an organization called CARICOM. And I convened them just a couple weeks ago. And the consistent discussion we are having is exactly your point, which is: We are one of the greatest emitters in the world and the Caribbean countries, for example, are paying the biggest price. They are some of the lowest emitters, yet the erosion that they are experiencing to their island nations is profound. 

And when you combine that with the fact that nations like that — their biggest source for their GDP is tourism, and what the climate crisis and extreme weather conditions do in terms of then plummeting their incoming resources, not to mention what we are expecting all good nations to do to contribute to mitigation and adaptation.

So, there is still a lot of work to be done to recognize the equities. And I will say, for us, as the United States, to own responsibility for what we rightly — (applause) — should do to recognize these disparities and contribute in a way that is fair with the goal of equitable priorities.

Is Harris the only one who's been victimized by a soundbite? Of course not; it would be silly to think so. She won't be the last either. Heck, she probably won't be the last one this week.

The thing that's so frustrating? No one will be pushing back on folks like Rick Scott, or the NY Post, or anyone else for saying something that wasn't true - but there'll be more than enough people willing to 'report' on the fact that they said it. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v217)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Seems the Wall Street Journal is the latest paper to face backlash from employees for printing objectionable opinion column; this comes on the heels of the New York Times facing a similar experience for publishing an opinion essay written by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton; the piece has been updated with comments from the paper about the editing process and the potential for the piece having been rejected.

Over at the WJS, according to this article from The Hill, employees at the paper wrote the publisher  that Opinion's "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers' trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources." One of the Op-Eds that was cited as an example? That would be one written by the vice president- go figure.

So, what's the wondering? Simply this: What would happen if employees at Fox and Friends, or Hannity's show, or Rachel Maddow's, or even at the White House, decided to do the same thing, and call out some of the fact-challenged silliness that gets pushed to us on a daily basis? Would those employees still be employed, and respected? I wonder.

Speaking of opinions, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had one published in the Washington Post last week.  Here's the third paragraph.

Never before have America's founding principles been under such relentless assault. For decades, our institutions of higher education have sought to debunk or disown them. Last summer, the NY Times launched the 1619 Project, which contends that the essence of America is entwined with slavery and racism. In recent weeks, justified outrage at the actions of a rogue Minneapolis policeman has given way to outrageous efforts to erase American history by tearing down statues of our nation’s founders.

I wonder if the Washington Post doesn't require facts in support of opinions from important people? For example, where are the facts supporting that the murderer of George Floyd was a 'rogue' policeman? Where are the facts about institutions of higher learning? And are we really to accept at face value that there has never been this kind of assault on our founding principles?

And I also wonder about this statement made by Pompeo in his speech the other day.

The founders changed the course of history when they established a nation built on the premise that government exists not to diminish or cancel the individual’s rights at the whims of those in power, but to secure them.

Coming from a member of the administration that is fully supporting the cancellation of rights of certain Americans, that statement is, well, problematic, I think. As are these which came later.

And so we are forced to grapple with the tough choices about which rights to promote and how to think about this. 

Americans have not only unalienable rights, but also positive rights, rights granted by governments, courts, multilateral bodies. Many are worth defending in light of our founding; others aren’t. 

Who gets to determine which rights are not worthy of defending? Who decides that certain people are not allowed to participate in our founding principles, of our being created equal, of our having the same unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  I have to wonder about that...

Opinions, and disagreements about them, are part and parcel of who we are as Americans.  The rights that Pompeo seems so concerned about both allow and encourage us to disagree, to debate, to challenge, and to protest. We are allowed to be angry, as Americans, and to fight to make our country better.

Rather than considering that a "relentless assault" on our founding principles, I wonder why we can't just call it patriotism?

America: Love it, and fight for it. To do anything less is to fail our founders, and to abdicate our rights.  I don't wonder about that in the least.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v37)

Sonofa Gov Poster

Andrew Cuomo, New York's Sonova Gov, recently helped save a man who was trapped in an overturned vehicle on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.  A few days later, he visited Puerto Rico after the recent earthquakes.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany between those two early-January activities, he delivered his tenth State of the State address - and, I should note, he was the creative force behind the poster you see here.

Our ship of state is stronger than it has been in decades. But the ocean we navigate is as tempest tossed as we have seen. Waves of anxiety, injustice and frustration are being fanned by winds of anger and division, creating a political and social superstorm.

That 'superstorm' includes school shootings, synagogue massacres, swastikas, turmoil on university campuses, homophobia, the increase in hate crimes... And it's going to get worse, he said, because of impeachment proceedings, divisive campaigns, and increasing global conflict. And those folks in DC? They're making it worse. 

We have a divided nation and a polarized Federal government. Everyone is pointing fingers, but no one is pointing forward and no one is pointing up.

He then recounted how New York has been a leader in the progressive movement, described as "the advancement of social, racial and economic justice, in an effective manner, to bring about meaningful improvement in the lives of aggrieved people and to further the collective interest." He outlined successes including gun safety, marriage equality, minimum wage, paid family leave, infrastructure, pro-union policies, and more.

Taxes went down for the middle class and corporations, and we've limited government spending to a 2% cap. We did all of that already, so what's left?

• Climate change: be ready to handle emergency situations, accelerate the transition to renewables, focusing on upstate opportunities; new transmission lines to get power from upstate to downstate; banning Styrofoam; funding national restoration/resilience programs, and more
• Green economy: expanding electric vehicles, attracting green industry, and putting a Nobel laureate to lead the way
• Taxes: continue growth by cutting small business taxes by 2.5%, cut 'middle class' taxes for individuals making up to $300K a year
• Upstate: continue REDC and DRI funding for economic growth; expand infrastructure investment; move on a host of regional projects from Buffalo to the Mohawk Valley and the Adirondacks; additional airport improvements; and more
• Downstate: continue investing in the MTA and Long Island Railroad; banning repeat sex offenders from the MTA; parks and housing initiatives. 

And, there's more:

• ensuring adequate cell service for the entire state; changing how the gig economy classifies workers; expanding paid leave; ensuring banks do business with everyone, or they won't do business with anyone; coordinating with neighboring states on legal marijuana; creating a global cannabis and hemp research center; ending the 'pink tax,' changing rape laws specifically where alcohol is involved
• legalizing 'gestational surrogacy' for same sex couples; expanding the Empire Child Care Tax Credit to include children under four; increased funding for affordable housing, with a demand for a 'higher level of competence, skill and professionalism' from local governments so the money won't be wasted 
• Not allowing guns purchase by people with a deniable conviction in another state; ending school funding disparities; free college tuition for families earning up to $150,000 a year; expanding workforce training programs
• Restricting the sales of all flavored e-cigarettes, restricting advertising on these products, and banning 'dangerous chemicals and products' as well as all variations of Fentanyl and synthetic drugs; expanding access to medication and assisted treatment; funding and other steps to ensure every New Yorker is counted in the upcoming census, and overturning the SALT limitation in the Trump tax code
• Speaking of taxes, all elected officials making over $100K annually must release their New York State taxes; prescription drug reform, medical transparency; passing the ERA; veterans assistance; e-bike laws; voting and election reform; and more.

Now, about that $6B budget gap, what did he have to say? All I can find is this:

• shifting more of the Medicaid burden to municipalities, which has been frozen for six years; and adding more accountability on the municipalities to keep costs down.

He challenged us to end the "American cancer" that is hatred, regardless of who it's against.

 Racism and discrimination are not new... It is this country consuming itself from within. And if we do not confront it, and if we do not defeat it, it will defeat us — there is no nation on this globe that can beat this nation, but this nation can defeat itself. 

New York must be the antidote. 

He said hate crimes would be subject to the "first-in-the-nation domestic terrorism law" and there'd be funding to expand the capacity of the Hate Crimes Task Force and for security grants to schools and places of worship. And, he wants schools to teach civic values and our history on diversity, as well as how immigration was driven by religious freedom, and

How Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity all teach one premise: that the strongest four-letter word is not hate, its love. 

There's also a call to expand the Jewish Museum on the Holocaust to allow it to "host school children all across the state" and make visiting there

part of a rounded education because to know the history of the Jewish people, is to know the history of love and connection, because New York would not be New York without the Jewish community, period.

Finally, he spoke of unity, saying that we should learn from the Pledge of Allegiance.

 It says, "One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Justice for all. Not justice for some, not justice for the wealthy, not justice for the well-off, not justice for the well-bred. Justice for all. That's what it says.

To demonstrate what that means to New Yorkers, he wants to add E Pluribus Unum to our state flag.

And then, the closing:

And hear me today, loud and clear. There is no place for hate in our state... When someone attacks one of us, they attack each of us and all of us.

When they attack Muslims, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack the LGBTQ community, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack Latinos, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack Asian Americans, they attack me, and they attack you. When they attack African Americans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. When they're attacking Italian Americans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. When they're attacking Puerto Ricans, they're attacking me, and they're attacking you. And when they attack Orthodox Jewish people on the seventh night of Hanukkah, in Monsey, in Rockland, in the home of Rabbi Rottenberg, they attack me and they attack you! 

And when you try to divide the great State of New York, we will stand up tall. We will stand up unified. We will stand up and we will fight and we will win! Because we are right! And that is the New York way! Excelsior! Thank you, and God bless you!

And, lest you're wondering, he's not running for president in 2024. At least not yet.

The Metaphorical Garden

Rarely have I been more grateful for my garden than I have been in the past few weeks. 

No, the beds are not gorgeous and in full bloom – quite the opposite. After a long winter, there’s always much to do, and this year there’s a little more than usual as most of them seem in need of intensive rehabilitation. We're having the house painted this year, so I may have to move some of the foundation plants at least temporarily, and that's adding to the planning, even if not to the actual work. I’m dozens of hours into it, full weekends and some nights after work when the weather cooperates, with more to do.

My hands ache. My knees are sore, even with my fancy knee pads. My back is tired. I've worn almost through the fingertips on my new gloves, leading to frequent bouts of, well, let’s say somewhat colorful language when something gets in under my nail.  The pile of yard waste that will go to the city's compost program is about the size of a Fiat. I have allergies, I think. 

And I am grateful.

I’m grateful because, while I’m in my garden, I’m fighting to define the boundaries of yard and flower bed, and working to free the tender perennials from the grip of the weeds that so carefully and deviously surround them, or grow right on top of them, as happens with my irises. I try to remember where everything grew last year, where things thrived, so I can make sure they have a happy and healthy home this year. It's tricky; some of the late bloomers haven’t even begun to wake up from their winter’s rest. 

I contemplate the monarda, marching across the beds, and question whether I could possibly turn it into a cash crop. I look for the columbine, a vigorous self-sower which seems to be in short supply this year. And I check on the wisteria and the beauty bush, hoping they are strong enough to bounce back again. I struggle with what to do with the unruly and no longer ornamental grasses, some of which have already been relegated to the back garden.  Is that where the rest of them will spend their days, in Mikey's Meadow?

I worry about the woodchucks and bunnies that might (no, will inevitably) come to dinner in my urban front yard, and what will tickle their fancy this time, as it seems to change each year. Will they covet my coneflowers again? Or, will their palate yearn for poppies or blue flax, or maybe my phlox?  I've kept the fences on the hollyhocks, a perennial favorite, if you will, but there’s always so much for the little devils to pick from, so many tasty young plants that are so hard to resist. I need to have a plan.

And I wonder how I can possibly keep everything safe and not have the garden look like a war zone, how I can have it look the way it's supposed to, full of colors and textures, without its beauty being encumbered by fence and netting.

Even with all of that, I’m grateful. 

The hours I've spent in the garden are hours I've been able to work out my frustrations on why we have such a hard time getting our collective arms around the concept of equality and equal opportunity, and around the concept that all lives matter:  black and white and brown and yellow and red ones, and all of the colors in between.  Lives wearing police uniforms and lives wearing police jumpsuits, or hoodies, or even the god-awful hideous sagging pants. Lives wrapped in a rainbow flag, and lives of those who would chase rainbows looking for a pot of gold. Lives of ‘the believers’ and of those who believe something else entirely, or in nothing at all.  

What a mess we can make of things, and yet what an opportunity we have, I think while I’m out there in the fresh air, working on my garden melting pot.

And I've made progress, according to the guy riding by on his bike yesterday, who shouted an encouraging “keep up the good work, the garden’s coming along!” and the young woman giving a piggy-back ride to a child who made a point to remind me “I think I told you last year too, but I love your garden, it always makes me smile.”  Or one of the littlest who whispered “pretty flowers, Mommy!” as his family walked by, pointing shyly at the white and yellow daffodils, the grape hyacinths, and the miniature tulips in the bed closest to the sidewalk.

Yes, I’m surely grateful.  And it’s time to get back out there. 

An Easter Message

Easter sunrise, 2015/veritablepastiche

Today is a day of celebration for some, a deeply religious holiday for those who celebrate that The Son is risen. For others, it's a 'normal' day, filled with content that the sun has risen.

For me, being in the latter half of that equation, Easter Sunday has always been a day of family, food and laughter, with heavy emphasis on the laughter part, certainly while my Dad was alive, and we have done well to keep that going since he's been gone.

When we were kids, we colored eggs, and had our Easter egg hunts, searching high and low for the ones we had colored and the coveted plastic ones with coins or jelly beans inside them.  I can picture my brothers, one and two years older than me, and taller, wandering around the house on Easter morning, checking things out, making mental notes of where the good ones were. My oldest brother had a way of tilting his head and raising an eyebrow when he saw a treasure waiting in what I'm sure Mom and Dad thought was a particularly good hiding place.

I also remember us getting chided by my Dad, for doing reconnaissance before he and Mom got up, for trying to take more than our fair share, not playing well together, and so on.

Even though we stopped going to church when we were young, around nine or ten I think, there was always an expectation  that we would 'behave' appropriately.  Not just from a discipline perspective, such as riding your bike into the charcoal grill (me), or succumbing to peer pressure and shoplifting (me), or playing with matches (NOT me), or a classic, 'spelling' bad words by writing 7734 upside-down (yeah that was me again), but from the larger perspective too.

You did not need to go to church, you did not need to believe that Christ died on the cross, or in the Resurrection, or in the rest of it, to understand that treating people fairly and with respect was the right thing to do, that taking everything you saw or could get your hands on and leaving others with nothing was the wrong thing to do, that being mean and calling people names or picking on people who were 'different' was not acceptable, or that being charitable, even to your annoying little sister, was the better path to take.

Surely, we did not learn these lessons perfectly, sometimes to the chagrin of my Methodist mom and my non-religious Dad, but I suspect they hadn't learned the lessons perfectly either. My Dad never met a dumb blond joke he didn't like, for example, and never missed an episode of All in the Family, but made sure that 'Polack' jokes became 'Peter, Andy and Susan' jokes.  They never stopped trying - and never stopped encouraging us, through word and deed, to keep trying as well, not because there'll be a place for us in Heaven if we do, but because our place on Earth can be better for the effort.

And that's where we are today, some 45 or 50 years later. Our collective place on Earth can be better for the effort, for the simple wisdom that we were taught when we were kids:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

Let's not do things to others in the name of our religious beliefs or our politics that we would not willingly accept if done to us by others in the name of their religious beliefs or their politics.

Let's not be the reason why, in what is arguably the greatest democracy in the history of the world, we need to have laws on the books reminding us that we cannot discriminate against others based on their

race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identify, or United States military service

This doesn't mean that we can't find things distasteful, or that we have to like everyone, or that our circle of friends needs to look like a Target ad or an Applebee's commercial or the stock photos we see in our company's publications, or that we have to agree with everyone on everything, or even that we have to understand everyone else.

After all, we are not perfect, and I don't think (for believers or non-believers) that perfection is the expectation. But can we strive to do better, be more accepting, more tolerant, more forgiving, more understanding?

Make room. Do unto others.

Happy Easter.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v26)

Think about your family and friends, coworkers, people you see on the bus or in the liquor store or at the dry cleaners or at a concert or at one of your children's school plays or athletic competitions or at the gym. Or church. 

Think of your Facebook friends, and Instagram or Twitter followers. Think about politicians and preachers and news reporters and actors and actresses and studio heads and motor heads and radio heads and talking heads. Think about rappers and crooners and twangers and cellists and drummers and color guard participants and criminals and jurors and homeless people and the people who help them.

Think about your parents and grandparents and people you knew in college or high school or elementary school. Or the bank teller or the kid at the register or the guy stocking the toilet paper at the grocery store or the car salesman or the phone survey person who calls you during dinner. 

And for all of the people you see and come into contact with every day wherever you spend your time, or do whatever it is you do (knowing that what you 'do' is practice your religion 24/7/365), tell me if at any time you have felt compelled to advise any of those people that your religious beliefs prevent you from engaging with them.

And then picture yourself being on the receiving end of this constant practice of religion whereby you cannot be served by someone else, based on how you look or sound or your actions or your faith or lack thereof.

I'm wondering, on this Wednesday, whether you'll say it feels more like freedom or more like discrimination.

What's Really Wrong with The Republican Party

Last week a contributor to my local paper had a piece about the problem with Republicans, which pointed out several of their shortcomings, including;

• voting over 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act
• holding government departments hostage to express ideals
• applying an unchanging, literal interpretation of the Constitution, which we all know is a living document
• Grover Norquist, the anti-tax pledge poobah
• not recognizing the inequalities in our society
• bowing to business interests, regardless of ethics and 'trust' issues
• poor public relations skills

He notes, as many have, that the Rs have an opportunity now, perhaps a "once in a lifetime" opportunity: 

They could show creativity, a sense of the future, anticipate what is needed, yet they are mired in dysfunction and inability to focus on anything but flailing at the president, who seems to be deploying Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope tactic with more than moderate success. 

Note that a year ago Kimatian opined on how easy it is to be a Democrat; he will be offering his opinion on what's wrong with Dems this week.  I'll offer mine as well.

Kimatian addressed many of the things that frustrate me about Republicans, and did a reasonable job with his focus on what's happening at the national level, but I think the real problem with Republicans is what's happening at the lower jurisdictions (after all, that's where most Congressional Republicans come from) and the Party's apparent inability to disavow any person or thing, any animal, vegetable or mineral, that puts an R on its chest.

Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead.  Damn common sense, full speed ahead.  Screw the less fortunate, full speed ahead.  Screw the environment, full speed ahead.  Take no prisoners when it comes to health insurance, or violence against women, or voting rights. Christianity should be our national religion. Separation of church and state, well, that's not important. Gays should be shot in the head. Corporations have deeply held beliefs. Women should have to prove they were raped (this is but one instance of Republican rape insensitivity; there are dozens.) All marriages licenses to be signed by members of the clergy. Make sure you follow the rules on lawn-mowing at abortion clinics.

Remember, folks: the Republicans are the party of smaller, less intrusive government...

It's hard to look at laws and ballot initiatives that are taken up (and some passed) by Republican legislators, or suggested by what can only be described as hard-core Christians who wander around the right fringe, and not think that Republicans are looking to circle the wagons around a vision of America that is only populated by straight wealthy white Christians who are desperately afraid of what the world is becoming.

A vision of America that is so deeply rooted in the past that it forsakes a significant population of the country, including people like me (middle class straight non religious white women) who are afraid of what America will become if we continue to have elected officials acting like we're living in the 1950s instead of 2015.

We need leadership and an agenda that includes the economy and immigration and tax reform and health care and the military and how we are to act in a world that is no longer predominantly populated by people who resemble the traditional Republican. We need people looking forward, not back.

Look ahead, Republicans, and look around at those who wave your banner and get them to start looking ahead with you. Disavow the charlatans, the extremists, and those who commit bad acts in your name.

Unless, of course, you agree with them.

More Political Equality, Please.

In a recent post, I asked for More Term Limits, Please because I believe that we do not need 'politicians for life' but instead need to move to a place where public service focuses more on the service part and less on the living-a-life-paid-for-by-the-public part. 

This is not a Democrat or Republican thing with me: I'm equally opposed to entrenched Dems and Reps and Indies. For example, while some cheered the long service John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who spent almost 60 years in Washington (and who was replaced by his wife), I cheered his retirement.

Term limits have very little chance of happening in most places; here in NY, for example, I think the process would be that the ones who would be directly impacted by the limits would need to pass the same bill in two consecutive legislative sessions, just so we could get the initiative on the ballot, and then the voters would need to approve the initiative, and then of course we'd need a couple of Commissions, Committees, Authorities and Boards pulled together in order to determine how term limits can be implemented, and then... well, you get the drift. Our chances are slim, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for them.

In the meantime, we could also fight for some other changes (in addition to the ethics reforms put forth via sledgehammer by our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo) that would introduce more equality and representation for New Yorkers across the board, which (I naively thought) is the point of having the Legislature in the first place. 

Here are five ideas that come to mind:

1. Offices of members of the Legislature should all be the same size, regardless of how long the politician has been in office or what leadership position person holds. If we can have open offices in business, where the CEO sits in the cube farm along with everyone else, why must we reward politicians with progressively bigger offices and better artwork for no real reason? 

The people our legislators represent are the same; I'm no different than a person in Buffalo or Rochester or Binghamton or Watertown or Orange County or Staten Island, I'm simply a New Yorker who is supposed to have representation in Albany. Maybe if our representatives were all treated equally, they might have an equal chance to represent us.

2. Publish a legislator scorecard.  If you pay attention to the newsletters you get from your legislators, you'd think they go to Albany, vote on one or two things, and then come home to have pictures taken with veterans, children and seniors. What the heck are they doing down there? Are they submitting legislation? Are they trying to, but being blocked by their own party leaders? Are they recording votes on things, participating in debates and so on? We have no idea what they're really doing, because they show and tell us only what they want to.  

The Assembly and the Senate should be required to publish a scorecard for each legislator, reflecting all votes that were offered up and how each member voted (no more voice votes); what legislation they attempted to put on the floor and what happened with it; what bills they co-sponsored, amendments they submitted, etc.

The information should be published monthly and delivered to all district constituents, posted unfiltered on each member's web page, and available on the Senate and Assembly webpages.  And, the costs associated with accumulating the information, publishing and mailing the scorecard should bet assessed to each legislator equally. 

3. Ban handouts of taxpayer dollars during the eight weeks leading up to an election. Remember Governor Cuomo traipsing up, down, and across the state holding press conferences announcing funds that he was handing out for economic development last year? Or my favorite, the property tax rebates which were approved in 2013 but not issued until the fall of 2014, when every single member of the legislature was up for reelection? That should be illegal.

I'm not saying that the state can't do business year round, that would be silly. Rather, politicians should not be allowed to swoop in on a community in the two months before the general election with suitcases full of cash and Publishers Clearing House-style prize checks, with full press coverage, and buy votes. It's wrong. We know it's wrong, the pols know it's wrong, and so do the reporters who cover these self-serving announcements.

When the money is appropriated, the schedule of when it will be distributed must accompany the announcement of the funding.  And, when the money is handed out, it must come with the a reminder that it's taxpayer dollars that were previously appropriated, not a gift bestowed upon us by someone running for office.

And if Albany must send an attention-grabbing person along with the money, well, that person cannot be an elected official, but should be a representative of the agency from which the funding flows.

4. Each legislative committee should have a permanent, not-partisan staff, which provides information equally to both parties. The size of the staff should be equal the number of legislators on each committee; the staff members should be employees of the State not of the Legislature, but the Leg should be charged for all of labor and benefits costs. Where possible, we should use SUNY or CUNY resources in the data gathering and analysis.

How does this help push the equality agenda? It removes partisanship from the research and investigation of issues that the Committees work on, and it removes the ability of the Leadership to influence what research gets done and presented to the Committee members. The party in the majority may have have more seats on the Committee, but all members will get the same unbiased, fairly gathered, equally shared information to use in their decision-making.

5. Hold Lobbyist Speed Dating events.  Each member of the Leg sits at their own table in a convention center or someplace equally public, under nice bright lights. Registered lobbyists have five minutes with each member to push their issue and when the bell rings, they move to the next table, whether that's a person they wanted to lobby or not. I'm sure they'll find some way to spend the five minutes.

To make this more fun, the members of the Assembly and the Senate will be seated in alphabetical order, and intermingled so a Republican Senator could be stuck in a row of Assembly Democrats, or vice versa. The lobbyists will also enter the room alphabetically, but go all the way to the, so lobbyist Mr. Abbott would start his speed rounds with Member Zambrowski.

On the chance that there are too many lobbyists -- OK,that was silly of me -- knowing there are more lobbyists than can fit into each session, the ones who don't make it into the room during the initial session will be first on the list for the next session.

The sessions should be open to the public, and the lobbyists who register to 'date' will be billed to cover the costs of the venue. The sessions should be rotated around the state, and all members of the Legislature would be required to attend each one. This will add an economic boost to all regions of the state, as we'll be able to fill unused dates in our floundering convention centers, maybe book some hotel rooms, that kind of thing.

After each session, a listing of the lobbyists who attended and the members they spoke with will be published on each Member's Scorecard and website, and also on the Assembly and Senate webpages. 

So there you have it: five changes that level the playing field for our elected officials and the people who lobby them, share wealth across the state, and provide real transparency for voters. They use our tax dollars wisely, tap into existing state resources on multiple levels, provide accountability, and heck, they might even cause more people to engage in the process.  

Now, I just need to find some willing partners to share this information with their friends, and their legislators.  Are you in?

Flatter is Better

As I noted the other day, I'm a proponent of a flat tax, because it's the only sure-fire way to treat all of us equally when it comes to income taxes. I also believe that the flat tax should apply to the breathless people too -- corporations -- that are the darling of politicians across the land

Assuming we can figure out the percentage that we would need to collect from people and corporations (and there's likely an app for that), it seems there would be some obvious benefits, including:

• Increased "certainty," something we've been told countless times over the past few years we're lacking. Without it, businesses and people can't invest, can't save, and can't spend money on goods and services. Businesses can't grow. The flat tax is nothing if not certain.
• No more scrambling in the spring to see if you can get a deduction or credit. No more trying to determine if you should file singly, jointly, or some combination of that. No more marriage penalty. No more having to pay a tax service. Just a tax on the income you earn.
• If your bracket says your tax rate is 25%, but you pay 15% because of all the gimmicks, are you paying your fair share? Most companies (and people) pay a rate less than what their bracket says they should pay. If we had a legitimate flat tax rate, one that was fair across the board, we wouldn't need all this other tinkering around. And we wouldn't have it. And we'd all be paying our fair share.
• Having our money in our hands all year long gives us freedom to do what we want with it. More money for more purchasing means more goods and services to purchase, which means more jobs, which means more income, which means more taxes. Not higher taxes, but more people contributing to the tax base, because they would have jobs. In theory, that could allow the tax rate to actually go down.

Perhaps equally important, though are the other benefits we could gain by completely reforming the tax code (closing tax loopholes, eliminating the social engineering components, etc.) and implementing a flat tax

What drives our political system? Money. Where does that money come from? Lobbyists, PACs, 501(c) organizations, unions, political parties, trade associations, corporations, and even some people. Why do those organizations donate money? Because they want something - they want lower taxes, or they want special tax credits, or they want fewer regulations (many of which call for fees, which are just like taxes, or the call for changes, which cost money), or they want special treatment (which usually means they want to pay less money one way or another).

So, if you're a politician from either party and you are getting boatloads of financial help from the organizations above, or you want to get boatloads of financial help, what do you do? You work with them or on their behalf to craft regulations or legislation that work to their advantage. You dream up bills that help reduce the tax burden on businesses, by setting up tax free zones, for example, or create other 'zones' which benefit specific sets of accountants and lawyers who get their clients into the programs, often leaving other businesses (and their employees) behind. You sign tax pledges or otherwise sell your soul for the money.

The problem with all of this, which is a purposefully cynical outlook on politic, is that because of money and its influence, people who think they are paying their fair share actually end up paying more than that. Why? Because the taxes that don't get paid by the people with influence end up getting paid by everyone else.  And not only that, all of these special programs, special rules, special tax deductions and credits and gimmicks serve to create separation and division between us.

We all know someone who complains about welfare programs, lobster-buying SNAP users and all of those baby-popping-out women that are embedded in the safety net. Well, those same complaints can also be made against companies and people who benefit from the special stuff, whether it's flexible spending plans covering day care, parking and public transportation, or tax credits for charter schools or higher education, or deductions for charitable contributions, or chosen types of interest, or even deductions for additional children that people choose to have, which we find so distasteful under other circumstances.

The list could go on and on, but at the end of it, like a rainbow, there's always the promise of a pot of gold - in this case, filled with our tax dollars. Crony capitalism, special tax breaks, are just as 'bad' as any other type of handout.

And if the money was not in the picture, would the ethical landscape improve? Would it be less appetizing to a politician to consider a bribe, to do a favor, to craft and pass a bill, if they knew that there was no wiggle room in the income tax laws? I would have to think yes.

Two years ago when he was Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan repeatedly said we needed to close tax loopholes, put an end to corporate welfare, and stop treating wealthy people differently. Here's one version of that sentiment:

And what we're saying about taxes is take the tax shelters and the loopholes away from, from the well connected and the well off so we can lower tax rates for everybody.

I'm not a huge Ryan fan, but on this, he was right. Close the corporate and personal loopholes, even the ones near and dear to us; stop the social engineering; stop the cronyism; reform entitlements for the 'haves' with equal gusto as for the 'have nots' and in the process, let's get some of the money out of politics. 

Extreme Conservatism, Texas Style

Remember a while back when our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo noted that those pesky extreme conservatives don't belong in New York?  In case you had forgotten, here's the crux of what he said that people, naturally, took out of context:

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

That caused a lot of consternation on the right, not surprisingly. It was pretended that he meant all conservatives need to pack up and move, or worse, stick around and then be sent off to 'camps' evoking Nazi Germany, or, say, America with our camps for the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

In the months that have passed since Cuomo 'went there' on New York not being extremist, other states have boldly continued on their mission to take the National Championship of Extremism. We've seen the anti-equality laws, we've seen climate change denial, we've seen religious freedoms extend to bricks and mortar people equally as they extend to living breathing people, and we've seen moves to allow businesses to refuse service based on, well, pretty much whatever they want.   And now, we have the Texas Republican 2014 Party Platform.

Here are just a few tidbits from that document:

• Preservation of Republican Form of Government: We support our republican form of government in Texas, as set forth in the Texas Bill of Rights, and oppose initiative and referendum. We also urge the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any judicial jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of law, specifically foreign law (including Sharia Law), which is not in accordance with the US or Texas Constitutions. And because Sharia Law within our borders is such a threat, especially now that our first 'Muslim President' is a lame duck... 

• Climate Change: While we all strive to be good stewards of the earth, “climate change” is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives. We urge government at all levels to ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or “climate justice” initiatives. So when the 367 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline begin their inevitable degradation in the face of rising waters, and coastal cities, oil rigs, fisheries, billions in tourism and the like are threatened, we can all sit back watching Texas drown in their convictions, and ignore their pleas for even a penny of assistance. (And there won't be a citizens revolution in the form of 'initiative or referendum' to change this, because that would be wrong.) 

• Homosexuality- Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation's founders and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples... Additionally we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.  So that part about all men being created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we'll ignore that part entirely.  And in case you are lost and wandering down the path of 'choice', there's hope for you: 

• Reparative Therapy- We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy. Not sure if seeking healing and wholeness 'from' their lifestyle is really what they meant with this. Isn't that what gays are seeking 'with' their lifestyle, just like straight folks?

• Food Choice- We support the right of individuals to make their own dietary decisions. We oppose any laws regarding the production, distribution, or consumption of food. Government should not restrict non-genetically engineered seeds. Any laws regarding food? Really? Roadkill can be distributed as food? Infected cattle can be turned into steaks, distributed and eaten? Note to self: no eating in Texas. And doesn't the part about seeds seem backwards? I don't think folks are really concerned about 'natural' seeds, the concern is all about the ones that are GMO or 'genetically engineered'.  Or do extreme conservatives think differently on this one?

• Immunizations- All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children, without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent. So your personal choice to not vaccinate your kids against preventable infectious and contagious diseases can endanger my health and that's good with you, Republicans?  Hope you still fee that way if one of your family members is impacted by someone else's decision not to vaccinate.

• Controversial Theories- We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of  scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challenge-able scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind. Yea, though I walk through the valleys of Texas with dinosaurs by my side, near underwater cities, I fear no evil for I have been educated in Texas!

• Traditional Principles in Education - we support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America's legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and Founder's writings. Except we'll disregard all of the pieces that have been changed over the years like ending slavery, voting rights, civil rights, etc. Unless they're about 'science' in which case we can re-think them "as new data is produced."  And then there's that whole Judea-Christian economic system thing. Definitely going to need some help on that one. 

• Right to Keep and Bear Arms- America’s founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with clear intent – no level of government shall regulate either the ownership or possession of firearms. Therefore we strongly oppose all laws that infringe on the right to bear arms. We oppose the monitoring of gun ownership, the taxation and regulation of guns, ammunition, and gun magazines. Welcome felons, and mentally disturbed, and people with restraining orders... welcome to freedom-loving,gun-loving Texas. 

They also believe in adoption for embryos, separate (but presumably equal) polling places for Democrats and Republicans, elimination of just about all taxes, Texas sovereignty (including ignoring federal laws), repealing environmental regulations, and banning any kind of Census activity other than straight counting.

They are for a citizenship mark on a driver's license, but against a national ID card. They are for free speech for clergy (meaning political speech without sacrificing tax breaks), letting juries make decisions based on their personal beliefs (not on evidence presented in court), and voting rights for everyone except felons (who will then presumably vote with their un-infringed weapons).

They support fetal rights, protection of life from fertilization to natural death, Advance Directives and patient's rights, except when the patient doesn't want hydration or nutrition, which cannot be withheld.  (We've seen the impact of  Texas 'extreme right to life' policies recently.)

They support continued funding for the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars missile defense, you recall) not only for us, but specifically for Poland and the Czech Republic.

It goes on and on, some 40 pages worth. Some of it is actually reasonable, but for me, it's hard to stick with it in the face of the rest.

This is what Cuomo was talking about, when he talked about 'extreme conservatives.' Like Cuomo, I believe that this is outside the mainstream thinking of most New Yorkers, the majority of whom favor equal rights, reasonable gun control, and understand that man and dinosaur did not stroll to the prehistoric fast food joint together to order a burger or a nice salad.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, for a change in policies, or even a change in leadership for New York.  It just means we don't want to be Texas.

Brewer Just Says No

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB1062, the 'religious freedom' bill that made its way to her desk earlier this week.  The bill would have codified the right to discriminate against people on the basis of a deeply held religious belief.

In her comments, Brewer mentioned she's not heard of a single case in Arizona of a business owner's religious liberty being violated, making it seem the danger being addressed by the bill was neither clear nor present.  She also chastised the legislature for sending up this bill as the first policy bill of the session, when she made it clear her priorities were different.

She noted further that the bill was

broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. To the supporters of this legislation I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. However - I sincerely believe that SB1062 has the potential to create more problems that it purports to solve. And it could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want. Religious freedom is a core American and Arizonan value. So is non-discrimination. Going forward let's turn the ugliness of the debate of SB1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among all Arizonans and Americans. 

Hopefully, those who hold the extreme belief that government sanctioned discrimination is the umbrella they want to live under can see the error of their ways, and stop putting this type of legislation up for a vote.

At the same time, I'd like to think that there would be a reasonable consideration on the part of those most likely to have been discriminated against had this passed to stop and think about how they choose to make a stand.

The two examples of violation of religious liberty - a baker and a photographer, in two different states, who didn't want to participate in a gay wedding or a lesbian commitment ceremony - sort of got me thinking, and as usual, I suspect some folks will be mad at me for saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

I don't know about you, but I can't imagine wanting to spend a lot of time as I prepare to embark on happily wedded bliss trying to convince someone who has no interest in me to take an interest in me. Frankly, I would much rather spend my money with someone that appreciates me and my business than with someone who doesn't.

If you're Abercrombie and Fitch you don't want me as a customer, because you're right - I'm not one on of the cool 20-somethings you're catering to.  I can see that and I understand that and you'll never find me in that store.

I won't shop at Hobby Lobby either, for a couple of reasons. First, I don't like their merchandise; I also don't believe that employers should be expect that all of their employees subscribe to the same beliefs as the company does, and limit their benefits as a result. Further, they don't have a problem taking my money, without even asking if I subscribe to their beliefs - so they seem a little fickle on that, I think.

Truth be told, I'm currently engaged in one of those 'belief' conversations with my own employer right now, so I'm not afraid to fight the good fight. I'm also not afraid to walk away, and in the case of the baker and photographer, I really think I would have found someone else to help me with the wedding of my dreams.

Kudos to Jan Brewer for making the right decision, and to her point about searching for respect and understanding.  We can learn from both.

Yes, I'd Be Happy To Serve You

But first, can I ask you a few questions?

1. Are you single or married?
2. If you're single, why aren't you married? 
3. If you're married, are you married to a man or a woman? Are you of the same race or different races?
4. If you're not married, please describe your living arrangements. Do you live alone? With a roommate? A friend? A friend with benefits? Life partner? Other? Is the roommate/friend/friend with benefits/life partner a man or a woman? If Other, please describe.
5. Do you have any children? If yes, how many and what are their ages? If you do not have any children, why not?
6. Are you employed? If yes, please provide verification of employment. If not employed, what do you do all day? 
7. Have you ever had sexual intercourse for non-procreative purposes? Please describe.
8. Did you vote in the last election? Do you typically vote Republican? Democratic?
9. Are you currently wearing makeup?  If yes, why? 
10. Have you ever had a surgical procedure? Was the procedure elective? Was the procedure cosmetic?
11. Do you believe in vaccinating children?
12. Please describe your views on abortion. In detail. Include specifics about vaginal ultrasound procedures, how long the grass can be at an abortion clinic, parental notification, how high a bounty should be offered to people who identify women seeking an abortion after a specific time period has passed since her last period, the number of abortionists that can be allowed within a 100-square mile area, the number of protesters that can be allowed within six inches of a prospective abortion patient, how many visits a prospective abortion patient must have before having the procedure, and so on. Leave no stone unturned on this one.
13. Do you believe that infertility treatment is medically necessary? How about erectile dysfunction drugs? Do you believe in contraception?
14. Do you believe the government has the right to order parents or guardians to obtain medical treatment in any circumstance? If yes, please describe.
15. Do you believe that the government can order a patient to be placed on artificial life support, for any reason, against the expressed wishes of the patient and/or the patient's family?
16. Do you believe that the government can order artificial life support to be removed from a brain-dead patient, against the expressed wishes of the patient/patient's family, for any reason, under any circumstances?
17. Do you believe the government can prevent parents from getting medical treatment for their children?
18. Do you own any guns? How many? What kind? For how long? Have you had a background check? If yes, when? Do you have a concealed carry permit?  Are you carrying now? Have you ever fired your gun? If yes, when? What training did you receive on how to use your weapon? When was the training? Who provided it?
19. When was the last time you attended worship services? Where? Describe your religion in 140 characters or less.
20. If your faith includes confession, what was the last sin you confessed, and when?
21. Have you ever received food stamps, welfare, housing assistance, childcare assistance, energy assistance, Medicaid, or any other unearned governmental benefit? Please explain. 
22. Do you believe that women are subservient to men? Explain.
23. Do you believe the government should subsidize faith-based schools directly or through tax credits to parents of children attending the schools? If yes, at what grade level would this be appropriate?
24. Do you believe that only a creche and a Christmas tree should be displayed on government property, and that Christmas is the only legitimate holiday celebrated in December?
25. Do you believe in the spiritual benefits of psychotropic drugs such as marijuana, peyote, psilocybin, and related substances? Have you ever used any such drug for spiritual or other purposes? Explain. 
26. Do you believe in capital punishment? If yes, under what circumstances? If not, why not?

Please feel free to browse the store while I review your responses. Assuming all goes well,  I should be right with you. Oh wait, you have some questions for me before you decide if you want to do business with me?  Well, I guess that would be OK...

=================  

I'm not trying to make a mockery of anyone's religion or deeply held beliefs; I'm making a mockery of government-supported discrimination.  I'm making a mockery of laws like SB 1062 in Arizona, which is pending a signature or a veto from Governor Jan Brewer. I'm making a mockery of politicians like Steve Pierce, who voted for the bill before calling for a veto or repeal, because, like so many Republicans who denounce equality, he noted

I have friends that are gay, and I wouldn't do anything to hurt them.

This bill and others like it are being tagged with the rainbow flag, but they would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone else for any reason they could describe as a deeply held religious belief.  Wiccans could discriminate against Jews who could discriminate against Catholics who could discriminate against Baptists who could discriminate against Mormons who could discriminate against Christian Scientists who could discriminate against atheists who could discriminate against Lutherans who could discriminate against deists, any of who could discriminate against me for living in sin with My Sweet Baboo, if they so chose, or against him for being divorced, if they so chose, or for whatever reason they chose.

This fight is not about gays; it's about PEOPLE.

It's about not making laws that say it's OK to discriminate against people, whether they're in a protected class or not.

It's about remembering that we had government-sanctioned discrimination before we had protected classes.

It's about remembering that those days were not our brightest, shiniest moments.

It's about not going backward in the name of freedom.

Marriage Equality from the IRS is not real 'Tax Equality'

Yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service announced that they would recognize legal same-sex marriages for tax purposes, granting them the same benefits as legally married opposite-sex couples.  Even if they move to a state that doesn't have a marriage equality law. Even if they were married in a foreign country.  By golly, how progressive!

Here's a comment from Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on the decision:

Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal law that all Americans deserve. This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.

This announcement was entirely logical, based on the SCOTUS decision back in June that deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

The expected parties chimed in from both the 'pro' and 'con' side. For example:

The Treasury Department is grossly overstepping its authority. This is a nation of laws. Only Congress has the authority to change the law...This action continues a pattern of lawlessness across the nation where administrators and clerks have taken it upon themselves to interpret and re-write laws as they pertain to marriage. Only the legislative branches of the Federal or State governments enact or rewrite the law... This,  from Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. I'm guessing that those 'administrators and clerks' include Supreme Court Justices, who down DOMA?

This welcome clarification provides fair and consistent treatment for all legally married couples across the country. The federal government is right to recognized that people's marriages shouldn't dissolve when they cross state lines.  So said James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT Project.

This one seemed like a no-brainer for the IRS. The alternative, of course, would be to treat opposite-sex marriages the same as same-sex marriages, which I'm sure no one wants to mess with.  For example:

• Try telling an opposite-sex couple just back from their destination wedding and honeymoon on a Caribbean island that they're not really married, because they had their wedding in another country.
• Try explaining to all of those loving opposite-sex couples that got married in Las Vegas at the Elvis Wedding Chapel that their marriage is meaningless here in New York, because it happened in another state.
• Or my favorite, try telling married opposite-sex couples that they can no longer have any of the myriad benefits that go along with being married. There's more than just the tax implications, such as the one that was the reason for the Windsor/DOMA case in the first place.

If  the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, as some have suggested, then all benefits given to legally married couples should be removed.  However, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, then all legally married couples - same or opposite sex - are entitled to the same federal benefits.  That's really simple. 

What's complicated is way beyond the issue of marriage equality, and that's the thinking that somehow, every 'interest group' is entitled to some special benefit under the varied laws of the federal government and of each state.  Individuals and businesses, doctors and lawyers, farmers and bankers,  rich people and poor, military contractors and tourist traps and everyone and everything in between, have a chance at any number of reductions, credits, and benefits simply because they are, well either a person, place or thing. It's nuts.

What if, heaven forbid, we actually treated everyone equally, in just the tax code?  What if we made everyone pay their fair share, and not some manufactured share based on who they loved, their race, their location, their occupation, or how they spent their salary?

An outrage of biblical proportions, I'm sure.  The screaming that's been happening since June 26th over same sex marriage will pale in comparison to what would happen if we truly moved towards a limited government that acted with equality.

Anyone want to stick around for that?

All Our Problems Solved (in One Post)

Politicians make things so much harder than they need to be.

Instead of spending so much time flying back and forth between Washington and their home districts, they should spend more time on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. If they did, they'd have answers to all of our problems.

I mean, check this out.  In only a few minutes, I was able to sketch out the plan below, using information I've seen passed around on the web. Of course, I had to use a little creative thinking to get it all pulled together. But it was really quite easy to go from what's out there to what's in here.

Watch me solve all of our problems, including unemployment; welfare and disability cheating; illegal immigration; money-sucking retired teachers, cops and firefighters; our lousy educational system; increased revenue and lower taxes; and gun control, in one fell swoop:

First, take all of the unemployed government workers (including the union members who destroyed our country) that are now sucking the life out of us on unemployment, and get them whipped back into shape.  After they are re-energized, they will be responsible for rounding up anyone receiving any welfare-type benefit including subsidized housing, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, or similar benefit.

The former government workers go out and round up everyone on welfare, and we immediately confiscate the all of the creature comforts those scumbags got with our tax dollars. Cars, smart phones, clothes, gold jewelry, gold teeth, guns. giant TVs -- the whole nine. Take the steak and lobster right out of their refrigerators, dammit!

Everyone rounded up will undergo a physical and mental health exam to determine any limitation to them working. If they truly can't work, they get put on disability.

Those with no limitations other than laziness go to a medium security 'shock camp', (high walls and razor wire required) with a bunch of crazy retired military drill sergeants running the show, who will teach the deadbeats the skills they need so they can to work. You know, things like how to get up on time each morning; do simple chores; how to listen to and respect authority; how to dress like a normal human being; and how to speak basic English. They will take daily drug tests too. This will help grow medical labs and makers of little plastic cups, which will then become vital businesses for our growing global economy. 

The growth in privately owned and operated medium-security shock camps (for a second there, I almost said 'prisons') will also be good for our growing global economy.  It may put some government prisons out of business, but that's also good, because we want smaller, non-unionized government and lower taxes. It will also cut hundreds and hundreds of pages of now unnecessary federal and state regulations, because we don't need the government sticking their nose in our private businesses or making it harder for businesses to be successful.

The welfare women will be sterilized and the men vasectomized, so there's no chance for them to have more babies to get more benefits. This growth in anti-reproductive procedures is good for our gynecologists and surgeons, and our medical records business, and it will wipe out the need for abortion and those complicated vaginal ultrasound procedures that are so costly to administer. The intrusive ultrasound business will take a hit, but that's OK. I'm sure there's other stuff for them to probe buried somewhere in the 3,000,000 regulations that are included in President Obama's health care reform legislation.

The benefits these lazy bastards were getting will now go directly to the shock camp folks, for administrative costs including feeding everyone three square meals of nutritious grains, vegetables, and fruit each day. No soda allowed. No fried food allowed. No candy allowed. No cable TV, alcohol, tobacco, firearms or lottery tickets allowed. Certainly no drugs for Low-T, which if used could make people aggressive. We don't want aggressive, we just want people who know how to get out of bed and go to work.

If the welfare folks have kids, we'll put them to work doing age-appropriate tasks. These kids won't go to school, won't get anything other than skills training, because formal schooling is only allowed for the children of tax-paying people.

We'll need a boatload of accountants and investigators to keep track of all the government money flowing into the new growth businesses, so we'll be able to re-employ all of the skilled, over-50 workers who can't find jobs, and make them productive again. Which will raise revenue; and when that happens, we can lower taxes for the rich people, like the prison owners and the little plastic cup makers, and that will also be good for our economy and our American psyche. 

Next, we need to round up everyone collecting disability; they'll have a physical to find out of there's any kind of work they can do. If they are able to work they go to the shock camp for daily training up to their capacity. For example, 50% disabled, then 50% of their time is in the shock camp. The rest of time, and 100% of the time for those who are totally disabled, they spend in specially designed group homes. These folks will also take a daily drug test, get three square welfare-style meals a day, and only have amenities (cable, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery tickets, fried food, soda, candy and sex) available equal to their percentage of non-disability. Benefit payments continue, but they all go to the group home.

The group home industry now becomes a large and growing part of our new global economy. They'll need some low-paid employees to do menial tasks, of course, but more than that they'll need team leaders and counselors and therapists and stuff like that. There are thousands of new college grads living in basements all across the country, most with tens of thousands of dollars of debt who would probably jump at the chance to work at one of these homes. I'm thinking especially those with worthless liberal arts or education degrees. So, not only do we get control of the disabled, but we put all those snot-nosed college brats to work, and get them paying taxes and paying off their debt to the rest of us. 

Now, we need to take all of the retired police officers and firefighters, who usually start grabbing their taxpayer-funded pensions around the ripe old age of 45, get them off their lazy asses and have them go out and round up all of the people who look like immigrants.  Well, not all immigrants, just the ones who look Muslim or Hispanic. 

(No need to worry about the Asians, Indians, or Pakistanis, as they're all smarter than the rest of immigrants, and we need them to become doctors, engineers, etc. because regular Americans aren't smart enough because our education system sucks. And we also need the nail salons, Chinese restaurants, Arab corner markets and cheap hotels, Chinese laundries and so on which are run by the second-tier Asian, Indian and Pakistanis. They're not smart enough to become doctors and engineers, but they're really industrious running small businesses. And we all know now that small businesses are the backbone of our new global economy.)

After we round up everyone who's not like us, who doesn't make us look nice, or who doesn't sell us Big Gulps, we send the welfare and partially disabled out into the workforce, replacing the immigrants. Planting and picking food. Cleaning bathrooms at state fairs, office buildings, and hotels. Gardening and landscaping. Washing dishes. Working in laundries. Being day laborers.  Yes, the invisible jobs that were done by invisible people will now be done by our welfare scumbags and disability cheaters. Which is as it should be. And, all the trouble employers used to have to go through to make sure they were not employing illegals will be a thing of the past, because low-life Americans will be doing those jobs.  And once that happens, we slowly wean them off their welfare benefits. Say, in 24 hours or so.  That seems fair, right? We stop paying, and they start paying!

So all Muslims and Hispanic looking folks we rounded up, we put them into the shock camp, where they will wander along the path to citizenship for years and years.  And where did that path to citizenship come from, you ask?  We had the welfare people build it when they were in the shock camps.  Pretty neat, huh?

And when the Muslims and Hispanics write home to family -- we will make them do that, in between drug tests and Bible-reading-- they'll be able to tell everyone that they're on the path to citizenship, but that it's a winding path inside prison walls with razor wire on top, and clearly that will discourage folks from coming here illegally (or otherwise).

We still have millions of retirees to deal with - the ones just sitting around collecting their pensions and Social Security. Since many of them are retired teachers, who sucked us dry when they were working their part-time jobs for full time pay and now they have these exorbitant pensions and benefits, we should put these folks to work teaching skills to the welfare kids (that's a great thing for the retired art teachers to do), or teaching basic English to folks in the shock camps. Simple things that will make them feel better, and keep their minds sharp.

OK, so who's left? Oh, that's right. The good immigrants, the smart immigrants. The ones who get those coveted American diplomas where we staple their green cards.

Once the good immigrants are officially doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. and have their green cards, they will be required to spend five hours a week administering the citizenship test to current US citizens - starting with federal politicians, then rich idiots like Donald Trump, then everyone in state elected office, then all of the local elected officials, then government appointees, then regular government workers, and then eventually the regular folks like minimum wage earners and bloggers.  This'll certainly separate the wheat from the chaff, don't you think?

The test is essential; we need to make sure that those of us who are already taking part in the American dream are actually qualified to receive our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And gun ownership and abortion and free contraception and marriage between one man and one woman -- all of which fall in the LLATPOH buckets. And because of course, mandatory testing is a critical component of our new global economy. Just ask any school-aged child.

Those Americans who pass the test are free to continue on their merry way. And they get some of the spoils from the welfare round-up -- jewelry, cars, gold teeth, smart phones, guns, all that yummy steak and lobster, the large-screen TVs...

But if you fail the test, well, things are going to change for you really quick. Because the last thing we need is a bunch of idiots wandering around who think they know what America stands for, but who can't prove it. We need to keep America safe from those people.  We surely can't have them holding jobs and guns and Viagra and cigarettes and beers and Bibles and having sex with only one man and one woman for the purposes of procreating and furthering our American values. And voting, for cripes' sake. We sure as hell can't have them vote.

Since so many of the people who will fail the citizenship test come from families that have been here for generations, we can't send them back to their country of origin. Well, except the African-Americans. They can all go back to Africa. 

That larger population of white, non-Hispanic origin, the ones who have come up through the sucky American education system?  Well, since we can't send them back, off to the shock camps they go. 

See? All our problems solved.