Taxes are becoming an increasingly significant problem in NJ. Do we jump ship and go for the other side? A recent editorial in The Bergen Record by gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan set off some alarms when I read it1.
The general problem with the Republican tax model is that the businesses are supposed to contribute to the tax pool, and there seems to be a kind of either/or that is detrimental either way to the citizens of the state: The Republicans present two alternatives: If taxed, the businesses will flee the state, but if they don't, they will stay. Obviously the state gets no money out of that deal, and then the taxes continue to rise for the citizens no matter what the businesses decide to do. Yes, we need jobs in the state, but it is still a lose-lose situation for the people if the businesses get a free pass.
How much should we as a state sacrifice for the businesses to stay, as taxes will surely rise no matter if they flee or we dont tax them. This is where free-market economics (read: Deregulation, aka New Economic Theory, aka Lassez-Faire Capitalism) fails. It favors businesses (entities, organizations) over the people and public good. There is a limit to acceptable greed, but there is always the question of whether or not businesses would accept that ethic. What got us into this nationwide recession is sufficient evidence of that fact. To be too terrified of businesses leaving the state, doing everything we can for them to stay (even if they do not contribute) seems misguided. How much do we stand to gain if we dont tax them, and how much do we stand to lose if we do?
If the businesses aren't taxed, the people must pick up the slack, and they will get up and leave. If the businesses are taxed, they will do the same. How should we find the balance to help this state prosper? We need both, and we need both to contribute.
1) http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/lonegan_062309.html
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
It's Been a While
And things are good, and have been good: Gay rights are expanding across the country, Creationism has been defeated for the time being in Texass, and most importantly, Obama was elected.
So why am I writing?
Well, as things are getting good for us, there is usually a virulent strain of revolutionary conservatism that is terrified of what we're doing. It was around since the beginning of the aftermath of the election, and while most people were cheering, there were more people buying guns and stocking up on survivalist supplies. It started with Rush Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail" shenanigans, but now things are getting more serious in church. The NOM (as in "Om nom nom" ( '< . . ." or National Organization of/for Marriage, produced a Two-Minutes Hate against gay marriage "Oh NO! I have to sit here while my children learn in school that gay marriage is OK!", and Glenn Beck plays with Jenga to illustrate how people should be terrified of Os- I'm sorry, Obama. We used to be afraid of Osama, but we let him go. It's Obama they're afraid of, because he presents a huge threat to their ideology. Don't be fooled: Conservatism is not minimal government. The only deregulation they practice is economic; dont think for a second that they are at all concerned with individualism or the Constitution.
Aren't conservatives doing what we were doing during the Bush years? At first glance, there are similarities. But if one looks more closely, the problems during the Bush years were very real and very close to the lives of individual human beings, from the PATRIOT Acts and stem cell bans, and Bush's reckless cowboyism that completely disconnected us with the rest of the world. What could the conservatives possibly be afraid of? Their economic stability. Do you think Glenn Beck or Bill O'Really really cares about the middle or lower classes? Not at all. Faux Populi. If they did, they would be kicked off Fox News faster than Ted Haggard out of New Life Church. They aren't really afraid for this country, they are simply terrified of losing their (enormous, possibly illegal (earned through nefarious business practices), and possibly unearned) wealth.
The conservative doctrine treats corporations as human beings: That [corporations] are granted life and liberty, at the expense of real people. Libertarianism poses an equal and similar issue. This country learned in the 19th century up to the1950s that economic deregulation was contradictory to individual success and satisfaction, from the dystopias of Upton Sinclair and Andrew Carnegie's factory conditions, to munitions factories during WW1 and WW2, workers rights need to be balanced with the needs of corporate executives. Economic deregulation does not guarantee the rights of workers, it eliminates them and allows the corporations to do whatever they please to the people who work for them.
Paul Krugman wrote today that the "[Insani]"Tea Parties (as the brilliantly snarky Rachel Maddow took them) were conceived by the "usual suspects" (conservative "think" tanks), and tore out all of the authenticity that these Tea Parties (tea, crumpets, 6-year-old girls, and teddy bears!) seemed to hold as "grassroots" movements. No, Krugman calls them Astro-Turf movements, movements that have formed not from the bottom up, but from the top down: Fox News has been "aggressively" promoting these Tea Parties, and the rich hold tea parties that cost $500 a seat. Is that grassroots? I dont think so.
What were we doing during the Bush years? Well, I was reading dystopian novels, and watching as James Dobson excercised his insidious influence over public policy, as we preemptively attacked Iraq, as New Orleans became New Atlantis, as Creationists, armed with the overconfidence that their man was the President, steamrolled across the country, putting false warnings on science textbooks; I watched as John McCain chose Manchurian candidate Sarah Palin as his runningmate, who was everything conservatives like in a woman.
We watched as gas prices rose to between $4 and $5/gallon, as scientists and politicians proposed plans to cease global warming that went ignored by the President, who often tampered with scientific reports that contradicted his beliefs. We watched our moral credentials burn to ash after Abu Ghraib, as a White House official disclosed the identity of an undercover agent for retribution for contradicting doctored Bush intelligence on Iraq.
Obama approved a no-nonsense Navy SEALS operation to save the captain of that cargo ship. Could Bush dare to say the same?
So why am I writing?
Well, as things are getting good for us, there is usually a virulent strain of revolutionary conservatism that is terrified of what we're doing. It was around since the beginning of the aftermath of the election, and while most people were cheering, there were more people buying guns and stocking up on survivalist supplies. It started with Rush Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail" shenanigans, but now things are getting more serious in church. The NOM (as in "Om nom nom" ( '< . . ." or National Organization of/for Marriage, produced a Two-Minutes Hate against gay marriage "Oh NO! I have to sit here while my children learn in school that gay marriage is OK!", and Glenn Beck plays with Jenga to illustrate how people should be terrified of Os- I'm sorry, Obama. We used to be afraid of Osama, but we let him go. It's Obama they're afraid of, because he presents a huge threat to their ideology. Don't be fooled: Conservatism is not minimal government. The only deregulation they practice is economic; dont think for a second that they are at all concerned with individualism or the Constitution.
Aren't conservatives doing what we were doing during the Bush years? At first glance, there are similarities. But if one looks more closely, the problems during the Bush years were very real and very close to the lives of individual human beings, from the PATRIOT Acts and stem cell bans, and Bush's reckless cowboyism that completely disconnected us with the rest of the world. What could the conservatives possibly be afraid of? Their economic stability. Do you think Glenn Beck or Bill O'Really really cares about the middle or lower classes? Not at all. Faux Populi. If they did, they would be kicked off Fox News faster than Ted Haggard out of New Life Church. They aren't really afraid for this country, they are simply terrified of losing their (enormous, possibly illegal (earned through nefarious business practices), and possibly unearned) wealth.
The conservative doctrine treats corporations as human beings: That [corporations] are granted life and liberty, at the expense of real people. Libertarianism poses an equal and similar issue. This country learned in the 19th century up to the1950s that economic deregulation was contradictory to individual success and satisfaction, from the dystopias of Upton Sinclair and Andrew Carnegie's factory conditions, to munitions factories during WW1 and WW2, workers rights need to be balanced with the needs of corporate executives. Economic deregulation does not guarantee the rights of workers, it eliminates them and allows the corporations to do whatever they please to the people who work for them.
Paul Krugman wrote today that the "[Insani]"Tea Parties (as the brilliantly snarky Rachel Maddow took them) were conceived by the "usual suspects" (conservative "think" tanks), and tore out all of the authenticity that these Tea Parties (tea, crumpets, 6-year-old girls, and teddy bears!) seemed to hold as "grassroots" movements. No, Krugman calls them Astro-Turf movements, movements that have formed not from the bottom up, but from the top down: Fox News has been "aggressively" promoting these Tea Parties, and the rich hold tea parties that cost $500 a seat. Is that grassroots? I dont think so.
What were we doing during the Bush years? Well, I was reading dystopian novels, and watching as James Dobson excercised his insidious influence over public policy, as we preemptively attacked Iraq, as New Orleans became New Atlantis, as Creationists, armed with the overconfidence that their man was the President, steamrolled across the country, putting false warnings on science textbooks; I watched as John McCain chose Manchurian candidate Sarah Palin as his runningmate, who was everything conservatives like in a woman.
We watched as gas prices rose to between $4 and $5/gallon, as scientists and politicians proposed plans to cease global warming that went ignored by the President, who often tampered with scientific reports that contradicted his beliefs. We watched our moral credentials burn to ash after Abu Ghraib, as a White House official disclosed the identity of an undercover agent for retribution for contradicting doctored Bush intelligence on Iraq.
Obama approved a no-nonsense Navy SEALS operation to save the captain of that cargo ship. Could Bush dare to say the same?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Do We Need Science Education?
A comment on an online article about a science teacher in Florida trying to teach evolution to Christians in the New York Times questions why science education is important. A scientist claimed that science education is not required to be a rational citizen, as they could become tradesmen. I feel strongly compelled to correct him, and so I shall.
We need citizens who are minimally knowledgable in biological science because in a democracy, the people elect officials to make the laws for them, laws that many times regulate scientific practices (such as medicine and pharmaceutical practices), and we run into a very significant problem if the undereducated elect people who, like them, do not understand science. George Dubya Bush is a perfect example of what will happen and continue to happen
If children are not exposed to the scientific method early in life, how are they going to know that it exists? We will not have any researchers, which means: no cancer cures, vaccines, penicillin, Viagra, open heart surgery, or breast enlargement.
All we would be lft with are bloodthirsty, greedy priests, doomsayers, and Christian Scientists. Let's keep science mandatory in public schools .
We need citizens who are minimally knowledgable in biological science because in a democracy, the people elect officials to make the laws for them, laws that many times regulate scientific practices (such as medicine and pharmaceutical practices), and we run into a very significant problem if the undereducated elect people who, like them, do not understand science. George Dubya Bush is a perfect example of what will happen and continue to happen
If children are not exposed to the scientific method early in life, how are they going to know that it exists? We will not have any researchers, which means: no cancer cures, vaccines, penicillin, Viagra, open heart surgery, or breast enlargement.
All we would be lft with are bloodthirsty, greedy priests, doomsayers, and Christian Scientists. Let's keep science mandatory in public schools .
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
RIP Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn died last Monday. He was old, but I'm still sad about it.
The Soviet critics and censors witheld the recognition that he and Pasternak deserved within their country: They (though Pasternak wrote only one novel among his many poems), are, I would go so far as to say, the direct inheritors of the Russian literary tradition passed down through Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.
Solzhenitsyn proved much through living and surviving the oppressive Soviet Regime throughout almost the entirety of its existence. However, I feel that his time was soon up: He did what he had to do, and outlasted a government that hated him. But he did not get to enjoy his newfound freedom for long.
RIP Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Cancer Ward
Gulag Archipelago
The Red Wheel:
-August 1914
-November 1916
- [Has yet to be translated]
The Soviet critics and censors witheld the recognition that he and Pasternak deserved within their country: They (though Pasternak wrote only one novel among his many poems), are, I would go so far as to say, the direct inheritors of the Russian literary tradition passed down through Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.
Solzhenitsyn proved much through living and surviving the oppressive Soviet Regime throughout almost the entirety of its existence. However, I feel that his time was soon up: He did what he had to do, and outlasted a government that hated him. But he did not get to enjoy his newfound freedom for long.
RIP Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Cancer Ward
Gulag Archipelago
The Red Wheel:
-August 1914
-November 1916
- [Has yet to be translated]
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
John McCain WILL Destroy America
This is no mindless, leftist rant. I mean every word. During campaign stops, McCain has told his audience, "My 'friends,' I will ask you to serve [your country]...There will be other wars." We've already overstayed our welcome (we were not welcome in the first place) in two countries.
As a "military man," and someone who claims he "know[s] how to win wars," he should know that fighting multiple wars simultaneously (or, for McCainists, "at the same time") is always ruinous.
A man who's only claim to fame is staying in a Vietnamese prison and breathing napalm every morning does not understand that force, especially in political affairs, should never be in any leader's (especially a leader of the so-called "free world") top 20 courses of action. But for McCain, who never learned that there are alternative methods of getting what you want, and will sacrifice every single resource and every single human being to fulfill his vainglorious plan.
That's right. You think Dubya is the worst possible president? Bush saved us from himself with his incompetence. John McCain won't make that mistake, though he's still playing with the same cards.
The old McCain we loved is dead. In his place, the current Republican candidate is a neo-con through and through.
As a "military man," and someone who claims he "know[s] how to win wars," he should know that fighting multiple wars simultaneously (or, for McCainists, "at the same time") is always ruinous.
A man who's only claim to fame is staying in a Vietnamese prison and breathing napalm every morning does not understand that force, especially in political affairs, should never be in any leader's (especially a leader of the so-called "free world") top 20 courses of action. But for McCain, who never learned that there are alternative methods of getting what you want, and will sacrifice every single resource and every single human being to fulfill his vainglorious plan.
That's right. You think Dubya is the worst possible president? Bush saved us from himself with his incompetence. John McCain won't make that mistake, though he's still playing with the same cards.
The old McCain we loved is dead. In his place, the current Republican candidate is a neo-con through and through.
Friday, June 6, 2008
McCain Who!?
I'm so happy! (Until, of course, I go to the gas station...) Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination: Finally! A president who inspires Americans to do what they have never done before: Think. Hillary might have finally realized that her actions are hurting the best weapon we have against the corrupt Republican incumbents, and might concede to stop whining about "popular votes" and "going to the DN convention." Barack Obama may be young and have only four years' experience, but his sizable intelligence and accurate historical references (what other politician can get history right these days?) have won him my vote.
In their feeble, half-hearted and desperate attempt to save their collapsing party structure, which, since the Bush Fallout, has crumbled into disorganized factions (Militarism, Big Business, Neo-Conservatism, and Christian Conservatism) which are no longer cooperating with one another, the Reds have chosen John McCain, who is as feeble-minded as he is feeble-bodied, and he is certainly NOT the McCain we knew in 2000, who called out Jerry Falwell for what he was. No, the groupthink virus that spawned in the White House became a pandemic, and though McCain was one of the last to be pulled into it, he still was and still is.
John McCain is not a viable candidate. Bush has done the Democrats a huge service by exposing exactly what the ideals of the Republican Party as it stands now, and now none of the factions have a prayer to their false god to go on.
In his nomination speech, Barack Obama called every significant shot John McCain could make, and John McCain, could not defend himself. Only bigots and people with their heads in the sand could reasonably vote for McCain
But don't do anything cocky. It's basically in the bag as long as Billary doesn't say anything too loud or crass. And if McCain picks Hickabee, then Billary can say whatever it wants, because at that point, the Dems couldnt lose even if Jeremiah Wright publishes a book!
The Republicans have no real strategy. Before their nomination, they HATED John McCain, and when he was (OMIGOD!) nominated ("WTF!?" as surprising to them as ending up in Hell was to Lucifer in Paradise Lost), they jumped behind him in lockstep. He is their only hope now, and they know he isn't going to do it. Unlike the Democratic Party, they aren't given much to thinking and/or planning, and they simply scribbled on a piece of paper their various, impotent talking points (including 9/11), and handed it to John McCain.
Well, we know what those talking points are, and we know how to easily outsmart them. Bad News Bears for the Iraq issue: Congress just woke up! Now that Congress is awake to a fact we've known for years, how are you going to get yourself out of it? Do you know who the Sunnis, Shiites, and al-Queda are?
In their feeble, half-hearted and desperate attempt to save their collapsing party structure, which, since the Bush Fallout, has crumbled into disorganized factions (Militarism, Big Business, Neo-Conservatism, and Christian Conservatism) which are no longer cooperating with one another, the Reds have chosen John McCain, who is as feeble-minded as he is feeble-bodied, and he is certainly NOT the McCain we knew in 2000, who called out Jerry Falwell for what he was. No, the groupthink virus that spawned in the White House became a pandemic, and though McCain was one of the last to be pulled into it, he still was and still is.
John McCain is not a viable candidate. Bush has done the Democrats a huge service by exposing exactly what the ideals of the Republican Party as it stands now, and now none of the factions have a prayer to their false god to go on.
In his nomination speech, Barack Obama called every significant shot John McCain could make, and John McCain, could not defend himself. Only bigots and people with their heads in the sand could reasonably vote for McCain
But don't do anything cocky. It's basically in the bag as long as Billary doesn't say anything too loud or crass. And if McCain picks Hickabee, then Billary can say whatever it wants, because at that point, the Dems couldnt lose even if Jeremiah Wright publishes a book!
The Republicans have no real strategy. Before their nomination, they HATED John McCain, and when he was (OMIGOD!) nominated ("WTF!?" as surprising to them as ending up in Hell was to Lucifer in Paradise Lost), they jumped behind him in lockstep. He is their only hope now, and they know he isn't going to do it. Unlike the Democratic Party, they aren't given much to thinking and/or planning, and they simply scribbled on a piece of paper their various, impotent talking points (including 9/11), and handed it to John McCain.
Well, we know what those talking points are, and we know how to easily outsmart them. Bad News Bears for the Iraq issue: Congress just woke up! Now that Congress is awake to a fact we've known for years, how are you going to get yourself out of it? Do you know who the Sunnis, Shiites, and al-Queda are?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
For All the Nothing He's Doing
He's certainly doing something: This week, Curious George Pubic-Hair committed one of the most vile and indecent acts of his presidency: Our neo-con monkey, the man the worst of us elected to represent the best of us, visited Israel and invoked the most heinous act of human history in a smear campaign against an opponent, specifically Barack Obama. Not only is such an invocation as politically inappropriate and irresponsibe--I expect it from a college Ronpaulian conspiracy theorist, not a [EXPLETIVE] PRESIDENT!--as is possible to be inappropriate and irresponsible, but downright fearmongering on a scale never seen by any public figure: This exceeds the value-voting, gay-baiting Christians; even Jim Jones' apocalyptic wet-dreamers! Curiously Irresponsible George went to the a JEWISH COMMUNITY and tried to scare them WITH THE HOLOCAUST. Do I have to say any more than that? Is there any single thing more insulting, more irresponsible, more reprehensible, than making a partisan talking-point of the Holocaust??? The Republicans did also turn 9/11 into a talking-point, which I thought was bad enough, but now it isn't! What a shameless group of people! "To think people like [you/them]
have once ruled a country" (The Lives of Others 2006)
For invoking the Holocaust in the Israeli parliament, the Jews should have his head! In no way would I imply that they would fall for it (they will look just as stupid as the gay-baited Christians), and they certainly have a right to feel deeply, deeply offended by him trying.
What is even more appalling, is what the result might be if Israel and the Jewish community at large does fall for it: The radicalization of the Jews their its neighbors, leading to the last vestage of an (as far as i can tell) secularized religion crumbling in the fists of hate, leading to an immoral act of aggression and.....giving the evangelicals exactly what they want...
have once ruled a country" (The Lives of Others 2006)
For invoking the Holocaust in the Israeli parliament, the Jews should have his head! In no way would I imply that they would fall for it (they will look just as stupid as the gay-baited Christians), and they certainly have a right to feel deeply, deeply offended by him trying.
What is even more appalling, is what the result might be if Israel and the Jewish community at large does fall for it: The radicalization of the Jews their its neighbors, leading to the last vestage of an (as far as i can tell) secularized religion crumbling in the fists of hate, leading to an immoral act of aggression and.....giving the evangelicals exactly what they want...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)