"It turns out, in fact, that only an estimated 10 percent of all charitable deductions this year will be directed at the poor."
Got your attention?
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1220-21.htm
When Charity Shouldn’t Begin at Home
by Robert B. Reich
‘Tis the season to be jolly and also to make donations to your favorite charity. This year’s charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion, a new record. Some 80 percent of them are made now, in the final weeks of the year.
But lots of charitable dollars – especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate – are going to culture palaces: to the operas, art museums, symphonies, and theaters where they spend much of their leisure time. They’re also going to the universities they once attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the help of what’s known as affirmative action for "legacies."
These aren’t really charitable contributions. They’re more like investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have, too. They’re also investments in prestige – especially if they result in the family name engraved on the new wing of the art museum or symphony hall.
It’s your business how you donate your money. But not entirely. Charitable donations are deductible from income taxes. This year, the U.S. Treasury will be receiving about $40 billion less than it would if the tax code didn’t allow charitable deductions. Like all tax deductions, that gap has to be filled by other tax revenues or by spending cuts, or else it just adds to the deficit. (Not incidentally, the government now spends some $40 billion a year on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is what remains of welfare.)
I can see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable tax deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the Guggenheim Museum or Harvard University?
Not long ago, New York City’s Lincoln Center had a gala dinner supported by the charitable contributions of the leaders of the hedge fund industry, some of whom will be receiving billion-dollar bonuses in the next few weeks. I may be missing something here, but this doesn’t strike me as charity. I mean, poor New Yorkers don’t often attend concerts at the Lincoln Center.
It turns out, in fact, that only an estimated 10 percent of all charitable deductions this year will be directed at the poor.
So here’s a modest holiday proposal: At a time in our nation’s history when the number of needy continue to rise, when government doesn’t have the money to do what’s necessary, and when America’s very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code and limit the charitable deduction to real charities
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The Battle For Jesus
Approaching the end of December, time for some Christmas/Religio stuff.
I'm becoming more and more interested in this religion business.
I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that Jesus (if he existed - some say he didn't) was a pretty okay guy. And the quintessential bleeding heart liberal - or as I prefer to think of him, a radical, proto-socialist philosopher! But then, there are many quotes attributed to Jesus that show a rather nasty side. Until it's proven not to be the case, I'll go with what I've read, that many words were ascribed to Jesus by self-interested parties that were never actually said by him (small 'h').
I think (think, not know) that Jesus' overall message was one of love (in the biggest possible sense of the word), and the nastiness should be blamed on those mentioned above, or, on a bad day. I do believe Jesus was mortal (would you expect otherwise from an atheist?), and if there's ever been a mortal that hasn't had a bad day, I ain't met 'im.
Nice little article here.
The Battle for Jesus
By David Chandler
Religion in the public arena is a recurring theme in recent years. Should the Ten Commandments be displayed in government buildings? Should public meetings be opened with prayer? What about prayer that invokes the name of Jesus?
I wonder what Jesus would think? We don't have to wonder, actually. He told us. "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Matt 6:5-6
Public display of religion was clearly not on Jesus' agenda. Why is it on ours?
There is an attitude going around that says, “We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed.” I know because those very words came in an email forwarded to me that advocated a similar cause. The email went on, “It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having In God We Trust on our money and having God in the pledge of Allegiance.”
If 86% of the population believes in God (not all of whom buy into this agenda, by the way), that leaves 14% whose beliefs should be equally respected. Your freedom OF religion is intimately bound with their freedom FROM religion. You can't have one without the other.
As a matter of Christian love, as well as civic wisdom, we should avoid making displays of public religion in governmental forums that will alienate other citizens, who are every bit as American and every bit as worthy of respect as we are.
The principle of separation of church and state did not arise in a vacuum. This nation was founded as a haven from the bloodshed of the Reformation in Europe. The Pilgrims did not come to this land to flee persecution from atheists. They were a minority Christian group fleeing persecution by other Christians! The Reformation brought with it 120 years of warfare throughout Europe. The result was the deaths of over third of the population of Germany and similarly massive deaths throughout the rest of Europe! Islamic Moors and Jews were driven out of Spain, protestants were massacred in Catholic countries and Catholics were massacred in protestant countries. We're talking massive bloodshed. Religion is very dangerous when used as a wedge issue because on matters of faith people literally stick to their guns and treat compromise, tolerance and accommodation as vices. Religion used in this way can be lethal.
It has always interested me that Jesus never seemed too concerned about people's doctrinal beliefs. The heroes of his stories were typically heretics (the Samaritan whose compassion was contrasted with the callousness of the religiously pure), Pagans (the Roman soldier who Jesus declared had more faith than he had found in all of Israel), prostitutes (the woman who poured expensive oil on his hair and washed his feet with her tears), collaborators with Rome (called “publicans” in the Bible), wild teenagers (the prodigal son), lepers, adulterers, drunkards, the lame, the poor, and finally, the thief on the cross. He didn't ask the people he met to change their theology. He asked them to follow him. “Belief,” for him was not a matter of words or ideas. It was living a life of compassion. Compassion is both a religious and a secular virtue. It is one religious value that does not violate the boundaries of church and state, but rather brings people of all religious traditions together for a better world.
Let us not defiantly invoke the name of Jesus in governmental meetings but rather honor Jesus by following his example in making compassion the centerpiece of both our public and private lives.
Visit us at ProgressiveWritersBloc.com.
I'm becoming more and more interested in this religion business.
I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that Jesus (if he existed - some say he didn't) was a pretty okay guy. And the quintessential bleeding heart liberal - or as I prefer to think of him, a radical, proto-socialist philosopher! But then, there are many quotes attributed to Jesus that show a rather nasty side. Until it's proven not to be the case, I'll go with what I've read, that many words were ascribed to Jesus by self-interested parties that were never actually said by him (small 'h').
I think (think, not know) that Jesus' overall message was one of love (in the biggest possible sense of the word), and the nastiness should be blamed on those mentioned above, or, on a bad day. I do believe Jesus was mortal (would you expect otherwise from an atheist?), and if there's ever been a mortal that hasn't had a bad day, I ain't met 'im.
Nice little article here.
The Battle for Jesus
By David Chandler
Religion in the public arena is a recurring theme in recent years. Should the Ten Commandments be displayed in government buildings? Should public meetings be opened with prayer? What about prayer that invokes the name of Jesus?
I wonder what Jesus would think? We don't have to wonder, actually. He told us. "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Matt 6:5-6
Public display of religion was clearly not on Jesus' agenda. Why is it on ours?
There is an attitude going around that says, “We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed.” I know because those very words came in an email forwarded to me that advocated a similar cause. The email went on, “It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having In God We Trust on our money and having God in the pledge of Allegiance.”
If 86% of the population believes in God (not all of whom buy into this agenda, by the way), that leaves 14% whose beliefs should be equally respected. Your freedom OF religion is intimately bound with their freedom FROM religion. You can't have one without the other.
As a matter of Christian love, as well as civic wisdom, we should avoid making displays of public religion in governmental forums that will alienate other citizens, who are every bit as American and every bit as worthy of respect as we are.
The principle of separation of church and state did not arise in a vacuum. This nation was founded as a haven from the bloodshed of the Reformation in Europe. The Pilgrims did not come to this land to flee persecution from atheists. They were a minority Christian group fleeing persecution by other Christians! The Reformation brought with it 120 years of warfare throughout Europe. The result was the deaths of over third of the population of Germany and similarly massive deaths throughout the rest of Europe! Islamic Moors and Jews were driven out of Spain, protestants were massacred in Catholic countries and Catholics were massacred in protestant countries. We're talking massive bloodshed. Religion is very dangerous when used as a wedge issue because on matters of faith people literally stick to their guns and treat compromise, tolerance and accommodation as vices. Religion used in this way can be lethal.
It has always interested me that Jesus never seemed too concerned about people's doctrinal beliefs. The heroes of his stories were typically heretics (the Samaritan whose compassion was contrasted with the callousness of the religiously pure), Pagans (the Roman soldier who Jesus declared had more faith than he had found in all of Israel), prostitutes (the woman who poured expensive oil on his hair and washed his feet with her tears), collaborators with Rome (called “publicans” in the Bible), wild teenagers (the prodigal son), lepers, adulterers, drunkards, the lame, the poor, and finally, the thief on the cross. He didn't ask the people he met to change their theology. He asked them to follow him. “Belief,” for him was not a matter of words or ideas. It was living a life of compassion. Compassion is both a religious and a secular virtue. It is one religious value that does not violate the boundaries of church and state, but rather brings people of all religious traditions together for a better world.
Let us not defiantly invoke the name of Jesus in governmental meetings but rather honor Jesus by following his example in making compassion the centerpiece of both our public and private lives.
Visit us at ProgressiveWritersBloc.com.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Building On The Progressive Victory
Building on the Progressive Victory
by George Lakoff
Lakoff has a real good one here.
He can be a bit of a pill sometime (a sleeping pill), but this one is a very interesting read.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1214-25.htm
....Like Shuler and Casey, swing voters are biconceptuals, with both conservative and progressive worldviews in different areas of life and with both available for politics. How did these biconceptual candidates appeal to biconceptual swing voters? By taking progressive positions, and campaigning vigorously on them. How did this work? They activated the progressive values in the brains of swing voters.
Why did it work? Because swing voters, being biconceptual, already had many progressive views. A large proportion of those identifying themselves with the word "independent" or even "conservative" happen to have progressive views in many issue areas: They love the land — as much as any environmentalist, even though they wouldn't use words like "biodiversity"; many are progressive Christians who take Christianity to be about helping the poor and serving the needy; many are civil-libertarians, though they would never join the "too liberal" ACLU; and most care about their families and empathize with people in dire straights. In short, these are self-identified "conservatives" and "independents" who have very real progressive values in important areas of life.
What is a progressive worldview? It's simple: You have empathy for others, and you act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for yourself and socially responsible as well. Progressives say, "We're all in this together" while conservatives say," You're on your own." It was running on those progressive values that won the election for the Democrats.
(snip)
What does this say about what the direction of the Democratic Party should be — and not be? It says that the Democratic Party should not be moving to the right on the positions its candidates ran on. Success as a party depends, instead, on having a clear moral vision and carrying it out. Right now, it is the progressive moral vision that has brought them electoral success and a mandate for change.
Does this mean that the Democratic Party, as a party, should endorse all progressive positions? That is something for the party to work out, and it will certainly answer no. But, the Democrats may well wind up advocating mostly progressive positions, though far from all of them.
(snip)
What's wrong with conservatism has to be shouted from the housetops. Bob Burnett has made a good start in a paper at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/killing-conservatism_b_35771.html
by George Lakoff
Lakoff has a real good one here.
He can be a bit of a pill sometime (a sleeping pill), but this one is a very interesting read.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1214-25.htm
....Like Shuler and Casey, swing voters are biconceptuals, with both conservative and progressive worldviews in different areas of life and with both available for politics. How did these biconceptual candidates appeal to biconceptual swing voters? By taking progressive positions, and campaigning vigorously on them. How did this work? They activated the progressive values in the brains of swing voters.
Why did it work? Because swing voters, being biconceptual, already had many progressive views. A large proportion of those identifying themselves with the word "independent" or even "conservative" happen to have progressive views in many issue areas: They love the land — as much as any environmentalist, even though they wouldn't use words like "biodiversity"; many are progressive Christians who take Christianity to be about helping the poor and serving the needy; many are civil-libertarians, though they would never join the "too liberal" ACLU; and most care about their families and empathize with people in dire straights. In short, these are self-identified "conservatives" and "independents" who have very real progressive values in important areas of life.
What is a progressive worldview? It's simple: You have empathy for others, and you act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for yourself and socially responsible as well. Progressives say, "We're all in this together" while conservatives say," You're on your own." It was running on those progressive values that won the election for the Democrats.
(snip)
What does this say about what the direction of the Democratic Party should be — and not be? It says that the Democratic Party should not be moving to the right on the positions its candidates ran on. Success as a party depends, instead, on having a clear moral vision and carrying it out. Right now, it is the progressive moral vision that has brought them electoral success and a mandate for change.
Does this mean that the Democratic Party, as a party, should endorse all progressive positions? That is something for the party to work out, and it will certainly answer no. But, the Democrats may well wind up advocating mostly progressive positions, though far from all of them.
(snip)
What's wrong with conservatism has to be shouted from the housetops. Bob Burnett has made a good start in a paper at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/killing-conservatism_b_35771.html
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
"The L-Curve" - Tour of the US Income Distribution
"The L-Curve"
By David Chandler
Okay, ya'll, this is it. This may be the most important thing you read ... today. Okay, seriously, this is very important. We, the people, really need to understand this. And then do something about it ... dammit!
http://www.lcurve.org/
(snip)
• People on the vertical spike can use their influence single-mindedly and very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, any time he wants. If he doesn't get what he wants he can, in fact, "fight city hall," the statehouse, and even the federal government. People on the horizontal spike must pool their limited individual power and organize to have any effect at all. This is a very difficult thing to manage, in practice.
• The mainstream media has been bought up by people in the "vertical spike." The primary channels for information and expressed opinion are controlled and filtered by a small, powerful group on the vertical spike whose interests are not representative of the majority of Americans. Even when there is no direct political message the programming is tailored to the perspectives and sensitivities of large corporations. The business of media is to sell advertising. Programming is simply the hook to hold an audience until the next commercial. Serious examination of ideas of any kind is seen as counterproductive because it may alienate or bore part of the potential audience. The result is nonstop sensationalistic binges of O.J., Princess Di, Monica, and Elian. The growing media monopoly dilutes and distorts the national dialog, and thereby destroys the basis for democracy. We must find ways to rebuild community and learn to talk to each other directly.
• When taxes are cut, whose taxes are cut and whose programs are cut? What kinds of taxes are being cut and what kinds of taxes (whether they are called taxes or not) are being imposed? Sales tax and use fees tax primarily the horizontal spike. The pre-Reagan progressive income tax drew more from the vertical spike.
• The flat tax would shift the burden downscale even more. The sales pitch for this shift usually focuses on "simplification." Simplification is unrelated to the issue of who the money is coming from. You could have a simple progressive tax just as easily as a simple flat tax. The proposal to eliminate the income tax entirely would be disastrous. Those on the vertical spike would escape virtually all of their obligations and the burden of government would be born almost entirely by those of us on the horizontal spike, both through increases in other forms of taxation and reduction of services. The income tax originally taxed ONLY the vertical spike. This is the direction tax reform needs to take if it is to be truly considered "reform."
• Can the people on the horizontal spike take control of their own destinies and truly make this a nation governed in the best interests of the people? If so, how?
• Is the L-Curve "good" or "natural" or "inevitable"? What are the alternatives? The economy is a complex system, but it is essentially a human invention. It can be "managed" (or influenced) in many ways. If it is not managed intentionally, then it is managed (or manipulated) by those who hold political and economic power, typically to their own advantage. It is not enough to create a strong economy. It is just as important to ask how the benefits of the economy are distributed through the population. A truly democratic society needs to find ways to manage the economy to benefit the population as a whole. This is not being done.
(snip)
By David Chandler
Okay, ya'll, this is it. This may be the most important thing you read ... today. Okay, seriously, this is very important. We, the people, really need to understand this. And then do something about it ... dammit!
http://www.lcurve.org/
(snip)
• People on the vertical spike can use their influence single-mindedly and very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, any time he wants. If he doesn't get what he wants he can, in fact, "fight city hall," the statehouse, and even the federal government. People on the horizontal spike must pool their limited individual power and organize to have any effect at all. This is a very difficult thing to manage, in practice.
• The mainstream media has been bought up by people in the "vertical spike." The primary channels for information and expressed opinion are controlled and filtered by a small, powerful group on the vertical spike whose interests are not representative of the majority of Americans. Even when there is no direct political message the programming is tailored to the perspectives and sensitivities of large corporations. The business of media is to sell advertising. Programming is simply the hook to hold an audience until the next commercial. Serious examination of ideas of any kind is seen as counterproductive because it may alienate or bore part of the potential audience. The result is nonstop sensationalistic binges of O.J., Princess Di, Monica, and Elian. The growing media monopoly dilutes and distorts the national dialog, and thereby destroys the basis for democracy. We must find ways to rebuild community and learn to talk to each other directly.
• When taxes are cut, whose taxes are cut and whose programs are cut? What kinds of taxes are being cut and what kinds of taxes (whether they are called taxes or not) are being imposed? Sales tax and use fees tax primarily the horizontal spike. The pre-Reagan progressive income tax drew more from the vertical spike.
• The flat tax would shift the burden downscale even more. The sales pitch for this shift usually focuses on "simplification." Simplification is unrelated to the issue of who the money is coming from. You could have a simple progressive tax just as easily as a simple flat tax. The proposal to eliminate the income tax entirely would be disastrous. Those on the vertical spike would escape virtually all of their obligations and the burden of government would be born almost entirely by those of us on the horizontal spike, both through increases in other forms of taxation and reduction of services. The income tax originally taxed ONLY the vertical spike. This is the direction tax reform needs to take if it is to be truly considered "reform."
• Can the people on the horizontal spike take control of their own destinies and truly make this a nation governed in the best interests of the people? If so, how?
• Is the L-Curve "good" or "natural" or "inevitable"? What are the alternatives? The economy is a complex system, but it is essentially a human invention. It can be "managed" (or influenced) in many ways. If it is not managed intentionally, then it is managed (or manipulated) by those who hold political and economic power, typically to their own advantage. It is not enough to create a strong economy. It is just as important to ask how the benefits of the economy are distributed through the population. A truly democratic society needs to find ways to manage the economy to benefit the population as a whole. This is not being done.
(snip)
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Are George W. Bush Lovers Certifiable?
Well, well....
Yeah, I guess we all suspected as much, didn't we.
I think this would make a great email stocking stuffer to Uncle Larry, Aunt Edna, and, oh, cousin Junebug.
Enjoy.
Are George W. Bush Lovers Certifiable?
December 7, 2006
By Andy Bromage
A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.
The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.
Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.
“Yes, it was a legitimate study but these data were mined after the fact,” Rakfeldt says. “You can ask new questions of the data. I haven’t looked at [Lohse’s conclusions regarding Bush],” Rakfeldt says.
“That doesn’t make it illegitimate, it just wasn’t part of the original project.”
For his part, Lohse is a self-described “Reagan revolution fanatic” but said that W. is just “beyond the pale.” ●
Tell us what you think. Send your comments to editor@hartfordadvocate.com
Yeah, I guess we all suspected as much, didn't we.
I think this would make a great email stocking stuffer to Uncle Larry, Aunt Edna, and, oh, cousin Junebug.
Enjoy.
Are George W. Bush Lovers Certifiable?
December 7, 2006
By Andy Bromage
A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.
The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.
Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.
“Yes, it was a legitimate study but these data were mined after the fact,” Rakfeldt says. “You can ask new questions of the data. I haven’t looked at [Lohse’s conclusions regarding Bush],” Rakfeldt says.
“That doesn’t make it illegitimate, it just wasn’t part of the original project.”
For his part, Lohse is a self-described “Reagan revolution fanatic” but said that W. is just “beyond the pale.” ●
Tell us what you think. Send your comments to editor@hartfordadvocate.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
