Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:07:50 PM
Dwindling Deficit Disorder
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 10, 2013
For three years and more, policy debate in Washington has been dominated by warnings about the dangers of budget deficits. A few lonely economists have tried from the beginning to point out that this fixation is all wrong, that deficit spending is actually appropriate in a depressed economy. But even though the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far — where are the soaring interest rates we were promised? — protests that we are having the wrong conversation have consistently fallen on deaf ears.
What’s really remarkable at this point, however, is the persistence of the deficit fixation in the face of rapidly changing facts. People still talk as if the deficit were exploding, as if the United States budget were on an unsustainable path; in fact, the deficit is falling more rapidly than it has for generations, it is already down to sustainable levels, and it is too small given the state of the economy.
Start with the raw numbers. America’s budget deficit soared after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that went with it, as revenue plunged and spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rose. And this rise in the deficit was a good thing! Federal spending helped sustain the economy at a time when the private sector was in panicked retreat; arguably, the stabilizing role of a large government was the main reason the Great Recession didn’t turn into a full replay of the Great Depression.
But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The Congressional Budget Office expects [ http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43977 ] the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t.
Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II — in fact, our debt doubled [ http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FYGFD.txt ] in the 30 years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage [ http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDGDPA188S.txt ] of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period.
Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/gone-deficit-gone/ ]. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The “cyclically adjusted” deficit — what the deficit would be if we were near full employment — is only about $423 billion, which puts it in the sustainable range; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And that’s why budget office projections show the nation’s debt position more or less stable over the next decade.
So we do not, repeat do not, face any kind of deficit crisis either now or for years to come.
There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population will put the budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns should determine budget policy right now. And as I said, given the needs of the economy, the deficit is currently too small.
Put it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector won’t, supporting the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is currently about what it was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom — and it is headed down.
Yes, we’ll want to reduce deficits once the economy recovers, and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under way. But unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is still unacceptably high. “The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity,” John Maynard Keynes declared [ http://www.openculture.com/2012/06/john_maynard_keynes_explains_cure_to_high_unemployment_in_his_own_voice_1939.html ] many years ago. He was right — all you have to do is look at Europe [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/austerity-europe-2/ ] to see the disastrous effects of austerity on weak economies. And this is still nothing like a boom.
Now, I’m aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in many quarters. Fiscal fearmongering is a major industry inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for excuses to do what they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. People whose careers are heavily invested in the deficit-scold industry don’t want to let evidence undermine their scare tactics; as the deficit dwindles, we’re sure to encounter a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to show that we’re still in some kind of fiscal crisis.
But we aren’t. The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy concern, which was never very strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment, has now completely vanished.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-disorder.html [with comments]
--
Paul Ryan Will Battle Paul Krugman To The Death To Defeat 'Keynesian Economics'
03/13/2013
The issue is this: Ryan claims his budget benefits the poor [ http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/13/paul-ryan-takes-on-chief-critic-paul-krugman/ ], it actually does precisely the opposite [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/12/class_war_budgeting_paul_ryan_and_house_gop_want_more_money_for_the_rich.html ], and Krugman discerns this and calls the whole thing a scam [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/flimflam-forever/ ], the end.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/paul-ryan-paul-krugman_n_2869126.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQeMknVWuU0 , and additional video (of Ryan on February 14, 2002 giving a "dazzling" speech in support of stimulus) embedded; with comments]
--
Paul Ryan's Budget, Simplified: Save the Rich, Spare the Old, Forget the Poor
It balances the budget! But it solves our income inequality problem like a flamethrower solves a house fire.
By Derek Thompson
Mar 12 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-budget-simplified-save-the-rich-spare-the-old-forget-the-poor/273944/ [with comments]
--
The 2 Most Magical Numbers in Paul Ryan's Magical Budget
Reuters
Magical (adj): "delightful in such a way as to be removed from everyday life." [Synonyms: fake, absurd, couldn't-hardly-happen-even-if-Republicans-controlled-both-houses-and-the-presidency]
By Derek Thompson
Mar 14 2013, 4:27 PM ET
2.1% and $6.7 trillion
Without context, these are inconsequential numbers. With context, they're magical numbers. So here's the context.
Paul Ryan and his budget have taken lots of flack for giving Medicare an unrecognizable facelift and gutting federal spending on the poor and sick to reach his balanced budget goals next decade. Both of those goals are radical and/or visionary, depending on your opinion of Ryan, but neither are quite magical.
What is magical, however, is thinking you can cut non-defense discretionary spending -- what most people think of as Government -- to 2.1 percent, one-third below its modern low. That's what Ryan's budget does. Here's how he does it.
He keeps the sequester -- a $1 trillion guillotine to non-defense and defense spending. But his breakdown [ http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy2014_house_budget_function_.pdf ] of spending pushes virtually all of those cuts into non-defense categories. In other words, everything in our discretionary budget -- scientific research, housing, international relations, education, public safety, public health, environmental protection, job training -- doesn't just get a sequester. It gets a double-sequester! Plus another $250 billion in cuts, under the Ryan budget. Win the future.
Here's the long view of non-defense discretionary spending, with data from Loren Adler [ http://bipartisanpolicy.org/about/staff/loren-adler ] and the Bipartisan Policy Center (plus an assist from Michael Linden at the Center for American Progress). The green line is today's law, including the sequester (a law passed specifically because it was so bad that it would force us to change it). The blue line is the Ryan plan (even worse).
"It's just fake," Linden said. "It's just total fake. Ryan's projection is about a third lower, as a share of the government, than any year since [we have records]. No future Congress would ever approve this."
The second most magical number comes from the other side of the budget. We talk a lot about Ryan's spending cuts. But it's his tax spending cuts that are perhaps the most ludicrous.
Ryan wants to change projected tax revenue by $0.0. But his plan to cut and consolidate rates creates a $6.7 trillion hole [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-tax-math-just-became-more-magical/273959/ ] in federal revenues, as Matthew O'Brien [ http://www.theatlantic.com/matthew-obrien/ ] pointed out. That can only be made up by eliminating the biggest (and most popular) tax breaks. He would almost certainly have to tax employer-paid health care, mortgage interest, charitable donations ... the list goes on and on. Ryan doesn't say what he could cut because it would be despicably unpopular, even more so than his proposed cuts. In fact, his $6.7 trillion in mystery tax-spending are 46 percent more than his spending cuts. (Good luck, Ways and Means Committee!)
If I appear to be disproportionately picking on Paul Ryan, it is only because I am. There is widespread understanding that unemployment is a real crisis, right now. There is thorough economic evidence that our most immediate crisis is long-term unemployment [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/forget-the-good-jobs-report-long-term-unemployment-is-still-terrifying/273859/ ] and the permanent structural deficiencies it will create. There is widespread belief that we need to reduce future deficits through a combination of higher revenues and lower spending. Ryan's budget neither protects the unemployed, nor fixes their hysteresis, nor proposes a balanced solution to a future budget problem that it also overemphasizes. Make-believe numbers in the pursuit of misguided goals is dark magic, indeed.
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group (emphasis in original)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-2-most-magical-numbers-in-paul-ryans-magical-budget/274044/ [with comments]
--
Ryan Budget
03/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/ryan-budget_1_b_2867076.html [with comments]
--
After the Flimflam
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 14, 2013
It has been a big week for budget documents. In fact, members of Congress have presented not one but two full-fledged, serious proposals for spending and taxes over the next decade.
Before I get to that, however, let me talk briefly about the third proposal presented this week — the one that isn’t serious, that’s essentially a cruel joke.
Way back in 2010, when everybody in Washington seemed determined to anoint Representative Paul Ryan as the ultimate Serious, Honest Conservative, I pronounced him a flimflam man [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html (at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53066257 and following)]. Even then, his proposals were obviously fraudulent: huge cuts in aid to the poor, but even bigger tax cuts for the rich, with all the assertions of fiscal responsibility resting on claims that he would raise trillions of dollars by closing tax loopholes (which he refused to specify) and cutting discretionary spending (in ways he refused to specify).
Since then, his budgets have gotten even flimflammier. For example, at this point, Mr. Ryan is claiming that he can slash the top tax rate [ http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2013/03/12/taxes-and-paul-ryans-budget/ ] from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, yet somehow raise 19.1 percent of G.D.P. in revenues — a number we haven’t come close to seeing since the dot-com bubble burst a dozen years ago.
The good news is that Mr. Ryan’s thoroughly unconvincing policy-wonk act seems, finally, to have worn out its welcome. In 2011, his budget was initially treated with worshipful respect, which faded only slightly as critics pointed out the document’s many absurdities. This time around, quite a few pundits and reporters have greeted his release with the derision it deserves.
And, with that, let’s turn to the serious proposals.
Unless you’re a very careful news reader, you’ve probably heard about only one of these proposals, the one released by Senate Democrats. And let’s be clear: By comparison with the Ryan plan, and for that matter with a lot of what passes for wisdom in our nation’s capital, this is a very reasonable plan indeed.
As many observers have pointed out, the Senate Democratic plan is conservative [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/13/the-senate-democrats-vague-conservative-budget/ ] with a small “c”: It avoids any drastic policy changes. In particular, it steers away from draconian austerity, which is simply not needed given ultralow U.S. borrowing costs and relatively benign medium-term fiscal projections.
True, the Senate plan calls for further deficit reduction, through a mix of modest tax increases and spending cuts. (Incidentally, the tax increases still fall well short of those called for in the Bowles-Simpson plan, which Washington, for some reason, treats as something close to holy scripture.) But it avoids large short-run spending cuts, which would hobble our recovery at a time when unemployment is still disastrously high, and it even includes a modest amount of stimulus spending.
So we could definitely do worse than the Senate Democratic plan, and we probably will. It is, however, an extremely cautious proposal, one that doesn’t follow through on its own analysis. After all, if sharp spending cuts are a bad thing in a depressed economy — which they are — then the plan really should be calling for substantial though temporary spending increases. It doesn’t.
But there’s a plan that does: the proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus [ http://www.epi.org/publication/back-to-work-budget-analysis-congressional-progressive/ ], titled “Back to Work,” which calls for substantial new spending now, temporarily widening the deficit, offset by major deficit reduction later in the next decade, largely though not entirely through higher taxes on the wealthy, corporations and pollution.
I’ve seen some people describe the caucus proposal as a “Ryan plan of the left,” but that’s unfair. There are no Ryan-style magic asterisks, trillion-dollar savings that are assumed to come from unspecified sources; this is an honest proposal. And “Back to Work” rests on solid macroeconomic analysis, not the fantasy “expansionary austerity” economics — the claim that slashing spending in a depressed economy somehow promotes job growth rather than deepening the depression — that Mr. Ryan continues to espouse despite the doctrine’s total failure in Europe.
No, the only thing the progressive caucus and Mr. Ryan share is audacity. And it’s refreshing to see someone break with the usual Washington notion that political “courage” means proposing that we hurt the poor while sparing the rich. No doubt the caucus plan is too audacious to have any chance of becoming law; but the same can be said of the Ryan plan.
So where is this all going? Realistically, we aren’t likely to get a Grand Bargain any time soon. Nonetheless, my sense is that there is some real movement here, and it’s in a direction conservatives won’t like.
As I said, Mr. Ryan’s efforts are finally starting to get the derision they deserve, while progressives seem, at long last, to be finding their voice. Little by little, Washington’s fog of fiscal flimflam seems to be lifting.
*
Related
2 Parties’ Budgets Show Big Rift as G.O.P. Renews 2012 Proposals (March 13, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/us/politics/ryans-plan-aims-to-balance-budget-in-10-years.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/opinion/krugman-after-the-flimflam.html [with comments]
--
Paul Ryan’s budget plan would literally kill thousands of Americans
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin addresses the crowd Aug. 11, 2012, during a campaign event with Mitt Romney in Norfolk, Va.
(Credit: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
It may sound hyperbolic, but the equation is simple: When more people lack health coverage, more people die
By Richard Kirsch
Sunday, Mar 17, 2013 07:00 AM CDT
This originally appeared on Next New Deal [ http://www.nextnewdeal.net/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-budget-would-kill-health-insurance-programs-%E2%80%93-and-thousands-americans ].
I know you are not supposed to write in hyperbole, but sometimes the truth needs to be told. Paul Ryan’s budget, which kills Obamacare and cripples Medicare and Medicaid, would kill tens of thousands of people. Every year.
I have trouble with putting policy glosses on proposals that would deny health care coverage to millions of people and make care much more expensive to millions more. Because when more people lack health coverage, more people die. And when health costs prevent people from getting the care they need, they get more seriously ill.
How many people are we talking about? Estimates of the number of people who will die each year because they are uninsured vary, from about 500 [ http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/June/21/mortality-and-the-uninsured.aspx ] to 1,000 [ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ ] for every one million who lack coverage. Repealing Obamacare would block promised coverage for 32 million people, so that would mean somewhere from 16,000 to 32,000 each year who will die prematurely. Of course, since some Republican governors and legislatures are not implementing the expansion of Medicaid coverage in their states, some of those deaths are already on their hands.
Which leads us to the Ryan plan for slashing Medicaid. He replaces a program that now entitles low-income people to health coverage with a block grant to states to spend however they want on health care for the poor. The federal government would save money by decreasing what it pays to state governments and states would get to do the dirty work of cutting people’s health care. That will mean fewer people on the program, higher out-of-pocket costs, or a reduction in coverage of medically necessary care. And more people dying who would have lived if they had kept their previous health coverage.
In cutting Medicaid, Ryan is fulfilling the biggest concern that Republican governors say they have when they consider expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. A typical remark came from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [ http://www.governing.com/news/state/arizona-brewer-2013-speech.html ]: “As I weighed this decision, I was troubled by the possibility that a future President and Congress may take steps to reduce federal matching rates, leaving states with a greater and greater share of health costs over time.”
Everyone is familiar by now with Ryan’s proposal to replace Medicare with vouchers to buy private insurance. The Ryan voucher plan is not about controlling health care costs; instead, it is intended to shift costs from the federal government to the seniors and the disabled who are covered by Medicare. When people can’t afford the care they need – and the CBO reported [ http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22085 ] that the first Ryan voucher plan would have doubled the already high cost of health care to seniors – they will get sicker.
The parts of Obamacare that Ryan doesn’t repeal underscore his cynicism. Ryan would keep the $716 billion in Medicare spending reductions over a decade, which he railed against when he was running for vice president. In his debate with Joe Biden, Ryan called the Medicare changes a “piggybank” for Obamacare [ http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2012-the-biden-romney-vice-presidential-debate ], which would cause hospitals and nursing homes to close and lead to seniors losing benefits. None of this is true, as Biden pointed out. So now Ryan is using that $716 billion in savings to help him reach his goal of balancing the federal budget instead of what those savings were intended for: increasing Medicare benefits under Obamacare and expanding coverage to millions of Americans.
Remarkably, Ryan also keeps the other tax increases in Obamacare, some $1 trillion raised mostly from upper income taxpayers and various medical providers and insurers. Ryan is using money raised to provide life-saving health coverage to millions of people, taxes he and other Republicans railed against, to meet his fantasy target of balancing the budget in 10 years.
I’ve grown tired of providing a veneer of respectability to people in power –people with good health insurance, coverage that provides them with access to the best medical care, and pays most of their bills – who deny their constituents a basic human right. Governors and state legislatures who won’t expand Medicaid even though the federal government will pay virtually all of the cost. Members of Congress whose health coverage is largely paid for by their constituents who still make political hay by demagoging against Obamacare.
Fortunately for those whose lives are at risk, the Ryan budget is dead on arrival. But the debate about how to make the promise of Obamacare real is only just the beginning. States will continue to debate whether to expand Medicaid. And when Obamacare’s major provisions kick in next January, there will be a new round of debates about whether families can afford the new coverage and whether employers and government should do more or less to assure that people get covered. What will not end is the real consequences in each of those decisions for people’s lives.
Copyright © 2013 Roosevelt Institute
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/paul_ryans_budget_plan_would_literally_kill_thousands_of_americans_partner/ [with comments]
--
What Hospitals Charge the Uninsured
March 15, 2013
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/what-hospitals-charge-the-uninsured/ [with comments]
--
Singapore’s Lessons for an Unequal America
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
March 18, 2013, 11:09 am
SINGAPORE
Inequality has been rising in most countries around the world, but it has played out in different ways across countries and regions. The United States, it is increasingly recognized, has the sad distinction of being the most unequal advanced country, though the income gap has also widened to a lesser extent, in Britain, Japan, Canada and Germany. Of course, the situation is even worse in Russia, and some developing countries in Latin America and Africa. But this is a club of which we should not be proud to be a member.
Some big countries — Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina — have become more equal in recent years, and other countries, like Spain, were on that trajectory until the economic crisis of 2007-8.
Singapore has had the distinction of having prioritized social and economic equity while achieving very high rates of growth over the past 30 years — an example par excellence that inequality is not just a matter of social justice but of economic performance. Societies with fewer economic disparities perform better — not just for those at the bottom or the middle, but over all.
It’s hard to believe how far this city-state has come in the half-century since it attained independence from Britain, in 1963. (A short-lived merger with Malaysia ended in 1965.) Around the time of independence, a quarter of Singapore’s work force was unemployed or underemployed. Its per-capita income (adjusted for inflation) was less than a tenth of what it is today.
There were many things that Singapore did to become one of Asia’s economic “tigers,” and curbing inequalities was one of them. The government made sure that wages at the bottom were not beaten down to the exploitative levels they could have been.
The government mandated that individuals save into a “provident fund” — 36 percent of the wages of young workers — to be used to pay for adequate health care, housing and retirement benefits. It provided universal education, sent some of its best students abroad, and did what it could to make sure they returned. (Some of my brightest students came from Singapore.)
There are at least four distinctive aspects of the Singaporean model, and they are more applicable to the United States than a skeptical American observer might imagine.
First, individuals were compelled to take responsibility for their own needs. For example, through the savings in their provident fund, around 90 percent of Singaporeans became homeowners, compared to about 65 percent in the United States since the housing bubble burst in 2007.
Second, Singaporean leaders realized they had to break the pernicious, self-sustaining cycle of inequality that has characterized so much of the West. Government programs were universal but progressive: while everyone contributed, those who were well off contributed more to help those at the bottom, to make sure that everyone could live a decent life, as defined by what Singaporean society, at each stage of its development, could afford. Not only did those at the top pay their share of the public investments, they were asked to contribute even more to helping the neediest.
Third, the government intervened in the distribution of pretax income — to help those at the bottom, rather than, as in the United States, those at the top. It weighed in, gently, on the bargaining between workers and firms, tilting the balance toward the group with less economic power — in sharp contrast to the United States, where the rules of the game have shifted power away from labor and toward capital, especially during the past three decades.
Fourth, Singapore realized that the key to future success was heavy investment in education — and more recently, scientific research — and that national advancement would mean that all citizens — not just the children of the rich — would need access to the best education for which they were qualified.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, who was in power for three decades, and his successors took a broader perspective on what makes for a successful economy than a single-minded focus on gross domestic product, though even by that imperfect measure of success, it did splendidly, growing 5.5 times faster than the United States has since 1980.
More recently, the government has focused intensively on the environment, making sure that this packed city of 5.3 million retains its green spaces, even if that means putting them on the tops of buildings.
In an era when urbanization and modernization have weakened family ties, Singapore has realized the importance of maintaining them, especially across generations, and has instituted housing programs to help its aging population.
Singapore realized that an economy could not succeed if most of its citizens were not participating in its growth or if large segments lacked adequate housing, access to health care and retirement security. By insisting that individuals contribute significantly toward their own social welfare accounts, it avoided charges of being a nanny state. But by recognizing the different capacities of individuals to meet these needs, it created a more cohesive society. By understanding that children cannot choose their parents — and that all children should have the right to develop their innate capacities — it created a more dynamic society.
Singapore’s success is reflected in other indicators, as well. Life expectancy is 82 years, compared with 78 in the United States. Student scores on math, science and reading tests are among the highest in the world — well above the average for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the world’s club of rich nations, and well ahead of the United States.
The situation is not perfect: In the last decade, growing income inequality has posed a challenge for Singapore, as it has for many countries in the world. But Singaporeans have acknowledged the problem, and there is a lively conversation about the best ways to mitigate adverse global trends.
Some argue that all of this was possible only because Mr. Lee, who left office in 1990, was not firmly committed to democratic processes. It’s true that Singapore, a highly centralized state, has been ruled for decades by Mr. Lee’s People’s Action Party. Critics say it has authoritarian aspects: limitations on civil liberties; harsh criminal penalties; insufficient multiparty competition; and a judiciary that is not fully independent. But it’s also true that Singapore is routinely rated one of the world’s least corrupt and most transparent governments, and that its leaders have taken steps toward expanding democratic participation.
Moreover, there are other countries, committed to open, democratic processes, that have been spectacularly successful in creating economics that are both dynamic and fair — with far less inequality and far greater equality of opportunity than in the United States.
Each of the Nordic countries has taken a slightly different path, but each has impressive achievements of growth with equity. A standard measure of performance is the United Nations Development Program’s inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, which is less a measure of economic output than it is of human well-being. For each country, it looks at citizens’ income, education and health, and makes an adjustment for how access to these are distributed among the population. The Northern European countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway) stand towards the top. In comparison — and especially considering its No. 3 ranking in the non-inequality-adjusted index — the United States is further down the list, at No. 16. And when other indicators of well-being are considered in isolation, the situation is even worse: the United States ranks 33rd on the United Nations Development Program’s inequality-adjusted life expectancy index, just behind Chile.
Economic forces are global; the fact that there are such differences in outcomes (both levels of inequality and opportunity) suggests that what matters is how local forces — most notably, politics — shape these global economic forces. Singapore and Scandinavia have shown that they can be shaped in ways to ensure growth with equity.
Democracy, we now recognize, involves more than periodic voting. Societies with a high level of economic inequality inevitably wind up with a high level of political inequality: the elites run the political system for their own interests, pursuing what economists call rent-seeking behavior, rather than the general public interest. The result is a most imperfect democracy. The Nordic democracies, in this sense, have achieved what most Americans aspire toward: a political system where the voice of ordinary citizens is fairly represented, where political traditions reinforce openness and transparency; where money does not dominate political decision-making; where government activities are transparent.
I believe the economic achievements of the Nordic countries are in large measure a result of the strongly democratic nature of these societies. There is a positive nexus not just between growth and equality, but between these two and democracy. (The flip side is that greater inequality not only weakens our economy, it also weakens our democracy.)
A measure of the social justice of a society is the treatment of children. Many a conservative or libertarian in the United States assert that poor adults are responsible for their own plight — having brought their situation on themselves by not working as hard as they could. (That assumes, of course, that there are jobs to be had — an increasingly dubious assumption.)
But the well-being of children is manifestly not a matter for which children can be blamed (or praised). Only 7.3 percent of children in Sweden are poor, in contrast to the United States, where a startling 23.1 percent are in poverty. Not only is this a basic violation of social justice, but it does not bode well for the future: these children have diminished prospects for contributing to their country’s future.
Discussions of these alternative models, which seem to deliver more for more people, often end by some contrarian assertion or other about why these countries are different, and why their model has few lessons for the United States. All of this is understandable. None of us likes to think badly of ourselves or of our economic system. We want to believe that we have the best economic system in the world.
Part of this self-satisfaction, though, comes from a failure to understand the realities of the United States today. When Americans are asked what is the ideal distribution of income, they recognize that a capitalist system will always yield some inequality — without it, there would be no incentive for thrift, innovation and industry. And they realize that we do not live up to what they view as their “ideal.” The reality is that we have far more inequality than they believe we have, and that their view of the ideal is not too different from what the Nordic countries actually manage to achieve.
Among the American elite — that sliver of Americans who have seen historic gains in wealth and income since the mid-1970s even as most Americans’ real incomes have stagnated — many look for rationalizations and excuses. They talk, for instance, about these countries’ being homogeneous, with few immigrants. But Sweden has taken in large numbers of immigrants (roughly 14 percent of the population is foreign-born, compared with 11 percent in Britain and 13 percent in the United States). Singapore is a city-state with multiple races, languages and religions. What about size? Germany has 82 million people and has substantially greater equality of opportunity than the United States, a nation of 314 million (although inequality has been rising there, too, though not as much as in the United States).
It is true that a legacy of discrimination — including, among many things, the scourge of slavery, America’s original sin — makes the task of achieving a society with more equality and more equality of opportunity, on a par with the best performing countries around the world, particularly tricky. But a recognition of this legacy should reinforce our resolve, not diminish our efforts, to achieve an ideal that is within our reach, and is consistent with our best ideals.
*
The Great Divide is a series about inequality.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/
*
Related Posts from Opinionator
The Hidden Prosperity of the Poor
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/the-hidden-prosperity-of-the-poor/
The Rise of the Permanent Temp Economy
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/the-rise-of-the-permanent-temp-economy/
Inequality Is Holding Back the Recovery
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/inequality-is-holding-back-the-recovery/
Outsourcing Is Not (Always) Evil
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/outsourcing-is-not-always-evil/
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/singapores-lessons-for-an-unequal-america/ [with comments]
--
America’s Latest Phony Fiscal Crisis
By Simon Johnson Mar 17, 2013 5:30 PM CT
In most countries that experience a fiscal crisis, there is no ambiguity about the situation.
The government is unable to sell debt at a reasonable interest rate. This probably coincides with a broader shift out of domestic assets, as smart investors read the writing on the wall or in the newspapers. The currency collapses and, often, inflation accelerates. The government is forced to slash spending and, cap in hand, asks for help from the world’s least popular ambulance service: the International Monetary Fund.
No part of this description fits the modern U.S. Rates on government debt are very low, the currency isn’t depreciating rapidly and inflation seems stable. There is no imaginable circumstance under which the U.S. would need to borrow from the IMF. Yet this great land of innovation has undeniably invented its unique kind of fiscal crisis.
Or, to be more precise, we have reinvented the uniquely American way of ruining our fiscal affairs. At the beginning of the 19th century, Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with the idea that debt was bad and that the U.S.’s obligations -- inherited mostly from the War of Independence -- must be eliminated at all costs. (Jefferson himself had had some bad personal experiences with debt.)
Jefferson, James Madison, and their colleagues in the Democratic-Republican Party also wanted to shrink the size of the federal government, a reaction to the agenda of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists.
Smaller Navy
In 1801, when Jefferson became president, the U.S. government embarked on a policy of cutting federal spending, including for the military. The Navy, in particular, suffered years of neglect or, in modern terminology, “lack of readiness preparation.”
What any economy needs by way of publicly provided goods varies with income level and stage of economic development. But the U.S. has always needed a robust military that is capable of protecting the country. And that’s not what remained after more than a decade of cuts in the early 1800s.
Unfortunately, the American fiscal way -- then as now -- was to combine excessive expectations with inadequate revenue. As a result, the dominant war-hawks faction in Congress sought and achieved a confrontation with Great Britain. It pitted the world’s biggest navy against a depleted fleet in a sorry state of repair. The contest wasn’t even close.
As a direct result, the British were able to trash Washington and burn the White House. The U.S. government didn’t default, or even come close. The fiscal crisis was a failure to deliver the public goods -- defense -- that the nation needed and expected.
Fast-forward to today. We have a budget deficit because revenue has been allowed to fall behind government commitments. This is the net result of the George W. Bush tax cuts, two foreign wars and the unfunded expansion of Medicare. Then, a financial crisis cratered the economy and further pushed down tax revenue while increasing unemployment and poverty. And, looking at decades ahead, health-care costs (not just Medicare) threaten to undermine competitiveness or even sink the economy.
So how does the political system respond? Most recently, with a sequestration program of across-the-board spending reductions that undermine military readiness and cut essential programs that help poor children. And now, with a budget proposal from House Republicans that slashes Medicaid, about half of which goes to protect the health of poor children.
Does this make any sense? No, but there is likely to be a lot more of this in our immediate future.
Tax Resistance
Republicans are dug in very hard against raising taxes. I testified [ http://www.iie.com/publications/interstitial.cfm?ResearchID=2349 ] before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress last week, and the discourse was much more cordial and constructive than it had been in recent years. Still, I sincerely doubt the House Republicans will budge in their opposition to raising revenue.
Meanwhile, in December, the Obama administration decided not to press its main advantage, which was the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The drama over the so-called fiscal cliff at the end of last year was the right moment to put additional revenue on the table; this happened, but only to a small and insufficient degree.
At the hearing, Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is vice chairman of the committee, said Medicare should be able to negotiate the price of prescription medicine, which could save hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. This idea will soon be gaining traction. How could any reasonable person keep this off the current budget table (unless they work for Big Pharma)?
More broadly, we need to confront and limit health-care costs (not just Medicare and Medicaid). Cutting government support for health care and shifting the burden onto families will have one clear and unavoidable impact: less care and less good care for poor people and their children.
The U.S. needs a strong defense. And that includes helping a generation out of poverty, up the education ladder, and into the middle class.
We must look at how the world is changing and recognize threats, including those from North Korea, Iran and terrorism (including the cyber kind). We need the government to help organize and pay for our protection, and that includes our data networks.
But we must also address the poverty all around us. Income inequality has increased over the past three decades. Many families thought they were making sensible decisions for the future, only to see their jobs move overseas and their human capital lose value. The housing boom-bust and recent recession have exacerbated these problems. The social-insurance system is already stretched very thin.
Cost Shifting
Shifting health care costs from the government to the private sector doesn’t help anyone. I agree with the Congressional Budget Office that doing so would probably increase overall health-care costs (as a percentage of gross domestic product and as a percentage of your total income). The effect of raising the Medicare eligibility age to 66 or 67, from 65, would be similar -- creating a new group of people, ages 65 or 66, who can get insurance only at a high price.
Americans need to have a more honest and open conversation about what we want to achieve as a nation -- and how to use our government’s fiscal policy, in a responsible manner, to reach these goals.
Congress should end the sequestration and replace it with a more sensible process of determining how big the federal government should be (in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP) and how to pay for that.
(Simon Johnson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is co-author of “White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You [ http://www.amazon.com/White-House-Burning-Founding-National/dp/0307906965 ].” The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Simon Johnson at sjohnson@mit.edu
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net
*
More from Simon Johnson:
Higher Bank Equity Is in the Public Interest
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-03/why-higher-bank-equity-is-in-the-public-interest.html
A Valuable U.S. Export: Banking Regulations
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-17/a-valuable-u-s-export-banking-regulations.html
Don’t Be Afraid of China
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/don-t-be-afraid-of-china.html
*
©2013 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-17/america-s-latest-phony-fiscal-crisis.html [with comments]
--
Grover and the Bathtub
By Barry Levinson
Posted: 03/14/2013 5:56 pm
I spoke with Dr. R.H Flutes again, who heads up the Lying Institute of America. For those not familiar with the good doctor, he has schooled hundreds of politicians both on the local and the national level to help them refine their lying skills. Paul Ryan got a personal gold star from the institute after he was named Liar of the Year 2012. Governor Rick Perry was a good student for a while, but suddenly he developed memory loss and couldn't remember all his lies. Anyway, the following is a transcript of my conversation with Dr. R.H. Flutes.
Q: How do you evaluate the political lying these days?
Dr. RH Flutes: Well, lying has entered a new phase.
Q: I don't understand, are you saying lying is evolving?
Dr. RH Flutes: Well, the new age tactic is to devalue the English language. It's more sophisticated.
Q: Can you be more specific?
Dr. RH Flutes: Well, an example: Grover Norquist, who was the forerunner of devalued English, continues to lead the charge in the 21st century. He continues to say his goal is to shrink government and then drown it in the bathtub. But what he is really saying is I want a revolution, I want to overturn this democracy and create a new government.
Q: Isn't he just using that term as a metaphor?
Dr. RH Flutes: What is the metaphor? He said he wants to kill the government in a bathtub. The only substitute is overturn the government. He is a revolutionary like Lenin or Mao. He doesn't believe in the system. He just doesn't want to say it with as much clarity as they did.
Q: What's the reason for that?
Dr. RH Flutes: Because you can't get on talk shows if you're a self-proclaimed revolutionary. You have to devalue the language. Make what you say confusing. Because sometimes people think that confusing language is a sign of intelligence.
Q: But Doctor, he just wants to lower taxes.
Dr. RH Flutes: If you just want to lower taxes is it necessary to drown the government in a bathtub? Simply say you want a lower tax code. Period. Drown the tax code, if you will. But he wants to drown the government of the United States. Kill what the founding fathers fought for.
Q: Don't you think you're over stating his goals?
Dr. RH Flutes: No. He states his goals in devalued English. That way he remains respectable. Let me ask you a question: Norquist says he is trying to change the tone in the state capitals and turn them toward bitterness and partisanship. How do you interpret that? I'll tell you. He doesn't believe in a democracy because it's obvious that he does not believe in an exchange of ideas. A democracy is based on the power of the people. He doesn't believe in the people. What he is saying in using devalued English is I want absolute power and I have contempt for those who don't agree. He uses the idea of state legislators as the shield for what he really wants. He wants power, control. Devalue the language, my friend. Make it murky. Remove clarity. Get attention. It's the new form of lying.
Q: But he is respected for the most part.
Dr. RH Flutes: Here is another quote from him: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." Actually, he took that from Dick Armey.
Q: Well that doesn't make any sense.
Dr. RH Flutes: No kidding. But it is a flavorable use of words. Let me put it to you another way -- let's say his name is not Grover Norquist. He is a black man, or a Latino, or for that matter any minority and he says (as Norquist did [ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist ]), "Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not enough to win. It has to be a painful, devastating defeat. Like when the king would take his opponents head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." If you were any of those minorities, they would lock you up and throw away the key. Devalued language requires white respectability.
Q: All these vitriolic statements because he is opposed to taxes?
Dr. RH Flutes: No, you keep missing the point. It is not only about taxes. He is opposed to this government. The U.S. government. He is a new kind of revolutionary. A 21st-century revolutionary.
Q: And he didn't attend the Lying Institute of America?
Dr. RH Flutes: No, he was tutored by a great nephew of P.T. Barnum.
Q: You mean, "There's a sucker born every minute" type of concept?
Dr. RH Flutes: I met with the great nephew. He was an old man. And he was depressed by the direction Grover took. And that he had become so unpatriotic.
Q: Well, what did he think he was going to be?
Dr. RH Flutes: He thought he could have been the greatest snake oil salesman that ever was.
Q: So if you drown the government in the bathtub, what do we have?
Dr. RH Flutes: The Kingdom of Grover Norquist.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/grover-and-the-bathtub_b_2879088.html [with comments]
--
In the South and West, a Tax on Being Poor
By KATHERINE S. NEWMAN
March 9, 2013, 2:30 pm
BALTIMORE
Debates over the fairness of the tax code are as old as the federal income tax itself. A cornerstone of the tax — established a century ago, by the 16th Amendment — has been the principle that those who make more should pay more, while lower tax rates help the poor to support their families and depend less on government benefits.
That social compact shifted into high gear during the Nixon administration, which tried to incentivize work by rewarding low-income households with a tax break that became the nation’s most successful antipoverty tool ever: the earned-income tax credit. Politicians of both parties have embraced the credit, making it more progressive three times since it was enacted in 1975.
While the federal government has largely stuck by the principle of progressive taxation, the states have gone their own ways: tax policy is particularly regressive in the South and West, and more progressive in the Northeast and Midwest. When it comes to state and local taxation, we are not one nation under God. In 2008, the difference between a working mother in Mississippi and one in Vermont — each with two dependent children, poverty-level wages and identical spending patterns — was $2,300.
These regional disparities go back to Reconstruction, when Southern Republicans increased property taxes on defeated white landowners and former slaveholders to pay for the first public services — education, hospitals, roads — ever provided to black citizens. After Reconstruction ended in 1877, conservative Democrats — popularly labeled “the Redeemers” — rolled taxes back to their prewar levels and inserted supermajority clauses into state constitutions to ensure it could never happen again. Property taxes were frozen; income taxes were held down; corporate taxes were almost nonexistent.
Practically the only tax that could rise was the one that hurt the poor the most: the sales tax. And rise it did, throughout the Deep South in the late 19th century, then spreading into the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and the rest of the region in the 1960s and 1970s. Even liberal politicians weren’t able to buck the tide — just ask Bill Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas urgently sought new revenue to improve his state’s ailing schools and found the sales tax was the only politically viable option.
If this were just a history lesson, we could set it aside. It isn’t. In the last 30 years, these trends have only gotten worse. Southern states have steadily increased the tax burden on their poorest citizens by shifting the support of the public sector to sales taxes and fees for public services. After California voters passed Proposition 13, which capped property-tax increases, in 1978, Western states began to move in a similar direction. Sales taxes on clothing and school supplies and fees for bus fare and car registration take up, of course, a far bigger slice of a poor household’s budget than they do from the rich.
Over the same 30-year period, some Northeastern and Midwestern states moved in the opposite direction. They mimicked the federal government by passing their own earned-income tax credits (and making them refundable, as the federal government has done, so that very low-income earners get a check after filing their returns), preserved progressive state income-tax rates, and either exempted food and other basics from sales taxes or gave sales-tax rebates to low-income households. No Southern state provides refunds to its poor citizens through the tax code, no matter how little they earn.
There are many reasons to worry about the growing regional divide. But even leaving aside basic fairness — why should a poor child in the Northeast have greater life chances than one in the South? — the divergence exacerbates poverty itself, driving households deeper into distress and lowering social mobility.
For a book published in 2011, my colleague Rourke L. O’Brien and I analyzed the combined burden of sales tax, state and local income taxes on poor households in 49 states, based on consumer expenditures, from 1982 to 2008. (We omitted Alaska because it offers oil-revenue-related rebates to every household). We looked at the relationship between the total tax burden on a poor family of three and state-level figures for mortality, morbidity, teenage childbearing, dropping out of high school, property crime and violent crime.
It turns out that after factoring out all other explanations — like racial composition, poverty rates, the amount spent on education or health care, the size of the state’s economy, existing inequality levels, and differences in the cost of living — the relationship between taxing the poor and negative outcomes like premature death persisted. For every $100 increase on taxes at the poverty line, we saw an additional 7 deaths and 78 property crimes per 100,000 people, and a quarter of a percentage point decrease in high school completion.
Southern states have far higher rates of strokes, heart disease and infant mortality than the rest of the country. Students drop out of high school in larger numbers. These outcomes are not just a consequence of a love of fried food or higher poverty levels. Holding all those conditions constant, the poor of the South — and increasingly the West — do worse because their states tax them more heavily. They have less money to buy medication, so their health problems get worse. High sales taxes make meals more expensive, so they shift to cheaper, unhealthy food. If people can’t make ends meet, they may turn to the underground economy or to crime.
This self-defeating pattern has plagued the citizens of the “meaner states,” the ones that tax poor people at a higher rate, for a long time. But it is about to get worse. Governors in fiscally strapped states are hoping to roll back state earned-income tax credits. Some — like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Dave Heineman of Nebraska and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma — are aiming to cut or even eliminate state income and corporate taxes and raise sales taxes. North Carolina lawmakers are considering the same thing.
Proponents say these moves will make their states more economically competitive, bring back jobs, and attract high-income residents. But economists who have studied the impact of raising taxes on residential choices have found that tax rates don’t make much of a difference. Employers represent a different story: they are attracted to low-tax states, particularly if they don’t need high-skilled labor. Accordingly, low-wage job opportunities have grown in the Cotton Belt and the Sun Belt, and shrunk in the Rust Belt. There is something to be said for this, if the goal is to replace the nonworking poor with the working poor. But this is hardly a strategy for eradicating poverty itself.
The fact is, the more the poor are taxed, the worse off they are, whether they are working or not. We all pay a huge price for this shortsightedness. Medicaid payments, food stamps, disability benefits — all of these federal programs swoop in to try to patch up a frayed safety net. Consequently, the Southern states reap more dollars in federal benefits than they pay in taxes (like Mississippi, which saw a net gain of $240 billion between 1990 and 2009), while the wealthier states — which do more to take care of their own — lose out for every dollar they pay (like New Jersey, which handed over a net of $706 billion over that same period). As noble as the federal effort to rescue the poor in the “mean states” may be, it is not enough to reverse the impact of regressive taxation.
There is a better way: increasing taxes on luxury goods; exempting necessities like food, medicine and children’s clothing from sales taxes; and perhaps most important, issuing tax rebates and preserving refundable earned-income tax credits, which put more money in the hands of low-income households. Since poor families tend to spend all of what they take in, these protections would stimulate the economy and preserve, or even expand, the job base.
The states headed in the opposite direction are not only damaging the most vulnerable of their citizens, but exacting a significant toll on Americans in states with more progressive tax policies. We all pay for the damage done when states try to solve their fiscal problems, or score ideological points, on the backs of the poor.
Katherine S. Newman [ http://krieger.jhu.edu/about/leadership/newman.html ], a professor of sociology and the dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, is the author [ http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520269675 ], with Rourke L. O’Brien, of “Taxing the Poor: Doing Damage to the Truly Disadvantaged [ http://www.amazon.com/Taxing-Poor-Damage-Disadvantaged-Wildavsky/dp/0520269675 ].”
*
The Great Divide is a series about inequality.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/
*
Related Posts from Opinionator
The Hidden Prosperity of the Poor
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/the-hidden-prosperity-of-the-poor/
To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/to-beat-back-poverty-pay-the-poor/
Who Is Poor?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/who-is-poor/
Dependents of the State
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/
Downton and Downward
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/downton-and-downward/
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/in-the-south-and-west-a-tax-on-being-poor/ [with comments]
--
Joe Walsh: Americans 'Stupid' And 'Lazy,' Ex-Illinois Tea Party Congressman Says
In this Nov. 15, 2011 file photo former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
During a nearly two-hour talk Sunday, long-time Tea Party favorite former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh made, surprise!, an incendiary remark that Americans have grown "stupid," "lazy" and "easily manipulated" when it comes to politics.
Speaking Sunday at a "Freedom Movement" town hall event at the Living Waters Assembly of God church in Grayslake, Ill. Walsh, who was defeated by Democrat Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 8th congressional district last fall, Walsh spoke out against American politics and being "politically correct." Video of his address was first picked up by Raw Story [ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/former-rep-joe-walsh-the-american-people-are-stupid-and-lazy/ ].
About 28 minutes into the clip [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Coji3NX80 ] (embedded above), Walsh discussed the Tea Party as representing "the other side" … at war with the two major political parties.
"The American people have grown stupid, we’ve grown uninterested, we’ve gotten busy, we’re distracted, we’re lazy and we’re easily manipulated," Walsh continued. "Again, I can sit with you and have a beer and I can tell you about how idiotic most of our politicians are."
Wonkette [ http://wonkette.com/505813/bitter-defeated-ex-congressman-joe-walsh-explains-at-americans-that-they-are-stupid-losers ] and the Daily Kos [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/12/1193487/-Great-quotes-from-history-or-something-to-that-effect ] later picked up the clip, wherein Walsh went on to pan "mainstream" media as "terrible" and laud talk radio -- coincidence [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/joe-walsh-radio-show-tea-_n_2820892.html ]? -- for offering an alternative.
Walsh launched a super PAC earlier this year "to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives to Karl Rove [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/joe-walsh-super-pac-karl-rove_n_2622785.html ]." He's also hinted at both a possible Senate [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/joe-walsh-senate_n_2295063.html ] and Illinois gubernatorial [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/joe-walsh-governor-illino_n_2273056.html ] run.
Last month, the ex-congressman filed a request for his remaining child support obligations to be drastically reduced [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/joe-walsh-child-support-unemployed_n_2665240.html ] due to his employment (in Congress) being "terminated through no voluntary act of his own."
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/joe-walsh-americans-stupid-lazy_n_2861750.html [with pertinent excerpt of the embedded YouTube included above also embedded, and comments]
--
Pat Boone Calls Obama a Marxist, Says He Was on White House 'Enemies List'
Pat Boone
Jason Merritt/Getty Images
The legendary singer calls the media oblivious and lobs accusations of radicalism at the president during a Fox Business interview.
by Jordan Zakarin
1:41 PM PDT 3/14/2013
It's safe to assume that Pat Boone did not vote for President Barack Obama's re-election.
The legendary pop/gospel singer and avowed conservative appeared on Fox Business News on Wednesday night, joining Neil Cavuto to give his expert opinion on the deficit fight and sequestration. Instead of fiscal wonkery, though, Boone reached back into the past several years of Tea Party rhetoric to accuse Obama of being a socialist, bent on destroying economic progress through policies advocated by Saul Alinsky.
"He is following his playbook, which is Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals," Boone charged. "This is the guy that trained him to be a community organizer, a Marxist, a socialist, a progressive, who wrote the rules for doing what Mr. Obama is doing."
After Cavuto suggested that he differed with Boone on that accusation, the singer doubled down.
"He has a plan, he thinks it’s good for America -- a virtually socialist nation in which nobody gets rich, government is in charge of everything," he said.
Cavuto suggested, jokingly, that Obama was individually targeting Boone, to which the singer responded that he was, indeed, on the president's "enemies list" in 2009 -- a document published [ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2350981/posts ] by the tabloid The Globe.
Boone has long been a critic of Obama's, suggesting in the past [ http://www.salon.com/2009/06/29/boone_birther/ ] that he was a Kenyan Muslim, among other things.
Boone scored 18 Top 10 singles from 1955-62, including six No. 1s. Billboard ranks him as the No. 2 singles act of the 1950s, behind Elvis Presley.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/pat-boone-calls-obama-a-428675 [with video of the Boone on Fox Business segment embedded (the above YouTube of same, located as the video is embedded in the original, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fleP9YXW5dk ), and comments]
*
--
CPAC 2013 - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
[speech given March 16, 2013]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lazhYw86-X8 [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU9SqWa2GRM ]
--
Can Victoria Jackson return from the fringe?
Actress Victoria Jackson takes part in a rally before a Republican presidential debate Monday, Sept. 12, 2011, in Tampa, Fla.
After blasting gays, Muslims and Obama, can SNL vet Victoria Jackson really return to Hollywood? She hopes so
Mar 10, 2013
Victoria Jackson’s career was nonexistent. So when the daffy blonde comedian who sang and strummed her ukulele through six silly seasons on “Saturday Night Live” decided to embrace her religious roots and become one of the zaniest and most incendiary Tea Party celebrities, well, she didn’t have a lot of other opportunities.
“I didn’t have anything to lose,” she says, from her home in the Miami area.
[...]
--
CPAC Straw Poll Results 2013: Rand Paul Wins Conservative Vote
03/17/2013
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, marking an early indicator of conservative support ahead of the next presidential election in 2016.
Paul topped the list and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) came in second, according [ https://twitter.com/tabloidhack/status/313038470442536961 ] to Ian Bishop.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) came in third place this year, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- who was notably not invited [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/cpac-donald-trump_n_2862940.html?utm_hp_ref=politics ] to this year's conference -- coming in fourth.
Paul received 25 percent of the vote, with Rubio in a close second with 23 percent. Santorum received eight percent, and Christie took seven percent of the vote.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/cpac-straw-poll-results-2013_n_2856972.html [with embedded video report, and (over 10,000) comments]
--
'Opposing Black Guy in the White House' Is 'Good Politics' for This South Carolina Medicaid Flip-Flopper
Alexander Abad-Santos 7,547 ViewsMar 13, 2013
"It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party," said Republican South Carolina House Member Kris Crawford in an interview about how he supported a Medicaid expansion despite his party affiliation. Now just guess what he did on Tuesday. Crawford voted on party lines and shot down a measure [ http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/12/2672341/sc-house-debates-medicaid-expansion.html ] which would have granted a three-year expansion of Medicaid for the uninsured — an amendment which would have extended taxpayer-funded health insurance to 500,000 more people [ http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/12/2672341/sc-house-debates-medicaid-expansion.html ]. (And you thought the governors had been having trouble on this issue [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/what-medicaid-loving-gop-governors-have-common/62393/ ].) Of course, now Crawford is going to have to delicately explain why he said what he said, did what he did, and not try to sound like he's pandering to racists and politics.
The dilemma facing Crawford, who was convicted of tax evasion in November [ http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=826405 ], stems from a January 29 interview with the Charleston Regional Business Journal [ http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/46590-s-c-doctors-urge-lawmakers-to-expand-medicaid-eligibility ]. The piece was a rather unexciting story on how there might be a few Republicans, like Crawford, who would support a measure for Medicaid expansion in the state. These are two key sentences from that interview:
Rep. Kris Crawford, a Republican from Florence and also an emergency room doctor, supports the expansion but expects the Republican caucus to vote as a block against the Medicaid expansion.
“The politics are going to overwhelm the policy. It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party,” Crawford said.
So, to be clear, Crawford was for this measure a little over a month ago, but said there would be Republicans who would vote against what appears to be an Obama/Democrat initiative just because of the "good" optics of voting against President Obama... because of his race. Now, Crawford looks like one of those Republicans he spoke about, and hasn't released a statement (yet) explaining his vote. Although shutting up might be the best idea right now.
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/opposing-black-guy-white-house-kris-crawford/63053/ [with comments]
--
Assemblyman Is Charged With Marijuana Possession
State Assemblyman Stephen M. Katz, a Republican from Mohegan Lake, N.Y., said an episode with the State Police this week was "unfortunate."
Ángel Franco/The New York Times
By THOMAS KAPLAN
Published: March 15, 2013
A New York State assemblyman from the Hudson Valley was charged with marijuana possession after he was stopped for speeding, the authorities said on Friday.
The assemblyman, Stephen M. Katz [ http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Steve-Katz ], 59, a Republican from Mohegan Lake, was found with a “small bag” of marijuana when stopped on Thursday, the State Police said in a statement [ https://www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29600 ]. Assemblyman Katz was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana [open related link in the original via the source link below, iHub auto-formatting for symbols messes it up here], a violation that is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
In a statement, Mr. Katz said the episode was “unfortunate.”
“This should not overshadow the work I have done over the years for the public and my constituency,” he said, adding, “I am confident that once the facts are presented that this will quickly be put to rest.”
Mr. Katz, who was first elected in 2010, represents a district [ http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Steve-Katz/map/ ] that includes parts of Putnam and Westchester Counties. As a Republican in the Assembly, which Democrats control, he is not especially influential, but he has made a name for himself as one of the more outspoken state legislators. (This week, for instance, he enraged fans of the Buffalo Bills [ http://blogs.buffalonews.com/politics_now/2013/03/state-money-to-bills-generates-assembly-floor-tussle.html ] by questioning the use of state money to entice the team to stay in New York.)
Mr. Katz has had previous troubles. A veterinarian by trade, he was once accused of illegally disposing of a dead German shepherd [ http://www.cityandstateny.com/veterinarian-assemblyman-arrested-putting-dead-canine-dumpster/ ], and another time of allegedly attacking a Chihuahua he was treating. Both times, he said, he was exonerated.
On Thursday, Mr. Katz was pulled over around 10 a.m. after he was detected driving 80 miles per hour on the New York State Thruway in Coeymans, south of Albany, where the speed limit is 65 m.p.h. The State Police said the trooper who approached his car noticed the smell of marijuana, and then found Mr. Katz to be in possession of the drug.
Mr. Katz was released on an appearance ticket and is due in court on March 28.
The assemblyman, who is a member of the chamber’s Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse [ http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?sec=mem&id=3 ], voted against a bill last year that would have legalized medical marijuana [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html ].
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/nyregion/assemblyman-stephen-katz-charged-with-marijuana-possession.html
--
Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll resigns amid state, federal probe of non-profit veterans group
In this Jan. 11, 2012 file photo, Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll speaks during Florida Space Center day at the Florida House of Representatives in Tallahassee, Fla. Carroll resigned in the wake of a federal gambling racketeering case.
(AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, File)
By Tia Mitchell
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
Posted on Thursday, 03.14.13
TALLAHASSEE -- Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll abruptly resigned Tuesday after law enforcement officials questioned her about ties to a purported veterans charity organization at the center of a $300 million multi-state racketeering investigation.
Florida law enforcement officials would not say if Carroll, 53, is facing possible criminal charges in connection with the case. Gov. Rick Scott also would not comment. Scott said he would not name Carroll’s replacement until the end of the annual legislative session in May.
“She resigned, and she did the right thing for her state and for her family,” Scott said.
At issue is Carroll’s connections to Allied Veterans of the World, a Florida nonprofit that operates a chain of Internet sweepstakes cafes as a pseudo-charity. Nearly 60 people associated with the company were arrested this week on various charges, including illegal gambling, racketeering and money laundering.
Carroll owned a public relations firm that represented Allied Veterans, and as a member of the Florida House of Representatives, did work for the company. She later filmed an advertisement promoting Allied Veterans while serving as lieutenant governor.
Carroll resigned in a two-sentence letter after meeting with the governor’s chief of staff, Adam Hollingsworth, and general counsel Pete Antonacci. She did not meet with Scott.
It’s a quick and remarkable fall for someone who had been seen as important figure in the Florida Republican Party.
Born in Trinidad, Carroll, a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, was the first African-American Republican woman elected to the Legislature and the first African-American woman elected lieutenant governor. She was considered a favorite to be named Charlie Crist’s lieutenant governor in 2006 before Scott selected her four years later.
She was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2012 and led a task force studying Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws. She could not be reached Wednesday.
“Lt. Gov. Carroll resigned yesterday in an effort to keep her former affiliations with the company from distracting from our important work on behalf of Florida families,” Scott said. “We appreciate her willingness to step up and serve our state. She was a tireless advocate for Florida’s military and our mission to create more jobs. We are grateful for her service.”
Carroll attended Scott’s March 5 State of the State address but did not speak. Her last major public remarks came March 3, where she spoke at a dinner honoring Scott sponsored by the Florida Federation of Republican Women.
Her official calendar for Wednesday — which was released Tuesday evening — listed no public events.
The investigation into Allied Veterans started in 2009, according to law enforcement officials, who said Allied Veterans tried to scheme and defraud the public and governmental agencies by misrepresenting how much of its proceeds were donated to charities affiliated with Veterans Administration.
So far, nearly 60 people have been arrested in 23 Florida counties.
Carroll’s public relations firm, 3 N. and J.C. Corporation, is currently inactive, according to the Florida Division of Corporations. But the company’s primary source of income in 2009 and 2010 was Allied Veterans, financial disclosure forms show.
While serving in the state House in 2010, Carroll introduced legislation to legalize sweepstakes games such as those in cafes operated by Allied Veterans. Carroll later withdrew the proposed law, saying it was filed erroneously and that she wasn’t interested in legalizing Internet cafes, which operate in a legal gray area.
Internet sweepstakes cafes are big business in Florida. Since 2007, as many as 1,000 have popped up across the state, according to industry estimates, raking in $1 billion a year.
To play games at one of the Internet cafes, a customer gets a prepaid card and then goes to a computer to play "sweepstakes." The games, with spinning wheels similar to slot machines, have names such as "Captain Cash," ’’Lucky Shamrocks" and "Money Bunny," according to the IRS. Winners go back to a cashier with their cards and cash out. The games of chance have been the subject of much debate in Florida and some are legal as long as most of the profits are donated to charity.
Allied is a big player in Florida. In 2011, it had 40 locations statewide. Allied has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on state lobbyists.
Carroll’s time as lieutenant governor has not been without controversy.
Former travel aide Carletha Cole said she was fired in 2011 after complaining about Carroll in the media. Cole, who was later charged with sharing an illegal recording, said she once walked in on Carroll and a female staffer engaged in what appeared to be a sex act. The governor’s office has described Cole’s allegations as “outrageous.”
Carroll’s travel as lieutenant governor also has been an issue. Scott’s office placed Carroll on a $10,000-a-month fixed travel budget after her travel costs ballooned to nearly $300,000 in 2011.
With Scott’s consent, Carroll also was assigned for protection a lower-ranking and less-expensive corporal from the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
*
Gov. Rick Scott on Carroll resignation:
*
Related Content
Internet cafe campaign cash flooded state capitol, lawmakers’ coffers
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/14/v-fullstory/3286730/legislators-race-to-distance-themselves.html
Internet cafe probe snags dozens, could doom industry in Florida
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3284531/internet-cafe-probe-snags-dozens.html
Key lawmaker calls for shutdown of Internet cafes
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3283676/key-lawmaker-calls-for-shutdown.html
Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll was already political liability for Gov. Rick Scott
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3283656/lt-gov-jennifer-carroll-was-political.html
PolitiFact: Fact-checks by and about Jennifer Carroll
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=jennifer+carroll
A look back at Carroll's political and family life
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/09/1917888/for-the-carroll-family-competition.html
*
Copyright 2013 Miami Herald Media Co.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/3283274/lt-gov-jennifer-carroll-resigns.html [ http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3283274/lt-gov-jennifer-carroll-resigns.html ] [with comments]]
===
The GOP's Real Agenda
Illustration by Victor Juhasz
Since last fall, Republicans have pretended to be more moderate - but their politics are harsher and more destructive than ever
By Tim Dickinson
March 13, 2013 1:45 PM ET
After watching voters punish the GOP in the 2012 elections, Republican elites have been talking a brave game about reforms that would make the party less repulsive to Latinos, women and gay-friendly millennials. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the GOP's hip-hop-quoting young standard-bearer, is pressing conservatives to back an amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Dozens of party stalwarts, headlined by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, renounced their opposition to gay marriage in a Supreme Court brief. GOP bigwigs have even launched New Republican – a group modeled after Bill Clinton's centrist Democratic Leadership Council – which seeks to rebrand the party as "colorblind," "not anti-government" and dedicated to "ending corporate welfare."
Don't be fooled. On the ground, a very different reality is unfolding: In the Republican-led Congress, GOP-dominated statehouses and even before the nation's highest court, the reactionary impulses of the Republican Party appear unbowed. Across the nation, the GOP's severely conservative agenda – which seeks to impose job-killing austerity, to roll back voting and reproductive rights, to deprive the working poor of health care, and to destroy agencies that protect the environment from industry and consumers from predatory banks – is moving forward under full steam.
The hardcore rump of the party is even working to punish moderate outliers like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – the party's most popular leader – who was denied a speaking role at the conservative movement's annual convention, CPAC. Today's GOP may desperately need to remake itself as "culturally modern, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive," argues David Frum, a veteran of the George W. Bush White House, but it remains, he says, in the throes of a "Tea Party tantrum."
As it works to lock in as many retrograde policies as possible before it finally chooses to either modernize or die, the Republican Party is like a wounded beast: Rarely has it been more dangerous.
THE DEFICIT: HYSTERICAL AUSTERITY
In the Tea Party narrative, president Obama is a reckless socialist spending America into oblivion. In reality, the president has governed like an old-school Republican. Despite having taken heroic measures to rescue the economy in 2009, Obama has presided over the slowest expansion of federal spending since Eisenhower – and repeatedly offered to help Republicans slash the social safety net as part of a "grand bargain" that would restore the nation to fiscal balance.
Thanks to a rebounding tax base and the nearly $1 trillion in budget cuts that both parties agreed to in the first phase of the debt-ceiling deal, the deficit, entering 2013, was shrinking at a faster clip than at any time since the peace dividend after WWII. Federal outlays on both guns and butter were on a path to hit postwar lows as a percentage of gross domestic product by the end of Obama's second term.
But for anti-government Republicans, simple belt-tightening isn't enough. Since 2009, the party has fetishized the kind of draconian cuts to social services that have been practiced in Europe in recent years – and that have failed spectacularly to revive economies there. And today, with the imposition of the sequester – $1.2 trillion in across-the-board budget cuts divided between domestic and military expenditures – the Republicans have finally succeeded in bringing shock-and-awe austerity to America.
The sequester was born of Republican recklessness – a fixture of the debt-reduction package that the House GOP secured in 2011 after threatening to push the United States into default. In theory, neither party wanted these cuts. They were designed to be so politically toxic that lawmakers would be forced to work out a smarter mix of new revenue and targeted spending reductions.
During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that opened 2013, President Obama laid out a fix to the sequester mess, limiting domestic and defense spending cuts to $200 billion. He sought to make up the difference by leveraging government purchasing power to reap $400 billion in health-care savings and banked another $200 billion by ending waste in farm subsidies and other "mandatory" spending. Obama rounded out his proposal by demanding sacrifice both from the wealthiest – limiting tax deductions and loopholes for the rich – and from future retirees, trimming Social Security payouts by adjusting the way Washington measures inflation. Twenty years ago, this is the kind of self-negotiated proposal that might have been floated by Republican Sen. Bob Dole. But the party of Eric Cantor and John Boehner reacted as if it had been proposed by Hugo Chávez.
The GOP House's counterproposal lurched into even greater Tea Party extremism. A budget bill passed in December by the House would have protected defense contractors by restoring all Pentagon spending and delivered the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction on the broken backs and empty stomachs of low-income Americans – hollowing out social programs, decimating food-stamp benefits, even abolishing Meals on Wheels for hundreds of thousands of hungry seniors. Speaker Boehner praised his caucus for endorsing these "common-sense cuts."
Underscoring the priorities of today's GOP, their plan also contained a huge giveaway to reckless Wall Street speculators by eliminating the funding necessary for the government to shutter huge financial institutions. The bill also would have given Congress the ability to zero out the budget for the hated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency brought to life by Elizabeth Warren that protects homeowners and credit-card holders from the abuses of predatory lenders.
As a result of the GOP's refusal to negotiate in good faith, America is now being subjected to austerity-by-a-thousand-cuts. Budgetary sadists like Paul Ryan will delight in the sequester's blows to vital anti-poverty programs: $285 million a year from heating assistance to keep the poor from freezing to death in their own homes. Another $543 million will be cut from nutrition assistance – throwing as many as 750,000 at-risk kids and moms out of the WIC program. California and Texas alone likely will be forced to lay off more than 2,000 teachers – leaving some 350,000 students in the lurch. Tens of thousands of preschoolers will be kicked out of Head Start.
Yet for all the pain they cause, these cuts will do little to balance the budget. As Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testified to Congress, "If you slow the economy, that hurts your revenues, and that means your deficit reduction is not as big as you think it is." Worse for a nation still mired in eight percent unemployment, Bernanke said, "This will cost a lot of jobs in the short run." The impact is particularly brutal for jurisdictions whose economies are dependent on federal and military contracts. Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., are poised to lose a combined 450,000 jobs – double the losses projected for a megastate like California.
Some Republicans have attempted to blame the president for the pain caused by the "Obamaquester." But for the big bosses of the conservative movement, the true problem is that its cuts don't go far enough. Pointing to a right-wing think tank slamming the sequester as "insignificant," the GOP's anti-tax Svengali, Grover Norquist, snarked, "Ouch. Ouch. I cannot stand these 'meat cleaver' cuts in sequestration. Chain-saw massacre stuff."
TAX CUTS: STARVE THE STATES
Controlling only one-half of Congress, the Republicans can do little more than play defense by creating a deadlock in Washington. But with 24 statehouses now run by Republican governors and GOP-majority legislatures, the party is turning the states into laboratories for radical conservative governance.
In recent years, the GOP has sent talent from Congress back home to pursue its cruel economic agenda. From Louisiana to Kansas to Indiana, Republican governors with congressional pedigrees are working to slash state income and corporate taxes that hit the wealthiest – often calling on the working poor to make up the difference by paying higher sales taxes. In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence – until 2010 the number-three Republican in the House leadership – has asked the legislature to squander a rare surplus by passing an "across-the-board tax cut" that heavily favors the rich: Twenty-eight percent of benefits would go to the top five percent of earners. One in three low-income Hoosiers would see no tax cut at all.
In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to abolish income and corporate taxes – financing the giveaway by increasing the flat tax on purchases. Jindal claims the proposal "will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families." That's a lie. Taxes on the poorest 20 percent would rise nearly $400 a year in order to lower taxes on the top one percent by $25,000.
In Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, a former U.S. senator, is trying to pull off the same boondoggle with the backing of powerful allies – the billionaire Koch brothers, whose Koch Industries is based in Wichita, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, a corporate front group that pushes right-wing policy across state legislatures. Brownback began his tax-cutting in 2012 by eliminating the state business tax and slashing the state income tax, promising that these cuts would act like "a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy."
Instead, the state is on track to pile up $2.5 billion in debt by 2018, yet Brownback is still calling on the legislature to whittle away at income tax rates – which he declares are on a "glide path to zero" – even if that requires higher sales taxes. Thanks to the Koch brothers, Brownback enjoys a rubber-stamp legislature. Koch campaign cash in the past election put hardcore conservatives in control of both chambers; a board member of ALEC is now speaker of the Kansas House. If Brownback's latest cuts go forward, Kansas' $6 billion general fund will have been slashed by $1.1 billion a year, giving millionaires a tax cut of $28,000. "The magical growth model that the governor talks about only exists for the wealthiest Kansans who benefit from his tax plan," said Terry Forsyth, president of the Working Kansas Alliance.
VOTING RIGHTS: RIG THE SYSTEM
Republicans are painfully aware that a demographic tide has turned against them and that even turnout-suppressing voter-ID laws couldn't block the re-election of a Democrat to the White House in 2012. So party officials have become even more audacious in their plans to steal elections – this time by rigging the Electoral College itself.
The Electoral College is almost exclusively winner-take-all: The top popular vote-getter in Florida, for example, receives all 29 electoral votes. To benefit future GOP nominees, however, Republicans from blue-trending battleground states are seeking to divvy up their states' Electoral College bounty. These ploys are nothing more than dirty politics – and even GOP leaders admit it. "It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," said Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, making clear that the strategy to reapportion Electoral College votes is appropriate only for strategically important swing states, not for Texas or Georgia.
In Pennsylvania, Republicans have introduced a bill to split Electoral College votes proportionally – a plan that would have robbed Obama of eight of the state's 20 votes in 2012. In Michigan, the state GOP has endorsed a plan to award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. Because those districts were themselves gerrymandered by Republican politicians, this plan would have awarded Mitt Romney a majority of the Electoral College votes from Michigan – a state he lost by nearly 10 percent.
These state measures pale in comparison with a case now being weighed by the Supreme Court. Conservatives are hoping to nullify a bedrock provision of the Voting Rights Act, the law that brought democracy to the American South. "Section 5" of the 1965 law – renewed almost unanimously by Congress in 2006 – gives the Justice Department oversight of elections and redistricting in nine mostly Southern states. The suit is backed by the Koch-founded Cato Institute, which declared in a friend-of-the-court brief that "three generations of federal intrusion have been more than enough to kill Jim Crow.?.?.?. Without the threat of federal interference, would state legislatures feel free to engage in mischief? It seems wildly improbable, even in the Deep South."
During oral arguments in February, the hard-right majority on the Supreme Court appeared receptive to this line of attack – which is not surprising. As a young attorney in the Reagan Justice Department, the current chief justice, John Roberts, wrote legal briefs challenging the constitutionality of the VRA. And in the February proceedings, Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia slammed the law that guarantees the franchise to all Americans as a "racial entitlement."
The recent history of the Deep South proves that racially discriminatory mischief is still with us. In Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry decries Section 5 as having been "unconstitutionally extended," the Justice Department used the provision to block a voter-ID law that could have disenfranchised some 600,000 duly registered voters – most of them black and Latino. (The law endorsed a conceal-carry gun permit as acceptable ID for voting but deemed student and even state worker IDs invalid.)
The Lone Star State also violated the Voting Rights Act in its congressional redistricting. A panel of three federal judges decried the "discriminatory intent" displayed by state legislators who had carved job-creating commercial centers out of majority African-American districts and redrawn the lines of at least one Hispanic-dominant district to "strengthen the voting power of?.?.?. Anglo citizens."
GLOBAL WARMING: DENY, DENY, DENY
The Republican party also remains committed to violence against the environment. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over global-warming research, has been stacked with hardcore deniers like California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who once blamed climate change on "dinosaur flatulence," and Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, a creationist who blasts science – "all that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, big-bang theory" – as "lies straight from the pit of hell."
The committee is chaired by Texan Lamar Smith, who has taken more than $500,000 in oil money during his political career and recently received a $10,000 check from Koch Industries. In one of his first moves as chairman, Smith planned a hearing about giving global-warming skeptics a congressional platform in a House "review" of climate science – only to have it postponed because of a severe storm.
In the states, Kansas is poised to join Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas in passing ALEC-sponsored legislation mandating that schools teach the "scientific controversies" of climate science. In South Carolina, conservatives have suppressed publication for more than a year of a study predicting dire global-warming impacts in the state – which reportedly include flooded homes, shriveling wetlands, ocean dead zones, and an invasion of piranhas and Asian swamp eels. For his part, Sen. Rubio in Florida doubts whether humans are driving climate change and believes we should just let it ravage the planet in any case: "We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy," he said, "but it isn't going to change the weather."
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: DECLARE WAR ON WOMEN
In Republican politics, limited government ends at a woman's vagina. Early this year, the GOP-controlled legislature of Arkansas passed a bill outlawing abortion after just 12 weeks' gestation, a law "designed to dial the clock back 40 years," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. The measure was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, who decried it as "blatantly" unconstitutional – under Supreme Court precedent a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy before at least 22 weeks. But in March, the state legislature voted to override the veto, enacting the most restrictive abortion law in the nation – and setting up a certain court challenge that may tempt the Roberts court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.
Republican legislatures across the country are also pushing bills that would force a woman to be penetrated by a dildonic-ultrasound wand before she can legally terminate her pregnancy. A similar bill in Virginia last year became synonymous with the Republican party's "War on Women" – a PR fiasco that contributed to the loss of at least two Senate seats. But state Republicans are unabashed in supporting ultrasound mandates: "This bill is a priority," said Scott Fitzgerald, Republican state senate leader in Wisconsin. "It is long overdue."
In Indiana, lawmakers have sought to punish women seeking access to the abortion pill RU-486 by forcing them to undergo not one but two ultrasound penetrations. Public outcry forced the legislature to reduce the ultrasound mandate to one. "This bill is about politics, not women's health or safety," said Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "Statehouse politicians need to get out of our doctors' offices."
THE SAFETY NET: SCREW THE WORKING POOR
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obama-care last year also gave states the right to opt out of an expansion of Medicaid – the joint state-federal insurance program – to cover the working poor.
A few high-profile Republican governors, including Rick Scott of Florida and Christie in New Jersey, have embraced this Medicaid expansion as a sweetheart deal: The federal government will pay all costs for new enrollees for three years, ponying up 90 percent thereafter. But other GOP leaders who despise government are content to put the health of millions at risk rather than sacrifice ideology.
Rick Perry in Texas – who calls Social Security a "disease" – is refusing to expand Medicaid, claiming it would "threaten even Texas with financial ruin." In fact, Perry is looking a gift horse in the mouth. The feds would give the state $100 billion over a decade to cover nearly 2 million residents, while requiring just $15 billion in state matching funds. Perry's prominent peers include Govs. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who count among the nearly 20 GOP leaders who so far have refused to expand coverage.
*
Even the Republicans' best efforts to demonstrate that the party is moving forward have backfired. The Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, and Republican obstructionism blocked its reauthorization. After the election, GOP leaders were desperate to put the issue behind them. But to pass VAWA in February, Speaker Boehner had to suspend normal House rules, which require a majority of the majority party to pass a bill, and team up with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to reauthorize the law. In all, 160 House and Senate members voted against the act – all of them Republicans.
If this is the "new" Republican party, it looks even more radical than your father's, or even your grandfather's. A leading new face on the party's right flank – Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas – recalls a famous 1950s Republican right down to the crook in his nose. Channeling Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Cruz has declared Barack Obama to be "the most radical" president in our history, adding that Obama was educated at Harvard Law School by "Marxists" who, Cruz insists, "believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government."
It may be tempting to believe that danger posed by the GOP's lunatic fringe is cabined off in the House and the states of the Great Flyover. But 2014 is already looming, and vulnerable Democrats will be contesting Senate seats in red states from Alaska to Arkansas and Louisiana to South Dakota, as well as in hotly contested battlegrounds like Virginia and North Carolina. Flip just six seats, and the GOP will control Congress – and set the agenda of the last two years of the Obama administration. Here's hoping that when the next wave of Todd Akins or Richard Mourdocks charge onto the scene – mouthing off about "legitimate rape" or the latest Tea Party cause célèbre, that the American body politic has the good sense to shut that whole thing down.
This story is from the March 28th, 2013 issue of Rolling Stone.
*
Related
How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109 [at/see [linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69085167 and preceding and following]
*
Copyright ©2013 Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gops-real-agenda-20130313 [with comments]
--
CPAC Scott Terry at racism talk
Raw video: CPAC participant Scott Terry addresses K. Carl Smith, defending slavery as "food and shelter" given to African-Americans. Terry also calls for segregation during his remarks.
Video compiled during shooting for upcoming documentary, "Black Tea," an examination of the Tea Party by filmmaker Kevin Dotson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EGj5brWJp4
--
'White Student Union' Members Defend CPAC Segregation Comments
By Tyler Kingkade
Posted: 03/18/2013 10:20 am EDT | Updated: 03/18/2013 10:08 pm EDT
Two members of the White Student Union at Towson University [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/white-student-union-group-towson_n_1954262.html ] in Maryland aren't backing down after advocating for racial segregation and defending slavery [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/cpac-panel-on-race_n_2886132.html ] at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.
K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans was giving a presentation at CPAC about how Republicans could reach out more effectively to minorities. Scott Terry, a member of the White Student Union, began challenging Smith about the inclusion of blacks in the GOP's tent, in an exchange captured by the liberal blog ThinkProgress [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/15/1729331/cpac-slavery-minority-outreach/ ] that quickly spread around [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/16/cpac-panel-on-transcending-racist-label-breaks-down-into-verbal-chaos.html ] the Internet [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/tea-party-event-on-racial-tolerance-turns-to-chaos-as-white-supremacists-arrive.php ].
As seen in the video, Smith responds by citing a letter Frederick Douglass wrote in which he forgave his former owner. Terry interrupted and said, "For giving him shelter and food?" Several people in the audience gasp, though ThinkProgress notes there are also cheers. Terry muttered, "Why can't we just have segregation?" after the exchange, ThinkProgress reported.
When Smith mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/cpacs-trump-race-card-panel-derailed-actual-segregationist/63173/ ], the Atlantic Wire reports, White Student Union "founder and commander [ http://towsonwsu.blogspot.com/p/about-wsu.html ]" Matthew Heimbach interrupted that King was a "Marxist," and consequently not welcome.
After the exchange, Terry told The Guardian that he is a descendent of Confederate president Jefferson Davis [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/15/race-debate-cpac-slavery-slur ], and that he didn't totally disagree with slavery because it's a "complicated issue." He said, "I can't make one broad statement that categorically it was evil all the time because that's not true."
Terry later told The Blaze that some of his comments were being taken [ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/member-of-all-white-student-union-makes-stunningly-outrageous-comment-about-slavery-during-cpac-session/ ] out of context, and that he did not support slavery. However, when it comes to segregating by race, Terry said Americans should have "freedom of association."
Heimbach, who started the White Student Union, has been more confrontational in subsequent interviews.
"Diversity is not a strength," Heimbach told the Baltimore Sun [ http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/towson/bal-towson-student-advocates-for-segregation-at-cpac-event-20130316,0,2592318.story ], adding, "We're being displaced from our own country," in reference to immigration. He also told The Blaze [ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/member-of-all-white-student-union-makes-stunningly-outrageous-comment-about-slavery-during-cpac-session/ ] that the issue of "forced segregation" should be left to the states.
As The Huffington Post previously reported [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/white-student-union-group-towson_n_1954262.html ], Towson University has responded to Heimbach's student group with caution, neither endorsing it nor trying to shut it down. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the White Student Union a "hate group [ http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=MD ]."
Heimbach responded to the label, telling Slate [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/16/cpac_diary_meet_the_white_nationalists_who_ruined_everything.html ], "You look at the SPLC, as fake as they are, they talk about how patriot groups are increasing in the Obama era. With a black face in charge of the White House, of the federal government, we know it's foreign. We know something isn't right."
According to The Atlantic Wire, 23 members of the White Student Union attended [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/cpacs-trump-race-card-panel-derailed-actual-segregationist/63173/ ] CPAC.
The White Student Union's website announced [ http://towsonwsu.blogspot.com/2013/03/towson-wsu-to-attend-cpac.html ] it would attend CPAC because the group claims the GOP's not conservative enough. "The Republican Establishment will be trotting out only the best and brightest to tell the white socially conservative working class base why they need to support homosexual marriage, corporatism, blank checks for Israel, and amnesty for criminal border jumpers," one blog post said.
WATCH [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfCX9sJqqc (next below, as embedded)]:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/white-student-union-cpac_n_2897609.html [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
Tea Party Values, the Civil War and Race in Raleigh, NC
http://www.storyofamerica.org/diane
Annabel Park spoke to Diane Rufino, leader of the Eastern North Carolina Tea Party, at the "Honor the Oath" rally at the State Capitol in Raleigh on 1/9/13.
Diane had drawn applause during her speech when she praised North Carolina's role during the Civil War, yet, she said that Rev. Dr. William Barber [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoo3GEfhPwo (next below)]
Diane is eager to change the perception that the TEA Party and Republican party are dominated by white men. In her interview, she explained that catch phrases like "take our country back" do not imply going back to a time before the Civil Rights movement. Instead, she argued, TEA Party members and other conservatives want to go back to a time when there were "parameters."
"When was that?" Annabel asked. Diane's fascinating answer provides a window into the complexity and agony of TEA Party conservatives struggling to respond to changes in America.
After the interview, Annabel remarked that she really appreciated Diane's openness and willingness to engage her in dialogue. "Despite whatever differences we may have, I respect her strength and her spirit of engagement. I think it's critical to open up dialogue like this to heal America's divide."
Diane has blogged [ http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2012/11/13/secession-does-a-state-have-the-right-to-secede-from-the-union-2/ ] that her support for secession from the Union in response to Barack Obama's election has divided her home. "Even after hours of discussion and debate," she says of her husband, "he still believes that Lincoln was justified in invading the South. ...I guess you can say that we have a House divided at home now."
There is an epic political battle going on in North Carolina for the future direction of the state. What unfolds in this battleground state in the next year just may shape the story of America for years to come.
Often mentioned during a recent radio show [ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/coffeepartyusa/2013/02/20/the-middle-ground-w-michael-charney-eric-byler-8p-et-tues ] about the Tea Party Values video above: Glen Bradley, the organizer of the Honor the Oath rally, and a former State Representative in North Carolina [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Nw5V3a2Z0 (next below)]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdeHQ0uR3xc
--
Desiline Victor, Obama's 102-Year-Old Voter, 'Shocked' By Scalia's 'Racial Entitlement' Remark
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By Ryan J. Reilly
Posted: 03/18/2013 1:05 pm EDT | Updated: 03/18/2013 7:10 pm EDT
WASHINGTON -- Desiline Victor, the 102-year-old voter [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/desiline-victor-state-of-the-union_n_2674160.html ] who received a standing ovation at President Barack Obama's State of the Union address earlier this year [video embedded], sent a letter on March 12 to Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing his remarks about the Voting Rights Act being a "racial entitlement [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html ]."
Victor said she was "shocked" when she heard what Scalia said about the Voting Rights Act during the Supreme Court's oral arguments on a key provision of the law last month.
"I thought you must not know what’s happening in this country," Victor wrote. "After learning more this year from the civil rights group, Advancement Project, I know that just as there were for me, there are barriers to voting for many people – especially people who are black or brown."
Obama pointed to Victor, who waited in line for hours to vote at a polling place in Miami, as an example of why it was important to fix the nation's broken election system [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/obama-voting-commission_n_2672538.html ].
"I was born at a time when women were not allowed to vote in Haiti, nor the United States," she continued. "After becoming a U.S. citizen, I was so proud to have a voice in this country. That is what inspired me to fight last year. But voting should never require such a fight. We need more make sure that all Americans can have their voices heard – we need the Voting Rights Act. Justice Scalia, the Voting Rights Act is not a racial entitlement. It is an important protection that helps all Americans exercise their right to vote. It was put in place because, sadly, there are people in this country who don’t want everyone to have an equal voice at the ballot box.
Victor's full letter is reprinted below.
March 12, 2013
Dear Justice Scalia,
My name is Desiline Victor. I was born in Haiti in 1910, and I am 102 years old. After coming to the United States for a better life, today I am an American citizen and live with my family in North Miami. You might remember me from the State of the Union address last month, where President Obama told my story about how hard it was for me to vote.
When I heard what you said about the Voting Rights Act being a “racial entitlement,” I was shocked. I thought you must not know what’s happening in this country. After learning more this year from the civil rights group, Advancement Project, I know that just as there were for me, there are barriers to voting for many people – especially people who are black or brown. I also know that the Voting Rights Act is a way to protect the votes of communities that still face these problems. I would like to tell you about the struggles I faced in the last election.
During the early voting period in Florida last October, I went to my polling place early in the morning. The line was already very long, and wait times were as high as six hours. I stood for three hours before I started to get shaky on my feet, but no one could assist me unless I made it to the front of the line. In addition, there were no poll workers available who could help me in my native Kreyòl language, despite North Miami’s large Haitian community. I was told to come back later. I left. But I was determined to vote, so I tried again. On my second visit that night, I was happy when I finally cast my ballot. But I was also upset. In this great nation why should anybody have to stand in line for hours, and make two trips, to vote?
Not everybody persevered as I did. I learned later that hundreds of thousands of voters in Florida gave up and went home without voting, and that Black and Latino voters were more likely to face those shamefully long lines and wait times. One reason was a new law that cut the early voting period. Around the country, other new laws were passed that made voting harder in 2012 – but Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act blocked many of them before the election. Section 5 also helps voters in other ways. In the five counties in Florida that are covered, voting help in Spanish and Kreyòl is required because of their large Latino and Haitian populations.
I was born at a time when women were not allowed to vote in Haiti, nor the United States. After becoming a U.S. citizen, I was so proud to have a voice in this country. That is what inspired me to fight last year. But voting should never require such a fight. We need more make sure that all Americans can have their voices heard – we need the Voting Rights Act. Justice Scalia, the Voting Rights Act is not a racial entitlement. It is an important protection that helps all Americans exercise their right to vote. It was put in place because, sadly, there are people in this country who don’t want everyone to have an equal voice at the ballot box.
Equality and the right to vote are the shining lights of American democracy that drew me to these shores, and that right should not be taken away. In fact, it should be made stronger to help more voters who faced obstacles like I did.
Sincerely,
Desiline Victor
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/desiline-victor-obamas-10_n_2901246.html [with comments]
--
'This is a Crazy System': Justices Ridicule Ease-of-Voting Law
Chris Keane/Reuters
The Supreme Court seems poised to reject a form that simplifies voter registration -- on the grounds that some of its members could have designed a better one.
By Garrett Epps
Mar 18 2013, 3:40 PM ET
Imagine you are a legal immigrant to the United States. You have worked hard, kept a spotless criminal record, mastered English, and learned the rudiments of American government. On your 40th birthday, you go to the federal courthouse in Phoenix to be sworn in.
When the ceremony ends, you ask whether you can do what every citizen can do: register to vote. A helpful clerk hands you the National Mail Voter Registration Form, a postcard. Will this work in Arizona? Not to worry, the clerk assures you. Under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), states must "accept and use" this form to register voters. Fill it out, drop it in the mail, welcome to our political community.
On the form, you must attest on penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen. The "state-specific" parts of the form tell you that you must also include your Arizona drivers' license number. You've been driving legally for years, since before 1996.
You mail the form, and wait.
Soon comes a letter from your county registrar. "Let this letter serve as notification that we have not yet received documentation of citizenship. ... Be advised that you are not a registered voter."
Under Arizona law, you learn, you must prove you are a citizen -- even though the federal form does not say so anywhere. Your driver's license number is not good enough -- because, unbeknownst to you or to the public generally, the state driver records have flagged your license with an F -- meaning "foreigner." The F isn't on your license; the general public doesn't even know F flags exist. (The "F" flag stopped being used in 1996, so most of those 33 and under don't face this problem.)
The Arizona law -- Proposition 200 -- sets out the acceptable documents. The law says you can use the number of your naturalization certificate, which of course you have right to hand. You fill it in and send off the new form.
Soon comes another letter. "Let this letter serve as notification that ..." Well, naturalization certificate numbers, it turns out, aren't stored in a database where county officials can use them, so despite what the law says, they aren't accepted. You can't mail in a copy, because it's illegal to photocopy one. The only way to register, it turns out, is to go to the courthouse and present the certificate in person. Nowhere on your federal form was there a warning that your driver's license and naturalization certificate numbers would be rejected.
Here's a question: Did state officials "accept and use" the federal form? Of course, says the state of Arizona. They allowed you to mail it in -- acceptance -- and read it so they could reject your application -- use. After all, they say, employers "accept and use" job applications; they just reject most of them.
No, say a group of Arizona voters and voter advocacy organizations; it is the clear intent of the NVRA that a completed form should provide all the information the state needs. It can check the information against public records to determine citizenship. It can send a letter announcing your registration, and then suspend if the letter is returned as undeliverable. What it can't do is make the voter jump through more hoops than the form requires.
At oral argument Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court, it seemed as if the result might turn on fine parsing of the words "accept and use." But lurking behind the statutory argument was another, more unusual one: at least four of the justices made it clear that they thought they could design a better form.
The textual power at issue in Monday's case, Arizona v. Arizona Inter-Tribal Commission, is granted in Article I § 4 of the Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
The NVRA, or "motor-voter" bill, is an exercise of the "make or alter" power. In 1993, Congress determined that many states made it too hard to register. They empowered a federal agency to design a form -- and said that the form "may only" ask about certain things, such as age, address, and citizenship. Then they said all states are required to "use and accept the form."
Flash forward to 2004. Voters in Arizona became concerned that illegal aliens were flocking to the polls. They enacted Proposition 200, which requires the state to reject any form not accompanied by "satisfactory evidence of citizenship" -- a class of documents rather whimsically defined, as the naturalization-certificate-number snafu illustrates.
After Prop 200, 31,000 eligible voters -- citizens all, and most native-born -- were rejected for registration for failing to satisfy its demands. Only about 11,000 were eventually able to vote. The rejected voters were mostly native-born citizens; only about 20 percent were Latino. There was no racial or party identification to this cohort.
Meanwhile, community voter-registration drives all but collapsed. Set these exclusions against the evidence in the trial court that in 2005, only ten non-citizens (who would have been registered before Prop 200 took effect) even tried to vote, and only four succeeded. In 2001, Arizona's own Election Director had pointed out that very few aliens even try to vote, because if they are caught they will be deported. "Those who are in the country illegally are especially fearful of registering their names and addresses with a government agency for fear of detection and deportation," she wrote.
At the Supreme Court, however, the issue of the qualified voters excluded by Prop 200 took a distinct back seat to contempt for the NVRA and the form it produced. "It seems to me the federal form, as some of my colleagues have indicated, is not worth very much," Justice Anthony Kennedy told Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne.
Justice Scalia later suggested that Arizona should have challenged the form, which required only a statement under oath that the registrant is a citizen. "Big deal," he said. "If ... you're willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you're willing to violate the perjury laws."
Later, Chief Justice John Roberts quizzed Patricia Millett, representing the challengers, "You've got a great deal of reliance on what [the federal agency] has done, and I'm saying if it's not doing a very good job. ... I'd question whether or not the fact that [the agency] is going to implement it is sufficient assurance that the Act reads the way you say it does."
Justice Samuel A. Alito objected to the idea that, as the statute now reads, a state might require more information on its own forms but would be required to register voters using the federal form as well: "This seems to me like a crazy system."
Millett tried twice to remind the Court that this was a case about the right of individuals to vote in federal elections, not about the rights of the states. The argument for preemption of Prop 200, she said, "is in those 31,550 people who couldn't register." But she made little headway. By argument's end, the conservative bloc seemed lined up solidly behind Arizona.
Perhaps the challengers' best hope lies in an administrative-law argument advanced by Scalia, a former administrative specialist. Why, he asked repeatedly, did Arizona not challenge the agency's decision in a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act? Horne responded that he didn't know: "[T]hat was under a predecessor of mine." One or two Justices might support dismissing this case on those procedural grounds.
The state of Arizona, this Mississippi of the 21st century, has been before the Court repeatedly in the past few years. Perhaps that's where it picked up the idea that nobody needs to pay attention to Congress.
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group (emphasis in original)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/this-is-a-crazy-system-justices-ridicule-ease-of-voting-law/274127/ [with comments]
--
Florida Cyberattack On Absentee Ballot Site Is First Known Case Of Online Election Tampering: Report
03/18/2013
A Florida website became the first known target of an election-focused cyberattack last year, when more than 2,500 "phantom requests" for absentee ballots were made from international locations, NBC News reported [ http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/18/17314818-cyberattack-on-florida-election-is-first-known-case-in-us-experts-say ] Monday.
The Miami Herald first reported [ http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/23/3250726/the-case-of-the-phantom-ballots.html ] in February about the irregularities on the election website, which took submissions for absentee ballots. The Herald found that 2,552 requests were filed to a Miami-Dade County elections website over a two-and-a-half week period in July, primarily targeting Democratic voters ahead of upcoming primary elections. They came on behalf of voters who had not actually applied for absentee ballots and were tracked to a few Internet Protocol addresses registered in India, the United Kingdom and other foreign countries.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/florida-cyberattack-election_n_2901969.html [with comments]
--
Robert Menendez Accusers Were Paid To Make Prostitution Claims Against Senator: Dominican Police
03/18/13 02:25 PM ET EDT
SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic -- Three women were paid to falsely claim in videotaped interviews that they had sex for money with a U.S. senator in the Dominican Republic, a spokesman for the police said Monday.
The women, whose claims generated media attention in the United States, were hired by a Dominican attorney to make the videotaped statements, spokesman Maximo Baez told reporters. Two of the women received about $425 and the other was paid about $300, he said.
Authorities are seeking to interrogate the attorney, Melanio Figueroa, about the payments and have not determined his motive or whether he was in turn paid by someone else to set up the interviews, Baez said.
The women have not been detained.
The police spokesman was making his most detailed comments to date on an investigation into the source of allegations that U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez had sex with prostitutes, including two who were underage at the time, while in the Dominican Republic with his friend and campaign contributor, Dr. Salomon Melgen, a south Florida doctor, and with Vinicio Castillo Seman, an attorney whose family is politically prominent in the Dominican Republic. Castillo and Menendez have denied hiring prostitutes.
Castillo, a cousin of Melgen, requested the investigation into what he said were "false and defamatory" accusations.
Two of the videotaped interviews with the women were published on a conservative Washington website as Menendez ran for re-election in November. The allegations gained wider attention after federal agents searched Melgen's office and the senator acknowledged that he failed to reimburse $58,000 for two flights on a private jet for trips to the Dominican Republic.
Jose Polanco, a prosecutor in the town of La Romana, said he interviewed all three women and also determined that none was underage at the time of the supposed encounters with the senator.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/robert-menendez-accusers-_n_2901776.html [with address]
--
Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate
The disproportionate power enjoyed in the Senate by small states is playing a growing role in the political dynamic on issues as varied as gun control, immigration and campaign finance.
March 11, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html
--
For Obama’s Judges, It’s Already Late
Caitlin Halligan
March 12, 2013
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/03/federal-court-barack-obama-halligan-nomination.html [with comments]
===
America’s Dirtiest Coal Company
By Bill McKibben Mar 17, 2013 5:30 PM CT
If you go to the website of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Missouri, you can read more than 1,000 letters from retired coal miners and their widows.
Their words are like the lyrics to an endless Johnny Cash ballad, and even more heartbreaking. They tell the eternal tale of the greedy few, this time playing out in real time in our America.
Here’s the story: In the fall of 2007, Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU), the coal-mining giant, spun off all its unionized mines into a new company, Patriot Coal Corp. (PCXCQ) In the process, it got rid of the promises it had made over generations to coal miners and their families.
Or, as Peabody’s chief executive officer put it, “We’re reducing our legacy liabilities roughly $1 billion.” This was such a good idea that another coal giant, Arch Coal Inc. (ACI), unloaded its union mines on Patriot as well, though it cycled them first through yet another front. All totted up, Patriot now had 10,000 retirees and their health-care benefits on its books.
This company was designed to fail. Patriot is almost certainly the only five-year-old company on earth with three times as many retirees as employees, 90 percent of whom never worked for the company. And fail it did, declaring [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/07/as-coal-industry-declines-what-will-happen-to-all-those-retired-miners/ ] bankruptcy last summer. Now it’s going through Chapter 11 reorganization and hoping to emerge freed of its obligations for the pensions and medical care of those miners.
Disappearing Benefits
In a corporate sleight-of-hand, the promises won with a lifetime of hard work and hard bargaining disappeared first into a holding company. Now, if the bankruptcy [ http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14360/in_the_coal_fields_a_novel_way_to_get_rid_of_pensions_is_born/ ] judge agrees, they will disappear into thin air.
Or, to put it more explicitly, here’s a handwritten note from Shirley Wells of Sullivan, Kentucky: “Over the years thousands were killed in explosions, fires, roof falls, and many other accidents. ... Many others suffer from the slower death called black lung disease ... confined to their homes, dependent on oxygen.”
If Patriot has its way, they won’t have the medical cards that pay for their treatment. And as one miner after another points out in the letters, they bargained hard for those cards, preferring guaranteed medical care over higher wages precisely because of the toll the work took on their bodies. In this country, coal mining is our metaphor for hard work. There’s really nothing much tougher on a person.
Patriot’s deceit is indefensible even if you’re a laissez- faire purist: It makes nonsense of accounting to socialize the risks of coal mining by tossing miners on the mercy of Medicare. It’s also completely unfair to any of Patriot’s competitors willing to honor their obligations.
As a Temple University finance professor, Bruce Rader [ http://www.fairnessatpatriot.org/media/temple-university-analysis-patriot-coal/ ], put it in a stinging rebuke to Patriot: “Corporate socialism is a system that privatizes profits and socializes costs. If that is considered capitalism, then Al Capone is right in his statement: ‘Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.’”
And in this case, Patriot is doing nothing to hide its fat-cat heart. Its bankruptcy advisers billed $2,635 for a single dinner; the company is even now seeking court permission to hand out $6 million [ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112449/peabody-energys-disappearing-health-benefits ] in bonuses to executives.
I’m an environmentalist. I think we can’t keep burning coal because the carbon it produces is, right this moment, melting the Arctic, acidifying the ocean and raising the temperature of the earth in ways that most climate scientists think endanger the prospects of our civilization.
But part of civilization is taking care of people who have worked hard. That’s why every climate bill proposed in Congress should have extensive sections designed to protect retirees and retrain existing workers.
Hardest Work
And that’s why many environmentalists will join churches, civil rights groups and labor unions in protesting Patriot’s grotesque charade. It’s not all right to balance the ledger -- carbon or corporate -- on the backs of men and women already bowed by a lifetime of the hardest work on earth.
As Billy D. Canterbury, also known as Docket Item No. 2638, put it in his letter to the bankruptcy court: “At 19 I started working in the coal industry, but had to retire at 55 in 2007 due to orthopedic conditions. Among those are a ruptured disc in back, L5, three injuries to my right knee, and two injuries to my left knee. All of which were work-related.”
He continued, “In good faith we, the United Mine Workers members, provided the labor needed to assist Peabody in its endeavors to mine the coal necessary for them to conduct business.” That’s how capitalism is supposed to work. But this particular business turns out to be even grimier than it seemed.
(Bill McKibben, the author of “Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future [ http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Economy-Wealth-Communities-Durable/dp/0805087222 ],” is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net.
©2013 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-17/america-s-dirtiest-coal-company.html [with comments]
--
Wells Fargo Typo Victim Dies in Court
Debbie Popovich at the garden she worked on with Larry Delassus
The bank billed Larry Delassus $13,361 owed by his neighbor, then foreclosed
Mar 7 2013
On the morning of Dec. 19, 2012, in a Torrance courtroom, Larry Delassus' heart stopped as he watched his attorney argue his negligence and discrimination case against banking behemoth Wells Fargo.
His death came more than two years after Wells Fargo mistakenly mixed up his Hermosa Beach address with that of a neighbor in the same condo complex. The bank's typo led Wells Fargo to demand that Delassus pay $13,361.90 ¬— two years of late property taxes the bank said it had paid on his behalf in order to keep his Wells Fargo mortgage afloat.
But Delassus, a quiet man who suffered from the rare blood-clot disorder Budd-Chiari syndrome and was often hospitalized, didn't owe a penny in taxes.
One of his neighbors, whose condo "parcel number" was two digits different from Delassus', owed the back taxes.
In a series of painfully tragic events, Wells Fargo relied on its typographical error to double Delassus' mortgage — from $1,237.69 to $2,429.13 — as its way of recouping the $13,361.90 in taxes Delassus didn't owe. Delassus, a retiree living on a $1,655 check, couldn't meet the mysteriously increased mortgage. He stopped paying, and soon was far behind on his mortgage.
Delassus and his attorney did not discover until May 2010 that a mis-entered number had dragged Delassus into this spiral. As court documents obtained by L.A. Weekly show, after admitting its error, Wells Fargo foreclosed on Delassus anyway and sold his condo.
Delassus had to move to a tiny apartment in an assisted-living home in Carson.
Friends say he didn't die of heart disease that day in court, as the coroner found. He was, they believe, killed by a system so inhumane that it could not undo a devastating piece of red tape the system itself created.
[...]
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-03-07/news/wells-fargo-typo-victim-dead-larry-delassus/ [ http://www.laweekly.com/2013-03-07/news/wells-fargo-typo-victim-dead-larry-delassus/full/ ] [with comments]
--
Jamie Dimon Email Directly Ties JPMorgan CEO To $6.2 Billion Fiasco
03/15/2013
Jamie Dimon’s email response was direct and to the point. “I approve,” he wrote to an oversight body within his enormous bank, JPMorgan Chase, thereby giving his blessing to an increase in the amount of risk the institution could shoulder. He also approved a change in the way a key trading unit was assessing threats of trouble in its then-burgeoning portfolio.
That email -- released late Thursday as part of a 300-page Senate report [ http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rJ5Q_k_NsIk8 ] probing how and why Dimon’s bank managed to lose $6.2 billion on derivatives trading -- now appears to tie the chief executive directly to the disastrous decision-making at issue.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/jamie-dimon-email-jpmorgan-ceo-ties-loss_n_2883012.html [with comments]
--
Yin Wong, Disabled San Francisco Resident, Says She Was Foreclosed On But Never Missed A Payment
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/yin-wong_n_2886654.html [with comments] [her gripe entirely legitimate]
--
JPMorgan Faces Increased Legal Threat Following 'London Whale' Scandal, Experts Say
03/16/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/jpmorgan-scandal-london-whale-legal_n_2885951.html [with comments]
--
Ex-Bailout Watchdog: JPMorgan's Actions 'Entirely Consistent With Fraud'
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/neil-barofsky-jpmorgan_n_2884506.html [with comments]
--
Richard Fisher Says Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Need To Be Broken Up
By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa
Posted: 03/16/2013 12:01 pm EDT
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. - The largest U.S. banks are "practitioners of crony capitalism," need to be broken up to ensure they are no longer considered too big to fail, and continue to threaten financial stability, a top Federal Reserve official said on Saturday.
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, has been a critic of Wall Street's disproportionate influence since the financial crisis. But he was now taking his message to an unusual audience for a central banker: a high-profile Republican political action committee.
Fisher said the existence of banks that are seen as likely to receive government bailouts if they fail gives them an unfair advantage, hurting economic competitiveness.
"These institutions operate under a privileged status that exacts an unfair tax upon the American people," he said on the last day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
"They represent not only a threat to financial stability but to fair and open competition (and) are the practitioners of crony capitalism and not the agents of democratic capitalism that makes our country great," said Fisher, who has also been a vocal opponent of the Fed's unconventional monetary stimulus policies.
Fisher's vision pits him directly against Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who recently argued during congressional testimony that regulators had made significant progress in addressing the problem of too big to fail. Bernanke asserted that market expectations that large financial institutions would be rescued is wrong.
But Fisher said mega banks still have a significant funding advantage over its competitors, as well as other advantages. To address this problem, he called for a rolling back of deposit insurance so that it would extend only to deposits of commercial banks, not the investment arms of bank holding companies.
"At the Dallas Fed, we believe that whatever the precise subsidy number is, it exists, it is significant, and it allows the biggest banking organizations, along with their many nonbank subsidiaries - investment firms, securities lenders, finance companies - to grow larger and riskier," he said.
Fisher argued Dodd-Frank financial reforms were overly complex and therefore counterproductive.
"Regulators cannot enforce rules that are not easily understood," he said.
(Reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa; editing by Gunna Dickson)
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/fisher-too-big-to-fail_n_2891452.html [with embedded annotated slideshow "11 Lies About The Fed", and comments]
--
Greenspan Says Too Big To Fail Problem 'Is Getting Worse, Not Better'
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/greenspan-too-big-to-fail-worse-better_n_2884001.html [with embedded annotated slideshow "Bankers Who Want To Break Up Big Banks", and comments]
--
SAC Capital's Insider Trading Settlement The Largest Of Its Kind
Posted: 03/15/2013 2:00 pm EDT | Updated: 03/15/2013 7:31 pm EDT
Hedge fund titan Steven A. Cohen's firm, long the focus of a federal investigation into insider trading, is paying more than $600 million to U.S. securities regulators to settle allegations arising from improper trading in two stocks.
The settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced Friday is one of the largest ever by a hedge fund and involves allegations of improper trading by two subsidiaries of Cohen's $15 billion SAC Capital Advisors.
SAC Capital affiliate CR Intrinsic agreed to pay more than $600 million to settle allegations that one of its former employees participated in an insider trading scheme involving shares of Elan Corp. and Wyeth Inc, now a part of Pfizer Inc.
In another settlement, SAC Capital subsidiary Sigma Capital agreed to pay $14 million to settle charges the firm engaged in insider trading in shares of Dell and Nvidia Corp.
The settlements come after outside investors in Cohen's fund submitted notices last month to pull $1.68 billion from SAC Capital, largely over concern about the insider trading investigation. Cohen is one of the $2 trillion hedge fund industry's best known and most successful traders.
The fines will be paid by SAC Capital's management company and not outside investors, said a person familiar with SAC Capital.
In a statement the firm said, "This settlement is a substantial step toward resolving all outstanding regulatory matters and allows the firm to move forward with confidence."
In November, regulators charged CR Intrinsic with insider trading in November when the SEC said one of its portfolio managers, Mathew Martoma, illegally obtained confidential details about a clinical trial for an Alzheimer's drug.
Martoma is facing criminal charges over the incident and has pleaded not guilty.
Neither SAC Capital nor any of it subsidiaries admitted or denied wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlements.
Cohen, one of the industry's most successful traders, has not been charged with any wrongdoing by authorities.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Matthew Goldstein, Gerald E. McCormick and Kenneth Barry)
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/sac-capital-insider-trading_n_2884953.html [with embedded video report, embedded annotated slideshow "Bankers Behind Bars", and comments]
--
Private Equity’s $36 Billion Retail Bet Not Going So Well
People ride an indoor ferris wheel at a Toy "R" Us Inc. store in New York.
Mar 15, 2013
In the years before the recession, private-equity firms put so much faith in the future of U.S. brick-and-mortar retailers that they spent $36 billion on them.
That hasn’t worked out so well, especially for the era’s biggest spender, Bain Capital LLC. The firm started by Mitt Romney inked four deals valued at $17 billion from 2004 to 2007 and still owns all of the purchases. The largest of the bunch was Toys “R” Us Inc., which posted a drop in sales during the holidays, followed by Chief Executive Officer Gerald Storch stepping down.
The private-equity model -- load up an acquisition with debt, cut costs and take it public -- hasn’t gone according to the usual script with most of Bain’s retail acquisitions. That’s largely because the firm, which has $67 billion in assets under management, doubled down on specialty retailers just as they were about to be pummeled by the likes of Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
“There isn’t anything special about specialty anymore,” said Leon Nicholas, an analyst for Kantar Retail in Boston. Their advantages on product assortment, expertise and price have disappeared, he said.
Bain tried to take Toys “R” Us public in 2010 and then postponed the offering.
[...]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/bain-s-17-billion-retail-bet-not-looking-so-special.html [with comments]
--
41 Percent Of Wall Street Ready To Leave Financial Industry: Survey
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/wall-street-workers-leaving-finance_n_2879883.html [with comments] [and see e.g. (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=42616686 and preceding and following]
--
CFPB Will Regulate Student Loan Debt Servicers
03/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/cfpb-student-loan-debt_n_2877345.html [with comments]
===
Getting rich off of schoolchildren
News Corporation Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch
(AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Stop pretending wealthy CEOs pushing for charter schools are altruistic "reformers." They're raking in billions
By David Sirota
Monday, Mar 11, 2013 10:36 AM CDT
Last week, Los Angeles [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/education/los-angeles-school-board-race-attracts-national-attention-and-money.html ] provided yet another [ http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/w_enters_my_wifes_schoolboard_race/ ] example of a cadre of anti-public-school millionaires swooping in to try (and in this case, fail [ http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/06/local/la-me-schools-20130307 ]) to buy a big-city school-board election. And once again, that sparked a round of Orwellian newspeak that distorts what’s really happening in education politics.
You know how it goes: The pervasive [ http://news.yahoo.com/reform-candidates-see-mixed-results-los-angeles-school-004814455.html ] media [ http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/06/local/la-me-schools-20130307 ] mythology [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324034804578344772114025406.html ] tells us that the fight over the schoolhouse is supposedly a battle between greedy self-interested teachers who don’t care about children and benevolent billionaire “reformers” whose political activism is solely focused on the welfare of kids. Epitomizing the media narrative, the Wall Street Journal casts the latter in sanitized terms, reimagining the billionaires as philanthropic altruists “pushing for big changes they say will improve public schools.”
The first reason to scoff at this mythology should be obvious: It simply strains credulity to insist that pedagogues who get paid middling wages but nonetheless devote their lives to educating kids care less about those kids than do the Wall Street hedge funders and billionaire CEOs who finance [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/ravitch-billionaires-and-millionaires-for-education-reform/2011/11/15/gIQAlDAHPN_blog.html ] the so-called reform movement. Indeed, to state that pervasive assumption out loud is to reveal how utterly idiotic it really is, and yet it is baked into almost all of today’s coverage of education politics.
That, of course, is not all that shocking; after all, plenty of inane narratives are regularly depicted as assumed fact in the political press. What’s shocking is that the other reason to scoff at the Greedy Teachers versus Altruistic Billionaire tale is also ignored. It is ignored even though it involves the most hard-to-ignore facts of all — the ones involving vested financial interests.
Yes, though it is rarely mentioned, the truth is that the largest funders of the “reform” movement are the opposite of disinterested altruists. They are cutthroat businesspeople making shrewd financial investments in a movement that is less about educating children than about helping “reform” funders hit paydirt. In that sense, they are the equivalent of any industry leaders funding a front group in hopes of achieving profitable political ends (think: defense contractors funding a front group that advocates for a bigger defense budget). The only difference is that when it comes to education “reform,” most of the political press doesn’t mention the potential financial motives of the funders in question.
While I’ve written about this reality before [ http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/reformmoney/ ], recent news perfectly exemplifies how the “reform” movement is really just a sophisticated business strategy.
First, there was the Washington state ballot initiative expanding publicly subsidized, privately run charter schools. As the Seattle P-I [ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/10/09/gates-walton-big-bucks-to-billionaires-initiative/ ] reported at the time, the initiative was effectively underwritten by Amazon and Microsoft. This was part of the latter’s larger education “reform” push through the massive foundation of company founder Bill Gates.
Yet, in most of the coverage of that ballot measure, just like in most of the coverage of Gates’ foundation work, there is no mention of the fact that both Amazon and Microsoft just so happen to be technology companies — that is, for-profit entities with their eyes on lucrative education technology contracts.
Those contracts are much easier to land in privately run charter schools because such schools are often uninhibited by public schools’ procurement rules and standards requiring a demonstrable educational need for technology. That reality, no doubt, is part of why charter schools often spend so much more [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/charter-schools-spend-mor_n_1415995.html ] on “administration” and “business services” than do their public school counterparts. Though it is rarely mentioned in the political coverage of education, that spending promises to benefit tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft. (Ready for proposals to give every kid an Amazon Kindle [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000412651 ] or Windows laptop [ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2008/may08/05-15msolpcpr.aspx ], paid for by public money?)
Then, as mentioned before, there was last week’s high-profile Los Angeles school board race. The anti-public-school “reform” slate was bolstered by a $1 million contribution from billionaire Michael Bloomberg [ http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2013/03/zimmer_garcia_lead_in_LA_board_race.html ], who has been making similar contributions to other education “reform” campaigns across the country. As he pours money into buying these local elections, he is loyally portrayed in the press as a high-minded humanitarian using his perch as New York mayor to earnestly raise issues. Somehow, few bother to mention that he is the founder of a massive information technology company that seems well positioned to break into the burgeoning education business and profit off “reformers”‘ technology triumphalism (seriously, does anyone think we won’t see a Bloomberg School Terminal sometime soon?).
In that same Los Angeles race, the Los Angeles Times [ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/late-donations-bolster-pro-deasy-school-board-candidates.html ] reported that News America Inc. donated $250,000 to the “reform” slate. That’s the same News America that is the for-profit education technology arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. It is the same News America that was recently trumpeted in the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/business/media/news-corp-has-a-tablet-for-schools.html?pagewanted=all ] for rolling out an expensive “tablet (that) will be targeted at middle-school children” — that is, if the company can convince the school board candidates it underwrites to divert money away from hiring teachers and into News America’s coffers.
National Public Radio [ http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173766828/news-corp-education-tablet-for-the-love-of-learning ] was one of the few media outlets to even mention this profit motive as driving education politics. Setting an example for how education journalism should be conducted (but largely isn’t), it reported that Murdoch’s education technology push is about delivering “future revenues from his educational branch to help shore up the finances of his newspaper and publishing division.”
Of course, if the tech industry’s attempts to make money by technologizing the classroom was also a proven way to improve education, then the education “reform” movement’s for-profit scheme might seem a bit less odious. It might seem like an example of a laudable public-private partnership whereby an industry does well for itself by doing right for the greater good.
But that’s not the case in education so far. As the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all ] exhaustively documented, “reformers” have convinced schools to spend “billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.” As just one glaring example of that lack of proof, the Times points out that “a division of the Education Department that rates classroom curriculums has found that much educational software is not an improvement over textbooks” (this why Idahoans recently voted [ http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/phony_school_reform_agenda_takes_a_beating/ ] overwhelmingly to reject a plan in the Legislature that would have diverted money for teachers into classroom computers).
Education results, however, don’t matter to the moneyed interests behind the “reform” movement. Profits do — and the potential profits are enormous.
Citing a fact sheet from the for-profit education industry itself, the Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/09/education-reform-as-a-business/ ] recently reported that “the education sector now represents nearly 9 percent of the country’s gross domestic product” while the “for-profit education is valued at $1.3 trillion, and is one of the largest U.S. investment markets.” Likewise, NPR reports that as he’s launched an education technology division, Rupert Murdoch “has described education as a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars.” This is why the tech site Geekwire [ http://www.geekwire.com/2012/coming-tech-bubble-education/ ] predicts another full-scale tech industry bubble, thanks to “K-12 and other education segments now being chased by a mob of investment capitalists.”
Give “reformers” credit; they have successfully hidden a venal investment strategy in the veneer of idealistic political activism. Appropriating the poll-tested argot of change and mass movement, the Wall Streeters and tech moguls who finance the “reform” efforts have somehow convinced the political press to ignore one of the most powerful motivators of human action: the almighty dollar.
Copyright © 2013 Salon Media Group, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/getting_rich_off_of_schoolchildren/ [with comments]
--
11 heinous lies conservatives are teaching America’s schoolchildren
The right has a new plan to capture the country's youth vote: Take over public school curriculums
By Amanda Marcotte
Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013 11:34 AM CDT
This article originally appeared on AlterNet [ http://www.alternet.org/education/11-most-absurd-lies-conservatives-are-using-brainwash-americas-school-kids ].
If recent elections have taught us anything, it’s that young Americans have taken a decided turn to the left. Young voters delivered Obama the election: the under-44 set voted Obama and the over-45 set broke for Romney. The youngest voters, age 18-29, gave Obama a whopping 60 percent of their vote.
Now Republicans have a plan to try to recapture the youngest voters out there: Take over the curriculum in public schools, replace education with a bunch of conservative propaganda, and reap the benefits of having a new generation that can’t tell reality from right-wing fantasy.
How well this plan will work is debatable, but in the meantime, these shenanigans present the very real possibility that public school students will graduate without a proper education. To make it worse, many of these attempts to rewrite school curriculum are happening in Texas, which can set the textbook standards for the entire country [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/?pagination=false ] by simply wielding its power as one of the biggest school textbook markets there is. With that in mind, here’s a list of 11 lies your kid may be in danger of learning in school.
Lie No. 1: Racism has barely been an issue in U.S. history and slavery wasn’t that big a deal.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute reviewed [ http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110216_SOSHS/SOSS_USHistory_Texas.pdf ] the new social studies standards laid down by the right-wing-dominated Texas State School Board and found them to be a deplorable example of conservative wishful thinking replacing fact. At the top of list? Downplaying the role that slavery had in starting the Civil War, and instead focusing on “sectionalism” and “states’ rights,” even though the sectionalism and states’ rights arguments directly stemmed from Southern states wanting to keep slavery. There’s also a chance your kid might be misled to think post-Civil War racism was no big deal, as the standards excise any mention of the KKK, the phrase “Jim Crow” or the Black Codes. Mention is made of the Southern Democratic opposition to civil rights, but mysteriously, the mass defection of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party to punish the rest of the Democrats for supporting civil rights goes unmentioned.
Lie No. 2: Joe McCarthy was right.
The red-baiting of the mid-20th century has gone down in history, correctly, as a witch hunt that stemmed from irrational paranoia that gripped the U.S. after WWII. But now, according to the Thomas B. Fordham report, your kid might learn that the red baiters had a point: “It is disingenuously suggested that the House Un-American Activities Committee—and, by extension, McCarthyism—have been vindicated by the Venona decrypts of Soviet espionage activities (which had, in reality, no link to McCarthy’s targets).” Critical lessons about being skeptical of those who attack fellow Americans while wrapping themselves in the flag will be lost for students whose textbooks adhere to these standards.
Lie No. 3: Climate change is a massive hoax scientists have perpetuated on the public.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) [ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/01/alec-bill-in-three-states-to-require-climate-change-denial-in-schools/ ] has been hard at work pushing for laws requiring that climate change denialism be taught in schools as a legitimate scientific theory. Unfortunately, as Neela Banerjee [ http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/16/nation/la-na-climate-change-school-20120116 ] of the L.A. Times reports, they’ve already had some serious success: “Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change.” Other states are taking the “teach the controversy” strategy that helped get creationism into biology classrooms, asking teachers to treat climate change like it’s a matter of political debate instead of a scientifically established fact.
The reality is that climate change is a fact that has overwhelming scientific consensus. In 2004, Science reviewed the 928 relevant studies [ https://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full ] on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 and found that exactly zero of them denied that climate change was a reality, and most found it had man-made causes. To claim that climate change is a “controversy” requires one to believe that there’s a massive conspiracy involving nearly all the scientists in the world. So, your kids are not only not learning the realities of climate change, they are also learning, if indirectly, to give credence to conspiracy theory paranoia.
Lie No. 4: The Bible is a history textbook and a scientific document.
Texas passed a law in 2007 pushing schools to teach the Bible as history and literature in schools. Since that was already being done in most schools, the law was clearly just a backdoor way to sneak religious instruction into schools, and a report by the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) demonstrates [ http://tfninsider.org/2013/01/16/new-tfnef-report-texas-public-school-bible-classes-teach-races-come-from-noahs-sons-biblical-literalism-6000-year-old-earth/ ] that many of them have taken full advantage. One district treats the Bible stories like history by “listing biblical events side by side with historical developments from around the globe.” Many other schools are teaching that the Bible “proves” that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The Earth is actually over 4 billion years old.
Lie No. 5: Black people are the descendants of Ham and therefore cursed by God.
Among the courses justified by the 2007 Bible law, TFN found two school districts teaching that the various races are descended from the sons of Noah. All the Bible really says about the sons of Noah is that Ham was cursed by his father so that his descendants would be slaves, but American slave owners used this passage to claim that Africans must be the descendants of Ham and therefore their slave-owning was OK by God. Make no mistake. The only reason this legend has persisted and is popping up in 21st-century classrooms is that conservative Christians are still trying to justify the enslavement of African Americans over a century ago.
Lie No. 6: Evolution is a massive hoax scientists have perpetuated on the public.
Creationists have an endless store of creative ways to get around the Constitution and the courts when it comes to replacing legitimate biology education with fundamentalist Christian dogma. Various states have employed an extensive school voucher system that has allowed creationist dogma to flourish. College-age activist Zack Kopplin has been chronicling the problem, and has found various schools nationwide using taxpayer dollars to teach that evolution is a “mistaken belief” and that the Bible “refutes the man-made idea of evolution.” Why do these school administrators believe that scientists are hoaxing the public by making up evolution? Kopplin found a Louisiana school principal who claimed it’s because scientists are “sinful men” seeking to justify their own immorality, and another Florida school teaching that evolutionary theory is “the way of the heathen.”
Lie No. 7: Sex is awful and filthy, and you should save it for someone you love.
While things are improving, even in notoriously fact-phobic states like Mississippi and Texas, “abstinence-only” education continues to persist in school districts across the nation. TFN found that nearly three-quarters of Texas high schools are still teaching abstinence-only [ http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/Report_final_web.pdf?docID=2941 ], which is based on the fundamental and easily disproved lie that premarital sex is inherently dangerous to a person’s mental and physical health. On top of this, TFN found that many schools are still passing on inaccurate information on condoms and STI transmission, usually exaggerating the dangers in a futile bid to keep kids from having sex. Unfortunately, even Texas school districts that use curriculum that educates correctly on contraception use are still trying to spin abstinence-until-marriage as a desirable option for all students, even though premarital sex is near-universal in the real world [ http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html ]. Abstinence-only may be discredited with the voters, but sadly it’s still very normal in Texas, other red states, and even across the nation [ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/10/987411/federal-funds-abstinence-only-programs/ ].
Lie No. 8: Dragons actually once existed.
As much as “Game of Thrones” fans might wish otherwise, dragons are not real and have never existed. But as reported by Mother Jones [ http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars ], Louisiana’s notorious voucher school system has let some crazy nonsense fly in the classroom, including the claim that dragons used to roam the planet. A book being used in Louisiana classrooms titled ”Life Science” and published by Bob Jones University Press claims that “scientists” found “dinosaur skulls” that the book suggests are actually dragons. “The large skull chambers could have contained special chemical-producing glands. When the animal forced the chemicals out of its mouth or nose, these substances may have combined and produced fire and smoke,” the book claims.
Lie No. 9: Gay people do not actually exist.
After being beat back by gay rights and sexual health advocates, Republicans in the Tennessee Legislature are once again trying to bring back the “don’t say gay bill.” The law would ban a teacher from admitting the existence of homosexuality [ http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/01/30/tenns-dont-say-gay-bill-back-and-it-could-out-students-their-parents ] to students prior to the 8th grade, even if the students ask them about it. Instead, the bill would require turning a student who confesses to being gay over to his parents, with the legislators clearly hoping that punishment will somehow make the kid not-gay. The entire bill rests on and promotes the premise that homosexuality isn’t a real sexual orientation, but just the result of mental illness or confusion, and if it’s enforced, that message will come across to the students.
Lie No. 10: Hippies were dirty, immoral Satan-worshippers.
In the 1960s, it was common for conservatives to try to discredit the left by stoking paranoia about hippie culture and denouncing the supposed evils of rock ‘n’ roll. Forty years have passed, but in Louisiana, some school administrators are apparently still afraid that possessing a Beatles record means a young person is on the verge of quitting bathing and taking up a lifestyle of taking LSD and worshiping Satan at psychedelic orgies.
A history textbook snagged from a Louisiana school [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/11/1697601/textbook-for-louisianas-voucher-schools-teaches-hippies-are-dirty-rock-musicians-worship-satan/ ] funded by the voucher program tells students: “Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles and these youths became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.” It’s unclear if the book also teaches that if you play a Queen record backward, you can hear Satan telling you to smoke pot, but that kind of critical information could also be conveyed during the teacher’s lectures on the subject.
Lie No. 11: Ayn Rand’s books have literary value.
Idaho state Sen. John Goedde [ http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/05/bill-requires-all-idaho-kids-read-atlas-shrugged/ ], chairman of the state’s Senate Education Committee, has introduced a bill that would require students not only to read Rand’s ponderous novel “Atlas Shrugged,” but also to pass a test on it in order to graduate. Goedde claims to mostly not be serious about this bill, but instead is using it as a childish attempt to piss off the liberals, but it’s still the sort of item parents need to watch out for.
After all, Texas textbook standards require that an obsession with the gold standard [ http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/conservative_bloc_dominates_latest_texas_textbooks.php ] be taught as a legitimate economic theory instead of the mad ravings of cranks that it is. We live in an era where no amount of right-wing lunacy is considered too much to be pushed on innocent children like it’s fact. Anyone who doubts that should just remember one word: dragons.
Copyright 2013 Amanda Marcotte (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/11_heinous_lies_conservatives_are_teaching_americas_school_children_partner/ [with comments]
===
Feds, media rebut Sarah Palin 'stockpiling bullets' claim
2/27/13
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/feds-media-debunk-sarah-palin-stockpiling-bullets-claim-88179.html [with comments]
--
CPAC 2013 - Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)
Impromptu Intro by US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkRw4EOwY2g
--
Man Accused of Horrible Crime Takes Consistently Jolly Photographs
Michael "Chad" Boysen.
Courtesy of King County Sheriff's Office
Michael "Chad" Boysen
Photo by Cindi L. West, King County Sheriff’s Office/AP
March 12, 2013
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/12/michael_chad_boysen_man_accused_of_horrible_crime_takes_consistently_jolly.html [with comments]
--
Charlton Porter Caught In Lobby Of School With Gun And 34 Bullets In High-Capacity Magazine
03/16/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/charlton-porter-gun-school_n_2885528.html [with comments]
--
Tens of thousands try to illegally buy guns from dealers annually, study finds
People crowd a gun show in Knoxville, Tenn., on Dec. 28.
Michael Patrick / AP file
By Bill Briggs
NBC News contributor
March 11, 2013
Attempted illegal gun purchases occur 30,000 to 40,000 times each year among U.S. firearms retailers, according to a first-of-its-kind survey of gun sellers published Monday.
Would-be patrons seek to sway sellers to keep transactions off the books or, more commonly, use stand-ins — often girlfriends or wives — to fill out required legal forms and undergo federal criminal background checks necessary to purchase firearms, according to the survey [ http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/130311_Guns_Survey.pdf ] by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis.
Perhaps the most alarming finding in the study — the first to attempt to quantify the frequency of unlawful attempts to buy guns and retailer corruption — is that some firearms dealers are "bad guy magnets," who even though they deny the most attempted “straw-man” and undocumented purchases tend to suffer the most gun thefts and appear to receive the most visits from federal agents tracing guns used in crimes.
“They have a high-risk clientele (which may in part be) because the retailers themselves are known to look the other way," said Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, author of the study published in "Injury Prevention," a peer-reviewed health journal, and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program. "But it all goes together: The retailers who had the most denied sales were also the ones most likely to sell guns that were used in crimes.”
"The (responsible) retailers consider this a very serious problem that deserves stiff punishment," he added.
Cutting down so-called "straw" purchases of guns is among the measures being pushed by gun-control advocates in the wake of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, which left 20 children, six school employees and gunman Adam Lanza and his mother dead.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that seeks to make it a federal crime to purchase a firearm for someone who is not legally allowed to own a weapon, such as a convicted felon. President Barack Obama has urged the full Senate to approve the measure.
Wintemute’s team mailed surveys to 1,600 gun dealers, pawnbrokers and gunsmiths who sell 50 or more firearms each year and received back 591 completed questionnaires. Participating retailers reported that would-be clients tried to make 2,051 straw purchases and 2,254 undocumented buys during the previous year.
The researchers extrapolated those rates across the nearly 10,000 U.S. gun dealers and estimated that about 34,000 straw purchases and about 37,000 attempted undocumented purchases were attempted nationally during that span. (Those figures only reflect the instances where the retailers realized they were dealing with straw buyers, so the actual number of bogus buyers is likely higher.)
“The key word there is ‘attempt’ " said Andy Molchan, director of the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers, which has about 1,000 members. “You know, 10 16-year-olds probably go into one liquor store during each year and attempt to buy a bottle of whiskey. But if they only attempted (and were denied), they didn’t buy it.”
Still, Molchan acknowledged that "straw-man buying for people is a problem. There are two big sources for criminal guns — No. 1 is theft from private homes and the other is straw-man purchases: they buy a gun for somebody who is a felon and they sell it to the other person for a mark up. It’s been a problem for a long time.”
For that reason, he said, members of the firearm dealers association all receive forms that they fill out during each sale — and ask the buyers to sign — attesting that the weapon is solely for that buyer and will not be re-sold in a secondary market to a felon or any other person who is restricted by state law from owning a gun. The forms have been in use for about 30 years.
“Our association is not against increased laws and increased penalties for people who are buying guns for people who are felons or shouldn’t have guns,” Molchan said. “We don’t have any objections to that.”
Many illicit, stand-in gun buyers are women, Wintemute said, citing firearms-trafficking statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Partly for that reason, he argues that reports indicating that women make up a rising share of the gun market "are a myth."
According to ATF, in nearly 20 percent of straw purchases, the buyer “is an intimate partner — the girlfriend or the spouse — of the real purchaser,” Wintemute said. “In (ATF) training materials, and just in common knowledge around the industry, one of the markers of a straw purchase is a woman who is purchasing when a guy is just standing around nearby in the store.”
*
Related
'Flashpoint': NBC News special reports on guns in America
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/flashpoint
*
© 2013 NBCNews.com
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/11/17272111-tens-of-thousands-try-to-illegally-buy-guns-from-dealers-annually-study-finds [with comments]
--
Drive-By Shooting In Northwest D.C. Injures 11, Police Release Surveillance Video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/drive-by-shooting-northwest-dc_n_2853965.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uscin-9Yd0M , embedded; with comments]
--
Adam Lanza Kept Spreadsheet Of Murderers For Years Before Newtown Shooting: Report
03/18/2013
New details have emerged in the investigation of the deadly Newtown shooting that suggest the killer fed his obsession with violence by keeping meticulous records about mass murderers for years.
The New York Daily News reports investigators discovered, "a chilling spreadsheet [ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408 ] 7 feet long and 4 feet wide that required a special printer, a document that contained Lanza’s obsessive, extensive research — in nine-point font — about mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/adam-lanza-spreadsheet_n_2901377.html [with comments]
--
Adam Bass Dead: 10-Month-Old Shot And Killed By His Father Larry Bass, Police Say
Posted: 03/15/2013 2:54 am EDT | Updated: 03/15/2013 3:38 pm EDT
A 10-month-old baby was shot and killed by his father [ http://www.newschannel5.com/story/21647277/10-month-old-dies-after-shooting-in-donelson ] inside a Tennessee hotel room on Thursday, NewsChannel5 reported.
According to The Tennessean, police officers received the call about 6:42 p.m. [ http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130314/NEWS03/130314025/Shooting-hotel-kills-10-month-old-boy ], and arrived at the Extended Stay America motel in Donelson three minutes later.
Once on scene, officers found the victim, Adam Bass, with a gunshot wound to his chest. Despite attempts to revive the baby, he was pronounced dead at the scene, Metro police spokesman Don Aaron said.
Police said the preliminary investigation showed that Adam's father, Larry Bass, 30, was handling his semi-automatic pistol inside the motel room when the gun unintentionally discharged.
Bass' wife, Jacquelin Bass, 28, and two other sons, ages 2 and 3, were also in the room during the incident, but no one else was injured.
At the time of the shooting, the family was living at the motel so Bass could work at the Nashville Music City Center [ http://www.wkrn.com/story/21646842/10-month-old-baby-accidentally-shot-by-father ], WKRN-TV reported. The family was originally from Texas.
Police are still processing the scene. So far, no charges have been filed.
"The parents are very, very distraught over what's happened, and the police department does not believe this was an intentional act," Aaron said.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/adam-bass-dead-baby-shot-tennessee_n_2882213.html [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
Former UCF student who killed himself had planned wider attack
FBI, OCSO and UCF Police continue to investigate after explosives found in residence hall.
March 18, 2013
A former University of Central Florida student still living on campus drafted plans to kill others in his dormitory but changed his mind early Monday and took only his only life with one of his newly purchased guns, police said.
James Oliver Seevakumaran, 30, was found in his dorm room in Tower 1, a seven-story structure near the UCF Arena. He died from a single shot to the head fired by a handgun, police said.
UCF Police Chief Richard Beary said writings found in his dorm room indicated "there was a planned attack."
Officers found an assault weapon, a handgun, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and, in a backpack, handmade explosives when they searched the man's room. The assault rifle had a magazine capable of holding 28 bullets, officials said.
"It could have been a very bad day for everyone here," Beary said. "Let's just face it: One shooting is bad enough. Multiples is unthinkable."
Police suspect Seevakumaran pulled a fire alarm in Tower 1 shortly after midnight and planned to shoot or injure other students as they evacuated, Beary said. But they believe he changed his mind, returned to his room and killed himself.
That may have happened because he pulled a gun on one of his roommates, who then escaped to a bathroom and called 911. The sound of police arriving may have prompted the man to alter his plans.
[...]
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-ucf-death-suspicious-evacuation-20130318,0,1082930.story [ http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-ucf-death-suspicious-evacuation-20130318,0,1875068,full.story ] [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
Need for gun reform made clear in details of Newtown gun massacre
The Rachel Maddow Show
March 14, 2013
Rachel Maddow reports on how much easier high capacity magazines made it for the Newtown shooter to maximize the slaughter he could commit, and shares video from the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting today in which Senator Feinstein patiently dealt with the naiveté of freshman senator Ted Cruz before the committee passed an assault weapons ban.
© 2013 NBCNews.com
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/51188139 [show links at http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/14/17316868-links-for-the-314-trms (with comments)]
--
Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns
Stephanie Holten of Washington State says she is still seeing a counselor to work through trauma from when her ex-husband, Corey Holten, held her at gunpoint in her home last year.
Ms. Holten had recently applied for and obtained an order for protection against Mr. Holten.
Diane Dye of Oklahoma, in a photograph provided by her mother. Ms. Dye took out an emergency protective order against her husband, Raymond Dye, the day she filed for divorce.
Mr. Dye, in a photograph provided by Ms. Dye's mother, confronted Ms. Dye, fatally shooting her before killing himself.
Deborah Wigg of Virginia, in a photograph provided by co-workers. In April 2011, Ms. Wigg noted her fear in a request for a protective order against her husband, Robert Wigg, who had assaulted her.
In November 2011, Mr. Wigg went to her home and shot her to death, and then killed himself.
March 17, 2013
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.
Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared [ http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_location.mp3#media/holten2 ].”
The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.
About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.
“I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in a statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m going to die!”
Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under a blanket on the couch. The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life [ http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_911.mp3#media/holten1 ] and quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs with their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten cowering, hysterical, on the floor.
For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html ] and its allies.
Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all ]
===
North Dakota Senate Passes Two Unprecedented Abortion Bans
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple
03/15/2013
The North Dakota State Senate passed two anti-abortion bills on Friday that would be the first laws of their kind in the United States and would ban most abortions in the state. One bill would prevent women from having abortions as soon as the fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into the pregnancy, and the other bans abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome.
House Bill 1456, the heartbeat ban, passed the North Dakota House of Representatives earlier this year and now heads to Gov. Jack Dalrymple's (R) desk to be signed. The law would subject doctors to a $5,000 fine and up to five years in prison if they perform an abortion after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, surpassing Arkansas' new 12-week abortion ban [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/arkansas-12-week-abortion-ban_n_2821739.html ] to become the strictest abortion law in the country. The Republican-controlled Senate voted to pass it on Friday without any discussion.
The Senate also passed House Bill 1305, which bans abortions that are performed based on gender selection or a genetic defect. Three other states -- Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Arizona -- have laws banning abortions based on gender selection, but North Dakota would be the first state to prevent a woman from aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down Syndrome or other fetal anomalies.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/north-dakota-abortion_n_2885452.html [with (over 13,000) comments]
--
North Dakota looks at more abortion restrictions
By DAVE KOLPACK
Posted on Monday, 03.18.13
FARGO, N.D. -- North Dakota lawmakers who approved what would be some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. are now considering outlawing all abortions.
The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the legislation.
The state Senate passed two personhood measures last month, and the House could vote as soon as Tuesday. One of the bills would make the proposal a state law and another is a resolution that would put the definition into the state constitution, if passed by voters.
North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors that is looking at abortion restrictions, but the state is could go further than any other in challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
Last week, the Legislature sent Gov. Jack Dalrymple what would be two of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., banning abortions as early as six weeks in a pregnancy and on the basis of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. North Dakota also would be the first to adopt a personhood law if that measure passes. Abortion-rights activists have vowed to fight the measures in court.
Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, said Monday that the personhood measures could ban in vitro fertilization and force doctors to leave the state rather than face health care restrictions or possible criminal penalties. In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring resulting embryos into the womb.
"This is something that would affect the patient and doctor relationship," Dahl said at a news conference with a group of doctors who oppose the measures. "That's somewhere we want to keep the government out of."
One of the key players in the anti-abortion campaign, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said she was "floored" by the assertions about limitations on in vitro fertilization. She said the proposals allow exceptions for the "screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus." Sitte said that clause was crafted with Dahl's help.
But Dr. Steffen Christensen, who founded an in vitro fertilization clinic in Fargo 19 years ago, said he can't put himself or his workers at risk of legal action.
"The concern is that this is criminal negligence if anything should happen to an embryo," he said.
Gualberto Garcia Jones, an attorney for Personhood USA, noted that two doctors in the Senate - Fargo Republican Spencer Berry and Bismarck Republican Ralph Kilzer - voted for the proposals. "Clearly they would not vote to criminalize themselves," Jones said in a phone interview.
Opponents also noted that the North Dakota Medical Association is against the bill and a group of 26 students from the University of North Dakota medical school signed a letter to the state Senate against it.
Dr. Ted Kleiman, a Fargo pediatrician, said the law would set North Dakota back to "the stone age" of medicine.
"This is abhorrent in the highest degree," he said.
Efforts to pass personhood legislation in other states have failed. In Oklahoma, a measure this year that would have granted human embryos "all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons," was not given a hearing in a House committee and appears to be shelved for the legislative session.
North Dakota lawmakers are considering several bills this session that would restrict abortion. Dahl said that the legislation would ultimately impact medical care to women and families and allow no exceptions for rape or incest.
"A woman who has been sexually assaulted will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of the nature of her assault," she said.
Sitte said she doesn't think women should abort pregnancies resulting from rape.
"Rape is a horrible crime. It is absolutely devastating," Sitte said. "But do we believe in capital punishment for those children?"
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/18/3293434/north-dakota-looks-at-more-abortion.html [no comments yet]
--
Gillibrand Presses Military Officials on Sexual Assault
Senator Gillibrand questions Military Officials on sexual assault at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on sexual assault in the military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PG8WKVQXTg [via/more at "Senators Push Sex Assault Controversy At Hearing, Grilling Military Leaders", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/senators-sex-assault-hearing_n_2869473.html (with embedded video report and slideshow, and comments)]
===
Goal of UT parenting study was to influence SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage, docs show
03.11.13
http://americanindependent.com/218834/goal-of-ut-parenting-study-was-to-influence-scotus-decisions-on-gay-marriage-docs-show [with comments]
--
Jeffress: Homosexuality Like Plugging a TV into the Wrong Outlet and Blowing It to Smithereens
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 3/13/2013 2:45 pm
Televangelist Robert Jeffress appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s flagship program Praise the Lord last week to discuss the opening of his new $130 million megachurch campus [ http://www.christianpost.com/news/dallas-megachurch-of-robert-jeffress-to-open-130-million-campus-in-march-90086/ ] and the controversy surrounding Tim Tebow’s scheduled but since-cancelled appearance [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tebow-cancels-appearance-robert-jeffress-church ]. Jeffress, who has a history [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-denounces-gays-promiscuous-manipulative-and-abnormal ] of [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/07/339299/video-prominent-perry-endorser-robert-jeffress-says-voting-for-romney-would-give-credibility-to-a-cult/ ] using [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-gay-rights-led-inevitable-implosion-our-country ] virulently [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-denounces-gays-promiscuous-manipulative-and-abnormal ] anti-gay [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-gays-miserable-lifestyle ] rhetoric [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-warns-homosexuality-leads-pedophilia ], argued that homosexuality violates God’s design for sex.
“Think about this one time in heaven God was sitting up there with his sketch pad and he said, ‘you know I’m going to design human beings and would it be fun of they started doing this together with one another,’” Jeffress explained. “God dreamed up sex, He thought it up for our enjoyment, He gave us the equipment to enjoy it with.”
He went on to claim that homosexuality is like plugging a TV into a 220-volt power outlet rather than the recommended 120 outlet “because those are antiquated instructions” and “it’s my TV and I can do whatever I want to with it.”
“Well it is my TV to do what I want to with it but I’m going to blow that TV into smithereens if I put it in a 220 outlet,” Jeffress said.
Watch [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEEbNnET_4 (next below, as embedded)]:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-homosexuality-plugging-tv-wrong-outlet-and-blowing-it-smithereens
--
Don't Blame It on the Bible
By Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D.
Posted: 03/18/2013 12:09 pm
Most Americans who oppose gay rights and same-sex marriage justify their opposition by turning to the Bible. But does the Bible really oppose homosexuality? You'd be surprised.
At the end of March, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which denies gay Americans the right to legally marry. Major polls show most Americans in support of marriage equality. Still a vocal and well-heeled right-wing evangelical opposition presents a formidable obstacle. Why? Because of a long-held belief that homosexuality is among the greatest of biblical sins.
But does the Bible really condemn homosexuality? Ironically it never answers that question conclusively. In fact, the biblical basis for the demonization of homosexuality is very thin and, ultimately, not at all decisive. Oddly enough, the notions of homosexuality that are so deeply rooted in American culture and law are based upon a surprisingly small number of biblical passages. If progressives are to successfully address the supposed divinely sanctioned circumscription of gay Americans' constitutional rights, it is crucial that they understand the biblical arguments that gay rights opponents use to justify their resistance. What follows is a brief primer on what progressives need to know about what the Bible says -- and does not say -- about homosexuality.
I.
First, it is important to recognize that the peoples of biblical antiquity had no idea of homosexuality as identity, orientation or lifestyle. The term "homosexuality" was not even coined until the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the first use of "homosexual" or its cognate in any biblical translation in any language did not occur until 1946 with the Revised Standard Version.
As for the Bible, its first supposed condemnation of homosexuality is the well-known Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from which we get the term "sodomite" and "sodomy law," the latter of which criminalizes same gender sex, even between mature and consenting adults. In Genesis we are told that a group of men insisted that Lot send out to them his three male visitors (whom the crowd didn't know were angels) so they could sexually abuse them (Genesis 19:4-9). Even the most cursory reading of this text reveals that it neither states nor implies that the men in the offending crowd were anything other than heterosexuals; we are simply told that they sought to humiliate and gang rape Lot's guests. Yet from this somehow it has been derived that the crowd was comprised of homosexual men and that homosexuality was rampant in Sodom. This has resulted in the wrong-headed conclusion, now widely accepted as biblical truth, that Sodom was destroyed as punishment for the "sin" of homosexuality, an interpretation that doesn't actually seem to have actually entered Christian discourse until medieval times -- a full millennium after the final form of the Bible was canonized.
However, the Bible itself tells a different story, that long before the crowd clamored for Lot's guests God had already condemned Sodom as "wicked," an apparent catch-all phrase for all types of transgressions (Genesis 13:13). What did Sodom's wickedness entail? Ezekiel explains that it was not sexual sins, but rather "pride, excess of food [that is, for greed and unwillingness to share], ... prosperous ease" and because it "did not aid the poor and needy" (16:49-50). The prophet Jeremiah gives the same general reason (23:13), as does Jesus (Matthew 10:14-15). In fact, biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah overwhelmingly cite the issues of unscrupulousness and domination of others as their fatal transgressions; there is little if any mention of any kind of sex. The inescapable conclusion is that the use of the term "sodomite" as a signifier for a homosexual person has absolutely no basis in the Bible -- none. This is crucial to recognize because much of the homophobia plaguing the world today can be traced to this tragic misunderstanding. However, if anyone is hell-bent on believing that the abusive crowd was really homosexual and that the entire Sodom narrative is divinely sanctioned and literally true, then they must also accept that the Sodom narrative also gives divine approval to sending daughters out to be gang-raped. One just cannot be a biblical literalist only when it suits one's case.
II.
There are only two other direct references to male-on-male sex in the Old Testament, one in Deuteronomy and one in Leviticus (interestingly, lesbianism is never mentioned in the Old Testament). The context for these Old Testament references is the Israelite's immigration into the land of Canaan, whose society already had well-established religious customs. As newcomers, there was much pressure for the outnumbered Israelites to assimilate into the Canaanite religious orbit, so laws and instructions were sacralized to prevent it.
One of the religious practices the biblical commands sought to keep Israelites from adopting was the ritual of male Canaanite priests honoring goddess figures by dressing like women, taking on social roles associated with women and, in some cases, even having themselves castrated. Another alarming practice was male and female Canaanite ritual temple prostitution, apparently for the purpose of appeasing their gods of fertility. The Israelites were forcefully admonished to avoid these practices: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be qedeshah (literally "a female holy/consecrated one" -- that is, a temple prostitute) -- "nor shall any of the sons of Israel be qadesh" -- a male temple prostitute (23:17).
It is with this backdrop of Canaanite temple practices that cross-dressing by Israelites is declared an "abomination" (Deuteronomy 22:5). It is also in this context that the following commandments are issued: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22); and, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13). These pronouncements have the appearance of timeless biblical laws, yet they were explicitly codified -- with little sense of the complexity of human sexuality -- to protect Israelites from seduction into the more powerful alien cultures that surrounded them. One of the most telling statements that the primary purpose of these pronouncements was ensure that Israelites cleave only to the God and religion of Israel is this : "You are to be holy" (qadosh, "set apart", i.e., from the practices of other societies) "as I myself (God) am holy" (Leviticus 19:1-2).
But again, if anyone chooses to accept the Bible's denunciations, even prescriptions of death for "a man lies with a male," then what about other biblical commandments that prescribe murder for disobedient children, for those who have sex during a woman's menstrual cycle? What about the commandments to stone to death adulterers (although a man could only commit adultery against the wife of another, never against his own), and the execution by stoning of women raped in the city, with the logic that if their rape was "legitimate" (shades of Rep. Todd Akins!), they would have been sure to scream loudly enough to be rescued? There is no leeway for picking and choosing. Again, either you are a biblical literalist or not.
As for the Old Testament, that's it for references to same gender sex. Not a word in Proverbs or the Psalms. The biblical prophets rail against every social and moral transgression in Israel, yet not one of them says a word about same gender sexuality. In fact, the Old Testament talks much more about adultery, incest, even about having sex with animals than it even alludes to same gender sexual intimacy.
So when considered in proper social and historical context, we find no unambiguous condemnations in the Old Testament of what we today call homosexuality, and no mention at all of lesbianism. But what we do find is the story of the love between David and Jonathan.
In the first of two biblical texts attributed to the prophet Samuel, we are told that "the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David ... and Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" and that Jonathan sealed their covenant of love by giving gifts to David (1 Samuel 18:1-4). Later, David and Jonathan are described as "kissing each other and weeping" at their separation (20:41). After Jonathan's untimely death, David cries out to him, "Your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:20).
Here we have a biblical story of a great love between two men that is said to be even dearer to them than the love of women. Would this love be considered any less beautiful, would it descend from sacred to profane, become worthy of disgust or even of death, if we were to learn that the physical contact between Jonathan and the messianic figure David went further than mere kissing? It is a worthy question, because the biblical narrative of the love between David and Jonathan attests -- in sacred scripture, no less -- that love between two men can be as deep and as holy as any other love.
III.
When it comes to the New Testament, the most significant passages thought to specifically condemn homosexuality are found in Romans and First Corinthians. In Romans the apostle Paul writes, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving due penalty for their error" (1:26).
Contrary to widespread misinterpretations, here Paul's focus is not homosexuality, but "dishonorable passions," lust, orgiastic acting out, folks just "freaking," as they say in the street. Paul explicitly speaks about heterosexuals exchanging what is "natural" for what is "unnatural." That's why he calls their passions "unnatural," because they are doing what is unnatural for them as heterosexuals; for gay people, on the other hand, sexual intimacy with members of their own gender is not unnatural, it is purely natural. Like everyone else in antiquity, Paul had no concept of homosexual identity or orientation; no other idea of human identity was available in his world. So what he could only have been condemning certain unidentified over-the-top, lustful sexual actions by heterosexual people. Therefore Paul's condemnation of "unnatural lusts" cannot be used as a biblical support for condemning same gender love and intimacy; indeed, he is not describing love at all. But notice that here Paul has made an argument from nature, declaring what is natural and what is not. If opponents of equal rights for gay Americans accept Paul's argument from nature, why can't the recent insights of modern science be taken similarly seriously that sexual identities evolve in early childhood and, in a yet an undetermined percentage of gays, seem to have genetic origins?
In First Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul further writes, "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (malakoi), sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."
Malakos, the term translated as "male prostitute," literally means "soft" or "effeminate," and is thought by many scholars to refer to male child prostitutes who, of course, rarely assumed that role without coercion; or perhaps it refers to pedophiles. The meaning of arsenokoitai, the term variously translated as "sodomite" and "sexual pervert," is not fully clear to us today, but it does seem to refer to some form of homosexual relationship, possibly exploitive in nature. Perhaps here malakoi refers to youths who are sexually used and arsenokoita to the men who use them, though we can't be certain. In the final analysis, however, no one can say with absolute certainty or integrity what Paul actually means in this passage.
IV.
Finally we come to the Gospels. Nowhere in any of the four Gospels does Jesus speak even one word about homosexuality. What he does say is that the two paramount commandments -- those that must be obeyed -- are to "love your Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength ... and to love your neighbor as yourself." But how can you love your neighbor as yourself if you would deny your neighbor -- any neighbor -- the happiness and social acceptability of their love and the opportunity to sacralize their committed spousal relationship in the eyes of God that you treasure for yourself? In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says that the primary way each of us will be judged as worthy of eternal life, as he puts it, is not by whom you share intimate love, but instead by whether or not we have lived justly, if we have tried to serve those in need and labored to establish justice in the land. There is nothing in the words of Jesus that gives even the smallest sense that one will be judged by what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom.
V.
Speaking of bedrooms, the term "traditional marriage" is often used to challenge the very notion of gay marriage. Yet the Bible speaks of a number of kinds of marital relationships without condemnation and without presenting any of them as "traditional." There is polygamy, concubinage ("shacking up" or a woman on the side, in today's parlance). There is Sarah's urging of Abraham to impregnate their slave Hagar, Jacob marrying the sisters Rachel and Leah simultaneously and impregnating the female slave of each to boot. For his part, without criticism or a tinge of judgment Jesus speaks of serial polygamy, called Levirite marriage, which holds that if a man dies childless his widow was to engage in sex with his eldest brother to impregnate her in the name of her dead husband. If the eldest brother died without giving her a child, she went on to the next brother, then the next, then the next, until she became pregnant or ran out of brothers. In that none of these marital arrangements are condemned or even treated as exceptional in the Bible, they contradict the notion that there is one particular "traditional" type of biblical marriage. There is, of course, cultural notions of traditional marriage that hold sway in many societies, including our own, but they are just that: cultural traditions, not biblical traditions.
So does the Bible really condemn homosexuality -- and gay marriage by extension -- as sinful? As we have seen, the evidence is far too ambiguous and open to dispute for anyone to claim with integrity that it does. That is why the Bible cannot and must not be used to deny to gay citizens the full measure of the constitutional rights enjoyed by other American citizens. To do so is not only unconstitutional. It is a real biblical sin.
Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., is the author of "The Universe Bends Toward Justice: Radical Reflections on the Bible, the Church and the Body Politic [ http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Bends-Toward-Justice-Reflections/dp/1570759405 ]" (Orbis, 2012)
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/obery-m-hendricks-jr-phd/dont-blame-it-on-the-bible_b_2884094.html [with comments]
--
Virginia Anti-Sodomy Law: 'Crimes Against Nature' Law Struck Down By 4th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals
03/13/2013
A divided three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned Virginia's anti-sodomy law in a Colonial Heights case.
The majority ruled that Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" anti-sodomy provision is unconstitutional in light of a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision [Lawrence v. Texas] invalidating state laws that make sexual activity between consenting adults crimes.
"It is shameful that Virginia continued to prosecute individuals under the sodomy statute for 10 years after the Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional," said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia.
"This ruling should bring an end to such prosecutions," she added.
Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General's office, said, "We are reviewing the decision and will consider our options."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/virginia-anti-sodomy-law-_n_2865965.html [with embedded video report re Lawrence v. Texas, and comments]
--
Gay couples also deserve chance to get married
By Rob Portman
Friday March 15, 2013 12:33 PM
I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.
That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.
Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.
At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.
Well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of marriage for gay couples, and maintaining religious freedom is as important as pursuing civil marriage rights. For example, I believe that no law should force religious institutions to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don’t approve of.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.
One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn't amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.
Over the past decade, nine states and the District of Columbia have recognized marriage for same-sex couples. It is understandable to feel cautious about making a major change to such an important social institution, but the experience of the past decade shows us that marriage for same-sex couples has not undercut traditional marriage. In fact, over the past 10 years, the national divorce rate has declined.
Ronald Reagan said all great change in America begins at the dinner table, and that’s been the case in my family. Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.
The process of citizens persuading fellow citizens is how consensus is built and enduring change is forged. That’s why I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.
I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.
Rob Portman is a U.S. senator from Ohio.
© 2013 The Dispatch Printing Company
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html [with comments]
--
James Inhofe, GOP Senator, Stunned At CPAC Over Learning Of Rob Portman's Gay Marriage Support
By Michelangelo Signorile
Posted: 03/15/2013 1:38 pm EDT | Updated: 03/15/2013 7:39 pm EDT
Anti-gay GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a staunch opponent of gay marriage who once boasted on the floor of the Senate [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/06/06/5669/inhofe-gay-marriage/ ] that he was “very proud” that there’s never been a “homosexual relationship in the recorded history of our family,” was stunned to learn that conservative GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio reversed his position [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rob-portman-gay-marriage_n_2881805.html ] and announced today [just above] that he supports same-sex marriage after learning that his own son is gay. Inhofe was in fact so shocked that he could not respond to the news.
“I did not hear that,” Inhofe told me on my Sirius XM radio show [ http://www.siriusoutq.com/ ], with a stunned look on his face before pausing for a moment. “Again, I’m pretty surprised. I can’t really respond to that. It’s something I was not aware of until you mentioned it.” (Listen below)
When told of the news and that Portman has spoken out about his support for marriage equality on CNN, Inhofe had positive words for Portman, while still refusing to respond and chalking it up to a “personal thing” on Portman’s part.
Well, I...I think the world of Rob Portman,” he said. “He’s an intelligent guy. He’s always been conservative on all the issues. It sounds to me like a really personal thing in his life and I’d rather not respond.”
Listen to the interview with Inhofe below:
[audio embedded]
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/james-inhofe-cpac-gay-marriage-rob-portman_n_2884724.html [with comments]
--
John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This
03/17/2013
[...]
"Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," Boehner said [ http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boehner-i-cant-imagine-ever-supporting-gay-marriage ]. "All right. It's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/john-boehner-gay-marriage_n_2896074.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Gay Marriage Helps Men Live Longer, According To Danish Study
03/12/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/gay-marriage-mortality-rates_n_2862242.html [with comments]
--
Glenn Gruenhagen, Minnesota Rep, Introduces 'Ex-Gay' Friend Kevin Petersen At House Session
A Minnesota state representative known for his opposition to same-sex marriage [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/glenn-gruenhagen_n_2781363.html ] went even further this week, introducing a visiting "ex-gay" friend during a house floor session.
Minnesota State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, introduced Kevin Petersen, who he says "was active in the gay lifestyle for about 10 years," before he "left it" and opted to marry a woman.
Last month, Gruenhagen (R) appeared at a press conference, proclaiming that gay people who say they're "born that way" were lying.
"It's an unhealthy sexual addiction," Gruenhagen was quoted by the Star Tribune [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/glenn-gruenhagen_n_2781363.html ] as saying. "So the concept that you're born that way and it's an immutable characteristic is an unscientific lie, OK? The human genome map has been completed. I urge you, as the news media, to give both sides a fair and open hearing on this debate."
Meanwhile, lawmakers are seeking to overturn Minnesota's 1997 ban on gay marriage. Although passage of the bill is not certain, the Democratic Farm Labor Party holds majorities in both houses [ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/24/1492941/poll-growing-plurality-of-minnesotans-support-marriage-equality/ ] of the state legislature.
UPDATE: Minnesota's marriage equality bill now advances to the State Senate floor after being approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 5-3 on March 12, ThinkProgress points out [ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/12/1708591/minnesota-senate-judiciary-committee-advances-marriage-equality/ ].
As Towleroad points out [ http://www.towleroad.com/2013/03/exgaymn.html ], Petersen helped Gruenhagen try to pass a constitutional amendment to retain the ban on same-sex marriage last November.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/glenn-gruenhagen-minnesota-rep-ex-gay_n_2862434.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6TpeJqSIUg , as embedded; with comments]
--
Hillary Clinton for HRC's Americans for Marriage Equality
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains why she supports marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RP9pbKMJ7c
--
Westboro Baptist Church Founder Fred Phelps May Be Gay, Suggests Former Member Lauren Drain
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/lauren-drain-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps-gay-experience_n_2877987.html [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
Stephen Fry, British Comedian, Confronts Russia's 'Homosexual Propaganda' Lawmaker
Actor and comedian Stephen Fry confronted the Russian lawmaker behind the "homosexual propaganda" bill for a new documentary. Here, Fry arrives at the premiere of 'The Hobbit' in London on Dec. 2, 2012.
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/stephen-fry-russia-homosexual-propaganda-anti-gay_n_2883916.html [with comments]
--
Gay Marriage Support Hits New High: Poll
03/18/2013
A record high 58 percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be legal, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/ ] released Monday.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support_n_2902533.html [with comments]
--
When Did the Southern Baptists Become Libertarian?
By James Peron
Posted: 03/10/2013 11:37 am
In a rather typical fit of hyperbole, Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention took some new swipes at the LGBT community -- one of his favorite targets.
Land claimed that LGBT "do not believe in a live and let live philosophy." Surely, this is an odd accusation for a theocratically-inclined fundamentalist to throw at others. It isn't as if Land has ever shown libertarian tendencies himself. Land is an opponent of allowing gay people the right to enter into marriage contracts. When it comes to Southern Baptist morality, there is no "live and let live philosophy" in operation.
If "live and let live" means anything, it means granting other people freedom to control their own lives. Sadly, in spite of Rev. Land's rhetoric, "live and let live" has never been a value the Southern Baptists have held. Consider a Southern Baptist resolution [ http://sbtexas.com/am-site/media/2003-resolutions.pdf ] about the Lawrence decision itself: "We specifically oppose the recent United States Supreme Court decision failing to uphold Texas law prohibiting homosexual activity..."
This resolution does not merely condemn sodomy as "sinful," but calls for it to be a criminal offense. It is the total opposite of "live and let live."
In his attack, Rev. Land claims "the homosexual activists have gone after the icons... they've gone after Disney, the family-friendly, supposedly, network and family-friendly entertainment venture." Perhaps Rev. Land forgot this little news story [ http://articles.cnn.com/1997-06-18/us/9706_18_baptists.disney_1_boycott-disneys-denomination?_s=PM:US ] from 1997:
Leaders of the Southern Baptists, the nations largest Protestant denomination, voted Wednesday to boycott Walt Disney Co. and its subsidiaries for what it called the company's anti-Christian and anti-family direction.
The boycott includes the company's films and theme parks and its television network, ABC.
In comparison [ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1995839-1,00.html ], how did the LGBT community "go after" Disney? They have an annual "Gay Days" at the park, for members of the community and their families. "Gay Days is now one of the largest gay-pride events in the world. According to Watermark, a Florida-based gay newspaper that has been covering Gay Days since it started, about 150,000 people attended this June's six-day gathering." In other words, the LGBT community spent millions at Disneyland, while the Southern Baptists were boycotting the company. Yet, Land says it is the gays who are "going after" Disney. With this kind of "going after" you might understand why Disney World appointed [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/george-kalogridis-walt-disney-world-gay-president_n_2624080.html ] a gay man as president, instead of a Southern Baptist.
Land claims gays are "going after the Boy Scouts." That is not just a bad figure of speech, it is also him equating [ http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=39688 ] homosexuality with child molesting. "If you put men in mentoring positions of trust and authority in camp-out situations with young teens to whom they are sexually attracted, either heterosexually or homosexually, human tragedies will follow."
Land ignores that most the uproar about the Scouts is because gay young people are being thrown out. He prefers to concentrate on the idea that gay men are infiltrating the Scouts so they can have their way with young boys.
"It would be the equivalent of allowing heterosexual men to be Scoutmasters for Girl Scout troops," says Land. In response, allow me to quote [ http://www.gsnetx.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ezrOG59fh8A%3D&tabid=222 ] the policy of the Girl Scouts in Land's home state of Texas: "Male adults may be part of the leadership team for a Girl Scout Troop/group of girls, including being designated as the "01" for the Girl Scout Troop/group. Male Girl Scout Leaders are expected to fulfill the same requirements as female Girl Scout Leaders."
Who exactly is "going after" the Boy Scouts? Three organizations control the bulk of Boy Scout troops in the U.S.: the Mormons, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists have targeted Boy Scouts for decades. None of these three very patriarchal religions have seen Girl Scouts as being of equal importance -- after all, they are just girls. The Southern Baptists have also made it quite clear [ http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/churches_threaten_to_pull_funding_if_boy_scouts_drop_anti_gay_ban/ ] to the Scouts that they will cease funding troops unless they continue to throw out scouts who are gay.
As part of their "live and let live" policies, Southern Baptists passed [ http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20130220/NEWS06/302200163/Southern-Baptists-urge-continued-ban-gay-Scouts ] another resolution about the Scouts, claiming that failure to ban gay young people would "place the Boy Scouts organization at odds with a consistent biblical worldview on matters of human sexuality, making it an organization that would no longer complement, but rather contradict, our belief in God and His moral precepts that serve as the basis for our Christian faith."
There is another side to "live and let live." It doesn't just mean you leave others alone, but also you leave them to live their own life just as you expect to be free to live yours. In this sense, it is quite similar to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
Southern Baptists, such as Rev. Land, should never invoke "live and let live" or the Golden Rule. If Land got back what he's been handing out for decades he would have precious few freedoms left. They have never let the LGBT community "live" their own lives and what they have "done unto" others, is rampant interference, threats of legal sanctions, and the force of law. Is that what Rev. Land wants for himself and his fellow fundamentalists?
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/richard-land-baptists-lgbt_b_2846998.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCDpYRq4JJU , as embedded; with comments]
--
A Church Group, a Lawsuit, and a Culture of Abuse
C.J. Mahaney, the current president of Sovereign Grace Ministries
By T.F. Charlton
March 5, 2013
I was not surprised when Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), the church group I grew up in as a teen and young adult, was served with a lawsuit this past October, alleging clergy cover-ups of sexual abuse [ http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-17/lawsuit-claims-evangelical-church-hid-abuse-claims ].
Sadly, I was even less surprised when the suit was amended in January to include Covenant Life Church (CLC), the congregation I had attended for nine years, and to add new charges of physical and sexual abuse [ http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130114/NEWS01/301140087/New-abuse-allegations-target-co-founder-others-Sovereign-Grace-Ministries ] by pastors, as well as allegations of abuse on church property. From what I’d seen inside Sovereign Grace and Covenant Life from 1996–2005, the alleged abuse seemed almost predictable—the result of the group’s toxic teachings on parenting, gender, and sexuality.
Sovereign Grace [ http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/ ] is a U.S.-based church-planting network (they say “family”) of predominantly white, suburban, reformed evangelical congregations. C.J. Mahaney, the current president, and Larry Tomczak—today a pastor at Bethel World Outreach Church in Brentwood, Tennessee—co-founded the Gaithersburg, Maryland church that would become Covenant Life in 1977. It was the first in what would become a network of 91 churches across 25 states and 17 countries. And it would launch the careers of several conservative Christian activists, including Lou Engle, whose ministry The Call has played a significant role in exporting American religious homophobia [ http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2531/american_supports_ugandan_anti_gay_bill_ ] to Uganda, as well as Che Ahn, president of the charismatic Harvest International Ministries. Both men were among Covenant Life’s early leaders.
Five years after its founding, in 1982, the church launched what would become its overarching ministry, Sovereign Grace, originally called “People of Destiny International.” The grandiose name reflected the group’s aspirations to greater influence as a ministry, a vision that would only begin to be realized as the group shifted away from its charismatic beginnings toward reformed evangelicalism.
By 1997, Mahaney had found a new protégé in Joshua Harris, a young evangelical beloved in the conservative homeschooling community for his speaking tours and magazine for religious homeschoolers. Harris’ book I Kissed Dating Goodbye, which promoted parent-supervised “courtships” instead of “secular” dating, was published in the same year. Its popularity—the book was a Christian bestseller—and Harris’ name recognition helped bring SGM to greater prominence among evangelicals. Mahaney eventually appointed Harris as his successor as senior pastor of CLC in 2004.
The two men now boast ties with some of the biggest names in reformed evangelicalism, including Albert Mohler, president of the country’s largest Southern Baptist seminary, and Seattle’s “cussing pastor,” Mark Driscoll. Harris and Mahaney are also board members of influential, staunchly conservative organizations like The Gospel Coalition and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Alongside these powerful partnerships has come strife. In its short history, SGM has been shaken by several high-profile departures and church splits. Co-founder Tomczak left in 1997 [ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/6/evangelist-tomczak-still-a-force/ ] over theological disagreements with Mahaney’s increasingly Calvinist-inspired preaching, and his objection to how the church “disciplined” him after one of his sons fell into unspecified “teenage rebellion.”
In July 2011, another former church leader, Brent Detwiler, released documents criticizing his own ouster, recording perceived slights and internal conflicts in painstaking detail, portraying CLC and SGM’s leadership as fractious and dysfunctional and Mahaney as a narcissistic, passive-aggressive bully. It also charged that in 1997, Mahaney had attempted to blackmail Tomczak out of voicing doctrinal disagreements by threatening to reveal his son’s unspecified “sins.”
After Mahaney publicly confessed to this attempted blackmail, and to “deficiencies” in his leadership that seemed to confirm Detwiler’s unflattering account, he was forced to take a leave of absence [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/sovereign-grace-ministries-riven-by-conflict-seeks-to-change/2011/08/19/gIQAJuXt7J_story.html ] as president of SGM. But his absence was short-lived; SGM’s board quickly restored him, over the objections of Harris and others, and SGM moved its headquarters to Louisville, Kentucky in April 2012. Since then, several churches have voted to leave SGM, including CLC and Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax [ http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2013/01/15/two-more-congregations-leave-sovereign-grace-ministries-one-of-them-a-defendant-in-lawsuit/ ], the other church named in the lawsuit.
The Lawsuit
This rocky history is a fitting prelude to the controversies surrounding the ministry in recent years.
Perhaps the biggest thorn in SGM’s side has been the spate of former members’ blogs that have cropped up since 2007, starting with SGM Survivors [ http://sgmsurvivors.com/ ]—a site where ex-members have shared numerous accounts of SGM’s cult-like atmosphere, including cover-ups of spousal abuse and sexual abuse of children as young as two.
And in October 2012, three people whose stories were first shared on SGM Survivors [ http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/the-stories/ ] formalized their complaints by becoming the first plaintiffs in the current class action lawsuit, charging the ministry and its past and present clergy for complicity in the abuse.
The original lawsuit [ http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2012/10/18/lawsuit-text-with-address-redacted/ ] listed SGM, Mahaney, Tomczak, and six other pastors from CLC and Sovereign Grace Church as defendants. The amended filing [ http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/files/2013/01/First-Amended-Complaint-as-filed-11.pdf ] added five new plaintiffs and CLC, as well as CLC’s day school, the Fairfax church, and two more pastors as defendants. One new plaintiff, “Paula Poe,” alleged that a pastor and church volunteer together operated a “pedophilia ring” at CLC and its school, and that one of their suspected victims, a pastor’s son, went on to molest a seven-year-old boy in the Fairfax church.
The suit has been filed not only on behalf of the individual plaintiffs, but also on behalf of a much larger class of people allegedly abused as minors in SGM, who do not wish to come forward with their stories. The suit alleges that the potential additional victims are too many to be included as individual plaintiffs in the suit because SGM’s leaders have cultivated an “environment conducive to and protective of physical and sexual abuse of children.”
The stories from plaintiffs who are included describe a church culture where pastors’ sympathies routinely lay with male perpetrators of sexual abuse, particulary married fathers, who were allowed continued access to victims and other children in the church. Victims’ families were deliberately misled to keep them out of legal proceedings, while pastors provided perpetrators with legal support. And families were pressured not to report abuse and to “forgive” perpetrators, with even children as young as three being forced to meet their abusers for “reconciliation.”
Women and children who came forward were threatened and ostracized if they resisted efforts to “restore” their abusive husbands and fathers to a position of “leadership” in the family. One plaintiff, “Robin Roe,” whose sister was sexually abused by their adoptive father, reports that their mother was advised by CLC pastors to send the victim away so the abuser could return as “head of the household.” When Roe’s mother refused to submit to this and other pastoral “attempt[s] to obstruct justice,” the family was kicked out of the church.
An anonymous adult witness mentioned in the lawsuit (who originally shared her story as “Taylor [ http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2011/08/31/taylors-story/ ]” on SGM Survivors) further alleges that church leaders told her her husband had been “tempted” to molest their 10-year-old daughter because Taylor hadn’t “met [her] husband’s needs physically.” Fairfax pastors instructed her to allow her husband to move back into the home and “make sure [she] had physical relations with him regularly,” and to lock their daughter’s bedroom at night.
The abuse allegations include physical as well as sexual abuse. Larry Tomczak, the only defendant explicitly named as a perpetrator in the suit, is alleged to have physically abused “Carla Coe,” a child under his care for over 25 years. (The suit doesn’t specify their relationship, but Tomczak has said that he believes the charges relate to a “family member.”) The abuses are said to include forcing her to undress so Tomczak could beat her “on her bare buttocks”—assaults that allegedly continued well into adulthood. In another account, a plaintiff charges that she and her siblings were sexually abused by their father, and that she had been beaten by him so severely that she bled and bruised. When the siblings reported the abuse to CLC leaders, these pastors informed the father, which they charge “led to further abuse.”
Adding weight to these allegations is the December 2012 indictment of Nathaniel Morales [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/man-accused-of-molesting-boys-in-1980s-from-md-church-church-is-identified-in-sex-abuse-suit/2013/02/04/62e2a882-6edd-11e2-b35a-0ee56f0518d2_story.html ], a CLC children’s ministry volunteer, for sexually abusing four boys between 1985 and 1990. According to media reports, the victim whose account sparked the investigation of Morales alleges that pastors didn’t inform police when the victims’ parents first informed them of the abuse, out of concern for the church’s reputation. Pastors at CLC, including Grant Layman, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, have confirmed that they were aware that Morales had a history of sexual predation.
Another pastor, Ernest Boisvert, says that Morales had shown “contrition” when confronted, and that he “took his cues from [victims’] families” in deciding not to go to the police. These accounts seem to confirm that at least some pastors at CLC were inclined to respond to sexual abuse as “sin” belonging to the jurisdiction of pastors and not necessarily as criminal offenses that required reporting.
A Perfect Storm of Doctrine
It’s no accident that so many allegations of serious abuse have arisen across SGM’s churches. The combination of patriarchal gender roles, purity culture, and authoritarian clergy that characterizes Sovereign Grace’s teachings on parenting, marriage, and sexuality creates an environment where women and children—especially girls—are uniquely vulnerable to abuse.
Critics of evangelical sexual mores have noted [ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/12/how-the-modesty-doctrine-fuels-rape-culture.html ] the connections between demands for female modesty and chastity and a culture where these same bodies are constantly exposed to sexual violence and abuse. As E.J. Graff put it her analysis of the global implications of the gang rape and murder of Indian medical student Jyoti Singh Pandey, purity culture [ http://prospect.org/article/purity-culture-rape-culture ], whether in India or America, casts “women’s bodies [as]…primarily for procreation or male pleasure… a culture in which women must cover up or be threatened is a rape culture.” [Emphasis mine]
If, as Graff writes, purity culture is rape culture, then the submission culture that exists in many conservative evangelical churches is abuse culture. The level of deference and obedience that children are expected to pay to parents, wives to husbands, and girls and women to an exclusively male leadership is so extreme that it encourages—and sometimes outright demands—submission to men who use their power to abuse.
At Sovereign Grace, abuse culture was literally a part of the teachings. The allegations against CLC co-founder Larry Tomczak bring to mind his bizarrely titled 1982 book God, the Rod, and Your Child’s Bod, a parenting guide that was in heavy use at SGM before his departure. In it, he advises parents to keep multiple instruments for beatings in handy locations so they can “apply loving correction immediately.”
Writing about “disciplining” children who disobey multiple times in a day, Tomczak winkingly describes beatings as “posterior protoplasmic stimulation,” assuring parents that any resulting marks or redness are “nothing to get upset about.” He also recounts giving his 18-month-old son “a series of repeated spankings (with explanation and abundant display of affection between each one)” in a motel parking lot, until the boy “realized that Daddy always wins and wins decisively!” [emphasis his] Tomczak denies physically abusing anyone, but his defense [ http://www.charismanews.com/us/37967-charismatic-leader-explains-corporal-punishment-abuse-charges ] that the current lawsuit’s allegations concern a “disciplinary parental issue” over a “troubled family member” only raises more concerns.
SGM’s teachings on corporal punishment are virtually unchanged since Tomczak’ days as pastor. They continue to promote evangelical parenting manuals like Ted Tripp’s controversial? Shepherding a Child’s Heart, which has sparked controversy over its endorsement of spankings [ http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008189313_marshill19m0.html ] for babies as young as eight months old. Application of this teaching can lead to kids being spanked multiple times a day (far more often than I was, as the daughter of very strict immigrant parents, or many other children who grow up in families where corporal punishment is used).
The ultimate goal of discipline, corporal or otherwise, is to instill in children the importance of immediate, complete, and cheerful obedience to authority. Discipline in this context becomes a systematic ritual of physical assault and emotional manipulation [ http://www.covlifemedia.org/dl_dialog.php?filename=v4.0/2011_01_08--Parenting-0-5-Session-2-Speaking-Notes-2011-01.pdf ]. Children are expected to willingly lean over the parent’s knees or a bed, stay still during beatings with a “sturdy but flexible instrument,” not to scream, and not to criticize or express anger towards parents. Parents are to conclude beatings by holding children until they stop crying and apologize, then showing them “lavish affection.” Children must reciprocate this affection and be “peaceful” in order for the ritual to conclude.
A child’s failure to be affectionate and peaceful after a beating is interpreted to mean that they need more discipline. What children learn from these teachings is that corporal punishment is an expression of parental love.
A Lifelong Attitude of Submission
The larger context for corporal punishment is the belief that Christians must cultivate a lifelong attitude of submission to God-given authority. Parents are one such authority; male leadership over women in the family, church, and society is another.
Both women and children are taught that submission is part of a divine plan that should be embraced joyfully, and that even submitting to abusive men is noble and Christ-like. CLC pastor Joshua Harris quotes [ http://www.covlife.org/resources/3672913-A_Word_to_Wives ] 1 Peter on this score, praising slaves who obeyed the masters who beat them as following Jesus’ example. Harris interprets this to mean that all Christians are called to submit, even when “suffering” under “unjust” leadership. Therefore wives are called to resist the “sinful” impulse to “fight back” against or even criticize husbands who misuse their “authority.”
These teachings are not unique to SGM. Evangelical leader John Piper—a friend to SGM—has taught that women must maintain attitudes of submission even toward abusive husbands. Wives may, he says, have to,“endure… being smacked one night [ http://arewomenhuman.me/2010/08/08/john-piper-wives-should-endure-abuse-for-a-season/ ]” if abuse is “simply hurting [them]” and “not requiring [them] to sin” in some way like “group sex.”
It’s such a romanticization of saintly submission in the face of violence that Harris’ exceedingly brief disclaimer that “this isn’t a call [for wives] to be on the receiving end of abuse and violence” (like Piper’s recent clarification [ http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1909 ] of his remarks) comes across as hollow.
If children are taught that assault is divinely sanctioned, and that their bodies belong to adults, girls in particular are trained to see their bodies as male property, starting with their fathers. These lessons come from the top. C.J. Mahaney and his wife Carolyn, herself a popular writer on “biblical femininity,” teach that every piece of clothing girls and married women purchase should be inspected for “modesty” by fathers [ http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/12908209345.pdf ]. And Mahaney encourages his followers to confront girls and women in their congregations whose clothing they find immodest.
Girls grow up under the sexualizing gaze of men who are free to comment on the sexual response female bodies “provoke” in them. This early training in feminine responsibility for the sexual response of men makes it difficult to recognize and name abuse, and causes further trauma with the implication that being a victim of sexual violence makes a woman “impure.”
Beyond Sovereign Grace
The submission theology at the root of the abuses alleged in the lawsuit is not unique to SGM. These teachings have led to similar cases [ http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2013/Let-Us-Prey-Big-Trouble-at-First-Baptist-Church/ ]? of abuse in entirely unaffiliated churches, and to the proliferation of watchdog blogs like SGM Survivors for similar church groups—including Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church [ http://marshillrefuge.blogspot.com/ ].
At its root, abuse is the harmful exercise of power over others. Submission theology protects the privileges of the powerful; as a result, abuse survivors in submission cultures are not able to fight effectively for support or accountability. It is possible that victim advocacy is inherently impossible in a culture like SGM’s.
Some former Sovereign Grace members hold out hope that exposing these abuses will substantially change the cultures of the church, or at least damage their reputation and influence. Judging from recent scandals in both Catholic and Protestant churches, I’m skeptical.
Indeed, SGM’s own current crisis has so far had little to do with accountability for perpetrators or justice for victims. Rather, it’s the culmination of longstanding power struggles and grudges between the influential men who have led SGM—some of the same men accused of covering up for abusers or being abusers themselves.
What is clear, though, is that the same scrutiny that has been focused on Catholic abuse scandals is needed to understand the factors that contribute to similar scandals in Protestant congregations. The less-centralized nature of many Protestant organizations and the greater difficulty in obtaining data about the scope of sexual abuse in Protestant churches makes this a challenge. But it is important to understand how the theology of such groups can engender cultures of abuse—sexual abuse compounded by religious abuse of authority—and with this understanding, work to create specialized support for victims.
© Religion Dispatches 2013
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6788/a_church_group__a_lawsuit__and_a_culture_of_abuse/ [with comments]
--
Starting a Papacy, Amid Echoes of a ‘Dirty War’
The church rejected claims by Jorge Videla, third from right, ex-head of the junta, on the role that bishops played.
Enrique Marcarian/Reuters
Video [embedded]
A Look at Pope Francis
Interactive Feature: Readers Consider the Selection of a New Pope
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/14/world/europe/pope-francis-reader-reactions.html
The Rev. Christian von Wernich, a former police chaplain, was convicted of complicity in the killing of political prisoners.
El Dia
By SIMON ROMERO and WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: March 17, 2013
BUENOS AIRES — One Argentine priest is on trial in Tucumán Province on charges of working closely with torturers in a secret jail during the so-called Dirty War, urging prisoners to hand over information. Another priest was accused of taking a newborn from his mother, one of the many baby thefts [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18731349 ] from female prisoners who were “disappeared” into a system of clandestine prisons.
Another clergy member offered biblical justification for the military’s death flights, according to an account by one of the pilots anguished about dumping drugged prisoners out of aircraft and into the sea.
As he starts his papacy, Francis, until this month Jorge Mario Bergoglio [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/francis_i/index.html ], the archbishop of Buenos Aires, faces his own entanglement with the Dirty War, which unfolded from 1976 to 1983. As the leader of Argentina [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/argentina/index.html ]’s Jesuits for part of that time, he has repeatedly had to dispute claims that he allowed the kidnapping of two priests in his order in 1976, accusations the Vatican [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html ] is calling a defamation campaign [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/europe/pope-francis-praises-benedict-urges-cardinals-to-spread-gospel.html ].
Now his election as pope is focusing scrutiny on his role as the most prominent leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina, an institution that remains under withering criticism for its role in failing to publicly resist — and in various instances actively supporting — the military dictatorship during a period when as many as 30,000 people are thought to have been killed or disappeared.
This stance by Argentina’s church stands in contrast to the resistance against dictatorships by Catholic leaders elsewhere in Latin America at the time — notably in Chile and Brazil, two nations where far fewer people were killed. Even as the head of the Argentine Conference of Bishops from 2005 to 2011, Francis resisted issuing a formal apology for the church’s actions during the Dirty War, disappointing human rights campaigners.
“The combination of action and inaction by the church was instrumental in enabling the mass atrocities committed by the junta,” said Federico Finchelstein, an Argentine historian at the New School for Social Research in New York. “Those like Francis that remained in silence during the repression also played by default a central role,” he said. “It was this combination of endorsement and either strategic or willful indifference that created the proper conditions for the state killings.”
Francis, 76, has offered a complex description of his role during the dictatorship, a period officially called the Process of National Reorganization, in which the authorities installed a terrifying campaign against perceived opponents.
While refraining from public criticism of the dictatorship, Francis said in his autobiography that he pressed military officials behind the scenes to free the two priests from his order — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — even meeting with top military officials.
Francis also said that he hid at a Jesuit school several people persecuted by the dictatorship, and even helped one young man who resembled him to flee Argentina, via Foz do Iguaçu on the Brazilian border, giving him priest’s garb and his own identity documents.
The Rev. Ignacio Pérez del Viso, a Jesuit who is a longtime friend of Francis’, said that a small number of Argentine bishops spoke out against the military dictatorship. But they were clearly in the minority, he said, and others in the Argentine church, including the new pope, who was 39 at the time of the 1976 coup, adopted a far more cautious position.
“When you saw that the majority of the bishops preferred to have a dialogue with the military,” Father Pérez del Viso, 78, said, “it’s not easy to say, ‘We will do something different.’ ” He added: “Many of the bishops opted, rather than to confront the military head on, to try to intercede in private conversations for those they could save.”
“Later the bishops realized this was a mistake,” Father Pérez del Viso said. “But to see the mistake at that moment was difficult.”
Religious scholars attribute such passivity to remarkably close ideological and political links between the church and the armed forces. Some priests have even been forced to stand trial on charges of human rights abuses.
After a previous military coup in Argentina in 1930, the church forged a role as a spiritual guide for the armed forces. By the time military rule was established again in the 1970s, their operations overlapped to the point where some bishops were provided soldiers as personal servants in their palaces, and only a handful of bishops publicly condemned the dictatorship’s repression.
“Of all the national churches in Latin America, Argentina is where ties were closest between the clergy and the military,” said Kenneth P. Serbin, a historian at the University of San Diego.
This legacy presents a challenge to Francis. Last week, a judge who took part in an investigation into a clandestine prison at the Naval Mechanics School said the inquiry uncovered no evidence that Francis was involved in the kidnapping of the Jesuits. “It is totally false to say that Jorge Bergoglio handed over those priests,” the judge, Germán Castelli, was quoted as saying in the newspaper La Nación.
But doubts persist, based on the priests’ own accounts, including a 1977 report by Father Yorio to the Jesuit authorities, obtained by The New York Times, and a 1994 book by Father Jalics.
Father Yorio wrote that Francis, who was then the top Jesuit in Argentina, told them he supported their work even as he sought to undermine it, making negative reports about them to local bishops and claiming they were in the slum without his permission.
“He did nothing to defend us, and we began to question his honesty,” wrote Father Yorio, who died in 2000. Finally, without telling the two priests, Father Yorio wrote, Francis expelled them from the Jesuit order.
Three days later, hundreds of armed men descended on the slum and seized the two priests. Father Yorio was interrogated and accused of being a guerrilla. The priests were kept for five months, chained hand and foot and blindfolded, fearing they would be killed.
Finally, they were dropped off in a drugged state on the outskirts of Buenos Aires.
In a statement posted on a Jesuit Web site last week, Father Jalics said he would not comment “on the role of Father Bergoglio in these events.” He said that years after the kidnapping, they celebrated a Mass together and he solemnly embraced him. “I am reconciled to the events and view them from my side as concluded,” Father Jalics wrote.
But in an interview, Father Yorio’s sister, Graciela Yorio, accused Francis of leaving the priests “totally unprotected” and making them an easy target for the military. She said that her brother and Father Jalics, whom she referred to using his name in Spanish, were in agreement about Francis’ role. “My brother was certain,” she said, “And Francisco, too, Francisco Jalics. I have no reason not to believe my brother’s word.”
Still, several prominent leftists here have defended Francis, emphasizing his openness to dialogue and austere habits. “He is questioned for not having done all he could do,” said Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, a pacifist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. “But he was never an ally of the dictatorship.”
Though Francis has had to respond to doubts about his own past during the Dirty War, he has faced other issues that still haunt the church. He was head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference in 2007, when the Rev. Christian von Wernich, a former police chaplain, was found guilty of complicity in the killing and torture of political prisoners.
Even after his conviction, Father von Wernich was allowed to offer Mass to fellow prison inmates. Other priests have similarly faced charges related to abuses from the dictatorship era. And still there are other priests who have not been charged with a crime, but who face serious accusations about their connection to the armed forces.
The church has tried to account on different occasions for its actions during the dictatorship. In 2000, it apologized for its “silences” that enabled rights abuses. And last November, after the future pope’s tenure as head of the bishops’ conference had ended, the church issued another statement in response to the assertion by Jorge Videla, the former head of the military junta, that Argentine bishops had in effect collaborated with the dictatorship.
The church rejected Mr. Videla’s claim, but said it would “promote a more complete study” of the Dirty War years.
Reporting was contributed by Fabián Werner, Emily Schmall and Jonathan Gilbert from Buenos Aires; Mauricio Rabuffetti from Montevideo, Uruguay; and Nicholas Kulish from Berlin.
*
Related
Vatican Rejects Claims of Pope’s Ties to Argentina’s ‘Dirty War’ (March 16, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/europe/pope-francis-praises-benedict-urges-cardinals-to-spread-gospel.html
The Lede: Full Statement From Jesuit Kidnapped by Argentine Junta on New Pope (March 15, 2013)
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/full-statement-from-jesuit-kidnapped-by-argentine-junta-on-new-pope/
After Frosty Past, Pope Meets Argentine Leader (March 15, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/world/europe/francis-to-meet-argentine-leader-after-frosty-ties.html
Times Topic: Pope Francis
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/francis_i/index.html
*
Past Coverage of Argentina’s 'Dirty War'
Military Junta Seizes Power (March 1976)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2013/March241976.pdf
Military Rule Ends (December 1983)
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/11/world/argentine-leader-sworn-into-office-ending-army-rule.html
Argentine Ruling Revives Cases of 'Dirty War' Victims (July 2005)
http://travel.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/americas/15argentina.html?pagewanted=all
After 30 Years, Argentina's Dictatorship Stands Trial (July 2005)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E3D7153EF933A1575BC0A9609C8B63
Argentine Ex-President Gets 25 Years for Role in 'Dirty War' (April 2010)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/world/americas/21argentina.html
Daughter of ‘Dirty War,’ Raised by Man Who Killed Her Parents (October 2011)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/americas/argentinas-daughter-of-dirty-war-raised-by-man-who-killed-her-parents.html?pagewanted=all
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world/americas/francis-begins-reign-as-pope-amid-echoes-of-argentinas-dirty-war.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world/americas/francis-begins-reign-as-pope-amid-echoes-of-argentinas-dirty-war.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]
--
Angel in sky photos: South Florida sees a message from above
By: Laura Santos
Posted: 03/13/2013
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A message from above?
That’s what several South Florida residents thought after looking toward the sky on the day a new pope was named.
Most saw an angel in the clouds and grabbed their cameras to document the vision.
For some, it was a clear sign from heaven, maybe a message from God himself, showing his pleasure at the election of the first Latin American as the 267th successor of St. Peter.
Thom George wondered “if Pope Francis ordered that.”
“The Pope asked to pray for Him. .. God answered,” was Cat Sunn’s reaction.
Although most felt the cloud resembled an angel, and was a beautiful sign from above, others saw in the cloud something less angelic.
Cristina Pina thought the cloud resembled a sea monkey. While Steve Massie opined [sic - stated ansolutely accurately (see e.g. {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78443830 and preceding and following)] that “seeing shapes and faces in non-human objects is called “pareidolia.”
Nick Stanley even saw the dark lord – Lucifer, in the cloud.
[...]
*
Related
Photographer talks about 'angel' photo
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/angel-in-the-sky-south-florida-photographer-talks-about-angel-photo
*
Copyright 2013 2013 The E.W. Scripps Co.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_c_palm_beach_county/west_palm_beach/a-message-from-above [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
CPAC 2013 - Former Sen. Rick Santorum
[speech given March 14, 2013]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhdL5_P_7ZQ [and see e.g. (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72863493 and preceding and following]
--
Shape-Shifting Jesus Described in Ancient Egyptian Text
12 March 2013
[...]
... Jesus comforts him, saying, "Oh Pilate, you have been deemed worthy of a great grace because you have shown a good disposition to me." Jesus also showed Pilate that he can escape if he chose to. "Pilate, then, looked at Jesus and, behold, he became incorporeal: He did not see him for a long time ..." ...
[...]
"Then the Jews said to Judas: How shall we arrest him [Jesus], for he does not have a single shape but his appearance changes. Sometimes he is ruddy, sometimes he is white, sometimes he is red, sometimes he is wheat coloured, sometimes he is pallid like ascetics, sometimes he is a youth, sometimes an old man ..." ...
[...]
http://www.livescience.com/27840-shape-shifting-jesus-ancient-text.html [with comments]
--
Religion Among Americans Hits Low Point, As More People Say They Have No Religious Affiliation: Report
03/14/2013
The number of Americans who claim to have no religious affiliation [ http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/03/12/non-believers/ ] is the highest it has ever been since data on the subject started being collected in the 1930s, new research has found.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/religion-america-decline-low-no-affiliation-report_n_2867626.html [with (over 11,500) comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85495018 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85495942 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85498285 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85498665 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85499374 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85506750 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85510226 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85510959 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85514683 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85524743 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85527512 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85541078 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85546658 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85550104 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85552168 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85555787 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85556223 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85556278 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85557031 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85557282 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85557825 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85561101 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85561347 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85562753 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85564756 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85565403 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85571363 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85572758 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85573095 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85573251 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85573680 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85574103 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85574174 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85595108 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85600754 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85605425 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85606045 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85606242 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85606578 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85607018 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85607370 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85607653 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85608921 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85609016 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85609023 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85609901 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85611059 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85613596 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85624249 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85639856 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85640721 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85648644 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85655271 (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85655285 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85659477 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85659606 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85664133 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85664508 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85669161 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85699248 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85701413 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85702849 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85703164 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85706114 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85706269 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85708244 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85708331 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85709187 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85709817 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85711057 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85713034 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85719953 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85720212 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85723960 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85728856 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85733725 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85743065 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85749735 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85754676 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85759648 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85760568 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85761541 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85763186 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85767399 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85769689 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85776948 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85778216 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85778798 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85780530 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85782036 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85782075 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85783264 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83730323 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85783538 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85785655 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85786886 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85786918 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85788348 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85800835 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85802760 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85810258 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85810650 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85813519 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85814365 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823087 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823349 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85829600 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823472 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823627 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824116 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824441 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85833823 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824144 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824159 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85826736 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85835027 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85835050 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85861577 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85866822 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85871817 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85873387 (and any future following)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 10, 2013
For three years and more, policy debate in Washington has been dominated by warnings about the dangers of budget deficits. A few lonely economists have tried from the beginning to point out that this fixation is all wrong, that deficit spending is actually appropriate in a depressed economy. But even though the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far — where are the soaring interest rates we were promised? — protests that we are having the wrong conversation have consistently fallen on deaf ears.
What’s really remarkable at this point, however, is the persistence of the deficit fixation in the face of rapidly changing facts. People still talk as if the deficit were exploding, as if the United States budget were on an unsustainable path; in fact, the deficit is falling more rapidly than it has for generations, it is already down to sustainable levels, and it is too small given the state of the economy.
Start with the raw numbers. America’s budget deficit soared after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that went with it, as revenue plunged and spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rose. And this rise in the deficit was a good thing! Federal spending helped sustain the economy at a time when the private sector was in panicked retreat; arguably, the stabilizing role of a large government was the main reason the Great Recession didn’t turn into a full replay of the Great Depression.
But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The Congressional Budget Office expects [ http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43977 ] the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t.
Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II — in fact, our debt doubled [ http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FYGFD.txt ] in the 30 years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage [ http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDGDPA188S.txt ] of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period.
Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/gone-deficit-gone/ ]. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The “cyclically adjusted” deficit — what the deficit would be if we were near full employment — is only about $423 billion, which puts it in the sustainable range; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And that’s why budget office projections show the nation’s debt position more or less stable over the next decade.
So we do not, repeat do not, face any kind of deficit crisis either now or for years to come.
There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population will put the budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns should determine budget policy right now. And as I said, given the needs of the economy, the deficit is currently too small.
Put it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector won’t, supporting the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is currently about what it was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom — and it is headed down.
Yes, we’ll want to reduce deficits once the economy recovers, and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under way. But unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, is still unacceptably high. “The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity,” John Maynard Keynes declared [ http://www.openculture.com/2012/06/john_maynard_keynes_explains_cure_to_high_unemployment_in_his_own_voice_1939.html ] many years ago. He was right — all you have to do is look at Europe [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/austerity-europe-2/ ] to see the disastrous effects of austerity on weak economies. And this is still nothing like a boom.
Now, I’m aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in many quarters. Fiscal fearmongering is a major industry inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for excuses to do what they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. People whose careers are heavily invested in the deficit-scold industry don’t want to let evidence undermine their scare tactics; as the deficit dwindles, we’re sure to encounter a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to show that we’re still in some kind of fiscal crisis.
But we aren’t. The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy concern, which was never very strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment, has now completely vanished.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-disorder.html [with comments]
--
Paul Ryan Will Battle Paul Krugman To The Death To Defeat 'Keynesian Economics'
03/13/2013
[...]
The issue is this: Ryan claims his budget benefits the poor [ http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/13/paul-ryan-takes-on-chief-critic-paul-krugman/ ], it actually does precisely the opposite [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/12/class_war_budgeting_paul_ryan_and_house_gop_want_more_money_for_the_rich.html ], and Krugman discerns this and calls the whole thing a scam [ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/flimflam-forever/ ], the end.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/paul-ryan-paul-krugman_n_2869126.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQeMknVWuU0 , and additional video (of Ryan on February 14, 2002 giving a "dazzling" speech in support of stimulus) embedded; with comments]
--
Paul Ryan's Budget, Simplified: Save the Rich, Spare the Old, Forget the Poor
It balances the budget! But it solves our income inequality problem like a flamethrower solves a house fire.
By Derek Thompson
Mar 12 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-budget-simplified-save-the-rich-spare-the-old-forget-the-poor/273944/ [with comments]
--
The 2 Most Magical Numbers in Paul Ryan's Magical Budget
Reuters
Magical (adj): "delightful in such a way as to be removed from everyday life." [Synonyms: fake, absurd, couldn't-hardly-happen-even-if-Republicans-controlled-both-houses-and-the-presidency]
By Derek Thompson
Mar 14 2013, 4:27 PM ET
2.1% and $6.7 trillion
Without context, these are inconsequential numbers. With context, they're magical numbers. So here's the context.
Paul Ryan and his budget have taken lots of flack for giving Medicare an unrecognizable facelift and gutting federal spending on the poor and sick to reach his balanced budget goals next decade. Both of those goals are radical and/or visionary, depending on your opinion of Ryan, but neither are quite magical.
What is magical, however, is thinking you can cut non-defense discretionary spending -- what most people think of as Government -- to 2.1 percent, one-third below its modern low. That's what Ryan's budget does. Here's how he does it.
He keeps the sequester -- a $1 trillion guillotine to non-defense and defense spending. But his breakdown [ http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy2014_house_budget_function_.pdf ] of spending pushes virtually all of those cuts into non-defense categories. In other words, everything in our discretionary budget -- scientific research, housing, international relations, education, public safety, public health, environmental protection, job training -- doesn't just get a sequester. It gets a double-sequester! Plus another $250 billion in cuts, under the Ryan budget. Win the future.
Here's the long view of non-defense discretionary spending, with data from Loren Adler [ http://bipartisanpolicy.org/about/staff/loren-adler ] and the Bipartisan Policy Center (plus an assist from Michael Linden at the Center for American Progress). The green line is today's law, including the sequester (a law passed specifically because it was so bad that it would force us to change it). The blue line is the Ryan plan (even worse).
"It's just fake," Linden said. "It's just total fake. Ryan's projection is about a third lower, as a share of the government, than any year since [we have records]. No future Congress would ever approve this."
The second most magical number comes from the other side of the budget. We talk a lot about Ryan's spending cuts. But it's his tax spending cuts that are perhaps the most ludicrous.
Ryan wants to change projected tax revenue by $0.0. But his plan to cut and consolidate rates creates a $6.7 trillion hole [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-tax-math-just-became-more-magical/273959/ ] in federal revenues, as Matthew O'Brien [ http://www.theatlantic.com/matthew-obrien/ ] pointed out. That can only be made up by eliminating the biggest (and most popular) tax breaks. He would almost certainly have to tax employer-paid health care, mortgage interest, charitable donations ... the list goes on and on. Ryan doesn't say what he could cut because it would be despicably unpopular, even more so than his proposed cuts. In fact, his $6.7 trillion in mystery tax-spending are 46 percent more than his spending cuts. (Good luck, Ways and Means Committee!)
If I appear to be disproportionately picking on Paul Ryan, it is only because I am. There is widespread understanding that unemployment is a real crisis, right now. There is thorough economic evidence that our most immediate crisis is long-term unemployment [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/forget-the-good-jobs-report-long-term-unemployment-is-still-terrifying/273859/ ] and the permanent structural deficiencies it will create. There is widespread belief that we need to reduce future deficits through a combination of higher revenues and lower spending. Ryan's budget neither protects the unemployed, nor fixes their hysteresis, nor proposes a balanced solution to a future budget problem that it also overemphasizes. Make-believe numbers in the pursuit of misguided goals is dark magic, indeed.
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group (emphasis in original)
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-2-most-magical-numbers-in-paul-ryans-magical-budget/274044/ [with comments]
--
Ryan Budget
03/13/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-danziger/ryan-budget_1_b_2867076.html [with comments]
--
After the Flimflam
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 14, 2013
It has been a big week for budget documents. In fact, members of Congress have presented not one but two full-fledged, serious proposals for spending and taxes over the next decade.
Before I get to that, however, let me talk briefly about the third proposal presented this week — the one that isn’t serious, that’s essentially a cruel joke.
Way back in 2010, when everybody in Washington seemed determined to anoint Representative Paul Ryan as the ultimate Serious, Honest Conservative, I pronounced him a flimflam man [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html (at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53066257 and following)]. Even then, his proposals were obviously fraudulent: huge cuts in aid to the poor, but even bigger tax cuts for the rich, with all the assertions of fiscal responsibility resting on claims that he would raise trillions of dollars by closing tax loopholes (which he refused to specify) and cutting discretionary spending (in ways he refused to specify).
Since then, his budgets have gotten even flimflammier. For example, at this point, Mr. Ryan is claiming that he can slash the top tax rate [ http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2013/03/12/taxes-and-paul-ryans-budget/ ] from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, yet somehow raise 19.1 percent of G.D.P. in revenues — a number we haven’t come close to seeing since the dot-com bubble burst a dozen years ago.
The good news is that Mr. Ryan’s thoroughly unconvincing policy-wonk act seems, finally, to have worn out its welcome. In 2011, his budget was initially treated with worshipful respect, which faded only slightly as critics pointed out the document’s many absurdities. This time around, quite a few pundits and reporters have greeted his release with the derision it deserves.
And, with that, let’s turn to the serious proposals.
Unless you’re a very careful news reader, you’ve probably heard about only one of these proposals, the one released by Senate Democrats. And let’s be clear: By comparison with the Ryan plan, and for that matter with a lot of what passes for wisdom in our nation’s capital, this is a very reasonable plan indeed.
As many observers have pointed out, the Senate Democratic plan is conservative [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/13/the-senate-democrats-vague-conservative-budget/ ] with a small “c”: It avoids any drastic policy changes. In particular, it steers away from draconian austerity, which is simply not needed given ultralow U.S. borrowing costs and relatively benign medium-term fiscal projections.
True, the Senate plan calls for further deficit reduction, through a mix of modest tax increases and spending cuts. (Incidentally, the tax increases still fall well short of those called for in the Bowles-Simpson plan, which Washington, for some reason, treats as something close to holy scripture.) But it avoids large short-run spending cuts, which would hobble our recovery at a time when unemployment is still disastrously high, and it even includes a modest amount of stimulus spending.
So we could definitely do worse than the Senate Democratic plan, and we probably will. It is, however, an extremely cautious proposal, one that doesn’t follow through on its own analysis. After all, if sharp spending cuts are a bad thing in a depressed economy — which they are — then the plan really should be calling for substantial though temporary spending increases. It doesn’t.
But there’s a plan that does: the proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus [ http://www.epi.org/publication/back-to-work-budget-analysis-congressional-progressive/ ], titled “Back to Work,” which calls for substantial new spending now, temporarily widening the deficit, offset by major deficit reduction later in the next decade, largely though not entirely through higher taxes on the wealthy, corporations and pollution.
I’ve seen some people describe the caucus proposal as a “Ryan plan of the left,” but that’s unfair. There are no Ryan-style magic asterisks, trillion-dollar savings that are assumed to come from unspecified sources; this is an honest proposal. And “Back to Work” rests on solid macroeconomic analysis, not the fantasy “expansionary austerity” economics — the claim that slashing spending in a depressed economy somehow promotes job growth rather than deepening the depression — that Mr. Ryan continues to espouse despite the doctrine’s total failure in Europe.
No, the only thing the progressive caucus and Mr. Ryan share is audacity. And it’s refreshing to see someone break with the usual Washington notion that political “courage” means proposing that we hurt the poor while sparing the rich. No doubt the caucus plan is too audacious to have any chance of becoming law; but the same can be said of the Ryan plan.
So where is this all going? Realistically, we aren’t likely to get a Grand Bargain any time soon. Nonetheless, my sense is that there is some real movement here, and it’s in a direction conservatives won’t like.
As I said, Mr. Ryan’s efforts are finally starting to get the derision they deserve, while progressives seem, at long last, to be finding their voice. Little by little, Washington’s fog of fiscal flimflam seems to be lifting.
*
Related
2 Parties’ Budgets Show Big Rift as G.O.P. Renews 2012 Proposals (March 13, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/us/politics/ryans-plan-aims-to-balance-budget-in-10-years.html
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/opinion/krugman-after-the-flimflam.html [with comments]
--
Paul Ryan’s budget plan would literally kill thousands of Americans
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin addresses the crowd Aug. 11, 2012, during a campaign event with Mitt Romney in Norfolk, Va.
(Credit: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
It may sound hyperbolic, but the equation is simple: When more people lack health coverage, more people die
By Richard Kirsch
Sunday, Mar 17, 2013 07:00 AM CDT
This originally appeared on Next New Deal [ http://www.nextnewdeal.net/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-budget-would-kill-health-insurance-programs-%E2%80%93-and-thousands-americans ].
I know you are not supposed to write in hyperbole, but sometimes the truth needs to be told. Paul Ryan’s budget, which kills Obamacare and cripples Medicare and Medicaid, would kill tens of thousands of people. Every year.
I have trouble with putting policy glosses on proposals that would deny health care coverage to millions of people and make care much more expensive to millions more. Because when more people lack health coverage, more people die. And when health costs prevent people from getting the care they need, they get more seriously ill.
How many people are we talking about? Estimates of the number of people who will die each year because they are uninsured vary, from about 500 [ http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/June/21/mortality-and-the-uninsured.aspx ] to 1,000 [ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ ] for every one million who lack coverage. Repealing Obamacare would block promised coverage for 32 million people, so that would mean somewhere from 16,000 to 32,000 each year who will die prematurely. Of course, since some Republican governors and legislatures are not implementing the expansion of Medicaid coverage in their states, some of those deaths are already on their hands.
Which leads us to the Ryan plan for slashing Medicaid. He replaces a program that now entitles low-income people to health coverage with a block grant to states to spend however they want on health care for the poor. The federal government would save money by decreasing what it pays to state governments and states would get to do the dirty work of cutting people’s health care. That will mean fewer people on the program, higher out-of-pocket costs, or a reduction in coverage of medically necessary care. And more people dying who would have lived if they had kept their previous health coverage.
In cutting Medicaid, Ryan is fulfilling the biggest concern that Republican governors say they have when they consider expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. A typical remark came from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer [ http://www.governing.com/news/state/arizona-brewer-2013-speech.html ]: “As I weighed this decision, I was troubled by the possibility that a future President and Congress may take steps to reduce federal matching rates, leaving states with a greater and greater share of health costs over time.”
Everyone is familiar by now with Ryan’s proposal to replace Medicare with vouchers to buy private insurance. The Ryan voucher plan is not about controlling health care costs; instead, it is intended to shift costs from the federal government to the seniors and the disabled who are covered by Medicare. When people can’t afford the care they need – and the CBO reported [ http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22085 ] that the first Ryan voucher plan would have doubled the already high cost of health care to seniors – they will get sicker.
The parts of Obamacare that Ryan doesn’t repeal underscore his cynicism. Ryan would keep the $716 billion in Medicare spending reductions over a decade, which he railed against when he was running for vice president. In his debate with Joe Biden, Ryan called the Medicare changes a “piggybank” for Obamacare [ http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-11-2012-the-biden-romney-vice-presidential-debate ], which would cause hospitals and nursing homes to close and lead to seniors losing benefits. None of this is true, as Biden pointed out. So now Ryan is using that $716 billion in savings to help him reach his goal of balancing the federal budget instead of what those savings were intended for: increasing Medicare benefits under Obamacare and expanding coverage to millions of Americans.
Remarkably, Ryan also keeps the other tax increases in Obamacare, some $1 trillion raised mostly from upper income taxpayers and various medical providers and insurers. Ryan is using money raised to provide life-saving health coverage to millions of people, taxes he and other Republicans railed against, to meet his fantasy target of balancing the budget in 10 years.
I’ve grown tired of providing a veneer of respectability to people in power –people with good health insurance, coverage that provides them with access to the best medical care, and pays most of their bills – who deny their constituents a basic human right. Governors and state legislatures who won’t expand Medicaid even though the federal government will pay virtually all of the cost. Members of Congress whose health coverage is largely paid for by their constituents who still make political hay by demagoging against Obamacare.
Fortunately for those whose lives are at risk, the Ryan budget is dead on arrival. But the debate about how to make the promise of Obamacare real is only just the beginning. States will continue to debate whether to expand Medicaid. And when Obamacare’s major provisions kick in next January, there will be a new round of debates about whether families can afford the new coverage and whether employers and government should do more or less to assure that people get covered. What will not end is the real consequences in each of those decisions for people’s lives.
Copyright © 2013 Roosevelt Institute
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/paul_ryans_budget_plan_would_literally_kill_thousands_of_americans_partner/ [with comments]
--
What Hospitals Charge the Uninsured
March 15, 2013
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/what-hospitals-charge-the-uninsured/ [with comments]
--
Singapore’s Lessons for an Unequal America
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
March 18, 2013, 11:09 am
SINGAPORE
Inequality has been rising in most countries around the world, but it has played out in different ways across countries and regions. The United States, it is increasingly recognized, has the sad distinction of being the most unequal advanced country, though the income gap has also widened to a lesser extent, in Britain, Japan, Canada and Germany. Of course, the situation is even worse in Russia, and some developing countries in Latin America and Africa. But this is a club of which we should not be proud to be a member.
Some big countries — Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina — have become more equal in recent years, and other countries, like Spain, were on that trajectory until the economic crisis of 2007-8.
Singapore has had the distinction of having prioritized social and economic equity while achieving very high rates of growth over the past 30 years — an example par excellence that inequality is not just a matter of social justice but of economic performance. Societies with fewer economic disparities perform better — not just for those at the bottom or the middle, but over all.
It’s hard to believe how far this city-state has come in the half-century since it attained independence from Britain, in 1963. (A short-lived merger with Malaysia ended in 1965.) Around the time of independence, a quarter of Singapore’s work force was unemployed or underemployed. Its per-capita income (adjusted for inflation) was less than a tenth of what it is today.
There were many things that Singapore did to become one of Asia’s economic “tigers,” and curbing inequalities was one of them. The government made sure that wages at the bottom were not beaten down to the exploitative levels they could have been.
The government mandated that individuals save into a “provident fund” — 36 percent of the wages of young workers — to be used to pay for adequate health care, housing and retirement benefits. It provided universal education, sent some of its best students abroad, and did what it could to make sure they returned. (Some of my brightest students came from Singapore.)
There are at least four distinctive aspects of the Singaporean model, and they are more applicable to the United States than a skeptical American observer might imagine.
First, individuals were compelled to take responsibility for their own needs. For example, through the savings in their provident fund, around 90 percent of Singaporeans became homeowners, compared to about 65 percent in the United States since the housing bubble burst in 2007.
Second, Singaporean leaders realized they had to break the pernicious, self-sustaining cycle of inequality that has characterized so much of the West. Government programs were universal but progressive: while everyone contributed, those who were well off contributed more to help those at the bottom, to make sure that everyone could live a decent life, as defined by what Singaporean society, at each stage of its development, could afford. Not only did those at the top pay their share of the public investments, they were asked to contribute even more to helping the neediest.
Third, the government intervened in the distribution of pretax income — to help those at the bottom, rather than, as in the United States, those at the top. It weighed in, gently, on the bargaining between workers and firms, tilting the balance toward the group with less economic power — in sharp contrast to the United States, where the rules of the game have shifted power away from labor and toward capital, especially during the past three decades.
Fourth, Singapore realized that the key to future success was heavy investment in education — and more recently, scientific research — and that national advancement would mean that all citizens — not just the children of the rich — would need access to the best education for which they were qualified.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, who was in power for three decades, and his successors took a broader perspective on what makes for a successful economy than a single-minded focus on gross domestic product, though even by that imperfect measure of success, it did splendidly, growing 5.5 times faster than the United States has since 1980.
More recently, the government has focused intensively on the environment, making sure that this packed city of 5.3 million retains its green spaces, even if that means putting them on the tops of buildings.
In an era when urbanization and modernization have weakened family ties, Singapore has realized the importance of maintaining them, especially across generations, and has instituted housing programs to help its aging population.
Singapore realized that an economy could not succeed if most of its citizens were not participating in its growth or if large segments lacked adequate housing, access to health care and retirement security. By insisting that individuals contribute significantly toward their own social welfare accounts, it avoided charges of being a nanny state. But by recognizing the different capacities of individuals to meet these needs, it created a more cohesive society. By understanding that children cannot choose their parents — and that all children should have the right to develop their innate capacities — it created a more dynamic society.
Singapore’s success is reflected in other indicators, as well. Life expectancy is 82 years, compared with 78 in the United States. Student scores on math, science and reading tests are among the highest in the world — well above the average for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the world’s club of rich nations, and well ahead of the United States.
The situation is not perfect: In the last decade, growing income inequality has posed a challenge for Singapore, as it has for many countries in the world. But Singaporeans have acknowledged the problem, and there is a lively conversation about the best ways to mitigate adverse global trends.
Some argue that all of this was possible only because Mr. Lee, who left office in 1990, was not firmly committed to democratic processes. It’s true that Singapore, a highly centralized state, has been ruled for decades by Mr. Lee’s People’s Action Party. Critics say it has authoritarian aspects: limitations on civil liberties; harsh criminal penalties; insufficient multiparty competition; and a judiciary that is not fully independent. But it’s also true that Singapore is routinely rated one of the world’s least corrupt and most transparent governments, and that its leaders have taken steps toward expanding democratic participation.
Moreover, there are other countries, committed to open, democratic processes, that have been spectacularly successful in creating economics that are both dynamic and fair — with far less inequality and far greater equality of opportunity than in the United States.
Each of the Nordic countries has taken a slightly different path, but each has impressive achievements of growth with equity. A standard measure of performance is the United Nations Development Program’s inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, which is less a measure of economic output than it is of human well-being. For each country, it looks at citizens’ income, education and health, and makes an adjustment for how access to these are distributed among the population. The Northern European countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway) stand towards the top. In comparison — and especially considering its No. 3 ranking in the non-inequality-adjusted index — the United States is further down the list, at No. 16. And when other indicators of well-being are considered in isolation, the situation is even worse: the United States ranks 33rd on the United Nations Development Program’s inequality-adjusted life expectancy index, just behind Chile.
Economic forces are global; the fact that there are such differences in outcomes (both levels of inequality and opportunity) suggests that what matters is how local forces — most notably, politics — shape these global economic forces. Singapore and Scandinavia have shown that they can be shaped in ways to ensure growth with equity.
Democracy, we now recognize, involves more than periodic voting. Societies with a high level of economic inequality inevitably wind up with a high level of political inequality: the elites run the political system for their own interests, pursuing what economists call rent-seeking behavior, rather than the general public interest. The result is a most imperfect democracy. The Nordic democracies, in this sense, have achieved what most Americans aspire toward: a political system where the voice of ordinary citizens is fairly represented, where political traditions reinforce openness and transparency; where money does not dominate political decision-making; where government activities are transparent.
I believe the economic achievements of the Nordic countries are in large measure a result of the strongly democratic nature of these societies. There is a positive nexus not just between growth and equality, but between these two and democracy. (The flip side is that greater inequality not only weakens our economy, it also weakens our democracy.)
A measure of the social justice of a society is the treatment of children. Many a conservative or libertarian in the United States assert that poor adults are responsible for their own plight — having brought their situation on themselves by not working as hard as they could. (That assumes, of course, that there are jobs to be had — an increasingly dubious assumption.)
But the well-being of children is manifestly not a matter for which children can be blamed (or praised). Only 7.3 percent of children in Sweden are poor, in contrast to the United States, where a startling 23.1 percent are in poverty. Not only is this a basic violation of social justice, but it does not bode well for the future: these children have diminished prospects for contributing to their country’s future.
Discussions of these alternative models, which seem to deliver more for more people, often end by some contrarian assertion or other about why these countries are different, and why their model has few lessons for the United States. All of this is understandable. None of us likes to think badly of ourselves or of our economic system. We want to believe that we have the best economic system in the world.
Part of this self-satisfaction, though, comes from a failure to understand the realities of the United States today. When Americans are asked what is the ideal distribution of income, they recognize that a capitalist system will always yield some inequality — without it, there would be no incentive for thrift, innovation and industry. And they realize that we do not live up to what they view as their “ideal.” The reality is that we have far more inequality than they believe we have, and that their view of the ideal is not too different from what the Nordic countries actually manage to achieve.
Among the American elite — that sliver of Americans who have seen historic gains in wealth and income since the mid-1970s even as most Americans’ real incomes have stagnated — many look for rationalizations and excuses. They talk, for instance, about these countries’ being homogeneous, with few immigrants. But Sweden has taken in large numbers of immigrants (roughly 14 percent of the population is foreign-born, compared with 11 percent in Britain and 13 percent in the United States). Singapore is a city-state with multiple races, languages and religions. What about size? Germany has 82 million people and has substantially greater equality of opportunity than the United States, a nation of 314 million (although inequality has been rising there, too, though not as much as in the United States).
It is true that a legacy of discrimination — including, among many things, the scourge of slavery, America’s original sin — makes the task of achieving a society with more equality and more equality of opportunity, on a par with the best performing countries around the world, particularly tricky. But a recognition of this legacy should reinforce our resolve, not diminish our efforts, to achieve an ideal that is within our reach, and is consistent with our best ideals.
*
The Great Divide is a series about inequality.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/
*
Related Posts from Opinionator
The Hidden Prosperity of the Poor
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/the-hidden-prosperity-of-the-poor/
The Rise of the Permanent Temp Economy
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/the-rise-of-the-permanent-temp-economy/
Inequality Is Holding Back the Recovery
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/inequality-is-holding-back-the-recovery/
Outsourcing Is Not (Always) Evil
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/outsourcing-is-not-always-evil/
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/singapores-lessons-for-an-unequal-america/ [with comments]
--
America’s Latest Phony Fiscal Crisis
By Simon Johnson Mar 17, 2013 5:30 PM CT
In most countries that experience a fiscal crisis, there is no ambiguity about the situation.
The government is unable to sell debt at a reasonable interest rate. This probably coincides with a broader shift out of domestic assets, as smart investors read the writing on the wall or in the newspapers. The currency collapses and, often, inflation accelerates. The government is forced to slash spending and, cap in hand, asks for help from the world’s least popular ambulance service: the International Monetary Fund.
No part of this description fits the modern U.S. Rates on government debt are very low, the currency isn’t depreciating rapidly and inflation seems stable. There is no imaginable circumstance under which the U.S. would need to borrow from the IMF. Yet this great land of innovation has undeniably invented its unique kind of fiscal crisis.
Or, to be more precise, we have reinvented the uniquely American way of ruining our fiscal affairs. At the beginning of the 19th century, Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with the idea that debt was bad and that the U.S.’s obligations -- inherited mostly from the War of Independence -- must be eliminated at all costs. (Jefferson himself had had some bad personal experiences with debt.)
Jefferson, James Madison, and their colleagues in the Democratic-Republican Party also wanted to shrink the size of the federal government, a reaction to the agenda of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists.
Smaller Navy
In 1801, when Jefferson became president, the U.S. government embarked on a policy of cutting federal spending, including for the military. The Navy, in particular, suffered years of neglect or, in modern terminology, “lack of readiness preparation.”
What any economy needs by way of publicly provided goods varies with income level and stage of economic development. But the U.S. has always needed a robust military that is capable of protecting the country. And that’s not what remained after more than a decade of cuts in the early 1800s.
Unfortunately, the American fiscal way -- then as now -- was to combine excessive expectations with inadequate revenue. As a result, the dominant war-hawks faction in Congress sought and achieved a confrontation with Great Britain. It pitted the world’s biggest navy against a depleted fleet in a sorry state of repair. The contest wasn’t even close.
As a direct result, the British were able to trash Washington and burn the White House. The U.S. government didn’t default, or even come close. The fiscal crisis was a failure to deliver the public goods -- defense -- that the nation needed and expected.
Fast-forward to today. We have a budget deficit because revenue has been allowed to fall behind government commitments. This is the net result of the George W. Bush tax cuts, two foreign wars and the unfunded expansion of Medicare. Then, a financial crisis cratered the economy and further pushed down tax revenue while increasing unemployment and poverty. And, looking at decades ahead, health-care costs (not just Medicare) threaten to undermine competitiveness or even sink the economy.
So how does the political system respond? Most recently, with a sequestration program of across-the-board spending reductions that undermine military readiness and cut essential programs that help poor children. And now, with a budget proposal from House Republicans that slashes Medicaid, about half of which goes to protect the health of poor children.
Does this make any sense? No, but there is likely to be a lot more of this in our immediate future.
Tax Resistance
Republicans are dug in very hard against raising taxes. I testified [ http://www.iie.com/publications/interstitial.cfm?ResearchID=2349 ] before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress last week, and the discourse was much more cordial and constructive than it had been in recent years. Still, I sincerely doubt the House Republicans will budge in their opposition to raising revenue.
Meanwhile, in December, the Obama administration decided not to press its main advantage, which was the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The drama over the so-called fiscal cliff at the end of last year was the right moment to put additional revenue on the table; this happened, but only to a small and insufficient degree.
At the hearing, Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is vice chairman of the committee, said Medicare should be able to negotiate the price of prescription medicine, which could save hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. This idea will soon be gaining traction. How could any reasonable person keep this off the current budget table (unless they work for Big Pharma)?
More broadly, we need to confront and limit health-care costs (not just Medicare and Medicaid). Cutting government support for health care and shifting the burden onto families will have one clear and unavoidable impact: less care and less good care for poor people and their children.
The U.S. needs a strong defense. And that includes helping a generation out of poverty, up the education ladder, and into the middle class.
We must look at how the world is changing and recognize threats, including those from North Korea, Iran and terrorism (including the cyber kind). We need the government to help organize and pay for our protection, and that includes our data networks.
But we must also address the poverty all around us. Income inequality has increased over the past three decades. Many families thought they were making sensible decisions for the future, only to see their jobs move overseas and their human capital lose value. The housing boom-bust and recent recession have exacerbated these problems. The social-insurance system is already stretched very thin.
Cost Shifting
Shifting health care costs from the government to the private sector doesn’t help anyone. I agree with the Congressional Budget Office that doing so would probably increase overall health-care costs (as a percentage of gross domestic product and as a percentage of your total income). The effect of raising the Medicare eligibility age to 66 or 67, from 65, would be similar -- creating a new group of people, ages 65 or 66, who can get insurance only at a high price.
Americans need to have a more honest and open conversation about what we want to achieve as a nation -- and how to use our government’s fiscal policy, in a responsible manner, to reach these goals.
Congress should end the sequestration and replace it with a more sensible process of determining how big the federal government should be (in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP) and how to pay for that.
(Simon Johnson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is co-author of “White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You [ http://www.amazon.com/White-House-Burning-Founding-National/dp/0307906965 ].” The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Simon Johnson at sjohnson@mit.edu
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net
*
More from Simon Johnson:
Higher Bank Equity Is in the Public Interest
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-03/why-higher-bank-equity-is-in-the-public-interest.html
A Valuable U.S. Export: Banking Regulations
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-17/a-valuable-u-s-export-banking-regulations.html
Don’t Be Afraid of China
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/don-t-be-afraid-of-china.html
*
©2013 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-17/america-s-latest-phony-fiscal-crisis.html [with comments]
--
Grover and the Bathtub
By Barry Levinson
Posted: 03/14/2013 5:56 pm
I spoke with Dr. R.H Flutes again, who heads up the Lying Institute of America. For those not familiar with the good doctor, he has schooled hundreds of politicians both on the local and the national level to help them refine their lying skills. Paul Ryan got a personal gold star from the institute after he was named Liar of the Year 2012. Governor Rick Perry was a good student for a while, but suddenly he developed memory loss and couldn't remember all his lies. Anyway, the following is a transcript of my conversation with Dr. R.H. Flutes.
Q: How do you evaluate the political lying these days?
Dr. RH Flutes: Well, lying has entered a new phase.
Q: I don't understand, are you saying lying is evolving?
Dr. RH Flutes: Well, the new age tactic is to devalue the English language. It's more sophisticated.
Q: Can you be more specific?
Dr. RH Flutes: Well, an example: Grover Norquist, who was the forerunner of devalued English, continues to lead the charge in the 21st century. He continues to say his goal is to shrink government and then drown it in the bathtub. But what he is really saying is I want a revolution, I want to overturn this democracy and create a new government.
Q: Isn't he just using that term as a metaphor?
Dr. RH Flutes: What is the metaphor? He said he wants to kill the government in a bathtub. The only substitute is overturn the government. He is a revolutionary like Lenin or Mao. He doesn't believe in the system. He just doesn't want to say it with as much clarity as they did.
Q: What's the reason for that?
Dr. RH Flutes: Because you can't get on talk shows if you're a self-proclaimed revolutionary. You have to devalue the language. Make what you say confusing. Because sometimes people think that confusing language is a sign of intelligence.
Q: But Doctor, he just wants to lower taxes.
Dr. RH Flutes: If you just want to lower taxes is it necessary to drown the government in a bathtub? Simply say you want a lower tax code. Period. Drown the tax code, if you will. But he wants to drown the government of the United States. Kill what the founding fathers fought for.
Q: Don't you think you're over stating his goals?
Dr. RH Flutes: No. He states his goals in devalued English. That way he remains respectable. Let me ask you a question: Norquist says he is trying to change the tone in the state capitals and turn them toward bitterness and partisanship. How do you interpret that? I'll tell you. He doesn't believe in a democracy because it's obvious that he does not believe in an exchange of ideas. A democracy is based on the power of the people. He doesn't believe in the people. What he is saying in using devalued English is I want absolute power and I have contempt for those who don't agree. He uses the idea of state legislators as the shield for what he really wants. He wants power, control. Devalue the language, my friend. Make it murky. Remove clarity. Get attention. It's the new form of lying.
Q: But he is respected for the most part.
Dr. RH Flutes: Here is another quote from him: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." Actually, he took that from Dick Armey.
Q: Well that doesn't make any sense.
Dr. RH Flutes: No kidding. But it is a flavorable use of words. Let me put it to you another way -- let's say his name is not Grover Norquist. He is a black man, or a Latino, or for that matter any minority and he says (as Norquist did [ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist ]), "Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not enough to win. It has to be a painful, devastating defeat. Like when the king would take his opponents head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." If you were any of those minorities, they would lock you up and throw away the key. Devalued language requires white respectability.
Q: All these vitriolic statements because he is opposed to taxes?
Dr. RH Flutes: No, you keep missing the point. It is not only about taxes. He is opposed to this government. The U.S. government. He is a new kind of revolutionary. A 21st-century revolutionary.
Q: And he didn't attend the Lying Institute of America?
Dr. RH Flutes: No, he was tutored by a great nephew of P.T. Barnum.
Q: You mean, "There's a sucker born every minute" type of concept?
Dr. RH Flutes: I met with the great nephew. He was an old man. And he was depressed by the direction Grover took. And that he had become so unpatriotic.
Q: Well, what did he think he was going to be?
Dr. RH Flutes: He thought he could have been the greatest snake oil salesman that ever was.
Q: So if you drown the government in the bathtub, what do we have?
Dr. RH Flutes: The Kingdom of Grover Norquist.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/grover-and-the-bathtub_b_2879088.html [with comments]
--
In the South and West, a Tax on Being Poor
By KATHERINE S. NEWMAN
March 9, 2013, 2:30 pm
BALTIMORE
Debates over the fairness of the tax code are as old as the federal income tax itself. A cornerstone of the tax — established a century ago, by the 16th Amendment — has been the principle that those who make more should pay more, while lower tax rates help the poor to support their families and depend less on government benefits.
That social compact shifted into high gear during the Nixon administration, which tried to incentivize work by rewarding low-income households with a tax break that became the nation’s most successful antipoverty tool ever: the earned-income tax credit. Politicians of both parties have embraced the credit, making it more progressive three times since it was enacted in 1975.
While the federal government has largely stuck by the principle of progressive taxation, the states have gone their own ways: tax policy is particularly regressive in the South and West, and more progressive in the Northeast and Midwest. When it comes to state and local taxation, we are not one nation under God. In 2008, the difference between a working mother in Mississippi and one in Vermont — each with two dependent children, poverty-level wages and identical spending patterns — was $2,300.
These regional disparities go back to Reconstruction, when Southern Republicans increased property taxes on defeated white landowners and former slaveholders to pay for the first public services — education, hospitals, roads — ever provided to black citizens. After Reconstruction ended in 1877, conservative Democrats — popularly labeled “the Redeemers” — rolled taxes back to their prewar levels and inserted supermajority clauses into state constitutions to ensure it could never happen again. Property taxes were frozen; income taxes were held down; corporate taxes were almost nonexistent.
Practically the only tax that could rise was the one that hurt the poor the most: the sales tax. And rise it did, throughout the Deep South in the late 19th century, then spreading into the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and the rest of the region in the 1960s and 1970s. Even liberal politicians weren’t able to buck the tide — just ask Bill Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas urgently sought new revenue to improve his state’s ailing schools and found the sales tax was the only politically viable option.
If this were just a history lesson, we could set it aside. It isn’t. In the last 30 years, these trends have only gotten worse. Southern states have steadily increased the tax burden on their poorest citizens by shifting the support of the public sector to sales taxes and fees for public services. After California voters passed Proposition 13, which capped property-tax increases, in 1978, Western states began to move in a similar direction. Sales taxes on clothing and school supplies and fees for bus fare and car registration take up, of course, a far bigger slice of a poor household’s budget than they do from the rich.
Over the same 30-year period, some Northeastern and Midwestern states moved in the opposite direction. They mimicked the federal government by passing their own earned-income tax credits (and making them refundable, as the federal government has done, so that very low-income earners get a check after filing their returns), preserved progressive state income-tax rates, and either exempted food and other basics from sales taxes or gave sales-tax rebates to low-income households. No Southern state provides refunds to its poor citizens through the tax code, no matter how little they earn.
There are many reasons to worry about the growing regional divide. But even leaving aside basic fairness — why should a poor child in the Northeast have greater life chances than one in the South? — the divergence exacerbates poverty itself, driving households deeper into distress and lowering social mobility.
For a book published in 2011, my colleague Rourke L. O’Brien and I analyzed the combined burden of sales tax, state and local income taxes on poor households in 49 states, based on consumer expenditures, from 1982 to 2008. (We omitted Alaska because it offers oil-revenue-related rebates to every household). We looked at the relationship between the total tax burden on a poor family of three and state-level figures for mortality, morbidity, teenage childbearing, dropping out of high school, property crime and violent crime.
It turns out that after factoring out all other explanations — like racial composition, poverty rates, the amount spent on education or health care, the size of the state’s economy, existing inequality levels, and differences in the cost of living — the relationship between taxing the poor and negative outcomes like premature death persisted. For every $100 increase on taxes at the poverty line, we saw an additional 7 deaths and 78 property crimes per 100,000 people, and a quarter of a percentage point decrease in high school completion.
Southern states have far higher rates of strokes, heart disease and infant mortality than the rest of the country. Students drop out of high school in larger numbers. These outcomes are not just a consequence of a love of fried food or higher poverty levels. Holding all those conditions constant, the poor of the South — and increasingly the West — do worse because their states tax them more heavily. They have less money to buy medication, so their health problems get worse. High sales taxes make meals more expensive, so they shift to cheaper, unhealthy food. If people can’t make ends meet, they may turn to the underground economy or to crime.
This self-defeating pattern has plagued the citizens of the “meaner states,” the ones that tax poor people at a higher rate, for a long time. But it is about to get worse. Governors in fiscally strapped states are hoping to roll back state earned-income tax credits. Some — like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Dave Heineman of Nebraska and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma — are aiming to cut or even eliminate state income and corporate taxes and raise sales taxes. North Carolina lawmakers are considering the same thing.
Proponents say these moves will make their states more economically competitive, bring back jobs, and attract high-income residents. But economists who have studied the impact of raising taxes on residential choices have found that tax rates don’t make much of a difference. Employers represent a different story: they are attracted to low-tax states, particularly if they don’t need high-skilled labor. Accordingly, low-wage job opportunities have grown in the Cotton Belt and the Sun Belt, and shrunk in the Rust Belt. There is something to be said for this, if the goal is to replace the nonworking poor with the working poor. But this is hardly a strategy for eradicating poverty itself.
The fact is, the more the poor are taxed, the worse off they are, whether they are working or not. We all pay a huge price for this shortsightedness. Medicaid payments, food stamps, disability benefits — all of these federal programs swoop in to try to patch up a frayed safety net. Consequently, the Southern states reap more dollars in federal benefits than they pay in taxes (like Mississippi, which saw a net gain of $240 billion between 1990 and 2009), while the wealthier states — which do more to take care of their own — lose out for every dollar they pay (like New Jersey, which handed over a net of $706 billion over that same period). As noble as the federal effort to rescue the poor in the “mean states” may be, it is not enough to reverse the impact of regressive taxation.
There is a better way: increasing taxes on luxury goods; exempting necessities like food, medicine and children’s clothing from sales taxes; and perhaps most important, issuing tax rebates and preserving refundable earned-income tax credits, which put more money in the hands of low-income households. Since poor families tend to spend all of what they take in, these protections would stimulate the economy and preserve, or even expand, the job base.
The states headed in the opposite direction are not only damaging the most vulnerable of their citizens, but exacting a significant toll on Americans in states with more progressive tax policies. We all pay for the damage done when states try to solve their fiscal problems, or score ideological points, on the backs of the poor.
Katherine S. Newman [ http://krieger.jhu.edu/about/leadership/newman.html ], a professor of sociology and the dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, is the author [ http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520269675 ], with Rourke L. O’Brien, of “Taxing the Poor: Doing Damage to the Truly Disadvantaged [ http://www.amazon.com/Taxing-Poor-Damage-Disadvantaged-Wildavsky/dp/0520269675 ].”
*
The Great Divide is a series about inequality.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/
*
Related Posts from Opinionator
The Hidden Prosperity of the Poor
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/the-hidden-prosperity-of-the-poor/
To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/to-beat-back-poverty-pay-the-poor/
Who Is Poor?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/who-is-poor/
Dependents of the State
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/dependents-of-the-state/
Downton and Downward
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/downton-and-downward/
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/in-the-south-and-west-a-tax-on-being-poor/ [with comments]
--
Joe Walsh: Americans 'Stupid' And 'Lazy,' Ex-Illinois Tea Party Congressman Says
In this Nov. 15, 2011 file photo former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
Posted: 03/12/2013 3:19 pm EDT | Updated: 03/12/2013 7:14 pm pm EDT
During a nearly two-hour talk Sunday, long-time Tea Party favorite former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh made, surprise!, an incendiary remark that Americans have grown "stupid," "lazy" and "easily manipulated" when it comes to politics.
Speaking Sunday at a "Freedom Movement" town hall event at the Living Waters Assembly of God church in Grayslake, Ill. Walsh, who was defeated by Democrat Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 8th congressional district last fall, Walsh spoke out against American politics and being "politically correct." Video of his address was first picked up by Raw Story [ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/former-rep-joe-walsh-the-american-people-are-stupid-and-lazy/ ].
About 28 minutes into the clip [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Coji3NX80 ] (embedded above), Walsh discussed the Tea Party as representing "the other side" … at war with the two major political parties.
"The American people have grown stupid, we’ve grown uninterested, we’ve gotten busy, we’re distracted, we’re lazy and we’re easily manipulated," Walsh continued. "Again, I can sit with you and have a beer and I can tell you about how idiotic most of our politicians are."
Wonkette [ http://wonkette.com/505813/bitter-defeated-ex-congressman-joe-walsh-explains-at-americans-that-they-are-stupid-losers ] and the Daily Kos [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/12/1193487/-Great-quotes-from-history-or-something-to-that-effect ] later picked up the clip, wherein Walsh went on to pan "mainstream" media as "terrible" and laud talk radio -- coincidence [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/joe-walsh-radio-show-tea-_n_2820892.html ]? -- for offering an alternative.
Walsh launched a super PAC earlier this year "to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives to Karl Rove [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/joe-walsh-super-pac-karl-rove_n_2622785.html ]." He's also hinted at both a possible Senate [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/joe-walsh-senate_n_2295063.html ] and Illinois gubernatorial [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/joe-walsh-governor-illino_n_2273056.html ] run.
Last month, the ex-congressman filed a request for his remaining child support obligations to be drastically reduced [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/joe-walsh-child-support-unemployed_n_2665240.html ] due to his employment (in Congress) being "terminated through no voluntary act of his own."
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/joe-walsh-americans-stupid-lazy_n_2861750.html [with pertinent excerpt of the embedded YouTube included above also embedded, and comments]
--
Pat Boone Calls Obama a Marxist, Says He Was on White House 'Enemies List'
Pat Boone
Jason Merritt/Getty Images
The legendary singer calls the media oblivious and lobs accusations of radicalism at the president during a Fox Business interview.
by Jordan Zakarin
1:41 PM PDT 3/14/2013
It's safe to assume that Pat Boone did not vote for President Barack Obama's re-election.
The legendary pop/gospel singer and avowed conservative appeared on Fox Business News on Wednesday night, joining Neil Cavuto to give his expert opinion on the deficit fight and sequestration. Instead of fiscal wonkery, though, Boone reached back into the past several years of Tea Party rhetoric to accuse Obama of being a socialist, bent on destroying economic progress through policies advocated by Saul Alinsky.
"He is following his playbook, which is Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals," Boone charged. "This is the guy that trained him to be a community organizer, a Marxist, a socialist, a progressive, who wrote the rules for doing what Mr. Obama is doing."
After Cavuto suggested that he differed with Boone on that accusation, the singer doubled down.
"He has a plan, he thinks it’s good for America -- a virtually socialist nation in which nobody gets rich, government is in charge of everything," he said.
Cavuto suggested, jokingly, that Obama was individually targeting Boone, to which the singer responded that he was, indeed, on the president's "enemies list" in 2009 -- a document published [ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2350981/posts ] by the tabloid The Globe.
Boone has long been a critic of Obama's, suggesting in the past [ http://www.salon.com/2009/06/29/boone_birther/ ] that he was a Kenyan Muslim, among other things.
Boone scored 18 Top 10 singles from 1955-62, including six No. 1s. Billboard ranks him as the No. 2 singles act of the 1950s, behind Elvis Presley.
©2013 The Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/pat-boone-calls-obama-a-428675 [with video of the Boone on Fox Business segment embedded (the above YouTube of same, located as the video is embedded in the original, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fleP9YXW5dk ), and comments]
*
([linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80058624 and preceding [and any future following])
--
CPAC 2013 - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Published on Mar 17, 2013 by The ACU
[speech given March 16, 2013]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lazhYw86-X8 [also at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU9SqWa2GRM ]
--
Can Victoria Jackson return from the fringe?
Actress Victoria Jackson takes part in a rally before a Republican presidential debate Monday, Sept. 12, 2011, in Tampa, Fla.
After blasting gays, Muslims and Obama, can SNL vet Victoria Jackson really return to Hollywood? She hopes so
Mar 10, 2013
Victoria Jackson’s career was nonexistent. So when the daffy blonde comedian who sang and strummed her ukulele through six silly seasons on “Saturday Night Live” decided to embrace her religious roots and become one of the zaniest and most incendiary Tea Party celebrities, well, she didn’t have a lot of other opportunities.
“I didn’t have anything to lose,” she says, from her home in the Miami area.
[...]
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/can_victoria_jackson_return_from_the_fringe/ [the YouTube, embedded, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKEz4kDpZjw ; with comments]
--
CPAC Straw Poll Results 2013: Rand Paul Wins Conservative Vote
03/17/2013
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, marking an early indicator of conservative support ahead of the next presidential election in 2016.
Paul topped the list and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) came in second, according [ https://twitter.com/tabloidhack/status/313038470442536961 ] to Ian Bishop.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) came in third place this year, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- who was notably not invited [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/cpac-donald-trump_n_2862940.html?utm_hp_ref=politics ] to this year's conference -- coming in fourth.
Paul received 25 percent of the vote, with Rubio in a close second with 23 percent. Santorum received eight percent, and Christie took seven percent of the vote.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/cpac-straw-poll-results-2013_n_2856972.html [with embedded video report, and (over 10,000) comments]
--
'Opposing Black Guy in the White House' Is 'Good Politics' for This South Carolina Medicaid Flip-Flopper
Alexander Abad-Santos 7,547 ViewsMar 13, 2013
"It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party," said Republican South Carolina House Member Kris Crawford in an interview about how he supported a Medicaid expansion despite his party affiliation. Now just guess what he did on Tuesday. Crawford voted on party lines and shot down a measure [ http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/12/2672341/sc-house-debates-medicaid-expansion.html ] which would have granted a three-year expansion of Medicaid for the uninsured — an amendment which would have extended taxpayer-funded health insurance to 500,000 more people [ http://www.thestate.com/2013/03/12/2672341/sc-house-debates-medicaid-expansion.html ]. (And you thought the governors had been having trouble on this issue [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/what-medicaid-loving-gop-governors-have-common/62393/ ].) Of course, now Crawford is going to have to delicately explain why he said what he said, did what he did, and not try to sound like he's pandering to racists and politics.
The dilemma facing Crawford, who was convicted of tax evasion in November [ http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=826405 ], stems from a January 29 interview with the Charleston Regional Business Journal [ http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/46590-s-c-doctors-urge-lawmakers-to-expand-medicaid-eligibility ]. The piece was a rather unexciting story on how there might be a few Republicans, like Crawford, who would support a measure for Medicaid expansion in the state. These are two key sentences from that interview:
Rep. Kris Crawford, a Republican from Florence and also an emergency room doctor, supports the expansion but expects the Republican caucus to vote as a block against the Medicaid expansion.
“The politics are going to overwhelm the policy. It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party,” Crawford said.
So, to be clear, Crawford was for this measure a little over a month ago, but said there would be Republicans who would vote against what appears to be an Obama/Democrat initiative just because of the "good" optics of voting against President Obama... because of his race. Now, Crawford looks like one of those Republicans he spoke about, and hasn't released a statement (yet) explaining his vote. Although shutting up might be the best idea right now.
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/opposing-black-guy-white-house-kris-crawford/63053/ [with comments]
--
Assemblyman Is Charged With Marijuana Possession
State Assemblyman Stephen M. Katz, a Republican from Mohegan Lake, N.Y., said an episode with the State Police this week was "unfortunate."
Ángel Franco/The New York Times
By THOMAS KAPLAN
Published: March 15, 2013
A New York State assemblyman from the Hudson Valley was charged with marijuana possession after he was stopped for speeding, the authorities said on Friday.
The assemblyman, Stephen M. Katz [ http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Steve-Katz ], 59, a Republican from Mohegan Lake, was found with a “small bag” of marijuana when stopped on Thursday, the State Police said in a statement [ https://www.nyspnews.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29600 ]. Assemblyman Katz was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana [open related link in the original via the source link below, iHub auto-formatting for symbols messes it up here], a violation that is punishable by a fine of up to $100.
In a statement, Mr. Katz said the episode was “unfortunate.”
“This should not overshadow the work I have done over the years for the public and my constituency,” he said, adding, “I am confident that once the facts are presented that this will quickly be put to rest.”
Mr. Katz, who was first elected in 2010, represents a district [ http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Steve-Katz/map/ ] that includes parts of Putnam and Westchester Counties. As a Republican in the Assembly, which Democrats control, he is not especially influential, but he has made a name for himself as one of the more outspoken state legislators. (This week, for instance, he enraged fans of the Buffalo Bills [ http://blogs.buffalonews.com/politics_now/2013/03/state-money-to-bills-generates-assembly-floor-tussle.html ] by questioning the use of state money to entice the team to stay in New York.)
Mr. Katz has had previous troubles. A veterinarian by trade, he was once accused of illegally disposing of a dead German shepherd [ http://www.cityandstateny.com/veterinarian-assemblyman-arrested-putting-dead-canine-dumpster/ ], and another time of allegedly attacking a Chihuahua he was treating. Both times, he said, he was exonerated.
On Thursday, Mr. Katz was pulled over around 10 a.m. after he was detected driving 80 miles per hour on the New York State Thruway in Coeymans, south of Albany, where the speed limit is 65 m.p.h. The State Police said the trooper who approached his car noticed the smell of marijuana, and then found Mr. Katz to be in possession of the drug.
Mr. Katz was released on an appearance ticket and is due in court on March 28.
The assemblyman, who is a member of the chamber’s Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse [ http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?sec=mem&id=3 ], voted against a bill last year that would have legalized medical marijuana [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html ].
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/nyregion/assemblyman-stephen-katz-charged-with-marijuana-possession.html
--
Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll resigns amid state, federal probe of non-profit veterans group
In this Jan. 11, 2012 file photo, Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll speaks during Florida Space Center day at the Florida House of Representatives in Tallahassee, Fla. Carroll resigned in the wake of a federal gambling racketeering case.
(AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, File)
By Tia Mitchell
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
Posted on Thursday, 03.14.13
TALLAHASSEE -- Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll abruptly resigned Tuesday after law enforcement officials questioned her about ties to a purported veterans charity organization at the center of a $300 million multi-state racketeering investigation.
Florida law enforcement officials would not say if Carroll, 53, is facing possible criminal charges in connection with the case. Gov. Rick Scott also would not comment. Scott said he would not name Carroll’s replacement until the end of the annual legislative session in May.
“She resigned, and she did the right thing for her state and for her family,” Scott said.
At issue is Carroll’s connections to Allied Veterans of the World, a Florida nonprofit that operates a chain of Internet sweepstakes cafes as a pseudo-charity. Nearly 60 people associated with the company were arrested this week on various charges, including illegal gambling, racketeering and money laundering.
Carroll owned a public relations firm that represented Allied Veterans, and as a member of the Florida House of Representatives, did work for the company. She later filmed an advertisement promoting Allied Veterans while serving as lieutenant governor.
Carroll resigned in a two-sentence letter after meeting with the governor’s chief of staff, Adam Hollingsworth, and general counsel Pete Antonacci. She did not meet with Scott.
It’s a quick and remarkable fall for someone who had been seen as important figure in the Florida Republican Party.
Born in Trinidad, Carroll, a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, was the first African-American Republican woman elected to the Legislature and the first African-American woman elected lieutenant governor. She was considered a favorite to be named Charlie Crist’s lieutenant governor in 2006 before Scott selected her four years later.
She was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2012 and led a task force studying Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws. She could not be reached Wednesday.
“Lt. Gov. Carroll resigned yesterday in an effort to keep her former affiliations with the company from distracting from our important work on behalf of Florida families,” Scott said. “We appreciate her willingness to step up and serve our state. She was a tireless advocate for Florida’s military and our mission to create more jobs. We are grateful for her service.”
Carroll attended Scott’s March 5 State of the State address but did not speak. Her last major public remarks came March 3, where she spoke at a dinner honoring Scott sponsored by the Florida Federation of Republican Women.
Her official calendar for Wednesday — which was released Tuesday evening — listed no public events.
The investigation into Allied Veterans started in 2009, according to law enforcement officials, who said Allied Veterans tried to scheme and defraud the public and governmental agencies by misrepresenting how much of its proceeds were donated to charities affiliated with Veterans Administration.
So far, nearly 60 people have been arrested in 23 Florida counties.
Carroll’s public relations firm, 3 N. and J.C. Corporation, is currently inactive, according to the Florida Division of Corporations. But the company’s primary source of income in 2009 and 2010 was Allied Veterans, financial disclosure forms show.
While serving in the state House in 2010, Carroll introduced legislation to legalize sweepstakes games such as those in cafes operated by Allied Veterans. Carroll later withdrew the proposed law, saying it was filed erroneously and that she wasn’t interested in legalizing Internet cafes, which operate in a legal gray area.
Internet sweepstakes cafes are big business in Florida. Since 2007, as many as 1,000 have popped up across the state, according to industry estimates, raking in $1 billion a year.
To play games at one of the Internet cafes, a customer gets a prepaid card and then goes to a computer to play "sweepstakes." The games, with spinning wheels similar to slot machines, have names such as "Captain Cash," ’’Lucky Shamrocks" and "Money Bunny," according to the IRS. Winners go back to a cashier with their cards and cash out. The games of chance have been the subject of much debate in Florida and some are legal as long as most of the profits are donated to charity.
Allied is a big player in Florida. In 2011, it had 40 locations statewide. Allied has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on state lobbyists.
Carroll’s time as lieutenant governor has not been without controversy.
Former travel aide Carletha Cole said she was fired in 2011 after complaining about Carroll in the media. Cole, who was later charged with sharing an illegal recording, said she once walked in on Carroll and a female staffer engaged in what appeared to be a sex act. The governor’s office has described Cole’s allegations as “outrageous.”
Carroll’s travel as lieutenant governor also has been an issue. Scott’s office placed Carroll on a $10,000-a-month fixed travel budget after her travel costs ballooned to nearly $300,000 in 2011.
With Scott’s consent, Carroll also was assigned for protection a lower-ranking and less-expensive corporal from the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
*
Gov. Rick Scott on Carroll resignation:
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDh55JXvGAc (embedded)]
*
Related Content
Internet cafe campaign cash flooded state capitol, lawmakers’ coffers
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/14/v-fullstory/3286730/legislators-race-to-distance-themselves.html
Internet cafe probe snags dozens, could doom industry in Florida
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3284531/internet-cafe-probe-snags-dozens.html
Key lawmaker calls for shutdown of Internet cafes
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3283676/key-lawmaker-calls-for-shutdown.html
Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll was already political liability for Gov. Rick Scott
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3283656/lt-gov-jennifer-carroll-was-political.html
PolitiFact: Fact-checks by and about Jennifer Carroll
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=jennifer+carroll
A look back at Carroll's political and family life
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/09/1917888/for-the-carroll-family-competition.html
*
Copyright 2013 Miami Herald Media Co.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/3283274/lt-gov-jennifer-carroll-resigns.html [ http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/13/v-fullstory/3283274/lt-gov-jennifer-carroll-resigns.html ] [with comments]]
===
The GOP's Real Agenda
Illustration by Victor Juhasz
Since last fall, Republicans have pretended to be more moderate - but their politics are harsher and more destructive than ever
By Tim Dickinson
March 13, 2013 1:45 PM ET
After watching voters punish the GOP in the 2012 elections, Republican elites have been talking a brave game about reforms that would make the party less repulsive to Latinos, women and gay-friendly millennials. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the GOP's hip-hop-quoting young standard-bearer, is pressing conservatives to back an amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Dozens of party stalwarts, headlined by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, renounced their opposition to gay marriage in a Supreme Court brief. GOP bigwigs have even launched New Republican – a group modeled after Bill Clinton's centrist Democratic Leadership Council – which seeks to rebrand the party as "colorblind," "not anti-government" and dedicated to "ending corporate welfare."
Don't be fooled. On the ground, a very different reality is unfolding: In the Republican-led Congress, GOP-dominated statehouses and even before the nation's highest court, the reactionary impulses of the Republican Party appear unbowed. Across the nation, the GOP's severely conservative agenda – which seeks to impose job-killing austerity, to roll back voting and reproductive rights, to deprive the working poor of health care, and to destroy agencies that protect the environment from industry and consumers from predatory banks – is moving forward under full steam.
The hardcore rump of the party is even working to punish moderate outliers like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – the party's most popular leader – who was denied a speaking role at the conservative movement's annual convention, CPAC. Today's GOP may desperately need to remake itself as "culturally modern, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive," argues David Frum, a veteran of the George W. Bush White House, but it remains, he says, in the throes of a "Tea Party tantrum."
As it works to lock in as many retrograde policies as possible before it finally chooses to either modernize or die, the Republican Party is like a wounded beast: Rarely has it been more dangerous.
THE DEFICIT: HYSTERICAL AUSTERITY
In the Tea Party narrative, president Obama is a reckless socialist spending America into oblivion. In reality, the president has governed like an old-school Republican. Despite having taken heroic measures to rescue the economy in 2009, Obama has presided over the slowest expansion of federal spending since Eisenhower – and repeatedly offered to help Republicans slash the social safety net as part of a "grand bargain" that would restore the nation to fiscal balance.
Thanks to a rebounding tax base and the nearly $1 trillion in budget cuts that both parties agreed to in the first phase of the debt-ceiling deal, the deficit, entering 2013, was shrinking at a faster clip than at any time since the peace dividend after WWII. Federal outlays on both guns and butter were on a path to hit postwar lows as a percentage of gross domestic product by the end of Obama's second term.
But for anti-government Republicans, simple belt-tightening isn't enough. Since 2009, the party has fetishized the kind of draconian cuts to social services that have been practiced in Europe in recent years – and that have failed spectacularly to revive economies there. And today, with the imposition of the sequester – $1.2 trillion in across-the-board budget cuts divided between domestic and military expenditures – the Republicans have finally succeeded in bringing shock-and-awe austerity to America.
The sequester was born of Republican recklessness – a fixture of the debt-reduction package that the House GOP secured in 2011 after threatening to push the United States into default. In theory, neither party wanted these cuts. They were designed to be so politically toxic that lawmakers would be forced to work out a smarter mix of new revenue and targeted spending reductions.
During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that opened 2013, President Obama laid out a fix to the sequester mess, limiting domestic and defense spending cuts to $200 billion. He sought to make up the difference by leveraging government purchasing power to reap $400 billion in health-care savings and banked another $200 billion by ending waste in farm subsidies and other "mandatory" spending. Obama rounded out his proposal by demanding sacrifice both from the wealthiest – limiting tax deductions and loopholes for the rich – and from future retirees, trimming Social Security payouts by adjusting the way Washington measures inflation. Twenty years ago, this is the kind of self-negotiated proposal that might have been floated by Republican Sen. Bob Dole. But the party of Eric Cantor and John Boehner reacted as if it had been proposed by Hugo Chávez.
The GOP House's counterproposal lurched into even greater Tea Party extremism. A budget bill passed in December by the House would have protected defense contractors by restoring all Pentagon spending and delivered the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction on the broken backs and empty stomachs of low-income Americans – hollowing out social programs, decimating food-stamp benefits, even abolishing Meals on Wheels for hundreds of thousands of hungry seniors. Speaker Boehner praised his caucus for endorsing these "common-sense cuts."
Underscoring the priorities of today's GOP, their plan also contained a huge giveaway to reckless Wall Street speculators by eliminating the funding necessary for the government to shutter huge financial institutions. The bill also would have given Congress the ability to zero out the budget for the hated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency brought to life by Elizabeth Warren that protects homeowners and credit-card holders from the abuses of predatory lenders.
As a result of the GOP's refusal to negotiate in good faith, America is now being subjected to austerity-by-a-thousand-cuts. Budgetary sadists like Paul Ryan will delight in the sequester's blows to vital anti-poverty programs: $285 million a year from heating assistance to keep the poor from freezing to death in their own homes. Another $543 million will be cut from nutrition assistance – throwing as many as 750,000 at-risk kids and moms out of the WIC program. California and Texas alone likely will be forced to lay off more than 2,000 teachers – leaving some 350,000 students in the lurch. Tens of thousands of preschoolers will be kicked out of Head Start.
Yet for all the pain they cause, these cuts will do little to balance the budget. As Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testified to Congress, "If you slow the economy, that hurts your revenues, and that means your deficit reduction is not as big as you think it is." Worse for a nation still mired in eight percent unemployment, Bernanke said, "This will cost a lot of jobs in the short run." The impact is particularly brutal for jurisdictions whose economies are dependent on federal and military contracts. Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., are poised to lose a combined 450,000 jobs – double the losses projected for a megastate like California.
Some Republicans have attempted to blame the president for the pain caused by the "Obamaquester." But for the big bosses of the conservative movement, the true problem is that its cuts don't go far enough. Pointing to a right-wing think tank slamming the sequester as "insignificant," the GOP's anti-tax Svengali, Grover Norquist, snarked, "Ouch. Ouch. I cannot stand these 'meat cleaver' cuts in sequestration. Chain-saw massacre stuff."
TAX CUTS: STARVE THE STATES
Controlling only one-half of Congress, the Republicans can do little more than play defense by creating a deadlock in Washington. But with 24 statehouses now run by Republican governors and GOP-majority legislatures, the party is turning the states into laboratories for radical conservative governance.
In recent years, the GOP has sent talent from Congress back home to pursue its cruel economic agenda. From Louisiana to Kansas to Indiana, Republican governors with congressional pedigrees are working to slash state income and corporate taxes that hit the wealthiest – often calling on the working poor to make up the difference by paying higher sales taxes. In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence – until 2010 the number-three Republican in the House leadership – has asked the legislature to squander a rare surplus by passing an "across-the-board tax cut" that heavily favors the rich: Twenty-eight percent of benefits would go to the top five percent of earners. One in three low-income Hoosiers would see no tax cut at all.
In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to abolish income and corporate taxes – financing the giveaway by increasing the flat tax on purchases. Jindal claims the proposal "will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families." That's a lie. Taxes on the poorest 20 percent would rise nearly $400 a year in order to lower taxes on the top one percent by $25,000.
In Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, a former U.S. senator, is trying to pull off the same boondoggle with the backing of powerful allies – the billionaire Koch brothers, whose Koch Industries is based in Wichita, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, a corporate front group that pushes right-wing policy across state legislatures. Brownback began his tax-cutting in 2012 by eliminating the state business tax and slashing the state income tax, promising that these cuts would act like "a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy."
Instead, the state is on track to pile up $2.5 billion in debt by 2018, yet Brownback is still calling on the legislature to whittle away at income tax rates – which he declares are on a "glide path to zero" – even if that requires higher sales taxes. Thanks to the Koch brothers, Brownback enjoys a rubber-stamp legislature. Koch campaign cash in the past election put hardcore conservatives in control of both chambers; a board member of ALEC is now speaker of the Kansas House. If Brownback's latest cuts go forward, Kansas' $6 billion general fund will have been slashed by $1.1 billion a year, giving millionaires a tax cut of $28,000. "The magical growth model that the governor talks about only exists for the wealthiest Kansans who benefit from his tax plan," said Terry Forsyth, president of the Working Kansas Alliance.
VOTING RIGHTS: RIG THE SYSTEM
Republicans are painfully aware that a demographic tide has turned against them and that even turnout-suppressing voter-ID laws couldn't block the re-election of a Democrat to the White House in 2012. So party officials have become even more audacious in their plans to steal elections – this time by rigging the Electoral College itself.
The Electoral College is almost exclusively winner-take-all: The top popular vote-getter in Florida, for example, receives all 29 electoral votes. To benefit future GOP nominees, however, Republicans from blue-trending battleground states are seeking to divvy up their states' Electoral College bounty. These ploys are nothing more than dirty politics – and even GOP leaders admit it. "It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," said Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, making clear that the strategy to reapportion Electoral College votes is appropriate only for strategically important swing states, not for Texas or Georgia.
In Pennsylvania, Republicans have introduced a bill to split Electoral College votes proportionally – a plan that would have robbed Obama of eight of the state's 20 votes in 2012. In Michigan, the state GOP has endorsed a plan to award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. Because those districts were themselves gerrymandered by Republican politicians, this plan would have awarded Mitt Romney a majority of the Electoral College votes from Michigan – a state he lost by nearly 10 percent.
These state measures pale in comparison with a case now being weighed by the Supreme Court. Conservatives are hoping to nullify a bedrock provision of the Voting Rights Act, the law that brought democracy to the American South. "Section 5" of the 1965 law – renewed almost unanimously by Congress in 2006 – gives the Justice Department oversight of elections and redistricting in nine mostly Southern states. The suit is backed by the Koch-founded Cato Institute, which declared in a friend-of-the-court brief that "three generations of federal intrusion have been more than enough to kill Jim Crow.?.?.?. Without the threat of federal interference, would state legislatures feel free to engage in mischief? It seems wildly improbable, even in the Deep South."
During oral arguments in February, the hard-right majority on the Supreme Court appeared receptive to this line of attack – which is not surprising. As a young attorney in the Reagan Justice Department, the current chief justice, John Roberts, wrote legal briefs challenging the constitutionality of the VRA. And in the February proceedings, Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia slammed the law that guarantees the franchise to all Americans as a "racial entitlement."
The recent history of the Deep South proves that racially discriminatory mischief is still with us. In Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry decries Section 5 as having been "unconstitutionally extended," the Justice Department used the provision to block a voter-ID law that could have disenfranchised some 600,000 duly registered voters – most of them black and Latino. (The law endorsed a conceal-carry gun permit as acceptable ID for voting but deemed student and even state worker IDs invalid.)
The Lone Star State also violated the Voting Rights Act in its congressional redistricting. A panel of three federal judges decried the "discriminatory intent" displayed by state legislators who had carved job-creating commercial centers out of majority African-American districts and redrawn the lines of at least one Hispanic-dominant district to "strengthen the voting power of?.?.?. Anglo citizens."
GLOBAL WARMING: DENY, DENY, DENY
The Republican party also remains committed to violence against the environment. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over global-warming research, has been stacked with hardcore deniers like California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who once blamed climate change on "dinosaur flatulence," and Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, a creationist who blasts science – "all that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, big-bang theory" – as "lies straight from the pit of hell."
The committee is chaired by Texan Lamar Smith, who has taken more than $500,000 in oil money during his political career and recently received a $10,000 check from Koch Industries. In one of his first moves as chairman, Smith planned a hearing about giving global-warming skeptics a congressional platform in a House "review" of climate science – only to have it postponed because of a severe storm.
In the states, Kansas is poised to join Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas in passing ALEC-sponsored legislation mandating that schools teach the "scientific controversies" of climate science. In South Carolina, conservatives have suppressed publication for more than a year of a study predicting dire global-warming impacts in the state – which reportedly include flooded homes, shriveling wetlands, ocean dead zones, and an invasion of piranhas and Asian swamp eels. For his part, Sen. Rubio in Florida doubts whether humans are driving climate change and believes we should just let it ravage the planet in any case: "We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy," he said, "but it isn't going to change the weather."
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: DECLARE WAR ON WOMEN
In Republican politics, limited government ends at a woman's vagina. Early this year, the GOP-controlled legislature of Arkansas passed a bill outlawing abortion after just 12 weeks' gestation, a law "designed to dial the clock back 40 years," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. The measure was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, who decried it as "blatantly" unconstitutional – under Supreme Court precedent a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy before at least 22 weeks. But in March, the state legislature voted to override the veto, enacting the most restrictive abortion law in the nation – and setting up a certain court challenge that may tempt the Roberts court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.
Republican legislatures across the country are also pushing bills that would force a woman to be penetrated by a dildonic-ultrasound wand before she can legally terminate her pregnancy. A similar bill in Virginia last year became synonymous with the Republican party's "War on Women" – a PR fiasco that contributed to the loss of at least two Senate seats. But state Republicans are unabashed in supporting ultrasound mandates: "This bill is a priority," said Scott Fitzgerald, Republican state senate leader in Wisconsin. "It is long overdue."
In Indiana, lawmakers have sought to punish women seeking access to the abortion pill RU-486 by forcing them to undergo not one but two ultrasound penetrations. Public outcry forced the legislature to reduce the ultrasound mandate to one. "This bill is about politics, not women's health or safety," said Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "Statehouse politicians need to get out of our doctors' offices."
THE SAFETY NET: SCREW THE WORKING POOR
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obama-care last year also gave states the right to opt out of an expansion of Medicaid – the joint state-federal insurance program – to cover the working poor.
A few high-profile Republican governors, including Rick Scott of Florida and Christie in New Jersey, have embraced this Medicaid expansion as a sweetheart deal: The federal government will pay all costs for new enrollees for three years, ponying up 90 percent thereafter. But other GOP leaders who despise government are content to put the health of millions at risk rather than sacrifice ideology.
Rick Perry in Texas – who calls Social Security a "disease" – is refusing to expand Medicaid, claiming it would "threaten even Texas with financial ruin." In fact, Perry is looking a gift horse in the mouth. The feds would give the state $100 billion over a decade to cover nearly 2 million residents, while requiring just $15 billion in state matching funds. Perry's prominent peers include Govs. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who count among the nearly 20 GOP leaders who so far have refused to expand coverage.
*
Even the Republicans' best efforts to demonstrate that the party is moving forward have backfired. The Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, and Republican obstructionism blocked its reauthorization. After the election, GOP leaders were desperate to put the issue behind them. But to pass VAWA in February, Speaker Boehner had to suspend normal House rules, which require a majority of the majority party to pass a bill, and team up with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to reauthorize the law. In all, 160 House and Senate members voted against the act – all of them Republicans.
If this is the "new" Republican party, it looks even more radical than your father's, or even your grandfather's. A leading new face on the party's right flank – Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas – recalls a famous 1950s Republican right down to the crook in his nose. Channeling Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Cruz has declared Barack Obama to be "the most radical" president in our history, adding that Obama was educated at Harvard Law School by "Marxists" who, Cruz insists, "believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government."
It may be tempting to believe that danger posed by the GOP's lunatic fringe is cabined off in the House and the states of the Great Flyover. But 2014 is already looming, and vulnerable Democrats will be contesting Senate seats in red states from Alaska to Arkansas and Louisiana to South Dakota, as well as in hotly contested battlegrounds like Virginia and North Carolina. Flip just six seats, and the GOP will control Congress – and set the agenda of the last two years of the Obama administration. Here's hoping that when the next wave of Todd Akins or Richard Mourdocks charge onto the scene – mouthing off about "legitimate rape" or the latest Tea Party cause célèbre, that the American body politic has the good sense to shut that whole thing down.
This story is from the March 28th, 2013 issue of Rolling Stone.
*
Related
How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109 [at/see [linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69085167 and preceding and following]
*
Copyright ©2013 Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gops-real-agenda-20130313 [with comments]
--
CPAC Scott Terry at racism talk
Published on Mar 17, 2013 by Katy Jordan
Raw video: CPAC participant Scott Terry addresses K. Carl Smith, defending slavery as "food and shelter" given to African-Americans. Terry also calls for segregation during his remarks.
Video compiled during shooting for upcoming documentary, "Black Tea," an examination of the Tea Party by filmmaker Kevin Dotson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EGj5brWJp4
--
'White Student Union' Members Defend CPAC Segregation Comments
By Tyler Kingkade
Posted: 03/18/2013 10:20 am EDT | Updated: 03/18/2013 10:08 pm EDT
Two members of the White Student Union at Towson University [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/white-student-union-group-towson_n_1954262.html ] in Maryland aren't backing down after advocating for racial segregation and defending slavery [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/cpac-panel-on-race_n_2886132.html ] at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.
K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans was giving a presentation at CPAC about how Republicans could reach out more effectively to minorities. Scott Terry, a member of the White Student Union, began challenging Smith about the inclusion of blacks in the GOP's tent, in an exchange captured by the liberal blog ThinkProgress [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/15/1729331/cpac-slavery-minority-outreach/ ] that quickly spread around [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/16/cpac-panel-on-transcending-racist-label-breaks-down-into-verbal-chaos.html ] the Internet [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/tea-party-event-on-racial-tolerance-turns-to-chaos-as-white-supremacists-arrive.php ].
As seen in the video, Smith responds by citing a letter Frederick Douglass wrote in which he forgave his former owner. Terry interrupted and said, "For giving him shelter and food?" Several people in the audience gasp, though ThinkProgress notes there are also cheers. Terry muttered, "Why can't we just have segregation?" after the exchange, ThinkProgress reported.
When Smith mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/cpacs-trump-race-card-panel-derailed-actual-segregationist/63173/ ], the Atlantic Wire reports, White Student Union "founder and commander [ http://towsonwsu.blogspot.com/p/about-wsu.html ]" Matthew Heimbach interrupted that King was a "Marxist," and consequently not welcome.
After the exchange, Terry told The Guardian that he is a descendent of Confederate president Jefferson Davis [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/15/race-debate-cpac-slavery-slur ], and that he didn't totally disagree with slavery because it's a "complicated issue." He said, "I can't make one broad statement that categorically it was evil all the time because that's not true."
Terry later told The Blaze that some of his comments were being taken [ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/member-of-all-white-student-union-makes-stunningly-outrageous-comment-about-slavery-during-cpac-session/ ] out of context, and that he did not support slavery. However, when it comes to segregating by race, Terry said Americans should have "freedom of association."
Heimbach, who started the White Student Union, has been more confrontational in subsequent interviews.
"Diversity is not a strength," Heimbach told the Baltimore Sun [ http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/towson/bal-towson-student-advocates-for-segregation-at-cpac-event-20130316,0,2592318.story ], adding, "We're being displaced from our own country," in reference to immigration. He also told The Blaze [ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/member-of-all-white-student-union-makes-stunningly-outrageous-comment-about-slavery-during-cpac-session/ ] that the issue of "forced segregation" should be left to the states.
As The Huffington Post previously reported [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/white-student-union-group-towson_n_1954262.html ], Towson University has responded to Heimbach's student group with caution, neither endorsing it nor trying to shut it down. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the White Student Union a "hate group [ http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=MD ]."
Heimbach responded to the label, telling Slate [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/16/cpac_diary_meet_the_white_nationalists_who_ruined_everything.html ], "You look at the SPLC, as fake as they are, they talk about how patriot groups are increasing in the Obama era. With a black face in charge of the White House, of the federal government, we know it's foreign. We know something isn't right."
According to The Atlantic Wire, 23 members of the White Student Union attended [ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/03/cpacs-trump-race-card-panel-derailed-actual-segregationist/63173/ ] CPAC.
The White Student Union's website announced [ http://towsonwsu.blogspot.com/2013/03/towson-wsu-to-attend-cpac.html ] it would attend CPAC because the group claims the GOP's not conservative enough. "The Republican Establishment will be trotting out only the best and brightest to tell the white socially conservative working class base why they need to support homosexual marriage, corporatism, blank checks for Israel, and amnesty for criminal border jumpers," one blog post said.
WATCH [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfCX9sJqqc (next below, as embedded)]:
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/white-student-union-cpac_n_2897609.html [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
Tea Party Values, the Civil War and Race in Raleigh, NC
Published on Feb 18, 2013 by StoryofAmerica
http://www.storyofamerica.org/diane
Annabel Park spoke to Diane Rufino, leader of the Eastern North Carolina Tea Party, at the "Honor the Oath" rally at the State Capitol in Raleigh on 1/9/13.
Diane had drawn applause during her speech when she praised North Carolina's role during the Civil War, yet, she said that Rev. Dr. William Barber [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoo3GEfhPwo (next below)]
is wrong to remind us of historic struggles for racial equality in order to counter the TEA Party, and address modern day injustices. "Time to move on," she said.
Diane is eager to change the perception that the TEA Party and Republican party are dominated by white men. In her interview, she explained that catch phrases like "take our country back" do not imply going back to a time before the Civil Rights movement. Instead, she argued, TEA Party members and other conservatives want to go back to a time when there were "parameters."
"When was that?" Annabel asked. Diane's fascinating answer provides a window into the complexity and agony of TEA Party conservatives struggling to respond to changes in America.
After the interview, Annabel remarked that she really appreciated Diane's openness and willingness to engage her in dialogue. "Despite whatever differences we may have, I respect her strength and her spirit of engagement. I think it's critical to open up dialogue like this to heal America's divide."
Diane has blogged [ http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2012/11/13/secession-does-a-state-have-the-right-to-secede-from-the-union-2/ ] that her support for secession from the Union in response to Barack Obama's election has divided her home. "Even after hours of discussion and debate," she says of her husband, "he still believes that Lincoln was justified in invading the South. ...I guess you can say that we have a House divided at home now."
There is an epic political battle going on in North Carolina for the future direction of the state. What unfolds in this battleground state in the next year just may shape the story of America for years to come.
Often mentioned during a recent radio show [ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/coffeepartyusa/2013/02/20/the-middle-ground-w-michael-charney-eric-byler-8p-et-tues ] about the Tea Party Values video above: Glen Bradley, the organizer of the Honor the Oath rally, and a former State Representative in North Carolina [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Nw5V3a2Z0 (next below)]:
Read Nicole Maron's response [ http://www.storyofamerica.org/nicole_diane ] to this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdeHQ0uR3xc
--
Desiline Victor, Obama's 102-Year-Old Voter, 'Shocked' By Scalia's 'Racial Entitlement' Remark
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By Ryan J. Reilly
Posted: 03/18/2013 1:05 pm EDT | Updated: 03/18/2013 7:10 pm EDT
WASHINGTON -- Desiline Victor, the 102-year-old voter [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/desiline-victor-state-of-the-union_n_2674160.html ] who received a standing ovation at President Barack Obama's State of the Union address earlier this year [video embedded], sent a letter on March 12 to Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing his remarks about the Voting Rights Act being a "racial entitlement [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html ]."
Victor said she was "shocked" when she heard what Scalia said about the Voting Rights Act during the Supreme Court's oral arguments on a key provision of the law last month.
"I thought you must not know what’s happening in this country," Victor wrote. "After learning more this year from the civil rights group, Advancement Project, I know that just as there were for me, there are barriers to voting for many people – especially people who are black or brown."
Obama pointed to Victor, who waited in line for hours to vote at a polling place in Miami, as an example of why it was important to fix the nation's broken election system [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/obama-voting-commission_n_2672538.html ].
"I was born at a time when women were not allowed to vote in Haiti, nor the United States," she continued. "After becoming a U.S. citizen, I was so proud to have a voice in this country. That is what inspired me to fight last year. But voting should never require such a fight. We need more make sure that all Americans can have their voices heard – we need the Voting Rights Act. Justice Scalia, the Voting Rights Act is not a racial entitlement. It is an important protection that helps all Americans exercise their right to vote. It was put in place because, sadly, there are people in this country who don’t want everyone to have an equal voice at the ballot box.
Victor's full letter is reprinted below.
March 12, 2013
Dear Justice Scalia,
My name is Desiline Victor. I was born in Haiti in 1910, and I am 102 years old. After coming to the United States for a better life, today I am an American citizen and live with my family in North Miami. You might remember me from the State of the Union address last month, where President Obama told my story about how hard it was for me to vote.
When I heard what you said about the Voting Rights Act being a “racial entitlement,” I was shocked. I thought you must not know what’s happening in this country. After learning more this year from the civil rights group, Advancement Project, I know that just as there were for me, there are barriers to voting for many people – especially people who are black or brown. I also know that the Voting Rights Act is a way to protect the votes of communities that still face these problems. I would like to tell you about the struggles I faced in the last election.
During the early voting period in Florida last October, I went to my polling place early in the morning. The line was already very long, and wait times were as high as six hours. I stood for three hours before I started to get shaky on my feet, but no one could assist me unless I made it to the front of the line. In addition, there were no poll workers available who could help me in my native Kreyòl language, despite North Miami’s large Haitian community. I was told to come back later. I left. But I was determined to vote, so I tried again. On my second visit that night, I was happy when I finally cast my ballot. But I was also upset. In this great nation why should anybody have to stand in line for hours, and make two trips, to vote?
Not everybody persevered as I did. I learned later that hundreds of thousands of voters in Florida gave up and went home without voting, and that Black and Latino voters were more likely to face those shamefully long lines and wait times. One reason was a new law that cut the early voting period. Around the country, other new laws were passed that made voting harder in 2012 – but Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act blocked many of them before the election. Section 5 also helps voters in other ways. In the five counties in Florida that are covered, voting help in Spanish and Kreyòl is required because of their large Latino and Haitian populations.
I was born at a time when women were not allowed to vote in Haiti, nor the United States. After becoming a U.S. citizen, I was so proud to have a voice in this country. That is what inspired me to fight last year. But voting should never require such a fight. We need more make sure that all Americans can have their voices heard – we need the Voting Rights Act. Justice Scalia, the Voting Rights Act is not a racial entitlement. It is an important protection that helps all Americans exercise their right to vote. It was put in place because, sadly, there are people in this country who don’t want everyone to have an equal voice at the ballot box.
Equality and the right to vote are the shining lights of American democracy that drew me to these shores, and that right should not be taken away. In fact, it should be made stronger to help more voters who faced obstacles like I did.
Sincerely,
Desiline Victor
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/desiline-victor-obamas-10_n_2901246.html [with comments]
--
'This is a Crazy System': Justices Ridicule Ease-of-Voting Law
Chris Keane/Reuters
The Supreme Court seems poised to reject a form that simplifies voter registration -- on the grounds that some of its members could have designed a better one.
By Garrett Epps
Mar 18 2013, 3:40 PM ET
Imagine you are a legal immigrant to the United States. You have worked hard, kept a spotless criminal record, mastered English, and learned the rudiments of American government. On your 40th birthday, you go to the federal courthouse in Phoenix to be sworn in.
When the ceremony ends, you ask whether you can do what every citizen can do: register to vote. A helpful clerk hands you the National Mail Voter Registration Form, a postcard. Will this work in Arizona? Not to worry, the clerk assures you. Under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), states must "accept and use" this form to register voters. Fill it out, drop it in the mail, welcome to our political community.
On the form, you must attest on penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen. The "state-specific" parts of the form tell you that you must also include your Arizona drivers' license number. You've been driving legally for years, since before 1996.
You mail the form, and wait.
Soon comes a letter from your county registrar. "Let this letter serve as notification that we have not yet received documentation of citizenship. ... Be advised that you are not a registered voter."
Under Arizona law, you learn, you must prove you are a citizen -- even though the federal form does not say so anywhere. Your driver's license number is not good enough -- because, unbeknownst to you or to the public generally, the state driver records have flagged your license with an F -- meaning "foreigner." The F isn't on your license; the general public doesn't even know F flags exist. (The "F" flag stopped being used in 1996, so most of those 33 and under don't face this problem.)
The Arizona law -- Proposition 200 -- sets out the acceptable documents. The law says you can use the number of your naturalization certificate, which of course you have right to hand. You fill it in and send off the new form.
Soon comes another letter. "Let this letter serve as notification that ..." Well, naturalization certificate numbers, it turns out, aren't stored in a database where county officials can use them, so despite what the law says, they aren't accepted. You can't mail in a copy, because it's illegal to photocopy one. The only way to register, it turns out, is to go to the courthouse and present the certificate in person. Nowhere on your federal form was there a warning that your driver's license and naturalization certificate numbers would be rejected.
Here's a question: Did state officials "accept and use" the federal form? Of course, says the state of Arizona. They allowed you to mail it in -- acceptance -- and read it so they could reject your application -- use. After all, they say, employers "accept and use" job applications; they just reject most of them.
No, say a group of Arizona voters and voter advocacy organizations; it is the clear intent of the NVRA that a completed form should provide all the information the state needs. It can check the information against public records to determine citizenship. It can send a letter announcing your registration, and then suspend if the letter is returned as undeliverable. What it can't do is make the voter jump through more hoops than the form requires.
At oral argument Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court, it seemed as if the result might turn on fine parsing of the words "accept and use." But lurking behind the statutory argument was another, more unusual one: at least four of the justices made it clear that they thought they could design a better form.
The textual power at issue in Monday's case, Arizona v. Arizona Inter-Tribal Commission, is granted in Article I § 4 of the Constitution:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
The NVRA, or "motor-voter" bill, is an exercise of the "make or alter" power. In 1993, Congress determined that many states made it too hard to register. They empowered a federal agency to design a form -- and said that the form "may only" ask about certain things, such as age, address, and citizenship. Then they said all states are required to "use and accept the form."
Flash forward to 2004. Voters in Arizona became concerned that illegal aliens were flocking to the polls. They enacted Proposition 200, which requires the state to reject any form not accompanied by "satisfactory evidence of citizenship" -- a class of documents rather whimsically defined, as the naturalization-certificate-number snafu illustrates.
After Prop 200, 31,000 eligible voters -- citizens all, and most native-born -- were rejected for registration for failing to satisfy its demands. Only about 11,000 were eventually able to vote. The rejected voters were mostly native-born citizens; only about 20 percent were Latino. There was no racial or party identification to this cohort.
Meanwhile, community voter-registration drives all but collapsed. Set these exclusions against the evidence in the trial court that in 2005, only ten non-citizens (who would have been registered before Prop 200 took effect) even tried to vote, and only four succeeded. In 2001, Arizona's own Election Director had pointed out that very few aliens even try to vote, because if they are caught they will be deported. "Those who are in the country illegally are especially fearful of registering their names and addresses with a government agency for fear of detection and deportation," she wrote.
At the Supreme Court, however, the issue of the qualified voters excluded by Prop 200 took a distinct back seat to contempt for the NVRA and the form it produced. "It seems to me the federal form, as some of my colleagues have indicated, is not worth very much," Justice Anthony Kennedy told Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne.
Justice Scalia later suggested that Arizona should have challenged the form, which required only a statement under oath that the registrant is a citizen. "Big deal," he said. "If ... you're willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you're willing to violate the perjury laws."
Later, Chief Justice John Roberts quizzed Patricia Millett, representing the challengers, "You've got a great deal of reliance on what [the federal agency] has done, and I'm saying if it's not doing a very good job. ... I'd question whether or not the fact that [the agency] is going to implement it is sufficient assurance that the Act reads the way you say it does."
Justice Samuel A. Alito objected to the idea that, as the statute now reads, a state might require more information on its own forms but would be required to register voters using the federal form as well: "This seems to me like a crazy system."
Millett tried twice to remind the Court that this was a case about the right of individuals to vote in federal elections, not about the rights of the states. The argument for preemption of Prop 200, she said, "is in those 31,550 people who couldn't register." But she made little headway. By argument's end, the conservative bloc seemed lined up solidly behind Arizona.
Perhaps the challengers' best hope lies in an administrative-law argument advanced by Scalia, a former administrative specialist. Why, he asked repeatedly, did Arizona not challenge the agency's decision in a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act? Horne responded that he didn't know: "[T]hat was under a predecessor of mine." One or two Justices might support dismissing this case on those procedural grounds.
The state of Arizona, this Mississippi of the 21st century, has been before the Court repeatedly in the past few years. Perhaps that's where it picked up the idea that nobody needs to pay attention to Congress.
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group (emphasis in original)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/this-is-a-crazy-system-justices-ridicule-ease-of-voting-law/274127/ [with comments]
--
Florida Cyberattack On Absentee Ballot Site Is First Known Case Of Online Election Tampering: Report
03/18/2013
A Florida website became the first known target of an election-focused cyberattack last year, when more than 2,500 "phantom requests" for absentee ballots were made from international locations, NBC News reported [ http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/18/17314818-cyberattack-on-florida-election-is-first-known-case-in-us-experts-say ] Monday.
The Miami Herald first reported [ http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/23/3250726/the-case-of-the-phantom-ballots.html ] in February about the irregularities on the election website, which took submissions for absentee ballots. The Herald found that 2,552 requests were filed to a Miami-Dade County elections website over a two-and-a-half week period in July, primarily targeting Democratic voters ahead of upcoming primary elections. They came on behalf of voters who had not actually applied for absentee ballots and were tracked to a few Internet Protocol addresses registered in India, the United Kingdom and other foreign countries.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/florida-cyberattack-election_n_2901969.html [with comments]
--
Robert Menendez Accusers Were Paid To Make Prostitution Claims Against Senator: Dominican Police
03/18/13 02:25 PM ET EDT
SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic -- Three women were paid to falsely claim in videotaped interviews that they had sex for money with a U.S. senator in the Dominican Republic, a spokesman for the police said Monday.
The women, whose claims generated media attention in the United States, were hired by a Dominican attorney to make the videotaped statements, spokesman Maximo Baez told reporters. Two of the women received about $425 and the other was paid about $300, he said.
Authorities are seeking to interrogate the attorney, Melanio Figueroa, about the payments and have not determined his motive or whether he was in turn paid by someone else to set up the interviews, Baez said.
The women have not been detained.
The police spokesman was making his most detailed comments to date on an investigation into the source of allegations that U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez had sex with prostitutes, including two who were underage at the time, while in the Dominican Republic with his friend and campaign contributor, Dr. Salomon Melgen, a south Florida doctor, and with Vinicio Castillo Seman, an attorney whose family is politically prominent in the Dominican Republic. Castillo and Menendez have denied hiring prostitutes.
Castillo, a cousin of Melgen, requested the investigation into what he said were "false and defamatory" accusations.
Two of the videotaped interviews with the women were published on a conservative Washington website as Menendez ran for re-election in November. The allegations gained wider attention after federal agents searched Melgen's office and the senator acknowledged that he failed to reimburse $58,000 for two flights on a private jet for trips to the Dominican Republic.
Jose Polanco, a prosecutor in the town of La Romana, said he interviewed all three women and also determined that none was underage at the time of the supposed encounters with the senator.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/robert-menendez-accusers-_n_2901776.html [with address]
--
Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate
The disproportionate power enjoyed in the Senate by small states is playing a growing role in the political dynamic on issues as varied as gun control, immigration and campaign finance.
March 11, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html
--
For Obama’s Judges, It’s Already Late
Caitlin Halligan
March 12, 2013
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/03/federal-court-barack-obama-halligan-nomination.html [with comments]
===
America’s Dirtiest Coal Company
By Bill McKibben Mar 17, 2013 5:30 PM CT
If you go to the website of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Missouri, you can read more than 1,000 letters from retired coal miners and their widows.
Their words are like the lyrics to an endless Johnny Cash ballad, and even more heartbreaking. They tell the eternal tale of the greedy few, this time playing out in real time in our America.
Here’s the story: In the fall of 2007, Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU), the coal-mining giant, spun off all its unionized mines into a new company, Patriot Coal Corp. (PCXCQ) In the process, it got rid of the promises it had made over generations to coal miners and their families.
Or, as Peabody’s chief executive officer put it, “We’re reducing our legacy liabilities roughly $1 billion.” This was such a good idea that another coal giant, Arch Coal Inc. (ACI), unloaded its union mines on Patriot as well, though it cycled them first through yet another front. All totted up, Patriot now had 10,000 retirees and their health-care benefits on its books.
This company was designed to fail. Patriot is almost certainly the only five-year-old company on earth with three times as many retirees as employees, 90 percent of whom never worked for the company. And fail it did, declaring [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/07/as-coal-industry-declines-what-will-happen-to-all-those-retired-miners/ ] bankruptcy last summer. Now it’s going through Chapter 11 reorganization and hoping to emerge freed of its obligations for the pensions and medical care of those miners.
Disappearing Benefits
In a corporate sleight-of-hand, the promises won with a lifetime of hard work and hard bargaining disappeared first into a holding company. Now, if the bankruptcy [ http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14360/in_the_coal_fields_a_novel_way_to_get_rid_of_pensions_is_born/ ] judge agrees, they will disappear into thin air.
Or, to put it more explicitly, here’s a handwritten note from Shirley Wells of Sullivan, Kentucky: “Over the years thousands were killed in explosions, fires, roof falls, and many other accidents. ... Many others suffer from the slower death called black lung disease ... confined to their homes, dependent on oxygen.”
If Patriot has its way, they won’t have the medical cards that pay for their treatment. And as one miner after another points out in the letters, they bargained hard for those cards, preferring guaranteed medical care over higher wages precisely because of the toll the work took on their bodies. In this country, coal mining is our metaphor for hard work. There’s really nothing much tougher on a person.
Patriot’s deceit is indefensible even if you’re a laissez- faire purist: It makes nonsense of accounting to socialize the risks of coal mining by tossing miners on the mercy of Medicare. It’s also completely unfair to any of Patriot’s competitors willing to honor their obligations.
As a Temple University finance professor, Bruce Rader [ http://www.fairnessatpatriot.org/media/temple-university-analysis-patriot-coal/ ], put it in a stinging rebuke to Patriot: “Corporate socialism is a system that privatizes profits and socializes costs. If that is considered capitalism, then Al Capone is right in his statement: ‘Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.’”
And in this case, Patriot is doing nothing to hide its fat-cat heart. Its bankruptcy advisers billed $2,635 for a single dinner; the company is even now seeking court permission to hand out $6 million [ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112449/peabody-energys-disappearing-health-benefits ] in bonuses to executives.
I’m an environmentalist. I think we can’t keep burning coal because the carbon it produces is, right this moment, melting the Arctic, acidifying the ocean and raising the temperature of the earth in ways that most climate scientists think endanger the prospects of our civilization.
But part of civilization is taking care of people who have worked hard. That’s why every climate bill proposed in Congress should have extensive sections designed to protect retirees and retrain existing workers.
Hardest Work
And that’s why many environmentalists will join churches, civil rights groups and labor unions in protesting Patriot’s grotesque charade. It’s not all right to balance the ledger -- carbon or corporate -- on the backs of men and women already bowed by a lifetime of the hardest work on earth.
As Billy D. Canterbury, also known as Docket Item No. 2638, put it in his letter to the bankruptcy court: “At 19 I started working in the coal industry, but had to retire at 55 in 2007 due to orthopedic conditions. Among those are a ruptured disc in back, L5, three injuries to my right knee, and two injuries to my left knee. All of which were work-related.”
He continued, “In good faith we, the United Mine Workers members, provided the labor needed to assist Peabody in its endeavors to mine the coal necessary for them to conduct business.” That’s how capitalism is supposed to work. But this particular business turns out to be even grimier than it seemed.
(Bill McKibben, the author of “Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future [ http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Economy-Wealth-Communities-Durable/dp/0805087222 ],” is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net.
©2013 BLOOMBERG L.P.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-17/america-s-dirtiest-coal-company.html [with comments]
--
Wells Fargo Typo Victim Dies in Court
Debbie Popovich at the garden she worked on with Larry Delassus
The bank billed Larry Delassus $13,361 owed by his neighbor, then foreclosed
Mar 7 2013
On the morning of Dec. 19, 2012, in a Torrance courtroom, Larry Delassus' heart stopped as he watched his attorney argue his negligence and discrimination case against banking behemoth Wells Fargo.
His death came more than two years after Wells Fargo mistakenly mixed up his Hermosa Beach address with that of a neighbor in the same condo complex. The bank's typo led Wells Fargo to demand that Delassus pay $13,361.90 ¬— two years of late property taxes the bank said it had paid on his behalf in order to keep his Wells Fargo mortgage afloat.
But Delassus, a quiet man who suffered from the rare blood-clot disorder Budd-Chiari syndrome and was often hospitalized, didn't owe a penny in taxes.
One of his neighbors, whose condo "parcel number" was two digits different from Delassus', owed the back taxes.
In a series of painfully tragic events, Wells Fargo relied on its typographical error to double Delassus' mortgage — from $1,237.69 to $2,429.13 — as its way of recouping the $13,361.90 in taxes Delassus didn't owe. Delassus, a retiree living on a $1,655 check, couldn't meet the mysteriously increased mortgage. He stopped paying, and soon was far behind on his mortgage.
Delassus and his attorney did not discover until May 2010 that a mis-entered number had dragged Delassus into this spiral. As court documents obtained by L.A. Weekly show, after admitting its error, Wells Fargo foreclosed on Delassus anyway and sold his condo.
Delassus had to move to a tiny apartment in an assisted-living home in Carson.
Friends say he didn't die of heart disease that day in court, as the coroner found. He was, they believe, killed by a system so inhumane that it could not undo a devastating piece of red tape the system itself created.
[...]
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-03-07/news/wells-fargo-typo-victim-dead-larry-delassus/ [ http://www.laweekly.com/2013-03-07/news/wells-fargo-typo-victim-dead-larry-delassus/full/ ] [with comments]
--
Jamie Dimon Email Directly Ties JPMorgan CEO To $6.2 Billion Fiasco
03/15/2013
Jamie Dimon’s email response was direct and to the point. “I approve,” he wrote to an oversight body within his enormous bank, JPMorgan Chase, thereby giving his blessing to an increase in the amount of risk the institution could shoulder. He also approved a change in the way a key trading unit was assessing threats of trouble in its then-burgeoning portfolio.
That email -- released late Thursday as part of a 300-page Senate report [ http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rJ5Q_k_NsIk8 ] probing how and why Dimon’s bank managed to lose $6.2 billion on derivatives trading -- now appears to tie the chief executive directly to the disastrous decision-making at issue.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/jamie-dimon-email-jpmorgan-ceo-ties-loss_n_2883012.html [with comments]
--
Yin Wong, Disabled San Francisco Resident, Says She Was Foreclosed On But Never Missed A Payment
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/yin-wong_n_2886654.html [with comments] [her gripe entirely legitimate]
--
JPMorgan Faces Increased Legal Threat Following 'London Whale' Scandal, Experts Say
03/16/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/jpmorgan-scandal-london-whale-legal_n_2885951.html [with comments]
--
Ex-Bailout Watchdog: JPMorgan's Actions 'Entirely Consistent With Fraud'
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/neil-barofsky-jpmorgan_n_2884506.html [with comments]
--
Richard Fisher Says Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Need To Be Broken Up
By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa
Posted: 03/16/2013 12:01 pm EDT
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. - The largest U.S. banks are "practitioners of crony capitalism," need to be broken up to ensure they are no longer considered too big to fail, and continue to threaten financial stability, a top Federal Reserve official said on Saturday.
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, has been a critic of Wall Street's disproportionate influence since the financial crisis. But he was now taking his message to an unusual audience for a central banker: a high-profile Republican political action committee.
Fisher said the existence of banks that are seen as likely to receive government bailouts if they fail gives them an unfair advantage, hurting economic competitiveness.
"These institutions operate under a privileged status that exacts an unfair tax upon the American people," he said on the last day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
"They represent not only a threat to financial stability but to fair and open competition (and) are the practitioners of crony capitalism and not the agents of democratic capitalism that makes our country great," said Fisher, who has also been a vocal opponent of the Fed's unconventional monetary stimulus policies.
Fisher's vision pits him directly against Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who recently argued during congressional testimony that regulators had made significant progress in addressing the problem of too big to fail. Bernanke asserted that market expectations that large financial institutions would be rescued is wrong.
But Fisher said mega banks still have a significant funding advantage over its competitors, as well as other advantages. To address this problem, he called for a rolling back of deposit insurance so that it would extend only to deposits of commercial banks, not the investment arms of bank holding companies.
"At the Dallas Fed, we believe that whatever the precise subsidy number is, it exists, it is significant, and it allows the biggest banking organizations, along with their many nonbank subsidiaries - investment firms, securities lenders, finance companies - to grow larger and riskier," he said.
Fisher argued Dodd-Frank financial reforms were overly complex and therefore counterproductive.
"Regulators cannot enforce rules that are not easily understood," he said.
(Reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa; editing by Gunna Dickson)
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/fisher-too-big-to-fail_n_2891452.html [with embedded annotated slideshow "11 Lies About The Fed", and comments]
--
Greenspan Says Too Big To Fail Problem 'Is Getting Worse, Not Better'
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/greenspan-too-big-to-fail-worse-better_n_2884001.html [with embedded annotated slideshow "Bankers Who Want To Break Up Big Banks", and comments]
--
SAC Capital's Insider Trading Settlement The Largest Of Its Kind
Posted: 03/15/2013 2:00 pm EDT | Updated: 03/15/2013 7:31 pm EDT
Hedge fund titan Steven A. Cohen's firm, long the focus of a federal investigation into insider trading, is paying more than $600 million to U.S. securities regulators to settle allegations arising from improper trading in two stocks.
The settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced Friday is one of the largest ever by a hedge fund and involves allegations of improper trading by two subsidiaries of Cohen's $15 billion SAC Capital Advisors.
SAC Capital affiliate CR Intrinsic agreed to pay more than $600 million to settle allegations that one of its former employees participated in an insider trading scheme involving shares of Elan Corp. and Wyeth Inc, now a part of Pfizer Inc.
In another settlement, SAC Capital subsidiary Sigma Capital agreed to pay $14 million to settle charges the firm engaged in insider trading in shares of Dell and Nvidia Corp.
The settlements come after outside investors in Cohen's fund submitted notices last month to pull $1.68 billion from SAC Capital, largely over concern about the insider trading investigation. Cohen is one of the $2 trillion hedge fund industry's best known and most successful traders.
The fines will be paid by SAC Capital's management company and not outside investors, said a person familiar with SAC Capital.
In a statement the firm said, "This settlement is a substantial step toward resolving all outstanding regulatory matters and allows the firm to move forward with confidence."
In November, regulators charged CR Intrinsic with insider trading in November when the SEC said one of its portfolio managers, Mathew Martoma, illegally obtained confidential details about a clinical trial for an Alzheimer's drug.
Martoma is facing criminal charges over the incident and has pleaded not guilty.
Neither SAC Capital nor any of it subsidiaries admitted or denied wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlements.
Cohen, one of the industry's most successful traders, has not been charged with any wrongdoing by authorities.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Matthew Goldstein, Gerald E. McCormick and Kenneth Barry)
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/sac-capital-insider-trading_n_2884953.html [with embedded video report, embedded annotated slideshow "Bankers Behind Bars", and comments]
--
Private Equity’s $36 Billion Retail Bet Not Going So Well
People ride an indoor ferris wheel at a Toy "R" Us Inc. store in New York.
Mar 15, 2013
In the years before the recession, private-equity firms put so much faith in the future of U.S. brick-and-mortar retailers that they spent $36 billion on them.
That hasn’t worked out so well, especially for the era’s biggest spender, Bain Capital LLC. The firm started by Mitt Romney inked four deals valued at $17 billion from 2004 to 2007 and still owns all of the purchases. The largest of the bunch was Toys “R” Us Inc., which posted a drop in sales during the holidays, followed by Chief Executive Officer Gerald Storch stepping down.
The private-equity model -- load up an acquisition with debt, cut costs and take it public -- hasn’t gone according to the usual script with most of Bain’s retail acquisitions. That’s largely because the firm, which has $67 billion in assets under management, doubled down on specialty retailers just as they were about to be pummeled by the likes of Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
“There isn’t anything special about specialty anymore,” said Leon Nicholas, an analyst for Kantar Retail in Boston. Their advantages on product assortment, expertise and price have disappeared, he said.
Bain tried to take Toys “R” Us public in 2010 and then postponed the offering.
[...]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/bain-s-17-billion-retail-bet-not-looking-so-special.html [with comments]
--
41 Percent Of Wall Street Ready To Leave Financial Industry: Survey
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/wall-street-workers-leaving-finance_n_2879883.html [with comments] [and see e.g. (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=42616686 and preceding and following]
--
CFPB Will Regulate Student Loan Debt Servicers
03/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/cfpb-student-loan-debt_n_2877345.html [with comments]
===
Getting rich off of schoolchildren
News Corporation Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch
(AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Stop pretending wealthy CEOs pushing for charter schools are altruistic "reformers." They're raking in billions
By David Sirota
Monday, Mar 11, 2013 10:36 AM CDT
Last week, Los Angeles [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/education/los-angeles-school-board-race-attracts-national-attention-and-money.html ] provided yet another [ http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/w_enters_my_wifes_schoolboard_race/ ] example of a cadre of anti-public-school millionaires swooping in to try (and in this case, fail [ http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/06/local/la-me-schools-20130307 ]) to buy a big-city school-board election. And once again, that sparked a round of Orwellian newspeak that distorts what’s really happening in education politics.
You know how it goes: The pervasive [ http://news.yahoo.com/reform-candidates-see-mixed-results-los-angeles-school-004814455.html ] media [ http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/06/local/la-me-schools-20130307 ] mythology [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324034804578344772114025406.html ] tells us that the fight over the schoolhouse is supposedly a battle between greedy self-interested teachers who don’t care about children and benevolent billionaire “reformers” whose political activism is solely focused on the welfare of kids. Epitomizing the media narrative, the Wall Street Journal casts the latter in sanitized terms, reimagining the billionaires as philanthropic altruists “pushing for big changes they say will improve public schools.”
The first reason to scoff at this mythology should be obvious: It simply strains credulity to insist that pedagogues who get paid middling wages but nonetheless devote their lives to educating kids care less about those kids than do the Wall Street hedge funders and billionaire CEOs who finance [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/ravitch-billionaires-and-millionaires-for-education-reform/2011/11/15/gIQAlDAHPN_blog.html ] the so-called reform movement. Indeed, to state that pervasive assumption out loud is to reveal how utterly idiotic it really is, and yet it is baked into almost all of today’s coverage of education politics.
That, of course, is not all that shocking; after all, plenty of inane narratives are regularly depicted as assumed fact in the political press. What’s shocking is that the other reason to scoff at the Greedy Teachers versus Altruistic Billionaire tale is also ignored. It is ignored even though it involves the most hard-to-ignore facts of all — the ones involving vested financial interests.
Yes, though it is rarely mentioned, the truth is that the largest funders of the “reform” movement are the opposite of disinterested altruists. They are cutthroat businesspeople making shrewd financial investments in a movement that is less about educating children than about helping “reform” funders hit paydirt. In that sense, they are the equivalent of any industry leaders funding a front group in hopes of achieving profitable political ends (think: defense contractors funding a front group that advocates for a bigger defense budget). The only difference is that when it comes to education “reform,” most of the political press doesn’t mention the potential financial motives of the funders in question.
While I’ve written about this reality before [ http://www.salon.com/2011/09/12/reformmoney/ ], recent news perfectly exemplifies how the “reform” movement is really just a sophisticated business strategy.
First, there was the Washington state ballot initiative expanding publicly subsidized, privately run charter schools. As the Seattle P-I [ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/10/09/gates-walton-big-bucks-to-billionaires-initiative/ ] reported at the time, the initiative was effectively underwritten by Amazon and Microsoft. This was part of the latter’s larger education “reform” push through the massive foundation of company founder Bill Gates.
Yet, in most of the coverage of that ballot measure, just like in most of the coverage of Gates’ foundation work, there is no mention of the fact that both Amazon and Microsoft just so happen to be technology companies — that is, for-profit entities with their eyes on lucrative education technology contracts.
Those contracts are much easier to land in privately run charter schools because such schools are often uninhibited by public schools’ procurement rules and standards requiring a demonstrable educational need for technology. That reality, no doubt, is part of why charter schools often spend so much more [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/charter-schools-spend-mor_n_1415995.html ] on “administration” and “business services” than do their public school counterparts. Though it is rarely mentioned in the political coverage of education, that spending promises to benefit tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft. (Ready for proposals to give every kid an Amazon Kindle [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000412651 ] or Windows laptop [ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2008/may08/05-15msolpcpr.aspx ], paid for by public money?)
Then, as mentioned before, there was last week’s high-profile Los Angeles school board race. The anti-public-school “reform” slate was bolstered by a $1 million contribution from billionaire Michael Bloomberg [ http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2013/03/zimmer_garcia_lead_in_LA_board_race.html ], who has been making similar contributions to other education “reform” campaigns across the country. As he pours money into buying these local elections, he is loyally portrayed in the press as a high-minded humanitarian using his perch as New York mayor to earnestly raise issues. Somehow, few bother to mention that he is the founder of a massive information technology company that seems well positioned to break into the burgeoning education business and profit off “reformers”‘ technology triumphalism (seriously, does anyone think we won’t see a Bloomberg School Terminal sometime soon?).
In that same Los Angeles race, the Los Angeles Times [ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/late-donations-bolster-pro-deasy-school-board-candidates.html ] reported that News America Inc. donated $250,000 to the “reform” slate. That’s the same News America that is the for-profit education technology arm of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. It is the same News America that was recently trumpeted in the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/business/media/news-corp-has-a-tablet-for-schools.html?pagewanted=all ] for rolling out an expensive “tablet (that) will be targeted at middle-school children” — that is, if the company can convince the school board candidates it underwrites to divert money away from hiring teachers and into News America’s coffers.
National Public Radio [ http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/173766828/news-corp-education-tablet-for-the-love-of-learning ] was one of the few media outlets to even mention this profit motive as driving education politics. Setting an example for how education journalism should be conducted (but largely isn’t), it reported that Murdoch’s education technology push is about delivering “future revenues from his educational branch to help shore up the finances of his newspaper and publishing division.”
Of course, if the tech industry’s attempts to make money by technologizing the classroom was also a proven way to improve education, then the education “reform” movement’s for-profit scheme might seem a bit less odious. It might seem like an example of a laudable public-private partnership whereby an industry does well for itself by doing right for the greater good.
But that’s not the case in education so far. As the New York Times [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all ] exhaustively documented, “reformers” have convinced schools to spend “billions on technology, even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.” As just one glaring example of that lack of proof, the Times points out that “a division of the Education Department that rates classroom curriculums has found that much educational software is not an improvement over textbooks” (this why Idahoans recently voted [ http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/phony_school_reform_agenda_takes_a_beating/ ] overwhelmingly to reject a plan in the Legislature that would have diverted money for teachers into classroom computers).
Education results, however, don’t matter to the moneyed interests behind the “reform” movement. Profits do — and the potential profits are enormous.
Citing a fact sheet from the for-profit education industry itself, the Washington Post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/09/education-reform-as-a-business/ ] recently reported that “the education sector now represents nearly 9 percent of the country’s gross domestic product” while the “for-profit education is valued at $1.3 trillion, and is one of the largest U.S. investment markets.” Likewise, NPR reports that as he’s launched an education technology division, Rupert Murdoch “has described education as a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars.” This is why the tech site Geekwire [ http://www.geekwire.com/2012/coming-tech-bubble-education/ ] predicts another full-scale tech industry bubble, thanks to “K-12 and other education segments now being chased by a mob of investment capitalists.”
Give “reformers” credit; they have successfully hidden a venal investment strategy in the veneer of idealistic political activism. Appropriating the poll-tested argot of change and mass movement, the Wall Streeters and tech moguls who finance the “reform” efforts have somehow convinced the political press to ignore one of the most powerful motivators of human action: the almighty dollar.
Copyright © 2013 Salon Media Group, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/getting_rich_off_of_schoolchildren/ [with comments]
--
11 heinous lies conservatives are teaching America’s schoolchildren
The right has a new plan to capture the country's youth vote: Take over public school curriculums
By Amanda Marcotte
Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013 11:34 AM CDT
This article originally appeared on AlterNet [ http://www.alternet.org/education/11-most-absurd-lies-conservatives-are-using-brainwash-americas-school-kids ].
If recent elections have taught us anything, it’s that young Americans have taken a decided turn to the left. Young voters delivered Obama the election: the under-44 set voted Obama and the over-45 set broke for Romney. The youngest voters, age 18-29, gave Obama a whopping 60 percent of their vote.
Now Republicans have a plan to try to recapture the youngest voters out there: Take over the curriculum in public schools, replace education with a bunch of conservative propaganda, and reap the benefits of having a new generation that can’t tell reality from right-wing fantasy.
How well this plan will work is debatable, but in the meantime, these shenanigans present the very real possibility that public school students will graduate without a proper education. To make it worse, many of these attempts to rewrite school curriculum are happening in Texas, which can set the textbook standards for the entire country [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/?pagination=false ] by simply wielding its power as one of the biggest school textbook markets there is. With that in mind, here’s a list of 11 lies your kid may be in danger of learning in school.
Lie No. 1: Racism has barely been an issue in U.S. history and slavery wasn’t that big a deal.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute reviewed [ http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110216_SOSHS/SOSS_USHistory_Texas.pdf ] the new social studies standards laid down by the right-wing-dominated Texas State School Board and found them to be a deplorable example of conservative wishful thinking replacing fact. At the top of list? Downplaying the role that slavery had in starting the Civil War, and instead focusing on “sectionalism” and “states’ rights,” even though the sectionalism and states’ rights arguments directly stemmed from Southern states wanting to keep slavery. There’s also a chance your kid might be misled to think post-Civil War racism was no big deal, as the standards excise any mention of the KKK, the phrase “Jim Crow” or the Black Codes. Mention is made of the Southern Democratic opposition to civil rights, but mysteriously, the mass defection of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party to punish the rest of the Democrats for supporting civil rights goes unmentioned.
Lie No. 2: Joe McCarthy was right.
The red-baiting of the mid-20th century has gone down in history, correctly, as a witch hunt that stemmed from irrational paranoia that gripped the U.S. after WWII. But now, according to the Thomas B. Fordham report, your kid might learn that the red baiters had a point: “It is disingenuously suggested that the House Un-American Activities Committee—and, by extension, McCarthyism—have been vindicated by the Venona decrypts of Soviet espionage activities (which had, in reality, no link to McCarthy’s targets).” Critical lessons about being skeptical of those who attack fellow Americans while wrapping themselves in the flag will be lost for students whose textbooks adhere to these standards.
Lie No. 3: Climate change is a massive hoax scientists have perpetuated on the public.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) [ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/01/alec-bill-in-three-states-to-require-climate-change-denial-in-schools/ ] has been hard at work pushing for laws requiring that climate change denialism be taught in schools as a legitimate scientific theory. Unfortunately, as Neela Banerjee [ http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/16/nation/la-na-climate-change-school-20120116 ] of the L.A. Times reports, they’ve already had some serious success: “Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change.” Other states are taking the “teach the controversy” strategy that helped get creationism into biology classrooms, asking teachers to treat climate change like it’s a matter of political debate instead of a scientifically established fact.
The reality is that climate change is a fact that has overwhelming scientific consensus. In 2004, Science reviewed the 928 relevant studies [ https://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full ] on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 and found that exactly zero of them denied that climate change was a reality, and most found it had man-made causes. To claim that climate change is a “controversy” requires one to believe that there’s a massive conspiracy involving nearly all the scientists in the world. So, your kids are not only not learning the realities of climate change, they are also learning, if indirectly, to give credence to conspiracy theory paranoia.
Lie No. 4: The Bible is a history textbook and a scientific document.
Texas passed a law in 2007 pushing schools to teach the Bible as history and literature in schools. Since that was already being done in most schools, the law was clearly just a backdoor way to sneak religious instruction into schools, and a report by the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) demonstrates [ http://tfninsider.org/2013/01/16/new-tfnef-report-texas-public-school-bible-classes-teach-races-come-from-noahs-sons-biblical-literalism-6000-year-old-earth/ ] that many of them have taken full advantage. One district treats the Bible stories like history by “listing biblical events side by side with historical developments from around the globe.” Many other schools are teaching that the Bible “proves” that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The Earth is actually over 4 billion years old.
Lie No. 5: Black people are the descendants of Ham and therefore cursed by God.
Among the courses justified by the 2007 Bible law, TFN found two school districts teaching that the various races are descended from the sons of Noah. All the Bible really says about the sons of Noah is that Ham was cursed by his father so that his descendants would be slaves, but American slave owners used this passage to claim that Africans must be the descendants of Ham and therefore their slave-owning was OK by God. Make no mistake. The only reason this legend has persisted and is popping up in 21st-century classrooms is that conservative Christians are still trying to justify the enslavement of African Americans over a century ago.
Lie No. 6: Evolution is a massive hoax scientists have perpetuated on the public.
Creationists have an endless store of creative ways to get around the Constitution and the courts when it comes to replacing legitimate biology education with fundamentalist Christian dogma. Various states have employed an extensive school voucher system that has allowed creationist dogma to flourish. College-age activist Zack Kopplin has been chronicling the problem, and has found various schools nationwide using taxpayer dollars to teach that evolution is a “mistaken belief” and that the Bible “refutes the man-made idea of evolution.” Why do these school administrators believe that scientists are hoaxing the public by making up evolution? Kopplin found a Louisiana school principal who claimed it’s because scientists are “sinful men” seeking to justify their own immorality, and another Florida school teaching that evolutionary theory is “the way of the heathen.”
Lie No. 7: Sex is awful and filthy, and you should save it for someone you love.
While things are improving, even in notoriously fact-phobic states like Mississippi and Texas, “abstinence-only” education continues to persist in school districts across the nation. TFN found that nearly three-quarters of Texas high schools are still teaching abstinence-only [ http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/Report_final_web.pdf?docID=2941 ], which is based on the fundamental and easily disproved lie that premarital sex is inherently dangerous to a person’s mental and physical health. On top of this, TFN found that many schools are still passing on inaccurate information on condoms and STI transmission, usually exaggerating the dangers in a futile bid to keep kids from having sex. Unfortunately, even Texas school districts that use curriculum that educates correctly on contraception use are still trying to spin abstinence-until-marriage as a desirable option for all students, even though premarital sex is near-universal in the real world [ http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html ]. Abstinence-only may be discredited with the voters, but sadly it’s still very normal in Texas, other red states, and even across the nation [ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/10/987411/federal-funds-abstinence-only-programs/ ].
Lie No. 8: Dragons actually once existed.
As much as “Game of Thrones” fans might wish otherwise, dragons are not real and have never existed. But as reported by Mother Jones [ http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars ], Louisiana’s notorious voucher school system has let some crazy nonsense fly in the classroom, including the claim that dragons used to roam the planet. A book being used in Louisiana classrooms titled ”Life Science” and published by Bob Jones University Press claims that “scientists” found “dinosaur skulls” that the book suggests are actually dragons. “The large skull chambers could have contained special chemical-producing glands. When the animal forced the chemicals out of its mouth or nose, these substances may have combined and produced fire and smoke,” the book claims.
Lie No. 9: Gay people do not actually exist.
After being beat back by gay rights and sexual health advocates, Republicans in the Tennessee Legislature are once again trying to bring back the “don’t say gay bill.” The law would ban a teacher from admitting the existence of homosexuality [ http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/01/30/tenns-dont-say-gay-bill-back-and-it-could-out-students-their-parents ] to students prior to the 8th grade, even if the students ask them about it. Instead, the bill would require turning a student who confesses to being gay over to his parents, with the legislators clearly hoping that punishment will somehow make the kid not-gay. The entire bill rests on and promotes the premise that homosexuality isn’t a real sexual orientation, but just the result of mental illness or confusion, and if it’s enforced, that message will come across to the students.
Lie No. 10: Hippies were dirty, immoral Satan-worshippers.
In the 1960s, it was common for conservatives to try to discredit the left by stoking paranoia about hippie culture and denouncing the supposed evils of rock ‘n’ roll. Forty years have passed, but in Louisiana, some school administrators are apparently still afraid that possessing a Beatles record means a young person is on the verge of quitting bathing and taking up a lifestyle of taking LSD and worshiping Satan at psychedelic orgies.
A history textbook snagged from a Louisiana school [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/11/1697601/textbook-for-louisianas-voucher-schools-teaches-hippies-are-dirty-rock-musicians-worship-satan/ ] funded by the voucher program tells students: “Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles and these youths became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.” It’s unclear if the book also teaches that if you play a Queen record backward, you can hear Satan telling you to smoke pot, but that kind of critical information could also be conveyed during the teacher’s lectures on the subject.
Lie No. 11: Ayn Rand’s books have literary value.
Idaho state Sen. John Goedde [ http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/05/bill-requires-all-idaho-kids-read-atlas-shrugged/ ], chairman of the state’s Senate Education Committee, has introduced a bill that would require students not only to read Rand’s ponderous novel “Atlas Shrugged,” but also to pass a test on it in order to graduate. Goedde claims to mostly not be serious about this bill, but instead is using it as a childish attempt to piss off the liberals, but it’s still the sort of item parents need to watch out for.
After all, Texas textbook standards require that an obsession with the gold standard [ http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/conservative_bloc_dominates_latest_texas_textbooks.php ] be taught as a legitimate economic theory instead of the mad ravings of cranks that it is. We live in an era where no amount of right-wing lunacy is considered too much to be pushed on innocent children like it’s fact. Anyone who doubts that should just remember one word: dragons.
Copyright 2013 Amanda Marcotte (emphasis in original)
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/11_heinous_lies_conservatives_are_teaching_americas_school_children_partner/ [with comments]
===
Feds, media rebut Sarah Palin 'stockpiling bullets' claim
2/27/13
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/feds-media-debunk-sarah-palin-stockpiling-bullets-claim-88179.html [with comments]
--
CPAC 2013 - Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)
Published on Mar 16, 2013 by The ACU
Impromptu Intro by US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkRw4EOwY2g
--
Man Accused of Horrible Crime Takes Consistently Jolly Photographs
Michael "Chad" Boysen.
Courtesy of King County Sheriff's Office
Michael "Chad" Boysen
Photo by Cindi L. West, King County Sheriff’s Office/AP
March 12, 2013
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/12/michael_chad_boysen_man_accused_of_horrible_crime_takes_consistently_jolly.html [with comments]
--
Charlton Porter Caught In Lobby Of School With Gun And 34 Bullets In High-Capacity Magazine
03/16/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/charlton-porter-gun-school_n_2885528.html [with comments]
--
Tens of thousands try to illegally buy guns from dealers annually, study finds
People crowd a gun show in Knoxville, Tenn., on Dec. 28.
Michael Patrick / AP file
By Bill Briggs
NBC News contributor
March 11, 2013
Attempted illegal gun purchases occur 30,000 to 40,000 times each year among U.S. firearms retailers, according to a first-of-its-kind survey of gun sellers published Monday.
Would-be patrons seek to sway sellers to keep transactions off the books or, more commonly, use stand-ins — often girlfriends or wives — to fill out required legal forms and undergo federal criminal background checks necessary to purchase firearms, according to the survey [ http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/130311_Guns_Survey.pdf ] by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis.
Perhaps the most alarming finding in the study — the first to attempt to quantify the frequency of unlawful attempts to buy guns and retailer corruption — is that some firearms dealers are "bad guy magnets," who even though they deny the most attempted “straw-man” and undocumented purchases tend to suffer the most gun thefts and appear to receive the most visits from federal agents tracing guns used in crimes.
“They have a high-risk clientele (which may in part be) because the retailers themselves are known to look the other way," said Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, author of the study published in "Injury Prevention," a peer-reviewed health journal, and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program. "But it all goes together: The retailers who had the most denied sales were also the ones most likely to sell guns that were used in crimes.”
"The (responsible) retailers consider this a very serious problem that deserves stiff punishment," he added.
Cutting down so-called "straw" purchases of guns is among the measures being pushed by gun-control advocates in the wake of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, which left 20 children, six school employees and gunman Adam Lanza and his mother dead.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that seeks to make it a federal crime to purchase a firearm for someone who is not legally allowed to own a weapon, such as a convicted felon. President Barack Obama has urged the full Senate to approve the measure.
Wintemute’s team mailed surveys to 1,600 gun dealers, pawnbrokers and gunsmiths who sell 50 or more firearms each year and received back 591 completed questionnaires. Participating retailers reported that would-be clients tried to make 2,051 straw purchases and 2,254 undocumented buys during the previous year.
The researchers extrapolated those rates across the nearly 10,000 U.S. gun dealers and estimated that about 34,000 straw purchases and about 37,000 attempted undocumented purchases were attempted nationally during that span. (Those figures only reflect the instances where the retailers realized they were dealing with straw buyers, so the actual number of bogus buyers is likely higher.)
“The key word there is ‘attempt’ " said Andy Molchan, director of the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers, which has about 1,000 members. “You know, 10 16-year-olds probably go into one liquor store during each year and attempt to buy a bottle of whiskey. But if they only attempted (and were denied), they didn’t buy it.”
Still, Molchan acknowledged that "straw-man buying for people is a problem. There are two big sources for criminal guns — No. 1 is theft from private homes and the other is straw-man purchases: they buy a gun for somebody who is a felon and they sell it to the other person for a mark up. It’s been a problem for a long time.”
For that reason, he said, members of the firearm dealers association all receive forms that they fill out during each sale — and ask the buyers to sign — attesting that the weapon is solely for that buyer and will not be re-sold in a secondary market to a felon or any other person who is restricted by state law from owning a gun. The forms have been in use for about 30 years.
“Our association is not against increased laws and increased penalties for people who are buying guns for people who are felons or shouldn’t have guns,” Molchan said. “We don’t have any objections to that.”
Many illicit, stand-in gun buyers are women, Wintemute said, citing firearms-trafficking statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Partly for that reason, he argues that reports indicating that women make up a rising share of the gun market "are a myth."
According to ATF, in nearly 20 percent of straw purchases, the buyer “is an intimate partner — the girlfriend or the spouse — of the real purchaser,” Wintemute said. “In (ATF) training materials, and just in common knowledge around the industry, one of the markers of a straw purchase is a woman who is purchasing when a guy is just standing around nearby in the store.”
*
Related
'Flashpoint': NBC News special reports on guns in America
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/flashpoint
*
© 2013 NBCNews.com
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/11/17272111-tens-of-thousands-try-to-illegally-buy-guns-from-dealers-annually-study-finds [with comments]
--
Drive-By Shooting In Northwest D.C. Injures 11, Police Release Surveillance Video
03/11/13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/drive-by-shooting-northwest-dc_n_2853965.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uscin-9Yd0M , embedded; with comments]
--
Adam Lanza Kept Spreadsheet Of Murderers For Years Before Newtown Shooting: Report
03/18/2013
New details have emerged in the investigation of the deadly Newtown shooting that suggest the killer fed his obsession with violence by keeping meticulous records about mass murderers for years.
The New York Daily News reports investigators discovered, "a chilling spreadsheet [ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408 ] 7 feet long and 4 feet wide that required a special printer, a document that contained Lanza’s obsessive, extensive research — in nine-point font — about mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/adam-lanza-spreadsheet_n_2901377.html [with comments]
--
Adam Bass Dead: 10-Month-Old Shot And Killed By His Father Larry Bass, Police Say
Posted: 03/15/2013 2:54 am EDT | Updated: 03/15/2013 3:38 pm EDT
A 10-month-old baby was shot and killed by his father [ http://www.newschannel5.com/story/21647277/10-month-old-dies-after-shooting-in-donelson ] inside a Tennessee hotel room on Thursday, NewsChannel5 reported.
According to The Tennessean, police officers received the call about 6:42 p.m. [ http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130314/NEWS03/130314025/Shooting-hotel-kills-10-month-old-boy ], and arrived at the Extended Stay America motel in Donelson three minutes later.
Once on scene, officers found the victim, Adam Bass, with a gunshot wound to his chest. Despite attempts to revive the baby, he was pronounced dead at the scene, Metro police spokesman Don Aaron said.
Police said the preliminary investigation showed that Adam's father, Larry Bass, 30, was handling his semi-automatic pistol inside the motel room when the gun unintentionally discharged.
Bass' wife, Jacquelin Bass, 28, and two other sons, ages 2 and 3, were also in the room during the incident, but no one else was injured.
At the time of the shooting, the family was living at the motel so Bass could work at the Nashville Music City Center [ http://www.wkrn.com/story/21646842/10-month-old-baby-accidentally-shot-by-father ], WKRN-TV reported. The family was originally from Texas.
Police are still processing the scene. So far, no charges have been filed.
"The parents are very, very distraught over what's happened, and the police department does not believe this was an intentional act," Aaron said.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/adam-bass-dead-baby-shot-tennessee_n_2882213.html [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
Former UCF student who killed himself had planned wider attack
FBI, OCSO and UCF Police continue to investigate after explosives found in residence hall.
March 18, 2013
A former University of Central Florida student still living on campus drafted plans to kill others in his dormitory but changed his mind early Monday and took only his only life with one of his newly purchased guns, police said.
James Oliver Seevakumaran, 30, was found in his dorm room in Tower 1, a seven-story structure near the UCF Arena. He died from a single shot to the head fired by a handgun, police said.
UCF Police Chief Richard Beary said writings found in his dorm room indicated "there was a planned attack."
Officers found an assault weapon, a handgun, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and, in a backpack, handmade explosives when they searched the man's room. The assault rifle had a magazine capable of holding 28 bullets, officials said.
"It could have been a very bad day for everyone here," Beary said. "Let's just face it: One shooting is bad enough. Multiples is unthinkable."
Police suspect Seevakumaran pulled a fire alarm in Tower 1 shortly after midnight and planned to shoot or injure other students as they evacuated, Beary said. But they believe he changed his mind, returned to his room and killed himself.
That may have happened because he pulled a gun on one of his roommates, who then escaped to a bathroom and called 911. The sound of police arriving may have prompted the man to alter his plans.
[...]
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-ucf-death-suspicious-evacuation-20130318,0,1082930.story [ http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-ucf-death-suspicious-evacuation-20130318,0,1875068,full.story ] [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
Need for gun reform made clear in details of Newtown gun massacre
The Rachel Maddow Show
March 14, 2013
Rachel Maddow reports on how much easier high capacity magazines made it for the Newtown shooter to maximize the slaughter he could commit, and shares video from the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting today in which Senator Feinstein patiently dealt with the naiveté of freshman senator Ted Cruz before the committee passed an assault weapons ban.
© 2013 NBCNews.com
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/51188139 [show links at http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/14/17316868-links-for-the-314-trms (with comments)]
--
Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns
Stephanie Holten of Washington State says she is still seeing a counselor to work through trauma from when her ex-husband, Corey Holten, held her at gunpoint in her home last year.
Ms. Holten had recently applied for and obtained an order for protection against Mr. Holten.
Diane Dye of Oklahoma, in a photograph provided by her mother. Ms. Dye took out an emergency protective order against her husband, Raymond Dye, the day she filed for divorce.
Mr. Dye, in a photograph provided by Ms. Dye's mother, confronted Ms. Dye, fatally shooting her before killing himself.
Deborah Wigg of Virginia, in a photograph provided by co-workers. In April 2011, Ms. Wigg noted her fear in a request for a protective order against her husband, Robert Wigg, who had assaulted her.
In November 2011, Mr. Wigg went to her home and shot her to death, and then killed himself.
March 17, 2013
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.
Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared [ http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_location.mp3#media/holten2 ].”
The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.
About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.
“I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in a statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m going to die!”
Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under a blanket on the couch. The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life [ http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_911.mp3#media/holten1 ] and quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs with their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten cowering, hysterical, on the floor.
For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html ] and its allies.
Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=all ]
===
North Dakota Senate Passes Two Unprecedented Abortion Bans
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple
03/15/2013
The North Dakota State Senate passed two anti-abortion bills on Friday that would be the first laws of their kind in the United States and would ban most abortions in the state. One bill would prevent women from having abortions as soon as the fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into the pregnancy, and the other bans abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome.
House Bill 1456, the heartbeat ban, passed the North Dakota House of Representatives earlier this year and now heads to Gov. Jack Dalrymple's (R) desk to be signed. The law would subject doctors to a $5,000 fine and up to five years in prison if they perform an abortion after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, surpassing Arkansas' new 12-week abortion ban [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/arkansas-12-week-abortion-ban_n_2821739.html ] to become the strictest abortion law in the country. The Republican-controlled Senate voted to pass it on Friday without any discussion.
The Senate also passed House Bill 1305, which bans abortions that are performed based on gender selection or a genetic defect. Three other states -- Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Arizona -- have laws banning abortions based on gender selection, but North Dakota would be the first state to prevent a woman from aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down Syndrome or other fetal anomalies.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/north-dakota-abortion_n_2885452.html [with (over 13,000) comments]
--
North Dakota looks at more abortion restrictions
By DAVE KOLPACK
Posted on Monday, 03.18.13
FARGO, N.D. -- North Dakota lawmakers who approved what would be some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. are now considering outlawing all abortions.
The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the legislation.
The state Senate passed two personhood measures last month, and the House could vote as soon as Tuesday. One of the bills would make the proposal a state law and another is a resolution that would put the definition into the state constitution, if passed by voters.
North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors that is looking at abortion restrictions, but the state is could go further than any other in challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
Last week, the Legislature sent Gov. Jack Dalrymple what would be two of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., banning abortions as early as six weeks in a pregnancy and on the basis of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. North Dakota also would be the first to adopt a personhood law if that measure passes. Abortion-rights activists have vowed to fight the measures in court.
Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, said Monday that the personhood measures could ban in vitro fertilization and force doctors to leave the state rather than face health care restrictions or possible criminal penalties. In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring resulting embryos into the womb.
"This is something that would affect the patient and doctor relationship," Dahl said at a news conference with a group of doctors who oppose the measures. "That's somewhere we want to keep the government out of."
One of the key players in the anti-abortion campaign, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said she was "floored" by the assertions about limitations on in vitro fertilization. She said the proposals allow exceptions for the "screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus." Sitte said that clause was crafted with Dahl's help.
But Dr. Steffen Christensen, who founded an in vitro fertilization clinic in Fargo 19 years ago, said he can't put himself or his workers at risk of legal action.
"The concern is that this is criminal negligence if anything should happen to an embryo," he said.
Gualberto Garcia Jones, an attorney for Personhood USA, noted that two doctors in the Senate - Fargo Republican Spencer Berry and Bismarck Republican Ralph Kilzer - voted for the proposals. "Clearly they would not vote to criminalize themselves," Jones said in a phone interview.
Opponents also noted that the North Dakota Medical Association is against the bill and a group of 26 students from the University of North Dakota medical school signed a letter to the state Senate against it.
Dr. Ted Kleiman, a Fargo pediatrician, said the law would set North Dakota back to "the stone age" of medicine.
"This is abhorrent in the highest degree," he said.
Efforts to pass personhood legislation in other states have failed. In Oklahoma, a measure this year that would have granted human embryos "all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons," was not given a hearing in a House committee and appears to be shelved for the legislative session.
North Dakota lawmakers are considering several bills this session that would restrict abortion. Dahl said that the legislation would ultimately impact medical care to women and families and allow no exceptions for rape or incest.
"A woman who has been sexually assaulted will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of the nature of her assault," she said.
Sitte said she doesn't think women should abort pregnancies resulting from rape.
"Rape is a horrible crime. It is absolutely devastating," Sitte said. "But do we believe in capital punishment for those children?"
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/18/3293434/north-dakota-looks-at-more-abortion.html [no comments yet]
--
Gillibrand Presses Military Officials on Sexual Assault
Published on Mar 13, 2013 by KirstenEGillibrand
Senator Gillibrand questions Military Officials on sexual assault at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on sexual assault in the military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PG8WKVQXTg [via/more at "Senators Push Sex Assault Controversy At Hearing, Grilling Military Leaders", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/senators-sex-assault-hearing_n_2869473.html (with embedded video report and slideshow, and comments)]
===
Goal of UT parenting study was to influence SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage, docs show
03.11.13
http://americanindependent.com/218834/goal-of-ut-parenting-study-was-to-influence-scotus-decisions-on-gay-marriage-docs-show [with comments]
--
Jeffress: Homosexuality Like Plugging a TV into the Wrong Outlet and Blowing It to Smithereens
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 3/13/2013 2:45 pm
Televangelist Robert Jeffress appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s flagship program Praise the Lord last week to discuss the opening of his new $130 million megachurch campus [ http://www.christianpost.com/news/dallas-megachurch-of-robert-jeffress-to-open-130-million-campus-in-march-90086/ ] and the controversy surrounding Tim Tebow’s scheduled but since-cancelled appearance [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tebow-cancels-appearance-robert-jeffress-church ]. Jeffress, who has a history [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-denounces-gays-promiscuous-manipulative-and-abnormal ] of [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/07/339299/video-prominent-perry-endorser-robert-jeffress-says-voting-for-romney-would-give-credibility-to-a-cult/ ] using [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-gay-rights-led-inevitable-implosion-our-country ] virulently [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-denounces-gays-promiscuous-manipulative-and-abnormal ] anti-gay [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-gays-miserable-lifestyle ] rhetoric [ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-warns-homosexuality-leads-pedophilia ], argued that homosexuality violates God’s design for sex.
“Think about this one time in heaven God was sitting up there with his sketch pad and he said, ‘you know I’m going to design human beings and would it be fun of they started doing this together with one another,’” Jeffress explained. “God dreamed up sex, He thought it up for our enjoyment, He gave us the equipment to enjoy it with.”
He went on to claim that homosexuality is like plugging a TV into a 220-volt power outlet rather than the recommended 120 outlet “because those are antiquated instructions” and “it’s my TV and I can do whatever I want to with it.”
“Well it is my TV to do what I want to with it but I’m going to blow that TV into smithereens if I put it in a 220 outlet,” Jeffress said.
Watch [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEEbNnET_4 (next below, as embedded)]:
© 2013 People For the American Way
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-homosexuality-plugging-tv-wrong-outlet-and-blowing-it-smithereens
--
Don't Blame It on the Bible
By Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D.
Posted: 03/18/2013 12:09 pm
Most Americans who oppose gay rights and same-sex marriage justify their opposition by turning to the Bible. But does the Bible really oppose homosexuality? You'd be surprised.
At the end of March, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which denies gay Americans the right to legally marry. Major polls show most Americans in support of marriage equality. Still a vocal and well-heeled right-wing evangelical opposition presents a formidable obstacle. Why? Because of a long-held belief that homosexuality is among the greatest of biblical sins.
But does the Bible really condemn homosexuality? Ironically it never answers that question conclusively. In fact, the biblical basis for the demonization of homosexuality is very thin and, ultimately, not at all decisive. Oddly enough, the notions of homosexuality that are so deeply rooted in American culture and law are based upon a surprisingly small number of biblical passages. If progressives are to successfully address the supposed divinely sanctioned circumscription of gay Americans' constitutional rights, it is crucial that they understand the biblical arguments that gay rights opponents use to justify their resistance. What follows is a brief primer on what progressives need to know about what the Bible says -- and does not say -- about homosexuality.
I.
First, it is important to recognize that the peoples of biblical antiquity had no idea of homosexuality as identity, orientation or lifestyle. The term "homosexuality" was not even coined until the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the first use of "homosexual" or its cognate in any biblical translation in any language did not occur until 1946 with the Revised Standard Version.
As for the Bible, its first supposed condemnation of homosexuality is the well-known Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from which we get the term "sodomite" and "sodomy law," the latter of which criminalizes same gender sex, even between mature and consenting adults. In Genesis we are told that a group of men insisted that Lot send out to them his three male visitors (whom the crowd didn't know were angels) so they could sexually abuse them (Genesis 19:4-9). Even the most cursory reading of this text reveals that it neither states nor implies that the men in the offending crowd were anything other than heterosexuals; we are simply told that they sought to humiliate and gang rape Lot's guests. Yet from this somehow it has been derived that the crowd was comprised of homosexual men and that homosexuality was rampant in Sodom. This has resulted in the wrong-headed conclusion, now widely accepted as biblical truth, that Sodom was destroyed as punishment for the "sin" of homosexuality, an interpretation that doesn't actually seem to have actually entered Christian discourse until medieval times -- a full millennium after the final form of the Bible was canonized.
However, the Bible itself tells a different story, that long before the crowd clamored for Lot's guests God had already condemned Sodom as "wicked," an apparent catch-all phrase for all types of transgressions (Genesis 13:13). What did Sodom's wickedness entail? Ezekiel explains that it was not sexual sins, but rather "pride, excess of food [that is, for greed and unwillingness to share], ... prosperous ease" and because it "did not aid the poor and needy" (16:49-50). The prophet Jeremiah gives the same general reason (23:13), as does Jesus (Matthew 10:14-15). In fact, biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah overwhelmingly cite the issues of unscrupulousness and domination of others as their fatal transgressions; there is little if any mention of any kind of sex. The inescapable conclusion is that the use of the term "sodomite" as a signifier for a homosexual person has absolutely no basis in the Bible -- none. This is crucial to recognize because much of the homophobia plaguing the world today can be traced to this tragic misunderstanding. However, if anyone is hell-bent on believing that the abusive crowd was really homosexual and that the entire Sodom narrative is divinely sanctioned and literally true, then they must also accept that the Sodom narrative also gives divine approval to sending daughters out to be gang-raped. One just cannot be a biblical literalist only when it suits one's case.
II.
There are only two other direct references to male-on-male sex in the Old Testament, one in Deuteronomy and one in Leviticus (interestingly, lesbianism is never mentioned in the Old Testament). The context for these Old Testament references is the Israelite's immigration into the land of Canaan, whose society already had well-established religious customs. As newcomers, there was much pressure for the outnumbered Israelites to assimilate into the Canaanite religious orbit, so laws and instructions were sacralized to prevent it.
One of the religious practices the biblical commands sought to keep Israelites from adopting was the ritual of male Canaanite priests honoring goddess figures by dressing like women, taking on social roles associated with women and, in some cases, even having themselves castrated. Another alarming practice was male and female Canaanite ritual temple prostitution, apparently for the purpose of appeasing their gods of fertility. The Israelites were forcefully admonished to avoid these practices: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be qedeshah (literally "a female holy/consecrated one" -- that is, a temple prostitute) -- "nor shall any of the sons of Israel be qadesh" -- a male temple prostitute (23:17).
It is with this backdrop of Canaanite temple practices that cross-dressing by Israelites is declared an "abomination" (Deuteronomy 22:5). It is also in this context that the following commandments are issued: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22); and, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13). These pronouncements have the appearance of timeless biblical laws, yet they were explicitly codified -- with little sense of the complexity of human sexuality -- to protect Israelites from seduction into the more powerful alien cultures that surrounded them. One of the most telling statements that the primary purpose of these pronouncements was ensure that Israelites cleave only to the God and religion of Israel is this : "You are to be holy" (qadosh, "set apart", i.e., from the practices of other societies) "as I myself (God) am holy" (Leviticus 19:1-2).
But again, if anyone chooses to accept the Bible's denunciations, even prescriptions of death for "a man lies with a male," then what about other biblical commandments that prescribe murder for disobedient children, for those who have sex during a woman's menstrual cycle? What about the commandments to stone to death adulterers (although a man could only commit adultery against the wife of another, never against his own), and the execution by stoning of women raped in the city, with the logic that if their rape was "legitimate" (shades of Rep. Todd Akins!), they would have been sure to scream loudly enough to be rescued? There is no leeway for picking and choosing. Again, either you are a biblical literalist or not.
As for the Old Testament, that's it for references to same gender sex. Not a word in Proverbs or the Psalms. The biblical prophets rail against every social and moral transgression in Israel, yet not one of them says a word about same gender sexuality. In fact, the Old Testament talks much more about adultery, incest, even about having sex with animals than it even alludes to same gender sexual intimacy.
So when considered in proper social and historical context, we find no unambiguous condemnations in the Old Testament of what we today call homosexuality, and no mention at all of lesbianism. But what we do find is the story of the love between David and Jonathan.
In the first of two biblical texts attributed to the prophet Samuel, we are told that "the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David ... and Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" and that Jonathan sealed their covenant of love by giving gifts to David (1 Samuel 18:1-4). Later, David and Jonathan are described as "kissing each other and weeping" at their separation (20:41). After Jonathan's untimely death, David cries out to him, "Your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:20).
Here we have a biblical story of a great love between two men that is said to be even dearer to them than the love of women. Would this love be considered any less beautiful, would it descend from sacred to profane, become worthy of disgust or even of death, if we were to learn that the physical contact between Jonathan and the messianic figure David went further than mere kissing? It is a worthy question, because the biblical narrative of the love between David and Jonathan attests -- in sacred scripture, no less -- that love between two men can be as deep and as holy as any other love.
III.
When it comes to the New Testament, the most significant passages thought to specifically condemn homosexuality are found in Romans and First Corinthians. In Romans the apostle Paul writes, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving due penalty for their error" (1:26).
Contrary to widespread misinterpretations, here Paul's focus is not homosexuality, but "dishonorable passions," lust, orgiastic acting out, folks just "freaking," as they say in the street. Paul explicitly speaks about heterosexuals exchanging what is "natural" for what is "unnatural." That's why he calls their passions "unnatural," because they are doing what is unnatural for them as heterosexuals; for gay people, on the other hand, sexual intimacy with members of their own gender is not unnatural, it is purely natural. Like everyone else in antiquity, Paul had no concept of homosexual identity or orientation; no other idea of human identity was available in his world. So what he could only have been condemning certain unidentified over-the-top, lustful sexual actions by heterosexual people. Therefore Paul's condemnation of "unnatural lusts" cannot be used as a biblical support for condemning same gender love and intimacy; indeed, he is not describing love at all. But notice that here Paul has made an argument from nature, declaring what is natural and what is not. If opponents of equal rights for gay Americans accept Paul's argument from nature, why can't the recent insights of modern science be taken similarly seriously that sexual identities evolve in early childhood and, in a yet an undetermined percentage of gays, seem to have genetic origins?
In First Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul further writes, "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (malakoi), sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."
Malakos, the term translated as "male prostitute," literally means "soft" or "effeminate," and is thought by many scholars to refer to male child prostitutes who, of course, rarely assumed that role without coercion; or perhaps it refers to pedophiles. The meaning of arsenokoitai, the term variously translated as "sodomite" and "sexual pervert," is not fully clear to us today, but it does seem to refer to some form of homosexual relationship, possibly exploitive in nature. Perhaps here malakoi refers to youths who are sexually used and arsenokoita to the men who use them, though we can't be certain. In the final analysis, however, no one can say with absolute certainty or integrity what Paul actually means in this passage.
IV.
Finally we come to the Gospels. Nowhere in any of the four Gospels does Jesus speak even one word about homosexuality. What he does say is that the two paramount commandments -- those that must be obeyed -- are to "love your Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength ... and to love your neighbor as yourself." But how can you love your neighbor as yourself if you would deny your neighbor -- any neighbor -- the happiness and social acceptability of their love and the opportunity to sacralize their committed spousal relationship in the eyes of God that you treasure for yourself? In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says that the primary way each of us will be judged as worthy of eternal life, as he puts it, is not by whom you share intimate love, but instead by whether or not we have lived justly, if we have tried to serve those in need and labored to establish justice in the land. There is nothing in the words of Jesus that gives even the smallest sense that one will be judged by what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom.
V.
Speaking of bedrooms, the term "traditional marriage" is often used to challenge the very notion of gay marriage. Yet the Bible speaks of a number of kinds of marital relationships without condemnation and without presenting any of them as "traditional." There is polygamy, concubinage ("shacking up" or a woman on the side, in today's parlance). There is Sarah's urging of Abraham to impregnate their slave Hagar, Jacob marrying the sisters Rachel and Leah simultaneously and impregnating the female slave of each to boot. For his part, without criticism or a tinge of judgment Jesus speaks of serial polygamy, called Levirite marriage, which holds that if a man dies childless his widow was to engage in sex with his eldest brother to impregnate her in the name of her dead husband. If the eldest brother died without giving her a child, she went on to the next brother, then the next, then the next, until she became pregnant or ran out of brothers. In that none of these marital arrangements are condemned or even treated as exceptional in the Bible, they contradict the notion that there is one particular "traditional" type of biblical marriage. There is, of course, cultural notions of traditional marriage that hold sway in many societies, including our own, but they are just that: cultural traditions, not biblical traditions.
So does the Bible really condemn homosexuality -- and gay marriage by extension -- as sinful? As we have seen, the evidence is far too ambiguous and open to dispute for anyone to claim with integrity that it does. That is why the Bible cannot and must not be used to deny to gay citizens the full measure of the constitutional rights enjoyed by other American citizens. To do so is not only unconstitutional. It is a real biblical sin.
Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., is the author of "The Universe Bends Toward Justice: Radical Reflections on the Bible, the Church and the Body Politic [ http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Bends-Toward-Justice-Reflections/dp/1570759405 ]" (Orbis, 2012)
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/obery-m-hendricks-jr-phd/dont-blame-it-on-the-bible_b_2884094.html [with comments]
--
Virginia Anti-Sodomy Law: 'Crimes Against Nature' Law Struck Down By 4th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals
03/13/2013
A divided three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned Virginia's anti-sodomy law in a Colonial Heights case.
The majority ruled that Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" anti-sodomy provision is unconstitutional in light of a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision [Lawrence v. Texas] invalidating state laws that make sexual activity between consenting adults crimes.
"It is shameful that Virginia continued to prosecute individuals under the sodomy statute for 10 years after the Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional," said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia.
"This ruling should bring an end to such prosecutions," she added.
Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General's office, said, "We are reviewing the decision and will consider our options."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/virginia-anti-sodomy-law-_n_2865965.html [with embedded video report re Lawrence v. Texas, and comments]
--
Gay couples also deserve chance to get married
By Rob Portman
Friday March 15, 2013 12:33 PM
I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.
That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.
Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.
At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.
Well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of marriage for gay couples, and maintaining religious freedom is as important as pursuing civil marriage rights. For example, I believe that no law should force religious institutions to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don’t approve of.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.
One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn't amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.
Over the past decade, nine states and the District of Columbia have recognized marriage for same-sex couples. It is understandable to feel cautious about making a major change to such an important social institution, but the experience of the past decade shows us that marriage for same-sex couples has not undercut traditional marriage. In fact, over the past 10 years, the national divorce rate has declined.
Ronald Reagan said all great change in America begins at the dinner table, and that’s been the case in my family. Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.
The process of citizens persuading fellow citizens is how consensus is built and enduring change is forged. That’s why I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.
I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.
Rob Portman is a U.S. senator from Ohio.
© 2013 The Dispatch Printing Company
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html [with comments]
--
James Inhofe, GOP Senator, Stunned At CPAC Over Learning Of Rob Portman's Gay Marriage Support
By Michelangelo Signorile
Posted: 03/15/2013 1:38 pm EDT | Updated: 03/15/2013 7:39 pm EDT
Anti-gay GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a staunch opponent of gay marriage who once boasted on the floor of the Senate [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/06/06/5669/inhofe-gay-marriage/ ] that he was “very proud” that there’s never been a “homosexual relationship in the recorded history of our family,” was stunned to learn that conservative GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio reversed his position [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rob-portman-gay-marriage_n_2881805.html ] and announced today [just above] that he supports same-sex marriage after learning that his own son is gay. Inhofe was in fact so shocked that he could not respond to the news.
“I did not hear that,” Inhofe told me on my Sirius XM radio show [ http://www.siriusoutq.com/ ], with a stunned look on his face before pausing for a moment. “Again, I’m pretty surprised. I can’t really respond to that. It’s something I was not aware of until you mentioned it.” (Listen below)
When told of the news and that Portman has spoken out about his support for marriage equality on CNN, Inhofe had positive words for Portman, while still refusing to respond and chalking it up to a “personal thing” on Portman’s part.
Well, I...I think the world of Rob Portman,” he said. “He’s an intelligent guy. He’s always been conservative on all the issues. It sounds to me like a really personal thing in his life and I’d rather not respond.”
Listen to the interview with Inhofe below:
[audio embedded]
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/james-inhofe-cpac-gay-marriage-rob-portman_n_2884724.html [with comments]
--
John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This
03/17/2013
[...]
"Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," Boehner said [ http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boehner-i-cant-imagine-ever-supporting-gay-marriage ]. "All right. It's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/john-boehner-gay-marriage_n_2896074.html [with embedded video, and comments]
--
Gay Marriage Helps Men Live Longer, According To Danish Study
03/12/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/gay-marriage-mortality-rates_n_2862242.html [with comments]
--
Glenn Gruenhagen, Minnesota Rep, Introduces 'Ex-Gay' Friend Kevin Petersen At House Session
Posted: 03/12/2013 4:03 pm EDT | Updated: 03/12/2013 4:19 pm EDT
A Minnesota state representative known for his opposition to same-sex marriage [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/glenn-gruenhagen_n_2781363.html ] went even further this week, introducing a visiting "ex-gay" friend during a house floor session.
Minnesota State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, introduced Kevin Petersen, who he says "was active in the gay lifestyle for about 10 years," before he "left it" and opted to marry a woman.
Last month, Gruenhagen (R) appeared at a press conference, proclaiming that gay people who say they're "born that way" were lying.
"It's an unhealthy sexual addiction," Gruenhagen was quoted by the Star Tribune [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/glenn-gruenhagen_n_2781363.html ] as saying. "So the concept that you're born that way and it's an immutable characteristic is an unscientific lie, OK? The human genome map has been completed. I urge you, as the news media, to give both sides a fair and open hearing on this debate."
Meanwhile, lawmakers are seeking to overturn Minnesota's 1997 ban on gay marriage. Although passage of the bill is not certain, the Democratic Farm Labor Party holds majorities in both houses [ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/24/1492941/poll-growing-plurality-of-minnesotans-support-marriage-equality/ ] of the state legislature.
UPDATE: Minnesota's marriage equality bill now advances to the State Senate floor after being approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 5-3 on March 12, ThinkProgress points out [ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/12/1708591/minnesota-senate-judiciary-committee-advances-marriage-equality/ ].
As Towleroad points out [ http://www.towleroad.com/2013/03/exgaymn.html ], Petersen helped Gruenhagen try to pass a constitutional amendment to retain the ban on same-sex marriage last November.
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/glenn-gruenhagen-minnesota-rep-ex-gay_n_2862434.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6TpeJqSIUg , as embedded; with comments]
--
Hillary Clinton for HRC's Americans for Marriage Equality
Published on Mar 18, 2013 by hrcmedia
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains why she supports marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RP9pbKMJ7c
--
Westboro Baptist Church Founder Fred Phelps May Be Gay, Suggests Former Member Lauren Drain
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/lauren-drain-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps-gay-experience_n_2877987.html [with embedded video reports, and comments]
--
Stephen Fry, British Comedian, Confronts Russia's 'Homosexual Propaganda' Lawmaker
Actor and comedian Stephen Fry confronted the Russian lawmaker behind the "homosexual propaganda" bill for a new documentary. Here, Fry arrives at the premiere of 'The Hobbit' in London on Dec. 2, 2012.
03/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/stephen-fry-russia-homosexual-propaganda-anti-gay_n_2883916.html [with comments]
--
Gay Marriage Support Hits New High: Poll
03/18/2013
A record high 58 percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be legal, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage/ ] released Monday.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support_n_2902533.html [with comments]
--
When Did the Southern Baptists Become Libertarian?
By James Peron
Posted: 03/10/2013 11:37 am
In a rather typical fit of hyperbole, Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention took some new swipes at the LGBT community -- one of his favorite targets.
Land claimed that LGBT "do not believe in a live and let live philosophy." Surely, this is an odd accusation for a theocratically-inclined fundamentalist to throw at others. It isn't as if Land has ever shown libertarian tendencies himself. Land is an opponent of allowing gay people the right to enter into marriage contracts. When it comes to Southern Baptist morality, there is no "live and let live philosophy" in operation.
Consider the Lawrence v. Texas case, which decriminalized sodomy. As Prof. Randy Barnett noted [ http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2003/9/revolution.pdf ], the ruling, written by Justice Kennedy, required "the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow 'fundamental.'" This sounds like a legal version of how the Collins Dictionary defines [ http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/live-and-let-live ] live and let live -- "to refrain from interfering in others' lives."
If "live and let live" means anything, it means granting other people freedom to control their own lives. Sadly, in spite of Rev. Land's rhetoric, "live and let live" has never been a value the Southern Baptists have held. Consider a Southern Baptist resolution [ http://sbtexas.com/am-site/media/2003-resolutions.pdf ] about the Lawrence decision itself: "We specifically oppose the recent United States Supreme Court decision failing to uphold Texas law prohibiting homosexual activity..."
This resolution does not merely condemn sodomy as "sinful," but calls for it to be a criminal offense. It is the total opposite of "live and let live."
In his attack, Rev. Land claims "the homosexual activists have gone after the icons... they've gone after Disney, the family-friendly, supposedly, network and family-friendly entertainment venture." Perhaps Rev. Land forgot this little news story [ http://articles.cnn.com/1997-06-18/us/9706_18_baptists.disney_1_boycott-disneys-denomination?_s=PM:US ] from 1997:
Leaders of the Southern Baptists, the nations largest Protestant denomination, voted Wednesday to boycott Walt Disney Co. and its subsidiaries for what it called the company's anti-Christian and anti-family direction.
The boycott includes the company's films and theme parks and its television network, ABC.
In comparison [ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1995839-1,00.html ], how did the LGBT community "go after" Disney? They have an annual "Gay Days" at the park, for members of the community and their families. "Gay Days is now one of the largest gay-pride events in the world. According to Watermark, a Florida-based gay newspaper that has been covering Gay Days since it started, about 150,000 people attended this June's six-day gathering." In other words, the LGBT community spent millions at Disneyland, while the Southern Baptists were boycotting the company. Yet, Land says it is the gays who are "going after" Disney. With this kind of "going after" you might understand why Disney World appointed [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/george-kalogridis-walt-disney-world-gay-president_n_2624080.html ] a gay man as president, instead of a Southern Baptist.
Land claims gays are "going after the Boy Scouts." That is not just a bad figure of speech, it is also him equating [ http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=39688 ] homosexuality with child molesting. "If you put men in mentoring positions of trust and authority in camp-out situations with young teens to whom they are sexually attracted, either heterosexually or homosexually, human tragedies will follow."
Land ignores that most the uproar about the Scouts is because gay young people are being thrown out. He prefers to concentrate on the idea that gay men are infiltrating the Scouts so they can have their way with young boys.
"It would be the equivalent of allowing heterosexual men to be Scoutmasters for Girl Scout troops," says Land. In response, allow me to quote [ http://www.gsnetx.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ezrOG59fh8A%3D&tabid=222 ] the policy of the Girl Scouts in Land's home state of Texas: "Male adults may be part of the leadership team for a Girl Scout Troop/group of girls, including being designated as the "01" for the Girl Scout Troop/group. Male Girl Scout Leaders are expected to fulfill the same requirements as female Girl Scout Leaders."
Who exactly is "going after" the Boy Scouts? Three organizations control the bulk of Boy Scout troops in the U.S.: the Mormons, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists have targeted Boy Scouts for decades. None of these three very patriarchal religions have seen Girl Scouts as being of equal importance -- after all, they are just girls. The Southern Baptists have also made it quite clear [ http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/churches_threaten_to_pull_funding_if_boy_scouts_drop_anti_gay_ban/ ] to the Scouts that they will cease funding troops unless they continue to throw out scouts who are gay.
As part of their "live and let live" policies, Southern Baptists passed [ http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20130220/NEWS06/302200163/Southern-Baptists-urge-continued-ban-gay-Scouts ] another resolution about the Scouts, claiming that failure to ban gay young people would "place the Boy Scouts organization at odds with a consistent biblical worldview on matters of human sexuality, making it an organization that would no longer complement, but rather contradict, our belief in God and His moral precepts that serve as the basis for our Christian faith."
There is another side to "live and let live." It doesn't just mean you leave others alone, but also you leave them to live their own life just as you expect to be free to live yours. In this sense, it is quite similar to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."
Southern Baptists, such as Rev. Land, should never invoke "live and let live" or the Golden Rule. If Land got back what he's been handing out for decades he would have precious few freedoms left. They have never let the LGBT community "live" their own lives and what they have "done unto" others, is rampant interference, threats of legal sanctions, and the force of law. Is that what Rev. Land wants for himself and his fellow fundamentalists?
Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/richard-land-baptists-lgbt_b_2846998.html [the YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCDpYRq4JJU , as embedded; with comments]
--
A Church Group, a Lawsuit, and a Culture of Abuse
C.J. Mahaney, the current president of Sovereign Grace Ministries
By T.F. Charlton
March 5, 2013
I was not surprised when Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), the church group I grew up in as a teen and young adult, was served with a lawsuit this past October, alleging clergy cover-ups of sexual abuse [ http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-17/lawsuit-claims-evangelical-church-hid-abuse-claims ].
Sadly, I was even less surprised when the suit was amended in January to include Covenant Life Church (CLC), the congregation I had attended for nine years, and to add new charges of physical and sexual abuse [ http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130114/NEWS01/301140087/New-abuse-allegations-target-co-founder-others-Sovereign-Grace-Ministries ] by pastors, as well as allegations of abuse on church property. From what I’d seen inside Sovereign Grace and Covenant Life from 1996–2005, the alleged abuse seemed almost predictable—the result of the group’s toxic teachings on parenting, gender, and sexuality.
Sovereign Grace [ http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/ ] is a U.S.-based church-planting network (they say “family”) of predominantly white, suburban, reformed evangelical congregations. C.J. Mahaney, the current president, and Larry Tomczak—today a pastor at Bethel World Outreach Church in Brentwood, Tennessee—co-founded the Gaithersburg, Maryland church that would become Covenant Life in 1977. It was the first in what would become a network of 91 churches across 25 states and 17 countries. And it would launch the careers of several conservative Christian activists, including Lou Engle, whose ministry The Call has played a significant role in exporting American religious homophobia [ http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2531/american_supports_ugandan_anti_gay_bill_ ] to Uganda, as well as Che Ahn, president of the charismatic Harvest International Ministries. Both men were among Covenant Life’s early leaders.
Five years after its founding, in 1982, the church launched what would become its overarching ministry, Sovereign Grace, originally called “People of Destiny International.” The grandiose name reflected the group’s aspirations to greater influence as a ministry, a vision that would only begin to be realized as the group shifted away from its charismatic beginnings toward reformed evangelicalism.
By 1997, Mahaney had found a new protégé in Joshua Harris, a young evangelical beloved in the conservative homeschooling community for his speaking tours and magazine for religious homeschoolers. Harris’ book I Kissed Dating Goodbye, which promoted parent-supervised “courtships” instead of “secular” dating, was published in the same year. Its popularity—the book was a Christian bestseller—and Harris’ name recognition helped bring SGM to greater prominence among evangelicals. Mahaney eventually appointed Harris as his successor as senior pastor of CLC in 2004.
The two men now boast ties with some of the biggest names in reformed evangelicalism, including Albert Mohler, president of the country’s largest Southern Baptist seminary, and Seattle’s “cussing pastor,” Mark Driscoll. Harris and Mahaney are also board members of influential, staunchly conservative organizations like The Gospel Coalition and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Alongside these powerful partnerships has come strife. In its short history, SGM has been shaken by several high-profile departures and church splits. Co-founder Tomczak left in 1997 [ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/6/evangelist-tomczak-still-a-force/ ] over theological disagreements with Mahaney’s increasingly Calvinist-inspired preaching, and his objection to how the church “disciplined” him after one of his sons fell into unspecified “teenage rebellion.”
In July 2011, another former church leader, Brent Detwiler, released documents criticizing his own ouster, recording perceived slights and internal conflicts in painstaking detail, portraying CLC and SGM’s leadership as fractious and dysfunctional and Mahaney as a narcissistic, passive-aggressive bully. It also charged that in 1997, Mahaney had attempted to blackmail Tomczak out of voicing doctrinal disagreements by threatening to reveal his son’s unspecified “sins.”
After Mahaney publicly confessed to this attempted blackmail, and to “deficiencies” in his leadership that seemed to confirm Detwiler’s unflattering account, he was forced to take a leave of absence [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/sovereign-grace-ministries-riven-by-conflict-seeks-to-change/2011/08/19/gIQAJuXt7J_story.html ] as president of SGM. But his absence was short-lived; SGM’s board quickly restored him, over the objections of Harris and others, and SGM moved its headquarters to Louisville, Kentucky in April 2012. Since then, several churches have voted to leave SGM, including CLC and Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax [ http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2013/01/15/two-more-congregations-leave-sovereign-grace-ministries-one-of-them-a-defendant-in-lawsuit/ ], the other church named in the lawsuit.
The Lawsuit
This rocky history is a fitting prelude to the controversies surrounding the ministry in recent years.
Perhaps the biggest thorn in SGM’s side has been the spate of former members’ blogs that have cropped up since 2007, starting with SGM Survivors [ http://sgmsurvivors.com/ ]—a site where ex-members have shared numerous accounts of SGM’s cult-like atmosphere, including cover-ups of spousal abuse and sexual abuse of children as young as two.
And in October 2012, three people whose stories were first shared on SGM Survivors [ http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/the-stories/ ] formalized their complaints by becoming the first plaintiffs in the current class action lawsuit, charging the ministry and its past and present clergy for complicity in the abuse.
The original lawsuit [ http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2012/10/18/lawsuit-text-with-address-redacted/ ] listed SGM, Mahaney, Tomczak, and six other pastors from CLC and Sovereign Grace Church as defendants. The amended filing [ http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/files/2013/01/First-Amended-Complaint-as-filed-11.pdf ] added five new plaintiffs and CLC, as well as CLC’s day school, the Fairfax church, and two more pastors as defendants. One new plaintiff, “Paula Poe,” alleged that a pastor and church volunteer together operated a “pedophilia ring” at CLC and its school, and that one of their suspected victims, a pastor’s son, went on to molest a seven-year-old boy in the Fairfax church.
The suit has been filed not only on behalf of the individual plaintiffs, but also on behalf of a much larger class of people allegedly abused as minors in SGM, who do not wish to come forward with their stories. The suit alleges that the potential additional victims are too many to be included as individual plaintiffs in the suit because SGM’s leaders have cultivated an “environment conducive to and protective of physical and sexual abuse of children.”
The stories from plaintiffs who are included describe a church culture where pastors’ sympathies routinely lay with male perpetrators of sexual abuse, particulary married fathers, who were allowed continued access to victims and other children in the church. Victims’ families were deliberately misled to keep them out of legal proceedings, while pastors provided perpetrators with legal support. And families were pressured not to report abuse and to “forgive” perpetrators, with even children as young as three being forced to meet their abusers for “reconciliation.”
Women and children who came forward were threatened and ostracized if they resisted efforts to “restore” their abusive husbands and fathers to a position of “leadership” in the family. One plaintiff, “Robin Roe,” whose sister was sexually abused by their adoptive father, reports that their mother was advised by CLC pastors to send the victim away so the abuser could return as “head of the household.” When Roe’s mother refused to submit to this and other pastoral “attempt[s] to obstruct justice,” the family was kicked out of the church.
An anonymous adult witness mentioned in the lawsuit (who originally shared her story as “Taylor [ http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2011/08/31/taylors-story/ ]” on SGM Survivors) further alleges that church leaders told her her husband had been “tempted” to molest their 10-year-old daughter because Taylor hadn’t “met [her] husband’s needs physically.” Fairfax pastors instructed her to allow her husband to move back into the home and “make sure [she] had physical relations with him regularly,” and to lock their daughter’s bedroom at night.
The abuse allegations include physical as well as sexual abuse. Larry Tomczak, the only defendant explicitly named as a perpetrator in the suit, is alleged to have physically abused “Carla Coe,” a child under his care for over 25 years. (The suit doesn’t specify their relationship, but Tomczak has said that he believes the charges relate to a “family member.”) The abuses are said to include forcing her to undress so Tomczak could beat her “on her bare buttocks”—assaults that allegedly continued well into adulthood. In another account, a plaintiff charges that she and her siblings were sexually abused by their father, and that she had been beaten by him so severely that she bled and bruised. When the siblings reported the abuse to CLC leaders, these pastors informed the father, which they charge “led to further abuse.”
Adding weight to these allegations is the December 2012 indictment of Nathaniel Morales [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/man-accused-of-molesting-boys-in-1980s-from-md-church-church-is-identified-in-sex-abuse-suit/2013/02/04/62e2a882-6edd-11e2-b35a-0ee56f0518d2_story.html ], a CLC children’s ministry volunteer, for sexually abusing four boys between 1985 and 1990. According to media reports, the victim whose account sparked the investigation of Morales alleges that pastors didn’t inform police when the victims’ parents first informed them of the abuse, out of concern for the church’s reputation. Pastors at CLC, including Grant Layman, one of the defendants in the lawsuit, have confirmed that they were aware that Morales had a history of sexual predation.
Another pastor, Ernest Boisvert, says that Morales had shown “contrition” when confronted, and that he “took his cues from [victims’] families” in deciding not to go to the police. These accounts seem to confirm that at least some pastors at CLC were inclined to respond to sexual abuse as “sin” belonging to the jurisdiction of pastors and not necessarily as criminal offenses that required reporting.
A Perfect Storm of Doctrine
It’s no accident that so many allegations of serious abuse have arisen across SGM’s churches. The combination of patriarchal gender roles, purity culture, and authoritarian clergy that characterizes Sovereign Grace’s teachings on parenting, marriage, and sexuality creates an environment where women and children—especially girls—are uniquely vulnerable to abuse.
Critics of evangelical sexual mores have noted [ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/12/how-the-modesty-doctrine-fuels-rape-culture.html ] the connections between demands for female modesty and chastity and a culture where these same bodies are constantly exposed to sexual violence and abuse. As E.J. Graff put it her analysis of the global implications of the gang rape and murder of Indian medical student Jyoti Singh Pandey, purity culture [ http://prospect.org/article/purity-culture-rape-culture ], whether in India or America, casts “women’s bodies [as]…primarily for procreation or male pleasure… a culture in which women must cover up or be threatened is a rape culture.” [Emphasis mine]
If, as Graff writes, purity culture is rape culture, then the submission culture that exists in many conservative evangelical churches is abuse culture. The level of deference and obedience that children are expected to pay to parents, wives to husbands, and girls and women to an exclusively male leadership is so extreme that it encourages—and sometimes outright demands—submission to men who use their power to abuse.
At Sovereign Grace, abuse culture was literally a part of the teachings. The allegations against CLC co-founder Larry Tomczak bring to mind his bizarrely titled 1982 book God, the Rod, and Your Child’s Bod, a parenting guide that was in heavy use at SGM before his departure. In it, he advises parents to keep multiple instruments for beatings in handy locations so they can “apply loving correction immediately.”
Writing about “disciplining” children who disobey multiple times in a day, Tomczak winkingly describes beatings as “posterior protoplasmic stimulation,” assuring parents that any resulting marks or redness are “nothing to get upset about.” He also recounts giving his 18-month-old son “a series of repeated spankings (with explanation and abundant display of affection between each one)” in a motel parking lot, until the boy “realized that Daddy always wins and wins decisively!” [emphasis his] Tomczak denies physically abusing anyone, but his defense [ http://www.charismanews.com/us/37967-charismatic-leader-explains-corporal-punishment-abuse-charges ] that the current lawsuit’s allegations concern a “disciplinary parental issue” over a “troubled family member” only raises more concerns.
SGM’s teachings on corporal punishment are virtually unchanged since Tomczak’ days as pastor. They continue to promote evangelical parenting manuals like Ted Tripp’s controversial? Shepherding a Child’s Heart, which has sparked controversy over its endorsement of spankings [ http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008189313_marshill19m0.html ] for babies as young as eight months old. Application of this teaching can lead to kids being spanked multiple times a day (far more often than I was, as the daughter of very strict immigrant parents, or many other children who grow up in families where corporal punishment is used).
The ultimate goal of discipline, corporal or otherwise, is to instill in children the importance of immediate, complete, and cheerful obedience to authority. Discipline in this context becomes a systematic ritual of physical assault and emotional manipulation [ http://www.covlifemedia.org/dl_dialog.php?filename=v4.0/2011_01_08--Parenting-0-5-Session-2-Speaking-Notes-2011-01.pdf ]. Children are expected to willingly lean over the parent’s knees or a bed, stay still during beatings with a “sturdy but flexible instrument,” not to scream, and not to criticize or express anger towards parents. Parents are to conclude beatings by holding children until they stop crying and apologize, then showing them “lavish affection.” Children must reciprocate this affection and be “peaceful” in order for the ritual to conclude.
A child’s failure to be affectionate and peaceful after a beating is interpreted to mean that they need more discipline. What children learn from these teachings is that corporal punishment is an expression of parental love.
A Lifelong Attitude of Submission
The larger context for corporal punishment is the belief that Christians must cultivate a lifelong attitude of submission to God-given authority. Parents are one such authority; male leadership over women in the family, church, and society is another.
Both women and children are taught that submission is part of a divine plan that should be embraced joyfully, and that even submitting to abusive men is noble and Christ-like. CLC pastor Joshua Harris quotes [ http://www.covlife.org/resources/3672913-A_Word_to_Wives ] 1 Peter on this score, praising slaves who obeyed the masters who beat them as following Jesus’ example. Harris interprets this to mean that all Christians are called to submit, even when “suffering” under “unjust” leadership. Therefore wives are called to resist the “sinful” impulse to “fight back” against or even criticize husbands who misuse their “authority.”
These teachings are not unique to SGM. Evangelical leader John Piper—a friend to SGM—has taught that women must maintain attitudes of submission even toward abusive husbands. Wives may, he says, have to,“endure… being smacked one night [ http://arewomenhuman.me/2010/08/08/john-piper-wives-should-endure-abuse-for-a-season/ ]” if abuse is “simply hurting [them]” and “not requiring [them] to sin” in some way like “group sex.”
It’s such a romanticization of saintly submission in the face of violence that Harris’ exceedingly brief disclaimer that “this isn’t a call [for wives] to be on the receiving end of abuse and violence” (like Piper’s recent clarification [ http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1909 ] of his remarks) comes across as hollow.
If children are taught that assault is divinely sanctioned, and that their bodies belong to adults, girls in particular are trained to see their bodies as male property, starting with their fathers. These lessons come from the top. C.J. Mahaney and his wife Carolyn, herself a popular writer on “biblical femininity,” teach that every piece of clothing girls and married women purchase should be inspected for “modesty” by fathers [ http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/12908209345.pdf ]. And Mahaney encourages his followers to confront girls and women in their congregations whose clothing they find immodest.
Girls grow up under the sexualizing gaze of men who are free to comment on the sexual response female bodies “provoke” in them. This early training in feminine responsibility for the sexual response of men makes it difficult to recognize and name abuse, and causes further trauma with the implication that being a victim of sexual violence makes a woman “impure.”
Beyond Sovereign Grace
The submission theology at the root of the abuses alleged in the lawsuit is not unique to SGM. These teachings have led to similar cases [ http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2013/Let-Us-Prey-Big-Trouble-at-First-Baptist-Church/ ]? of abuse in entirely unaffiliated churches, and to the proliferation of watchdog blogs like SGM Survivors for similar church groups—including Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church [ http://marshillrefuge.blogspot.com/ ].
At its root, abuse is the harmful exercise of power over others. Submission theology protects the privileges of the powerful; as a result, abuse survivors in submission cultures are not able to fight effectively for support or accountability. It is possible that victim advocacy is inherently impossible in a culture like SGM’s.
Some former Sovereign Grace members hold out hope that exposing these abuses will substantially change the cultures of the church, or at least damage their reputation and influence. Judging from recent scandals in both Catholic and Protestant churches, I’m skeptical.
Indeed, SGM’s own current crisis has so far had little to do with accountability for perpetrators or justice for victims. Rather, it’s the culmination of longstanding power struggles and grudges between the influential men who have led SGM—some of the same men accused of covering up for abusers or being abusers themselves.
What is clear, though, is that the same scrutiny that has been focused on Catholic abuse scandals is needed to understand the factors that contribute to similar scandals in Protestant congregations. The less-centralized nature of many Protestant organizations and the greater difficulty in obtaining data about the scope of sexual abuse in Protestant churches makes this a challenge. But it is important to understand how the theology of such groups can engender cultures of abuse—sexual abuse compounded by religious abuse of authority—and with this understanding, work to create specialized support for victims.
© Religion Dispatches 2013
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6788/a_church_group__a_lawsuit__and_a_culture_of_abuse/ [with comments]
--
Starting a Papacy, Amid Echoes of a ‘Dirty War’
The church rejected claims by Jorge Videla, third from right, ex-head of the junta, on the role that bishops played.
Enrique Marcarian/Reuters
Video [embedded]
A Look at Pope Francis
Interactive Feature: Readers Consider the Selection of a New Pope
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/14/world/europe/pope-francis-reader-reactions.html
The Rev. Christian von Wernich, a former police chaplain, was convicted of complicity in the killing of political prisoners.
El Dia
By SIMON ROMERO and WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: March 17, 2013
BUENOS AIRES — One Argentine priest is on trial in Tucumán Province on charges of working closely with torturers in a secret jail during the so-called Dirty War, urging prisoners to hand over information. Another priest was accused of taking a newborn from his mother, one of the many baby thefts [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18731349 ] from female prisoners who were “disappeared” into a system of clandestine prisons.
Another clergy member offered biblical justification for the military’s death flights, according to an account by one of the pilots anguished about dumping drugged prisoners out of aircraft and into the sea.
As he starts his papacy, Francis, until this month Jorge Mario Bergoglio [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/francis_i/index.html ], the archbishop of Buenos Aires, faces his own entanglement with the Dirty War, which unfolded from 1976 to 1983. As the leader of Argentina [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/argentina/index.html ]’s Jesuits for part of that time, he has repeatedly had to dispute claims that he allowed the kidnapping of two priests in his order in 1976, accusations the Vatican [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html ] is calling a defamation campaign [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/europe/pope-francis-praises-benedict-urges-cardinals-to-spread-gospel.html ].
Now his election as pope is focusing scrutiny on his role as the most prominent leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina, an institution that remains under withering criticism for its role in failing to publicly resist — and in various instances actively supporting — the military dictatorship during a period when as many as 30,000 people are thought to have been killed or disappeared.
This stance by Argentina’s church stands in contrast to the resistance against dictatorships by Catholic leaders elsewhere in Latin America at the time — notably in Chile and Brazil, two nations where far fewer people were killed. Even as the head of the Argentine Conference of Bishops from 2005 to 2011, Francis resisted issuing a formal apology for the church’s actions during the Dirty War, disappointing human rights campaigners.
“The combination of action and inaction by the church was instrumental in enabling the mass atrocities committed by the junta,” said Federico Finchelstein, an Argentine historian at the New School for Social Research in New York. “Those like Francis that remained in silence during the repression also played by default a central role,” he said. “It was this combination of endorsement and either strategic or willful indifference that created the proper conditions for the state killings.”
Francis, 76, has offered a complex description of his role during the dictatorship, a period officially called the Process of National Reorganization, in which the authorities installed a terrifying campaign against perceived opponents.
While refraining from public criticism of the dictatorship, Francis said in his autobiography that he pressed military officials behind the scenes to free the two priests from his order — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — even meeting with top military officials.
Francis also said that he hid at a Jesuit school several people persecuted by the dictatorship, and even helped one young man who resembled him to flee Argentina, via Foz do Iguaçu on the Brazilian border, giving him priest’s garb and his own identity documents.
The Rev. Ignacio Pérez del Viso, a Jesuit who is a longtime friend of Francis’, said that a small number of Argentine bishops spoke out against the military dictatorship. But they were clearly in the minority, he said, and others in the Argentine church, including the new pope, who was 39 at the time of the 1976 coup, adopted a far more cautious position.
“When you saw that the majority of the bishops preferred to have a dialogue with the military,” Father Pérez del Viso, 78, said, “it’s not easy to say, ‘We will do something different.’ ” He added: “Many of the bishops opted, rather than to confront the military head on, to try to intercede in private conversations for those they could save.”
“Later the bishops realized this was a mistake,” Father Pérez del Viso said. “But to see the mistake at that moment was difficult.”
Religious scholars attribute such passivity to remarkably close ideological and political links between the church and the armed forces. Some priests have even been forced to stand trial on charges of human rights abuses.
After a previous military coup in Argentina in 1930, the church forged a role as a spiritual guide for the armed forces. By the time military rule was established again in the 1970s, their operations overlapped to the point where some bishops were provided soldiers as personal servants in their palaces, and only a handful of bishops publicly condemned the dictatorship’s repression.
“Of all the national churches in Latin America, Argentina is where ties were closest between the clergy and the military,” said Kenneth P. Serbin, a historian at the University of San Diego.
This legacy presents a challenge to Francis. Last week, a judge who took part in an investigation into a clandestine prison at the Naval Mechanics School said the inquiry uncovered no evidence that Francis was involved in the kidnapping of the Jesuits. “It is totally false to say that Jorge Bergoglio handed over those priests,” the judge, Germán Castelli, was quoted as saying in the newspaper La Nación.
But doubts persist, based on the priests’ own accounts, including a 1977 report by Father Yorio to the Jesuit authorities, obtained by The New York Times, and a 1994 book by Father Jalics.
Father Yorio wrote that Francis, who was then the top Jesuit in Argentina, told them he supported their work even as he sought to undermine it, making negative reports about them to local bishops and claiming they were in the slum without his permission.
“He did nothing to defend us, and we began to question his honesty,” wrote Father Yorio, who died in 2000. Finally, without telling the two priests, Father Yorio wrote, Francis expelled them from the Jesuit order.
Three days later, hundreds of armed men descended on the slum and seized the two priests. Father Yorio was interrogated and accused of being a guerrilla. The priests were kept for five months, chained hand and foot and blindfolded, fearing they would be killed.
Finally, they were dropped off in a drugged state on the outskirts of Buenos Aires.
In a statement posted on a Jesuit Web site last week, Father Jalics said he would not comment “on the role of Father Bergoglio in these events.” He said that years after the kidnapping, they celebrated a Mass together and he solemnly embraced him. “I am reconciled to the events and view them from my side as concluded,” Father Jalics wrote.
But in an interview, Father Yorio’s sister, Graciela Yorio, accused Francis of leaving the priests “totally unprotected” and making them an easy target for the military. She said that her brother and Father Jalics, whom she referred to using his name in Spanish, were in agreement about Francis’ role. “My brother was certain,” she said, “And Francisco, too, Francisco Jalics. I have no reason not to believe my brother’s word.”
Still, several prominent leftists here have defended Francis, emphasizing his openness to dialogue and austere habits. “He is questioned for not having done all he could do,” said Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, a pacifist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. “But he was never an ally of the dictatorship.”
Though Francis has had to respond to doubts about his own past during the Dirty War, he has faced other issues that still haunt the church. He was head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference in 2007, when the Rev. Christian von Wernich, a former police chaplain, was found guilty of complicity in the killing and torture of political prisoners.
Even after his conviction, Father von Wernich was allowed to offer Mass to fellow prison inmates. Other priests have similarly faced charges related to abuses from the dictatorship era. And still there are other priests who have not been charged with a crime, but who face serious accusations about their connection to the armed forces.
The church has tried to account on different occasions for its actions during the dictatorship. In 2000, it apologized for its “silences” that enabled rights abuses. And last November, after the future pope’s tenure as head of the bishops’ conference had ended, the church issued another statement in response to the assertion by Jorge Videla, the former head of the military junta, that Argentine bishops had in effect collaborated with the dictatorship.
The church rejected Mr. Videla’s claim, but said it would “promote a more complete study” of the Dirty War years.
Reporting was contributed by Fabián Werner, Emily Schmall and Jonathan Gilbert from Buenos Aires; Mauricio Rabuffetti from Montevideo, Uruguay; and Nicholas Kulish from Berlin.
*
Related
Vatican Rejects Claims of Pope’s Ties to Argentina’s ‘Dirty War’ (March 16, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/europe/pope-francis-praises-benedict-urges-cardinals-to-spread-gospel.html
The Lede: Full Statement From Jesuit Kidnapped by Argentine Junta on New Pope (March 15, 2013)
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/full-statement-from-jesuit-kidnapped-by-argentine-junta-on-new-pope/
After Frosty Past, Pope Meets Argentine Leader (March 15, 2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/world/europe/francis-to-meet-argentine-leader-after-frosty-ties.html
Times Topic: Pope Francis
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/francis_i/index.html
*
Past Coverage of Argentina’s 'Dirty War'
Military Junta Seizes Power (March 1976)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2013/March241976.pdf
Military Rule Ends (December 1983)
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/11/world/argentine-leader-sworn-into-office-ending-army-rule.html
Argentine Ruling Revives Cases of 'Dirty War' Victims (July 2005)
http://travel.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/americas/15argentina.html?pagewanted=all
After 30 Years, Argentina's Dictatorship Stands Trial (July 2005)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E3D7153EF933A1575BC0A9609C8B63
Argentine Ex-President Gets 25 Years for Role in 'Dirty War' (April 2010)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/world/americas/21argentina.html
Daughter of ‘Dirty War,’ Raised by Man Who Killed Her Parents (October 2011)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/americas/argentinas-daughter-of-dirty-war-raised-by-man-who-killed-her-parents.html?pagewanted=all
*
© 2013 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world/americas/francis-begins-reign-as-pope-amid-echoes-of-argentinas-dirty-war.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/world/americas/francis-begins-reign-as-pope-amid-echoes-of-argentinas-dirty-war.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]
--
Angel in sky photos: South Florida sees a message from above
By: Laura Santos
Posted: 03/13/2013
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A message from above?
That’s what several South Florida residents thought after looking toward the sky on the day a new pope was named.
Most saw an angel in the clouds and grabbed their cameras to document the vision.
For some, it was a clear sign from heaven, maybe a message from God himself, showing his pleasure at the election of the first Latin American as the 267th successor of St. Peter.
Thom George wondered “if Pope Francis ordered that.”
“The Pope asked to pray for Him. .. God answered,” was Cat Sunn’s reaction.
Although most felt the cloud resembled an angel, and was a beautiful sign from above, others saw in the cloud something less angelic.
Cristina Pina thought the cloud resembled a sea monkey. While Steve Massie opined [sic - stated ansolutely accurately (see e.g. {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78443830 and preceding and following)] that “seeing shapes and faces in non-human objects is called “pareidolia.”
Nick Stanley even saw the dark lord – Lucifer, in the cloud.
[...]
*
Related
Photographer talks about 'angel' photo
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/angel-in-the-sky-south-florida-photographer-talks-about-angel-photo
*
Copyright 2013 2013 The E.W. Scripps Co.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_c_palm_beach_county/west_palm_beach/a-message-from-above [with embedded video report, and comments]
--
CPAC 2013 - Former Sen. Rick Santorum
Published on Mar 15, 2013 by The ACU
[speech given March 14, 2013]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhdL5_P_7ZQ [and see e.g. (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72863493 and preceding and following]
--
Shape-Shifting Jesus Described in Ancient Egyptian Text
12 March 2013
[...]
... Jesus comforts him, saying, "Oh Pilate, you have been deemed worthy of a great grace because you have shown a good disposition to me." Jesus also showed Pilate that he can escape if he chose to. "Pilate, then, looked at Jesus and, behold, he became incorporeal: He did not see him for a long time ..." ...
[...]
"Then the Jews said to Judas: How shall we arrest him [Jesus], for he does not have a single shape but his appearance changes. Sometimes he is ruddy, sometimes he is white, sometimes he is red, sometimes he is wheat coloured, sometimes he is pallid like ascetics, sometimes he is a youth, sometimes an old man ..." ...
[...]
http://www.livescience.com/27840-shape-shifting-jesus-ancient-text.html [with comments]
--
Religion Among Americans Hits Low Point, As More People Say They Have No Religious Affiliation: Report
03/14/2013
The number of Americans who claim to have no religious affiliation [ http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/03/12/non-believers/ ] is the highest it has ever been since data on the subject started being collected in the 1930s, new research has found.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/religion-america-decline-low-no-affiliation-report_n_2867626.html [with (over 11,500) comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85495018 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85495942 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85498285 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85498665 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85499374 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85506750 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85510226 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85510959 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85514683 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85524743 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85527512 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85541078 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85546658 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85550104 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85552168 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85555787 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85556223 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85556278 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85557031 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85557282 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85557825 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85561101 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85561347 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85562753 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85564756 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85565403 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85571363 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85572758 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85573095 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85573251 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85573680 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85574103 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85574174 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85595108 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85600754 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85605425 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85606045 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85606242 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85606578 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85607018 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85607370 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85607653 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85608921 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85609016 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85609023 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85609901 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85611059 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85613596 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85624249 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85639856 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85640721 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85648644 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85655271 (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85655285 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85659477 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85659606 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85664133 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85664508 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85669161 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85699248 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85701413 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85702849 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85703164 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85706114 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85706269 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85708244 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85708331 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85709187 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85709817 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85711057 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85713034 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85719953 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85720212 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85723960 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85728856 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85733725 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85743065 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85749735 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85754676 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85759648 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85760568 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85761541 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85763186 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85767399 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85769689 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85776948 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85778216 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85778798 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85780530 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85782036 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85782075 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85783264 and preceding (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83730323 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85783538 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85785655 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85786886 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85786918 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85788348 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85800835 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85802760 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85810258 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85810650 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85813519 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85814365 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823087 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823349 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85829600 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823472 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85823627 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824116 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824441 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85833823 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824144 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85824159 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85826736 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85835027 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85835050 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85861577 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85866822 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85871817 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85873387 (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
