In Greek mythology, the Halcyon Days were the seven days in winter when storms never occur.
The push for higher tax rates for the wealthiest class is driven home by the core logic that all we need to do is go back to the nirvana Clinton year tax rates. Forgetting for a moment that much of Clinton's robust revenue came from the revenue produced by an economic bubble on technology, the logic is further flawed.
George W. Bush produced a tax cut for ... everyone. He didn't cut the taxes of just the top 2%. He lowered the tax rates for ALL including taking a large number of Americans out of the tax paying pool. It increased revenue AND increased the percentage that the top income earners pay of the total.
Therefore, if we want to go back to the great Clinton tax plan - EVERYONE pays more. Everyone loves a good tax rise until their own taxes rise. Even "altruistic" Warren Buffett supports a tax plan that actually would have minimal impact on his own personal tax situation. The only reason people like taxing the wealthy, is it means taxing someone other than them. By definition, increasing taxes on the top 2% means that we are not increasing taxes on 98%.
This is not some sort of punishment game. The top 2% have no liability they owe the world for past deeds. There is no basis for claims that say a "fair share" isn't paid. People want more revenue, but they don't want to pay for it themselves. Tax the other guy.
Additionally, every person who quotes the great Clinton tax rates for economic success, fails to note that maybe we should go back the the Clinton SPENDING levels. Gov't spending in 1997 was a fraction of what it is today. Hell, Gov't spending in 2004 was a fraction of what it is today.
The Wall Street Journal today lays out the Democrat's "ask" for revenue increases to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. What's on the table, the chart reads. $1.6 trillion revenue increases through a combination of factors. Actual tax rate increases on "upper-income" households would yield $442 billion. But additionally, those same earners would be burdened with limits on standard tax breaks ($584 billion), increase rates on dividends and capital gains for ONLY upper income households ($242 billion), place limits on tax breaks for upper income earners ($165 billion), and raise taxes on estates and gifts ($143 billion). Reminder, when we say "upper-income", these aren't billionaires or million dollar-a-year salaries, theses are couples making $250,000.
But wait, there's more. "Other potential sources" are capping total deductions at $25,000 for upper-income only. That's a cap on previous deductions of state & local taxes, property taxes, charitable contributions, mortgage payments, etc. That raised an additional $800 billion.
By now, you must see the recurring theme in "upper-income" only. The argument by Democrats is, "how can the Republicans hold up negotiations for solving the fiscal cliff to save 'a few millionaires.'" It's only 2% of the population!
In this country, we promote success. We don't punish it. In this country, we don't abuse the minority because the majority has the voting power. Hell, let's only tax Agnostics & Atheists. They only represent 2% of the population, who would possibly stand-up to the rest of the country to support such a small voting block.
So, it's more than just raising the marginal tax rate by a "couple
percentage points." At the end of that process, it's raising the
marginal tax bill on individuals and small business - those with success, those that create jobs, those that spend and invest in the U.S. economic system - by a lot. It's more than just protecting a small population of Americans - but even if it WERE, targeting a small group to carry the country's burden while it continues to spend and spend and spend with no end it sight, is WRONG in its own right. Shared sacrifice means just that - shared. The tax system is already enormously progressive. Raise taxes, and the rich WILL pay substantially all of the bill.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Follow up to Yesterday's Post
Obama Campaigning: $3 In Cuts For Every $1 In Taxes
Obama at Debate: $2.5 in Cuts For Every $1 In Taxes
Obama's Actual Proposed Plan: $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Cuts
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Houston, We have a [Spending] Problem
The feds rolled up another
$1.1 trillion deficit for the year that ended September 30, which was
the biggest deficit since World War II, except for each of the previous
three years. President Obama can now proudly claim the four largest
deficits in modern history. As a share of GDP, the deficit fell to 7%
last year, which was still above any single year of the Reagan
Presidency, or any other year since Truman worked in the Oval Office.
This is in despite of the fact that Federal Revenue has come back to its previous all-time high posted in 2007. In other words, since 2007, Federal Receipts (tax revenue and such) is up 0.1%, while spending is up 28%. We are spending $3.8 trillion per year! or $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. That is the equivalent of the "emergency" Federal stimulus funds added to the baseline spending for every year going forward.
In spite of the rhetoric about the Bush Tax cuts and unfunded wars, the highest deficit on an annualized basis maxed out at $400 billion. That is one third the deficit in 2011. In fact, all of the years combined of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, you get last year's deficit.
Currently, the top 1% of income earners (those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000) paid a total of 38% of all individual federal income tax revenue. If you take in the top 50% of income earners (which includes both the top 1%), they paid 97.3% of all individual federal income tax revenues. Those figures don't include social security tax which are not progressive, but are not intended to be progressive. Social Security is supposed to be a safety-net insurance program put in place by the government to make sure its citizens save for retirement. It is not intended to be a wealth transfer program.
Obama's plan to ask the rich to "pay a little more" yields about $80 billion. Barely a drop in the bucket. If we taxed the top 1% of Americans 100% of their income, if we took it ALL, it would generate about a trillion dollars for the government’s coffers or slightly less that year's deficit. Conversely, the top 5% earn down to something just less than $200,000 per year (closer to $145k, but I'm not sure the figure). If we raise the current tax rates of the top 5% of earners by doubling their current rate, it would only add about $600 billion in revenue or 1/2 the deficit. The Fiscal Cliff budget recalls all tax cuts from the Bush Tax cut for all earners, as well as the expiration of the payroll tax cuts implemented over the past two years, and those two items only reduce 2013 budget by approximately $300 billion. Throw in all other fiscal cliff and sequestration items and it only gets you to somewhere south of $500 billion. - See Here
We have a SPENDING PROBLEM! It's not new. We had a spending problem in the George W. Bush years. In this blog, I chastised him for not vetoing enough spending bills. As a fiscal conservative, he should have reigned in a spending-happy Congress. He didn't. However, it has only gotten worse. WAY WORSE.
Oh - and don't forget - this is just the DEFICIT. We have a while pile of Federal Debt that we need to figure out how to repay in the amount of $16 trillion.
The debt is $51,648 per citizen as I write this. But remember, not everyone pays taxes. So that number is actually $141,735 per taxpayer. Gross U.S. Debt to GDP is slightly over 100% of GDP. Greece is about 144% and Spain is 116%. Annual interest to date is about $12,500 per citizen. But also remember, interest rates are at historic lows. God help us if rates rise. And that's just debt. Total unfunded liabilities including Social Security, prescription drug and Medicare total slightly over $1 million per taxpayer. Yes, $1 million.
This is in despite of the fact that Federal Revenue has come back to its previous all-time high posted in 2007. In other words, since 2007, Federal Receipts (tax revenue and such) is up 0.1%, while spending is up 28%. We are spending $3.8 trillion per year! or $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. That is the equivalent of the "emergency" Federal stimulus funds added to the baseline spending for every year going forward.
In spite of the rhetoric about the Bush Tax cuts and unfunded wars, the highest deficit on an annualized basis maxed out at $400 billion. That is one third the deficit in 2011. In fact, all of the years combined of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, you get last year's deficit.
Currently, the top 1% of income earners (those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000) paid a total of 38% of all individual federal income tax revenue. If you take in the top 50% of income earners (which includes both the top 1%), they paid 97.3% of all individual federal income tax revenues. Those figures don't include social security tax which are not progressive, but are not intended to be progressive. Social Security is supposed to be a safety-net insurance program put in place by the government to make sure its citizens save for retirement. It is not intended to be a wealth transfer program.
Obama's plan to ask the rich to "pay a little more" yields about $80 billion. Barely a drop in the bucket. If we taxed the top 1% of Americans 100% of their income, if we took it ALL, it would generate about a trillion dollars for the government’s coffers or slightly less that year's deficit. Conversely, the top 5% earn down to something just less than $200,000 per year (closer to $145k, but I'm not sure the figure). If we raise the current tax rates of the top 5% of earners by doubling their current rate, it would only add about $600 billion in revenue or 1/2 the deficit. The Fiscal Cliff budget recalls all tax cuts from the Bush Tax cut for all earners, as well as the expiration of the payroll tax cuts implemented over the past two years, and those two items only reduce 2013 budget by approximately $300 billion. Throw in all other fiscal cliff and sequestration items and it only gets you to somewhere south of $500 billion. - See Here
We have a SPENDING PROBLEM! It's not new. We had a spending problem in the George W. Bush years. In this blog, I chastised him for not vetoing enough spending bills. As a fiscal conservative, he should have reigned in a spending-happy Congress. He didn't. However, it has only gotten worse. WAY WORSE.
Oh - and don't forget - this is just the DEFICIT. We have a while pile of Federal Debt that we need to figure out how to repay in the amount of $16 trillion.
The debt is $51,648 per citizen as I write this. But remember, not everyone pays taxes. So that number is actually $141,735 per taxpayer. Gross U.S. Debt to GDP is slightly over 100% of GDP. Greece is about 144% and Spain is 116%. Annual interest to date is about $12,500 per citizen. But also remember, interest rates are at historic lows. God help us if rates rise. And that's just debt. Total unfunded liabilities including Social Security, prescription drug and Medicare total slightly over $1 million per taxpayer. Yes, $1 million.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Can't Believe
I went to bed early discouraged at the prospects. Heard the results before truly falling asleep. Can't sleep now (2am) as I remain flabbergasted at the outcome.
My first virtual stop was to my favorite conservative political website, a site that I enjoy because they get right to the point while mixing in a little humor. Their opening line completely summed up what's keeping me up tonight.
"I think this time it's a little more painful because we can't believe that half of America could possibly vote for a man whose policies have been so costly and so ineffective."
I was literally tossing and turning thinking that exact thought.
Continuing down the blog, an earlier post noted this,
"A hurricane. I can't believe it. A hurricane a week before an election, in which the president doesn't do anything but place a few phone calls and get his picture taken with a [staunch conservative] who's in love with Bruce Springsteen, swings the most important election of our time. Such is life."
He used a more derogatory term for Chris Christie, who failed to show his support for the candidate he supposedly supported and yet heaped undying praise on the opponent who visited him for a mere few hours, but I felt it unnecessary to use it.
What bothers me most - the fact that Romney lost bothers me a lot, a real lot, but what bothers me most is the fact that Obama ran, in my opinion, such an intellectually dishonest campaign and yet millions buy into it. Rather than standing on issues, the Democrats Presidential tactic this election has been to fuel hate and derision (albeit this has really been the tactic since the opposition to George W. Bush began during the second Gulf War). They take meaningless and innocuous items and spin them into soundbites that sound horrible and menacing. They label in order to make talking points even if the underlying premise doesn't actually support the argument. They call on their base to hate a candidate because, "they should." It's like the school bully, who picks on one student calling him or her names, because he is insecure with his own ability to win over people.
Finally, it blows my mind that Obama portrays himself to have no responsibility for the results of the past four years, but everyone else holds ultimate responsibility for not only what happened on their watch, but everything that occurred before, during and after. And somehow people buy that.
Economic cycles happen. I have always contended that Presidents don't cause them, but policies can nudge them one way or another. They can mitigate the results, or worsen them. Even in his final WSJ Editorial pitch, Obama pointed his finger at GWB for a terrible record of job growth and deficits while lauding Bill Clinton for the economic prosperity. The hypocrisy is incredible. Bill Clinton entire economic prosperity was due to the credits of Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 creating an environment where Clinton could slash defense expenditures as well as the enormous fictitious wealth created by the Internet bubble. The economy was already headed into recession by the election of 2000 and the crash of the Tech companies. It was later exacerbated by the incredibly destructive events of 9/11, both in physical terms as well as economic harm. In response, Bush 43's tax cuts (the same tax cuts that Obama praises himself for extending) did an excellent job of staving off a bad recession by keeping it a mild recession. Job growth inched along in the early part of the decade, but well under what was needed for fast paced recovery. Anyone who remembers political divisiveness will surely recall the Democrats chants of, "Where's the Jobs, George?" and they constant derision of the "jobless recovery." In the eyes of Obama supporters, perversely George Bush was responsible for all that mess, yet Barack Obama holds no responsibility for his actions since 2009.
Much like his predecessor, Obama wrapped up his campaign with the economy headed south. Unlike Bush, the economy began its slow start of recovery within a few short months of his arrival in office. Sticking to the theory of his own chief of staff ("don't let a good crisis go to waste"), Obama pushed an enormous stimulus bill that had no chance of actually providing stimulus [I wrote about it on these very blog pages in real time]. Almost EVERY program of that stimulus package failed. By his own admission later, highly touted "shovel-ready" projects didn't really exist, and the government's own PR tracking of "jobs created" showed little to no job creation. Like most rear-view mirror politicians, he championed legislation that closed the barn door after the horse was already gone. Dodd-Frank is a regulatory nightmare that is billed as preventing "too big to fail," but does nothing of the sort. Investments meant to spur "Green" energy demand by building uncompetitive supply were colossal failures that not only lost billions in government dollars, but effectively doubled those losses by creating huge tax shields for the investors. His "saving of the auto industry" is no different than that of his political opponents except that his plan "saved" the unions rather than the bondholders and lost the government approximately $15 billion. His hugely partisan tactics and talk alienated the political system leading to three straight years without a budget. Spending has lead to enormous deficits and record debt, which he - himself as a Senator - called "immoral." As such, an economy that could be and should be in full recovery now is a morass.
Yet, amazingly, none of it is his fault. Bill Clinton termed the phrase that was used much of the rest of Obama's campaign that, "it was so bad, it couldn't be fixed." 1. b*** s***, 2. Obama had campaigned in 2008 under the guise that, "I can fix it." I recall a Tweet earlier in the campaign that summed it up best, "Somehow Romney is responsible for what Bain does 20 years later, but O isn't responsible for the last 4 years."
Ironically, the only thing he happily takes 100% credit for is having the Navy Seal pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden despite the years of work and intelligence that went into creating that moment. He mentioned it at every rally.
However, instead of being about true issues, the rallying cry was some ludicrous "war on women" that had basis is silly political language rather than reality, or the "47%" comment. Romney was labeled an elitist who failed to care about the common man. Anyone who spent a modicum of effort in researching the man would know about Romney's gift for connecting with those in need. I hope no one listened to election coverage tonight, in fear of finding each and every anchor must be an elitist who hates the common man. Time and again, when analyzing the result, anchors would highlight "[XYZ] county's results aren't in yet, but that county is heavily democratic and will vote for Obama." Here we have someone analyzing results that haven't been tabulated yet determining that Romney CAN'T win those votes. That is exactly the derivation of the "47%" comment that Romney made on hidden camera. There are two groups of Americans that won't look at the issues in an unbiased light. 47% will vote Democrat, 47% will vote Republican - you need to get the vote of the 6% who swing.
Sadly, America passed on a chance to elect a President who understood the problems we face, had solutions, has experience implementing solutions, and the ability to work the political system to get results. Instead the electorate college will fall for the River City Salesman because he once promised Hope & Change, but has yet to provide either. But no fear, we're promised it's coming soon.
God help us.
My first virtual stop was to my favorite conservative political website, a site that I enjoy because they get right to the point while mixing in a little humor. Their opening line completely summed up what's keeping me up tonight.
"I think this time it's a little more painful because we can't believe that half of America could possibly vote for a man whose policies have been so costly and so ineffective."
I was literally tossing and turning thinking that exact thought.
Continuing down the blog, an earlier post noted this,
"A hurricane. I can't believe it. A hurricane a week before an election, in which the president doesn't do anything but place a few phone calls and get his picture taken with a [staunch conservative] who's in love with Bruce Springsteen, swings the most important election of our time. Such is life."
He used a more derogatory term for Chris Christie, who failed to show his support for the candidate he supposedly supported and yet heaped undying praise on the opponent who visited him for a mere few hours, but I felt it unnecessary to use it.
What bothers me most - the fact that Romney lost bothers me a lot, a real lot, but what bothers me most is the fact that Obama ran, in my opinion, such an intellectually dishonest campaign and yet millions buy into it. Rather than standing on issues, the Democrats Presidential tactic this election has been to fuel hate and derision (albeit this has really been the tactic since the opposition to George W. Bush began during the second Gulf War). They take meaningless and innocuous items and spin them into soundbites that sound horrible and menacing. They label in order to make talking points even if the underlying premise doesn't actually support the argument. They call on their base to hate a candidate because, "they should." It's like the school bully, who picks on one student calling him or her names, because he is insecure with his own ability to win over people.
Finally, it blows my mind that Obama portrays himself to have no responsibility for the results of the past four years, but everyone else holds ultimate responsibility for not only what happened on their watch, but everything that occurred before, during and after. And somehow people buy that.
Economic cycles happen. I have always contended that Presidents don't cause them, but policies can nudge them one way or another. They can mitigate the results, or worsen them. Even in his final WSJ Editorial pitch, Obama pointed his finger at GWB for a terrible record of job growth and deficits while lauding Bill Clinton for the economic prosperity. The hypocrisy is incredible. Bill Clinton entire economic prosperity was due to the credits of Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 creating an environment where Clinton could slash defense expenditures as well as the enormous fictitious wealth created by the Internet bubble. The economy was already headed into recession by the election of 2000 and the crash of the Tech companies. It was later exacerbated by the incredibly destructive events of 9/11, both in physical terms as well as economic harm. In response, Bush 43's tax cuts (the same tax cuts that Obama praises himself for extending) did an excellent job of staving off a bad recession by keeping it a mild recession. Job growth inched along in the early part of the decade, but well under what was needed for fast paced recovery. Anyone who remembers political divisiveness will surely recall the Democrats chants of, "Where's the Jobs, George?" and they constant derision of the "jobless recovery." In the eyes of Obama supporters, perversely George Bush was responsible for all that mess, yet Barack Obama holds no responsibility for his actions since 2009.
Much like his predecessor, Obama wrapped up his campaign with the economy headed south. Unlike Bush, the economy began its slow start of recovery within a few short months of his arrival in office. Sticking to the theory of his own chief of staff ("don't let a good crisis go to waste"), Obama pushed an enormous stimulus bill that had no chance of actually providing stimulus [I wrote about it on these very blog pages in real time]. Almost EVERY program of that stimulus package failed. By his own admission later, highly touted "shovel-ready" projects didn't really exist, and the government's own PR tracking of "jobs created" showed little to no job creation. Like most rear-view mirror politicians, he championed legislation that closed the barn door after the horse was already gone. Dodd-Frank is a regulatory nightmare that is billed as preventing "too big to fail," but does nothing of the sort. Investments meant to spur "Green" energy demand by building uncompetitive supply were colossal failures that not only lost billions in government dollars, but effectively doubled those losses by creating huge tax shields for the investors. His "saving of the auto industry" is no different than that of his political opponents except that his plan "saved" the unions rather than the bondholders and lost the government approximately $15 billion. His hugely partisan tactics and talk alienated the political system leading to three straight years without a budget. Spending has lead to enormous deficits and record debt, which he - himself as a Senator - called "immoral." As such, an economy that could be and should be in full recovery now is a morass.
Yet, amazingly, none of it is his fault. Bill Clinton termed the phrase that was used much of the rest of Obama's campaign that, "it was so bad, it couldn't be fixed." 1. b*** s***, 2. Obama had campaigned in 2008 under the guise that, "I can fix it." I recall a Tweet earlier in the campaign that summed it up best, "Somehow Romney is responsible for what Bain does 20 years later, but O isn't responsible for the last 4 years."
Ironically, the only thing he happily takes 100% credit for is having the Navy Seal pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden despite the years of work and intelligence that went into creating that moment. He mentioned it at every rally.
However, instead of being about true issues, the rallying cry was some ludicrous "war on women" that had basis is silly political language rather than reality, or the "47%" comment. Romney was labeled an elitist who failed to care about the common man. Anyone who spent a modicum of effort in researching the man would know about Romney's gift for connecting with those in need. I hope no one listened to election coverage tonight, in fear of finding each and every anchor must be an elitist who hates the common man. Time and again, when analyzing the result, anchors would highlight "[XYZ] county's results aren't in yet, but that county is heavily democratic and will vote for Obama." Here we have someone analyzing results that haven't been tabulated yet determining that Romney CAN'T win those votes. That is exactly the derivation of the "47%" comment that Romney made on hidden camera. There are two groups of Americans that won't look at the issues in an unbiased light. 47% will vote Democrat, 47% will vote Republican - you need to get the vote of the 6% who swing.
Sadly, America passed on a chance to elect a President who understood the problems we face, had solutions, has experience implementing solutions, and the ability to work the political system to get results. Instead the electorate college will fall for the River City Salesman because he once promised Hope & Change, but has yet to provide either. But no fear, we're promised it's coming soon.
God help us.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Voting No
On November 6th, I will be voting "No" on a ballot initiative for same-sex marriage. Although "No" sounds very negative, based on the wording of the law, it is actually a vote in support of same-sex marriage.
Very few political issues are cut-and-dry. That's what makes them issues. Although they sound nice as political soundbites, catchphrases rarely capture the complexity of any topic. Take the Lilly Ledbetter issue that was legislated in 2008 and signed into law on President Obama's first day in office. If you are against it - you are against women! Most catchphrases equate support (or lack thereof) for the Act to be for (or against) equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, that isn't what the Lilly Ledbetter Act addresses. Equal pay for equal work was ALREADY the law of the land. You can not, and could not, discriminate based on gender. Ms. Ledbetter was pursuing a lawsuit challenging the statute of limitations regarding when she could bring suit.
The existing law said she had 180 days to bring suit. She argued that she brought suit within six months of FINDING OUT she was underpaid due to gender. The company claimed she did not have the right to sue because she was outside of 180 days of BEING paid less. So the argument was when does the 180 day clock start ticking. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ms. Ledbetter's favor. The six month clock starts ticking at the point she finds out - not the actual time period of being paid. That seems fair. To base start time in a period where she might be unaware that a violation of the law occurred would not be logical.
If the law said you could only sue me 60 days after I stole from you, but it took 61 days for you to figure out I stole your favorite vase, that would actually increase my incentive to steal if I thought you wouldn't know. However, if the law stated that you had 60 days from when you found out, it sets a legitimate time frame for you to determine if you wanted to sue me.
Like many, I didn't really know the details of the Ledbetter Act. I asked myself, was "so-and-so" really against "Equal Pay for Equal Work?" So, I did some research on it, and looked at both sides. Even though the Supreme Court ruling set a precedent that an employee had 180 days from when they concluded they were underpaid, Legislators (mostly Democrats - few, if any, Republicans supported the measure) decided to clarify the law. They set the 180-day period from each and everytime the person was paid. Therefore, one's statute of limitation became constantly rolling forward period so long as the person was being paid. Consequently, someone could KNOW they were being underpaid, choose to remain in that situation indefinitely, and then bring lawsuit only after they felt they no longer wanted to work there. It creates an open-ended liability, and a perverse incentive to wait to follow through on your legal right. Some argue that in practice it actually HURTS women's pursuit of employment.
Consequently, I weighed the two sides, and chose the one that I thinks makes the most sense for now - and for future situations.
Conservative Economist and Professor Thomas Sowell makes the statement, "The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be." My opinion is that statement is not precise, but broadly accurate. The Ledbetter Act seems to fit that category. But does the Marriage Act?
With that theory in mind, and the strategy of evaluating an issue from both sides, I approached the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. Supporting the rights of all to marry seems like a reasonable proposal and relatively clear cut. In fact, a vote in support of gay marriage next week doesn't even clear the way for gay marriage. It only extends the discussion. The vote is actually closer to the equivalent of a motion for summary judgement in the legal system. Those that want to define marriage as between a man and a women want you to vote yes to close the door on the discussion.
The quote, "you’d think the conservative position would be to keep government from interfering with the private decisions of individuals and the liberty of people to shape their lives as they see fit," seems appropriate. If there is not a drain on society as a whole, or a law that forces one party to take on the liability of another, I would concur with that sentiment.
The next obvious step was for me to understand why many are opposed (including many in my own party). As I stated above, nothing debated is ever truly cut-and-dry. If I can understand the opposition, I am better prepared as a voter to make a decision myself. It is frightening how few people reach this decision-making step.
I think the article, Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage, does a decent job of clarifying the "Yes" vote.
Although I originally thought the opposition to changing the definition of marriage was based in economics, it appears the debate is mostly based on social issues and perceived society's moral standard. In particular, the concern is that a change in the definition of marriage will continue a decline in the role that gender plays in society and the family.
Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.
--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.
--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.
And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.
It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.
I understand the concern and the political-correctness that certain institutions must adhere to is a problem. As the article states, private business dating service, eHarmony, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service. The example from Rhode Island is particularly disconcerting.
Although these issues are a problem, they are unintended consequences of a moral act. The "Yes" side doesn't present a compelling argument beyond "societal decline." That just isn't good enough. Such societal decline can be fought without prohibiting those who would like to marry from marrying.
My support is behind "Vote No."
Very few political issues are cut-and-dry. That's what makes them issues. Although they sound nice as political soundbites, catchphrases rarely capture the complexity of any topic. Take the Lilly Ledbetter issue that was legislated in 2008 and signed into law on President Obama's first day in office. If you are against it - you are against women! Most catchphrases equate support (or lack thereof) for the Act to be for (or against) equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, that isn't what the Lilly Ledbetter Act addresses. Equal pay for equal work was ALREADY the law of the land. You can not, and could not, discriminate based on gender. Ms. Ledbetter was pursuing a lawsuit challenging the statute of limitations regarding when she could bring suit.
The existing law said she had 180 days to bring suit. She argued that she brought suit within six months of FINDING OUT she was underpaid due to gender. The company claimed she did not have the right to sue because she was outside of 180 days of BEING paid less. So the argument was when does the 180 day clock start ticking. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ms. Ledbetter's favor. The six month clock starts ticking at the point she finds out - not the actual time period of being paid. That seems fair. To base start time in a period where she might be unaware that a violation of the law occurred would not be logical.
If the law said you could only sue me 60 days after I stole from you, but it took 61 days for you to figure out I stole your favorite vase, that would actually increase my incentive to steal if I thought you wouldn't know. However, if the law stated that you had 60 days from when you found out, it sets a legitimate time frame for you to determine if you wanted to sue me.
Like many, I didn't really know the details of the Ledbetter Act. I asked myself, was "so-and-so" really against "Equal Pay for Equal Work?" So, I did some research on it, and looked at both sides. Even though the Supreme Court ruling set a precedent that an employee had 180 days from when they concluded they were underpaid, Legislators (mostly Democrats - few, if any, Republicans supported the measure) decided to clarify the law. They set the 180-day period from each and everytime the person was paid. Therefore, one's statute of limitation became constantly rolling forward period so long as the person was being paid. Consequently, someone could KNOW they were being underpaid, choose to remain in that situation indefinitely, and then bring lawsuit only after they felt they no longer wanted to work there. It creates an open-ended liability, and a perverse incentive to wait to follow through on your legal right. Some argue that in practice it actually HURTS women's pursuit of employment.
Consequently, I weighed the two sides, and chose the one that I thinks makes the most sense for now - and for future situations.
Conservative Economist and Professor Thomas Sowell makes the statement, "The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be." My opinion is that statement is not precise, but broadly accurate. The Ledbetter Act seems to fit that category. But does the Marriage Act?
With that theory in mind, and the strategy of evaluating an issue from both sides, I approached the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. Supporting the rights of all to marry seems like a reasonable proposal and relatively clear cut. In fact, a vote in support of gay marriage next week doesn't even clear the way for gay marriage. It only extends the discussion. The vote is actually closer to the equivalent of a motion for summary judgement in the legal system. Those that want to define marriage as between a man and a women want you to vote yes to close the door on the discussion.
The quote, "you’d think the conservative position would be to keep government from interfering with the private decisions of individuals and the liberty of people to shape their lives as they see fit," seems appropriate. If there is not a drain on society as a whole, or a law that forces one party to take on the liability of another, I would concur with that sentiment.
The next obvious step was for me to understand why many are opposed (including many in my own party). As I stated above, nothing debated is ever truly cut-and-dry. If I can understand the opposition, I am better prepared as a voter to make a decision myself. It is frightening how few people reach this decision-making step.
I think the article, Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage, does a decent job of clarifying the "Yes" vote.
Although I originally thought the opposition to changing the definition of marriage was based in economics, it appears the debate is mostly based on social issues and perceived society's moral standard. In particular, the concern is that a change in the definition of marriage will continue a decline in the role that gender plays in society and the family.
Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.
--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.
--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.
And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.
It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.
I understand the concern and the political-correctness that certain institutions must adhere to is a problem. As the article states, private business dating service, eHarmony, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service. The example from Rhode Island is particularly disconcerting.
Although these issues are a problem, they are unintended consequences of a moral act. The "Yes" side doesn't present a compelling argument beyond "societal decline." That just isn't good enough. Such societal decline can be fought without prohibiting those who would like to marry from marrying.
My support is behind "Vote No."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)