Previously published on June 5, 2011 in the Terre Haute Tribune Star
I’m confused. I thought Republicans were all about low taxes. Why then is it a problem that only half of income tax filers are paying any income taxes? Isn’t this a good thing for a party that preaches a gospel of low taxes?
Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader, is, as politicians do, willing to “sin” if it can be called something else. (To be fair, President Obama sought to decrease taxes on low-income families rather than creating a “spending” program to address those challenges.) Cantor signaled his willingness to eliminate loopholes and special interest tax deductions to create a “pro-growth tax proposal” that would modestly increase revenues. As is usually the case, specifics are missing, which “loopholes” and “special interest deductions?”
Tax-cutting mania began in 2001 with the “Bush tax cuts.” These cuts reduced tax rates across all income groups. It also created additional ways to reduce taxable income through contributions to retirement plans and increased the standard deductions for those married but filing jointly. The Heritage Foundation, at the time, proclaimed a panacea of good outcomes by 2010 resulting from this major tax stimulus plan (remember they were meant to be temporary until the economy picked up):
n Under President Bush’s plan, an average family of four’s inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.
n The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.
n The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax.
I didn’t see any concern that these cuts might produce a situation, a decade later, where half of filers paid no taxes. These predictions were prior to 9/11, two wars paid for with borrowed money, and the financial meltdown of 2008. Keep such things in mind when rosy predictions for the future for other major, if not radical, changes are offered from ideological think tanks.
The “average family of four” seems to be the benchmark for profiling the middle class. Deloitte Tax shows how the average family of four paid no income taxes in this last tax year:
n $50,000 minus (the standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 each — $14,600) equals $24,000. Federal income tax liability on $24,000 is $2,769. But with two kids under 17, the family qualifies for two $1,000 child tax credits. President Obama’s “Making Work Pay” credit adds $800 because the parents filed jointly. Result? A $31 check from the IRS.
According to Walletpop.com the five most common deductions are as follows: 1) home mortgage interest; 2) charitable donations; 3) income taxes paid to state, county, and municipalities; 4) real estate taxes paid; and 5) medical and dental expenses. The five most common tax credits, according to Walletpop.com are as follows: 1) child and dependent care expenses; 2) education credits; 3) earned income tax credit; 4) first-time homebuyer credit; and 5) the Making Work Pay credit.
Are any of these the “loopholes” or “special interest deductions” that House Majority Leader Cantor indicated the elimination of to create a “pro-growth tax proposal?” Two deductions and one credit are for housing. Is the special interest group homeowners or the construction and real estate industries? Or both? The Making Work Pay credit is for low-income filers; don’t charitable contributions benefit them, too? How about the 41 states with income taxes (whose residents can deduct from their federal income taxes)?
I agree with Mr. Cantor. Let’s eliminate all the special interest deductions and loopholes from the income tax codes (for both individuals and businesses). Here is how we can identify the special interests: if there is a lobbying organization or any group funneling money to politicians or who fund issue advertising that favor a credit or deduction, that is a special interest and it goes. Bye-bye mortgage interest deductions, ethanol subsidies, agricultural subsidies, education credits and the deduction for charitable contributions. And many, many, more.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
STEIGER COUNTER: Exploring the sights, cuisine of Vietnam, Korea
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 5/29/11
TERRE HAUTE — Last month I traveled to Vietnam and Korea on ISU business. We were fortunate that our travel schedule permitted time to explore the environs around our hotels, a chance to experience Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), and Seoul, on foot.
Walking in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City is not like walking in New York, Chicago, or even Terre Haute. At 6 a.m., Hanoi comes alive. As the train rolled into the nearby station, the scooters begin moving. At times, it seems the entire population is in motion, mostly on scooters. There isn’t much traffic control in Hanoi and the scooter drivers don’t pay attention to it anyway, including driving on the sidewalks. Pedestrians beware! Hanoi is a traffic libertarian’s dream.
A student from Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City would find Terre Haute “familiar.” The French influence was once very strong in Vietnam. No more. Despite our difficulty deciphering signs (few were in English), we did quickly figure out that the ornate French buildings were government and Communist party buildings. The Vigo County courthouse, other than its colors, will look familiar to our future Vietnamese students.
Both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City are on rivers. Ho Chi Minh City had a busy waterfront and the Saigon River is a major transportation artery. We negotiated an hour-long river tour on a rickety, leaky, wheezy engined boat (plus a refreshment) for about $10. On one side of the river was a modern city with one of the most beautiful new skyscrapers I’ve ever seen. The other side of the river was “struggling.” We turned up a creek and it was like transporting back to a “simpler” time. Within sight of a modern city were people living with no plumbing, maybe a generator, and eating what they caught from the river. Sound familiar?
Our first stop in Hanoi was at the U.S. Embassy where embassy officials, among other suggestions, warned us off eating at the street cafes and to avoid fresh, uncooked vegetables, lest we tempt dire gastronomic reactions. When I visit another country, I don’t want to eat where tourists eat. I’d rather eat where the “locals” eat for a more “authentic” cuisine (not made for tourists). So, I ask hotel staff to recommend places for me, but always with a qualifier, “where do you eat?” The assumption being they’d eat their local “authentic” cuisine.
Just around the corner from our hotel, we found this Vietnamese restaurant complete with a bar and a white table cloth dining room, but we chose the outdoor patio dining, complete with child-size plastic chairs and tables. (Somehow I doubt the embassy would have approved.) I’m just over six feet and 200-plus pounds and I could hear some snickers as I sat on my kindergarten-sized chair. No one spoke English, menus were in Vietnamese and without pictures. We pointed to what other patrons were having and enjoyed a nice Vietnamese dinner complete with ice for our beer. We didn’t intend to become “regulars” there, but the other restaurants were Chinese, Indian, or KFC (common in Vietnam). It was even harder to find a Vietnamese restaurant (U.S. embassy approved, anyway) in Ho Chi Minh City. There you can eat in a German bierhaus, Thai, Chinese, Indian, even a place that had cheeseburgers, and KFC.
In graduate school I had several Korean friends who introduced me to many spicy and pungent foods. In Seoul we found Japanese, Chinese, and Indian restaurants, Dunkin Donuts, and Outback Steakhouses. Some colleagues took us to lunch at an upscale Korean buffet complete with spaghetti, broccoli cheese soup, New York cheesecake, sushi, and a Korean cold salad of baby octopus and cucumbers. Our quest for biminbap was achieved when our colleague in Seoul took us to a small second-floor walkup Korean restaurant.
What will Vietnamese students think of Terre Haute’s cuisine? If one asked me for a recommendation of a good restaurant, but one where I eat, presumably for authentic American (Terre Haute) cuisine, do I say La Isla? “American food” is from all over the globe. Sure American food is a big steak and a potato, a hamburger, and chicken fried steak with mashed potatoes. Yet, so is the Chinese buffet, the pizzeria, Pino’s, and The Saratoga. What about the Umi Grill?
I erred in thinking that local Vietnamese and Koreans would show an ethnic allegiance to their cuisine. I don’t. So why should I expect them to.
TERRE HAUTE — Last month I traveled to Vietnam and Korea on ISU business. We were fortunate that our travel schedule permitted time to explore the environs around our hotels, a chance to experience Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), and Seoul, on foot.
Walking in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City is not like walking in New York, Chicago, or even Terre Haute. At 6 a.m., Hanoi comes alive. As the train rolled into the nearby station, the scooters begin moving. At times, it seems the entire population is in motion, mostly on scooters. There isn’t much traffic control in Hanoi and the scooter drivers don’t pay attention to it anyway, including driving on the sidewalks. Pedestrians beware! Hanoi is a traffic libertarian’s dream.
A student from Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City would find Terre Haute “familiar.” The French influence was once very strong in Vietnam. No more. Despite our difficulty deciphering signs (few were in English), we did quickly figure out that the ornate French buildings were government and Communist party buildings. The Vigo County courthouse, other than its colors, will look familiar to our future Vietnamese students.
Both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City are on rivers. Ho Chi Minh City had a busy waterfront and the Saigon River is a major transportation artery. We negotiated an hour-long river tour on a rickety, leaky, wheezy engined boat (plus a refreshment) for about $10. On one side of the river was a modern city with one of the most beautiful new skyscrapers I’ve ever seen. The other side of the river was “struggling.” We turned up a creek and it was like transporting back to a “simpler” time. Within sight of a modern city were people living with no plumbing, maybe a generator, and eating what they caught from the river. Sound familiar?
Our first stop in Hanoi was at the U.S. Embassy where embassy officials, among other suggestions, warned us off eating at the street cafes and to avoid fresh, uncooked vegetables, lest we tempt dire gastronomic reactions. When I visit another country, I don’t want to eat where tourists eat. I’d rather eat where the “locals” eat for a more “authentic” cuisine (not made for tourists). So, I ask hotel staff to recommend places for me, but always with a qualifier, “where do you eat?” The assumption being they’d eat their local “authentic” cuisine.
Just around the corner from our hotel, we found this Vietnamese restaurant complete with a bar and a white table cloth dining room, but we chose the outdoor patio dining, complete with child-size plastic chairs and tables. (Somehow I doubt the embassy would have approved.) I’m just over six feet and 200-plus pounds and I could hear some snickers as I sat on my kindergarten-sized chair. No one spoke English, menus were in Vietnamese and without pictures. We pointed to what other patrons were having and enjoyed a nice Vietnamese dinner complete with ice for our beer. We didn’t intend to become “regulars” there, but the other restaurants were Chinese, Indian, or KFC (common in Vietnam). It was even harder to find a Vietnamese restaurant (U.S. embassy approved, anyway) in Ho Chi Minh City. There you can eat in a German bierhaus, Thai, Chinese, Indian, even a place that had cheeseburgers, and KFC.
In graduate school I had several Korean friends who introduced me to many spicy and pungent foods. In Seoul we found Japanese, Chinese, and Indian restaurants, Dunkin Donuts, and Outback Steakhouses. Some colleagues took us to lunch at an upscale Korean buffet complete with spaghetti, broccoli cheese soup, New York cheesecake, sushi, and a Korean cold salad of baby octopus and cucumbers. Our quest for biminbap was achieved when our colleague in Seoul took us to a small second-floor walkup Korean restaurant.
What will Vietnamese students think of Terre Haute’s cuisine? If one asked me for a recommendation of a good restaurant, but one where I eat, presumably for authentic American (Terre Haute) cuisine, do I say La Isla? “American food” is from all over the globe. Sure American food is a big steak and a potato, a hamburger, and chicken fried steak with mashed potatoes. Yet, so is the Chinese buffet, the pizzeria, Pino’s, and The Saratoga. What about the Umi Grill?
I erred in thinking that local Vietnamese and Koreans would show an ethnic allegiance to their cuisine. I don’t. So why should I expect them to.
Monday, April 25, 2011
THE STEIGER REPORT: Imagine being able to designate where your taxes go
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 4/24/2011
TERRE HAUTE — Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn that permitting individuals to divert $500 of their income taxes ($1,000 for a couple) to a Christian State Tuition Organization was legal.
You read that correctly, tax money going to a Christian State Tuition Organization (individuals can contribute money to such an organization which in turn then supports the tuition of students attending Christian schools). No, this essay is not about “What about Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu State Tuition Organizations?”
Neither is this essay about what appears to be an obvious violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. That could be the case. The Supremes didn’t address that. Instead, they ruled that the taxpayers who brought the suit did not have standing to do so. They punted the whole question of the establishment clause but probably made it very hard for anyone else to challenge such arrangements as “taxpayers.” Perhaps when Arizona refuses to recognize a Wiccan State Tuition Organization tax credit and a Wiccan brings suit, the Supremes will be forced to address the more obvious problem with the arrangement.
And neither is this essay about the ongoing march of the Roberts court to narrow access of citizens (unless they have property rights) to the courts for constitutional grievances.
This essay is about something completely different. It is about the radical idea of letting we taxpayers designate where our personal tax monies go in our respective state budgets.
Think about it. Empower taxpayers to designate each year the proportional distribution of our taxes to the state budget. Instead of trusting our ridiculous politicians to be statesmen or to balance interests, we could relieve them of that burden (and power). If politicians believe we can navigate complicated things like a retirement investment portfolio, mutual funds, and Medicare Part D (and our tax forms) why not let us designate how much each of our personal dollars goes to education, public safety, road repair, poor relief, and parks and recreation?
If we extend this to the federal level we, the taxpayers, could directly decide how much of our personal taxes go for corn subsidies, sugar subsidies, oil company subsidies, or for research, environmental protection, food and drug safety, education, Medicare and Medicaid.
Admit it, this is a great idea. The more concentrated is the power to make these decisions, the easier it is for special interests to influence (or buy) our money! Some expensive tickets and a ride on fancy corporate jets seem enough to buy the votes of many legislators, but try buying the favors of 100 million taxpayers.
No doubt special interests would run all kinds of campaigns to woo we controllers of the purse strings, but they would have to do it in the open, and while it may appear sleazy for our legislators to be seen in the company of lobbyists, the same would not be true for we individual taxpayers, since it is OUR money, not theirs.
Few dispute the upside of large group decision-making (some call it the market). There are probably about 100 million taxpayers; who are we to say they are wrong if they decided to defund corporate welfare but fund earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare?
Screw the polls. Politicians read them self-servingly anyway, and they seem to read elections even worse. Look at the overreach of the Democrats following 2008 and now we are seeing the overreach of the Republicans in 2010. Give us, the voters and taxpayers, the power to fund or defund, not indirectly through rigged elections but directly through control of our personal taxes. Talk about local control!
The fact is that not nearly as many people vote as could, but I bet if people could designate how their tax monies were to be spent, we’d see virtually 100 percent participation in that.
Both conservatives and liberals rally to the call of “power to the people.” The politicians in charge may change, but are we satisfied with the results? If we could designate how our individual tax monies are spent, we would have no one but ourselves to blame. To a large extent, the politicians would be irrelevant (and wouldn’t that be a good thing?) and instead, our neighbors become much more relevant. (All the more reason to get to know them!)
I imagine the day when I can decide: more money for lower tuition at our colleges and universities or more money for another weapons system that the Pentagon doesn’t want?
TERRE HAUTE — Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn that permitting individuals to divert $500 of their income taxes ($1,000 for a couple) to a Christian State Tuition Organization was legal.
You read that correctly, tax money going to a Christian State Tuition Organization (individuals can contribute money to such an organization which in turn then supports the tuition of students attending Christian schools). No, this essay is not about “What about Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu State Tuition Organizations?”
Neither is this essay about what appears to be an obvious violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. That could be the case. The Supremes didn’t address that. Instead, they ruled that the taxpayers who brought the suit did not have standing to do so. They punted the whole question of the establishment clause but probably made it very hard for anyone else to challenge such arrangements as “taxpayers.” Perhaps when Arizona refuses to recognize a Wiccan State Tuition Organization tax credit and a Wiccan brings suit, the Supremes will be forced to address the more obvious problem with the arrangement.
And neither is this essay about the ongoing march of the Roberts court to narrow access of citizens (unless they have property rights) to the courts for constitutional grievances.
This essay is about something completely different. It is about the radical idea of letting we taxpayers designate where our personal tax monies go in our respective state budgets.
Think about it. Empower taxpayers to designate each year the proportional distribution of our taxes to the state budget. Instead of trusting our ridiculous politicians to be statesmen or to balance interests, we could relieve them of that burden (and power). If politicians believe we can navigate complicated things like a retirement investment portfolio, mutual funds, and Medicare Part D (and our tax forms) why not let us designate how much each of our personal dollars goes to education, public safety, road repair, poor relief, and parks and recreation?
If we extend this to the federal level we, the taxpayers, could directly decide how much of our personal taxes go for corn subsidies, sugar subsidies, oil company subsidies, or for research, environmental protection, food and drug safety, education, Medicare and Medicaid.
Admit it, this is a great idea. The more concentrated is the power to make these decisions, the easier it is for special interests to influence (or buy) our money! Some expensive tickets and a ride on fancy corporate jets seem enough to buy the votes of many legislators, but try buying the favors of 100 million taxpayers.
No doubt special interests would run all kinds of campaigns to woo we controllers of the purse strings, but they would have to do it in the open, and while it may appear sleazy for our legislators to be seen in the company of lobbyists, the same would not be true for we individual taxpayers, since it is OUR money, not theirs.
Few dispute the upside of large group decision-making (some call it the market). There are probably about 100 million taxpayers; who are we to say they are wrong if they decided to defund corporate welfare but fund earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare?
Screw the polls. Politicians read them self-servingly anyway, and they seem to read elections even worse. Look at the overreach of the Democrats following 2008 and now we are seeing the overreach of the Republicans in 2010. Give us, the voters and taxpayers, the power to fund or defund, not indirectly through rigged elections but directly through control of our personal taxes. Talk about local control!
The fact is that not nearly as many people vote as could, but I bet if people could designate how their tax monies were to be spent, we’d see virtually 100 percent participation in that.
Both conservatives and liberals rally to the call of “power to the people.” The politicians in charge may change, but are we satisfied with the results? If we could designate how our individual tax monies are spent, we would have no one but ourselves to blame. To a large extent, the politicians would be irrelevant (and wouldn’t that be a good thing?) and instead, our neighbors become much more relevant. (All the more reason to get to know them!)
I imagine the day when I can decide: more money for lower tuition at our colleges and universities or more money for another weapons system that the Pentagon doesn’t want?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Societal acceptance of same-sex marriage will take time
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 7/8/2006
The debate over same-sex marriage is again burning brightly but I suspect with little duration. Just one of a range of issues designed mostly as fodder for the mid-term elections this fall, none of which are pressing issues, especially in war time when our elected officials should be focused on that, nevertheless are put front and center because of their importance to a key political base. Hence, an orgy of political pornography is before us.
The debate over same sex marriage does, however, raise interesting questions and is an opportunity to reflect upon our values, traditions, and beliefs.
Consider this: Is marriage a private or public matter? Matters of the heart are usually considered the most private of matters. But love as the basis for marriage is extremely modern and the institution of marriage is much, much older. Indeed, arranged marriages are still, and have been, the most common worldwide for most of human history. That is because marriage was (and arguably still is) about more than just the happiness of the couple involved.
What is the state’s interest in who marries who? Notice I wrote the “state’s interest”? Religious groups have interests in who marries who. I believe it was Paul, in II Corinthians, who wrote, “be not yoked with unbelievers” referring to who should be marrying who. (Notice the use of a yoke to refer to marriage.)
Does the state have an interest in who marries who? What does the state do in relation to marriage? Marriage is a contract. The ceremony that so many follow today has its roots in antiquity where a public declaration in front of one’s community was the initiation of the contract and others in the community effectively enforced it. Today, the state backs up the contract. Marriage is far easier to get into than to get out of. Myself, I think marriage should be harder to enter into (and the divorce rate would fall as a result). The state’s interest in who marries who can be seen at times of dissolution — divorce and death. The state’s interest is not in the quality of the marriage or how people treat one another, mostly the state is interested in the orderly transmission of property. So, in that sense, what difference does it make if the property holders are of the same-sex or not?
Of course, the state is also interested in regulating sexual behavior. Yup, that most private area of our life, sex, the state has an interest in regulating. Of course, in today’s modern American society, there are relatively few trials for sodomy, adultery is not a crime but can be costly when it is the basis for the dissolution of a state recognized marriage. The state frowns on sex between anyone but married folks and then sets conditions under which one can be married. Recently we saw an attempt in the Indiana legislature to define “unauthorized parentage.” It didn’t get far, but the impetus to equate the state’s interests with moral/religious interests may be increasing.
In the not too distant past, some states forbade the marriage of blacks and whites (that didn’t stop kids from being born but effectively did stop the transmission of property from white fathers to their mixed race children).
Before DNA testing, children born out of wedlock had a tenuous, if any, claim to the property of their fathers. Again, the regulation of one man — one wife, assured the generational transfer of property only to the legally recognized children of the couple, even if father was a prolific progenitor.
Mainstream Judeo-Christian religions are not likely to embrace same-sex marriages any time soon. No one follows the rules of both the New and Old Testament fully. Strike that, perhaps the Amish are our best examples, but most of us gave up on the plain and simple life long ago. Divorce is prohibited in the New Testament, but even the Catholic Church has found a way around that with annulments.
But prejudice against homosexuality is long and deeply seated in the Judeo-Christian world. It is encoded in religious text and it will take a long time, a generation or so, before same-sex marriages are accepted in mainstream Christianity.
So similar to the situation with Catholics; divorced Catholics must settle for a non-Catholic or civil ceremony. The state could recognize same-sex marriages while mainstream religions do not. Doing so, would, however, demonstrate a further loss of political power for organized religion in our secular democracy.
The debate over same-sex marriage is again burning brightly but I suspect with little duration. Just one of a range of issues designed mostly as fodder for the mid-term elections this fall, none of which are pressing issues, especially in war time when our elected officials should be focused on that, nevertheless are put front and center because of their importance to a key political base. Hence, an orgy of political pornography is before us.
The debate over same sex marriage does, however, raise interesting questions and is an opportunity to reflect upon our values, traditions, and beliefs.
Consider this: Is marriage a private or public matter? Matters of the heart are usually considered the most private of matters. But love as the basis for marriage is extremely modern and the institution of marriage is much, much older. Indeed, arranged marriages are still, and have been, the most common worldwide for most of human history. That is because marriage was (and arguably still is) about more than just the happiness of the couple involved.
What is the state’s interest in who marries who? Notice I wrote the “state’s interest”? Religious groups have interests in who marries who. I believe it was Paul, in II Corinthians, who wrote, “be not yoked with unbelievers” referring to who should be marrying who. (Notice the use of a yoke to refer to marriage.)
Does the state have an interest in who marries who? What does the state do in relation to marriage? Marriage is a contract. The ceremony that so many follow today has its roots in antiquity where a public declaration in front of one’s community was the initiation of the contract and others in the community effectively enforced it. Today, the state backs up the contract. Marriage is far easier to get into than to get out of. Myself, I think marriage should be harder to enter into (and the divorce rate would fall as a result). The state’s interest in who marries who can be seen at times of dissolution — divorce and death. The state’s interest is not in the quality of the marriage or how people treat one another, mostly the state is interested in the orderly transmission of property. So, in that sense, what difference does it make if the property holders are of the same-sex or not?
Of course, the state is also interested in regulating sexual behavior. Yup, that most private area of our life, sex, the state has an interest in regulating. Of course, in today’s modern American society, there are relatively few trials for sodomy, adultery is not a crime but can be costly when it is the basis for the dissolution of a state recognized marriage. The state frowns on sex between anyone but married folks and then sets conditions under which one can be married. Recently we saw an attempt in the Indiana legislature to define “unauthorized parentage.” It didn’t get far, but the impetus to equate the state’s interests with moral/religious interests may be increasing.
In the not too distant past, some states forbade the marriage of blacks and whites (that didn’t stop kids from being born but effectively did stop the transmission of property from white fathers to their mixed race children).
Before DNA testing, children born out of wedlock had a tenuous, if any, claim to the property of their fathers. Again, the regulation of one man — one wife, assured the generational transfer of property only to the legally recognized children of the couple, even if father was a prolific progenitor.
Mainstream Judeo-Christian religions are not likely to embrace same-sex marriages any time soon. No one follows the rules of both the New and Old Testament fully. Strike that, perhaps the Amish are our best examples, but most of us gave up on the plain and simple life long ago. Divorce is prohibited in the New Testament, but even the Catholic Church has found a way around that with annulments.
But prejudice against homosexuality is long and deeply seated in the Judeo-Christian world. It is encoded in religious text and it will take a long time, a generation or so, before same-sex marriages are accepted in mainstream Christianity.
So similar to the situation with Catholics; divorced Catholics must settle for a non-Catholic or civil ceremony. The state could recognize same-sex marriages while mainstream religions do not. Doing so, would, however, demonstrate a further loss of political power for organized religion in our secular democracy.
Violent Islamic reaction reveals deeper conflicts
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 2/19/2006
The violent responses of Muslims around the world to the publication of cartoon Muhammads by a Danish newspaper appear to bring into high relief the different worldviews of the Islamic East and the Christian West.
Consider the following religious text: “Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
This is not the sacred text from which outraged Muslims base their righteous indignation on. This is one of Judeo-Christendom’s Ten Commandments. With such a clear and unmistakable statement, one might think we would understand. Yet last week, Rolling Stone magazine put Kanye West on its front cover dressed as Jesus Christ.
The Koran is not nearly as clear in its prohibitions against images of Allah or Muhammad. Chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say “Allah is the originator of the heavens and the earth [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him.” It would seem this would be more open to interpretation than the commandment.
The point here is that it is not religion that makes the difference in worldviews. It is how people use religion to justify actions and legitimize earthbound practices. And there are both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists.
Before we paint Islamic people as crazy or evil, which we are so apt to do when we don’t understand others’ actions, we in the U.S. should keep in mind that we respond with ferocity to blasphemy ourselves. Look at the heat generated by the TV show “The Book of Daniel.” Recall the outrage when an artist produced “Piss Christ.” “The Last Temptation of Christ” wasn’t screened in Terre Haute.
No, I don’t think anyone threatened death to the blasphemers or burned an embassy, but boycotts and letter-writing campaigns were organized. In the West, our outrage at blasphemy is usually expressed through angry speech, not violence. There are exceptions. Bombing abortion clinics and assassinating abortion providers are violent overreactions and most of us condemn such actions regardless of religion, including and especially our government.
The different responses, angry letters of protest to NBC or the NEA in the West on one hand, or riots and fatwahs in the Islamic East on the other, are not because of religious differences. The differences have to do with the separation of church and state and then the protection of freedom of speech from government repression. These institutional arrangements then create (and protect) spaces for expressive freedom.
The societies in the Islamic East are governed, in general, by authoritarian regimes. Dissent in those countries is dangerous. There is little separation of church and state. Hence, politics is religious and religion is politics. Even in the United States, there is no free speech in religion; religion is about doctrine and obedience, even here in the expression-heavy U.S.
Think of the threats by some Catholic bishops to deny some Catholic politicians the sacraments. But when political speech is not free, political speech becomes “religious.” This is the problem in the Islamic East. It is not just a lack of free speech, it is also a lack of sufficient separation between church and state.
People riot over cartoons when their lives are such that they cannot freely express themselves about the things that really make a difference in their lives. Repressive rulers who mix religion and politics know this. What makes peoples’ lives harsh is the repression and lack of freedom that only benefit despotic leaders and royal families. It is simply harder to criticize leaders of the state who are either religious leaders or anointed by religious leaders.
Those countries where the rioting and violence have occurred in response to the Danish cartoons are not countries where people regularly exercise their right to protest. That the government doesn’t crack down on the lawlessness just shows how the leaders use such trivial matters as a distraction from what really ails the masses in the Islamic East.
When people can’t take to the streets to protest the policies of the religiously sanctioned leaders, that frustration expresses itself by overreacting to blasphemous cartoons. The real insult is the poverty and inequality that characterizes the societies in the Islamic East. The despots know the simmering anger of their subjects. The despots need to channel that anger toward blasphemous cartoons and away from themselves.
The violent responses of Muslims around the world to the publication of cartoon Muhammads by a Danish newspaper appear to bring into high relief the different worldviews of the Islamic East and the Christian West.
Consider the following religious text: “Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
This is not the sacred text from which outraged Muslims base their righteous indignation on. This is one of Judeo-Christendom’s Ten Commandments. With such a clear and unmistakable statement, one might think we would understand. Yet last week, Rolling Stone magazine put Kanye West on its front cover dressed as Jesus Christ.
The Koran is not nearly as clear in its prohibitions against images of Allah or Muhammad. Chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say “Allah is the originator of the heavens and the earth [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him.” It would seem this would be more open to interpretation than the commandment.
The point here is that it is not religion that makes the difference in worldviews. It is how people use religion to justify actions and legitimize earthbound practices. And there are both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists.
Before we paint Islamic people as crazy or evil, which we are so apt to do when we don’t understand others’ actions, we in the U.S. should keep in mind that we respond with ferocity to blasphemy ourselves. Look at the heat generated by the TV show “The Book of Daniel.” Recall the outrage when an artist produced “Piss Christ.” “The Last Temptation of Christ” wasn’t screened in Terre Haute.
No, I don’t think anyone threatened death to the blasphemers or burned an embassy, but boycotts and letter-writing campaigns were organized. In the West, our outrage at blasphemy is usually expressed through angry speech, not violence. There are exceptions. Bombing abortion clinics and assassinating abortion providers are violent overreactions and most of us condemn such actions regardless of religion, including and especially our government.
The different responses, angry letters of protest to NBC or the NEA in the West on one hand, or riots and fatwahs in the Islamic East on the other, are not because of religious differences. The differences have to do with the separation of church and state and then the protection of freedom of speech from government repression. These institutional arrangements then create (and protect) spaces for expressive freedom.
The societies in the Islamic East are governed, in general, by authoritarian regimes. Dissent in those countries is dangerous. There is little separation of church and state. Hence, politics is religious and religion is politics. Even in the United States, there is no free speech in religion; religion is about doctrine and obedience, even here in the expression-heavy U.S.
Think of the threats by some Catholic bishops to deny some Catholic politicians the sacraments. But when political speech is not free, political speech becomes “religious.” This is the problem in the Islamic East. It is not just a lack of free speech, it is also a lack of sufficient separation between church and state.
People riot over cartoons when their lives are such that they cannot freely express themselves about the things that really make a difference in their lives. Repressive rulers who mix religion and politics know this. What makes peoples’ lives harsh is the repression and lack of freedom that only benefit despotic leaders and royal families. It is simply harder to criticize leaders of the state who are either religious leaders or anointed by religious leaders.
Those countries where the rioting and violence have occurred in response to the Danish cartoons are not countries where people regularly exercise their right to protest. That the government doesn’t crack down on the lawlessness just shows how the leaders use such trivial matters as a distraction from what really ails the masses in the Islamic East.
When people can’t take to the streets to protest the policies of the religiously sanctioned leaders, that frustration expresses itself by overreacting to blasphemous cartoons. The real insult is the poverty and inequality that characterizes the societies in the Islamic East. The despots know the simmering anger of their subjects. The despots need to channel that anger toward blasphemous cartoons and away from themselves.
Much info still in the closet on sexual activity
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 7/28/2007
TERRE HAUTE — Seven.
Seven rhymes with heaven.
Many consider seven a lucky number.
Seven is the average number of females U.S. males between the ages of 20 and 59 have had sex with, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Seven and four, the average number of males U.S. females between the ages of 20 and 59 have had sex with, were about all that the media reported last month when this report was released. I thought I’d share my own take on these numbers.
First off, obtaining information like this is very difficult. The report discussed a new methodology that the scientists at the CDC felt improved the chances of accurate and truthful recall (truthful you wonder? Would men possibly exaggerate such things? Would women perhaps not want to report everything?) Indeed, these are difficulties in such research. And we are talking about sexual intercourse, no mistake about that given how the questions were worded.
Good news for the traditionalists, the double standard regarding sex appears to be alive and well. The wage gap may be narrowing, the education gap may be running in opposite directions these days, even the time spent on housework may be narrowing, but men still have an almost 100-percent advantage in terms of the number of sex partners. Or do they?
The CDC data breaks the data down by age cohorts. This data was collected in 1999-2002. So, the age cohorts consist of those born between 1941-1950, 1951-1960, 1961-1970, and 1970-1980. The biggest gap is among the oldest cohort, those born between 1941-1950. Those men actually were a bit above average, just a tenth of a percent, but the women of the same age were down an entire sex partner. So, something is going on, though the double standard appears alive and well, it, too could be narrowing. Women could be achieving equality in this most sensitive of arenas as well.
To me, it looks like the trend is up for both sexes in terms of the lifetime number of sex partners. Men born between 1951 and 1960 already have the exact same average as men born between 1941 and 1950. The 40-somethings (at the time the data was collected) still have 10 years to add to their score. Thirty-somethings, (born between 1961-1970) average almost one additional sex partner than the 40 and 50-somethings, with 20 years left. The youngest guys, are at just over five sex partners with 30 years left. So, by the time the 20-somethings reach their fifties, the average number of sex partners is likely to be higher.
Women, though, are catching up. The overall average for women was 3.7 sex partners. The 20-something cohort is already there, with 30 years to go. Women in their 30s have exceeded the overall average by a full sex partner. Indeed, the youngest cohort of men have reached 79 percent of the male average while the young women are already 100 percent of the female average. The 30-something cohort of men have exceeded the overall male average by 12 percent but the same cohort of women have exceeded the overall female average by 24 percent.
The report shows that 30.4 percent of the 50-something men reported having 15 or more female sex partners. Only 6.9 percent of the same-aged females did. And 30.4 percent of the 30-something men already report having had 15 or more female sex partners, with 11.3 percent of the same-aged females reporting 15 or more male sex partners. The proportion of 50-something men compared to 50-something women who have had 15 or more sex partners is 4.4 times larger. However, comparing 30-somethings, men’s advantage drops to just 2.7.
Women are becoming more like men — not a good thing for the traditionalists among us. And 16.9 percent of the 50-something men had sex for the first time before they were 15 compared to 6.4 percent of 50-something women. Among the youngest cohort, the 20-somethings, 21.6 percent of men had their first sexual experience before 15 compared to 18.7 percent of women.
What does it all mean? There is too much we don’t know. We don’t know the circumstances under which people are switching partners. We don’t know how many of the sex partners were wanted or not. We don’t know how much alcohol and drugs were involved with each sex partner. Until then, half of us can feel “below average” or “morally superior.”
TERRE HAUTE — Seven.
Seven rhymes with heaven.
Many consider seven a lucky number.
Seven is the average number of females U.S. males between the ages of 20 and 59 have had sex with, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Seven and four, the average number of males U.S. females between the ages of 20 and 59 have had sex with, were about all that the media reported last month when this report was released. I thought I’d share my own take on these numbers.
First off, obtaining information like this is very difficult. The report discussed a new methodology that the scientists at the CDC felt improved the chances of accurate and truthful recall (truthful you wonder? Would men possibly exaggerate such things? Would women perhaps not want to report everything?) Indeed, these are difficulties in such research. And we are talking about sexual intercourse, no mistake about that given how the questions were worded.
Good news for the traditionalists, the double standard regarding sex appears to be alive and well. The wage gap may be narrowing, the education gap may be running in opposite directions these days, even the time spent on housework may be narrowing, but men still have an almost 100-percent advantage in terms of the number of sex partners. Or do they?
The CDC data breaks the data down by age cohorts. This data was collected in 1999-2002. So, the age cohorts consist of those born between 1941-1950, 1951-1960, 1961-1970, and 1970-1980. The biggest gap is among the oldest cohort, those born between 1941-1950. Those men actually were a bit above average, just a tenth of a percent, but the women of the same age were down an entire sex partner. So, something is going on, though the double standard appears alive and well, it, too could be narrowing. Women could be achieving equality in this most sensitive of arenas as well.
To me, it looks like the trend is up for both sexes in terms of the lifetime number of sex partners. Men born between 1951 and 1960 already have the exact same average as men born between 1941 and 1950. The 40-somethings (at the time the data was collected) still have 10 years to add to their score. Thirty-somethings, (born between 1961-1970) average almost one additional sex partner than the 40 and 50-somethings, with 20 years left. The youngest guys, are at just over five sex partners with 30 years left. So, by the time the 20-somethings reach their fifties, the average number of sex partners is likely to be higher.
Women, though, are catching up. The overall average for women was 3.7 sex partners. The 20-something cohort is already there, with 30 years to go. Women in their 30s have exceeded the overall average by a full sex partner. Indeed, the youngest cohort of men have reached 79 percent of the male average while the young women are already 100 percent of the female average. The 30-something cohort of men have exceeded the overall male average by 12 percent but the same cohort of women have exceeded the overall female average by 24 percent.
The report shows that 30.4 percent of the 50-something men reported having 15 or more female sex partners. Only 6.9 percent of the same-aged females did. And 30.4 percent of the 30-something men already report having had 15 or more female sex partners, with 11.3 percent of the same-aged females reporting 15 or more male sex partners. The proportion of 50-something men compared to 50-something women who have had 15 or more sex partners is 4.4 times larger. However, comparing 30-somethings, men’s advantage drops to just 2.7.
Women are becoming more like men — not a good thing for the traditionalists among us. And 16.9 percent of the 50-something men had sex for the first time before they were 15 compared to 6.4 percent of 50-something women. Among the youngest cohort, the 20-somethings, 21.6 percent of men had their first sexual experience before 15 compared to 18.7 percent of women.
What does it all mean? There is too much we don’t know. We don’t know the circumstances under which people are switching partners. We don’t know how many of the sex partners were wanted or not. We don’t know how much alcohol and drugs were involved with each sex partner. Until then, half of us can feel “below average” or “morally superior.”
Tax discussion challenges traditional positions
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 8/11/2007
TERRE HAUTE — Have the poles of the U.S. political spectrum reversed? I wonder because of recent statements from conservatives/Republicans criticizing regressive taxes.
This is not an essay on tax policy. It is about conservatives/Republicans making arguments based on what is perhaps the core value of the Democratic Party: fairness (Republicans are more about equality, but we’ll save exploring that for another essay).
In tax issues, conservatives/Republicans tend to favor flat taxes or user fees while liberals/Democrats prefer progressive taxes, that is, the amount paid is based upon one’s ability to pay. For most of U.S. history taxes have been flat or in the form of fees. In other words, taxes have tended to be regressive, where people with less income pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes compared to higher income groups. Among the most regressive of taxes are sales taxes and fees.
Roosevelt ushered in the progressive income tax, in which the rate of taxes paid increased as one’s income increased. This system has been detested by conservatives/Republicans for as long as it has been in existence. Beginning in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, our taxes have become steadily more regressive.
So, if that is the historic pole of our conservative-liberal debate about taxes, why then did Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole object to the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for these reasons: “While I strongly support reauthorizing SCHIP, a massive — and highly regressive — tax increase on an already unstable product is a terribly irresponsible way to fund this important program.”
In opposing the same bill, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning echoes Dole: “And we all say we oppose regressive taxes. But what are we considering today? A highly regressive tax. In fact, this tax is among the most regressive types of taxes we could consider.”
In a statement given on Tax Day, 2007, Sen. Robert Bennett includes this strong statement about the regressive payroll tax (Social Security): “The payroll tax penalizes the working poor. It is an effective tax rate of 15 percent on the waitress who works at minimum wage because seven-and-a-half percent she has to pay and seven-and-a-half percent her employer pays that otherwise she would get in her paycheck. That is a very high regressive tax.”
It’s not just loquacious Republican senators concerned about regressive taxes either, the conservative blog Blue Crab Boulevard posts about the reauthorization of SCHIP: “Well, the House has just passed — pretty much along party lines — a bill that imposes regressive taxes on the poor and slashes money for the elderly to provide health care to the middle class.” Included in that blog is a link to more blogs on regressive taxes.
Even conservative/Republicans in our home state of Indiana are playing the regressive tax card in calling for the end of property taxes. From STOP Indiana (Stop Taxing Our Property): “Demand an immediate repeal or suspension of recent increases and a replacement of this regressive tax with a more equitable tax.”
Have the political poles reversed? If not, what might explain these conservatives/Republicans embracing one of the most liberal/Democratic values to make their arguments? Could it be that because SCHIP increased taxes on cigarettes that tobacco state senators Dole (North Carolina) and Bunning (Kentucky) object?
Tobacco is the “unstable product” Dole refers to. And Blue Crab Boulevard doesn’t like that federal money is diverted away from reimbursing HMOs in favor of directly reimbursing physicians to expand children’s health care coverage. Tobacco and HMOs are two unpopular entities to defend in public.
And Bob Bennett just doesn’t like taxes. In the next line following what I quoted above, he said: “While the payroll tax penalizes the working poor, the income tax discourages the productive rich. The more you produce, the more the government comes in and says, “We will take that away from you.’” In one line, he assails both regressive and progressive tax structures.
Bennett’s solution is to get rid of Social Security and adopt a flat tax. Maybe he doesn’t really get the regressive tax thing. Social Security ends up being a very good deal for lower-wage workers. And STOP Indiana and all those others who assail property taxes as regressive, well, that is highly debatable. Especially so when you consider that the poor own relatively little property to be taxed anyway.
Hmm, maybe the political poles aren’t reversing after all. Perhaps conservative/Republicans are just twisting since being voted out of power last November.
TERRE HAUTE — Have the poles of the U.S. political spectrum reversed? I wonder because of recent statements from conservatives/Republicans criticizing regressive taxes.
This is not an essay on tax policy. It is about conservatives/Republicans making arguments based on what is perhaps the core value of the Democratic Party: fairness (Republicans are more about equality, but we’ll save exploring that for another essay).
In tax issues, conservatives/Republicans tend to favor flat taxes or user fees while liberals/Democrats prefer progressive taxes, that is, the amount paid is based upon one’s ability to pay. For most of U.S. history taxes have been flat or in the form of fees. In other words, taxes have tended to be regressive, where people with less income pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes compared to higher income groups. Among the most regressive of taxes are sales taxes and fees.
Roosevelt ushered in the progressive income tax, in which the rate of taxes paid increased as one’s income increased. This system has been detested by conservatives/Republicans for as long as it has been in existence. Beginning in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, our taxes have become steadily more regressive.
So, if that is the historic pole of our conservative-liberal debate about taxes, why then did Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole object to the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for these reasons: “While I strongly support reauthorizing SCHIP, a massive — and highly regressive — tax increase on an already unstable product is a terribly irresponsible way to fund this important program.”
In opposing the same bill, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning echoes Dole: “And we all say we oppose regressive taxes. But what are we considering today? A highly regressive tax. In fact, this tax is among the most regressive types of taxes we could consider.”
In a statement given on Tax Day, 2007, Sen. Robert Bennett includes this strong statement about the regressive payroll tax (Social Security): “The payroll tax penalizes the working poor. It is an effective tax rate of 15 percent on the waitress who works at minimum wage because seven-and-a-half percent she has to pay and seven-and-a-half percent her employer pays that otherwise she would get in her paycheck. That is a very high regressive tax.”
It’s not just loquacious Republican senators concerned about regressive taxes either, the conservative blog Blue Crab Boulevard posts about the reauthorization of SCHIP: “Well, the House has just passed — pretty much along party lines — a bill that imposes regressive taxes on the poor and slashes money for the elderly to provide health care to the middle class.” Included in that blog is a link to more blogs on regressive taxes.
Even conservative/Republicans in our home state of Indiana are playing the regressive tax card in calling for the end of property taxes. From STOP Indiana (Stop Taxing Our Property): “Demand an immediate repeal or suspension of recent increases and a replacement of this regressive tax with a more equitable tax.”
Have the political poles reversed? If not, what might explain these conservatives/Republicans embracing one of the most liberal/Democratic values to make their arguments? Could it be that because SCHIP increased taxes on cigarettes that tobacco state senators Dole (North Carolina) and Bunning (Kentucky) object?
Tobacco is the “unstable product” Dole refers to. And Blue Crab Boulevard doesn’t like that federal money is diverted away from reimbursing HMOs in favor of directly reimbursing physicians to expand children’s health care coverage. Tobacco and HMOs are two unpopular entities to defend in public.
And Bob Bennett just doesn’t like taxes. In the next line following what I quoted above, he said: “While the payroll tax penalizes the working poor, the income tax discourages the productive rich. The more you produce, the more the government comes in and says, “We will take that away from you.’” In one line, he assails both regressive and progressive tax structures.
Bennett’s solution is to get rid of Social Security and adopt a flat tax. Maybe he doesn’t really get the regressive tax thing. Social Security ends up being a very good deal for lower-wage workers. And STOP Indiana and all those others who assail property taxes as regressive, well, that is highly debatable. Especially so when you consider that the poor own relatively little property to be taxed anyway.
Hmm, maybe the political poles aren’t reversing after all. Perhaps conservative/Republicans are just twisting since being voted out of power last November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
