The Religious Far Right and Their Sexual Agenda

Originally posted to Tim DeLaney on Sun Feb 05, 2012

The recent controversy over the political decisions of the Susan G Komen foundation has inspired this diary. I cannot for the life of me understand why politics ought to play a role in this arena. However, this diary is not about that particular story; others have commented more cogently than I could about those details. Rather, it is more general in scope. Let's explore this topic below the Satanic orange graphic.

A frequently repeated mantra of the religious far right is that "Life begins at conception."

This is just wrong, both in fact and in biology. The sperm and the egg were both fully alive before conception. Life actually began about four billion years ago. Since that time, there is an unbroken line of living cells that leads to the sperm and the egg. Life doesn't begin anew simply because an egg is fertilized; life simply continues. Maybe you don't believe in common descent or evolution. Even though I think that's a foolish belief, you are entitled to it, but common descent is nonetheless true. The scientific evidence for it is just overwhelming, and it would be perverse to reject it.

The invention of sex was, in evolutionary terms, a (figurative) stroke of genius. Among other advantages, sex enables a species to preserve traits that might otherwise be lethal until a time when they might be useful. A prime example of this is sickle cell anemia. (Google is your friend.) Without the invention of sex, evolution would be much slower, much different, and perhaps impossible. It is not a coincidence that sex is also a great deal of fun.

Human conception is not a supernatural event, any more than is turtle conception. It is wondrous to be sure, but it's not supernatural. If you believe that something supernatural happens when a sperm penetrates and fertilizes an egg, then that belief is a private religious belief. Science cannot disprove this belief; it is theological in nature. But in reality (as opposed to theology) there is nothing that happens in a cell that cannot be explained by chemistry. This is a fact; scientists call it biochemistry.

If human conception is a supernatural event, then what about the conception of a chimpanzee, a dog, or a turtle? These are events that have a great deal in common with human conception. Their chemistry is extraordinarily similar. Why would these events not be considered supernatural? Why is human conception alone regarded as a supernatural event?

You might argue that the specific arrangement of the genetic material of the fertilized egg makes it unique, something that will never again be duplicated exactly. True enough, but unique is not a synonym for supernatural. You can say the same for a deal at bridge, but nobody talks of a bridge deal as supernatural. It is just 52 cards arranged in a particular way. The human genome is far more complex than a deck of cards. But still, it is not supernatural, at least not in any scientific sense.

You can choose to believe that at the moment of conception, a deity creates a soul, and embeds that soul into the fertilized egg. There is no physical evidence for such a belief, but I support your right to believe it, even though I myself do not. This is the meaning of the first amendment. You have the absolute and unfettered right to any religious belief you choose. I am strictly forbidden to try to impose my private beliefs upon you.

In like manner, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs upon me. For example, you might believe that God doesn't want us to play golf on Sunday. That's fine with me--just don't play golf on Sunday. But don't pass a law against Sunday golf; that would be imposing your religious beliefs upon me. Do you see the analogy between Sunday golf and abortion?

In the USA, civil rights are recognized only at birth. Various milestones, such as the age of majority, are recognized as occurring at a specified time interval after birth. Citizenship itself is defined in terms of birthplace. By custom, we do not even receive a name until we are born. Indeed, the single most meaningful document in our lives is our birth certificate. As far as the nation is concerned, the singular event of birth is what defines each us as a person and as a citizen.

The alternative proposed by the religious right--to define a fertilized egg as a person--raises some annoying practical questions. In what country was the person conceived? Exactly how old is the person? Is the fetus, even if miscarried at two months, a dependent for tax purposes? What about a baby born on September 29? Would that enable me to amend my tax return?

Defining a person as starting from birth is unambiguous and precise. It simplifies things and it is practical. More importantly, it is the criterion we have chosen as a nation. We must live with that criterion, even though we might have theological beliefs to the contrary.

Having said all this, I think there is room for compromise. For example, I would be willing to accept a law that requires a doctor to preserve the life of a viable fetus after it is aborted whenever possible. So, please don't drag in the red herring of partial birth abortion. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed during the first six months, more than 99.96% according to this study. In fact, roughly 89% are performed during the first 12 weeks. 

Nowhere in this essay do I mean to suggest that an unwanted pregnancy ought to be terminated without a care in the world, as one might dispose of a Kleenex. If I were a woman I would take such a decision very seriously, and I would expect others to do so as well. This belief on my part is well founded. I trust women to understand that an abortion has far reaching consequences, as does a pregnancy carried to term. However, I do mean to suggest that government must not intrude itself in that decision.

It would be natural to expect that the religious far right, being opposed as they are to abortion, would be avid supporters of contraceptive information for young people. After all, preventing unwanted pregnancies would do away with most abortions. Strangely, they are generally unfriendly towards this idea. They may or may not be opposed to contraception in principle, but only very rarely do they advocate making such information freely available to young unmarried people.

The religious far right know--or at least they should know--that the urge to procreate is so strong that nature / God / evolution (take your pick) has instilled in the young of our species a very strong urge to copulate. (Think back to your teen years. Did you ever wish to copulate?) We are not unique in that respect; we share that urge with all other animals. Without that urge, we would die out as a species.

The religious far right objects to abortion and in large part to contraception. They are not big fans of unmarried women having children either. The only way these three notions can exist in the same brain is to entertain the notion that society somehow ought to regulate the private sexual behavior of young people women. (Does this ironic use of HTML suggest to you the origin of the double standard?)

One would think that the religious far right would approve of homosexual behavior, because this arguably advances all of their principles referred to above. Gay and lesbian behavior by its very nature does away with any worries about abortion, contraception, and unwed mothers. If I were offered a solution to my top three worries I would eagerly embrace it. Oddly enough, the religious far right rejects this notion. Go figure.

What is the vision of the religious far right, and should we consider accepting it or should we reject it? Let's put it all together. The only consistent position I can imagine is that they wish to somehow prevent young people from having sex of any kind unless they are married to a member of the opposite sex. They not only believe this, but they want the government to enforce these theological beliefs with legislation.

On the other hand, I believe that sexual or reproductive behavior of any kind, whether solitary or between consenting adults, is beyond the bounds of government to permit, regulate, or forbid.

Which of these two views makes sense in a free society?

Technorati Tags: Republicans,Susan G. Komen Foundation,Abortion,LGBT,Planned Parenthood,Evolution,Current Events,An American Gothic,Religion

Saturday Satire

David Letterman: "Mitt Romney lost all three of the primaries. Today, he begged Donald Trump to take back his endorsement."

“To undo the negative publicity Mitt Romney received from tying his dog to the top of a car on a cross-country vacation, Mitt responded by tying the car to the top of his dog.”

“Newt Gingrich says that people who ride on subways here in New York are the elite. I was on the subway today and one of the elites sitting next to me was smoking crack.”

Conan O'Brien: "Since yesterday's primaries, Rick Santorum's campaign has received $250,000 in donations. When Mitt Romney heard this, he said '$250,000? Oh, that's cute.'"

Jay Leno: "Rick Santorum says that he is what the Republicans really want. Mitt Romney says now that he knows what Republicans want, he can change to those positions."

“President Obama has ordered new sanctions against Iran’s central bank for engaging in deceptive practices. I’ve got a better idea, how about sanctions against OUR banks for deceptive practices?”

'”Romney was at a loss to explain why he dropped the ball. In fact, his wife is now blaming it on the New England Patriot receivers."

"Donald Trump announced he is building a new hotel four blocks from the White House. And with any luck, that will be about as close to the White House as Donald Trump will ever get."

Jimmy Kimmel: "There's really no reason for anyone to drop out of the race. If you wind up in fourth place, you become a regular contributor on Fox News. You come in third, you get your own show on Fox News."

Technorati Tags: Political Humor,Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum,Late Night Talk,Jay Leno,Conan O'Brian,Donal Trump,Newt Gingrich,Current Events,An American Gothic

Who Really Takes American’s Jobs Away

   I’ll tell you one thing. It is not all of those illegal aliens who come across the border. It’s Americans who are taking them away.

   Meet some kings of industry:

GE CEO Jefferey Immelt

General Electric announced it's moving its 115-year-old X-ray business from Waukesha, Wisconsin to Beijing, China.The X-ray business is part of General Electric's GE Healthcare unit, and this move is just part of a broader plan by GE to invest $2 billion in China.

CEO of Evergreen Solar, Mike El-Hillow

Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.

But now the company is closing its main American factory,laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China.

Keith Schmid, former CEO of Boston-Power

Boston-Power Inc., which two years ago was passed over in its bid to get $100 million in federal aid to build a lithium-ion battery factory in Auburn, Mass., has followed through on its warning that it could turn to China as a new home.

The Westborough-based company, which had raised almost $200 million in venture funds, has received $125 million in private and government funding from sources in China, and is turning its focus to China for its manufacturing, its headquarters and some of its research and development. About 35 percent of the company’s roughly 110-person staff is expected to be cut in the next week or so.

None of em looks like a Chinese girl on a bicycle, do they? In fact, they're white guys just like YOU.

Sourced from      Triple-B In The Building

Technorati Tags: Pete Hoekstra,Outsourcing,GE,China,Boston Power,Current Events,An American Gothic

Employer birth-control 'exemptions' are a phony issue

 by Hunter for Daily Kos    Thu Feb 09, 2012

Fake. Controversy.

Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees “have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control.”

Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits [...]

How fake? Pretty darn fake:

“The employee health insurance plans include a prescription contraceptive benefit, in compliance with state and federal law,” DePaul University spokesperson Robin Florzak confirmed to ThinkProgress.

No, really. Really, really damn fake:

Yes, the [Georgia] law was originally passed back in 1999, four years before Republicans gained control of Georgia’s government. But Republicans have had ten years in which to change the law if they thought there was a problem with it; yet, it has remained intact through ten Republican-controlled legislative sessions.

And with no stated exceptions, this law applies to mega-employer Saint Joseph’s Hospital, a 410-bed acute care facility in Atlanta with several subsidiaries including an employed physician’s group and research facilities, with a total of 3,000 employees. And the law also applies to Saint Mary’s Hospital, a 196-bed acute care hospital in Athens, GA.

Both hospitals are members of the Catholic Health East system.

But you see, everyone just noticed that right now. Or rather, it suddenly became untenable just now.

So some Catholic bishops and assorted other anti-healthcare and anti-letting-women-have-birth-control hangers-on have got their knickers in a double bowline over something that has already been the law for many years, that Catholic institutions have been complying with without difficulty for years, and which only just now, for some inexplicable reason that nobody can quite explain, is suddenly an epic threat to Whatever. Because if we don't allow large American employers "exemptions" from national laws in accordance with their every possible religious prejudice, no matter how fringe, then the government is oppressing people.

This can only mean that once again, we have solved all of America's other problems and are at a loss for other things to complain about.

Again, since it is apparently difficult for some people to understand: We are not talking about going into churches and demanding people take birth control when they don't want to. We're not talking about going into churches at all, for that matter. We're talking about large employers, colleges and hospitals, and stating that their religious beliefs do not trump employment laws or the rights of their employees, many of whom are not even of the religion in question. Want to form a church? You can believe whatever you want, and act however you want. Oppress women, be bigoted against brown people, whatever floats your ark. Want to be an employer? Then certain rules apply. You have to provide a minimum wage, you can't chain people to their workstations, you have to have sufficient bathrooms, and if you provide them healthcare you have to provide it in a non-discriminatory fashion to both men and women, and without religious dogma attached. It's a simple concept. A college is not a church. A hospital is not a church. Putting a big cross outside doesn't allow you to treat your employees however you want regardless of the law, and America is very roundly screwed if that ever becomes the case.

This is a non-issue being pushed into the spotlight because one side desperately needs to convince people they're being oppressed and needs preferential treatment. In this particular case, the bishops don't even have the respect of their own flock, and the conservatives using it as yet another bludgeon against healthcare reform doesn't have the public on their side. Yes, yes, it's a "wedge issue." But it's an embarrassingly phony one. The White House has done themselves no favors by continually "negotiating" the non-issue, either. Show some spine, and stick up for employees. It shouldn't be up to your damn employer whether you're "allowed" to use birth control or not.

Send an email to the White House and tell President Obama to stand firm on requiring all health insurers to cover contraception without co-pays.

Technorati Tags: Birth Control,CatholicChurch,Contraception,Health Care,White House,Barack Obama,Womens Rights,Current Events,An American Gothic,Politics,Republicans

Republicans Give Up, Nominate Obama.

 

by detroitmechworks        Tue Feb 07, 2012

According to an unnamed source,

"We just can't get the base enthused about any of the nominees."

Turning to pure desperation tactics, the Republican Party decided today that their only tactic for victory in November was in fact to nominate...

President Obama.

But don't worry, they've got a plan.

(Explanation on the flip.)

Obama's Republican running mate, will of course be Sarah Palin. This changes the dialog to Biden vs. WHO? on the national ticket.

Republicans have gone over the last election with a fine toothed comb, and determined that the only person to actually get votes was the semi-coherent, ultra-conservative, well we think she's cute, former half-term Governor of Alaska.

Plans are under way to present this as a "Fair and Balanced" ticket, while suggesting that this will really be a co-presidency, similar to what W. had with Cheney.

Rumors that attempts will be made to inflame "Lone Extremists" after Palin becomes vice-president are in extremely poor taste, and an affront to everything the Republican party stands for.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Republican Party,Sarah Palin,2012 Elections,Snark,Current Events,An American Gothic,Politics

Conservative Clint Eastwood Bit The GOP’s Head Off With Super Bowl Ad…

    …. and it has made the likes of Fake Fox News and Karl Rove flat out lose their minds. It was a really great “ America “ commercial, which really drives Republicans batshit crazy.

 Why the Right Went Insane Over the Clint Eastwood Superbowl Ad

by CaseyGregg    Tue Feb 07, 2012       Original Post

If you go by buzz there is no question that the Clint Eastwood ad “It’s Halftime in America”, for Chrysler was a Superbowl winner. It’s a great commercial that eclipses last year’s version, which itself was pretty good. It is of course the political charges by the Monday Morning quarterbacks in the Republican aparachnik, that give this spot real heat and can make it trend positively for Obama not just this week, but throughout the election season.

It’s strange, but it seems a chance series of elements coalesce to create a perfect election year narrative for Obama.

Combine an action hero living legend, the most depressed big city in America, and a bailed out car company, then drape it in a message of hope and glory and a call to those who are willing to fight hard and win.

“Yeah, it’s halftime in America, and our 2nd half’s about to begin”

Nothing is more American than the football half-time speech, or more political. Every Republican

wants to win one for the “Gipper,” even if Reagan’s policies would virtually disqualify him for party leadership today.

It’s an incredibly powerful narrative. The idea of Barack Obama at the half-way point of his Presidency, refusing defeat and fighting on, and asking you to fight on with him. A national effort to “come from behind, and come together” and be great again. The car companies rescued and now thriving are the perfect illustration of why Obama should be given a second term. Biden may a windbag at times, but I’ll give him credit for his recent statement on why Obama should be reelected, “Bin Laden’s dead and GM is alive.” Good night, game over, drive home safely.

The ad itself is masterfully produced, with it’s placement right at halftime grabbing your attention as Clint Eastwood references the players of the game you are watching. Of course, there is no badder ass than Dirty Harry, as his cinematic speech about the wonders of a .44 Magnum is practically hymnal in these United States.

Seeing it live, about halfway through I myself thought that it seemed politically tinged, referencing the bail-outs, and division within the country, and the fact that people are out of work and hurting. But I quickly realized it was Chrysler’s follow-up commercial similar to last year's spot with Eminem. To a political junkie, or a hyper-sensitive republican operative, it screamed like an Obama ad. Karl Rove and Michelle Malkin quickly registered their offense, even as Clint Eastwood and Chrysler disclaimed any political intention, saying they were simply trying to engender some cheap sympathy, play on people’s patriotism, and ultimately move some iron and make some frackin’ money.

Most people will likely see this commercial for its original intent, to sell cars. Republicans are going through a “purity” phase in their party, and are so quick to witch hunt, they’ll turn on anyone who even talks about an “elephant in the room.” But while the Right may be deranged about Obama, it does know powerful political messaging when it sees it; and it gets positively nauseous when it sees a democrat benefiting from it. The Right's only conclusion can be of conspiracy, even if in this case there is no there, there.

Still that doesn't mean that the Obama reelection effort should just laugh this windfall off as a funny coincidence. This ad, and the concept of “It's Halftime in America,” is a gift from heaven to the Obama reelection effort, and they should pick this up and run with it. Like Robert Duvall’s character in the Paddy Chayefsky film Network says about his TV show “It’s a big fat big-titted hit.” It resonates perfectly with the never say die spirit of football, and America, and it’s a very effective way of framing the argument for Obama’s 2nd term, and against the people who’s only goal is to see him fail.

Football season will be in full season again during the election, “It's Halftime in America” makes people want to see the home team win, and the home team in this case is Obama.

Technorati Tags: 2012.Clint Eastwood,Barack Obama,Chrysler,Super Bowl,Advertising,Current Events,An American Gothic,Republicans,Politics

Newt Gingrich; A Liberal’s Nightmare

    That is what der Standard's Florian Niederndorfer from Austria calls Mr. Gingrich. The reporter forgot to add that Newt has also become the GOP’s recurring nightmare as of this election cycle.

    der Standard      February 1, 2012

Translated By Ron Argentati At WatchingAmerica.com

In spite of Florida, “Comeback Kid” Newt Gingrich reminds us of the darker side of the Clinton years.
The television series “Portlandia” tells us, "The dream of the '90s is alive in Portland," the hipster capital of the United States. According to the program's plot, the liberal Clinton years never died there, but the idyllic image ignores the fact that there's often a dark side to pleasant dreams. Anyone dreaming of a return to the 1990s, as the protagonists in the series do, will have a sleepless night courtesy of Newt Gingrich, Clinton's most determined enemy.
The 68-year-old is a nightmare plaguing liberal Americans both inside and outside Portland's city limits ever since the 1990s, and it's one that stubbornly refuses to let go. Despite his defeat in Florida, Gingrich fights on with determination against his rival Mitt Romney. He has often been on the ropes before in this match, but just as his political career appears to be gradually fading, he shows why he earned the title of “Comeback Kid” in his battles with Clinton.
Liberal America is obliged to take part in these flashbacks that recall the darker side of the Clinton years. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich criticized Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a 23-year-old White House aide. He did so at the same time he was cheating on his wife, who was ill with multiple sclerosis, by carrying on his own affair with an assistant 23 years his junior. And he also attacks a prudish Mitt Romney for his supposedly improper role as an investment banker in the 1990s, while he himself was earning millions from the bankrupt Freddie Mac mortgage company.
Newt Gingrich, the Scourge of the '90s, is still alive and kicking, at least until Super Tuesday, and he still sees his fight against liberal America as unfinished.

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich,2012 Elections,Liberals,Democrats,Republicans,Mitt Romney,Current Events,An American Gothic,Politics,Watching America

 

Mitt Romney and Wife Ann: Offshore Accounts

   You all know about GOP front-runner Mitt’s offshore banking interest, but, it looks as if his wife also has had a Swiss bank account with $3 million in it.

Ann Romney: $3M Swiss Bank Account for fun and pleasure

Fri Feb 03, 2012      By Polecat @ Daily Kos

Mitt Romney's wife had $3M in a secret UBS Swiss Bank Account through 2010.  This was not reported on Federal Disclosure Forms.

link and here's a Google cache because the other link is very slow.

The release of the tax returns shows Romney neglected to disclose some required financial information in his personal disclosure form filed with the Office of Government Ethics last year. His team apparently timed the release of his tax records with the hope that State of the Union hooplah would dominate news coverage and result in his finances getting less attention than they might otherwise. And that appears to been correct. His failure to divulge information about 23 investments, and more important his use of secret Swiss bank accounts, has been given a free pass.

23 Investments were not declared on his Federal Disclosure in 2011.

From the LA Times

An examination by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau found that at least 23 investments detailed in the couple's 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney's most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

(my emphasis)

Among the assets omitted is a Swiss bank account in Ann Romney's blind trust that held $3 million until it closed in 2010. The account was listed on a financial disclosure Romney filed in 2007, but it was mistakenly named as an asset held by the couple, not as part of Ann Romney's trust. A campaign spokeswoman said Thursday that Romney will file amendments to both his 2007 and 2011 financial disclosures to correctly identify the bank account.

The Romney campaign dismissed the omission of information as inadvertent and inconsequential, noting he has released more than 600 pages of details about his finances. Indeed, among the hundreds of investments listed on his recent financial disclosure are many foreign funds.

Inconsequential.  $3M in a Swiss Bank Account for your wife.

And she has a blind trust?  Is this blind trust also run by your close friend that runs your own trust, Mr. Romney?

The part that I find the most interesting is that it was closed in late 2010: "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake!"

Yeah.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney,Ann Romney,Taxes,Offshore Banking,UBS,Federal Disclosure,2012 Elections,Current Events,An American Gothic

President Obama’s Economy…

…. may not be improving as fast as many of us would it to, but, it is going much better than what the Republican Party would like for you to hear.

50,000 New Manufacturing Jobs, GM is #1, Gas Use @ 2001 Levels, Thank You President Obama

  Original Post  By FISHOUTOFWATER  on Friday, February 3, 2012

The reports of the death of American manufacturing were premature. President Obama stopped the long hard decline in U.S. manufacturing that began under President G.W. Bush. U.S. durable goods manufacturing added 50,000 jobs in January for a total of 418,000 jobs over the past 2 years. Hours worked in manufacturing were up 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011, giving a boost to worker pay. President Obama's decision to save GM and Chrysler, which was strongly attacked at the time by Republicans, saved America's manufacturing sector leading to today's good news. If GM had been allowed to shut down the ripple effect through the supply chain would have permanently damaged a large sector of American manufacturing. Today GM is the worlds number 1 producer of automobiles and Chrysler, which Republicans declared dead, is profitable again.

Auto sales were so strong that auto dealers added 7,000 new jobs in January.

In the goods-producing sector, manufacturing added 50,000 jobs. Nearly all of the increase occurred in durable goods manufacturing, with job growth in fabricated metal products (+11,000), machinery (+11,000), and motor vehicles and parts (+8,000). Durable goods manufacturing has added 418,000 jobs over the past 2 years.

The really good news that hasn't been reported with the auto jobs data is the large reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption. In January, gas consumption plummeted to levels not seen since the weeks after September 11, 2001. This is solid evidence that the Obama administration's bold initiative to turn GM into a producer of smaller fuel efficient cars is a resounding success. Clearly, the high price of gas has encouraged use of mass transit, car pools and more efficient trips, but no one can blame cold winter weather for the low gas consumption. Obviously, buyers are replacing old inefficient vehicles with new fuel efficient ones. Because people put off auto buying during the recession, pent up demand will continue this trend of replacing gas guzzlers with gas sippers. This isn't just good news for the environment. It's good for the economy. The U.S. economy will be less prone to go into a recession as oil prices rise because consumers who are using less fuel will be less sensitive to price hikes.

Total U.S. fuel consumption dropped to 1999 levels, putting strong downward pressure on the price of "West Texas" crude sold at Cushing, Oklahoma. The price of Brent crude, which is of similar high quality, was $16.74 higher at close of business today than West Texas Intermediate. President Obama's success in raising vehicle fuel economy standards will help further reduce consumption and will help keep gas prices from rising more.

Rising Cushing inventories also helped widen Brent’s premium over WTI, which has almost doubled this year, said Gene McGillian, an analyst and broker at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut. Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD) plans to start shipping oil from Cushing to the U.S. Gulf Coast June 1 after the Seaway pipeline’s flow is reversed.

“Cushing stocks are increasing and there won’t be new pipelines until later this year,” McGillian said. He added that Asian demand is boosting Brent.

Crude prices may fall next week, a Bloomberg News survey showed. Fourteen of 34 analysts, or 41 percent, forecast oil will drop through Feb. 10. Twelve respondents, or 35 percent, predicted prices will increase and eight estimated there will be little change.

Total petroleum demand in the U.S., the biggest oil consumer, fell to 17.7 million barrels a day last week, the lowest level since May 1999, according to the Energy Department. Gasoline consumption decreased to 7.97 million barrels a day, the lowest level since September 2001.

Strong demand in Asia is driving up the price of Brent crude. Republicans are pressing for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline so that the Koch Brothers can sell fuel they refined in Texas to Asia and world markets. Completion of additional pipeline capacity is not required to meet falling demand in the U.S. If the pipeline is built West Texas prices will rise to Brent levels.

President Obama is helping keep the price of gas down by not approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

Also republished by The Federation and Climate Hawks.

Technorati Tags: U.S. Manufacturing,Barack Obama,GM,General Motors,Chrysler,The Economy,Employment,Current Events,An American Gothic

Friday Funnies: The Mittzilla Edition

    So Mitt Romney beat up the Newt in the Florida primary and then showed even more of his true colors by saying that he wasn’t to concerned with poor people because they have a safety net, which every Republican on the planet is trying to do away with.

   Then, on Thursday, the Romney got that most coveted endorsement by Mr. 1% himself, Donald Trump.

Conan O'Brien: "Mitt Romney went to a McDonald's and ordered burgers and fries and apparently everything was going well until Romney asked the cashier if she could break a $1 million bill."

"Studies are showing that Republican candidates are buying a lot of their ad time on the Weather Channel. You can tell because last night, the weatherman blamed the cold front on immigration and gay marriage."

Craig Ferguson: "A lot of people want Gingrich and Romney to continue their attacks on each other all the way to the convention. These people are called Democrats."

Stephen Colbert: "I don't know whether Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich won but we do know one thing for certain: tomorrow both of them can go back to ignoring Latinos."

Jay Leno: “Newt Gingrich has been attacking Mitt Romney for being wealthy and having money in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. See, that’s when you know you’re part of the top 1 percent, when your bank’s address has the word ‘island’ in it.”
“But, Romney says he is not a creature of Washington. He has lived in the real streets of America. I believe it’s Easy Street, if I’m not mistaken.”
“In fact, when Mitt Romney was young, he and his gang controlled their hood's hedge fund.”

Bill Maher: “Mitt Romney said he loves Florida. All the sunshine and sandy beaches reminds him of the country where he keeps hi money.”

“These debates have jumped the shark because last night the Republican stalked about three things: deporting Mexican grandmothers, building a colony on the moon that could become the 51st state, and how Obama is out of touch.”

“Newt Gingrich -- this is guy is clinical. He thinks he’s some sort of intergalactic ruler. He said by the end of my second term as president, we will have a colony on the moon, and if there are enough people there, it can petition to be the 51st state. We’ll call it Lunarchusetts.”

Technorati Tags: Friday Funnies,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,2012 Elections,Political Humor,Late Night Talk,Jay Leno,Bill Maher,Current Events,An American Gothic

 

  

Komen Foundation Is Run By Republican Right Wingers

Wed Feb 01, 2012                Original Post by TOMP

Some folks have commented about this, but I thought it needed to be seen by more folks.  The Komen Race for the Cure is a right wing outfit run by Republicans:

But the truth is that Komen founder Nancy Brinker has strong Republican ties and Cecile Richards, who leads Planned Parenthood, is daughter of late Texas Gov. Ann Richards and has longtime Democratic Party ties. Also worth noting: This is an election year.

Brinker, a longtime GOP donor who was ambassador to Hungary under then-President George W. Bush, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama in 2009. She has cast Komen as above politics, saying its focus is women’s health.

But the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood comes shortly after Komen unveiled a new partnership that strengthens its ties to the George W. Bush Institute. The institute is the policy-making arm of Bush’s presidential library, which is scheduled to open in Dallas next year.

WaPo, Komen’s Planned Parenthood decision all about politics

And Brinker has salted the organization with anti-choice zealots:

Komen’s new Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, not only has a long anti-choice history, but pledged to eliminate grants for Planned Parenthood to provide breast and cervical cancer screenings when she ran for governor of Georgia in 2010.

http://thinkprogress.org/...

Republican anti-choice fanatics are dominating this "charity" to use for political purposes in an anti-woman way.  The irony is amazing.  It's supposedly all about women's health, except Komen is anti-choice and fighting against women's reproductive health. 

People should not run in the "Race for the Cure" or give money.

Komen chose to declare war on women.  Let them reap the consequences of that war.  Women and male allies must fight back. 

Update I: Good news from the comments regarding Planned Parenthood:

Texas oil executive...(7+ / 0-)

Lee Fikes and his wife have just given $250,000 to Planned Parenthood to help make up for some of the loss of funds.

Amy and Lee Fikes Announce $250,000 Gift to Create Planned Parenthood Breast Health Fund:

"Our family is saddened that the far right has relentlessly and successfully pressured the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding for breast screening, referral, and education support to low-income women who, until now, have been able to depend on the partnership between Komen and Planned Parenthood for their health.

"Women of all economic levels need breast health screenings, referrals and education, which is what Planned Parenthood provides in communities across the country, especially to low-income women who have no other place to turn. Planned Parenthood's quality, accessibility, and affordability makes it a leader in enabling women to have early screening and support when there is the best chance of successful treatment.

"As a family with a breast cancer survivor, we lament the decision of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to abandon women who get their health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. In response to this disappointing news, our family foundation has granted $250,000 to establish a Breast Health Fund at Planned Parenthood, so that their health centers across the country can continue to put the real needs of women ahead of right wing ideology. We encourage others to join us in replacing the funds lost, so that no woman’s health is imperiled by Komen’s unfortunate decision."

Balloon Juice also points out the fallout on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) both withdrawing their support of the Komen Foundation.

And this:

Planned Parenthood (1+ / 0-)

Planned Parenthood raises $400,000 in 24 hours

02/01/12 - Supporters of Planned Parenthood have flooded the organization with enough donations to recoup almost all of the money that would have come from the Susan G. Komen foundation.

Planned Parenthood said it has raised $400,000 in online donations in the 24 hours since news broke that Komen would no longer fund cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics. More than 6,000 people have donated, Planned Parenthood said.

The group announced yesterday a $250,000 donation to continue providing cancer screenings to low-income women.

Update II: If you want to donate to Planned Parenthood, go here:Planned Parenthood

There is a donate buton on the right side of the page.  Hit that and it will take you to the donate page. 

Also republished by Kos Georgia.

Technorati Tags: Komen Foundation,Nancey Brinker,Karen Handel,Planned Parenthood,Republican Party,Susan G. Komen Foundation,Current Events,An American Gothic,Politics,Womens Rights

Aetna Health Insurance Profits Up 73%! Why? Poor Americans Can't Afford To Visit Doctors

    * I happen to fall into this group of Americans who are saddled with mountains of medical debt due to these outrageous co-pays, so I’m posting the following from James321.

Wed Feb 01, 2012

If Eve's heartbreaking diary hasn't gotten you upset enough tonight, this sickening piece of news about the mega-profit Aetna health insurance company may just push you into having a heart attack (which Aetna will promptly deny coverage for):

Health insurer Aetna Inc.’s fourth-quarter net income jumped 73 percent, as it continued to benefit from low use of health care and some key expenses fell.

The Hartford, Conn., insurer’s earnings and revenue topped Wall Street expectations due in part to slower-than-expected growth in health care use, a trend that has helped insurers routinely outperform the past several quarters. Many analysts expect this trend to continue into 2012.

Yes, you read that right, the poor, one of the poor, little bloodsucking insurance companies that is unable to afford printing basic information about what your policy will cover without passing the costs onto customers just had its profits rise by 73-freaking-percent.

This is sickening and I am so ashamed for the United States of America.

What pushes me to tears -- thinking about all the people like the young woman in Eve's diary -- is that this company, and its vulture shareholders, are making all that money because everyday Americans can no longer afford to pay the co-pays and deductibles necessary to visit their doctors.

Yes, in America, "health care" companies do best when they don't have to "do" any health care at all.

That is a sick, twisted and perverse system -- and we should be appalled that we are the only developed country on the face of the Earth that allows bloodsucking, pseudo-bankers (that's what insurers our -- they invest your premium dollars) to make a profit off of the financing of basic health care.

Of course, this 73% is not enough for Aetna, they still want more:

Zubretsky in the interview stressed how much Aetna has grown in the market since the middle of the last decade, plus the opportunity Aetna has to covert its own commercial customers to Medicare Advantage. "We've been focusing on organic opportunities," he said.

Only in America do we deny the right to health care to all our people, but then allow our government to pay immoral, unethical companies like Aetna to provide health care for small segments of our population -- the Medicare Advantage plans.

So, to summarize, the good news?

Aetna's CEO Mark Bertolini will be able to buy some more fine Italian wines for the mountainside hot tub outside his Connecticut mansion (no, I'm not making that up):

Mark Bertolini and his wife, Susan, just back from Italy in 2001, were sipping Vernaccia di San Gimignano wine in the hot tub of their spacious Avon Mountain home and reveling in their good fortune.

And, the bad news?

People will die -- the very policyholders bankrolling that (truly) sick man's lavish 1%-er lifestyle -- because they can't afford to pay their $5,000 deductible. Or they wonder if the chest pain is just from dinner, or if it's a pay-the-$200-Emergency Room-co-pay type of chest pain.

Shame on this country, and shame on Aetna for denying its policyholders health care, and for -- through its incessant lobbying and visits to the White House -- denying Americans the right to Medicare for all.

Let's occupy health care, and demand that Aetna be given its final denial -- removal from America's health care system.

Screw you, Aetna.

Technorati Tags: Aetna,Health Care,1%,Barack Obama,Occupy Wall Street,Health Insurance,Medicare,Current Events,An American Gothic

 

Obama Administration: Leaks Are OK When It's Obama Defending Controversial Drone Program

Wed Feb 01, 2012    by Jesselyn Radack     Daily Kos

The Obama administration recently continued its campaign against so-called "leakers," who are more often than not whistleblowers, with the indictment of a record-breaking sixth person under the Espionage Act for alleged mishandling of classified information.

Obama's abhorrence for "leaks" apparently only applies to disclosures that expose embarrassing or negative aspects of the administration. At an online town hall - sponsored by adjust-your-privacy-expectations-downward Google - Obama defended the CIA's supposedly covert drone program:

“I want to make sure that people understand that drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties,” Obama replied. “For the most part, they have been very precise, precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates.”

The perception that “we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly,” Obama said, is incorrect. “This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on.”

“I think that we have to be judicious in how we use drones,” Obama added.

Obama has no qualms with speaking publicly about the drone program to assure us that not too many innocent people get killed. (I doubt civilians in northern Pakistan would agree nor would the family of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - an innocent 16-year-old American killed by a drone as collateral damage and son of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, also targeted and killed in a separate drone strike.)

Despite Obama's candid defense of the glories of modern drone warfare, the Obama administration enthusiastically raises the curtain of secrecy whenever the public seeks information that will paint Obama's precious drones in anything but a heroic, American-life-saving light.

The Justice Department repeatedly claims that it can "neither confirm nor deny" the existence of the program in response to the public's requests for information. WaPo reports:

In a lawsuit last year, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the CIA’s refusal to release information about drone killings was illegal. When the CIA argued that even the “fact of the existence or non-existence” of such a program was classified, the ACLU responded that then-CIA Director Leon E. Panetta had spoken openly of U.S. “hits” and “strikes” against al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

My organization, the Government Accountability Project, got the same response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the secret Justice Department memo rationalizing the assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone strike, despite the fact that the New York Times described the memo in detail on the front page. 

Dealing with Obama's acknowledgment of a program the Obama administration has tried to avoid "confirming or denying," the Washington Post reports that White House spokesman Jay Carney, 

suggested that nothing Obama had said could be a security violation: “He’s the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. He’s the president of the United States.”

In other words, if whistleblowers disclose waste, fraud, abuse, illegality or just plain embarrassing information, they can expect to be labeled an enemy of the state and criminally prosecuted under the Espionage Act, but, if the President does it, it's not illegal.

UPDATE: According to CNN, an anonymous administration official is now backing Carney's statements that Obama did not "make a mistake" when discussing the drone program.

A senior administration official is denying to CNN that President Obama made a mistake in publicly revealing what had been classified information about U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan.

The official downplayed the significance of what happened, pointing out that what the president said was widely known. The president, the official said was making the point that the drone missions are “precise” and “targeted to avoid casualties.”

To summarize, we have an anonymous senior administration official reinforcing what a White House Spokesperson said Obama meant when Obama publicly discussed a secret program that the Justice Department "can neither confirm nor deny." Am I the only one confused?

The problem of such absurd secrecy is not lost on anyone writing about the drone program. The New York Times reported:

The secrecy has prevented an open debate on legal and ethical questions surrounding the strikes, since neither intelligence officials nor members of Congress can speak openly about them.

The ACLU had another take on the purpose of the ridiculous secrecy - to avoid Court oversight:

In the wake of Obama’s comments, “it becomes more and more absurd to say that this is a covert program, a secret program,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. “There is nobody left in the United States or in Pakistan or in Yemen,” where drone strikes have also been conducted, “who doesn’t know about this.”

“At this point,” Jaffer said, “the only consequence of pretending that it’s a secret program is that the courts don’t play a role in overseeing it.”

A functioning democracy requires an informed public, not one that relies on Executive branch talking points, selective authorized leaks from "anonymous administration officials," and the occasional presidential off-the-cuff remark.

Technorati Tags: CIA,Espionage Act,Barack Obama,Whistleblowers,NSA,Current Events,An American gothic

Romney Trounces Gingrich In Florida

   Trounced is putting it mildly.

Yahoo News

Technorati Tags: Florida Primary,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,2012 Elections,Current Events,An American Gothic

Newt Gingrich and Those Tampa Christians

Gingrich, Messiah of the Evangelicals
25 January 2012    Edited by Gillian Palmer

Translated By Micaela Bester

France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)

    Sourced from Watching America

Tampa, Florida. The audience, a mix of all ages, is welcomed in, heads bowed, eyes shut, arms outstretched and palms open. An outdoor mass? No – a meeting of Newt Gingrich’s followers in the immense parking lot of the spiritual center of River Church, a “church of awakening.”
The “awakening of America, land of mission” is exactly what the master of the house, an evangelical preacher, fervently desires. He fires up the audience while they are waiting for the candidate for the Republican nomination. “Only Jesus can heal the wounds of America,” he assures.* The banners fluttering in the wind invoke, instead, the very human “Newt.” The wounds are clearly identified: The murder of “unborn babies,” the “taking over of this country by Islam” and the theft of the “rights and freedoms of America, this land where the name of God is proclaimed.” The "amen"s soon give way to chants of “U.S.A.!, U.S.A.!” until the audience is out of breath, before the prayer to the flag.
But the awakening has begun: “America is coming back with Newt Gingrich,” proclaims a local representative. “Newt is going to take the state of Florida,” prophesies a “non-union” teacher. “We are here to save this great country,” adds a 60-odd-year-old who emigrated from Cuba in 1962. “He is going to take back for us the America that we love.”*
And here he is now, that very savior, taking the stand, in the company of Callista, his very blonde third wife. She nods her head conscientiously to each of his sentences. “Who has the capacity to face Obama?” Gingrich starts, mocking his rival, Mitt Romney. “Campaigning for six years [Romney was also a candidate in 2008], it’s desperate. And desperation can drive one to say anything.”*
He makes them laugh, “the people” to whom he wants to give power at the expense of the candidate of the Republican establishment. He also directs his anger toward the “media of the elite” who, according to him, support Barack Obama.
Banners describe him as “Obama’s worst nightmare for the debates.” Gingrich uses his cheeky humor and his flirtatiousness against the incumbent president, "food stamp president" (in other words, the president of welfare for the idle). In front of me, he scoffs, “He will always be able to use a prompter!" The evangelical faithfuls are overjoyed: “In the campaign, Newt was presumed dead just a few weeks ago. Today, he could win. It’s a resurrection.” Among these fervent evangelicals, everyone seems to have forgotten the candidate’s marital indiscretions.
Holding Callista’s hand, the ex-Speaker of the House is already rolling toward another campaign event in Florida, where the primaries take place Jan. 31, but where voting is already open. He has made no concrete promises, except for “the absolute reestablishment of the borders.”* Newt has just bragged about being “a genuine conservative sprung from the ground.” He knew to speak the words that his fans had come to hear: “real change in Washington” where “everything is broken,” and “reestablishment of American exceptionalism.”*
*Editor’s Note: These quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich,2012 Elections,Republican Primary,Politics,Watching America,Mitt Romney,Christians,Current Events,An American Gothic,Tampa,Florida

Tech Group: SOPA/PIPA Need To Be Scrapped Entirely

Thu Jan 26, 2012  Originally posted to Joan McCarter

President and CEO of Public Knowledge Gigi Sohn writes at Forbes' CIO Network blog, arguing that there's nothing salvagable in the current SOPA/PIPA anti-internet piracy bills.

Reporters want to know—what if this provision came out? Or what if that was the other language was changed? Would the bill be acceptable to us? Some of the big lobby groups behind the bill suggested a “summit” of tech companies and content companies to hash it all out.

The answer is—none of the above. Trying to “fix” SOPA and PIPA and all of the bad provisions in those bills is the wrong approach. Conceptually, it’s like trying to build a building starting on the second floor. The most logical way to proceed would be to start building a structure from the foundation and working up from there.

She also has a radical idea: "So before we talk solutions, we have to figure out the problem."

This legislation is a perfect example of what happens when you let lobbyists, and in this case the wrong ones, write legislation. The MPAA and RiAA and other content producers called the tune on this one and Congress jumped, even after the Government Accountability Office couldn't validate the dire numbers the content industry put out to show how harmed they are by piracy. Despite the uncertain data, despite the warnings from all of the other communities involved—tech, civil rights, social media—of the dire unintended consequences this legislation would have, Congress was ready to do the content providers bidding.

But the experience of stopping this legislation provides another great example, and perhaps a template to build upon. Sohn:

This was a decentralized effort. No one company or group organized it. No one company or group could have organized it. When someone suggested on Reddit that Web sites go dark, and Reddit agreed, the idea caught on as the site proprietors themselves decided what to do. The combination of expertise in the substance and inside D.C.-based knowledge of the legislative process, combined with outside online activism created a powerful wave that swamped the traditional ways of doing business inside the Capitol.

It set up a great coalition, and a Congress that just might be ready to listen to it, for the next round.

Technorati Tags: PIPA,SOPA,Internet Censorship,Internet Privacy,Current Events,An American Gothic

Saturday Satire: WTF? Edition

   Most of the late-night comedians took the week off, I guess to keep themselves from overdosing  on the stupidity of the Republican Party presidential candidates.

Conan O'Brien: President Obama told the nation ‘The state of our union is strong,’ while Newt Gingrich told his wife, 'The state of our union is open.'"

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she has dirt on Newt Gingrich, but so far she's keeping her lips sealed — because that's how the last surgeon left them."

"Mitt Romney is going to release 2010 and 2011 tax returns. Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich is going to release his 1988, 1994, and 2005 wedding vows."

Stephen Colbert: "After Iowa and New Hampshire, Newt's campaign looked terminally ill, which is when he generally moves on to something better."

"Newt Gingrich crushed Mitt Romney on Saturday (in South Carolina). … Gingrich sealed his victory in last week’s debates by going after America’s most dangerous enemy: debate moderators."

Bill Maher: "Rick Perry dropped out. He said while it’s sad he won’t be president, he can always run again next year."

"Newt Gingrich's ex-wife went on nightline and said that he wanted to have an open marriage. This is the second wife, talking about him when he was fooling around with what became the third wife. Newt wanted apparently to have his wife and his marriage and also women on the side giving him oral sex. This way he could be nice and relaxed when he went to work and accused blacks of feeling entitled."

"Newt was mad. He said 'I am not a philanderer; I am a blow job creator.'"

"I thought the race was over; I thought Mitt Romney had closed it. You know for a guy that is supposed to be a great business man, he sure can’t close the deal. And now it looks like Mitt vs. Newt; Alien vs. Predator."

"New Rule: The NAACP must take Newt Gingrich up on his offer to stand in front of the their convention and tell them why black people should want jobs instead food stamps. This way I can finally answer a question that's been bugging me for years: can Newt Gingrich run?"

Technorati Tags: Friday Funnies,Late Night Talk,Bill Maher,Conan O'Brian,Political Humor,Stephen Colbert,Current Events,An American Gothic,Mitt Romney,Newt Gingrich,Jokes

Challenging the Republican's Five Myths on Inequality

Published on Monday, January 23, 2012 by On the Commons

The Republican position on inequality rests on five statements, all false.        By David Morris

Recent comments by Mitt Romney, the probable Republican nominee for President all but guarantee the inequality issue will remain front and center this election year.GOP candidate Mitt Romney, who thinks its okay to talk about wealth inequality and wage disparity "in quiet rooms" does not think it's appropriate for presidential campaigns.

When asked whether people who question the current distribution of wealth and power are motivated by “jealousy or fairness” Romney insisted, “I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare.” And in this election year he advised that if we do discuss inequality we do so “in quiet rooms” not in public debates.

A public debate, of course, is inevitable. And welcome. To help that debate along I’ll address the five major statements that comprise the Republican argument on inequality.

1. Income is Not All That Unequal

Actually it is. Since 1980 the top 1 percent has increased its share of the national income by an astounding $1.1 trillion. Today 300,000 very rich Americans enjoy almost as much income as 150 million.

Since 1980, the income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans has increased a meager $303 or 1 percent. The top 1 percent’s income has more than doubled, increasing by about $500,000. And the really, really rich, the top 10th of 1 percent, made out, dare I say, like bandits, quadrupling their income to $22 million.

Meanwhile a full-time worker’s wage was 11 percent lower in 2004 than in 1973, adjusting for inflation even though their productivity increased by 78 percent. Productivity gains swelled corporate profits, which reached an all time high in 2010. And that in turn fueled an unprecedented inequality within the workplace itself. In 2010, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, the average CEO in large companies earned 325 times more than the average worker.

2. Inequality doesn’t matter because in America ambition and hard work can make a pauper a millionaire.

This is folklore. A worker’s initial position in the income distribution is highly predictive of how much he or she earns later in the career. And as the Brookings Institution reports “there is growing evidence of less intergenerational economic mobility in the United States than in many other rich industrialized countries.”

The bitter fact is that it is harder for a poor person in America to become rich than in virtually any other industrialized country.

3. Income inequality is not a result of tax policy.

Nonsense. A painstaking analysis by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva found “a strong correlation between the reductions in top tax rates and the increases in top 1% pre-tax income shares from 1975–79 to 2004–08”. For example, the U.S. slashed the top income tax rate by 35 percent and witnessed a large ten percent increase in its top 1% pre-tax income share. “By contrast, France or Germany saw very little change in their top tax rates and their top 1% income shares during the same period.”

4. Taxing the rich will slow economic growth

An examination of 18 OECD countries found “little empirical support for the claim that reducing the progressivity of the tax code has spurred economic growth, business formation or job growth”.

Indeed, Piketty, Saez and Stantcheva’s rigorous analysis came to the opposite conclusion. Our economy may be growing more slowly because we are taxing the rich too little, not too much. Economists Peter Diamond and Saez estimated the optimal top tax rate, that is the tax rate that would maximize revenue without slowing economic growth, could be as high as 83 percent.

Redistributing income stimulates economies in part because when 1% make more they save whereas when the 99% make more they spend. As a result, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s, a dollar in tax cuts on capital gains adds .38 cents of economic growth while a dollar in unemployment benefits gives the economy a boost of $1.63 and a dollar of food stamps adds $1.73.

5. Taxing the rich would not raise much money

Of course it would. If only the richest 400 families, whose average income in 2008 was an astounding $270 million actually paid the statutory rate of 39 percent (revived as of next January 1st) an additional $500 billion would be raised over 10 years, putting a substantial dent in the projected deficit.

In 2010 hedge fund manager John Paulson made $5 billion. That year, according to Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston, Paulson paid no income taxes. Am I envious Mr. Romney? You bet I am. But I’m also angry at the stark injustice of it all. And terrified of the power such wealth can wield in a country that allows billionaires to spend unlimited sums influencing legislation and elections.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that two-thirds of Americans now believe the conflict between rich and poor is our greatest source of tension. I agree. It is a conflict that deserves to be aired fully and in public.

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

David Morris is Vice President and director of the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which is based in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. focusing on local economic and social development

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney,Republican Party,Income Inequality,Pew Research Center,1%ers,2012 Elections,Current Events,An American Gothic,The Economy