From DavidMixner.Com
As this Administration sits in offices plotting timeline charts on what rights they feel comfortable granting us this year, clearly it is time for us to gin up our efforts and stop waiting for them to hand us our God given entitlements. Enough. I really can't stomach any more being told 'not now'. As nice as it would be, no one is going to give us our freedom; we are going to have to continue to fight like hell for it. It is demeaning to us to be moved around on a political chess board like freedom is a move in some game.
We have to stop it.
Let's never forget that we are not talking about just another piece of legislation nor just an executive order. What is at stake is over 1,000 rights, benefits, privileges and protections granted to all other Americans and denied to the LGBT community. It is about the ability of those who choose to serve their country can do so in total honesty and freedom. That the vision of America is for our young as well as other young Americans. Finally as we work toward full equality we must halt in its tracks the efforts of a number of our fellow citizens to put in place a system of Apartheid for LGBT citizens. The stakes are way too high for them to tell us to wait until next year, or even until the next term.
Our freedom can't be negotiated in the political offices of the White House and in the halls of Congress. Our goal is not to make their path easier but to ensure that young LGBT citizens will not be beaten, denied the right to serve, have their love demeaned in some sort of separate but equal system or excluded from giving their gifts and talents freely to this nation. At this moment, there is very little movement on any of these issues in the White House and it appears that some even believe we should be happy with just hate crimes legislation being passed this year.
I adore President Obama but not enough to allow his team to delay my freedom for political convenience or comfort. It is unacceptable.
My plea is for our LGBT leaders to call a March on Washington for Marriage Equality this November and if they won't do it, I appeal to our young to come together and provide the leadership.
We need to come together in a display of powerful community unity to empower our young and to show the nation that anything less than full freedom is unacceptable. Clearly there are other issues that should be on the agenda for the march but marriage equality is the lynchpin that deals with so many of those issues. The most striking outside that institution would be the freedom to serve in our nation's military - and that weekend I think we could have a separate powerful event to highlight that.
Having organized a number of major marches in my near 50 years of activism, I don't take this call lightly. Trust me, I know that there are times when such marches are ineffective and poorly timed. Yet, I have also seen them be extremely effective both in message and building momentum within the movement. For the first time, we have the opportunity to have tens of thousands of our straight allies and straight students join us and we should organize the march to make it easy for them to be by our sides.
My experience has taught me the secret to any march is to keep the message simple and to make it easy for others to join. Of course, our best organizers must be enlisted in order to ensure that hundreds of thousands attend in an orderly and safe fashion.
Tapping into my previous work, I would suggest the following for consideration: On the Friday before the march 12,000 (approximately the number of our service people that have been dismissed under DADT) led by our veterans walk single file from the Pentagon to the White House until all 12,000 are across from the White House. Let the nation see visibly how many of our citizens have had their careers destroyed while the military allows convicted felons to serve. I would love to see 12,000 across from the White House chanting "Let US Serve."
One of the lessons from previous marches is that everyone should be on the Mall by no later than 3PM. We should not let logistics prevent people from getting to the Mall or otherwise they won't be counted. Everyone must be present before the evening news has to develop their stories. Each marcher and organizer should be told that every single person has to be on the Mall from 2PM to 3PM in order for us to have a success. How they choose to do that I will leave to the organizers.
Watching press secretary Robert Gibbs dodge and duck answers on LGBT issues while it seems almost every other group and issue is being discussed is so depressing to me. The promise of the Democrats being in control was great. They still can rise to greatness. It is not too late but they need our help in lifting them out of their own fears and into the light.
President Kennedy had to deal with a recession, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis and so much more. However, when Dr. King and others filled the streets of cities around America and yes, Washington, DC, the president found the resources and time to stay by their sides. The time has come for us to remove the current administration's option of shrinking from leadership on this issue and to insist they rise to a new level of greatness along side us as we all fight together for freedom. It is the only way.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Gov. Lynch is a Coward
I'm rarely that dramatic in my headlines, but the label fits.
Two weeks ago, the N.H. legislature adopted a Marriage Equality Bill. The Speakers of the House and Senate delayed delivering the bill to the Governor, because once delivered, state law only gives him 5 days to make a decision, and he wanted more time. During that time, the state was baraged with hateful ads from out-of-state groups proclaiming the virtual end of western civilization if he signed. Two days ago, the Governor met with opposition leaders. And yesterday, he announced his decision.
He stated that he would veto the bill in its current form, but sign it if certain amendments were added. Most of these amendments are meaningless: they insure the right of religious institutions to refrain from conducting same-sex ceremonies. This is meaningless because churches already have this right under both the US and State Constitutions; For years Roman Catholic Churches refused to marry non-Catholics, and there was -and is - no legal repurcussion for this. The Constitutions guarentee them their right to conduct their ecclesiastical rites their own way. From this perspective, Lynch's amendments are simply political posturing.
However, one of his 'required' amendments is a clear step backwards.
"a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals..."
On its face, this sounds like a statement in support of religious liberty. In reality, it is a step backwards for equality.
The proposed amendments enable organizations that own businesses (such as lakeside retreats, function facilities, etc.) AND WHO HOLD THESE FACILITIES OUT TO THE PUBLIC, to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
All agree that religious institutions must be permitted to do as they wish in the conduct of their own religious life. HOWEVER, once they begin engaging in business with the public, a different set of laws apply. Under current law, businesses may NOT discriminate in the provision of services or housing based on sexual orientation. Under Lynch's proposed amendments, this discrimination would now be legal.
Lynch, once again, can claim to be all things to all people:
He will tell gays and liberals that he supports Marriage Equality.
He will tell theocrats that he supported rolling back the anti-dsicrimination laws to give them an exception.
If it passes, the Conservatives have won a right to discriminate in the conduct of Public Business.
If it fails, Lynch can blame the Legislature for "not doing a good enough job."
Governor, you are pandering the right and avoiding leadership. Whereas you could have had my unending support, you now have my unending scorn, regardless of the outcome of your political games.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
NH State Senate votes to Allow Gay Marriage
By NORMA LOVE | Associated Press Writer
1:41 PM CDT, April 29, 2009
CONCORD, N.H. - The state Senate has voted to make New Hampshire the fifth state to allow gay marriage.
The 13-11 vote came after a 45 minute debate over an emotional issue that drew 500 people to the Statehouse for a hearing earlier this month.
The vote establishes a two-tier system with a civil marriage and a religious marriage license. The House now must consider the proposal, which is similar to one it rejected earlier this year.
Gov. John Lynch has said marriage is a word that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman, but he has not said specifically that he would veto the bill.
1:41 PM CDT, April 29, 2009
CONCORD, N.H. - The state Senate has voted to make New Hampshire the fifth state to allow gay marriage.
The 13-11 vote came after a 45 minute debate over an emotional issue that drew 500 people to the Statehouse for a hearing earlier this month.
The vote establishes a two-tier system with a civil marriage and a religious marriage license. The House now must consider the proposal, which is similar to one it rejected earlier this year.
Gov. John Lynch has said marriage is a word that should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman, but he has not said specifically that he would veto the bill.
Arlen Specter: the Real Lesson
Yesterday, Penn. Senator Arlen Specter annouced that he was switching from the Republican to the Democratic Party, and the political spin-doctors have been working overtime on what this means.
Michael Steele, Chair of the GOP, wrote in an email, "I hope Arlen Specter's party change outrages you. …He told us all to go jump in the lake today." He further referred to Specters "left-wing voting record" and alluded to Benedict Arnold.
Actually, the allusion to Benedict Arnold may be apt. Arnold was a patriot who fought for the colonies in a number of campaigns, and who switched sides only after coming to believe that the Colonies cause was doomed. In Specter's case, he has seen that the GOP has already lost. Or, to use McCain strategist Steven Schmidt's words, "The Republican Party is virtually extinct in the Northeast."
Specter was no liberal. He was a center-right moderate, who rarely received an extreme 0% or 100% voting record from any interest group. But those who do not toe the Theocratic Party line in the GOP are regularly rounded up as heretics, and Specter was simply going to be their latest victim.
Those who criticize him point to the fact that this was based on political expediency, since there has been a sfift of 200,000 voters from Republican to Democrat in Pennsylvania.
But apparently, they miss the point in revealing that very statistic.
One Republican who understands the current crisis in the GOP is Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, one of the last remaining Republican office-holders in New England. In today's New York Times, she writes,
"In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.
There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.
It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”
Oh, that the GOP in New Hampshire and Maine - and nationally - would listen to those words.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Open Letter to the New Hampshire GOP re: Gay Marriage.
My name is Thom Simmons, and I urgently want to address the imminent vote on gay marriage.
I am 49 years old and a lifelong Republican. I was raised in an ardently Republican household, and have served on multiple Republican committees in a number of states, including the Advance Team for the Reagan Presidential campaign in 1980. In addition, I have always been an active church member.
And yet, in spite of all that, I am one of those who have almost given up on our party as I see us pandering relentlessly to an extreme and shrinking(though vocal) Theocratic base. The hopelessness I feel about our party’s direction is one of the reasons we see New Hampshire lurching from “Red” to “Blue....” and why, in Steve Schmidt's words, "the Republican Party is virtually extinct in the Northeast."
I am also a gay man, and chair of the New Hampshire Bears, the largest gay men’s organization in New Hampshire. One little-known fact about our 200+ members is that of those I have personally met, the majority were once married, heterosexually, some for many years. (Myself, I was married to my wife for almost 23 years, and we have a number of adopted children)
How could a man “turn gay?’’ How could a man live all those years and decide he was “gay” after all that time?
Well, he doesn’t.
Instead, he is barraged from the time he is a child with the message that to be gay is to be abnormal, evil, sinful, wrong, weird, disgusting, and shameful. And so, many, many of us try beyond reason to be what we are not, to fit into a box that someone else built and shoe-horned us into. And after years of exhausting fights with ourselves, we finally accept who we are.
We heard the taunts in grade school, we heard the snide remarks in the locker room, we hear our ‘friends’ tell jokes at the expense of gays, and we see TV parody us as limp-wristed feather-boa-wearing caricatures.
And now, more than ever before, we see our own government telling us, “you’re equal, but not ‘the same.’ You can have water and drink from a fountain, but you can’t drink from our fountain, because you are just Different.” The same arguments that justified segregation when I was a child are now being used to suggest that “civil unions” are somehow “good enough.”
They are not.
They send a strong message that while we will be ‘tolerated’ because it is the politically correct thing to do, we will not be accepted as fellow Americans with equal rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Please end the enforced inferiority. Gay men deal with many issues as they struggle with their sexuality, and to be set aside as “not good enough” or “not the same” by government is unacceptable. Mr. Sununu's comments about this bill being "garbage," and making snide references to San Francisco, is precisely the nasty politics that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have all rejected here in the Granite State.
As a traditional Republican, I know that it is not the job of government to impose a culture, or a theology, or a ‘blueprint for life’ on its citizens. It is the job of government to preserve liberty and establish a level playing field.
New Hampshire has always been in vanguard of freedom and liberty. Please, I beg you, take a stand that puts what is right above what may be expedient.
Thank you
Thom Simmons
11 Richmond Rd
Fitzwilliam, NH 03447
I am 49 years old and a lifelong Republican. I was raised in an ardently Republican household, and have served on multiple Republican committees in a number of states, including the Advance Team for the Reagan Presidential campaign in 1980. In addition, I have always been an active church member.
And yet, in spite of all that, I am one of those who have almost given up on our party as I see us pandering relentlessly to an extreme and shrinking(though vocal) Theocratic base. The hopelessness I feel about our party’s direction is one of the reasons we see New Hampshire lurching from “Red” to “Blue....” and why, in Steve Schmidt's words, "the Republican Party is virtually extinct in the Northeast."
I am also a gay man, and chair of the New Hampshire Bears, the largest gay men’s organization in New Hampshire. One little-known fact about our 200+ members is that of those I have personally met, the majority were once married, heterosexually, some for many years. (Myself, I was married to my wife for almost 23 years, and we have a number of adopted children)
How could a man “turn gay?’’ How could a man live all those years and decide he was “gay” after all that time?
Well, he doesn’t.
Instead, he is barraged from the time he is a child with the message that to be gay is to be abnormal, evil, sinful, wrong, weird, disgusting, and shameful. And so, many, many of us try beyond reason to be what we are not, to fit into a box that someone else built and shoe-horned us into. And after years of exhausting fights with ourselves, we finally accept who we are.
We heard the taunts in grade school, we heard the snide remarks in the locker room, we hear our ‘friends’ tell jokes at the expense of gays, and we see TV parody us as limp-wristed feather-boa-wearing caricatures.
And now, more than ever before, we see our own government telling us, “you’re equal, but not ‘the same.’ You can have water and drink from a fountain, but you can’t drink from our fountain, because you are just Different.” The same arguments that justified segregation when I was a child are now being used to suggest that “civil unions” are somehow “good enough.”
They are not.
They send a strong message that while we will be ‘tolerated’ because it is the politically correct thing to do, we will not be accepted as fellow Americans with equal rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Please end the enforced inferiority. Gay men deal with many issues as they struggle with their sexuality, and to be set aside as “not good enough” or “not the same” by government is unacceptable. Mr. Sununu's comments about this bill being "garbage," and making snide references to San Francisco, is precisely the nasty politics that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have all rejected here in the Granite State.
As a traditional Republican, I know that it is not the job of government to impose a culture, or a theology, or a ‘blueprint for life’ on its citizens. It is the job of government to preserve liberty and establish a level playing field.
New Hampshire has always been in vanguard of freedom and liberty. Please, I beg you, take a stand that puts what is right above what may be expedient.
Thank you
Thom Simmons
11 Richmond Rd
Fitzwilliam, NH 03447
Monday, April 20, 2009
Civil War in the Republican Party: Liberty vs Theocracy....Restoring the Party of Goldwater and Reagan
Finally, after the worst electoral drubbing in 34 years, the GOP is re-examining its strategy of pandering to Dixiecrats and Theocrats. Basic civil rights - and the right of people to live their own lives - is finally finding its voice within the Republican Party.
From Christine Todd Whitman, former GOP Governor of New Jersey:
"The government should have no say about marriage, and the plank in the Republican Party platform that calls for preserving marriage between a man and a woman should be scrapped...Furthermore, the U.S. military should not differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals...I am somebody who believes in the separation of church and state and that the government, frankly, ought to be out of the business of marriage entirely...I just think it would make the issue easier if it was civil marriage for everybody...[Bloggers note: apparently Whitman reads this blog]...it’s [same-sex marriage] not going to threaten my marriage. I mean my 35th anniversary is on Monday. It’s not going to threaten my marriage to have a gay couple married....We can't succeed nationally as a party that only has 31 percent of the American people behind it.”
And concerning the military: “I don't care if he is straight, I care if he can shoot straight.”
And, from Meghan McCain (John McCain's daughter):
"Tonight I am proud to join you in challenging the mold and the notion of what being a Republican means...I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends, and yes, I am a Republican....Most of the old school Republicans are scared shitless of that future...There are those who think we can win the White House and Congress back by being “more” conservative..."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
AIG Bonus payouts was NO loophole and NO mistake...
According to an article in this morning's New York Times,
"...Democrats are mostly responsible for the A.I.G. bonus debacle, since Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, inserted language in President Obama’s economic stimulus package to exempt bonuses granted by contract before Feb. 11 from general restrictions on bonus payments."
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Christopher Dodd represents Connecticut, the Insurance Industry Capital of the United States.
Schmuck.
UPDATE: (From the NY Daily News)
Gov. Paterson stuck to his guns Saturday, insisting he knew nothing about a $100,000 donation from AIG to the state Democratic Party days before his office helped save the insurance giant.
State Republicans charged the Democrats with stonewalling an investigation into the Aug. 29 donation, uncovered last week by The Associated Press.
In the first week of September, Paterson launched negotiations to save the financially strapped company.
"...Democrats are mostly responsible for the A.I.G. bonus debacle, since Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, inserted language in President Obama’s economic stimulus package to exempt bonuses granted by contract before Feb. 11 from general restrictions on bonus payments."
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Christopher Dodd represents Connecticut, the Insurance Industry Capital of the United States.
Schmuck.
UPDATE: (From the NY Daily News)
Gov. Paterson stuck to his guns Saturday, insisting he knew nothing about a $100,000 donation from AIG to the state Democratic Party days before his office helped save the insurance giant.
State Republicans charged the Democrats with stonewalling an investigation into the Aug. 29 donation, uncovered last week by The Associated Press.
In the first week of September, Paterson launched negotiations to save the financially strapped company.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Democrat's "Religious Right"
Over at my fellow bloggers Joe.My.God and WickedGayBlog, there is an incessant harping on the Republican Party, and not a little antagonism towards those of us who would be gay and remain Republicans because of the Religious Right within our ranks. However, today's column by Wayne Besen ("Truth Wins Out" - www.waynebesen.com), who has impeccable credentials in the public fight against the Dobsons and "ex-Gay Movements" of the world, tells of the same problem at the higher echelons of the Democratic Party. I include parts of his article below:
Obama's Parent In The Pulpit Complex
"George W. Bush longed to escape his daddy's shadow, while Barack Obama has turned to shadowy preachers in his long search for a father figure. His filial approach to faith began with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and has now taken a sharp turn right.
The New York Times reports that the president has surrounded himself with a cadre of clerical crackpots known as the "Circle of Five." These holy men are: Rev. Joel Hunter, former head of the Christian Coalition; anti-gay Bishop T.D. Jakes; the ex-gay loving Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell; and Jim "waffling" Wallis, a protean progressive. The only Obama shaman who isn't shameless is the civil rights era preacher Rev. Otis Moss Jr.
Rev. Jakes refers to homosexuality as "brokenness" and has claimed that he wouldn't hire a sexually active gay person. But it seems T.D. can't even keep his own son off the D.L. (down low). His "sexually broken" heir was arrested earlier this year for cruising a Dallas Park in search of gay men.
Wallis, the chief executive of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, holds "traditional" views on homosexuality and abortion, according to the Times article. Although Wallis has taken some affirmative steps on GLBT equality, he prides himself on not being a part of "the religious left."
Rev. Caldwell has endorsed Metanoia, an ex-gay ministry designed to "help homosexuals understand with God's help that 'change [is] possible." When the GLBT community worked to elect Obama, this is not what we thought he meant when he promised "change."
"Whoa, OK, so let's assume [the Obama Administration decides to release] a mealy mouthed message like 'the President does not believe in ex-gay therapy' or some such nonsense," wrote blogger Pam Spaulding. "If he doesn't, then what is he doing talking to Caldwell when there are plenty of other prominent pastors he could choose to break bread with who don't subscribe to that view?"
We must also remember that during his campaign, Obama tapped "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to croon at a concert tour in South Carolina. And, this insult was compounded by the injury of selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the Inauguration invocation.
I can live with Obama's poor Sunday choices if on Monday he hears our voices and passes landmark gay civil rights legislation. Still, it is disconcerting that such a cool and rational leader keeps returning to the theological armpit to fill his pulpit. Will spending time in the biblical backwater influence Obama's views and lead him to sell us down the river?
By embracing these conservative clerics, Obama is also setting a wretched example overseas. Last month, the State Department released a report to Congress that documents "an unfortunate crisis in human rights abuse directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide." Much of this violence was the result of brutal religious oppression. Yet, Obama pals around with reprehensible reverends, thus undermining his own administration's call for moderate religious leadership abroad.
...[W]e expect Obama to understand that his clerical choices do matter. It is time Obama stops searching for Daddy and becomes the man of the (White) house, by picking preachers who are not at irreconcilable odds with his human rights policies.
© 2008 Wayne Besen. All rights reserved.
Anything But Straight | www.waynebesen.com
Obama's Parent In The Pulpit Complex
"George W. Bush longed to escape his daddy's shadow, while Barack Obama has turned to shadowy preachers in his long search for a father figure. His filial approach to faith began with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and has now taken a sharp turn right.
The New York Times reports that the president has surrounded himself with a cadre of clerical crackpots known as the "Circle of Five." These holy men are: Rev. Joel Hunter, former head of the Christian Coalition; anti-gay Bishop T.D. Jakes; the ex-gay loving Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell; and Jim "waffling" Wallis, a protean progressive. The only Obama shaman who isn't shameless is the civil rights era preacher Rev. Otis Moss Jr.
Rev. Jakes refers to homosexuality as "brokenness" and has claimed that he wouldn't hire a sexually active gay person. But it seems T.D. can't even keep his own son off the D.L. (down low). His "sexually broken" heir was arrested earlier this year for cruising a Dallas Park in search of gay men.
Wallis, the chief executive of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, holds "traditional" views on homosexuality and abortion, according to the Times article. Although Wallis has taken some affirmative steps on GLBT equality, he prides himself on not being a part of "the religious left."
Rev. Caldwell has endorsed Metanoia, an ex-gay ministry designed to "help homosexuals understand with God's help that 'change [is] possible." When the GLBT community worked to elect Obama, this is not what we thought he meant when he promised "change."
"Whoa, OK, so let's assume [the Obama Administration decides to release] a mealy mouthed message like 'the President does not believe in ex-gay therapy' or some such nonsense," wrote blogger Pam Spaulding. "If he doesn't, then what is he doing talking to Caldwell when there are plenty of other prominent pastors he could choose to break bread with who don't subscribe to that view?"
We must also remember that during his campaign, Obama tapped "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to croon at a concert tour in South Carolina. And, this insult was compounded by the injury of selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the Inauguration invocation.
I can live with Obama's poor Sunday choices if on Monday he hears our voices and passes landmark gay civil rights legislation. Still, it is disconcerting that such a cool and rational leader keeps returning to the theological armpit to fill his pulpit. Will spending time in the biblical backwater influence Obama's views and lead him to sell us down the river?
By embracing these conservative clerics, Obama is also setting a wretched example overseas. Last month, the State Department released a report to Congress that documents "an unfortunate crisis in human rights abuse directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide." Much of this violence was the result of brutal religious oppression. Yet, Obama pals around with reprehensible reverends, thus undermining his own administration's call for moderate religious leadership abroad.
...[W]e expect Obama to understand that his clerical choices do matter. It is time Obama stops searching for Daddy and becomes the man of the (White) house, by picking preachers who are not at irreconcilable odds with his human rights policies.
© 2008 Wayne Besen. All rights reserved.
Anything But Straight | www.waynebesen.com
Monday, March 16, 2009
AIG - So what else is new?
On March 9, after the Obama administration announced it would increase the US Taxpayer subsidy of AIG to 80% by pumping in another 30 billion, I wrote in this blog:
"...With all this cash, could AIG actually lose money? Well, friends, they just reported quarterly losses of 61 billion...The appropriate action is to allow AIG to fail, and distribute their clients to well-run companies. There are plenty of healthy, responsible Insurance companies who could and would benefit from taking on AIG's clients..."
Bush and Obama have both been shovelling dollars to AIG. Why? So they could be stabilized in the face of 61 billion losses per quarter? In spite of their best intentions, neither Bush nor Obama "get it." Government intrusion into the Marketplace always creates inefficiencies, always burdens the taxpayer and consumer, and always carries unintended consequences. This time, those consequences were highly visible: Millions of dollars in "bonuses" that were 'contractually mandated.'
Of course, if AIG was allowed to go bankrupt, as I have suggested multiple times before, those contracts would have been voided...and we wouldnt have the mess we have today. But far be it for Obama to listen to an Economist like me....
Monday, March 09, 2009
End Prohibition, End Drug Wars, Reduce Crime...
Reprinted from the March 7-13th edition of The Economist:
A HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.
That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.
Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.
“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.
The Evidence of Failure
Nowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has “stabilised”, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world’s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.
This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.
Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States.
Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.
Al Capone, but on a global scale
Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with “blow”). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to “crack” or “meth” are outside the law, with only their pushers to “treat” them. But it is countries in the emerging world that pay most of the price. Even a relatively developed democracy such as Mexico now finds itself in a life-or-death struggle against gangsters. American officials, including a former drug tsar, have publicly worried about having a “narco state” as their neighbour.
The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” (such as encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts, and less on the harassment of peasants who grow coca and the punishment of consumers of “soft” drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organised crime out of the picture.
Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.
Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.
That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.
There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.
What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.
By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.
A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?
This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago (see article). Reviewing the evidence again (see article), prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Cheshire Co., New Hampshire Republicans offer opinions on the GOP's direction
This afternoon, Republicans in Cheshire County, NH were invited to an open meeting in Keene to voice their opinions about the future of the Republican Party. To be sure, there were many opinions.
Jennifer Horn, last year's unsuccessful candidate for Congress, served as the MC. Those who attended were quickly divided into groups to discuss issues such as voter outreach, party logistics, ranking issues by importance, media relations, etc. Oddly, attendees were not invited to join the work sessions of their choice, but were assigned topics haphazardly depending on their seats. Your truly, of course, defied the established order and participated in two groups: Voter Outreach and Issues. At the end of the hour or so meeting, summations were offered, and some short general discussion ensued.
The results were mixed, I think. Some members clearly understood the need to be technologicaly adept. Others were stuck in the 1950s, believing that phone trees were important, and that telling College students that Republicans supported Civil Rights in the 60s (over 40 years ago!) would somehow win them over...
I spoke up, of course. I believe that the Republican Party needs to do some real soul-searching. Unfortunately, the Elephants appear to be terrified of The Elephant in the Room: the stranglehold on the party by Religious Conservatives.
In spite of Jennifer Horn's stated belief that the GOP does not need to rebrand itself, she is terribly, terribly wrong.
An entire generation of new voters came to the polls believing that the Bush administration and Rush Limbaugh represent Republican ideals. Republicans spent eight years defending sickening deficits, exploding budgets, and “big-government” programs that they would have railed against had they been proposed by a Democratic Administration. We were inexcusably silent as America, the great hope of the world, became represented by images of torture and Guantanamo Bay. Republicans should have been outraged…but instead, we defended “our guy” in the white house, and earned the public’s disdain. They grew tired of the Bush administration’s vision of America.
The GOP must articulate in clear terms positive, pro-active solutions for the problems and concerns that the American people have. Access to health care and secure retirement provisions are national concerns: We cannot simply be ‘against’ universal health care or social security, we must present clear, pragmatic, appealing alternatives.
As these proposals are formulated, we must be careful not to fall prey to the idea that we must choose to side with either the “moderates” or the “conservatives” within the Party. A lukewarm, “me-too” version of the Democrats is not a solution, but neither is cliché-ridden pandering to a shrill religious right. Rather, Republicans must forge a new path, a path that is consistent with both the Republican philosophy and the American spirit, and which resonates with voters of all stripes: we must combine fiscal conservatism and responsibility with social tolerance and liberalism. The Republican Party claims to be the party of small government and maximum personal freedom. It’s about time we reclaimed that heritage in a consistent manner.
As we present our alternatives, we must eradicate the mean-spiritedness, the innuendos, the mud-slinging, and the anger from our speech. We must offer vision, hope, and a future to all. If we want young people, minorities, and immigrants in the party, then we need to really want them, not just tolerate them and accept their contributions.
At the gathering, numerous snide remarks were made about the 'liberal media,' lawyers, teachers, and liberals in general. "Immigration" - a complete non-issue to anybody in Cheshire County, New Hampshire - somehow emerged as an important 'issue' to address. At my table, one religious conservative insisted that gay marriage and abortion were leading us to Socialism (I can't even begin to explain the twisted logic here...) On a positive note, I would say the majority at my table was tired of being the reloigious rights bludgeon.
I stated openly that we need to stop blaming immigrants, young people, gays, and the 'liberal media' for our problems, and was cut off by Horn, who insisted that the party does not 'blame' those groups for anything. And yet, that appears to be more of a political 'talking position' (the media was present) than the reality, as understood by the millions of Independents - and Republicans - who abandonned the GOP in the last election.
To be sure, there was a definite contingency present who agreed enthusiastically with me. We will not go away. But it will be a long hard fight - a fight that the GOP leadership seems very, very eager to avoid at all costs. But if they do not address it, one of those costs will be their own electoral success.
Monday, March 02, 2009
More Funds for AIG...
The U. S. Treasury Department announced today that another 30 billion dollars would be headed for troubled Insurance giant AIG. This is on top of the 150 billion already sunk into this Insurance Titanic, including 26 billion in loans from the Federal Reserve Bank.
This would put the US Government ownership of AIG at 80%.
It also would convert the stock that the US Government (Read: U S Taxpayers) has in the company from Preferred to Common Stock: and that means that if the company loses money, the U. S. Taxpayer gets socked first.
Now, with all this cash, could AIG actually lose money? Well, friends, they just reported quarterly losses of 61 billion.
The appropriate action is to allow AIG to fail, and distribute their clients to well-run companies. There are plenty of healthy, responsible Insurance companies who could and would benefit from taking on AIG's clients: companies like Guardian Life, New York Life, and the American Financial Group, all of whom have refused taxpayer bailout funds because they have operated their companies responsibly and profitably.
Which are the companies that are taking taxpayer funds?
- Banks that sold and traded in irresponsible sub-prime mortgages (required by Democratic President Carter, to 'help' low-income areas, and strenuously enforced by Democratic President Bill Clinton).
- Insurance Companies that invested in subprime mortgages and irresponsible banks after Banking Deregulation (signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1999) permitted it. (See a pattern here?)
Meanwhile, healthy insurers that should be the focus of the public's purchases are put at competitive disadvantage by having the Irresponsible Government Favorites kept afloat with tax dollars. We are rewarding the inept, and hurting the wise.
Why? Why would Obama want 80% government control of an insurance Company?
Ah, lets just wait for his new Health Plan Initiative Wouldn't it be amazing if AIG suddenly became the US Government-funded Universal Health Insurer?
Hmmmm....
Friday, February 27, 2009
District of Columbia representatives: an Entirely Unconstitutional Process.
This country continues, at breakneck pace, to destroy its Constitution and eviscerate the Rule of Law. Under Bush, it was done in the name of "National Security." Under Obama, it's done in the name of Populist Mob Rule.
The House of Representatives has voted to permit the non-voting representative from Washington, DC to have full voting rights as a member of Congress. It is argued that it is unfair that the District of Columbia's 592,000 people have no voice of their own in Congress.
I do not argue that point. However, granting these citizens a Representative requires more than Congressional Mob Rule in a fit of moral outrage: it requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Article I, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution states:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second
Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
The Constitution is clear that STATES have voting representatives in Congress. Not Districts, Not cities, Not territories.
If Washington DC, with 592,000 people, why not New York City with 8.3 million people? Why not Puerto Rico, with 4 million people?
When the District of Columbia sought the right to vote in Presidential elections, everyone understood that the Constitution only permitted Electors from the States to cast ballots for President. Appropriately, the nation adopted a Constitutional Amendment (the 23rd Amendment) in 1961 to permit DC residents to vote for President.
This is no different. If the residents of DC want to be represented in Congress, there is a clear process: Amend the Constituion, don't just ride roughshod over it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Barack Obama as Eva Peron Reincarnated...
I really wanted to like this President. But from an Economic perspective, the man is an unmitigated long-term disaster.
As I listen to his speeches, and observe his techno-proficient crowd of groupies, entertainment-style pop-star performances and class-warfare compatriots, I could not help but think of Eva Peron. And being a Broadway nut, I googled a few phrases from the musical "Evita' to get them right for this entry. And in the process, I found someone who had the exact same thoughts as I did. So, rather than reinvent what has already been said quite well, I present Jim Boulet Jr's take on Obama and Eva, from www.americanthinker.com:
"When it comes to Barack Obama, fans of "Evita" have seen this show before.
Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's popular musical, "Evita," tells the story of how Eva "Evita" Peron rose from obscurity to become the first lady of Argentina.
Remarkably, many of the lyrics of "Evita" apply equally well to Barak Obama, beginning with the Messianic adoration neither discouraged: "I'm their savior, that's what they call me," sang Evita. Or as the children's choir sang to her (just like they do for Obama):
"Please, gentle Eva, will you bless a little child? For I love you, tell Heaven I'm doing my best I'm praying for you, even though you're already blessed"
Evita was all about inspiring emotions and creating moods, not describing policy details:
"Instead of government we had a stage,
Instead of ideas, a primadona's rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
She didn't say much, but she said it loud."
Similarly, Obama supporter David Frum said of Obama's July European tour: "Obama has risen to power by using a soothing cloud of meaningless words to conceal displeasing truths and avoid difficult choices." Evita was not ashamed of taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the needy:
"I promise you this:
We will take the riches from the oligarchs
Only for you, for all of you. And one day, you too will inherit these treasures."
Since Argentina's rich were not a limitless source of funds, Evita seized considerable sums from the middle class in order to sufficiently spread the wealth around:
"Eva's pretty hands reached out and they reached wide
Now you may feel it should have been a voluntary cause
But that's not the point my friends
When the money keeps rolling in, you don't ask how
Think of all the people guaranteed a good time now...."
"And the money kept rolling out in all directions
To the poor, to the weak, to the destitute of all complexions
Now cynics claim a little of the cash has gone astray
But that's not the point my friends
When the money keeps rolling out you don't keep books
You can tell you've done well by the happy grateful looks
Accountants only slow things down, figures get in the way
Never been a lady loved as much as Eva Peron."
ACORN will love Barack Obama for the same reason Evita was loved: he will be the man who will keep their nest well feathered.
Both Evita and Obama proved willing to use intimidation tactics in order to ensure their nation benefitted from their leadership whether a majority agreed or not:
"How annoying that they have to fight elections for their cause
The inconvenience, having to get a majority
If normal methods of persuasion fail to win them applause
There are other ways of establishing authority"
When the National Rifle Association attempted to run television ads in Ohio and Pennsylvania accusing Barack Obama of wanting to ban certain guns and put a tax on others, the Obama campaign sent out a letter threatening to challenge the FCC license of any station which dared broadcast the NRA's ads.
Evita reached high office on the basis of style, not substance. Similarly, Barak Obama's resume is remarkably short for a potential U.S. president. Yet if the polls are correct, Barak will soon join Evita as "high flying adored." But "for someone on top of the world, the view [will not be] exactly clear."
Jim Boulet, Jr. owns all three versions of "Evita."
Right on Jim....here's one more quote to add, as Che describes the results of Eva's folly:
"What's new Buenos Aires? Your nation, which a few years
ago had the second largest gold reserves in the world, is
bankrupt! A country which grew up and grew rich on
beef is rationing it! La Prensa, one of the few newspapers
which dares to oppose Peronism, has been silenced, and
so have all other reasonable voices! I'll tell you what's
new Buenos Aires!"
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
GM, Chrysler, Homeowners: they all want MY money.
Frederic Bastiat, writing two centuries ago, said it best:
"The law has come to be an instrument of injustice....the law defends plunder and participates in it...The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it."
Today's News item #1: "General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC summoned the prospect Tuesday of their collapse unless they get $7 billion in federal aid within six weeks -- part of a dramatic plea for a total of up to $39 billion to survive the worst economic crisis in the history of Detroit's signature industry."
(This, of course, is 14 billion more than they ASSURED us all that they needed a few months ago)
Today's News item #2 (With breaking details from ABC news, who, apparently, claims an 'in' with Democratic policy makers): "...Government subsidies for lenders to modify loans to homeowners who are struggling to make payments. The government would subsidize the difference.... A program through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for homeowners to refinance their mortgages if they owe more than their homes are worth..."
So, in a nutshell:
1) *I,* (like the majority of Amertican consumers) chose NOT to buy GM or Chrysler cars, but to purchase cars that met my needs as a consumer. Because I chose better cars by better manufactureres that offered me what I needed and wanted at a price I could afford...my government will now force me, via taxation, to keep afloat poor competitors whom I specifically did NOT choose on my own to support.
2) *I* chose to purchase a tiny house that i could afford, and refinanced when appropriate, to make sure that I was a responsible homeowner. Eight of us lived in an affordable two-bedroom house. I subdivided the living room to create a third bedroom. When my teens needed more room, i moved to sleeping on an unheated porch - because it was the responsible thing to do.
However, for all those who bought houses beyond their means, who threw caution to the wind in terms of adjustable rates, who lied on their applications...and for all the banks who make money on these loans...these people will keep their houses and their banks will continue to make money...because my government will now force ME to subsidize THEM through taxation.
Yes, I'm disgusted.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Attack on Free Speech in Los Angeles...
Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College, was in the process of giving a speech in a speech class when he offered his opinion that, based on his religious beliefs, marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals. He was cut off by the instructor, who justified his actions because two students were 'upset.'
Ooh, poor babies....This is COLLEGE folks...people dont lose their right to free speech when they walk in the doors of a college! (And for those who suggest this was 'hate speech,' save your breath. There is no such thing. That speech which is MOST offensive is precisely that speech the first amendment is meant to protect.
As the the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated in its Dec. 31, 1994 paper "Hate Speech on Campus" :
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society...
Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted..."
Lopez, is appropriately, suing.
Ooh, poor babies....This is COLLEGE folks...people dont lose their right to free speech when they walk in the doors of a college! (And for those who suggest this was 'hate speech,' save your breath. There is no such thing. That speech which is MOST offensive is precisely that speech the first amendment is meant to protect.
As the the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated in its Dec. 31, 1994 paper "Hate Speech on Campus" :
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society...
Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted..."
Lopez, is appropriately, suing.
Bishop Robinson and Gay Marriage in NH
This past Sunday Bishop Gene Robinson officiated at my home parish, St. James Episcopal Church in Keene, NH. It was the first time I had met the man, and he proved to be everything his supporters claimed, and more: warm, scholarly, humorous, articulate, spiritual...I am proud this man is my Bishop.
Afterwards, we had some time to chat with him. He had recently testified before the NH State Legislature concerning the issue of marriage...and, just as I had suggested in my own testimony several years ago, he asked for a seperation of the civil 'rights' from the ecclesaistical 'rites.' In other words, he asked the state to grant 'recognition' (and you can use any word you'd like for that) to any two people desiring state recognition, while the churches would issue their own blessings (or not) based on their own traditions and canons. The distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical is precisely what I have been arguing for all along here.
We forget that two different processes are happening because they 'collapse' into one at most wedding ceremonies. The Bishop has proposed that churches within his diocese lead the way for making this clear: He has suggested that a Justice of the Peace perform the 'civil' ceremony at the back of the church for all couples (gay or straight), and then have the couple proceed to the altar area where the ecclesisastical rites are engaged.
Makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
"Stimulus."
$13.00 tax cut per paycheck.
Spending bill cost, with interest: $17,000 per person.
YOU do the math.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Michael Phelps...what I wish he would have said...
So Michael Phelps was caught by some moron with a camera taking a hit of pot at a party, and felt it necessary to broadcast it to the world. Kellogg's acted in predictable knee-jerk, Neo-Puritan fashion and dumped him from their ads (3 Cheers for Subway, who's keeping him). And As equally expected, Phelps issued the expected apology, complete with phrases like , "regrettable,” “youthful,” "inappropriate,” and “it will never happen again."
Here's what i would have liked to have heard him say:
"Dear Muckraking Hypocrites in the Media,
Go to Hell. Yes, I smoked some pot, just like a majority of the generatiion currently writing about me did. Yes, I inhaled a substance that Presidents and Corporate Executives and Policemen and Politicians of all stripes before me have. Yes, I used a substance that is demonstrably less dangerous to anyone than liquor, which is legal in all 50 states and a multimillion dollar industry for both the private sector and the government that feeds off of its taxes.
I did not apply for the position of "role model," and did not ask to be under your microscope. I worked my ass off, and did what no other athlete before me has done, and you loved it and made it 'your own' because I was on 'your team,' even though your only contributon was to sit on your fat asses and watch the television.
Of course, you delight on creating drama, in elevating heroes to God-like stature, and then pulling them down in the excitement of scandal. It's a time-honored American tradition to provide fodder for the intellectually-challenged who thrive on gossip to titillate them while they down grease-soaked fries and make excuses for their mediocrity.
Yes, I smoked pot. Go find some other item of equal importance to fill the pages of your news magazines...like aliens abducting Oprah's secret twin or something..."
Yeah, I'd like to see someone take a swat at a public and a media that insists on crucifying its heroes, that loves the bloodlust of pulling down the great. Maybe, someday, someone will tell us to go to hell - and it will be overdue and well-deserved.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama's Stimulus: in the end, a disappointment that will make matters worse.
(Actual picture of a woman heating her home with a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks. The German financial collapse that precipitated WW2)
When the new White House first let glimpses of the Stimulus Plan out to the media, I was cautiously optimistic: the cornerstone appeared to be tax cuts and spending on infrastructure. Tax cuts always help (if they are across the board and accompanied by spending cuts); investing in infrastructure is a tool that has long-term benefits and payoffs in terms of more efficient movement of goods and services throughout the economy.
My hopes have faded into nothing. Less than 5% of the bill is for highways and bridges
What has emerged is a free-spending "give-away" that will cause more harm than good. The $800-$900 billion spending pacakge will actually cost an additional 347 billion in interest alone according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The largest single chunk of these funds - $252 billion - is for "transfer payments" - $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While this may sound "good" because it helps poor people who are struggling, it is still a one-time dumping of money that is not going to create jobs, increase employment, or ramp up our GDP. Bush tried thsi twice with no effect.
You may argue that in this economy, helping those in need is a worthy end in itself: but at what cost? Obama claims that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut as a result of this Stimulus Package. But the reality is that we are not getting free money from the government: we will be getting money that the US Government is going to borrow, and then we will have to pay it back with interest. In other words, Uncle Sam is forcing us to take out a loan, and forcing us to repay it, whether we like it or not. It is not a give-away, although it will appear that way.
We are not in a Liquidity (credit) Crisis. We are in an Over-Indebtedness Crisis, which has resulted in a liquidity problems, and this will exacerbate the problem. How many times can you shore up a collapsing dock with duct tape and baling wire before the entire structure collapses?
When inflation hits - and it will - we will be in worse shape than ever. If losing 40% of your 401K is bad (which is what happened to many of us in the last year), think how bad it will be when those funds can't even cover the cost of a used car.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Spending vs. Saving: Washington's attempt to cure a Hangover with more Booze
The current economic recovery proposal before Congress is a mixed bag, and attempts to use Reagan's formula: marry Supply-Side tools (which appeals to Republicans) with Fiscal Policy Tools (appealing to Democrats) in order to forge a grand coalition to pass the legislation.
Fiscal Policy liberals have traditionally relied on spending borrowed government money like a drunken sailor. The idea is that if the government spends money on projects, it will employ people, putting money into their hands, and enabling them to purchase goods...which in turns increases factory orders, and increases employment. The problem with this, of course, is that when government borrows money, it borrows from HUGE institutions that have HUGE amounts of dollars to lend: Credit Suisse, Lloyds of London, China, the House of Saud, and other wealty entities. As American citizens pay the interest on these borrowed funds (now amounting to 20 to 25 cents per tax dollar paid), we transfer our wealth from the American citizens to these huge institutions.
Supply Siders have traditionally felt that the way to stimulate the economy is to help businesses directly, the notion being that these businesses can then afford to hire people, pay them, and kick-start the economy from the business side.
Thus, investing in infrastructure improvements appeals to both sides: Fiscal Dems love spending money on projects, and Supply Side Reps like making the transportation of goods and services less expensive for business. Hence, Obama's initiative in investing in Infrastructure.
Meanwhile, both sides are negotiating tax cuts, tax rebates, and money giveaways for consumers and small businesses.
Now...I am 100% in favor of tax cuts, too. But the problem here is that Washington is favoring tax cuts for all the wrong reasons.
Current thought is that if "the people" have more of their own money, they will spend it freely, thus stimulating the economy. But this is like attempting to cure a hangover by encouraging the drunk to drink more alcohol: yes, it may deaden the pain, but it doesnt cure the problem, and in fact, only makes it worse.
For years, "savings" has been a dirty word to Fiscal Keynesians. In fact, in economic jargon, they call savings "leakage," because it represents buying power that 'leaks' from the economy.
Let me suggest that one of the root causes of our current problems is the attitude that consumers must buy more, more, more and not save.
Consumers, with the encouragement of Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve, have purchased homes and cars on credit, with reckless disregard to their ability to repay. During the recent credit crunch, a spokesman for Detroit actually cried, "People can't get loans to finance cars!"
And just when did the ability to get a loan become an inalienable right?!
People have bought beyond their means, used credit unwisely, and bought into the 'buy-buy-buy' notion. The average American now spends more than they earn each year.
Yes, we are in a recession. Yes, it is deep, and will get deeper still. Yes, it's going to hurt. But it's not unprecedented: we have had 26 recessions in the last 150years. It is a naural downturn in the business cycle. Rather than insisting that Americans continue to drink at the well of non-stop consumption, it is time for us to bear the hangover and come out stronger.
It is time to begin saving again for our futures.
Time to increase pre-tax 401 K contribution limits.
Time to make Pre-Tax Medical Savings Accounts available to ALL Americans, not just the self-employed and government workers;
Time to value savings and individual nest-eggs over constantly spending and then asking the government for help when the funds run out.
Friday, January 23, 2009
"Bad Bank?" Bad Idea.
SCENARIO 1: I tell my son that if he washes the car, he can use it on the weekend. Will he be more or less likely to wash the car?
SCENARIO 2: I tell my son that he can NOT use the car unless he washes it first. He never washes it because he gets wrapped up in video games. So, I wash it for him, and then hand him the keys and tell him he can use it since it's clean. What lesson is learned there?
People respond to incentives, and people generally prefer to pass burdens on to others if they can get away with it. Why are these simple economic lessons so difficult for our thick-skulled politicians to understand?
On Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner suggested creating a so-called "bad bank" which would buy nonperforming loans. This bank would buy the worst loans that banks made, infusing cash into those banks (thus rewarding the financially wicked) and taking ownership of non- and under-performing real estate loans. Most estimates are certain that this will be a net cost to the taxpayers, with some estimates to the tune of $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
So, if I get this right, Banks made insane loans to non-credit-worthy people, lied about asssessed valuations, and engaged infraud; and then, sold them to other reckless banks in a grand game of hot potato. Speculators in the financial industry played the game, and many got caught with an awful lot of bad loans.
Geithner's proposed response? Let taxpayers absorb that loss, and give the banks a 'free ride.'
How is this different than Scenario 2 above?
This proposal permits banks and financial institutions to walk away from their own misdeeds, and pass the full burden on to innocent taxpayers. Instead, we should consider the OPPOSITE approach: Require banks to hold the loans that they make.
Suddenly, it will become very apparent who the prudent investors and lenders are, and who is out to play Roulette with taxpayer money. If Banks are forced to bear the burden - and enjoy the success - of their own practices, it will be a long time before we see a repeat of the current debacle.
Monday, January 19, 2009
San Francisco Wrong to Tax Roman Catholic Church
In San Francisco, Tax Assessor Phil Ting has decided that the Roman Catholic Church owes over 15 Million dollars in taxes because the Archdiocese was restructured and consolidated a number of properties seven months ago. Each of the properties was technically incorporated seperately, as would be expected when a Church operates schools, family centers, day cares, hospitals, monestaries, church buildings, etc. Since, claims Ting, this consolidation involved the transfer of "separate legal entities," a real estate transfer tax applies.
Nonsense.
There are those, of course, who are cheering: anyone who has an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church is applauding the fact that San Francisco is going to 'take the churches money:' many gay activists mad at the Church's support of Proposition 8, those who have left the RC Church because the Church did not bend their theology to their own ideas, those who dislike "organized" religion, those with an imaginary view of history and RC atrocities somewhere in the past, those burned by the clergy sex abuse scandals. But disliking an institution is not an appopriate basis for deciding to use the coercive force of government to confiscate its assets via taxation.
Ironically, this flies in the face of a recent court decison in the same state.
On January 5, the California Supreme Court ruled that breakaway Episcopal parishes do not have the right to keep church property if they secede from the national denomination; they held, quite strongly, that all the various properties of the Episcopal Church belong to the national Episcopal Church, not the local congregation.
This was an appropriate ruling, as the Episcopal Church - like the Methodist, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches - is, in fact, "Episcopal" in government, meaning that the local congregation is really an administrative unit of the National Church. If a local congregation secedes, they can not take the church building or property with them. (This is the opposite of "baptist" and "Bible" Churches, which hold that the ultimate authority resides in local congregations.)
So here is the incredible - and disingenuous - contradiction:
On the one hand, the California Court has stated that all Church Property belongs to the Larger Church when that Church has an episcopal governing structure.
On the other hand, the City of San Francisco (or at least Assessor Ting) has stated that all of the units under the administration of an episcopal-governed Church are independent, so any 'consolidation' is a transfer of real estate from one entity to another, and, therefore, taxable.
These positions are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other, and the California Supreme Court has spoken.
As usual, Liberals are being inconsistent: they are cheering the decision in the Episcopal Church case, because it helps liberals within the Episcopal Church structure. But they are also cheering the San Francisco action, because it gets the 'big bad ctaholic church' (Isn't that the church that operates more hospitals, orphanages, and aid services than any other in the world? Oh, yeah...)
In other words, the sides being chosen in the battles are based on who people want to win, rather than what is good law.
The Episcopal Church case is correct, and good solid law with much precedent behind it. The San Francisco action is a raw abuse of government power.
Perhaps thats why non-profit organizations - such as churches - are not normally taxed in the first place: the power to tax is the power to destroy, and once government has 'authority,' it uses it UNEQUALLY to punish those it dislikes and favor those who are its friends.
There are those who support taxing the Roman Catholic Church because of its supposed 'political involvement' in conservative ballot issues. I wonder if these same persons would support revoking non-profit tax status for all of the churches that ran the civil rights marches in the 1960s....or revoking the tax status of HIV Service agencies who reguarly lobby for an increase in federal funding?
Best to keep the arms of government taxation far away, and not let them near non-profits of *any* kind.
Nonsense.
There are those, of course, who are cheering: anyone who has an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church is applauding the fact that San Francisco is going to 'take the churches money:' many gay activists mad at the Church's support of Proposition 8, those who have left the RC Church because the Church did not bend their theology to their own ideas, those who dislike "organized" religion, those with an imaginary view of history and RC atrocities somewhere in the past, those burned by the clergy sex abuse scandals. But disliking an institution is not an appopriate basis for deciding to use the coercive force of government to confiscate its assets via taxation.
Ironically, this flies in the face of a recent court decison in the same state.
On January 5, the California Supreme Court ruled that breakaway Episcopal parishes do not have the right to keep church property if they secede from the national denomination; they held, quite strongly, that all the various properties of the Episcopal Church belong to the national Episcopal Church, not the local congregation.
This was an appropriate ruling, as the Episcopal Church - like the Methodist, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches - is, in fact, "Episcopal" in government, meaning that the local congregation is really an administrative unit of the National Church. If a local congregation secedes, they can not take the church building or property with them. (This is the opposite of "baptist" and "Bible" Churches, which hold that the ultimate authority resides in local congregations.)
So here is the incredible - and disingenuous - contradiction:
On the one hand, the California Court has stated that all Church Property belongs to the Larger Church when that Church has an episcopal governing structure.
On the other hand, the City of San Francisco (or at least Assessor Ting) has stated that all of the units under the administration of an episcopal-governed Church are independent, so any 'consolidation' is a transfer of real estate from one entity to another, and, therefore, taxable.
These positions are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other, and the California Supreme Court has spoken.
As usual, Liberals are being inconsistent: they are cheering the decision in the Episcopal Church case, because it helps liberals within the Episcopal Church structure. But they are also cheering the San Francisco action, because it gets the 'big bad ctaholic church' (Isn't that the church that operates more hospitals, orphanages, and aid services than any other in the world? Oh, yeah...)
In other words, the sides being chosen in the battles are based on who people want to win, rather than what is good law.
The Episcopal Church case is correct, and good solid law with much precedent behind it. The San Francisco action is a raw abuse of government power.
Perhaps thats why non-profit organizations - such as churches - are not normally taxed in the first place: the power to tax is the power to destroy, and once government has 'authority,' it uses it UNEQUALLY to punish those it dislikes and favor those who are its friends.
There are those who support taxing the Roman Catholic Church because of its supposed 'political involvement' in conservative ballot issues. I wonder if these same persons would support revoking non-profit tax status for all of the churches that ran the civil rights marches in the 1960s....or revoking the tax status of HIV Service agencies who reguarly lobby for an increase in federal funding?
Best to keep the arms of government taxation far away, and not let them near non-profits of *any* kind.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
"Big 3" Auto Bailout? How many mistakes can one Congress make?
A step back in History:
It's 1979, and Lee Iacocca, Chairman of Chrysler, has successfully convinced Congress to guarantee 1.5 billion in loans to the corporation, with taxpayer dollars, because this would help revive the all-American Corporation. There was even a specific plan - Chrysler's "K-Car" would catapult the company into profitability forever, and an american icon would be saved.
Wrong.
Today, the so-called "Big Three" - GM, Ford, and yes, Chrysler...are seeking billions more in assistance, using the same tired arguements and promsiing the same eventual victories if they could just get "a little help."
It is one of those cases where if you say things often enough, people believe it. "Big Three?" You can find this phrase repeated over and over in the media.
But here are October's auto sales figures:
GM: 168,719 units sold
Toyota: 152,278 units
Ford: 132,278 units
Chrysler: 94,530 units
Some Lessons:
1) They are NOT "the Big 3." Consumers have clearly spoken, and they've been saying "Toyota" for some time. Congressional action to prop up Ford is tantamount to using taxpayers dollars against the taxpayers themselves. We have already spoken: Toyota has given us what we wanted, at a price we want. Don't force us to bailout the companies we did NOT choose.
2) GM is the largest auto manufacturer world-wide. Since when does the Government seek to bail out the largest company in a competitive field? If GM can not make a profit when it has more car sales than any other company, it is time for them to radically change: split up, reorganize, bust the UAW - but dont seek tax dollars for "same old same old."
3) Ford, GM, and Chrysler ceded the small car market to Honda and Toyota. They lost, folks. That's what business is all about. In the 1500s, Spanish Monk-Economist De Albornoz wrote that "when businesses experience profit and loss, and since when they make a profit, they keep it, they must not transfer a loss to the people."
The Market has clearly chosen. Congress, the UAW, and the so-called "Big-3" don't like the results.
Too Bad. Live with it. Capitalism doesnt guarantee success, and neither should Congress.
It's 1979, and Lee Iacocca, Chairman of Chrysler, has successfully convinced Congress to guarantee 1.5 billion in loans to the corporation, with taxpayer dollars, because this would help revive the all-American Corporation. There was even a specific plan - Chrysler's "K-Car" would catapult the company into profitability forever, and an american icon would be saved.
Wrong.
Today, the so-called "Big Three" - GM, Ford, and yes, Chrysler...are seeking billions more in assistance, using the same tired arguements and promsiing the same eventual victories if they could just get "a little help."
It is one of those cases where if you say things often enough, people believe it. "Big Three?" You can find this phrase repeated over and over in the media.
But here are October's auto sales figures:
GM: 168,719 units sold
Toyota: 152,278 units
Ford: 132,278 units
Chrysler: 94,530 units
Some Lessons:
1) They are NOT "the Big 3." Consumers have clearly spoken, and they've been saying "Toyota" for some time. Congressional action to prop up Ford is tantamount to using taxpayers dollars against the taxpayers themselves. We have already spoken: Toyota has given us what we wanted, at a price we want. Don't force us to bailout the companies we did NOT choose.
2) GM is the largest auto manufacturer world-wide. Since when does the Government seek to bail out the largest company in a competitive field? If GM can not make a profit when it has more car sales than any other company, it is time for them to radically change: split up, reorganize, bust the UAW - but dont seek tax dollars for "same old same old."
3) Ford, GM, and Chrysler ceded the small car market to Honda and Toyota. They lost, folks. That's what business is all about. In the 1500s, Spanish Monk-Economist De Albornoz wrote that "when businesses experience profit and loss, and since when they make a profit, they keep it, they must not transfer a loss to the people."
The Market has clearly chosen. Congress, the UAW, and the so-called "Big-3" don't like the results.
Too Bad. Live with it. Capitalism doesnt guarantee success, and neither should Congress.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Republican Party - Which Way Now?
The Republican Party – my party – has just been delivered a well-earned knockout punch. Reliable “red” States in the west and south have been taken by Democrats. Here in New England, there is not a single Republican Congressman and only one Governor left. And in New Hampshire, once a Yankee Republican bastion, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of state or federal Republican figures left.Republicans did not lose simply because of large numbers of young people and African-Americans voted. In fact, as a percentage of the total electorate, African-Americans and young people made up almost precisely the same percentage of the electorate as they did four years ago. No, Republicans lost because average Americans from all walks of life, especially self-described moderates and independents, and even some lifelong Republicans, turned to the Democrats.
Where did the GOP go wrong? And what must we do to rebuild?
The party needs a clear philosophy and vision. An entire generation of new voters came to the polls believing that the Bush administration represented Republican ideals. Republicans spent eight years defending sickening deficits, exploding budgets, and “big-government” programs that they would have railed against had they been proposed by a Democratic Administration. We were inexcusably silent as America, the great hope of the world, became represented by images of torture and Guantanamo Bay. Republicans should have been outraged…but instead, we defended “our guy” in the white house, and earned the public’s disdain. They grew tired of the Bush administration’s vision of America.
We must articulate in clear terms positive, pro-active solutions for the problems and concerns that the American people have. Access to health care and secure retirement provisions are national concerns: We cannot simply be ‘against’ universal health care or social security, we must present clear, pragmatic, appealing alternatives.
As these proposals are formulated, we must be careful not to fall prey to the idea that we must choose to side with either the “moderates” or the “conservatives” within the Party. A lukewarm, “me-too” version of the Democrats is not a solution, but neither is cliché-ridden pandering to a shrill religious right. Rather, Republicans must forge a new path, a path that is consistent with both the Republican philosophy and the American spirit, and which resonates with voters of all stripes: we must combine fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. The Republican Party claims to be the party of small government and maximum personal freedom. It’s about time we reclaimed that heritage in a consistent manner.
As we present our alternatives, we must eradicate the mean-spiritedness, the innuendos, the mud-slinging, and the anger from our speech. We must offer vision, hope, and a future to all. If we want young people, minorities, and immigrants in the party, then we need to really want them, not just tolerate them and accept their contributions.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan articulated a clear vision, and spoke in positive terms of hope and freedom for all. Americans responded, as disaffected Democrats and independents swelled Republican ranks. In 2008, Barack Obama rode to victory on those Reaganesque concepts. It should serve as a wake-up call to the party to reclaim its heritage of individual liberty and prosperity for all, delivered with clarity and compassion.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Why the Bailout is wrong.
Listening to some of our nations top political leaders, one gets an uneasy feeling that The Great Depression II is right around the corner, unless we entrust the federal government to engage in a massive 700 billion bailout plan that will ultimately save ‘main street’ from Wall Street’s mess. But if that’s the case, why have over 200 leading economists from Harvard, MIT, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and other respected institutions signed a petition opposing rapid passage of this bailout?
In basic English, the argument in favor of the bailout goes something like this: banks and other financial institutions have purchased mortgages which, for many different reasons, are now worth far less than their purchase price. As a result, banks have lost money buy purchasing them, and they can’t convince anyone else to buy them. If they can’t sell their ‘paper securities,’ they can’t raise cash. This, in turn, means they have no money to lend, and credit markets will be so tight that ‘Main Street’ will grind to a halt: businesses will not be able to borrow funds to meet payroll or expand their enterprises, and consumers will be unable to purchase homes and cars or pay their college tuition bills.
This line of reasoning scares many Americans (as its meant to), but is faulty for several reasons.
First of all is the cost. What is not being revealed to the American public is that over the last 5 months, the Federal Reserve Bank has already provided over 1.1 trillion dollars to financial institutions, in exchange for paper securities, in order to inject cash into the banking system. The 700 billion bailout is in addition to that which has already been injected – with an accompanying bill of over $17,000 per American household before this is over.
Second is the risk. I asked a spokesperson for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston why Washington Mutual didn’t take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Bank’s cash offer over the last few months. I was told that there were financial criteria that needed to be met in order to obtain that funding: in other words, the less credit-worthy, the less stable institutions were unable to partake. That means that the 700 billion Congress is about to authorize will be used specifically for those institutions whose paper is the most worthless, leaving the US Taxpayer with nothing in return for its “loan’ to these inept banks. Some commentators suggest that in reality, the taxpayer will make a profit on this paper, but if that was a realistic possibility, there wouldn’t need to be a government bailout: some enterprising institution would have purchased that paper already.
Third is the Moral Hazard created by helping the inept. No one is guaranteed success in a market economy. In the rough and tumble of competition, some win and some lose. If the most ineffective, negligent, inattentive and even fraudulent activities are rewarded by a bailout, what message does this send to the banks who were prudent in their decision–making over these years? The well-run banks ought to profit, and ought to be stronger and inept banks close; instead, we, the taxpayer will be helping the most irresponsible institutions stay afloat, and will pay interest for the ‘honor’ of so doing.
Fourth is the unfounded fear that credit will completely dry up. The fact is, banks do not lend their own money; they lend their depositors funds. Institutions may crash and burn, but their depositors funds are insured by the FDIC, and those depositors will simply place their funds elsewhere. Keep in mind that when Merrill Lynch was subsumed by Bank of America, there was no catastrophe: there was simply an efficient movement of resources. The Market worked without a taxpayer bailout. Similarly, when Washington Mutual ‘collapsed,” they opened the next day as part of JP Morgan. Not one depositor lost money, not one customer lost their line of credit – and not one dollar of taxpayer was required.
The Bailout is an unnecessary, expensive return to Feudal Britain, where the “Crown” owned title to all the land and used tax money to keep its favorite business partners afloat. This is precisely the time to allow the Marketplace to weed out poor investment firms and negligent banking facilities – and allow the rest of us to enjoy the prosperity that can be gained by resting secure in the knowledge that the best and brightest firms have been allowed to carry on financing activities
In basic English, the argument in favor of the bailout goes something like this: banks and other financial institutions have purchased mortgages which, for many different reasons, are now worth far less than their purchase price. As a result, banks have lost money buy purchasing them, and they can’t convince anyone else to buy them. If they can’t sell their ‘paper securities,’ they can’t raise cash. This, in turn, means they have no money to lend, and credit markets will be so tight that ‘Main Street’ will grind to a halt: businesses will not be able to borrow funds to meet payroll or expand their enterprises, and consumers will be unable to purchase homes and cars or pay their college tuition bills.
This line of reasoning scares many Americans (as its meant to), but is faulty for several reasons.
First of all is the cost. What is not being revealed to the American public is that over the last 5 months, the Federal Reserve Bank has already provided over 1.1 trillion dollars to financial institutions, in exchange for paper securities, in order to inject cash into the banking system. The 700 billion bailout is in addition to that which has already been injected – with an accompanying bill of over $17,000 per American household before this is over.
Second is the risk. I asked a spokesperson for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston why Washington Mutual didn’t take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Bank’s cash offer over the last few months. I was told that there were financial criteria that needed to be met in order to obtain that funding: in other words, the less credit-worthy, the less stable institutions were unable to partake. That means that the 700 billion Congress is about to authorize will be used specifically for those institutions whose paper is the most worthless, leaving the US Taxpayer with nothing in return for its “loan’ to these inept banks. Some commentators suggest that in reality, the taxpayer will make a profit on this paper, but if that was a realistic possibility, there wouldn’t need to be a government bailout: some enterprising institution would have purchased that paper already.
Third is the Moral Hazard created by helping the inept. No one is guaranteed success in a market economy. In the rough and tumble of competition, some win and some lose. If the most ineffective, negligent, inattentive and even fraudulent activities are rewarded by a bailout, what message does this send to the banks who were prudent in their decision–making over these years? The well-run banks ought to profit, and ought to be stronger and inept banks close; instead, we, the taxpayer will be helping the most irresponsible institutions stay afloat, and will pay interest for the ‘honor’ of so doing.
Fourth is the unfounded fear that credit will completely dry up. The fact is, banks do not lend their own money; they lend their depositors funds. Institutions may crash and burn, but their depositors funds are insured by the FDIC, and those depositors will simply place their funds elsewhere. Keep in mind that when Merrill Lynch was subsumed by Bank of America, there was no catastrophe: there was simply an efficient movement of resources. The Market worked without a taxpayer bailout. Similarly, when Washington Mutual ‘collapsed,” they opened the next day as part of JP Morgan. Not one depositor lost money, not one customer lost their line of credit – and not one dollar of taxpayer was required.
The Bailout is an unnecessary, expensive return to Feudal Britain, where the “Crown” owned title to all the land and used tax money to keep its favorite business partners afloat. This is precisely the time to allow the Marketplace to weed out poor investment firms and negligent banking facilities – and allow the rest of us to enjoy the prosperity that can be gained by resting secure in the knowledge that the best and brightest firms have been allowed to carry on financing activities
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Christian singer Ray Boltz Comes Out....
Popular Christian Singer Comes Out by Kilian MelloyEDGE Contributor
Monday Sep 15, 2008
Gospel singer Ray Boltz has come out of the closet.The singer gave and interview to the Washington Blade, which posted an article on Boltz’s disclosure on Sept. 12. Boltz, the article said, has had a devoted following within the Christian community, having sold around four and a half million copies of his recordings over a two-decade career. The article said that Boltz, who came out to his family in 2004, began to emerge from the closet more publicly last Christmas." I’d kind of had two identities since I moved to Florida, where I kind of had this other life, and I’d never merged the two lives," Boltz said in the interview.
For a long time--33 years--Boltz lived as a married man, a husband and father; the cost, however, was depression, even a suicidal turn of mind, the article said.Said the singer of his gay identity, "I thought I hid it really well."Added Boltz, "I didn’t know people could see what I was going through, the darkness and the struggle."After I came out to my family, one of my daughters said she was afraid to walk in my bedroom because she was afraid she’d find... that I’d done something to myself."And I didn’t even know they’d picked it up."Finally, in 2004, Boltz told his family his secret. As it happened, he came out to them the same day as a catastrophic tsunami was in the news.Said Boltz, "I thought, ’Well, I can just do what I always do and hide the truth or I can take a risk and be honest.’"Added the singer, "That day, with the tsunami, has become very symbolic in our family."Boltz sketched out a life of struggle and secrecy, saying, "I’d denied it ever since I was a kid."I became a Christian, I thought that was the way to deal with this and I prayed hard and tried for 30-some years and then at the end, I was just going, ’I’m still gay. I know I am.’"And I just got to the place where I couldn’t take it anymore... when I was going through all this darkness, I thought, ’Just end this.’"Continued Boltz, "You get to be 50-some years old and you go, ’This isn’t changing,’" the Washington Blade article said."’I still feel the same way. I am the same way. I just can’t do it anymore.’"Though he never officially engaged in any "ex-gay" programs, Boltz reckoned, "I basically lived an ’ex-gay’ life--I read every book, I read all the scriptures they use, I did everything to try and change."The Blade article said that Boltz’s inner turmoil came through in his songwriting.Acknowledged Boltz, "It’s there on every single record."Continued the singer, "That struggle of accepting myself and my feelings. There’s a lot of pain there and it connected with a lot of people. "They weren’t struggling with the same thing necessarily but we all suffer with our humanity."Boltz’s professional career as a Christian singer was only helped by a 1997 appearance before a crowd of over a million men who had gathered for a Promise Keepers event, the Blade reported.As a Christian married man himself, Boltz said, his family life was based on genuine love."Sex was based on the fact that we loved each other and I wanted to make her happy," he told the Washington Blade. "I had sexual drives as well. You know, it’s like I never had to talk myself into having a relationship with her or that I was going, ’Oh God, here we’re going to bed again’--it wasn’t that. "I loved her and we had a very full life; it’s just that inside, deep inside, it really wasn’t who I was."And that had an impact: said Boltz, "[H]ow can you truly be intimate with someone when you don’t know who they are, when they won’t reveal themselves to you[?]"Added the singer, "I thought, ’If I can’t say this to the people I love, then what kind of life is this?’"After he came out to his family, Boltz and his wife separated; he went to Florida, and that’s where the latest chapter of the singer’s story picks up.Said Boltz, "I had a lot of questions, but at the bottom of everything was a feeling that I didn’t hate myself anymore, so in that sense I felt closer to God."Added the singer, "If you were to hold up the rule book and go, ’Here are all the rules Christians must live by,’ did I follow every one of those rules all that time? Not at all, you know, because I kind of rejected a lot of things, but I’ve grown some even since then."Continued Boltz, "I guess I felt that the church, that they had it wrong about how I felt with being gay all these years, so maybe they had it wrong about a lot of other things."Eventually, Bltz found himself performing once again for Christian audiences, bringing his personal and professional lives full circle.However, "I don’t want to be a spokesperson, I don’t want to be a poster boy for gay Christians, I don’t want to be in a little box on TV with three other people in little boxes screaming about what the Bible says, I don’t want to be some kind of teacher or theologian," Boltz said."I’m just an artist and I’m just going to sing about what I feel and write about what I feel and see where it goes."The article pointed out that Boltz is the most successful Christian musician to come out, leaving it an open question how the demographic that once embraced him would respond to any future recordings.Said Boltz to the Blade, "This is what it really comes down to: If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. "It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be."Added Boltz, "I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself."Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
