So, I should start by pointing out that, being a man, I recognize that I'm on the shitlist as far as this topic is concerned but I feel, as a Democrat watching Republicans ranting and tossing what-aboutisms around, I can contribute to the conversation just a tad, even if I am part of the problem. With that said, I'll move on with the post.
Is it possible that we're at a true tipping point? Will sexual assault finally be seen as the problem it truly is? Will we see a cultural change where people who claim sexual assuault are taken seriously? Here's hoping... though I won't hold my breath just yet.
Recently, we've seen several people in media lose their jobs or have to step down over allegations. People in high positions who just a month ago I wouldn't have imagined would be impacted. They're re-shooting parts of a movie to remove one of the prime names that were highlighted in the previews. The same weekend as accusations have been made against a prominent anchor, that anchor has been suspended and then, within 48 hours, fired. It's crazy to witness but the shift is long overdue.
And so we come to Roy Moore and Al Franken. Most of the people who have lost their jobs have lost them over things as severe as rape. Roy Moore is accused of assaulting underage women, as young as 14 year olds, when he was an adult. Al Franken is accused of assaulting 2 women; the first he acknowledged and apologized for, the second he says he doesn't remember and feels badly for any disrespect the woman felt. You may see where I'm going with this but let me start by saying I think Al Franken should seriously consider stepping down, for the good of his party and the good of the hope that what we're seeing is a true cultural shift.
That said, Republicans who are saying that Democrats are only playing politics and are being hypocritcal when calling for Roy Moore to step down as a candidate while not calling for Al Franken to step down from his seat in the Senate, these Republicans are forgetting a couple things:
1) The first is the obvious one which I've heard others mention: the two are not morally equivalent. They are, indeed, both very serious and, as mentioned, I would think well of Senator Franken if he were to step down. But to say they are the same thing is similar to saying that causing someone grave injuries is equivalent to killing multiple people in a terrorist act. Yes, both are horrific. But not all horrific things are equally horrific. Moral equivalency, however, is what what-aboutism is all about. Someone points out that White Supremists, carrying torches, chanting things that suggest they want all non-whites should be removed/reduced (read: kicked out or killed), and one uses his car to kill and injure and the Republicans then say what about the extreme left who were there to punch nazis? Many responded with "but they're nazis... when given the choice of whether to punch a nazi or not to punch a nazi, ALWAYS punch a nazi"... however pacifists among us point out 2 things: 1) one group is suggesting we should kill another group and a different group is saying they will stand in the way of that with physical force... there is a morally superior group here similar to how our military being sent in to stop a genocide has a morally superior standing to the group performing the genocide; and 2) PUNCHING PEOPLE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO MOWING PEOPLE DOWN WITH A CAR. So, yes, Al Franken didn't just behave badly, he did something beyond that, but what Roy Moore stands accused of by more than a few women is not equivalent... don't suggest that it is. Slippery slopes are still slopes and there is still a difference between 2 things that are different (word repetition is on purpose to indicate how obvious this is).
2) I acknowledge that I'm assuming something with this one, but make that assumption with me for a moment. Assume that the multiple women coming out and accusing Roy Moore of assaulting them are not lying. Assume, for a moment, that these women who claim Moore assaulted them are telling the truth. If that is the case, Roy Moore is accusing these women of lying and is falsely trying to push these women into disrepute. He is trying to avoid taking ownership of his actions and accepting consequences by doing what many who have committed sexual assault or sexual misconduct have in the past: defaming their accusers. President Clinton started off doing the same thing during when people were investigating him. The practice is a very problematic part of the culture that has permitted nearly every woman in the US to be sexually assaulted. It is part of the method of hiding the true extent of the problem we have. I know, I know, I have in the past suggested that President Clinton's lies were not as problematic as the Republicans suggested, and I apologize for having taken that stance. In point of fact, however, Clinton's lies were not problematic for the reason the Republicans said they were. It's not because he was lying to the people of the US... Republicans have shown they have a much higher threshold for that than we were led to believe in the 1990's. No, the issue is the practice of slandering women who come forward when they are telling the truth... and sheer percentages suggest it happens far more often than women actually lying about what has happened when they do come forward. Much as I take the accusers at their word, I take Al Franken at his word when he says that, with regards to the second woman to come forward with accusations against him, that he had no recollection of the event and did not mean to act in a demeaniing way. With the first accusation, Al Franken acknowledged the actions and, even if just for show, requested an investigation into his wrong-doing. Though obviously this doesn't absolve him of his behavior, it does provide a clear distinction between the two situations.
3) O.k., here's the thing that truly bothers me the most of all the issues with the comparison of Roy Moore to Al Franken: Republicans, the ones who are crying foul against Democrats, also claim to be THE ONES with moral values, as in they have moral values and Democrats don't. How can you tout your moral superiority and then say "you aren't holding yourselves to the same moral standard you say I should be holding myself to"? It's like if Republicans were to tell Democrats that they weren't standing up for the environment enough and then Democrats cried foul when a Republican supported coal. We expect Republicans to support coal, protecting the environment is not their thing. It's not why they say they should be in office. What do Republicans run on? Small government, morals, and money staying with the wealthy (yeah, yeah, I'll get to writing about that soon). What do Democrats run on? Big government and caring for the low/middle class and caring for the environment. Don't tell me I'm being hypocritical by pointing out your own hypocracy and then not holding myself to the same standards you claim to use to distinguish yourself from me. I have never understood how Republicans can claim to be the moral values party, but if they're going to do it, they need to accept that they also will be held to a higher moral standard than their rivals. I've been trying to come up with an equivalent scenario to reverse things and the best I've been able to come up with is if a Democrat were running a company that was secretly a major poluter and it came out during a race and Democrats didn't jump up and down on that person, Republicans did jump up and down and then a Republican acknowledged they were running a company that had poluted and fellow Republicans didn't call for him/her to resign... in that circumstance I would yawn and say "yep, sounds about right". It's not a great analogy but it's good enough.
Dark Wind Rising
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Tax Reform
They're back at it. Republicans have decided this year that the way to pass big legislation is to jam it through without much debate and without any attempt to reach out to the other side. This time it's taxes. Before we get started, in case you forgot what the Democrats did when they overhauled health care, they adopted a Republican idea and tried to work with Republicans for a year before moving forward (with that Republican originated plan).
Alright, so, taxes. Let's start with the build up: Republicans, in particular the President, have been saying that they would overhaul the tax code and give the average worker a huge tax cut. There are a couple things wrong here:
1) It's temporary. Republicans love this tactic. Make the tax cut for people temporary so that it doesn't seem as bad for the government's budgeting as if it were perminant and then, when the tax cut is about to expire, announce that anybody not wanting to extend it is looking to increase taxes. It's sickening to me to see this tactic used over and over again. We know you want to make it perminant, so just do it. Don't be so underhanded about it.
2) Corporate tax cuts AREN'T temporary. As if it weren't enough of a slap in the face to have people's tax cut be temporary, the corporate tax cut isn't. You know why they aren't temporary? I'm sure Republicans will say it's because the markets hate instability and so changing the tax rate repeatedly would be bad for business.... the real answer, however, is that raising the corporate tax rate is not as big a deal to the average voter as raising individuals' tax rates... so... it's my first point of being upset made even more clear.
3) It's not a huge tax cut for individuals. The main benefits continue to go to the top. I'm not really sure if I need to say anything more here. It's always going to be this way when Republicans are in charge for one reason: They don't see a progressive tax structure as a good thing. They think it's unfair for the richest among us to pay a higher rate than the average and that everyone should pay the same rate. I'm not going to go to far into why I consider a graduated income tax, a progressive tax, to be better here, but I'll make sure to write about that soon. Suffice it to say, I consider progressive taxes to be far superior.
4) They're not paying for it. Remember the mantra of the Republicans for the last 8 years that everything must be paid for? Yeah, that's apparently went out the window as soon as they're fully in power. In other words, they don't actually care about what they claim to stand for: fiscal responsibility.
5) Actually, they are planning to pay for it, they're just not telling you. And here's where we get to the part that really kills me. It's not that the $1.5 trillion over 10 years isn't part of their plan... it is. They want to decrease the federal government's incoming resources by as much as possible. Why? Because then they can explain that we don't have the money to pay for all that the government is doing. We can't spend as much as we do because we just don't have the money to pay for it. They won't say it immediately either. They may even wait until a Democrat is in the White House. There will be many that won't, however. You know that the far right, the Tea Party and the like, will likely start complaining about how we're spending more than we're taking in almost immediately. And $1.5 trillion over 10 years is not chump change, by the way. It's roughly 1/30 of the overall budget and more than 1/10 the discretionary spending budget from 2016. It's roughly 1/4 our military spending or about twice as much as we spend on Veteran's Affairs or about 10 times as much as we spend on food & agriculture or about 5 times as much as we spend on transportation. I could go on and on with comparisons but I think you get the idea. (oh, and it's about 1/4 the current deficit that Republicans had been railing about being too high for around 8 years prior to this year) So where do we cut to make up for this deficit? I'd be willing to bet that it won't be from the military... which brings us to my 6th point.
6) Because the tax cuts, which are making our tax plan less progressive and therefore are already providing more benefits to the wealthiest, are going to lead to spending cuts that will reduce the benefits the average and poorest among us get from government spending, the result is actually more regressive than you think they will be. You're going to pay for reducing the share that the wealthiest among us contribute by reducing the help the government offers those that need it.
And all this while saying that it's going to be great for the average worker.
Alright, so, taxes. Let's start with the build up: Republicans, in particular the President, have been saying that they would overhaul the tax code and give the average worker a huge tax cut. There are a couple things wrong here:
1) It's temporary. Republicans love this tactic. Make the tax cut for people temporary so that it doesn't seem as bad for the government's budgeting as if it were perminant and then, when the tax cut is about to expire, announce that anybody not wanting to extend it is looking to increase taxes. It's sickening to me to see this tactic used over and over again. We know you want to make it perminant, so just do it. Don't be so underhanded about it.
2) Corporate tax cuts AREN'T temporary. As if it weren't enough of a slap in the face to have people's tax cut be temporary, the corporate tax cut isn't. You know why they aren't temporary? I'm sure Republicans will say it's because the markets hate instability and so changing the tax rate repeatedly would be bad for business.... the real answer, however, is that raising the corporate tax rate is not as big a deal to the average voter as raising individuals' tax rates... so... it's my first point of being upset made even more clear.
3) It's not a huge tax cut for individuals. The main benefits continue to go to the top. I'm not really sure if I need to say anything more here. It's always going to be this way when Republicans are in charge for one reason: They don't see a progressive tax structure as a good thing. They think it's unfair for the richest among us to pay a higher rate than the average and that everyone should pay the same rate. I'm not going to go to far into why I consider a graduated income tax, a progressive tax, to be better here, but I'll make sure to write about that soon. Suffice it to say, I consider progressive taxes to be far superior.
4) They're not paying for it. Remember the mantra of the Republicans for the last 8 years that everything must be paid for? Yeah, that's apparently went out the window as soon as they're fully in power. In other words, they don't actually care about what they claim to stand for: fiscal responsibility.
5) Actually, they are planning to pay for it, they're just not telling you. And here's where we get to the part that really kills me. It's not that the $1.5 trillion over 10 years isn't part of their plan... it is. They want to decrease the federal government's incoming resources by as much as possible. Why? Because then they can explain that we don't have the money to pay for all that the government is doing. We can't spend as much as we do because we just don't have the money to pay for it. They won't say it immediately either. They may even wait until a Democrat is in the White House. There will be many that won't, however. You know that the far right, the Tea Party and the like, will likely start complaining about how we're spending more than we're taking in almost immediately. And $1.5 trillion over 10 years is not chump change, by the way. It's roughly 1/30 of the overall budget and more than 1/10 the discretionary spending budget from 2016. It's roughly 1/4 our military spending or about twice as much as we spend on Veteran's Affairs or about 10 times as much as we spend on food & agriculture or about 5 times as much as we spend on transportation. I could go on and on with comparisons but I think you get the idea. (oh, and it's about 1/4 the current deficit that Republicans had been railing about being too high for around 8 years prior to this year) So where do we cut to make up for this deficit? I'd be willing to bet that it won't be from the military... which brings us to my 6th point.
6) Because the tax cuts, which are making our tax plan less progressive and therefore are already providing more benefits to the wealthiest, are going to lead to spending cuts that will reduce the benefits the average and poorest among us get from government spending, the result is actually more regressive than you think they will be. You're going to pay for reducing the share that the wealthiest among us contribute by reducing the help the government offers those that need it.
And all this while saying that it's going to be great for the average worker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)