The Babes, Another Story Missed

Once again I find myself not listening to a family member read a pair of newspaper articles my grandfather had clipped about Christmas due to COVID, this time because I'm isolating having had a very recent exposure (and being super tired so joining a zoom isn't in the cards). 

If you don't know this about me, I'm agnostic bordering on atheist, but my grandfather was a Methodist minister.  He grappled with ethics and lessons of good and evil both in his role as a religious leader as well as in his job at BU as a professor who taught society and ethics.  A few years ago, near the start of the ongoing pandemic, I shared the essence of one of the articles that he would read to my family throughout my childhood and someone in my family has read at the annual gathering each year since his passing.  I'd like to share the other and how I have long questioned the wisdom but how I now firmly don't believe it and why.

The article is from WWII and is about the author having recently read something about a conqueror sweeping through Europe.  The author was surprised to find that the conqueror was not the current threat but instead Napoleon.  He then goes on to explain that the "sign onto you" that God sends the shephards is not something fantastical but something every-day: a babe born in a manger, the most mundane of mundane occurences.  He continues but the general idea of the rest is that as long as there are babies being born, it's a sign from God that He still believes in us and that there is always hope.

So here's the thing: it's a wonderful idea... and after a fashion it's sort of true... but it's also blinding.  The point of the article is roughly that things don't change in a way that is not reversable and, more generally, that things that threaten us today may seem bad, but they will not be our end.  But none of that is true.  Things change irreparably.  After WWII, we will never return to a world without the threat of nuclear annihilation.  And the more we take for granted that things will continue the way they always have, the less we are able to adapt to growing threats. 

For example, climate change has been a pressing concern for several decades now.  I was well aware of what was coming back in the 1980's already as a young kid.  But if we assume the sea levels can't possible rise substantially, that our coastlines and weather patterns are relatively static, then we won't do things to try to avoid that future AND won't do anything to protect ourselves.  The longer we are blind to the situation we are in, the harder it will be to do anything meaninful.

Another good example is COVID-19 (and pandemics in general).  Yes, there are scientists researching pandemics generally, and even COVID-19 in specific, but we, as a society, do not appear willing to accept where we find ourselves.  COVID-19 has been, and continues to be, a mass disabling event.  Many don't know that, many that do don't seem willing to do much about it.  We ignore the risks.  Collectively, we have decided that we should return to how we lived prior to the start of the pandemic in most ways.  And it's true that we have made some good strides toward coping with the initial illness (vaccines, paxlovid) but we do not currently have any treatment for any form of long covid, nor do we have a firm understanding of its different forms, just knowing the symptoms/impacts we have seen.  And even the full list of symptoms/impacts are continuing to evolve.  But we turn a blind eye to it and say that clean air, masking, and other precautions are too much.  Like climate change, we struggle a lot with covid because of lagging indicators and somewhat invisible impacts.  I could go on for days, but suffice to say, we have shown that we cannot handle delayed impacts (including multi-day incubation periods) and appreciating invisible connections (like the damaged covid causes to all organs and systems).  And like climate change, we have not risen to the challenge that we face and therefore are continuing to cause undo harm to so many and ostracizing those who take reasonable precautions.

Ok, one more example: the current politcal climate in the US.  In November 2024, we elected Trump to be President.  We knew about Project 2025 which was a playbook for a lot of things, but among them, how to generally wreak havoc in government and get away with it.  That playbook drew on fascist principles and strategies.  Historians were warning from the early days about what to look for and everything they warned us about came to pass.  Courts have provided precious little in the form of pushback, but at least they provided some, where it has been entirely lacking from Congress.  The expectation from many is that when Trump leaves office, we'll return to the status quo.  The expectation is that what happens elsewhere (transitioning away from a democracy) can't happen here.  The reality is something different.  The reality is that there is every reason to believe that we either worn't have a 2026 presidential election or that it won't be what we expect it to be.  Even if we have such an election, there is every reason to believe that the playbook of the right will be adhered to with even greater competency than it has been in 2025 and that a greater ill will arrive to the US.

I don't have answers.  I don't know that anything can be done.  And that's the point.  What I do know is that it's possible for things to change for the worse and for it to not be recoverable, at least for humankind.  I know the world changes.  I know that our circumstances change if we feel like things will always be the same, we will not adapt sufficiently (level of response or speed of response or, even more likely given the above 3 current examples, both).

So, it is a lovely sentiment that as long as there are babes, there is hope and there is evidence of God's love, but that line of thinking is somewhat folly.  It can easily land you in complacency and the belief that "this crisis shall end and we will inevitably be fine." which is simply not the case. 

The first article still rings true.  It is about how the story of Christmas is about more than just good feelings but about struggle and there being real evil in the world.  My post about that can be found here: Who Took Herod Out of Christmas

Is Trump’s Support About to Crater?

Basket of deplorables.  That’s what the nazis and other white supremacists are to us.  And that’s what we think everybody else thinks too.  That’s why, when Charlottesville had a protest, that looked an awful lot like it was entirely nazis on one side, shouting “Heil Trump” and other slogans that are all too reminiscent of 1939 Germany, when those protesters showed up on our televisions and in our social media feeds, that’s why we all assumed the nation would agree that these were clearly the villains in the story that was unfolding.  Trump came out and denounced the hatred “on all sides”… surely *this* would do the trick, surely the nation would see Trump the way the left-of-center had seen him this entire time, as a repugnant racist, or at least someone who would be willing to play to repugnant racists and embolden them beyond what should be considered reasonable in 1950, never mind 2017.  

But here’s what the media and many of my friends are forgetting…. this already happened… not only had it happened, but it had happened in a number of different ways throughout the campaign.

Trump announced his candidacy by suggesting, essentially, that immigrants were the problem we were facing and that those crossing our southern border were nearly all (if not all) criminals of a particularly unsavory type.  “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”  It doesn’t take much to unpack this and it matches his style entirely.  He isn’t saying everybody that crosses the souther border is a criminal, that’s just what he’s heard about, right?  He’s not saying something bad about a rival GOP candidate for President, he’s heard other people saying it, but he’s not saying it, he would never, but you’ve heard about it, right?  But I digress… many understood that he was calling Mexican’s criminals and lowlife scum.  Many thought he was a joke after that speech… but he wasn’t…  and his supporters backed him.

Trump later called for a ban on Muslims entering the country.  We had thought you couldn’t get more blatant with your racism but there it was.  Subtly hidden within the fear that Muslims coming to our shores might be terrorists… that they are a great threat that must be dealt with.  Nevermind that a vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil since 2002 have been perpetrated by US born citizens, and that you’re hard pressed to find any non-US born perpetrators who came here after they were 10 years old.  Nevermind that the terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001 are dwarfed in their number of victims by mass killings determined not to be terrorism.  No, these Muslim immigrants are the problem.  Many on the Left were shocked and enraged and thought, surely, surely this would indicate to the rest of the country that he couldn’t possibly be fit for the Presidency and the candidacy would falter… but it didn’t… and his supporters backed him.

Weeks before the general election, a tape came out that many on the left believed would be his downfall.  In it, Trump can be heard discussing his behavior toward women, which the left critiqued as sexual assault and his supporters considered “locker room talk” and the thought of the actions described as, while not necessarily appropriate, also not terribly wrong either.  Yep, the media and the left thought this was the end… but it wasn’t… and his supporters backed him.

Bill O’Reilly (I’m sorry, let’s take a moment to consider this came from O’Reilly… how far do you have to be from the beaten path of conservatism to have O’Reilly try to take you down) took his stab at Trump in early February 2017, pointing out that Putin is a killer and questioning the President’s respect for Russia’s leader.  Trump’s response was “There are a lot of killers.  You think our country’s so innocent?”  At this, media and the left thought, surely, surely now people will understand the concerns we raised about his ties to Russia… But they didn’t… no, his supporters backed him.

That’s why, upon brief consideration, I was neither surprised nor particularly disheartened when I heard the comments made by our President in response to what popular culture considers the ubiquitous villain… nor was I surprised when the media attacked him and called for the denouncement of white supremacists as an obvious move that should have been taken… nor will I be surprised if his supporters continue to back him.

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate called for a stronger response, but they have called for him to behave differently in the past, they have backed away somewhat on their support for him and then come back to his side.  The attack on President Trump surprised me, but within minutes of hearing about it, it made sense and it fit the narrative we’ve had for the last year.  

The emboldening of racists, of nazis, the villain we love to see our heroes go up against, this has been coming for a long time.  Our President has helped it along substantially and given this enemy aid and comfort.  But none of this is particularly new to the equation and so I don’t believe this will have a true impact on Trump’s presidency.  It will, however, have a real impact on the citizens who have to live in the midst of this crop of racists…. but that’s a post for another time.

Politics in the Age of Trump Part 1

It's fascinating to me to see people's reactions in the last year from a variety of groups.  I'll start by summarizing what I've seen.

Liberals:  I've seen liberals fall into a couple different camps:

• Pragmatic + There but for the grace of God go I: "I don't understand those that voted for Trump and feel we should try to understand them so that we can work better at winning leadership of the country in the future."  This group is disgusted by Trump and extremely concerned with where this country is going.  Fixated on trying to resolve this by bringing at least some of those that voted for Trump into some semblance of what they find to be sane, they see the path forward is to reconnect the country, at least some.

• There not even by the grace of God go I: "I can't tolerate those that voted for Trump and am uninterested in engaging."  This group is so disgusted with what they perceive Trump to represent that they feel it is unreasonable to engage in the conversation.  Indeed, they see Trump as multiple forms of evil, some of which may be negotiated with, but some completely intolerable.  The path forward is to engage with the part of the country that they find to be sane.  Maybe in 2 and 4 years, this will be fresh in the minds of the majority of the country and Democrats will retake the House, Senate, and eventually the White House.

Conservatives: Conservatives tend to fall into a few different camps as well:

• Anti-Trump camp: O.k., let's break this down even further, shall we?
• Civilians (non-politicians/political leaders): "Holy @#$% what did my party just do?!?"  They tend to be horrified by what they've seen.  This group either sees most of the support for President Trump coming from the same "basket of deplorables" that Clinton referred to (racist, sexist, homophobic, religious intolerant groups) OR they feel that there is a way that a President should conduct him/her self and that President Trump's behavior simply isn't that.  For the latter, you can see this to be his utter lack of coordination within his administration, his disinterest in communication, and his off-the-cuff decision making.
• Politicians / party leaders: "Well, I have some concerns [but we're going to keep following his lead for the foreseeable future]."  Think people like Senator McCain.  They appear to be deeply concerned with what they've seen for either of the reasons that civilians are but are being significantly more careful about their actions so as not to anger the President.  They see that politics in this country has been turned somewhat on its head... o.k., it's not entirely turned on its head, it's just that what would have caused some panic for a normal President's supporters is not causing it for the last year for President Trump's supporters.  So, much the same as has happened in past administrations, on both sides, the politicians tend to keep with their party leadership and, while they may say they are concerned, don't ever say that they're particularly deeply concerned and certainly never act on that concern, including when questioning experts while in  hearings.
• Pro-Trump camp 1: "He's not your normal President, he's a normal-person.  You can't expect him to conform to your expectations of how a President should behave and to do so is showing partisan politics."  This group sees the Comey letter and says "he's just asking someone to drop something the way I would ask a colleague or friend... it's not obstruction, it's just one person to another person."  "There's no reason to be concerned when he invites deadly dictators to the White House because he's just trying to do what he does."  This group sees President Trump's not releasing his tax returns as something not to be concerned about because they trust him to not be swayed by his own financial and family ties.  They either don't see the comparison between President Trump's privacy regarding his taxes as being remotely hypocritical when compared to President Trump's obsession with President Obama's birth certificate or feel that everyone in Washington is hypocritical, so why judge.  They also don't necessarily believe everything President Trump says, but don't see it as a problem that the President is lying, there are bigger issues at stake after all.
• Pro-Trump camp 2: "Drain the Swamp!" O.k., liberals and the media have tended to take "drain the swamp" in the way they think of it: remove the Wall Street corruption.  From listening to people calling into various shows, I think this camp doesn't see Wall Street as the problem, but rather D.C. politicians.  Drain the swamp means that we should stop working with those that are in political leadership, from either party, and should bring in outsiders.  This is why the media was confused when they saw the cabinet being formed and why this group of supporters celebrated.  This is also why they feel that Speaker Leader Ryan was the one that made the folly with the American Health Care Act, not the President, because Ryan is not to be trusted as he is part of the establishment in D.C., part of the taint that must be drained.  They don't necessarily believe everything Trump says, but they also don't really mind that he's lying, just so long as he's breaking up the establishment and the normal way of doing things in D.C.
• Pro-Trump camp 3: "The world is lying and only President Trump is speaking it like it is"... I'm not sure if I can really go into more depth than that... This group is, simply put, blind.

More discussion of each camp to come...

That's it, I'm done, I just can't anymore.... o.k., maybe I can

I'm so tired of it all.

I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals.  The Left has morals just as much as the Right does.  Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.

I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever.  I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot.  I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.

I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.

I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything.  Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.

I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.

I'm tired of it all.

I'm so tired that I want to just give up.  I can't do it anymore.  I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook.  I'm not going to comments on others' posts.  Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....

I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level.  I can do that.  I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes.  I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....

All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right?  I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....

O.k., maybe not...

2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet

I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville.  My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes

Let's go in order, shall we?

Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store.  But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor.  Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society.  The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity.  There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply.  When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea.  To me, this one's easy: No

Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it.  Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far.  This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools.  "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option."  O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.

• First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids.  I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me.  And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets.  Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding.  Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student.  Buildings still need to be maintained.  Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district.  There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
• Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me.  There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture.  By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
• Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so.  They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional.  Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools.  It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores. 
• http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf 
• http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
• Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.  
• http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf

Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do.  Yes, it'll cost more.  Yes, this will have an impact on many families.  The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it.  It is a legitimate concern.  But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created.  We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor.  We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.

Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position.  We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol).  I get all that.  The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other.  There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol.  There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas.  A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments.  A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market.  I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana.  No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol.  We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems.  This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.

Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one.  First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me.  Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city.  That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise.  The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new.  The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new.  Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative.  Somerville: vote yes on 5.

Super Tuesday 2016!

Super Tuesday is upon us and registered voters in 11 states have a couple decisions to make:  1) Am I voting and 2) if so, who am I voting for.

I'm hoping that the answers for many will be "yes, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders"... which shouldn't be surprising to anybody, but you might not agree with me... so let's go through your options.

If you want someone who is anti-government and anti-religious freedom, you probably want to vote for the Texan from Canada: Ted Cruz.  He is hated by everybody in Congress... no kidding... and is all about bringing down the government in any way he can.  By the way, politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths 21% of the time and tells mostly false or even more false 67% of the time... so if you like a liar, he's a decent choice.

If you want someone who is anti-government and not white, you probably want to vote for the youngling of the crowd: Marco Rubio... and he even has more of a chance at being nominated than 2 others that are running.  Politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths a whopping 35% and tells mostly false or even more false only 42% of the time... so if you want someone that one third of the time tells the truth and boldly lies only half the time... he's your man.

If you want someone who is a Democrat but is a war-hawk, economically-moderate, and who Republicans hate more than the Socialist in the race, vote for Clinton (no, seriously, I know Republicans who will vote for Sanders before Trump but will vote for Trump before Clinton).  If you want the Democrat who is most electable in the general, that's not Clinton based on all the polls.  By the way, Clinton tells the truth significantly more than she lies, so that's a positive... 51% for mostly truths/truths and 28% bold lies... including 1% pants-on-fire lies.

If you want someone who truly believes in liberal ideals and thinks we should avoid going to war, or if you want someone who can beat any Republican that ends up getting nominated, or if you want someone who doesn't change their stance on a variety of issues every 4 years, vote for Sanders.  To be fair, Sanders only tells the unvarnished truth 47% of the time and lies 32% of the time... but he never lies at a pants-on-fire level.

If you want someone who lies, disparages wide swaths of the public, doesn't think that issues are what we should vote based on, has gone bankrupt (unlike any other candidate listed thus far), and the rest of the world hates even more than Republicans hate Clinton, just stay home.  Seriously though, Trump lies... he lies a lot.  He has a harder time telling the truth than Cruz does with 7% of the time telling the mostly truths and 78% telling mostly falsehoods with a full 20% of those being full-on pants-on-fire lies.  He's insulted Mexicans, Women, residents of Iowa, immigrants... and that's just the wide generalizations.  And when asked if he would disavow white supremacist supporters, his response was that he didn't know David Duke... whom he had tweeted about previously... no, his response was not to say "white supremacists are racist thugs and I don't need support from the likes of them", which I hope most Americans would have thought reasonable.

So... let's see if this follows... If you want Trump to win, congrats, your job is done, stay home, nobody cares.  If you want Trump not to win the general, your best approach is probably to vote for Sanders, since polls show that he's the best bet at beating Trump.  If you don't like Sanders because he's too far left, fair enough, vote for Clinton, but don't be surprised when we've got troops on the ground in Syria for a decade.

Super Tuesday matters, go out and vote, but vote informed and thoughtfully.

White guys with guns on public land versus blacks without guns on public streets

The free-Bundy protest going on in Oregon is very strange to me when I try to look at it from all sides and analyze the statements being made by various groups.

First of all, every time I hear the leader of this armed self-proclaimed "militia" say "we just want this to end peacefully" I think to myself 2 questions:

1. Then why did you bring guns?
2. Then just leave?

It just seems so inaccurate and insincere.  But I have to realize that this group of people actually thinks the big bad government is going to come and shoot them in the dark of night when nobody is looking.  As ridiculous as that sounds to me, as hard to believe, they believe it and therefore they feel they need to arm themselves, even though the simple act of arming one's self for protection raises the stakes, raises tensions, and increases the chance of an armed stand off.  

There's a reason that peaceful protests, historically, tend to be sans-weapons.  It helps bring people to your cause if you're not being aggressive and instead being passively and politely steadfast.  Bringing a weapon intrinsically adds to your aggressive-level, regardless of how many times you insist the weapons are not meant to be aggressive but instead be defensive.

And then there's the left-wing response: an attempt to compare this protest to other peaceful protests that have happened recently.  Most of the protests have been peaceful, some arrests but no major injuries.  But when it's mostly blacks protesting in their own neighborhoods, they have often been called riots by the media and major politicians.  Sure, there have also been riots, but those have been significantly fewer and smaller than the peaceful marches and gatherings in these communities.  The left then pointed out that in Texas, when several biker gangs had a shootout amongst themselves and with law enforcement, the media called it a brawl... not a riot, a brawl.  People on the left raised the point of the disparity in descriptions and pointed to it as part of the implicit bias/racism we have in the media.  And now, while there has been no violence, people on the left have raised their voices with the belief that the media would have called the "militia groups" something else if they weren't white, maybe mobs, anarchists, armed militants.  Maybe the "occupation" would be called a riot by the media.  Maybe the result of a week-long protest would have been armed confrontation by local, state, and federal law enforcement rather than state and federal law enforcement being nowhere to be seen or heard and the local government officials requesting that the groups leave.  

There has been the explanation that law enforcement considers this protest to be more a kin to scenarios like Wako where armed engagement led to outcomes that reflected negatively on law enforcement in the past, with casualties and such.  This, to me, is an explanation that rings very true.  Of course law enforcement wants to be careful due to these memories of armed conflicts.  Of course they feel the stigma.  That is a reasonable explanation for why they are giving these armed white militants a wide berth.  But that doesn't mean this response isn't intrinsically racist, just because it's rational.  Here's the problem with saying it's reasonable to react differently to the scenario given the past:

1. It indicates that the public's reaction when law enforcement locks down a city, or sections of a city, with riot-gear-armed officers and shooting rock/brick-armed civilians, that the public's reaction to this is not sufficient to be nearly the same as the public's reaction to law enforcement having a confrontation with gun-armed civilians.  Yes, the latter tends to involve deaths, but this is the natural reaction of increased weaponry being brought to the table on the civilians' side since it intensifies the conflict.  Not, I mention the increased weaponry brought by civilians, that's because the weaponry being brought by law enforcement in both scenarios is of a similar level at this point.
2. It indicates that being armed and white is appropriate when protesting while it's been proven by law enforcement's responses (and the public's as well) that being armed and black is completely inappropriate, to the point of allowing a defense of immediate and summary execution of the armed civilians.

The dichotomy is disturbing to me, to say the least.  

I feel for the ranchers who are worried that the big bad government is going to restrict their land usage even further, thus they feel their livelihoods are endangered, but the protest is about people being imprisoned for arson... I'd love to hear someone explain why setting a fire that one did not sufficiently contain to avoid a fire on public lands is reasonable and why people who commit a crime under the law should not be held accountable based on the law and existing mandatory minimums.  I haven't heard them call for an end to mandatory minimums, which are the reason that two ranchers have been sent back to prison (the original sentences were less than the mandatory minimum requirements for the crime committed).

So, when my gut tells me that these people are ridiculous and that law enforcement continues to show racial bias, I think I've provided rational explanation of how my gut, at least in this instance is correct... which is a relief to me, as I do not want to shoot from the hip on these matters (always like to throw in a gun metaphor when appropriate).

Freedom of Religion

In the United States, we are free to practice our beliefs as we see fit, a right that is guaranteed by the first amendment in our constitution.  This freedom is only up to a point though.  You are free to believe whatever you want as long as that belief does not interfere with my rights, for instance.

One example of this restriction is the case of gay marriage.  Kim Davis, a country clerk, decided not to provide marriage licenses to anyone rather than providing marriage licenses to gay couples.  She claimed her right of religious freedom allowed this.  Here's the thing though, part of her job, as country clerk, is to provide marriage licenses, so either she should have stepped aside or she should have allowed her deputies to provide those licenses. She was sued and when she went to court she was put in jail because she wasn't willing to provide marriage licenses nor would she promise not to interfere with her deputies providing them.  She was let go yesterday with the understanding that she would not interfere with her deputies' work.  The amusing thing is that when she came out of the jail, there was a rally where her supporters (including presidential candidates Huckabee and Cruz) claimed victory.  But victory over what is my question.  She's being let go under the provision that something would be allowed to take place that she wasn't willing to agree to previously.  Had she agreed to it previously, she wouldn't have been in jail in the first place.  It's kind of like if I refused to put on shoes when going to a restaurant and they refused to seat me.... and then I put on shoes and claimed victory because they seated me.

It's interesting to see how the Republican presidential candidates are each responding to this matter.  While Huckabee and Cruz back Davis up, moderates such as Christie have said that Davis should have been moved to a position where her religious beliefs would not interfere with her duties and that we have to obey laws.

Government creation of jobs

"Government can't create jobs."  Republicans are both right and wrong with this statement.  It's an interesting situation in which, the only way that it might be right is if the Republicans are the ones thinking things through.... but only to a point.

"Government can't create jobs."  Let's walk through the logic that gets us there.  Government creates jobs ALL THE TIME... all you have to do is walk into any state legislature, any city hall, any school, go to any street repair, any public bus or train... the list goes on.  Government jobs are all around us an impact us in so many ways that the statement seems ridiculous at first.... it always has to me.  I think many of those that use it don't understand it and just think of it as the base statement against using government jobs to help the economy because they don't like big government.

O.k., where's the truth in the statement then, if government creates jobs all the time?  Well, it comes from going back to where the money for those jobs comes from: taxes.  To a conservative, this means a lot.  It means we can't count those jobs because ... well.... it's hard for me to articulate because I don't believe it.  Essentially.... imagine what would happen if government jobs were all there were... we'd all be getting paid from the same pool of money that we were all paying into.... or something.

Let's go a step beyond that.  What makes a job a job?  There are a few reasons why I strongly believe that government jobs are jobs.... for one thing, people are working and getting paid... that, to me, is a job.  But that's the simplistic view that we started with.  Let's go further.  When the economy isn't going so well, government has a responsibility to keep things going and to spend more than it's taking in through taxes.  A lot of hay has been made in the last 8 years about how when families lose their income they have to reduce their spending and therefore government should be the same way.  What those who proclaim this don't understand is that government is a different type of entity from a family or a corporation.  A government has the ability to be in debt perpetually because the rate is so low.  It has the spending power to keep cash flowing, even in bad times.  Government can give people jobs when corporations are forced to downsize because it's nowhere near a corporations responsibility to ensure the proper running of a country's economy (corporate responsibilities are to their shareholders and making a profit).  So, what does a forward thinking government do when times are bad?  Keep the flow of cash going into the economy so that people employed by the government keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which means those other people can keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which... you get the idea.  Keep the economy from exponentially shutting down and you stand a chance.  Shut down on government jobs and the reversal of a downward spiral is difficult and the improvement of an economy, once the downward spiral is stopped, is equally difficult.  Once the economy is on good standing, you start paying off government debt and setting aside some money to offset small downturns.

So how does all this work into the idea that jobs coming from taxes aren't really economically benefitting jobs?  Well, let's consider that all jobs are created from people giving an entity money for services and/or products and that entity creating a job to provide those services and/or products.  Where does a corporation get the money to pay their employees?  Where does the government get the money to pay theirs?  In both cases, it's from people.  Government does create jobs.  Government, in fact, has a responsibility to create and maintain jobs when other entities are cutting them.  Sure, a government can't maintain jobs for a prolonged period of time in the absence of other entities providing jobs, but that's the case for any single entity.  Imagine, if you will, that Ford Motors was the only company left, would they be able to maintain jobs?  Of course not.  So we need a mix of many industries, whether they be corporate or government.... and each industry can create jobs.

Government does create jobs.  Don't let anybody tell you otherwise... and if they do, ask them what people do with all that free time in China and North Korea.  Sure these countries have a lot to improve upon, but they definitively have jobs....

Government does create jobs.

2014 MA Candidates for Governor

O.k., I apologize to anybody that thinks a third party candidate is the way to go but you're essentially voting for the greater of two evils by voting for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican... it's the truth and you need to accept it.  When instant runoff elections are implemented, then voting for a third party candidate won't be voting for the candidate you would least like to see if office, or when the election isn't close, like it is this year.

Alright, so, let's discuss the 2 actual candidates for Governor this year: Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker.

Say what you will, and I can say a lot about both, there are in fact issues that each has indicated their stances on and we should probably vote for them based on those stances.

• Taxes
• Charlie Baker has proclaimed no new taxes.  Congrats, you're the first Republican to take that vow.  This means, however, that we're going to see cuts and/or a crumbling of resources (such as state highways, the MBTA, schools).  No new taxes, by the way, also includes the reversal of the recent law that Question 1 would override: the updating of the gas tax based on inflation.  This is an automatic increase in taxes, yes, but it's not an increase in relation to everything else.... in fact, the whole point is to keep the gas tax up to date with everything else rather than eroding away.  See, most taxes are based on a percentage of something, rather than strictly a dollar amount per quantity of a thing consumed.  Our income tax is a percentage of our income, sales tax is a percentage of the cost of your purchase... the gas tax doesn't change based on the cost of your purchase but rather is a fixed amount based on the amount of gas you're buying.  If it were a percentage of the cost of the gas, that would be a different story and it would automatically increase over time with the increasing cost of gas (or decrease with a decrease in the cost of gas).  For more thoughts on Question 1, please consider reading my post on it.
• Martha Coakley is somewhat reticent to say she's in favor of new taxes, but she's in support of the new gas tax law and has indicated that new taxes would most likely lean more toward the higher income residents... similar to a graduated tax.  Graduated taxes are great for lower and middle incomes and are what made this country great for most of the 20th century.  The degradation of the Federal graduated income tax can be tied to the blowing up of the difference in income between the top 1% and the lower 99%.
• Bottle Bill... simply put...
• Baker's against it because Business
• Coakley's in favor because it encourages recycling (currently 80% of deposit bottles are recycled vs 23% of non-deposit) and increases revenue to the state.
• (For a more comprehensive review of Question 2, please consider reading my post on it)
• Sick time for all 
• Baker's against question 4 because Business
• Coakley's in favor because Workers Rights (and disputes the risk to business)
• (For a more comprehensive review of Question 4, please consider reading my post on it.)
• Schools
• Baker's in favor of charter schools... to the detriment of public schools
• Coakley's position is somewhat less exact and she seems to be doing a balancing act to attract more people (though it's been turning people off).  She claims to be in favor of some balance between charter schools and improving public schools.
• Essentially, if you're in favor of charter schools and all other things don't matter to you, vote Baker, but if you're not as keen to rely on charter schools, vote Coakley

My suggestion?  I know she may not be your top pick of everybody on the ballot, but vote Coakley.  She may not be my kind of Democrat but she's definitely not as bad as Baker.  One last thing to point out: Do you like how the state has been managed in the last 8 years?  Deval Patrick is far to the left of both Coakley and Baker, so there's absolutely no harm in having a Democrat in the Governor's office while having Democrats in power in the House and Senate, especially not one closer to the center than Patrick.

To summarize my posts in the last couple weeks:

Governor: Vote Coakley

Question 1: Vote No

Question 2: Vote Yes

Question 3: Vote Yes

Question 4: Vote Yes

2014 MA Ballot Questions: Question 1 - Should We Re-Introduce Shrinking Our Gas Tax

O.k., this is really what this question is about: The law has been updated to increase the gas tax along with CPI, aka, as consumer goods prices increase, so will the gas tax.  So, instead of having the gas tax shrink in comparison to real dollars, the gas tax will keep up with real dollars, by one standard.  A vote in favor of this question would stop this linkage and would return the gas tax to not being linked to anything and therefore lose its power every year, reducing its ability to keep up with the real cost to maintain roads and all other efforts the gas tax is there to assist.

So, why would anybody be in favor of screwing over our crumbling infrastructure?  I honestly can't say.  They say it's because they don't want to have taxation without representation... but the increase in this tax would be similar to the increase in your income tax as you increase how much you make.  Don't understand how that could be?  The gas tax is not based on the price of gas, it's a certain amount per gallon (currently 24 cents per gallon).  If the price of a gallon of gas goes up, the tax on that same gallon doesn't increase.  The general concept in our economy is that worker's compensation will increase as costs increase... at least that's what is supposed to happen when the system works well.

Let's try this a different way.  Would it make sense if year-after-year, your office made more money off your work, but your pay didn't increase?  How about if someone making 150,000 a year got a raise and started making 200,000 but their taxes didn't increase?  So, why does it make sense that when gas taxes increase from $2.00 to $4.00 per gallon, that the tax on that same gallon remains 24 cents?

I understand that gas is expensive, I own a car and drive to work every day.  But it just makes sense that we should have the gas tax increase with some form of tracking the real dollar, CPI being one of those methods.

One other thing to keep in mind, we in the US have not been maintaining our infrastructure.  A crumbling infrastructure is no good to anybody.  Catching up will require more than just a small effort and the gas tax isn't going to do it alone... but at least we can maintain this source, even if we're not willing to do all that it will take.

Please vote NO on Question 1.

A New Hope for Republicans

Recent events give me hope for the Republican Party.  I'm not talking about hope that Democrats will win all upcoming elections or that Republicans will see things my way.  I'm talking about an opposition force to the Democrats that is at least reasonable and doesn't attempt things such as holding the government hostage.

Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats recently passed a budget.  Yes a budget, not a continuing resolution, an actual budget.  The next step is to pass the omnibus bill, a large bill combining many spending bills into one.  The omnibus bill is how we actually spend the money.  I'll be watching anxiously to see if the moderate Republicans can maintain their self-governance and actually pass the omnibus.  This could be the turn in the tide that has been leading us toward an inability of Congress to get anything done.

I know I'm further left, politically, than just about anybody in Congress, and certainly further Left than any Republican there, but this gives me hope.  It's more important to me to take small steps in the right direction and keeping the government functioning than it is that the Democrats win big in small spurts.  Democrats need Republicans to help keep them in line and pushing forward.  What Democrats don't need is an opposition party set in stone to oppose anything Democrats put forth simply because it was put forth by Democrats.  That this latter path seems to be what the Republicans are moving away from now.  Not all Republicans are moving away from it, however, but the ones that are give me hope for the future.  Here's to you, mainstream Republicans, may you persevere and not be beaten by another wave of Tea Party candidates.

"Compromise" and the Tea Party

"Compromise!"  This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public.  That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago.  They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law. 

So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise?  They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right.  Yep, that's compromise.  Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise.  It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation."  The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented.  The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion.  Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time.  I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior.  So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use. 

O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law.  Too little too late in my opinion.  I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option.  Enough is enough.  While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog.  And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.

Republicans and Democrats switched places, deal with it

The past week saw the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, one of the great events of the civil rights push of the 1960s.  I saw a Facebook meme about how the Republicans were the ones that were fighting for African American rights and Democrats were the ones arguing against them.  The meme suggested that Democrats are wrong when they attack Republicans on racism grounds.

This is an interesting argument.  What it doesn't take into account is that the Democrats and Republicans essentially switched sides on this issue in the early 1900's.  They also switched strongholds.  Democrats used to be stronger in the South and Republicans in the North.  Then in the early to mid 1900's, that flipped too.

These days, Republican establishment and the Tea Party trend toward being racist and Democrats tend to be liberal.  For evidence, all you have to do is look at the recent elections, the comments made by various Republican candidates, and the attendance of the 50th anniversary celebration in D.C.  No Republican leader (and there were more than a few, including every member of Congress) came to the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington.  Yep, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada.  "Well, there probably weren't that many speakers, right?"  Hm, how does approximately 35 speakers, including 3 Presidents (all Democrats) sound?

Well, surely that's just because of scheduling conflicts.  I wonder if we can find any other examples of the leaders of the Republican party being racist.  Surprisingly, I can.  Here's a couple interesting articles on this exact topic that I definitely suggest you read:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/56437/it-s-bizarre-and-ridiculous-how-racist-republicans-are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/correcting-rand-paul-on-t_b_3064617.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/legendary-gop-strategist-_b_2132029.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/tea-partiers-battle-racis_b_564211.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225346/-Yes-The-Republican-Party-Is-Racist#

Seriously, though, look at Congress and tell me there's proper Republican representation by minorities.  Look at what was said in response to Obama getting nominated and then elected.  Look at the fact that Congress reviewed studies and confirmed that various Republican controlled states still need to be overseen when it comes to voting laws and redistricting (yes, the Supreme Court said the states don't need to be watched, but they said that the reason was because Congress hadn't changed the laws enough.... so, something hasn't been resolved and you stop trying to resolve it?)

I'm not saying Republicans are racist, I'm just saying their leaders are, both those in government as well as those in the media.  O.k., I'm also saying that a vast majority of the more socially conservative Republicans are too ;-)

"tighten the belt" ... reverse the coin and see what it says

Alright, back to taxes and the conservative statement that in these times of need, government shouldn't borrow and should act like every family does and tighten its belt.  I mentioned in my November 22nd post how ridiculous this statement is based on just the statement's premise and the role of government, but I'd like to investigate the opposite side of the statement.

If in times of need, government should tighten its belt just like families do, what happens in good times?  I actually happen to agree with this side of the coin.  Conservatives suggest that we should lower tax rates when times are good... should workers therefore tell their employers "hey, I can pay all my bills and still have some left over, you should pay me less?"  That's a horrible idea, right?  I completely agree.

In point of fact, in good times, families should invest in their future.  For one thing, you want to invest for college, retirement, a new house, but in addition to those things, families should build up some savings so they are at least a little prepared for emergencies.  The same is true for governments.  Admittedly, they don't have children to put through college or have to retire, but they sometimes have to buy new buildings and vehicles and build infrastructure.  These are investments governments have to make from time to time.  In addition, governments should prepare for economic downturns by building a rainy day fund.

Massachusetts has a rainy day fund that has cushioned the blow of the recent recession, but the problem for Massachusetts is that the residents decided to lower taxes in good economic times instead of recognizing that those good times would not last forever and that we should plan for the future.  In my last post, I commented that we did this and that we should restore our tax rates to pre-2000 levels (in 2012 MA tax rates are 5.3%, in 1999 they were 5.95%).

When times are average, we should make small investments in our future, just as families do.  When times are good, we should make larger investments in our future.  And when times are bad, we should use some of those investments in order to maintain services government provides to people, and even increase some.  We should not cut taxes just because we are bringing in more money than we're spending, just as we shouldn't raise taxes in bad times just because we can't fund everything out of the current tax income.  There must be a balance where we invest when we can and use those investments when we can't pay for everything with current tax income.

Public Transportation in Massachusetts

Year after year, I hear that the MBTA is running a deficit... like that's a bad thing.  First of all, keep in mind this is a government entity, not a for-profit business or even a non-profit organization.  The purpose of this entity is not to make money or provide a service at no cost to anybody that doesn't use it.  The purpose of government is to provide for the common welfare, and it's a good thing for us to have people have access to public transportation.... let's go into some of the reasons why:

1. Environmental: It's true, to some extent, that public transportation is better for the environment than everybody using cars to get everywhere.  I say "to some extent" here because it depends on how many people are using it.  Definitely, when the busses and trains are crowded, it is much more efficient at people-moving, but what about when the bus is less than 1/5 full?  So, rush-hour is definitely better for the environment and off-peak hours are sometimes worse.  So this reason isn't as strong as advocates might claim, but it's still strong.  Nevertheless, the findings from this claim would suggest that we should only have public transportation at busy times.... but that's only thinking from an environmental perspective, and there's more to public transportation than just environmental benefits.
2. Help thy neighbor: Public transportation isn't super cheap anymore, but it's certainly cheaper than some alternative forms of transportation, so it can be seen as a common good in so far as it allows us to more cheaply move about.... but I would suggest this too is not the biggest reason to be in favor of public transportation.
3. Traffic congestion and parking: Now we're talking!  It's all well and good to say that public transportation is good for everybody and it's instinctual to me to believe so, but for the optimal explanation to someone who's not interested in being nice to people and worried about spending tax dollars on things, here's the big explanation.  As you replace cars on streets with people walking/biking/being driven to public transportation, you reduce traffic and you reduce the amount of parking spaces you need everywhere.  When I think about people from Boston or Cambridge coming to Davis Sq. for the evening, I'm very thankful that not everybody has to park there and that many people come by bus or train.  It's worth a little of my money to help this take place, even if I'm not using the public transportation myself.

Alright, so, we've established that having public transportation is in the public's interest, next up, the financing.

First off, we have a general financing problem.  It's not the T's fault that we spent a ton on the Big Dig.  It's not the T's fault that we reduced our tax rates in MA.  Don't burden the T with the debt.  Instead, I would suggest we wipe the slate clean and have all debt for state agencies be consolidated into a general state debt.  Start fresh so we can plan properly and respectfully according to the agencies' needs and our interest in the agencies' support of our communities.

Secondly, we shouldn't use a tax on gas to pay for an agency that is supposed to reduce our need for gas.  That's just ridiculousness.  The budget for the MBTA should come out of the general budget and should not fluctuate with how much people drive.  This would further stabilize the agency, again assisting with being able to make planning possible.

One last item, which I'm sure I'll go into more detail later: Massachusetts tax rates are too damn low.  We, yes we since it was a ballot measure, cut our state income tax in 1999.  The plan was to reduce it from 5.95% (pre-2000) to 5%.  We stopped the decreasing in 2002 until tax income met pre-set amounts at which point we would decrease it by .05% per year.  Let's think about this for a moment.  Why did we stop the reduction in the tax rate in 2002?  Because the US economy faultered.  In point of fact, the US economy was going through a pretty good period in the 1990's.  Between 1992 and 2000, we had a GDP percentage increase of 5% or more 3 times as often as between 2000 and 2008, and we haven't even reached 5% since mid-2006.  So, since we were in time of prosperity, it makes sense that we would be bringing in enough taxes to pay our bills, but we should be using those times to build up our rainy day fund for times like we've been going through every since, where GDP growth has been minimal if any.  It should come as no surprise to anybody that we've been cutting our budget constantly for the last decade, and this is the reason, we saw some good growth years and thought they were average and therefore decided we could shrink our tax rate when in fact we should have been investing more and preparing for average and even lower than average years.  My suggestion, therefore, is that the income tax should be raised back up.

The Role of Government

There's been a lot of talk lately of balancing the budget.  This should lead to a discussion of the role of government, but it hasn't.  Instead it has led to a lot of people saying that the Government should handle its budget the same way that a family or a business would.  My answer to this is that it is the reverse way and these people haven't considered the role of government in our society at all.  I would contend that government should spend more than it takes in when the economy is faltering and reduce its debt in times when the economy is booming and to reach this conclusion, there are a number of factors, each having to do with the role of government, so let's discuss that role:

~Protect its Citizens from External Forces~
This task does not change based on the economy.  Military spending is not necessarily uneffected by the economy but the requirement for a military to be present to defend us remains unchanged and the amount of money required to continue the required defense is unchanged.  As a result, in relation to the economy, the government is spending more in bad times and less in good times, though the exact dollar amount does not change except as a result of

~Provide for the Common Welfare~
This can be split into multiple parts, and most require not simply sustained funding in bad economic times, but enhanced funding:

• Safety - To some degree, you might think that fire fighters and police do not need to have increased funding in poor economic times, fires don't increase in commonality and intensity because people don't have jobs.  On the other hand, crime tends to increase, so maybe a few more police officers might not be a bad thing.  On the whole though, it seems like funding for safety doesn't need to be increased, but it certainly shouldn't be decreased in poor economic times.
• Health - People without jobs tend not to have healthcare, so public funding for health related services is in higher demand in a recession than when we're seeing low unemployment.
• Parks and Recreation - This is an interesting one.  Parks don't need more service when people don't have jobs, but there is a need to help keep teens being productive rather than disruptive.  Public recreation services play a role in this, as do non-profit and for-profit organizations such as day-care or camps, but I would suggest that increased funding is essential here.
• Protection of the General Welfare - And by this, I mean protection of people against starvation and cold and the like.  This is where food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and social security come in.  This portion of the budget, by definition, increases in poor economic times.  There is also an argument to be made that by providing some capital to those who are not making money on their own is good for the economy because it increases demand, or at least keeps it from dropping as drastically as it might otherwise.
• Economic promotion - Here's the thing that most people forget.  Promotion of the national economy is a big part of what the Government does.  It's why we have public training programs and build roads and bridges.  Here's the key... this one, this one right here is the biggest reason why we should expect increased funding in poor economic times.  In these times, we can expect companies to shrink their work force as profits decline.  These newly unemployed citizens will decrease demand, even if they get some level of help from the government, and because of this diminished demand, companies' profits will fall.  Because companies' profits are shrinking, they'll shrink their workforce.  See a pattern here?  Corporations won't change this cycle on their own.  Instead, it is the government's role in recessions and depressions to prop up the economy a bit by hiring more people, which then has a similar reverse cyclical force (more people are working->more demand->people hired to supply for that demand).  This principle of creating more demand than you're creating supply is the foundation of trickle down economics.  Simple economics (the kind you learn in MacroEconomics or Economics 101) state that if a government spends more than it takes in, it will improve demand because citizens will have more money to spend.  

The problem is that trickle-down economics, or decreasing tax rates in general, doesn't work.  We have a century of experience to prove this.  There's a reason it doesn't work, which is pretty easy to figure out.  The rich in our current economic situation don't need much that they aren't already purchasing.  By increasing their ability to consume, you don't get as much actual consumption for every dollar provided.  By contrast, if you spend that same amount on government programs, putting people to work, building railroads or highways for instance, increases demand dramatically.  There's also the added benefit that you're building infrastructure (or repairing it) which is needed for sustained growth and national wellbeing.

But, surely government shouldn't be deficit spending when families and businesses can't afford to.  Surely government must play by the same rules.  You're forgetting that government is not a business nor a person.  Government is specifically there to help people and businesses.  As a result, government is in a unique position to be able to deficit spend to prop up people and businesses and general demand for services.  If government acts as a business, the cycle of recession just increases in intensity.  Instead, government SHOULD deficit spend, and do so to a dramatic extent, to offset the loss in demand for services created by businesses shrinking and family budgets disappearing.  This doesn't mean we're creating a class of citizens who will never work, it means that we're preventing the economy from falling further into depression so that we will rebound and have more jobs so people have the opportunity to work instead of being forced not to because there are no jobs.  By firing teachers and canceling/postponing public works projects, we're just hurting ourselves.  By putting public works projects front and center and not firing teachers and other public servants, we're not only stabilizing the economy but improving our national situation.

Yes, the debt is a problem, but a flailing economy won't be able to sustain a smaller debt.  Instead, a robust economy must be created so that when we're doing well, we can begin decreasing the debt.  This  was a lesson we learned under Clinton and failed to understand under W. Bush.

Corporations are not people, and governments are not corporations or families.  Let's end the simplification that would suggest that all entities are the same, because simply put, they're not.