Archive for April, 2011

First Garden Porn of 2011!

Friday, April 29th, 2011

Things are growing. Things are being planted. I’m starting more from seed this year than I have in previous years. We’ll see how that goes. As always, click any picture to embiggen.


What will soon be strawberries! I love perennials.


The strawberry patch, along with a couple of tomato seedlings that got transplanted today.


The peas and radishes… soon I’m going to have to put up a taller trellis for the peas.


The radishes are even starting to climb out of the ground… are they supposed to do that? But it looks really pretty…


The Virgin Mary and a little wire sculpture of a garden gnome made for me by one of my priests (tough to see in this photo) are keeping a close eye on the arugula, which will need to be thinned out soon.

Taxes, Part II: A Righteous Rant

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

I know I promised an entry about taxation without representation—and I promise I’m getting to it—but this made my blood boil and I had to write about it.

This paragraph in particular enraged me:

John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.

Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.

This guy gets his day-to-day money by borrowing against his assets at a ridiculously low rate. Which means that according to the IRS, he made no money last year… despite being $9 billion richer now than he was in 2008.

And the worse part for those of us who pay our fair share is that even if he was paying taxes on all $9 billion of his income, it would have been at a rate of 15%, because people like him make their money through “capital gains” rather than through wages like the rest of us peons.

Think about that for a second. Think about the fact that the government almost shut down over what ended up being about $11 billion in actual cuts. If John Paulson had paid the capital gains rate, he alone would have put $1.35 billion in the treasury—a good 10% of that, by himself. If he were paying the actual marginal tax rate that wage-earners over $373,000 pay—that’s 35%—that would have been $3.15 billion more in tax revenues from him alone.

Now how many John Paulsons do you think there are in this country? How many more hedge fund managers who are paying the 15% rate—which is well lower than the average person pays, particularly when you take the 12% payroll tax into account—do you think there are in this country?

And how the hell can Republicans grouse about how the rich are overtaxed when a guy who made $9 billion over the last two years hasn’t paid one penny of tax? How hollow, how empty, how laughable does this make the Republicans’ fear-mongering about the deficit?

Now, I don’t entirely blame John Paulson for paying $0 in taxes. I won’t deny that I take advantage of every possible legal opportunity to lower my tax burden too. If I can legally deduct it, I deduct it. That’s how the game works. He’s doing what the law allows him to do.

But I do blame him, and his fellow wealthy-class ilk, for creating a system whereby they get to weasel out of paying their fair share by buying members of Congress to do their bidding.

Remember, your and my tax cuts were held hostage so that people like John Paulson—who weren’t going to pay their damn taxes anyway—would be able to keep their theoretical tax cuts. We real Americans have been told throughout this recession that we’d have to “tighten our belts” and “make do with less” in jobs, in benefits, in federal programs to help the poor and elderly, in states being able to pay teachers and fund schools… and by God we can’t raise taxes in a recession!

So instead of letting taxes on the wealthy go back to where they were under Bill Clinton—and the ’90s certainly weren’t a bad time to be wealthy, as anyone who was wealthy then will undoubtedly tell you—the cost of the tax cuts that helped cash-strapped working parents buy school supplies for their kids or that helped a few more working families go on a little vacation this year and stand on the left side of the DC Metro escalators was that rich people like John Paulson would get their tax break too.

They’re job creators! They shouldn’t have to share in the sacrifice! So here we’re left like saps holding the bag on the snipe hunt while the “job creators” hoard our nation’s wealth and find more excuses to lay off working Americans.

And why did this work? Because each and every member of one party, and far too large a proportion of the other, was put in office by the wealthy and powerful like John Paulson to do the bidding of the wealthy and powerful like John Paulson. “Of the people, for the people, by the people” my ass… when someone like John Paulson can buy a Congressional race using the change he digs out from between his couch cushions, the voice of “the people” is never heard in the halls of Congress.

Is there any better exemplar of the moral bankruptcy of our nation than John Paulson? A hedge-fund manager who has produced nothing, who has created nothing of value. He’s moved some people’s money around and made $9 billion for his effort. How has he made the country a better place? How has he improved our nation’s institutions, its industry, its culture, its people? The answer is that he hasn’t… and he hasn’t even contributed to our national treasury with his taxes!

And yet here we are cutting education funding, laying off teachers and firefighters, telling the poor that they can go elsewhere for heating assistance and telling the parents of hungry and sick children that funding for WIC and S-CHIP isn’t going to be there for them. Here we are eliminating collective bargaining rights for police officers and teachers, telling them that they’re going to be paid less and have less job security, because the state’s out of money. Here we are cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs from the government over the next couple of years because the federal government is supposedly broke.

And yet we have the gall to call ourselves a “Christian nation.” What’s Christian about this? What’s moral about this? What’s in any way acceptable about this? Nothing.

Working Americans are being screwed left and right, by their government and by their employers (if they’re lucky enough to have them), because “we don’t have the money.” We don’t have the money for schools or health care or benefits or a pension or to keep Medicare solvent.

Bullcrap. We do have the money. We have the money to give health care to every man, woman, and child in this country, to send every child in this country to a good public school with a teacher who’s paid enough not to have to work a second job just to make ends meet, to have a mass-transit system that’s the envy of the world, to go from a fossil-fuel based economy to a green economy.

We do have the money. It’s sitting in John Paulson’s brokerage account, and the brokerage accounts of a thousand other John Paulsons. When will we the people realize this, and demand that our leaders ask the John Paulsons in America to pay their fair share?

Taxes, Part I: The Choices Before Us

Sunday, April 17th, 2011

Tomorrow, I’m going to file and pay my 2010 income tax. (Yes, I know, right under the wire… but that’s why the wire exists, no?) I’m obviously not going to give the particulars out to random people on the internet, but it should suffice to say that I’m paying more than $0.

…which means that even though I took home a livable but not extravagant income last year, I will pay more in taxes than Bank of America and General Electric combined.

And if the wealthy people who run those companies take advantage of the same loopholes multibillionaire Warren Buffet uses to pay less proportionally in taxes than his secretary, odds are pretty good that I’ll be paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than BofA and GE’s CEO and Board of Directors too.

And the Republican budget, which just passed the House, would have me pay even more of my income in taxes—to say nothing of the costs the Republican Party wants me to pay when my parents, who are in their fifties and thus would see their Medicare demolished by the GOP’s budget plan, retire and inevitably need medical attention, if they don’t have the money to pay out of pocket for it. All so that GE, Bank of America, and their CEOs and Boards of Directors can pay even less in income taxes.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to pay my taxes. Taxes are the price I pay for living in a country with good public schools, medical insurance for the poor and elderly, and food stamps and unemployment insurance for folks who need it. (They’re also the price I pay for two pointless wars, an excessive and wasteful military-industrial complex, and subsidies to oil and gas companies for polluting our air, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

But it does seem a bit unfair to me that because I can’t shelter my income in the Cayman Islands, get my employer to pay me in the kind of income that falls under capital gains taxes, or pay an accountant year-round to find me loophole after loophole, I’m paying a more substantial percentage of my income in taxes than GE, Bank of America, and their CEOs and Boards of Directors.

And it also seems a bit unfair to me that while far too many middle-class folks like me worry about job security and our health insurance costs, while they look down the barrel of longer hours and benefit cuts just to keep their jobs, and while the labor movement is decimated in places like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida because “we can’t afford it,” and while we in the middle class are being asked by the wealthy (through the politicians and media companies they own) to “share in the sacrifice” of the economic downturn — GE, Bank of America, and their CEOs and Boards of Directors have yet to sacrifice anything.

In fact, they managed to stack the legislative deck such that the cost of a few tax breaks for folks like me—which would mean that many of my friends could buy school supplies for their kids or take a family trip this year—was the simultaneous extension of their tax cuts, the very cuts that brought on this budget mess to begin with. (Can you believe it was only just over ten short years ago when Bill Clinton left office with record surpluses?)

It seems to me that the rhetoric we’re seeing from the wealthy and from the politicians and media companies they own—statements like “we’re broke” or “we just don’t have the money” or “it’s time to tighten our belts”—aren’t telling the whole story, which is that every budget is a choice.

The revenue for next year’s budget isn’t set in stone; we have a choice between giving rich people more of the nation’s money or cutting vital services that poor people, children, disabled people, and the elderly need to survive, much less thrive.

Defense expenditures for next year’s budget aren’t set in stone; we have a choice between investing our money in more guns and bombs, or investing in things that help the people of the global south develop and build their own sustainable economies.

So what do we do to change the conversation, so that these choices are made clear?

How can we confront our media and our political leaders with the reality that every penny of the nation’s wealth that is given to the rich in the form of more tax cuts is another loaf of bread, another rent check or heating bill or electric bill, another needed immunization, stolen away from those who are in need?

I’m open to ideas.

(Tomorrow, Part II: The continued injustice of taxation without representation.)

Accountability for “Job Creators”

Saturday, April 9th, 2011

As I was watching John Boehner’s brief statement about the deal to keep the government going by screwing the poor and elderly out of more of the things they need to survive, I was struck by one of his statements—that this budget will “help create a better environment for job creators in our country.”

“Job creators” is, of course, Republican-speak for “the wealthy.” They’re not greedy people hoarding the nation’s resources and wealth, they’re job creators who we of course need to create our jobs!

In their rhetoric about education, Republicans like to harp on “accountability.” Teachers need to be accountable for raising their students’ standardized test scores (even if the students don’t actually learn anything useful), or they should be fired. Schools need to be accountable for raising their students’ standardized test scores (even if those tests don’t actually measure learning), or they should be closed and replaced with for-profit charter schools. Accountability is presented as the most important thing for these crucial edifices of our society.

So, as I watched Boehner not talk about the families who would starve because their food stamps are being cut, or the children who wouldn’t get the Head Start early childhood education that could help them thrive in school, but instead talk about the “job creators,” I got to thinking:

Why aren’t the “job creators” being held accountable?

If their true function in our society is to “create jobs,” then shouldn’t they face some kind of penalty when they fail to do what we’re relying on them to do?

So here is my proposal: The Job Creation Accountability Act.

Economists consider “full employment” to be somewhere around 5-6%—where just about everyone who wants a job can find one. That would be how we would define the “job creators’” success. If the Department of Labor’s U6 rate—which, unlike the U3 rate, also counts people who’ve given up looking for work and people who are underemployed—is 8% (we’re being generous here, allowing for employment as a lagging economic indicator), then the “job creators” are doing well.

But here’s the accountability: If the average U6 is above 8% for a given calendar year, the income tax rate for top earners (both wage earners and capital gains) is indexed to the unemployment rate. (We create a new tax bracket for those making more than $500,000, in order to not penalize high-earning working professionals like doctors and lawyers.) At 8% unemployment, let’s put the tax rate for the highest bracket at 30%; let’s give them a little tax cut from the current rate for keeping everyone employed.

For every 1% increase in U6 above 8%, the marginal tax rate on the top bracket increases by 4.5%. And the money from the unemployment-indexed taxes goes to a federal job creation program that employs people by building infrastructure projects we need, like maintaining our roads and bridges, building high-speed rail, and building smart electric grids.

Here’s how it would break down:

U6 Unemployment Rate Tax rate for all income above $500k+
8% 30%
9% 34.5%
10% 39%
11% 43.5%
12% 48%
13% 52.5%
14% 57%
15% 61.5%
16% 66%
17% 70.5%
18% 75%
19% 79.5%
20% 84%

(The shaded percentage is where U6 is currently, according to this chart)

This would hold “job creators” accountable: If you’re performing your function in our economy and creating jobs, your taxes will be low. If you’re not performing your function, your taxes will be high so your wealth “creates jobs” in other ways.

I don’t think this would be a hard sell to the American people, particularly if our Democrats actually started talking about the massive wealth inequality in our nation and pointing out to regular Americans that our country isn’t broke—we’re just letting the very few hang on to most of our nation’s wealth, instead of ensuring that it benefits everyone.

So it’s time for some accountability: If the reason we keep giving the wealthy tax cuts is in the hopes that someday they’ll “create jobs” for everyone, then it’s about time we demand that they keep up their end of the bargain—and hold them accountable if they don’t.

This is the “liberal” media?

Friday, April 8th, 2011

Via TPM, a teaser for an upcoming segment on CNN that encapsulates everything that is wrong with our contemporary “news” media:

“Donald Trump says Obama wasn’t born here. We’ll show you the evidence, and let you decide.”

No. This isn’t something for us to “decide.” It isn’t something up for debate, and it’s not a situation where rational people can disagree. It is a matter of established fact. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and zero evidence that he wasn’t.

In other words, there are two positions, but with different values and not remotely deserving of the same amount of respect: You can either be right and say that it is an established fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii, or you can be wrong and say anything other than that.

If we had a real news media interested in reporting truth, the proper teaser would be:

“Donald Trump says Obama wasn’t born here. We’ll ask our panel of experts, drawn from academia and well-respected in their respective disciplines, why Trump can get away with saying such a transparently false thing and still be taken seriously as a public figure, and what the continual questioning of President Obama’s birthplace says about the presence of racism in America, after this break.”

A man can dream, I suppose…

TPM: “Can Boehner Really Deliver?”

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

From Josh Marshall at TPM:

There’s a difference between being a negotiator and having the authority to negotiate, and I’m starting to wonder if Speaker Boehner has full negotiating authority from the House GOP conference. [...]

A negotiator with limited negotiating authority can present his side’s case and listen to the other side’s. He can dicker some and argue back and forth. But when push comes to shove, that kind of negotiator is basically a messenger, not a principal — and that makes it difficult to do get a deal done.

It can lead to what we’re seeing here: frequent short negotiating sessions that are interrupted so that the negotiator on a short leash can confer with his principals, pass on the latest message and devise a response.

This is John Boehner’s moment: Will he be a leader and statesman and use his bully pulpit to twist arms and get his caucus in line behind a reasonable compromise, or will he continue to be the Tea Party’s puppet, enacting their desire to bring government down at all costs?

Eleanor Holmes Norton does DC’s citizens proud.

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton—the elected representative from the District of Columbia who, in a crime against democracy, does not get a vote despite representing 600,000 taxpaying American citizens in the nation’s capital—is fired up.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Upset Over Treatment of DC During Shutdown Resolution Talks: MyFoxDC.com

“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.

“It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell,” Norton continued after she said a rider attached to a bill that could offer resolution prevented D.C. government from spending its own tax dollars on funds for abortions for low income women.

“If these Republicans insist that, if they don’t get the whole pie, they’ll take the whole country down with them,” she continued, “then we have got to make them pay the price.”

A government shutdown will be a disaster for DC, leaving a sizable percentage of our citizens out of work and without pay, potentially leaving some without the means to pay rent, buy groceries, or get around.

It will also impact the daily lives of those of us who don’t work for the federal government; if the government shuts down, DC will be prohibited by law from spending our own city funds to pick up trash, keep libraries and the DMV open, or enforce parking regulations.

Those in the 50 enfranchised states will still be able to get a new driver’s license on Monday if the federal government shuts down; only the citizens of DC are subject to the indignity of a government that has to have Congress’s permission to license its own citizens to drive or keep its own libraries open.

Additionally, if a budget passes with Republicans’ narrow social-agenda riders attached, the people of DC will still suffer—since unlike those in the 50 enfranchised states, Congress feels that it has the right to tyrannically override our own elected city government and tell us how to spend our own city’s money. Rep. Norton lays it out—telling DC that we can’t spend our own city money on abortions for low-income women is a travesty.

Eleanor Holmes Norton is right: If Congress is bound and determined to infringe on our rights even further, the people of DC need to tell Congress to go straight to hell.

We need more Eleanor Holmes Nortons in Congress—people who are willing to call the Republicans out on their bullshit and tell it like it is, leaders who are fired up and pissed off about the way Republicans want to destroy this country in order to enrich the very few and enact a narrow-minded social agenda.

But we also need to fight to give this Eleanor Holmes Norton—who, I’ll remind you, represents 600,000 taxpaying American citizens living in Congress’s own backyard—the vote in Congress she, and the people of the District of Columbia, are entitled to as Americans.

And we need to fight to ensure that she is joined in Congress by two Senators representing the STATE of the District of Columbia, and that the people of DC’s right to govern our own affairs isn’t subject to the meddling of any Congress with a social agenda.

Email Rep. Norton and thank her for her message here. Tell her you stand with her and that the people of this country have her back.

And call, email, and write your Representative and Senator and make it clear: We expect action on DC statehood. It is unconscionable that 600,000 American citizens living in Congress’s own backyard are relegated to second-class status. This needs to change now.

The Hypocrisy of the Christian Right*

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

The sheer hypocrisy of David Barton and his Dominionist ilk:

It says the Lord’s house is going to be established on top of the mountains and these are the seven mountains. If you’re going to establish God’s kingdom, you’ve got to have these seven mountains and again that’s family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government.

Now that’s what we believed all along is you got to get involved in this stuff. Jesus said “you occupy ’til I come.” We don’t care when he comes, that’s up to him. What we’re supposed to do is take the culture in the meantime and you got to get involved in these seven areas.

And these are the same people who keep whipping up mindless fears of Muslim Americans supposedly wanting to implement Sharia Law in places like Oklahoma and Alabama.

And to justify (needless) bans on Sharia, they explicitly suggest (ridiculously) that Muslims all want a theocracy, because of course a theocracy that oppresses women, LGBT people, and religious minorities is bad…

…but only when brown people do it. When white Christians want to oppress women, LGBT people, and religious minorities, and take away the basic protections for the poor that are present in Sharia Law (yes, I said it: fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, bad as it is, is more humane than Reconstructionist/Dominionist Christian theocracy), it is of course God’s plan for America.

Such hypocrisy should be rejected by all clear-thinking democratic citizens, and such oppression and hate should be rejected by all clear-thinking religious people.

* Alternative titles: The Wetness of Water, the Catholicism of the Pope, the Crapped-in Status of Woods with Bears

New Baseball Rule #2

Monday, April 4th, 2011

Another proposed new baseball rule, this one inspired by the four ceremonial “first pitches” (wouldn’t they be the ceremonial first, second, third, and fourth pitches?) at the Nationals’ opener:

Any “ceremonial first pitch” delivered by someone greater than 18 years and less than 75 years of age must be delivered as the first pitch of the actual game, to a live batter, and the results of the pitch will count in the game. The ceremonial first pitch may be delivered by someone not on the team’s 25-man roster, and the pitch will not count toward the statistics of the game’s starting pitcher; additionally, the game’s starting pitcher may accompany the deliverer of the ceremonial first pitch to the mound in order to field any balls in play that may result from the pitch. If any ceremonial pitch fails to reach home plate on the fly, it shall count as a ball. Only one “ceremonial first pitch” can be delivered in any game; subsequent ceremonial pitches shall be designated the “ceremonial second pitch,” “ceremonial third pitch,” and so on.

Of course, this rule would be repealed the first time a batter delivered a line-drive straight into Robert Redford’s grill. The age restriction is just plain decent; it prevents possible injuries to children or the elderly. (Presumably, all first-pitch-deliverers would also sign some sort of waiver so that they couldn’t sue when they took a line-drive to the noggin. I recommend a batting helmet for ceremonial-first-pitch-deliverers.)

New Baseball Rule

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

Inspired by Willie Harris’s stellar .183 batting average last year for the Gnats, I propose a new baseball rule:

Any position player batting below the Mendoza Line after 30 at-bats in the season shall henceforth be denied the right to choose his own walk-on music until he has raised his average back above .200. Instead, an embarrassing song shall be chosen for him—perhaps Hansen’s “Mm Bop” or Celine Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On”—in hopes of shaming him into hitting better. Additionally, when the announcer calls the player’s name, the announcer shall say it with an air of resignation and boredom rather than excitement.