After the murder of 9 black Americans in Charleston, South Carolina by Dylann Roof, conservatives have had their hands full deflecting. For example, Fox and Friends had a guest who whitewashed the racial aspect of the shooting and instead painted this as part of an ever widening "War on Christianity".
While the possible Christian component of this attack is highly suspect, the fact that the man who committed the murders used a gun is not. So it comes as no surprise that gun advocates are out in full force defending their second amendment rights. Some will say "now is not the time to talk about more gun control measures", though there seems to be no such limit for gun advocates to throw out questionable statistics to show why gun control doesn't work. Others are mad that anyone would politicize this tragedy, when what everyone should be talking about is how liberals are to blame for this and other mass murders.
Regardless of the angle, what conservatives really want everyone to know is that guns are in no way, shape or form responsible for this attack...outside of being the weapon Roof used to shoot 9 people to death.
When it comes to guns, advocates have their own set of facts. I discovered this last week when I wrote an article discussing Vince Vaughn's comments on guns and the support he received from Fox News.
Vaughn stated that "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one, or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones." Of the 24 deadliest mass murders over the last 50 years only 6 of them happened at schools or "gun free zones" as described by 'Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990'. The rest happened at homes, restaurants, places of employment, the street, a mall, and two at Military bases.
The response from gun advocates over this data suggests the problem is an uncertain definition of what constitutes a gun free zone. For example, some gun advocates seem to believe that despite the presence of armed guards, the fact that military personnel are not allowed to carry their weapon on the base makes this a gun free zone. Suggesting otherwise is insulting and moronic. Yet it should be noted that after the shootings at Sandy Hook, the solution to defend America's schools offered by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre was "armed security". This is the same solution LaPierre offered five years prior, after the Virginia Tech shooting.
Why would an organization that thinks the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, champion an idea that still rendered schools "gun free zones"? The fact that gun enthusiasts can't even agree on what makes a location gun free tells you all you need to know about how tenuous the mass shootings at gun free zones "fact" is.
Another idea that seemed to have gun advocates up in arms is New York's stop and frisk policy that Greg Gutfeld of Fox News defended when he said "it is a fairly obvious point -- stop and frisk gets guns -- that prevents gun crime." Gun control supporters clearly agree with this idea - less guns, less crime. The problem is, many people suggested the value of stop and frisk is solely that it removes guns from those who shouldn't have them (aka bad guys).
Despite making this claim in support of less gun control, it is really the best argument for more gun control. If gun advocates believe that removing guns from those who shouldn't have them is a good idea, then just imagine what we could do if we expanded stop and frisk to all citizens. Even more guns would be removed and even less crime would occur. Obviously there would be some question of constitutionality, but gun control laws are in many ways very similar to laws that Republican legislatures have been pushing for the last few years, despite potentially being unconstitutional.
For instance, the NRA and many gun advocates argue that background checks and registering guns won't work because criminals will still get their guns. Yet it is many of these same conservatives that support voter ID laws despite the fact that criminals will still find ways to commit voter fraud.
This reality outrages conservatives because they believe voter fraud runs rampant across the country and voter ID will stop it. They argue that since there is no good method for tracking voter fraud, we don't realize how big of an issue it really is. Using this logic it could be said that we don't know how many guns could be kept out of the hands of criminals with tracking tools like universal background checks and gun registration. Like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said about his state’s voter ID laws "It doesn't matter if there's one, 100, or 1,000," voter fraud is too important not to at least do something. Similarly, using every option at our disposal to prevent even one criminal from getting a gun should be a goal of everyone.
Of course the biggest fallacy that gun advocate like to claim as fact is that the government is plotting to take away their guns. Polls show that 73% of American's believe the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own guns. Given that congress rejected a bill on universal background checks that was favored by 90% of Americans, it seems very unlikely that a full repeal of the second amendment is anything more than fear mongering.
What many Americans are looking for are laws that would make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. Like laws conservative support on abortion, voter ID, stop and frisk, and religious freedom, additional gun laws might be annoying for law abiding Americans; but if the ends justify the means for laws that inconvenience women, the poor, African and Hispanic Americans, and the LGBT community, it seems unpatriotic for gun owners to refuse to do their part in making America a safer place to live.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Political Correctness and the Wussification of Conservatives
Political correctness is having a good week. It has been discussed by Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Maher and ad nauseam, per usual, on Fox News. Ironically, being anti-PC has become the new PC.
Conservative pundit Cal Thomas for example, is outraged that due to some students who don't identify as either male or female, graduates from his alma mater will now all wear the same color gown for graduation services instead of one for girls and another for boys. Yes, in Thomas' mind, having a public institution force all students to wear the same uniform for graduation is an example of out of control political correctness, but forcing them to wear different gowns is the American thing to do. The truth is that both are forms of political correctness.
Thomas also believes that when Facebook updated its settings to include 58 different gender options, this somehow represents abusive political correctness; yet he fully supports a company’s option to refuse service to people based on that company’s religious freedom. Again, either how corporations deal with a person’s sexuality is an example of political correctness or it isn't. Cal Thomas' feelings on which is right and which is wrong are completely irrelevant.
The reality is that while the media construes this as a liberal problem, both sides spend a lot of time trying to change the public narrative. For instance, every year the conservative media makes the "War on Christmas" part of their coverage, insisting that companies should greet everyone at the door with "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays".
These are also the same people who wanted to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries. The same people that get irritated about having to push 1 for English. The same people who are offended by jokes regarding Sarah Palin's kids. The same people who have come up with their own politically correct code words like Black on Black Crime, Urban, Socialist, Thug, Makers, Takers, Death Tax, Pro-life, and Welfare Queens. And the same people who flip out when you call them racist. Their goal of changing minds through public shaming is no different than that of the PC police they claim are ruining the country.
Of course Cal Thomas is hardly the only television personality who has been talking about political correctness lately. Jerry Seinfeld suggested that college students have become too PC which Bill Maher whole heartedly agreed with on his show. Given that these two men are now 61 and 59 years old respectively, their belief that there is something wrong with the younger generation is hardly surprising. Old men complaining about "kids these days" and "back in my day" are as American as apple pie and baseball. Their words represent opinions, not facts.
The problem for people like Thomas, Seinfeld, and Maher is that things have changed over the years. Schools today have put an increased emphasis on eliminating bullying, so students are far more cognizant of how their words impact other people. Perhaps that means public figures will have to adjust their diction, but there are no doubt millions of kids who benefit from this policy.
Kids today also have unprecedented options to publically voice their displeasure. Instead of dealing with one heckler at a show, comedians are now heckled daily on Twitter and other social media sites.
Of course even those complaining are part of the PC machine. Maher, for example, when talking about Paula Deen said "there's no excuse" for her use of the N-word, yet there was a time when no one would bat an eye over the comments she made.
More recently the terminology used to describe those in the LGBT community has changed. Does this mean that if Seinfeld and Maher refuse to use the F-word to describe gay men they have succumbed to the PC police, or does a term only become PC when the user doesn't understand why anyone would be offended by its use?
The question for most people is intent. When Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a slut it is insulting because, despite what he might say, his history suggests the term was not used in jest; yet comedians across the U.S. use this word on a daily basis in their routines. Similarly, when Bill Maher makes jokes about Muslims, some people will find them offensive because Maher has made statements about the Islamic faith that suggest he is not coming from a place of love. This is no different than the double standard of insulting a sibling. When you insult your sibling it is funny, but if a stranger or someone who doesn't like your sibling makes the same joke you find it offensive.
But perhaps the most peculiar talking point to come out of these discussions comes from Daily Caller editor Scott Greer who suggests college students should "expose themselves to viewpoints that genuinely offend them" since "Colleges are supposed to be places where the marketplace of ideas can flourish and young minds can come in contact with a host of different ideas and a myriad viewpoints." Forgetting for a second that consumers of conservative media, like the Daily Caller, tend to be some of the least informed and least interested in exploring alternative viewpoints, Greer seems to have very little understanding of what these students are doing.
It's not that students haven't been privy to racist, sexist, or culturally insensitive jokes before, and it seems unlikely that simply hearing these same insults day after day is really what anyone would consider a good education. The fact is their reactions are a direct response to these "different ideas". Ironically, Greer appears just as uninterested in listening to the students’ viewpoint as he believes they are.
The question Greer should really ask is why he holds students and comedians to a different standard. If it is good for students to be exposed to viewpoints they find offensive, then why is it a travesty for comedians to be exposed to students’ opposing viewpoints? Why is it OK for Jerry Seinfeld to go on national TV and explain what's wrong with college kids but not OK for college kids to explain what's wrong with what a comedian says? Why is it censorship when college students ask comedians to avoid terms people find offensive but not censorship when comedians suggest the students should keep their opinions to themselves? It's all just free speech.
In the end the hand wringing over political correctness is just the politically correct way for some people to defend their unwillingness to change. After all. since when did asking the people who worship at the altar of personal responsibility to be accountable for their own words become offensive, or does the whining over being chastised by a bunch of liberal kids prove the wussification of conservatives?
Conservative pundit Cal Thomas for example, is outraged that due to some students who don't identify as either male or female, graduates from his alma mater will now all wear the same color gown for graduation services instead of one for girls and another for boys. Yes, in Thomas' mind, having a public institution force all students to wear the same uniform for graduation is an example of out of control political correctness, but forcing them to wear different gowns is the American thing to do. The truth is that both are forms of political correctness.
Thomas also believes that when Facebook updated its settings to include 58 different gender options, this somehow represents abusive political correctness; yet he fully supports a company’s option to refuse service to people based on that company’s religious freedom. Again, either how corporations deal with a person’s sexuality is an example of political correctness or it isn't. Cal Thomas' feelings on which is right and which is wrong are completely irrelevant.
The reality is that while the media construes this as a liberal problem, both sides spend a lot of time trying to change the public narrative. For instance, every year the conservative media makes the "War on Christmas" part of their coverage, insisting that companies should greet everyone at the door with "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays".
These are also the same people who wanted to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries. The same people that get irritated about having to push 1 for English. The same people who are offended by jokes regarding Sarah Palin's kids. The same people who have come up with their own politically correct code words like Black on Black Crime, Urban, Socialist, Thug, Makers, Takers, Death Tax, Pro-life, and Welfare Queens. And the same people who flip out when you call them racist. Their goal of changing minds through public shaming is no different than that of the PC police they claim are ruining the country.
Of course Cal Thomas is hardly the only television personality who has been talking about political correctness lately. Jerry Seinfeld suggested that college students have become too PC which Bill Maher whole heartedly agreed with on his show. Given that these two men are now 61 and 59 years old respectively, their belief that there is something wrong with the younger generation is hardly surprising. Old men complaining about "kids these days" and "back in my day" are as American as apple pie and baseball. Their words represent opinions, not facts.
The problem for people like Thomas, Seinfeld, and Maher is that things have changed over the years. Schools today have put an increased emphasis on eliminating bullying, so students are far more cognizant of how their words impact other people. Perhaps that means public figures will have to adjust their diction, but there are no doubt millions of kids who benefit from this policy.
Kids today also have unprecedented options to publically voice their displeasure. Instead of dealing with one heckler at a show, comedians are now heckled daily on Twitter and other social media sites.
Of course even those complaining are part of the PC machine. Maher, for example, when talking about Paula Deen said "there's no excuse" for her use of the N-word, yet there was a time when no one would bat an eye over the comments she made.
More recently the terminology used to describe those in the LGBT community has changed. Does this mean that if Seinfeld and Maher refuse to use the F-word to describe gay men they have succumbed to the PC police, or does a term only become PC when the user doesn't understand why anyone would be offended by its use?
The question for most people is intent. When Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a slut it is insulting because, despite what he might say, his history suggests the term was not used in jest; yet comedians across the U.S. use this word on a daily basis in their routines. Similarly, when Bill Maher makes jokes about Muslims, some people will find them offensive because Maher has made statements about the Islamic faith that suggest he is not coming from a place of love. This is no different than the double standard of insulting a sibling. When you insult your sibling it is funny, but if a stranger or someone who doesn't like your sibling makes the same joke you find it offensive.
But perhaps the most peculiar talking point to come out of these discussions comes from Daily Caller editor Scott Greer who suggests college students should "expose themselves to viewpoints that genuinely offend them" since "Colleges are supposed to be places where the marketplace of ideas can flourish and young minds can come in contact with a host of different ideas and a myriad viewpoints." Forgetting for a second that consumers of conservative media, like the Daily Caller, tend to be some of the least informed and least interested in exploring alternative viewpoints, Greer seems to have very little understanding of what these students are doing.
It's not that students haven't been privy to racist, sexist, or culturally insensitive jokes before, and it seems unlikely that simply hearing these same insults day after day is really what anyone would consider a good education. The fact is their reactions are a direct response to these "different ideas". Ironically, Greer appears just as uninterested in listening to the students’ viewpoint as he believes they are.
The question Greer should really ask is why he holds students and comedians to a different standard. If it is good for students to be exposed to viewpoints they find offensive, then why is it a travesty for comedians to be exposed to students’ opposing viewpoints? Why is it OK for Jerry Seinfeld to go on national TV and explain what's wrong with college kids but not OK for college kids to explain what's wrong with what a comedian says? Why is it censorship when college students ask comedians to avoid terms people find offensive but not censorship when comedians suggest the students should keep their opinions to themselves? It's all just free speech.
In the end the hand wringing over political correctness is just the politically correct way for some people to defend their unwillingness to change. After all. since when did asking the people who worship at the altar of personal responsibility to be accountable for their own words become offensive, or does the whining over being chastised by a bunch of liberal kids prove the wussification of conservatives?
Monday, June 15, 2015
Conservatives are delusional on facts about guns
In a recent interview with GQ, actor Vince Vaughn discussed his thoughts on a number of different topics; but the remarks that have received the most media attention are the ones he made regarding gun rights in the United States.
Among other things Vaughn stated: "I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. We don't have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It's not about duck hunting; it's about the ability of the individual. It's the same reason we have freedom of speech." and "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones."
To no one's surprise Fox News was quick to step in and offer their support for Vaughn's view. For example, Greg Gutfeld of 'the Five' started his June 2nd segment on Vaughn with "The media reaction to Vince Vaughn's recent second amendment defense is as unsurprising as it is fact free." It should be noted that Gutfeld is the same person who once said "isn't the problem here that there are too many celebrities spouting off their political opinions". Apparently the only celebrities Gutfeld feels should spout off are the ones who agree with his opinion.
Of course the bigger problem here is that Gutfeld is convinced that his version of reality represents facts. Is it true that since 1950 only one or two mass shootings have occurred in non-gun-free zones? The shootings at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Base are two recent mass shootings which clearly don't fit the "gun-free" profile. A number of others include people who killed their family or co-workers, suggesting that the location of the murders had far more to do with people than the presence of guns. The reality is that even Gutfeld is only able to find less than a handful of mass murders where the perpetrator took the gun-free status into account.
Not to be outdone, Gutfeld's colleague Eric Bolling adds his own misinformation to the mix when he stated: "You want facts, here are the facts. Since 1993 gun ownership has gone up by 50%. In that same period of time the murder rate has gone down by 50%". The only problem with this "fact" is that it suggests this correlation represents causation. If Bolling thinks that things are getting better, he might also want to point out that in 1977 over 50% of households owned a gun while in 2014 that number had fallen to 31%. Perhaps the causation here is that there are less murders now because less people have access to guns.
The group also makes disputed claims regarding concealed carry statistics, defensive gun use, and gun ownership versus crime rates. For a conversation that is supposed to be about facts, the panel on 'the Five' seems oblivious to how in doubt their supposed facts really are.
But making matters worse is when this group, arguing against gun control, held up the stop and frisk policy in New York as a success because as Gutfeld said "it is a fairly obvious point - stop and frisk gets guns - that prevents gun crime". Amazingly Gutfeld isn't even aware how he completely contradicted himself. While arguing that more guns equals less crime he admits that he supports a "fairly obvious" policy of taking people's guns because in his words "that prevents gun crime". This is exactly the argument that gun rights advocates have been making for years. The only difference is, Gutfeld believes that race should play a part in determining who is allowed to have a gun.
Polls show American's are clearly interested in putting more restrictions on who can own a gun and allowing the government better tools to track those guns, but despite the data that show countries with strict gun laws experience less homicide, gun rights advocates are a strong and outspoken group that tend to shout down any changes as a restriction of freedom.
The good news is there is a compromise available. The word "arms" in the constitution has not been specifically defined, which means it is open to interpretation. Instead of trying to outlaw guns, gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets. The second amendment would remain intact while gun deaths would fall dramatically. If legislators are uncomfortable with this option, the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the taxes on guns and bullets making them unaffordable for many of the mentally unstable individuals that commit these mass murders. Either way everyone wins.
Among other things Vaughn stated: "I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. We don't have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It's not about duck hunting; it's about the ability of the individual. It's the same reason we have freedom of speech." and "All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones."
To no one's surprise Fox News was quick to step in and offer their support for Vaughn's view. For example, Greg Gutfeld of 'the Five' started his June 2nd segment on Vaughn with "The media reaction to Vince Vaughn's recent second amendment defense is as unsurprising as it is fact free." It should be noted that Gutfeld is the same person who once said "isn't the problem here that there are too many celebrities spouting off their political opinions". Apparently the only celebrities Gutfeld feels should spout off are the ones who agree with his opinion.
Of course the bigger problem here is that Gutfeld is convinced that his version of reality represents facts. Is it true that since 1950 only one or two mass shootings have occurred in non-gun-free zones? The shootings at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Base are two recent mass shootings which clearly don't fit the "gun-free" profile. A number of others include people who killed their family or co-workers, suggesting that the location of the murders had far more to do with people than the presence of guns. The reality is that even Gutfeld is only able to find less than a handful of mass murders where the perpetrator took the gun-free status into account.
Not to be outdone, Gutfeld's colleague Eric Bolling adds his own misinformation to the mix when he stated: "You want facts, here are the facts. Since 1993 gun ownership has gone up by 50%. In that same period of time the murder rate has gone down by 50%". The only problem with this "fact" is that it suggests this correlation represents causation. If Bolling thinks that things are getting better, he might also want to point out that in 1977 over 50% of households owned a gun while in 2014 that number had fallen to 31%. Perhaps the causation here is that there are less murders now because less people have access to guns.
The group also makes disputed claims regarding concealed carry statistics, defensive gun use, and gun ownership versus crime rates. For a conversation that is supposed to be about facts, the panel on 'the Five' seems oblivious to how in doubt their supposed facts really are.
But making matters worse is when this group, arguing against gun control, held up the stop and frisk policy in New York as a success because as Gutfeld said "it is a fairly obvious point - stop and frisk gets guns - that prevents gun crime". Amazingly Gutfeld isn't even aware how he completely contradicted himself. While arguing that more guns equals less crime he admits that he supports a "fairly obvious" policy of taking people's guns because in his words "that prevents gun crime". This is exactly the argument that gun rights advocates have been making for years. The only difference is, Gutfeld believes that race should play a part in determining who is allowed to have a gun.
Polls show American's are clearly interested in putting more restrictions on who can own a gun and allowing the government better tools to track those guns, but despite the data that show countries with strict gun laws experience less homicide, gun rights advocates are a strong and outspoken group that tend to shout down any changes as a restriction of freedom.
The good news is there is a compromise available. The word "arms" in the constitution has not been specifically defined, which means it is open to interpretation. Instead of trying to outlaw guns, gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets. The second amendment would remain intact while gun deaths would fall dramatically. If legislators are uncomfortable with this option, the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the taxes on guns and bullets making them unaffordable for many of the mentally unstable individuals that commit these mass murders. Either way everyone wins.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Michigan Republican's lies hurt the working poor
Towards the end of his first year in office Michigan Governor Rick Snyder suggested the changes he and the Republican led legislature had made were necessary for the good of the state but that these changes also represented "shared sacrifice". Bear in mind what that meant was a nearly $2 billion tax cut for corporations and a tax increase of $2 billion for around 50% of Michigan residents with the bulk of the sacrifice coming from the working poor and senior citizens.
Among the lies politicians tell their constituents the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric is one of the most insulting. What they are really saying is that they are going to raise taxes on those who can least afford it in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers. These sort of political oxymorons are also present in Michigan Republican's top legislative priorities - "religious freedom" which allows for state sanctioned discrimination and "insurance reform" which ends the nation’s best catastrophic coverage. After all, these are both ideas that benefit big Republican donors at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised.
Based on this history it comes as no surprise that after completely dropping the ball on properly funding Michigan's infrastructure, the answer to finding the extra money again means a tax hike for the poorest residents. Given how much Republicans claim to hate tax increases, continually upping the ante for the working poor seems to run counter to the party platform but if you just call this increased tax burden "broadening the base" it suddenly becomes politically palatable. Because the Republican narrative suggests that the rich - "the makers" - already pay too much. Therefore any new funds should come from the poor - "the takers".
So rather than ask wealthy Michigan residents to give back some of the income tax cut they received under Rick Snyder, Republicans are looking at cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for a second time in four years. The problem is the basis for this tax increase - fair taxes - is another big lie.
While giving Michigan's working poor a tax credit does mean a slightly graduated tax rate, income is hardly the only tax that Michigan residents pay. The reality is that when you take in to account the total tax burden, the top 20% of Michiganders pay less in taxes than anyone else. In fact, in Michigan the people that earn over $392,000 in taxable income only pay 5.1% of their income in taxes while the tax rate for those making between $17,000 and $34,000 per year is nearly twice as much, at 9.4%.
In terms of the state budget if the legislature could simply get the top 1% to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the working poor Michigan would receive an influx of near $650 million per year in extra revenue. Additionally if the next 19% of Michigan tax payers increased their contributions to the 9.4% of income those in the lower income brackets pay it would generate another $2.3 billion in revenue for the state. Just to be clear this means if Michigan's tax code was truly fair and treated all citizens the same the state would bring in around $3 billion more per year.
Michigan could have the nicest roads and bridges in the nation if GOP legislators would just admit that the tax code currently favors the wealthy in a big way instead of continuing to perpetuate the lie that the rich are taxed too much.
Of course the stupidity of this legislation goes beyond this politically motivated falsehood. Data show that the EITC is one of the governments best tools for pulling people up out of poverty with a return of $1.67 for every dollar spent. This math is why Gerald Ford enacted the EITC in the first place and why Ronald Reagan said this credit as part of a tax overhaul was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress”.
In a country that places such a high value on capitalism having politicians who reject a 67% return on revenue is astounding.
Republicans in the Michigan legislature have offered up a litany of really dumb legislation over the past few years but there is perhaps nothing more disheartening then seeing a group of wealthy legislators decide that raising taxes on the people who are already saddled with highest tax burden in the state in order to keep taxes low on the people who already experience the lowest tax burden, all while costing the state a high return on its investment, is an example of "shared sacrifice".
The good news is only 27% of voters have a positive view of the job the legislature is doing and that was before the embarrassment that was proposal 1. If this legislature insists on raising taxes again on the working poor they should be prepared to experience some of that "shared sacrifice" they like so much come November 2016.
Among the lies politicians tell their constituents the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric is one of the most insulting. What they are really saying is that they are going to raise taxes on those who can least afford it in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest taxpayers. These sort of political oxymorons are also present in Michigan Republican's top legislative priorities - "religious freedom" which allows for state sanctioned discrimination and "insurance reform" which ends the nation’s best catastrophic coverage. After all, these are both ideas that benefit big Republican donors at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised.
Based on this history it comes as no surprise that after completely dropping the ball on properly funding Michigan's infrastructure, the answer to finding the extra money again means a tax hike for the poorest residents. Given how much Republicans claim to hate tax increases, continually upping the ante for the working poor seems to run counter to the party platform but if you just call this increased tax burden "broadening the base" it suddenly becomes politically palatable. Because the Republican narrative suggests that the rich - "the makers" - already pay too much. Therefore any new funds should come from the poor - "the takers".
So rather than ask wealthy Michigan residents to give back some of the income tax cut they received under Rick Snyder, Republicans are looking at cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for a second time in four years. The problem is the basis for this tax increase - fair taxes - is another big lie.
While giving Michigan's working poor a tax credit does mean a slightly graduated tax rate, income is hardly the only tax that Michigan residents pay. The reality is that when you take in to account the total tax burden, the top 20% of Michiganders pay less in taxes than anyone else. In fact, in Michigan the people that earn over $392,000 in taxable income only pay 5.1% of their income in taxes while the tax rate for those making between $17,000 and $34,000 per year is nearly twice as much, at 9.4%.
In terms of the state budget if the legislature could simply get the top 1% to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the working poor Michigan would receive an influx of near $650 million per year in extra revenue. Additionally if the next 19% of Michigan tax payers increased their contributions to the 9.4% of income those in the lower income brackets pay it would generate another $2.3 billion in revenue for the state. Just to be clear this means if Michigan's tax code was truly fair and treated all citizens the same the state would bring in around $3 billion more per year.
Michigan could have the nicest roads and bridges in the nation if GOP legislators would just admit that the tax code currently favors the wealthy in a big way instead of continuing to perpetuate the lie that the rich are taxed too much.
Of course the stupidity of this legislation goes beyond this politically motivated falsehood. Data show that the EITC is one of the governments best tools for pulling people up out of poverty with a return of $1.67 for every dollar spent. This math is why Gerald Ford enacted the EITC in the first place and why Ronald Reagan said this credit as part of a tax overhaul was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress”.
In a country that places such a high value on capitalism having politicians who reject a 67% return on revenue is astounding.
Republicans in the Michigan legislature have offered up a litany of really dumb legislation over the past few years but there is perhaps nothing more disheartening then seeing a group of wealthy legislators decide that raising taxes on the people who are already saddled with highest tax burden in the state in order to keep taxes low on the people who already experience the lowest tax burden, all while costing the state a high return on its investment, is an example of "shared sacrifice".
The good news is only 27% of voters have a positive view of the job the legislature is doing and that was before the embarrassment that was proposal 1. If this legislature insists on raising taxes again on the working poor they should be prepared to experience some of that "shared sacrifice" they like so much come November 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
