My Hall of Shame

Jason Altmire                                   Dale Kildee

Dan Boren                                        Daniel Lipinski

Jerry Costello                                    Jim Matheson

Mark Critz                                        MIke McIntyre

Henry Cuellar                                  Collin Peterson

Joe Donnelly                                    Nick Rahall

Tim Holden                                      Mike Ross

Marcy Kaptur                                  Health Shuler

Democrats who voted Yes on HR 3

These are the 16 Democrats who want to return America to a nation of back alley abortions.  They want to use the tax code to restrict the use of insurance companies, Health Savings Accounts, and individual funds for abortion.  They don't want to provide exceptions for rape or incest. 

I am ashamed to call these people Democrats.  Abortion is a matter of conscious, and is best left to the woman, her physician and her pastor or spiritual mentor.  What do these people have to do with that decision?  Especially the men. 

I have volunteered at Planned Parenthoods where people who picketed in front of the driveway opposing abortion, come in for an abortion, because "it was an accident, I didn't mean to get pregnant."  They often further rationalize it by saying that "I am not using abortion for birth control."  And not just the picketers, but daughters of prominent Right to Life (RtL) members have come in for abortions, fathers and mothers, and grandfathers and grandmothers of RtL members have brought their daughters and granddaughters in.  

It is interesting when you are on the other side, isn't it?  When you are the one presented with an unwanted or troublesome pregnancy.  Have some heart and soul people, no one, no one, is in "favor" of abortions. 

Even the most diehard supporters of abortion rights, think it is a bad alternative.  Every child should be a wanted child but unplanned and troublesome pregnancies happen too many for a variety of reasons. 

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  We need to work together to promote family planning, contraception, and public awareness. 

I am a professing Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, who on religious grounds is pro-choice on abortion.  Most mainline Protestant Christians and their Christian denominations, along with Reform and Conservative Jews, are pro-choice, with their denominations issuing pro-choice proclamations over the last thirty years. 

Fetus as a "person" or as a "human being" has never been a settled question within Christianity of Judaism.  There are large segments of the Judeo-Christian world that, historically and currently, see the embryo or fetus as a potential human life, but not as fully human until birth or until some stage of fetal development well past conception.  I and many religious leaders have an understanding that human life or personhood begins at birth. 

There is nothing in the Bible about induced abortion.  Notta, zero, nowhere.  The first mention and the beginning of the Jewish position is in Exodus where the person harming a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, and no further harm follows, the one responsible is only fined what the women's husband demands and the judge determines.  A fine only, no punishment for homicide.  Using this passage, rabbis argue in the Talmud that a fetus is not adam (human) and has no legal or religious standing as a person.  Under Jewish law, killing a fetus is not murder and is not treated that way.  The mainstream Jewish position historically and through today is that human life or personhood begins at birth, when we take our first breath.  Many rabbis also cite many passages in the Bible that connect breath and human life, beginning with the creation story in Genesis 2:7:  "The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." 

Historically, the Catholic Church believed that one did not become a human being or person until well after conception.  St. Augustine followed Aristotle believing the soul did not enter a fetus until 40 - 90 days after conception.  St Jerome emphasized human shape and stated that abortion did not constitute killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance.  The late 4th Century Apostolic Constitutions allowed for abortion if it was done before human shape and when the soul had entered.  St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century agreed, and Pope Innocent III earlier in the same century as Aquinas, emphasized that life began at quickening, when the mother begins to feel fetal movement.  Pope Gregory XIV affirmed this test in 1591, which he said began on the 116th day, or sixteenth week. 

Only with Pope Pius IX in 1869 did the great reversal in Catholic thought begin.  He assumed ensoulment at conception and by 1917 Catholic Church canon law had been revised, dropping the prior distinction between "animated" and "unanimated" fetuses. 

Here in the US, abortion didn't become criminal until the latter part of the 1800s.  Common English law, the basis for American law, long held that abortion before quickening was not an indictable offense.  Abortion of a "quickened" fetus was generally not criminal under common law, and was at most a mere misdemeanor.  Roe v Wade used these religious and common law threads and references to explain why the word "person" as used in the US Constitution does not include the unborn.  The decision states "There has always been strong support for the view that [human] life does not begin until live birth.  This was the belief of the Stoics.  It appears to be the predominant . . . attitude of the Jewish faith...  It may be taken to represent . . . a large segment of the Protestant community." 

We have to remember that the nine months of pregnancy is very important in the development of the baby-to-come.  Fetal development starts with the zygote at conceptions to embryo in about 14 days, and then to a fetus at 3 months.  During the first two weeks, it is not clear the zygote will become an embryo, much less a full human being.  Over 65% of the time, nothing more happens, and the zygote doesn't become anything more at all.  Sometimes it develops into a tumor, or it sometimes becomes an embryo that splits into twins or more.  As an embryo, it take a long time, another 22 weeks or more before it reaches any form of viability or where it may survive outside of the womb. 

After much reflection, over the years, working for a Catholic State Representative who was pro-choice, based primarily on his belief supported by the Biblical and church stories above, I think that the Supreme Court got it right in Roe v Wade.  During the first trimester, where abortion can occur spontaneously, or with an IUD, a morning-after-pill, RU-486, the regular birth control pill, or with minor surgical procedures, the state has a right to protect the life of the mother, absolutely.  (And in fact, these days, less than 10% of the abortions occur after the first trimester.) 

In the third trimester, I think the state does have some interest in protecting the fetus, as its viability to live outside the womb is greatly increased.  But the state still needs to protect the life and health of the mother. 

Despite being avidly pro-choice, which means that as well as supporting a woman's right to have an abortion, I also support the right of the woman to have the baby, and keep it or put it up for adoption.  I truly believe that is the woman's choice, to be made with her doctor, her family, and her spiritual advisor.  I also support the need to greatly reduce the incidence of abortion.  As President Clinton used to say "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."  That means that abortion should not be a stopgap because we in the US don't have a widespread family planning, contraception, education.  We should instead have widespread comprehensive family planning, which should include education and contraception.  We should also never put woman in the position that they feel that they have to have an abortion because of a lack of health care, child care or parental leave.  I join with President Clinton, and many women's groups within the Judeo-Christian community that are working for social and cultural changes that will reduce the incidence of abortion, but also stop the scapegoating of women who have abortions. 

All in all, what I am trying to say is that there are strong religious grounds, historically and modern, to defend a woman's right to chose an abortion.  That is a basic tenement of the national Democratic Party, confirmed by platform at convention after convention.  And that is why I am so ashamed of the Congressional reps listed above that voted to severely restrict a woman's right to chose.   

If one of these Democrats is your Congressional Representative, call them, email them, send a snail mail letter.  Let them know that you agree with me, and that you believe that they violated their public trust with you, with the people of their district, with all Americans, and with the Democratic Party.  Tell them that there behavior is unacceptable.  They did not have to vote; they could have let this terrible piece of legislation pass with only Republican votes.  But instead they chose to abandon their supporters, their Democratic beliefs, the beliefs of many believers, and they shall be remembered for their shameful vote. 

From Bernie Sanders - "Revenue Must Match Cuts to Lower Deficit"

Sanders Says Revenue Must Match Cuts to Lower Deficit

March 6, 2011

Calls for Surtax on Millionaires, Ending Breaks for Big Oil        

BURLINGON, Vt., March 6 – As the U.S. Senate heads for votes this week on competing spending plans for the rest of the year, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Congress also must raise additional revenue to reduce deficits.  He proposed a surtax on millionaires and eliminating tax breaks for Big Oil.

While there is widespread agreement on the need to reduce the $14 national debt and $1.6 trillion deficit, Sanders (I-Vt.) said “this must include not only budget cuts, but raising revenue in a fair and economically just way.”

Sanders, a member of the Senate Budget Committee, also said, “It would be morally wrong for the United States to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society while asking nothing from the wealthiest.”

Sanders suggested an emergency surtax on millionaires. A 5.4 percent surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $1 million would raise as much as $50 billion a year. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published last week showed overwhelming support for that concept. 

Sanders also would end tax breaks for big oil and gas companies.  Over the past decade, the five largest oil companies in the U.S. earned nearly $1 trillion in profits.  Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the largest oil companies in this country paid nothing in federal income taxes.  Ending those tax breaks could raise at least $3.5 billion a year.

Senate leadership already agreed to cut spending by $41 billion.  The president last week signed into law a short-term continuing resolution that cut an additional $4 billion. Senate negotiators have offered additional $6.5 billion in cuts.  That's more than half of the $100 billion House Republicans have called for in terms of deficit reduction. “Unfortunately, until now, virtually the entire debate in Washington has focused only on cutting federal programs,” Sanders said. “Many of the cuts being proposed will have a devastating impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our nation - including seniors, children, the sick and the poor.” 

Republicans and the national debt. (Or, do as I say, not as I do.)

Republicans and the national debt. (Or, do as I say, not as I do.)
by Patrick English (my Facebook friend) on Sunday, April 17, 2011. 

As I care very much about the national debt, and in an effort to be fair to the Republicans who profess such deep and apparently sincere concern about the national debt while genuflecting before the Tea Baggers, I decided to look into just how many members of the GOP voted for then-President Clinton's deficit reduction plan. You know, the one that resulted in a budget surplus, had us on the path to paying off the national debt, led to years of economic expansion, a reduction in unemployment, falling poverty and other good things. And I was shocked, shocked, to discover that not a single Republican had voted for that budget. Not one. And yet it was sound fiscal policy that led directly to years of economic growth.

Realizing that I couldn't use that as the only measure of the GOP's sincerity on the national debt, I thought I owed it to them to check whether or not they'd supported the George W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. You know, the ones that led to an immediate increase in the national debt, a huge increase in US borrowing from foreign countries like China and which thus weakened us seriously and immediately. And believe it or not, they did! How odd, to think that these paragons of fiscal responsibility had not only voted against a plan that was fiscally responsible, they voted FOR one that was the height of fiscal irresponsibility! Who'd have thought it?

But in an effort to be certain I hadn't accidentally picked the only two examples of Republicans saying one thing and doing another, I thought I'd check and see if they'd voted to increase the national debt under George W. Bush. Surely they hadn't done so, not when they were handed a sound budget, a shrinking deficit and a chance to get the country out of debt. Incredibly, it turned out they had indeed voted to increase the debt ceiling under Bush. And not just once, as might be expected when cutting taxes during a time of war for the first time IN HISTORY, either. No, they voted to increase the debt ceiling under Bush 19 times. Let me spell that out in case you missed it the first time. NINETEEN times. That would be ten times, and nine more times after that. Or nine and then ten, if you prefer.

Now I realize that this is all going to come as quite a shock if you watch Fox News, since they will never, ever tell you any of these things, but it doesn't make them any less true. And you might want to think about them as November approaches and you head to the voting booth, debating just how much country you want to leave for your kids, your grandkids and the future of our country. Because unless you only want to leave them lip service, you should think twice about the Republicans who are very good at telling you one thing while doing the exact opposite. Those tough deficit hawks that they are.

We Have a REVENUE Problem

Today, the median wage of a Single Worker in America is $26,000 and pays 23.4% of their income in total taxes. 

The top 400 richest people had a median wage of $344,590,000, but only pay 16.9% of their income in total taxes.

This means that the bottom 99.9% of Americans pay a 38.5% higher tax burden than the super rich. In 2000, Clinton's last year, corporations paid at an average real tax rate of 15.2%, $249.9 billion. But in 2008, Bush's last year (the last year figures are available), they paid at an average real tax rate of 12.6%, $230.1 billion. - from Thom Hartman: Secrets the Rich don't Want You to Know

We don't have a BUDGET problem, we clearly have a REVENUE problem. 

Unseriously unfair - REALLY?

In 2008, the top 1% paid 38% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% paid 58%.

Unseriously unfair

www.economist.com

 

One of Barack Obama's clearest themes in his speech today laying out his latest deficit-reduction plan was that rich people ought to pay more in taxes.

 

There are many fallacies in the Economist argument. 

First, most wealthy people make a lot of their money through capital gains, and thus only pay a 15% marginal tax on the largest share of their income, because we tax capital gains and dividends differently. And the Social Security and Medicare taxes are not applied to so-called unearned income. So the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's pays his 19.9% in Social Security and Medicare taxes, while the wealthy pay “0”, that’s right ZERO, on their "unearned income." (Yes, I know some will argue that McDonald's pays half of that tax, but I would argue that it is benefit in lieu of taxes, so if McDonald's wasn't paying that 9.95% of payroll, they could and would pay their employees more, but we can have that argument, later.)  

So, higher incomes start out with an almost 20% lower tax rate.  So, in 2010, the average working family pays a marginal tax rate of 44%, 25% in income tax and 19% in Social Security and Medicare taxes.  But families making over $373,000 only pay a marginal tax rate of 39.9%, 37% in income tax, and 2.9% in Medicare taxes, as they are no Social Security taxes on income over $108,000. 

That’s not fair!  Even by the Economist's standards. 

I think we should eliminate the distinction between earned (worked for) income, and unearned (clipping coupons) income.  Maybe we should try completely scrapping the distinction, and tax all capital gains and dividends at the income tax marginal rate, adding a 10% penalty for short term capital gains, if one believe that it is necessary, and I do, to discourage efforts to manipulate stocks and the market that result short term gains but long term pain to the vast majority of us.  Think September 2008. 

And one has to remember. The first $50,000 anyone earns, we all pay the same tax rate on it. Higher incomes pay a higher marginal rate on their additional income, only.  Thus, someone who makes $108,000 and someone who makes $250,000, they both pay the same taxes on that first $108,000.

That's fair.

But, since the marginal tax rates don't start to kick in to $373,000, that next $265,000 is taxed very low overall, as there are no Social Security taxes on it. 

That's not fair!  Even by the Economist's standards. 

And the top 5% of income represents 60% of all income, so at that rate if they are currently only paying 58% of the taxes, they aren't paying enough. 

That's not fair! 

And if you really want to fix social security, you apply the 17% Social Security tax to all income, earned and unearned, and you have a solvent system for at least the next century, and probably forever. 

Right now over 50% of the income in the US doesn’t pay any Social Security taxes. 

That’s not fair.  Even by the Economist's standards. 

Let's go back to the income tax rates and deductions from 1950, and index them all for value of those dollars versus the value of today's dollars.  Most working families of four, under those circumstances, would pay zero in federal taxes. 

Remember the 1950s? The times for a booming economy, were the American dream was alive and well for all, and our deficits were minimal.  Yes, those 1950s, the ones that Reagan used to "dream" about, the days of Ozzie and Harriet and Fat her Knows Best.  Those are the days that many of the Republinuts say they want America to return to:  The days of 90% marginal tax rates on the upper income of people.  Back to the days when corporations like GE and others, gladly paid their fair share of corporate taxes, and didn't have an army of lobbyists to see that the tax code was written in their favor.  Back to the days when corporate taxes were 60-70% of the total taxes paid and individuals only paid 30-40% of the total tax bill. 

Oh yes, I say, let's make life and taxes fair for more, and return to the good old days, and tax all income, making no distinction of if you are flipping burgers or cutting coupons.  And make all taxes apply to all income, with Social Security and medicate taxes being applied to income, making no distinction between worked for and coupon clipping.    

Jobs and Competitiveness - It's a revenue problem not a budget problem

Don Graves, ED of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. "The global economy means we need to out educate, out innovate and out build other countries." 

In order to be competitive in the global economy, we are going to have to stop fighting wars all over the world, and return taxes to the equitable and fair taxes of the Clinton years. We don't have a budget problem in the US, we have a revenue problem. Cutting and... cutting taxes over the last 30 years have left the revenue stream too low. Taxes are now at their lowest level since 1950. And we don't live in a 1950s world. 1950 was even before the Eisenhower Interstate System was funded, and when we only had about half the Americans we do today, and we weren't fighting in wars around the world.

We the People Rally

Here is a link to the rally on 04-13-11 in Michigan.  This is what we need in Georgia.  Thousands, not a couple of hundred, on the lawns around the State Capitol, in the hallways of the building, in the offices of the Republican Legislative leaders, in the office of the Governor.  Let them know that we won't stand for tax cuts for LearJet owners, and Delta Airlines, while the HOPE program is cut, while K-12 education is cut, while the many programs to help working people are cut, and the tax breaks for the rich grow.  It is time Georgia, it is way past time, for the people to rise up and speak out.  We the People need to make our voices heard.  We the People Rally - The Crowd, The Signs, The Solidarity - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2F7O4CQnJw.