We Do Not Have a Spending Problem.
I’m just watching Sen. Bob Corker (R – Ten) saying that “finally” the conversation has gotten to the right place. Instead of considering taxes at all, both “bodies are looking at packages that are focusing on the deficit” only by looking at spending cuts. Taxes are off the table.
A few points: as Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, in poll after poll, a majority of Americans don’t think we should only be talking about spending cuts.
Second, Republicans keep saying that we have a “spending problem.” But we don’t. We have a problem with the difference between revenue and outlays. In other words, because of multiple factors, we don’t have as much money coming in as we have commitments going out. The question is not ‘what do we cut’ but first, ‘how did we get here?’ E.g., look at this graph:
This graph looks only policy changes over the last two presidents, which is not the whole of the debt (since we have a deficit going into Bush’s years), it is a major portion. As you can see, the policy changes that Bush enacted had the greatest effect on the debt – $5.07 Trillion, versus Obama’s $1.44 Trillion. The rest of the debt is made up of what we have previously, plus the fact that we have one of the worse recessions since the 30′s, and revenue went down. Right now revenue is at 14.4% of GDP, the lowest since the early 50′s.
So to call this a “spending” problem is just factually wrong. It’s a revenue versus outlays problem (outlays that, by the way, this congress has approved this past April).
The last point is how unrealistic the Republican’s view is. The most unrealistic thing about this is that we will never, ever, ever, fix the deficit by spending cuts alone. It would so fundamentally change the way this country has been for the last 40 years that it just will never happen. Actually John McCain (R – AZ) actually made a good point this morning. He said the house Republicans were being dishonest with their constituents by hanging their hat on “Cut, Cap, and Balance” because it would never actually pass. They are also being dishonest with their constituents when they say that revenues are not a part of this solution (although, if the polls are right, their constituents already know this). The worst thing about this is that in 15 years, when all the baby boomers are using Medicare, and our spending ration qua GDP (which is right now around 20%) goes up to above 25% (which it will), we are going to have to have massive tax increases.
What if God’s Administration were in Power?
Originally I was going to title this post “Why I cannot be a Republican.” After reading Drew’s latest post, I realized that perhaps we shouldn’t politicize solutions, but rather have political solutions. And that got me to thinking. I was going to argue that I couldn’t be a Republican because of all the grandstanding about the budget, and the fact that their budget priorities are horrendous, in my humble view.
But I suppose I then realized that I could probably make similar argues – albeit about different subjects – concerning Democrats, or really about any group in American politics. I decided then to step back and ask a different type of question: what if God ran the U.S.? What would our nation look like?
Before you turn me off, just think for a minute. I’ve heard this asked before, and normally Christians who do so come up with things about sexual purity, the abolition of abortion, and other social programs conservative Christians have favored since the 80′s.
But since I’ve been deep into the theology of the book of Revelation, I think we should ask a prior question if we really want to judge this from what we think might be God’s perspective. The question is this: given that God has already inaugurated his kingdom on earth in the form of Jesus and his ministry, what would be the priorities of God’s administration on the topic that are now heatedly in the balance, like the budget, the military, etc?
I think once you start asking this question, you start realizing that the spectrum of right and left as we’ve understood it in this country really have little to do with God’s administration.
As an initial thought, let me just say that it is important to remember that the climax of the gospel presentations (and indeed of Revelation) is “king of the Jews” nailed upon a cross. So as I begin thinking about this for myself, let me just point out that kingdom and cross are the place to begin.
So, what do you think God’s administration would look like?
Racism, In Fact
By Austin
Drew recently brought up the issue of racism, and since I’ve just finished Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindess I thought I’d join the conversation. In his post Drew wants to separate bigots from racists, arguing that we’re all racists to the extent that we presuppose certain aspects of culture will be attached to race, such as voting patterns and race. I think this is right, although I don’t think it goes far enough. The fact of the matter is that racism is really very little about attitudes, whether bigoted or not. Racism is about power.
Power to define an identity, as it were. Rowan Williams talks about it like this: racism is “the taking away of a right to determine the conditions and possibilities for a specific variety of human living, of the freedom to define oneself, as person or as community…(On Christian Theology, 280-281). His point here is simply that every life story is set in some context – family, community, nation. Most people interact with that story by appropriating parts, rejecting other parts, and adapting other parts to their life situation. When we are free these stories become the conditions of possibility for our own life stories, and not hindrances. E.g., part of my family were German immigrants about 100 years about. My great-grandfather lived in Brooklyn, and saved up enough money to buy a farm in Upstate NY. As a family of farmers, I was destined, as it were, to live in a rural area. But my father, unlike his father, went to college, and my father developed a love for books and culture. I went to college too, and while I moved from that particular area, some things stayed with me – like love of books and culture – so much so that I went to graduate school. My story is fundamental to how I define myself, but in a way that is a condition of possibility, rather than a hinderance.
But racism is different. Instead of a condition of possibility, the story becomes a hinderance. My story could work partly because I am white, and I am allowed to become something more (although i didn’t have to – many people reject their histories, and for a variety of reasons, see them as hindrances, even when they’re not).
For young men of color, their story is almost entirely made up for them. And it’s a story where they are completely marginalized. The reason is simple: black men are incarcerated at such a high rate their entire life story is determined by their relation to the penal system (and, by the way, this rate is not proportionate to their rates of crime – e.g., whites perpetrate most drug crime, but make up only 6% of the prison population). There is a de facto caste system in our country because of the War on Drugs, a system that is so racially skewed that there is no getting around the fact that we are just as racist a society as we ever have been.
So in many ways, I don’t think racist attitudes are the real issue. In fact, while it’s true we are all racist to an extent, this also allows us something of a free pass unless we’re willing to talk about the reality for people of color in this country. The fact that we are a “colorblind” society just adds to the problem – we don’t acknowledge the fact that racism isn’t an attitude, but a fact.
Or, as Mos Def says, ‘they say they want you successful, but then they make it stressful,/you start keepin’ pace, they start changing up the tempo.’
The first female president
By Andrew Dyrli Hermeling
Since Hillary’s defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary, many people have moved on from talk of the first female president of the United States. That being said the current state of politics features a lot of excellent female politicians making such talk seem as relevent as ever. Therefore, although many were disappointed to see Clinton get so close yet not ascend to America’s highest office, I don’t think it will be too long before I am pulling the lever for a woman (and it certainly won’t be Ms. Palin.)
In no particular order, here are five women who I perceive as being presidential. Vegas oddsmakers will certainly disagree.
1. Presupposing that only I my wife and I voted and that she had no say in regards to whether she was a candidate or not… Rachel Maddow
I doubt she wants to be president, and even if she did, I doubt th
e country is ready to elect the first woman and homosexual president in one fell swoop. That being said, she is probably one of America’s most level-headed liberal pundits and is unafraid to express her more moderate views with the same conviction. Simultaneously she is arguably the most intelligent pundit from either side of the aisle. Despite many complaints concerning Obama’s purely academic intelligence, I still believe that being brilliant should be a criteria for being President.
2. The Rookie… Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Again, right now, this emerging star is probably content being a member of 
the most efficient and powerful duo of senators currently at work on Capitol Hill. She is the quintessential new-look female politician. As the country becomes more comfortable with women in positions of power, she is no longer held back by worrying about coming across as either too weak or too emotional. By not spending so much time on stereotype navigation, she has instead racked up one of the most impressive resumes of any rookie senator.
3. The most moderate of all moderates… Sen. Olympia Snowe.
While she enraged me during the debate over Health Care, the truth is, this woman has set up camp squarely in the middle of the aisle. While this makes
her a frustrating senator, it would make her a wonderful compromiser in the White House. Sadly, she probably could never win the Republican Primary, but she is the 09-10 UConn Woman’s Basketball team of politics… undefeated in every election she has run in, so you never know.
4. The perennial dark horse… Sec. of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius
Prior to 2008, there were many whispers that she was preparing to run. When Obama won the Democratic nomination, the whispers began 
speculating that she would get the nod as his running-mate. Instead, she has moved from the Governor’s Mansion in Topeka to Obama’s cabinet in Washington. She certainly has the experience, as a wildly popular two-term Democratic governor in a Red state, and is only improving her list of credentials as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
5. The obvious choice… Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton
Although she failed to secure the Democratic nomination in 2008 and has
insisted that that would be her only attempt at a nomination, with all the speculation that Obama will choose not to seek re-election, it seems to me that Hillary’s chances are as good as ever. Often criticized for her lack of experience, she has proven herself in her position as Secretary of State. Considering her appeal among the Blue Dogs, she could very well be the best candidate if the Dems want to hold onto the White House in this polarized political atmosphere.
Honorable Mentions:
Too bad she was born in Canada... Gov. Jennifer Granholm
An intelligent tweeting alternative... Sen. Claire McCaskill
Since she doesn't want to compete with good friend Hillary... Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
Is Arizona simply enforcing federal law?
By Sarah
People who claim to have read the immigration law claim that SB 1070 is just reinforcing federal law. While this is partly true, it’s partly false.
Here are some of the major differences (there are still others).
1. Federal law does not require Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to go looking for people who might be undocumented immigrants. They focus on large violations or those involving potential terrorists or violent criminals. The Arizona state requires law enforcement to act as local ICE agents (without the required contract with the federal government), but goes beyond the job description of those agents. Here’s what the law says:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. (Section 2E)
The logic here is a bit circular, but a public offense that makes the person removable would be that they are undocumented, and for that the should be arrested.
There are two problems here. First, while Section 2b requires a police officer to check immigration status during their regular duties (i.e. a traffic stop), this does not. This indicates that police can stop any random person on no other suspicion other than they look like they might be undocumented.
Secondly, this section is a clear violation of the purpose of the controversial 287(g) program, which, in ICE’s own words, focuses on “criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or are a danger to the community.” Participating in this program is the only way a local police department can enforce federal immigration laws, so Arizona is violating federal law by requiring police departments act as federal agents though the federal government has not authorized them to do so.
2. Federal law has determined that violations of immigration laws are civil violations, not criminal violations, and are to be settled in an immigration court, rather than a criminal court.
IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH: 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE. 2. IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). (Section 3A)
A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR… (Section 3G)
While popular opinion among some camps has determined that those without proper documentation are “criminals,” federal law has not. An immigration violation is akin to a speeding ticket (though maybe lots of speeding tickets). Arizona, however, has made it a crime. It would be like me getting a speeding ticket, going to criminal court, and possibly having to go to jail.
3. It is not a federal crime to assist an immigrant. In fact, many churches and humanitarian organizations set up spots in the desert along the southern border to provide water and food to border crossers, on humanitarian grounds. These folks are not violating any law. However, the Arizona law seems to also makes this a crime (though these are written poorly and the actual intent is unclear):
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO:
TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. (Section 5 [13-2929] A. 1-2)
THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. (Section 9.4)
It seems that, in Arizona, churches and humanitarian groups that want to make sure that people don’t die in the desert will be arrested for doing what they believe is their Biblical mandate – to aid the alien, the fatherless, and the widow. This is why some churches have made a big deal about this portion of this law.
2 comments