Donald Andrew Henson II

Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

Which Economy?

In 2012 Election, American Economy, Current events on October 10, 2012 at 12:59 am

English: Stop sign in Quebec Français : Pannea...

I know I’m waxing political the last couple of weeks, and neglecting my sworn duty to blog the entire New Testament this year; it is election season here in the US, after all, and it’s hard to escape the noise of it coming from every direction. I promise I’ll be back to my secular rants about the NT soon.

I’ve written about the apparent confusion of the language here in the US between conservatives and liberals, commented on how the word ‘entitled’ has been transformed from a criticism of the upper classes to a pejorative for the working poor, and lamented that some accept lies as facts simply because they have heard them hundreds of times. But in all of this confusion, there is one idea that is so muddy and unclear that one hardly knows what it means – or whether it means anything at all. In fact, I think we may all have quite a different idea in our heads when we hear the words ‘the economy’.

Studies of bi-lingual children have shown that the same word spoken in different languages can produce very different images in the mind. One study involved French-Canadian children between the ages of 4 and 7 years old who had one English-speaking parent at home and one French-speaking one, and could use both languages with equal skill. The children were given a piece of paper and some crayons and were asked by an instructor, in English, to “draw a dog for me, please.” The children happily complied. The drawings all looked very similar, as do most drawings done by children of this age. No surprises.

The next day, the same children were given the exact same instruction, but this time, the whole event was conducted in French instead of English, so the children were told to “dessinez un chien pour moi, s’il vous plait.” Again, all of the drawings looked very similar to each other – but to the astonishment of the instructors, they all looked decidedly different from the drawings of the previous day. The study was repeated with a variety of different objects and creatures school children might be familiar with – every time with the same surprising result.

It seemed that when the children were communicating in French, they were actually thinking differently than when they were speaking in English. Is it possible that ‘un chien’ produces one image in the mind, while ‘a dog’ conjures another? Can it be that not only do different cultures have different ideas kicking around in their brains, but also different ideals?

Or, that what one person means when he says ‘the economy’ isn’t the meaning I get when I hear him say it? This might explain why we are in so much disagreement about how to fix our ‘economy’.

I’ve never been rich, so I have a decidedly middle-class idea of what a good economy might look like. To me, a good economy means that everyone who wants to work can find a job, and that those jobs pay enough to provide the necessities of life. With a bit of hard work, other opportunities to obtain better jobs with better pay become available, and some of the niceties of life, such as a house or car, can be afforded as well. Over time, not only can one afford a few comforts and modest luxuries, but a modicum of financial security. Professionals and successful entrepreneurs can scale to even greater financial heights, but pretty much everyone can expect to exchange his or her labor for a typical American lifestyle. Government assistance is for those who have temporarily fallen upon hard times or who legitimately can not work.

The availability and quality of work is an integral part, in my mind, of a good economy. But what about for those who don’t work for a living, but instead depend on the accumulation of wealth and a positive return on investments? I’m guessing that ‘a good economy’ means something altogether different for them than it does for me.

Notice that how well Wall Street is doing doesn’t factor into my thinking about the economy, but it would be perhaps the single most important factor for someone with a huge accumulation of wealth. For me, I’d like to do something I enjoy doing, and pay the bills doing it. For a person who doesn’t need to work, doing what he wants to do and paying the bills while doing it is a foregone conclusion; what he wants is something completely different from what I want – and thus his idea of what is ‘good for the economy’ probably doesn’t line up with mine.

He wants a good return on his investment. I want a good return for my labor. He might be able to win some, lose some; I cannot afford to work at something that doesn’t pay.

So, when Mitt Romney and other conservatives tell us that tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy, we need to ask, “Which economy?” When the rich have more cash, they invariably invest more into the stock market. As more money pours in, stock prices rise – whether the companies selling shares perform better or not, more buyers than sellers creates an influx of cash for a finite number of shares, causing  prices to rise. Therefore, tax cuts are good for the stock market and those who invest in it. If this is your measure of ‘a good economy’, then saying that cutting taxes for the rich is good for the economy is true.

However, if your idea of a good economy looks like mine, then tax cuts are counter-productive. Teachers, policeman, firemen, and other government employees get axed when taxes are cut, which sends most communities into a downward spiral. Those who lose their jobs can no longer shop or buy, meaning that local businesses lose income as well, meaning they may have to lay off employees as well. All those folks without jobs means lower tax revenues next year, which necessitates even further job cuts.

Depending on how it’s managed, this can still be good news for shareholders. Those redundant employees might be forced to take lower-paying jobs than they had before, and low wages increase the bottom line for big business.

But notice the big difference – the investor class can do well in either type of ‘good economy’, when companies are expanding and adding employees or when they are cutting costs by letting them go. If he’s savvy, the investor can make even more money when stock prices go down.

The man who depends on his labor for his living is not in the same predicament. When the economy is bad, he suffers. Some may find a way to start a new business in bad times, but most end up making less money than they did before. There’s no upside to a downturn for the working man.

I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy for what ails the rich, nor am I concerned about what benefits that class without benefiting others. Mitt Romney pays 15% or less on his millions, which grow while he sleeps, while I pay 30% on what I earn by the sweat of my brow. He can adjust his investment strategy to incorporate a downturn; I’m left with the ultimate tax break – I get to pay 0% if I have no income at all.

When you go to the polls in the next few weeks or drop of your ballot before election day, you’ve got to ask yourself  – which economy are you interested in?

Advertisements

Where Is The Evidence That Cutting Taxes For The Wealthy Creates Jobs?

In 2012 Election, American Economy, American Society on October 8, 2012 at 12:49 am

Before my conservative friends get all in a frenzy, remember that this is not a liberal website, but a secular one. Secularism, as defined by the man who coined the term, is “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.” In other words, one of the chief goals of secularism is to separate dogma from the debate; if you want to establish that something is true, repeating it hundreds of times might persuade the weak-minded, but has no effect whatsoever on those accustomed to basing beliefs on evidence.

Since Ronald Reagan, the conservative solution to every single problem has been to cut taxes. Known as ‘trickle-down’ economics in the ’80s (or ‘voodoo’ economics to George H.W. Bush, when he ran against Reagan in the 1980 Republican primaries), the assumption goes something like this:

Taxing those individuals who have realized the greatest financial success in our country is counter-productive, if not downright immoral. They are the movers and shakers, the job creators that keep the American economic system purring along like the finest luxury car. If we lighten their tax load, they will use that extra cash to do wonderful things, like build factories, hire employees, give to worthy charities, etc. This will, in turn, crank up the economy, and those new employees of those new factories will sing the praises of the ‘creators’ as they toil away for their weekly paycheck. Everybody wins – the rich benevolently bestow upon the lesser classes all the good things they have not the industry nor morality to produce for themselves.

Except – there’s absolutely no evidence that it actually works this way.

While every conservative politician will say ‘raising taxes hurts the economy’ or ‘cutting taxes creates jobs’, you’d be hard pressed to find a single study that supports this point of view – and hundreds graphs, charts, and studies that refute the idea.

Go ahead and do a Google search yourself – I’ll wait right here for a moment.

If you’re a conservative, you will obviously discount anything from the liberal sites like HuffPost or MSNBC.  But my search, “Do low tax rates create jobs?” turned up a great big ‘NO’ from pretty much every site I could find – at Forbes, here, and here; at US News and World Report; Business Insiderand a number of other sites not particularly noted for their liberal bias, all supported by data. In fact, the only ‘Yes’ answers I found were in the Wall Street Journal,  editorial commentary from conservative newspapers and blogs, and quotes from Mitt Romney. Not particularly in-depth economic analysis.

Take a look at these charts from the Center for American Progress:

This one shows that there is no correlation between the top marginal tax rate – what the richest Americans hypothetically pay – and the GDP. It does seem that lower tax rates flattened out the volatility in GDP, but didn’t cause it to spike upward. As a strong output generally indicates good employment conditions, it would appear from this chart that the effect of taxation on the economy was negligible.

This bar graph is astounding. It appears that when the top individual tax rate is ABOVE 39%, the number of jobs has grown around 2 to 2.5 percent. When the tax rate is lower than 39%, job growth has been minimal. How do conservatives account for this gap between what they preach and what the data shows?

And finally, a graph that shows growth rates rising when taxes are increased, plummeting when taxes are cut.

Now I’m not suggesting that raising taxes will automatically increase the number of jobs in this country – that’s something for honest, hard-working economists to decide. But a 5th-grader could look a these charts and see that the conservative mantra just simply isn’t true. Employment is a complicated thing, based on a lot of parameters. But one thing we do know is that when the economy is good, jobs are created. Raising taxes or cutting them may have a variety of effects, but creating or destroying jobs doesn’t seem to be one of them. Yet politicians are saying it hundreds of times a day.

Perhaps the idea of trickle-down or supply side economics would have been a valid economic theory in the 1950s. Back then, a successful man with excess cash on his hands had few investment choices. He could reinvest in his own business, help to start up another one, or invest in a stock market chock-full of good old-fashioned American companies. Any of those choices might have helped to improve the American economy, create jobs, etc.

But today, the world of finance and investment is radically different. So many financial vehicles today involve moving money around more than actually ‘investing’ it in to one place, and brokers and hedge fund managers often see a far better return in developing markets such as China or Russia. So the rich may still be job creators in a sense – it’s simply that the factories they are building and the jobs they are creating aren’t necessarily American. That money that wasn’t collected in the form of taxes, because of the idea that it would hurt investment, ends up building an Indian factory or collecting interest in a Swiss bank account.

One last thing that we know for sure about cutting the tax rates for the nation’s wealthiest (especially while fighting a couple of ill-conceived wars), is that it creates huge deficits:

I’ll admit that spending needs to be tackled as well – but there’s no question that if you take in less money, you’ll end up with more debt. What happens when governments face deficits? The have to fire policemen, teachers, firemen, and other government employees, meaning that unemployment rises.

So, as a secularist, I have to say that I’m still waiting for some evidence that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will help the economy. So far, that claim doesn’t make the cut. Got a chart or data to back up your claim? Share it with me.

Why Pro-Lifers Should Be Anti-War

In American Society, Current events, Religion and Society on September 19, 2012 at 1:38 am

I’m having a difficult time forgetting this CNN video of 4 year-old Rena. She was playing on the balcony of her family’s apartment in Aleppo, Syria, when a bullet – not a stray, but one fired at random by a sniper – smashed through the window and into her face, dislodging one of her teeth as it pierced her cheek. The last hours of her short life were spent crying out in pain and fear, the blood gurgling in her throat as she called for her mother.

This is the real story of any modern war – the horrific suffering and death of thousands of innocents. Best estimates so far of civilian casualties in Syria are somewhere around 20,000 men, women, and children in the last year or so. The US is not involved in this war – yet – but we’re responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths in other wars since the start of this century – at least 100,000 in Iraq alone. Rena’s tragedy was captured on film, but thousands of others have gone un-reported, un-mourned, forgotten.

I don’t understand why the so-called Moral Majority in this country have been in favor of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; it hasn’t always been this way. The denomination I grew up in, the Assemblies of God, officially opposed participation of its members in any war until 1967. Now it seems that most Pentecostal / Charismatic churches somehow connect God, guns, patriotism, and warmongering as part of our grand American Christian tradition.

I remember a Christian music video I saw when the war in Afghanistan had just got underway.  I can’t remember the particular singer – she was a young, busty girl, with big hair and tiny cut-off shorts, dancing in front of tanks and American flags. Her rendition of Our God is an Awesome God was interspersed with sound bytes of George W. Bush saying things like “our cause is just”. The British phrase ‘gob-smacked’ is the only phrase that comes close to how I felt watching that video.

When did getting behind the war effort become a Christian virtue? And why is it that pacifism is viewed as un-American, un-patriotic, and somewhat socialist?

What does it mean to be pro-life? In Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he promised to “protect the sanctity of life” yet he clearly thinks that it’s a mistake to scale back our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and would certainly side with his good friend Benjamin Netanyahu should Israel decide to start a war with Iran – or perhaps even involve American troops in such folly. When Christians talk of the sanctity of human life, is that simply code for an anti-abortion stance?

Let’s face it – many Christians get all riled up about the rights of an unborn child – but don’t seem to care much about what happens to that child after it is already born. The hypocrisy is breath-taking. According to what I hear from pulpits across the nation, the current Christian ‘pro-life’ stance goes something like this:

If you get pregnant, you must carry the baby to term, because the life of that unborn child is sacred to God. The Bible makes it clear that God forms a child in the womb, and God’s plan for that child’s life is already drawn at conception – both Samuel and John the Baptist were destined to do God’s work when they were still unborn. The fact that you can’t afford a baby is inconsequential – it’s a sin to end the pregnancy. Once that baby is born, however, you should expect no help whatsoever from society or government in feeding, clothing, housing, or educating God’s little gift; that would make you some kind of pariah, one of Romney’s 47 percent of Americans who see themselves as victims, and are dependent on government. In fact, most Christians seem to be in favor or Paul Ryan’s plan to eviscerate government programs for the weak and poor – not while they might need them, of course, but for those others who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.

It seems that being pro-life is limited to being pro-fetus only, not to believing in the sanctity of any life that manages to emerge from its mother’s womb.

A century ago, most church buildings were simple structures, and much of the tithes brought in were distributed to the needy. Now, Christians busily build cathedrals, gymnasiums, and television studios, contributing very little to the community as a whole. So, while the church has become more miserly in their contributions to society’s most vulnerable, they have also grown dogmatic in their belief that government shouldn’t assist them either.

And in reality, pro-lifers seem to be mostly concerned about Caucasian fetuses, not so much about other varieties. The Far Right wants to make abortion illegal – but worries about Black women having more babies so they can get bigger welfare checks, or Mexican women having babies on Americans soil so they can avail themselves of government handouts. They fear that Muslims and Hindus are trying to out-breed White Americans and Europeans.

If you claim to be pro-life, then you have to be for the sanctity of all human life, not just the unborn. You must do something about the 30,000 children who die every day due to malnutrition and preventable disease. You must do whatever you can to end wars that cause the suffering of untold thousands of innocents. You must be concerned about the sky-rocketing suicide rates among enlisted American soldiers. You must insist that every child in America get at least one decent meal every day, and an education that will allow him one day to improve his lot. If you can’t do these things, you need to call yourself ‘pro-fetus’ or ‘pro-zygote’ or something else; you can’t call yourself pro-life.

So many of us cannot envision a world without war. We think that wars are inevitable, part of human nature – even necessary, perhaps valiant. Doesn’t the Bible say we will always have wars until Jesus comes back? Didn’t Jesus himself say that there would always be poor people?

It’s this kind of thinking that keeps us from changing the world for the better. It’s this kind of thinking that killed Rena.

Follow American Secularist on Facebook or subscribe below.