Rebublicans, taxes, and manufacturing opinion

Today Republicans offered up their "Pledge to America" should they take control of the House in the upcoming elections. According to an article in The New York Times, Republicans are demanding that issues on their agenda be discussed, "including making lower tax rates for all taxpayers permanent, holding back federal spending, repealing the health-care overhaul enacted this year and reducing the federal deficit."

I find the desire to repeal the health care bill a bit odd, particularly because many of the changes it was designed to make have not yet been implemented (in fact, several points of the plan are just going into effect today). There's not much evidence to say this bill is a failure, so repeal seems premature.

Deficit spending is a problem. We should just admit that. However, during recessions and depressions, deficit spending is common and it has been argued that such practices can help economies rebound. The question is not one of should we cut spending, but when. Some feel the time is now; others think it's too soon. This debate is worth having.

This whole thing about cutting taxes and making the Bush tax cuts permanent is just odd. It seems, more than anything else, to be an attempt to placate what we perceive to be a majority view. Perceive is the key word. Consider the following from Pew reported just 3 days ago:






Most people don't feel as though they are overtaxed. This is not to say there is a call for increases, but the idea that the public is clamoring for lower taxes is a manufactured opinion. Moreover, roughly 60% of the population is for either eliminating the Bush tax cuts all together or at least eliminating them for the wealthiest among us.

The saddest -- and perhaps most dangerous -- aspect of this whole scenario is the fact that this manufactured opinion will likely shape media and political discourse during this election season. Unlike past elections which are often based on lies, this one may be based on a fabrication spun out of control, which is much more insidious.

Losing my religion

It seems this new professor gig I've landed has seriously changed the focus of this blog from blind rage to curious intrigue. Hopefully you handful of readers find both as interesting as I do.

Anyway, yet again, some more numbers from Pew that I found interesting. As it turns out, over two-thirds of Americans believe religion is losing ground as an influential part of society and politics. Here's a more detailed breakdown:


An interesting change over the past 4 years, no doubt. The more intriguing question, for me anyway, is whether this decrease in influence is seen as positive or negative. According to the report, 53% see this shift as bad, while only 10% view it as positive. This is one of the few times that I, as a white male, can consider myself part of the minority. The Man is walking all over me...

Confusion over Republican policies

The good folks at PEW have an interesting new study out concerning Republican counter-proposals to the agenda of Obama and the Democrats.

Overall, people seem to favor the idea of allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes at their leisure (I agree). Also, people generally oppose the replacing of Medicare with a private voucher system (I agree), yet paradoxically oppose the new health care bill (I disagree. My position on health care reform is that we didn't do enough, not that we did too much).

By far the most interesting results concern the Bush tax cuts:


People are almost evenly split across income levels about repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy; oddly, it seems that the richest Americans favor taxing the wealthy slightly more so than do the poorest. Perhaps people don't always vote their wallets after all, something I've long suspected and even known.

The way I see it, if the wealthy don't generally mind anteing up a little more, I don't see why we shouldn't take them up on the offer, considering we're broke and all.

Opinions about the "Terror Mosque"

I was looking at an interesting study from the folks over at Pew concerning Americans' opinions about Islam as a whole and the building of the mosque near Ground Zero.


This graphic above I found to be most interesting. Opposition to building the mosque correlated with political conservativism, lower education, and increased age. There are still sizable percentages of liberals, young adults, and educated individuals who oppose the mosque.

I personally have now problem with it, but given my demographic that should be no surprise. My good friend Jon Stewart probably sums up this whole should-we-or-shouldn't-we debate best: "One side says our weakness emboldens jihadis. The other side says our strength embitters jihadis. How 'bout we try a new system where we don't give a fuck about what they think."

Fox commits journalistic suicide

I thought MSNBC's deal with Starbucks was a horrible decision, and it was, but at least it only compromised the integrity of one show -- Morning Joe -- not the entire network. Rupert Murdoch's call for his News Corporation to donate $1 million to the Republican's Governor's Association is simply mind blowing.

I don't understand how the News Corporation -- the media group that owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal among others -- can even claim any level of journalistic distance, objectivity, and/or integrity after this one. Unprecedented and unreal.

The only question I have is whether this is just the beginning, not only for the News Corporation but for media conglomerates in general. Is this what happens when news outlets eventually fall under the ownership of a handful of companies with narrow agendas? Say it ain't so.

Arizona and Immigration

Photo by Wing-Chi Poon

I was reading in The New York Times today that a judge has blocked several controversial parts of Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070.

Among other things, SB 1070 authorizes police officers to detain individuals whom they suspect may be illegal immigrants. It also makes the act of not carrying immigration papers a criminal misdemeanor.

Federal Judge Susan Bolton ruled that such actions allow state laws to supersede federal law and thus must not be enforced, which I feel is a weak argument.

I sympathize with the Arizona state government. Immigration is a huge issue (and potentially a problem) for the state as well as several other states along the Southern border. Federal reform is needed but never seems to come, so Arizona took action because it felt something needed to be done.

Though I sympathize, I certainly don't agree. I think Arizona acted rashly in creating a law that causes a considerable inconvenience to legal residents by mandating racial profiling on an unprecedented scale.

Regardless of your feelings about the law or Arizona's actions, I think you'd be hard pressed to defend SB 1070 as a practical solution. It's impossible to enforce a law of that magnitude; the number of suspects is simply too large. It's a massive drain on the law enforcement officials who could spend their time in more productive ways.

Consider Governor Jan Brewer's response to the ruling: "This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens."

I respect the desire to protect the citizenry, but how much does deporting illegal immigrants protect citizens -- especially when you compare the cost of doing so to a decrease in manpower to combat more serious crime?

To me the solution would be to check the legal status of anyone arrested by the police. If you are in this country illegally and are causing a great enough disturbance to merit an arrest, then a quick paperwork check is merited. If you are here illegally simply going about your day and causing no harm to anyone, why not just leave well enough alone? I just don't believe the problem is of such great magnitude.

We put the "cycle" in recycle

Photo by dno 1967

Transitional periods are a fun part of life, but time consuming -- which explains why I haven't posted in awhile.

I recently graduated from the University of Georgia and uprooted myself from my Athens apartment to move back to my hometown, Louisville, KY. On the plus side, I have a degree. On the downside, I am now unemployed.

Since my income is next to nothing, I've been cutting back. I don't make as many purchases, I'm living in my parents basement, and an expensive beer has been redefined as PBR (which stands for "Preferred Beer of the Recession" for those of you in the dark).

One of the biggest things I've done is convert extra time into extra money by doing regular maintenance on my car myself as opposed to taking it to the shop. Typically this amounts to quick fluid changes, but recently it led to a frustrating adventure that got me thinking, so I thought I would share.

A few weeks back I flushed my car's coolant system, which resulted in about 4 gallons of tainted antifreeze of which to dispose.

Now engine coolant is some nasty stuff. Basically it consists of ethylene glycol, which is fairly poisonous and can easily kill small animals. On top of that danger, once antifreeze has been running in an engine for 30,000 miles, it collects moderately high levels of heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and chromium.

For these reasons, the EPA recommends waste antifreeze be treated as hazardous material. In most states, simply dumping it is illegal. At best you can flush small amounts down your toilet. More often than not, however, states mandate that it be recycled.

I try to be environmentally responsible and do the right thing, so I set about recycling my old antifreeze. First, I called Auto Zone to see if they would take it seeing as they recycle used engine oil. No dice.

Next, I checked the Louisville Metro Government Web site to see if the city recycling program would be of help. Turns out, the city does recycle antifreeze but "only at the staffed recycling locations."

No problem. A quick check of drop off locations and I find that there are five. The Southwest Government Center is nearest my house, so I head there.

"We don't take that," was the unexpected greeting I received. I was told to drive to an E-Scrap recycling center on Meriwether Avenue.

"We don't take that," said the staff at Meriwether. But I was in luck. A liquid recycling center on Grade Lane recycles antifreeze.

"We don't take that," was familiar by this point. The liquid recycling center told me to drive up the road to Waste Management, the company who handles most of the city's garbage disposal.

This time, a slightly different answer: "We don't recycle that." There I was told that I could just throw it away or dump in in my backyard, so long as no one was watching.

The reasoning behind that suggestion was hilarious. "Back in the old days," I was told, "engines used 100% antifreeze. Now we use that 50/50 stuff, so it's no big deal." I'm not sure if engines ever ran with 100% antifreeze in the radiator, but one half of poison is still poison.

Frustrated, I called the Louisville Metro Government for help, and they suggested I go to a staffed recycling location. Back to square one, and explaining my adventure to the nice woman trying to help. She suggested I try the Central Government Center on Outer Loop.

Success! Finally I recycled my antifreeze. It only took me an entire afternoon of crossing the city in what amounted to a 44 mile journey. Hopefully all the carbon monoxide spewing from my 1992 Plymouth didn't cancel out the good.

Now that my ordeal is over, I just have one question: Why was that so fucking hard?! With the right information, that could have been a one and done trip. Instead, I was bounced around Louisville like a damn pinball.

Still, I couldn't help think this whole scenario was a beautiful metaphor for something I'd read recently in Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff. Leonard describes the cycle that our stuff goes through from its creation to the time we simply throw it away.

Wealthier nations have depleted most of their natural resources by now, so we tend to get materials from poorer nations. Similarly, we often pass the trash buck as well because the hassle of disposal as well as the resultant environmental damage are beyond what we want to deal with.

This perpetual story of "not in my backyard" is lazy and irresponsible. That's sort of how I felt about my city when I was trying to recycle my antifreeze: like I was visiting an endless cycle of accountable individuals ducking responsibility.

In my case, however, I think it would have been simpler to just deal with the damn problem. Simply have 5 locations around the city to handle hazardous waste as opposed to one. This would be infinitely more convenient, and inconvenience is probably the biggest obstacle to environmentally sustainable behavior.

I wonder if the "hassle" of simply accepting responsibility for our own waste on the larger scale is actually less of a pain than making it someone else's problem.