long live the people's historian!

I was saddened to learn that Howard Zinn died Wednesday at the age of 87. I never really knew anything about him until I bought one of his short plays, Marx in Soho, at the local bookstore about a year ago.

I had locked myself out of my apartment, and Annie wasn't going to be home from work for a few more hours, so I went to look around the local bookstore for something to read until she got home. I happened to notice the small, reddish book sitting in the philosophy section—it was short and cheap, so I grabbed it. I spent the rest of my time reading it at a nearby coffee shop.

Not long after that, I rented a documentary about Zinn called Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train from the local video store. It was an excellent documentary, and from that moment on, Zinn became one of my heroes. But more importantly, it got me interested in American history, especially the history of the American labour movement. I ended up buying a copy of A People's History of the United States, and that book knocked me on my ass!

Zinn not only taught me a lot about the American labour movement, but he helped me to find my political bearings as well. At the time I discovered Zinn, I was in the process of figuring out where I stood and how far I wanted to go with my political activism. Zinn inspired me to get politically active for progressive causes at a time when I could easily have been lulled into being just another passive voter.

So, in memory of his passing, my favourite Howard Zinn quote: "The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." RIP, comrade.

conservative-leaning scotus strikes again

Not surprisingly, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has struck again with a 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturns certain longstanding limits on political campaign spending by corporations. The decision not only overturns section 441b of the McCain-Feingold Act, it effectively overturns Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission as well.

The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."

Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As Ralph Nader puts it:

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens, especially this glaringly obvious point:

The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets...that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return of their shareholders' investments." 494 U.S., at 658-659. Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been "effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society's economic welfare"; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. "'[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,'" furthermore, "'are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.'" Id., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 258). "'They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas,'" 494 U.s., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U.S., at 258).

It might also be added that corporations have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

As for the issue of the First Amendment, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' statements regarding large corporations and the fact that the states strictly limited the power of corporations — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.

Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends certain constitutional protections to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.

The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.

And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.

happy mlk jr. day

Today celebrates the life of one of America's most influential figures, Martin Luther King Jr. King is most known for his "I Have A Dream" speech, and for being a prominent civil rights leader, but he was much more than that. He was also a radical activist, pacifist and revolutionary.

The day he was assassinated, King was in Memphis, Tennessee, supporting a strike of African-American sanitation workers who were fighting against unequal wages and poor working conditions, as well as for union recognition. King wasn't just a champion for civil rights, he was also a champion for economic justice, freedom and peace, using his style of nonviolent direct action to fight against racism and the Vietnam War as much as for major economic reforms.

For me, King's revolutionary spirit is characterized by these words, which were given in a speech at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination:I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

I'd always known that King was a revolutionary figure in American history, but hearing these words today for the first time, I finally realize just how revolutionary he was. In a world where people often assume that violence is the only effective means of change, King showed us just how powerful nonviolence can be in combating racial inequality and social injustice.

Before his untimely death, King was helping to organize the Poor People's Campaign, a national campaign designed to address the issues of economic justice and housing for the poor in the U.S. He was in the middle of crisscrossing the country, trying to mobilize what he called a "multiracial army of the poor" to march on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights, when he took that fateful detour to help support the Memphis sanitation workers.King was a brave man. He received numerous death threats, but he was willing to give his life for what he believed in—perhaps in part because he knew that his death wouldn't be in vain. As King said in a speech he gave the night before he was assassinated:

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

opportunism rears its ugly head in quake's aftermath

Nothing disgusts me more than exploiting natural disasters to push your own political agenda. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Heritage Foundation.)

On Thursday, less than 24 hours after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck approximately 15 miles from Port-au-Prince, the capital city of Haiti, the Heritage Foundation released this statement:

Things to Remember While Helping Haiti

Besides the original title ("Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the U.S.") and the part about using this as an opportunity "to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region" (which has since been taken out), the parts that bother me the most are the lines about using our military presence there to aid in relief efforts AND fight suspected drug trafficking while also preventing Haitians from trying to flee to the U.S.

These are the same people who, back in 2005, tried to push though their own pro-corporate, free-market policies just 13 days after hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, LA.

The island nation of Haiti and its inhabitants have suffered greatly over the last 200 years (if not longer), from gaining its independence through a successful slave rebellion to enduring endemic political instability, violence and crushing poverty, and I completely agree with Naomi Klein that:

"We have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations."

To use this catastrophe as a way of advancing free-market policies while encouraging the U.S. military to enforce immigration policies and fight suspected drug trafficking — when they should really be helping the 10s of 1000s of victims — is simply unconscionable.

between a rock and a hard place, the final chapter

While the discussions I had about Measures 66 and 67 on MyOregon didn't really go anywhere (besides a couple more worthwhile contributions by VastRightWing), I had a much more enjoyable discussion on Facebook with my libertarian-leaning friend, James. He started off with the comment:

I gave you my personal take on this - I do genuinely believe that the State of Oregon has a budget deficit and like all of us, they must take a pay cut. That means cutting government programs.

However, I firmly believe that they target the high profile things first with paycuts because they can get the biggest sympathy vote. They can "cut the fat" like the rest of us without cutting off the arm. They're telling us all they can do is cut off the arm.

It's typical government propaganda.

The Oregon tax system is messed up. Oregon badly needs a sales tax but will never have one; we cling fervently to our status and I don't see that will ever change. Drop the income tax like Washington, go sales tax - I'd vote for that (and have).

To me the sales tax is the ultimate in fair tax. It's a consumption tax - the more you buy, the more you pay. Who buys the most? The rich. Who will pay more? The rich. But not because they make more; because they BUY more.

I realize the argument that sales taxes hurt the poor but there are ways around this, the most obvious being that you don't tax the things that the poor buy the most of (groceries).

While eating my Cheerios before work, I replied:

A.) You make some good objections, but cutting programs will hurt the people that depend on them. If you cut social programs for elderly care, for example, who's going to take care of them? If you cut school programs and social workers, then [you're] hurting kids and their education. If you cut the DEQ, as one person suggested, that will negatively impact the the environment and workplace safety ,

There are not easy answers because many of these programs are important, even essential. We could do those things, but the question is, should we?

B.) It's not the government's fault that Oregonians have voted down a sales tax 9 times.

C.) According to a study done by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which focused on Washington's tax structure, data suggests that sales taxes are regressive because "they fall more heavily on poor people, who typically spend nearly all their money on everyday necessities."

Exempting things like food and medicine can ease the burden, but it doesn't fix the problem. Poorer people still tend to spend all of their income, living paycheck to paycheck, and are unable to save very much.

Plus, fairness is a pretty subjective thing.

Later on, James countered my three points with:

A) It just goes to prove my point. Those are high profile things that people care about because no one wants to hurt the kids, the environment (in Oregon) or the elderly. Just because you have to reduce spending does not mean that you have to cut the programs. You can cut unnecessary administrative overhead, reduce the layers of the bureaucracy, etc. The first response is always to cut teachers because they don't want to reduce their jobs/expenses. Knowing several teachers, there is a lot of waste in the system that could be eliminated without having to cut teacher jobs.

B) I never said it was. In fact, I believe the opposite. Oregonians themselves are at fault. They constantly vote it down and will forever I think. It's a point of pride at this point.

C) If may not fix the problem but it does virtually eliminate it. Necessities are food and medicine. Sales tax isn't paid on rent, electricity use, etc. Sales taxes to me are consumption taxes; you pay more if you use more. With removal of taxes on food and medicine, you eliminate a lot of unnecessary tax burden on the poor. Taxes are, by their nature, a burden on everyone. With a sales tax structured similar to Washington (I've been poor in Washington), it ensures a more stable tax base. It also simplifies the tax system itself, which is a huge bonus for everyone.

I do agree with you, however, that fairness is subjective. I do not believe it is fair to fleece the rich - they already pay their fair share (if not more) of taxes. There's no need to tax them more. I'm not willing to pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes, why should they have to simply because they're successful? I find it appalling. I will be voting no on 66. But I'm not sure yet on 67. I do think a $10 minimum corporate tax is pathetic and everyone can afford to pay a minimum of $150. I will have to research the other point regarding C-corps though to see how burdensome that is.

And despite the fact that I'm getting pretty burned-out talking about taxes, I managed one last reply.

In response to A, all I can say is that education, human services and public safety take up the majority of the state's General Fund, and most of that is spent on salaries and benefits for public employees.

The way I see it, reduced spending means something's got to be reduced in terms of services. Since most of the money goes to public employees who provide these services in the form of their wages and benefits, that's what usually gets put on the chopping block since the state can't run a deficit. Plus, the state is always growing, and more people means a greater need for services, regardless of how well the economy is doing.

I imagine that the state could reduce some of its overhead without hurting essential services, but I sincerely doubt that administrative overhead is the main problem. I'll even concede that some public funds are used to shield public employees from normal economic cycles, but I think that's a good thing in certain cases, e.g., kids don't need less education just because the economy is bad, or less protection from abuse (as in the case of social workers); our need for police protection doesn't just go away when state revenues fall, etc.

But if you honestly think the government's just using kids and the elderly get its way, what more can be said? We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

In regard to B, I wasn't implying you said that. I was simply making the point because Measures 66 and 67 are what we're talking about here. You'd mentioned "government propaganda" and the fact that Oregon's tax system is a mess, and I was just trying to make the point that it's not entirely the government's fault.

It was the citizens who passed Measure 5, which reduced property tax rates and shifted much of the responsibility for funding public schools to the state’s General Fund. It was also the citizens who rejected a sales tax 9 times. In my mind, the government's just trying to do the best it can with what it has.

Finally, in response to C, the study I mentioned earlier suggests that exempting food and medicine doesn't "virtually eliminate" the problem of sales taxes falling more heavily on poor people. In fact, it concluded that even though Washington exempts food and medicine from sales taxes, it still has the most regressive tax system in the country, mainly because of its heavy reliance on sales taxes.

The study found that people earning less than $20,000 a year In Washington paid 13.1% of their income toward sales and excise taxes, and 17.3% including property taxes. People making between $99,000 and $198,000, on the other hand, paid just 5.1% of their income toward sales and excise taxes, and only 7.6% including property taxes. And the top 1% (those making $537, 000 or more) paid an unbelievably low 1.8% in sales and excise taxes, and just 2.9% including property taxes.

You might think that sales taxes are the "ultimate in fair tax," but I think the numbers speak for themselves.

So after careful study and debate, I've decided to grudgingly support both measures, but it was definitely not an easy decision for me to make.

To me, it isn't about whether or not I think these measures are fair, it's about whether more people will be hurt if they pass or fail. In the end, I came to the conclusion that the percentage of people who'll be negatively impacted by these measures if they fail is far greater than if they pass, and I gave the government the benefit of the doubt that they'll spend the money wisely. I just hope I made the right decision.

between a rock and a hard place, part deux

I posted an earlier version of my blog about Measures 66 and 67 on My Oregon yesterday, and as expected, I've gotten a lot of responses from opponents of 66 and 67. Unfortunately, most of them don't seem to know what they're talking about. For example, someone calling themselves myearth wrote:

My husband and I have an LLC and run a small business. Our income dropped 25% in 2008 and we estimate a 35 to 40% drop in 2009. That is a LOT more than the percentage public employees are losing. So why do you think it is fair to take my money to pay them? I made $39K in 2008 and worked 55 to 60 hours a week to get it. I have no dental or vision insurance and my health insurance costs $6K a year and is far worst than they get. Explain why it's fair for this to come out of my hide! Since you care so much, hy don't you volunteer some of your hide? This is a tax on gross business income NOT on profit.

To which I responded:

A.) The main reason I'm leaning towards a yes vote on both measures is that it's not just public employees who'll be hurt by the $4 billion hole, but also kids, the elderly, and everyone else who depends on these social services. The percentage [of] people who may be negatively impacted be these measures if they fail is far greater than the [percentage of] people who'll be negatively impacted if these measures pass.

B.) I think you should reread both measures. Unless your personal income is over $125,000, I don't think you'll be affected by Measure 66. And unless you own a C-corporation with over $500,000 in sales, I don't think you'll be affected by the tax on gross sales either. From what I understand, LLCs (along with LLPs, partnerships and S-corporations) will simply have to pay the corporate minimum of $150.

C.) I never said it was fair, and I expressly state that I'm not happy about either choice, but I do think the money has to come from somewhere, and the Oregon Legislature has decided that the needed revenue should come from the people who they think can most likely afford it while so many other Oregonians are out of work or underemployed. If you disagree, vote no. But if I made more than $125,000 a year or owned my own business, I'd gladly pay a little more.

A person going by the name of wurzburg offered this little gem:

NO ROCK! NO HARD PLACE!
They did the crime now they can do the time(As they say)!!!!
The only reason the school year or our children would be shorted in any way would be due to the public sector wanting to hurt those that insisted on fair and equitable spending. It's there way of getting even if they don't get their way. Nothing would be worse than attacking our children. That is why they are threatning us with #66 & #67.
WE NEED TO LET THE EXTORTIONISTS KNOW THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!! Just look around and think for example, "Do we really need what DEQ provides or could the money better be used for schools? If you look at the matter with an open mind I'm sure you can think of at least a dozen other depts that could use a haircut other than schools.... DON"T FEEL THREATENED!

To which I replied:

Actually, wurzburg, I think the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is important. Not only do they help protect the quality of Oregon's environment, but as part of my company's safety committee, I can tell you that my workplace is a lot safer due to their inspections and recommendations.

After thinking long and hard (or maybe not at all), wurzburg came back with:

OK,jmerritt I quess you are the typical public employee(You got yours, the heck with education). I just don't know what got into me thinking the DEQ was less vital than education.

P.S. After reading some of your earlier post, I believe your Co. is the State of Oregon... Imagine That!

But you know what they say about assuming:

Actually, wurzburg, I work in the private sector for a local manufacturer. And for the record, I've never been a public employee.

As for the DEQ, I never said it was more important than education, I simply said that I think it's important. I'm very concerned about working-class issues, and working in factories most of my life, environmental quality and workplace safety are important issue to me. I think the DEQ provides a valuable service to the community, as well as working-class people who deal with hazardous materials.

VastRightWing, on the other hand, actually attempted to make a decent point:

Before you accept Jeff Mape's math, you might want to remember that he wasn't a math major. Nor apparently a journalism major but that is a story for another day.

The public employees that he tells us are taking a PAY cut, are also going to get a WORK cut.

As in they won't be paid ten days wages for the ten days they won't be working. And this, in the minds of the mathematically challenged, is a pay cut.

If they make $50k per year for 50 weeks of work, they make $1K per week. If they work two weeks less, they will make $48K for 48 weeks of work, or $1K per week.

There are many private sector workers who have taken actual 10% or more $$$/Hr pay cuts, and are still working the same number of hours or possibly more to take up the slack for the other workers who have lost their jobs completely.

That is a pay cut. To claim the public employees are taking a pay cut, one must completely discount the two weeks or more that they are not working. Of course, dealing with facts and reality isn't a popular activity among the left.

But the point was fairly irrelevant:

VastRightWing, I think I agree with you about the pay cut thing (I think it was kind of silly for him to say that), but whether not receiving any cost-of-living increase and having to take 10-14 unpaid furlough days constitutes a "pay cut" is beside the point I was trying to make. The point was that public employees aren't getting a pay raise as the Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes ad claims.

My hours have been cut from 40 to 24-32 a week, and my company has instituted a pay freeze. I haven't had a raise in a year, and I'm not eligible for another one until December of 2010. On top of that, they've had two rounds of layoffs and I'm forced to do the same thing I used to do with less people. Is that a pay cut? I don't know, but I'm definitely not getting a salary increase. And as far as I know, the same applies to public employees, i.e., they're not getting raises either.

What I don't understand is, there are a lot of legitimate arguments against these measures, as well as taxes in general, but opponents of 66 and 67 don't seem to be using any of them. Instead, they act as if teachers and social workers are blood sucking fiscal vampires trying to bleed taxpayers to death. And I thought I hated talking about taxes before...

between a rock and a hard place

Oregonians are faced with a tough decision this January with Measure 66 and Measure 67, and to be honest, I don't really like my choices. A no vote on both will hurt public sector employees (as well as shorten the school year and cut social services), while a yes vote on both will potentially hurt private sector employees, especially those who work for C-corporations with high volume sale but low profit margins. Either way, it's the working class who's probably going to feel the pinch in the long run.

But trying to get accurate information about the potential effects of each measure in order to make an informed decision hasn't been easy. Both sides are really going all out with their ad campaigns. The proponents, for example, constantly portray Measure 67 as simply an increase in the corporate minimum tax, but they often fail to point out that it also creates a new tax on gross sales for C-corporations. As Carol VanHouten explains: "Measure 67 says that C-corporations will pay the greater of the income tax on their net Oregon taxable income OR a minimum tax computed as a sliding-scale percentage of their gross Oregon sales."

I'm fine with the increase in the corporate minimum from $10 to $150, but employers who'll be affected by the tax on gross sales won't simply absorb the tax increase themselves—they'll either pass the increase onto the consumer by raising prices or make up for them by cutting employee benefits, bonuses, hours or employees.

The opponents, on the other hand, are making all kinds of wild claims, such as: "Politicians increase personal and business taxes to pay for their higher spending, including $259 million to fund state employee salary increases." However, according to Jeff Mapes from the Oregonian, "... state employees will not receive any cost-of-living increases in the 2009-11 budget and they must take between 10 and 14 unpaid furlough days. The state also deferred step increases for one year. The net of those changes is a $27 million pay cut for state workers." But what else would you expect from a group who calls themselves "Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes"?

As for the measures themselves, 66 would basically raise the personal income tax of individuals making over $125,000 and households making over $250,000, while 67 would raise the corporate minimum tax, corporate income tax (gross sales or other revenue minus deductible business expenses) and certain filing fees. I'm most likely going to vote yes on both, but I'm definitely not happy about it, mainly because I think Oregon's tax structure is a mess. In my opinion, Oregon relies too heavily on personal income taxes for revenue, which makes up about 87% of the state's General Fund (corporate income taxes account for just 6%). On top of that, in 1990 voters approved Measure 5, which reduced property tax rates and shifted much of the responsibility for funding public schools to the state’s General Fund.

Due to the recession and the state's high rate of unemployment (including underemployment), however, state revenue has declined significantly leaving a $4 billion hole in the state's $15 billion 2 year budget. But the money needed to fund things like firefighters, police, teachers, social services, etc. still has to come from somewhere. Unlike the federal government, the state doesn't have the luxury of running a deficit, so it has to have a balanced budget. And rightly or wrongly, the Oregon Legislature has decided that the needed revenue should come from the people who they think can most likely afford it while so many other Oregonians are out of work or underemployed.

For its own part, the Oregon Legislature has already cut $850 million from the 2007-09 budget and $2 billion from the 2009-11 budget while using "state reserve funds and federal dollars where possible." The state has also had to layoff social workers, teachers and other state employees. Not only that, but they've been forced to shorten the school year while packing even more kids into already crowded classrooms. Less revenue means more cuts, less days and even larger class sizes.

As far left as I am on the political spectrum, I don't like the idea of raising taxes in the middle of a recession, but I like the idea of laying off more teachers and social workers even less, especially considering how badly they're needed right now. And despite what some of the measures' critics are saying, I don't think it's just fear mongering on the part of the Oregon Legislature, I honestly think the state's in real trouble; and if we don't find a way to fix it, we're going to end up just like California. Measures 66 and 67 may not be the perfect solution, but frankly, I think it's better than the alternative.