Padded Bras and Evan Bayh

A hoax story circulated over the weekend about an Islamic council in Pakistan protesting the use of padded bras. Fox “News” doesn’t fact-check, as we all know, so it reported the story as fact.

Also today, Fox announced that Evan Bayh would be joining the network, as a “Democratic” commentator.

Kevin Drum summed up the situation perfectly. Noting Bayh’s abrupt resignation from the Senate (a resignation that cost his party that Senate seat), Drum noted:

“Even at the time, Bayh’s move was tough to understand. He implored Americans to take seriously the “challenges of historic import” that “threaten America’s future,” while at the same time announcing that he would stop working on these challenges altogether.

And what would he do with this time? Bayh said he had a few ideas in mind, including possibly teaching and/or philanthropic work. He added at the time that he hoped to do something “worthwhile for society.”

That was a year ago. Today, the former senator who decried “strident partisanship” and “unyielding ideology” will be paid by a ridiculous cable news outlet that exists to spew “strident partisanship” and “unyielding ideology.”

Not to mention his lobbying gig.

Facebook posts have registered a number of reactions to this latest news, but surprise has not been among them. Anyone who has followed Evan’s career can appreciate how appropriate it was that the announcement came on the same day as the debunking of the story about padded bras.

Fake boobs, fake Democrat–it’s all about pretending to be more substantial than you really are.

Comments

Waking the Sleeping Giant?

I just returned from a rally at the Indiana Statehouse. I joined several hundred people protesting HR6–the measure that would amend the Indiana Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

This marks the second time in my life I’ve attended a rally; the first was Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” a few months ago. I went through the tumultuous sixties without ever feeling the urge to demonstrate, although I certainly had opinions about the issues of the day.

I thought about my late-in-life expression of civic activism during several of the speeches, but especially during a rousing talk by State Senator Vi Simpson. She urged those in attendance to join with so many others who are being targeted by unfair legislation–working people, women, teachers and others. And she predicted that the demonstrations we have been seeing in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio over the past month would continue, because “those in power have overreached, and they have wakened a sleeping giant.”

I think she’s right, and I’m a good example.

I grew up in a household that was anti-union; my father was a small businessman in Anderson, Indiana, and when unions called strikes, his business suffered.  My husband is an architect, and no fan of the building trades unions. Our daughter served three terms on the school board, and often was impatient with the Teachers’ union. None of us would be the people you’d expect to side with the unions in the attacks brought by the Governors of Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio. Probably, had those Governors engaged in a less all-out assault, we would have been conflicted on the issue. But when they chose to attack the right to bargain–when they tried to strip away the right of workers to band together to negotiate for wages and benefits–we all recoiled from the abuse of power. We were offended as citizens. We became pro-Union.

When the GOP in Congress attacked Planned Parenthood, I was outraged as a woman. When the GOP at Indiana’s Statehouse proposed to constitutionalize second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians, I was outraged as a mother. When the legislatures in Wisconsin and Indiana dissed the public schools and criticised the “elite” who teach in them,  I was outraged both as a former high school English teacher and a citizen.

The Republican Party as it exists today is nothing like the party I supported for 35 years. It is short-sighted and mean-spirited.

If the current GOP agenda has radicalized someone like me, Vi Simpson is right. It really has awakened a sleeping giant.

Comments

Wealth and Power

For the last few years, there’s been a good deal of debate over the growing gap between the rich and everyone else.

We’ve all seen the numbers: the top 1% of Americans own 43% of all the nation’s wealth, and the next 4% owns another 29%. Meanwhile, 80% of Americans share only 7% of the nation’s total wealth.

That bare fact is troubling enough–disparities of this magnitude typically generate resentment and often lead to significant social disruptions–but the reasons for that gap are even more worrisome. The truth of the matter is that money buys access and power. Poor folks don’t have lobbyists, they don’t make significant political contributions. To use academic jargon, the poor lack “voice.” Meanwhile, the rich have megaphones.

Look at the proposals to cut the deficit–a deficit caused primarily by two ill-considered wars (wars that “coincidentally” enriched a number of major corporations) coupled with massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Programs at risk include things like early childhood education, low-income housing programs, community health centers, family planning and job training–all programs that assist poor Americans. It’s estimated that cuts to these programs will “save” 44 billion dollars (save is in quotes because most of these are short-term savings with significant long-term costs). Meanwhile, the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts to the richest 2% of Americans cost the treasury 42 billion a year. Changes to the estate tax–dubbed the “death tax” by opponents–cost another 11.5 billion.

Let me be very clear: I accept the argument that confiscatory tax rates dampen innovation and entrepreneurship. And I not only accept, but heartily endorse market economics. I’m a capitalist and make no apologies for that. But American tax rates are at their lowest levels in fifty years, and one would have to be delusional to believe that returning the top rate to 39%–the rate during the Clinton administration–would discourage investment. What is even clearer is that we have abandoned markets in favor of crony capitalism. Large employers and the wealthy have used their clout to game the system; they have effectively bought tax and other advantages that have had the effect of protecting them from the very market forces they so piously invoke.  Instead of a genuinely free market, where businesses compete on a level playing field, we have an economic oligarchy–an Animal Farm where some are much more equal than others.

This state of affairs is bad for the economy in the long term. It is worse for social stability and democratic institutions.

Comments

Where are the Men in the White Coats When You Need Them?

News flash! The Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Power has recently voted that human activity does not cause climate change. The GOP majority was evidently unmoved by the scientific consensus to the contrary, so they simply voted to overturn it.

Reminds me of Indiana’s action (in 1897) to repeal the value of pi.

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
     Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to the square on
     a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an
     equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side. The diameter
     employed as the linear unit according to the present rule in
     computing the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it represents the
     circles area one and one-fifths times the area of a square whose
     perimeter is equal to the circumference of the circle. This is
     because one-fifth of the diameter fils to be represented four times
     in the circle's circumference. For example: if we multiply the
     perimeter of a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth greater
     than one side, we can, in like manner make the square's area to
     appear one fifth greater than the fact, as is done by taking the
     diameter for the linear unit instead of the quadrant of the circle's
     circumference.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry......
Comments

I Don’t Like This Law So It Must Be Unconstitutional

Yesterday, I spoke to a high school government class, filled with bright high school seniors who have thus far escaped any meaningful encounter with the U.S. Constitution.It came as a surprise to most of them, for example, that the Bill of Rights applies only against government. So we talked a good deal about the limits on government action, and what our government can and cannot require of us.

One of the students asked about the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the new health-care reform law.

Now, I’m not a fan of the new law; I would have much preferred a simple “Medicare for All” approach.  But there are a lot of laws I dislike, and a lot that I believe represent poor policy choices. That doesn’t make those laws unconstitutional.

There is absolutely no doubt that government could constitutionally establish “socialized” medicine–whether along the lines of Medicare for All, or another single-payer system funded out of tax revenues. The Affordable Care Act works with private insurance companies–and politically, that’s undoubtedly the only way it could be passed. But in order for the new system to work, everyone must purchase insurance. Opponents claim the government cannot force people to do so.

The bill offers subsidies to people who cannot afford insurance. It exempts people for whom the purchase of insurance would be a financial hardship. It grants other exemptions for American Indians, for those with religious objections, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, and those living below the poverty level. The rest of us must buy.

Two separate constitutional provisions allow the government to require this: the taxing power and the commerce clause.

The taxing power argument is straightforward: we either buy insurance or we pay a tax. The Commerce Clause gives Congress considerable latitude to craft “rational” means to achieve “legitimate” purposes. Opponents argue that a decision not to buy insurance is “inactivity” and that “inactivity” cannot be taxed or regulated. But as constitutional scholars have pointed out, those who choose to go without insurance–insurance that the government is making affordable for them, even subsidizing for them–are in fact doing something. They are shifting costs to everyone else. As Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin has written, they are making a decision to self-insure. That decision “games” the system and makes it more expensive for everyone else.

The individual mandate is not functionally different from our obligation to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, or the requirement to carry auto insurance.

At the end of the day, the argument against the mandate–and the Affordable Care Act–is simple, if uninformed: I don’t like this law, therefore it is unconstitutional.