Politics 
Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 13:21:53 PM EDT
|
|
Yesterday I moderated a call where dozens of progressive Jews took the opportunity to hear the details of the American Jobs Act directly from members of the Obama Administration. On a call with David Kamin, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, we asked whether spending for the proposed jobs bill might negatively affect safety net programs, how it would help create quality jobs for Americans with lower levels of education and job skills and whether it would really promote growth. While Jewish organizations have come out in support of many aspects of the president’s proposal to spur job creation, we have also heard deep concern within our community about whether the tradeoff will be harmful cuts to programs that millions of Americans depend upon to keep them one step ahead of hunger and homelessness. So imagine my surprise when David Kamin explained, in clear, unambiguous terms, that the bill the President sent to Congress includes the measures to pay for it without taking a dime from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other programs that support the common good. The $447 billion, he explained, would come from a combination of limiting certain tax deductions for high income Americans, closing tax loopholes that benefit gas and oil companies, and eliminating a provision that taxes the earnings of hedge fund and private equity mangers at 15 percent, rather than at the regular individual income tax rate. What I came away with was a striking sense of a powerful disconnect between public perception and what the President has proposed. Given that most Americans and, most significantly, the majority of registered Republicans, support the idea of raising taxes on high income earners, it bears asking just who party leaders are speaking for when they declare dead on arrival any plan that asks the most well-off Americans to pay more – and asking what their real agenda is. One of the most dissembled responses to the Jobs Act came from Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, who said, “I sure hope that the president is not suggesting that we pay for his proposal with a massive tax increase at the end of 2012 on job creators.” What makes this so disingenuous is that, as Cantor surely knows, small businesses, which create fully two-thirds of all American jobs, are actually among the biggest beneficiaries of the American Jobs Act, which would continue current payroll tax reductions, eliminate payroll taxes for new jobs and employee raises, allow businesses to write off 100 percent of investments in new equipment, and provide hefty tax credits for hiring the unemployed. So, how have we come to a place where, with a balanced, deficit neutral plan on the table that would easily win the support of most Americans –– we retain the ominous sense that our most successful anti-poverty programs remain at risk? How has the country arrived at a place where some people can say with a straight face that the Act will kill jobs, rather than create them, and other folks can’t get past their complaints that it’s not a resurrection of the WPA? The Act, as proposed, will do so much more than either side seems willing to admit. In a public sphere dominated by self-serving stonewalling on the one hand and self-righteous grousing on the other – where the side that is best at putting up obstacles “wins,” while failing to produce any results for the nation – the Administration has put forth a serious, thoughtful plan that will put more money in people’s pockets immediately, will quickly create jobs rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, keep essential public servants – teachers, police officers and firefighters – at work, and actively reward the businesses that are our nation’s primary engine of economic opportunity. Further, it is a plan focused on those Americans most in need – young people who have few first-job opportunities and the long-term unemployed who have lost all hope. At the end of the call I asked David Kamin what part of the Act he is most excited about. “We are putting in the best that we know is out there, and including rigorous evaluation,” he said. “Some is experimentation because there have been successful pilot programs and we’re bringing them up in scale. The major part of this bill is making sure we have enough jobs. It’s about making sure we don’t have a significant population in our country that is the long-term permanent unemployed.” What I heard was a plan built around thoughtful analysis, by an Administration willing to take risks, to experiment and evaluate to get the best results, to try something bold at a critical time using the best tools we have available. It’s hard to argue with this approach, particularly with so many Americans in such great need. It’s a challenge to those on both sides of the aisle – and to all of us on every side of the issues – to be about more than just putting up obstacles. To unite and be for getting our economy – and the millions out of work – back on their feet.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 21:55:04 PM EDT
|
Eight more states - DE, HI, MD, MA, NH, NY, RI, WI - have primary elections this week. (Hawaii's is on Yom Kippur - DOHT!) Have you fallen into the trap of praying for peace and prosperity but haven't checked your local polling location?
Rock the Mitzvote reminds you to get off your tuchas and get out there. Use their free High Holidays e-card to encourage everyone you know in these 8 states to hit the polls - let's pray with our feet, people!
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:17:55 PM EDT
|
When I saw this article in Politico about the horrible crisis small business owners face from President Obama's proposal to "let income tax rates for America’s wealthiest rise in 2011," I shrugged and ignored it for a host of reasons. A rash of such stories have been written, including ones that depict clearly clueless rich people trying to shrink their income to $249,999.
Then I saw this new analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities referenced by Clay Risen at The New Republic. In Risen's post, which made all the points I would have made had I not ignored the article -- notably that only 1.9 percent of small businesses even make enough to pay the higher rates -- he pulls this gem out of the CBPP report:
...the vast majority of small business owners and their employees would benefit from proposals in the budget to cut taxes for middle-class taxpayers, such as extending the Making Work Pay tax credits enacted on a temporary basis earlier this month in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In addition, most small businesses and their employees are likely to benefit from non-tax proposals in the budget, particularly the President's proposal to reform the health care system by expanding health insurance coverage and making health care more affordable.
That! That little bullet point is what is missing from so much of the discussion right now. It's missing not just from analyses of our tax code, but from analyses of all our economic policies. Put aside partisanship and the political efficiency of harping on higher taxes or populist ire at the wealthiest Americans. Yes, it certainly scores points to find some small business owner who might have to pay more, then ignore any other benefits they might get, and then plug away for your agenda. To be fair, it's just as easy to pick on rich people with no understanding of a tax bracket.
Or rich people with big mouths, like UConn head coach Jim Calhoun. (Sorry. I needed an excuse to link to this video.)
Nevertheless, everything we do, from health care reform to shifting around the various tax brackets, impacts every other issue. Until we bring this very obvious point to the forefront of our economic discussion, we'll find it harder to create a just society where every American has equal access to a decent wage, affordable housing, affordable health care, and a quality education. And those are just the issues we can't afford to wait on. Any argument that ignores this reality is just so much political bluster.
This is true not just of political discourse, but of non-profits, charities, and individuals who are trying to tackle these issues at the grassroots and in the boardrooms of large organizations -- and everywhere in between. Big companies will benefit if health care is universally affordable, as will small ones. They will benefit if people are well educated, well paid, and ready to spend their income without worrying about losing the roofs over their heads. Everything is connected to everything else, and you simply cannot have a discussion about our economy, or even any single policy proposal without recognizing that the conversation has to happen in that context.
This isn't a new argument. Simon Greer, president of JFSJ, made a variation of the argument recently in the Forward. Our own Mik Moore recently referenced that in a post on higher taxes. But the conversation has to go beyond taxes, beyond charitable giving, and beyond this blog and a few Jewish news outlets. It really has to be the centerpiece of our economic discussion.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:48:41 AM EST
|
Jonathan Chait at The New Republic was able to drum up considerable indignation at "wealthy idiots" and the "idiot reporter" earlier this week, when he stumbled across an ABC News report on Americans trying to cut their income to just below $250,000. Their logic, such as it was, involved avoiding the higher tax bracket by simply making a dollar less than a quarter-million a year.
Chait's response: "Oh my God, the stupidity."
That wasn't his only response. He also pointed out "the tax code doesn't work that way," and instead of being taxed on all your earnings at a higher rate because you suddenly earned more, "only every dollar over $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate." What made the piece interesting was not just the sheer stupidity of the subjects of the piece (and the reporter, for encouraging theirs and others stupidity), but Chait's incredulity in the face of it. Does he really believe masses of Americans are well informed about our tax code?
I'm not just talking about the subtle nuances of our tax code. Can a college kid deduct their tuition? Who knows without a trip to H&R Block? What I'm talking about is the writ large nature of our tax code. I'd be curious to see what percentage of Americans would be able to accurately describe the way our tax code works and what percentage would be in the same boat as the ABC reporter and her rich subjects, but I'd be willing to bet real money a sizable minority, if not a majority couldn't get it right.
All of which is why I think Chait got it wrong in a second post, following up on his earlier one, when he wrote:
Commenter "ratnerstar" has the right idea here: It's time to stop educating these ignorant rich people and start taking advantage of them. We have some number of high-income people out there who earnestly think they can increase their take-home pay by decreasing their salaries.This is one of the great scamming opportunities of all time, with the side bonus that the targets richly deserve their fate.
He's kidding, obviously. I think.
Nevertheless, the root issue here is education, and not just for the wealthiest earners who should know better. Liberals, back in the ancient days when they would routinely lose elections despite polling better on the issues, would lament this disconnect. Why were so many Americans supporting Republicans when it was obviously not in their economic self-interest to do so, when they said they agreed with Democrats?
Education. People aren't dumb, but in a world as big and complicated as ours is, why are we still so routinely surprised by people's failure to grasp the basic mechanics of that world? The Jewish tradition champions education, and it's not just because literacy is a prerequisite for Torah study. Judaism understood earlier than most that an educated, informed population was better able to chart its best course. We understood that to allow somebody to remain uneducated wasn't an act of politeness, it was an egregious crime against that person. Why would any ethical human being allow another human being to live in ignorance and likely suffer from their ignorance?
Clearly the tax code is complex, and it's just one plank in our economic system. We keep doling out billions, and I think it's safe to say at this point that a majority of people in this country are not what one might call well-versed on the complexities of the crisis and its solutions. Even some of the experts tasked with fixing the mess are basically winging it in some respects.
So how do we bridge the educational divide? How do we ensure that a lack of information and understanding on the part of the citizens who will benefit from these solutions doesn't overturn the attempts at implementing those solutions? Well, that's complicated.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST
|
|
Worried that you'll never talk politics again after the election? Wondering what the Jewish social justice movement will be like in the next administration? Just like to talk? Our friends at Zeek are sponsoring a number of "unconferences" on Sunday, Nov. 9 in NY, DC, Boston, and SF. These unconferences, co-sponsored by a number of organizations including Jewish Funds for Justice, are a chance to talk with other folks about politics, social policy, Jewish social justice, or whatever else inspires you: The election is over, and no matter who won, we have, in a sense, only just begun. On the issues that matter the most to us, how do we work with the new adminsitration to make sure our voices are heard? How can we join forces with others in the Jewish world to create a Jewish Justice Platform for the next four years? In this non-partisan setting, you decide what you want to discuss. There are no speakers and no pre-determined topics. You set the agenda, you create the workshops, you lead the discussion groups. We provide the space and facilitate. When: Sunday, November 9, 1:00-5:00 pm Where: DC Moishe House Silver Springs New York Sixth Street Community Synagogue Boston Moishe Kavod House Boston San Francisco Congregation Sha’ar Zahav LGBT Alliance of the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and
Sonoma Counties
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:40:38 AM EDT
|
|
My husband and I have an ongoing debate about whether giving money to candidates for political office constitutes tzedakah. First, a definition is in order: in Jewish law, tzedakah refers to material support for the poor. Most classical texts speak of tzedakah as providing money, food, medicine, housing, etc. directly to the poor. Later sources extend this category to also cover educational materials and even ritual items designated for those in need. While traditional sources focus on direct emergency support for the poor, it is easy to make a case that organizing and advocacy groups that work to end poverty should also be included in the category of tzedakah. If the goal of tzedakah is to fulfill the biblical promise that "there shall be no poor among you," then money given to a group working to create affordable housing, raise the minimum wage, or otherwise reduce poverty can be considered tzedakah. That said, I classify donations to groups that do not work to end poverty as philanthropy, and not tzedakah.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 180 words in story)
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 00:53:37 AM EDT
|
|
Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity: "The presence of ... magnetic figures, often at the periphery of denominational traditions, underscores two realities about the character of popular religion in a democratic culture. The first is the ambivalent, even paradoxical, character of democratic leadership. Whether in politics or religion, self-made leaders who gained prominence by appealing to the hopes, fears, and interests of plain folks have walked a fine line between authentic servanthood and exploitive demagoguery. More accurately, a tradition of populist leaders embodied these qualities in complex, intermingled ways.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 94 words in story)
|
|
Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 15:57:04 PM EDT
|
 When Entertainment Weekly conducted a Woodward and Bernstein-like investigation of "all the presidential candidates'" pop culture favorites, I was shocked-and-awed to learn you are a Curb Your Enthusiasm fan. Although I disagree with your policies, I must admit I share your taste in television, which, as they say, makes strange bedfellows. So, as a fellow fan, I beg you to "curb your enthusiasm" for the show. Since your endorsement, I've been unable to think of Curb without imagining this frightening image: You are in one of your nine houses in full relaxation mode, you've kicked off your $520 Ferregamo calf skin loafers and you're curled up on the couch with Cindy (whom you just arm wrestled for the remote), snuggling under a polar-bear-fur blanket while a taxidermied bald eagle keeps vigil on the mantle with caribou heads and framed ABBA albums on the walls and you're surrounded by good friends like John Hagee, Rod Parsley and Ralph Reed --your adopted child nowhere in sight (as usual)-- everyone laughing away. I'm scared that this image will haunt me forever and prevent me from enjoying the next season, which I've been looking forward to with much excitement. I understand that the awkward, white-haired curmudgeon who is always saying the wrong thing as his significantly younger blond wife smiles and suffers is a character with whom you can identify. But I think once you consider the aspects of the show you might have missed, or tried to repress, you'll want to retract your endorsement for the sake of your campaign, your maverick-like integrity, and your country. 1) Larry David is a straight covert operative working for the homosexual agenda. Some of his best friends are gay! When he was in The Producers, he caught some gay cooties from the gay choreographer. In another episode, Larry tried to bring a born-again straight woman "back in the lesbian bosom," making her call off her sanctified marriage. The man is literally a self-avowed "friend o' lesbians." You're less of an FOL, and more of an EOG (enemy of the gays). You want to keep children safe in orphanages where they can't be adopted recruited by gay parental predators. 2) Larry David hates Bush. His Bush-hatred is stronger than his libido! He is about to score with Cady Huffman when the framed photo of Bush she keeps on her dresser causes Larry to lose his...interest. You may have thought that a Bush photo has an anti-Viagra effect on Larry the character, not Larry the man. But sadly, for you, the real Larry David isn't too much of a fan either. He was employing something called sarcasm (it's a very Jew thing) when he wrote:  | I couldn't be happier that President Bush has stood up for having served in the National Guard, because I can finally put an end to all those who questioned my motives for enlisting in the Army Reserve at the height of the Vietnam War. I can't tell you how many people thought I had signed up just to avoid going to Vietnam. Nothing could be further from the truth...But I also knew that our country was being torn asunder by opposition to the war...it rankles me that people assume it was some kind of waltz in the park back then. If only. Once a month, for an entire weekend--I'm talking eight hours Saturday and Sunday--we would meet in a dank, cold airplane hangar. Once, they took us into the woods and dropped us off with nothing but compasses and our wits. One wrong move and I could've wound up on Queens Boulevard. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to find my way out of there and back to the hangar. Some of my buddies did not fare as well and had to call their parents to come and get them. |
You heart Bush. 3) Larry David reads and contributes to the communist press. Larry implores his doctor to replace the crappy magazines he keeps in the waiting room with good magazines like The Nation. The real Larry David appears in Nation ads (as one of the many people who doesn't own it--another indication of the communistic mentality he shares with journal). And--I hope you're sitting down--the real Larry David writes for the Huffington Post. YOU are not a fan of Arianna Huffington, or as you like to call her, "the source." (Oh snap.) 4) Larry David is a Prius-driving anti-creationist. He even said, "Candidates who do not believe in evolution are not my cup of tea." YOU are a Harley Davidson-sniffing intelligent designer. You love the "sound of freedom" that emanates from Harleys' revving their engines. You know we need to "drill more, drill now." And intelligent design is Kool Aid of choice! 5) Larry David endorses Obama. Larry is not, however, unsympathetic to undecided voters: "Let's see....one was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and one wants to keep the troops there for another hundred years. I can see your dilemma." YOU think Obama is a wounded-troops-snubbing, middle-class-taxing, blond-haired-celebrity, possibly socialist, prophet of the Jews. The good news is you have tons of other shows to choose from. You told Entertainment Weekly that your wife's favorite show is Big Love. Considering your personal (marital) history, this drama about a modern-day polygamist, is a perfect choice.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:23:27 PM EDT
|
|
Party platforms are political documents, designed to send certain messages to various voters, from valuing the party base to outreach to the so called swing voters. In this context, the latest news is striking: the current version of the Democrats' platform fails to mention "gay and lesbian families." This omission is getting some attention in the GLBT media and today's Wall Street Journal. It deserves far greater attention. As GayCityNews reports: Four years ago, the platform read, "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families." The new language instead says, "We support full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibily, benefits, and protections." It is not clear what motivated this softening in language, but the shift comes in a platform that includes no references to specific LGBT family concerns, such as partnership protections, adoption, and parity in government programs like Social Security. "Leading advocacy groups contacted by Gay City News declined comment," apparently because negotiations are ongoing. This act of invisibility is disturbing, at best. How is a party supposed to be a voice for change and protecting the rights of all Americans if it can't even bring itself to name them? Stay tuned.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 13:09:07 PM EDT
|
|
The Jewish Labor Committee is seeking an individual to fill the position of Executive Director of a national agency that is the liaison between the labor movement and the organized Jewish community.
The Jewish Labor Committee mobilizes support from the Jewish community for issues of concern to the trade union movement and mobilizes support from the labor movement for issues of concern to the Jewish community. The JLC works to assist labor federations, unions and their locals in diverse campaigns and to maintain the support of the Jewish community for the broad social goals of the labor movement. At the same time, the JLC works to mobilize support from the American labor movement for a secure Israel, Holocaust education, combating anti-Semitism and other issues of Jewish concern. See more here:
http://www.jewishjobs.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=uvj&job_id=9550
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| User Blox 1 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
| Barack Obama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RSS Feed Links |
Subscribe to JSpot in a feed reader!
Subscribe to JSPOT by Email!
|
|
| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
|
